Lords Sitting of 6 November 1995

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

EC Proposals: Prompt Scrutiny
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in order that Parliament receives all European Commission proposals for legislation in time for adequate parliamentary scrutiny prior to their consideration for decision by the Council of Ministers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are always concerned if Parliament does not receive legislative proposals in good time to scrutinise them before their consideration in the Council. The Commission and the Council secretariat are well aware of the need to reduce delays in making draft legislation available. We are considering a number of proposals to reduce delays, some of which we hope to secure at the IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that Answer is far from satisfactory? Is she further aware that the Select Committee of the other place recently concluded, in its Report 239-I at pages xxiv to xxxv, that in over 40 instances last year, taken at random, items were passed by the Council without any consideration at all by Parliament? Is the Minister aware that the French Government have already taken action and have declined to consider questions in Council of which the French Parliament has not received more than a fortnight's notice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should be so dissatisfied. We receive the vast majority of documents in good time for scrutiny before consideration in the Council. Of nearly 800 documents deposited last year, about 2½ per cent. produced complaints from the scrutiny committees of this House and another place. We know the reasons; we have always taken delays extremely seriously. We raise each individual case with the relevant institution. We have raised the delays not only with the Commission but also with the Council secretariat which has promised to do all it can to minimise the problems. As the noble Lord knows, we are committed to maintaining and enhancing the role of national parliaments in the European Union and, in particular, the scrutinising of Community legislation. In that we have been the leaders in seeking the change which we hope will be brought about fairly shortly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following the report from another place, a report of the IGC sub-committee of your Lordships' Select Committee
1570
finished its inquiries last Thursday? The report passed through that committee, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We endorse entirely the recommendations made by the committee of another place that there should be a minimum of four weeks. Does the Minister intend to press the matter through the Reflection Group? Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Reflection Group has already taken it on board?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I was aware that his committee had agreed the report, and we know that it is shortly to be published. I shall not go into any details because I believe that that would be against the wishes of the House. However, I can assure the noble Lord that once the report is published we hope for an early debate. I sincerely hope that it will take place before Christmas, despite the other pressures upon us.
In addition, my honourable friend David Davis has been pressing matters with other member states. I referred to that when I said, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we wish to consider the matter in the context of the IGC. I sincerely hope that the progress which we are making will lead to a much more satisfactory situation in the coming year than we have experienced in past years.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who frequently disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on European Union matters thoroughly agree with him on the Question which he put to the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of that. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. We must work away at this. The situation has been far too unsatisfactory for far too long. From this Dispatch Box I have often complained. I have never made any secret of my belief that whatever the cause, the delays must be curtailed and prevented. That may mean more translators or doing things in different ways. We are already ensuring that we do our hit to rectify matters, but some of the problem lies in the hands of the Council's secretariat, not the Commission alone.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in order to preserve the extraordinary harmony that has broken out in the House, perhaps I may say that for once I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on a Question in respect of the European Union. I also thought that the noble Baroness gave some indication that the Government were taking the matter seriously, for which we are grateful.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is extremely nice when we agree on these occasions. I am absolutely determined that we shall change this situation, and so is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would not part of the answer be to ration the Commission both as to prolixity and numbers of proposals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, occasionally it is as a result of demands from member

1571
states that the Commission comes forward with proposals. Occasionally, therefore, we might be rationing against our own better interest. But I agree with my noble and learned friend that when something is unnecessary it should not be produced.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while I welcome everything that my noble friend has said, may I ask: does she think that it would be helpful if the Government were to try to bring Commission regulations under closer parliamentary scrutiny, bearing in mind that the Commission is using more of those instruments but that they are not even deposited in national Parliaments? Is she aware that, for instance, it is a Commission regulation which threatens the survival of the British lettuce growing industry?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not just a matter of lettuces. The whole question that my noble friend raised is a matter that is under consideration in the Reflection Group which will lead to the IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the coalition for supporting me in this matter. But is the Minister aware that legislation is still going onto the statute book without our Parliament even being informed about it? It does not concern a small number of instances. Is she further aware that during the Recess no fewer than 179 pieces of legislation were issued by the Commission? Does she agree that one would be glad to feel that somebody read them, let alone dissented from them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot verify the number that the noble Lord has just given. I recall during the long Recess writing on one piece of legislation to both your Lordships and another place because for legal reasons a decision had to be taken through during the Recess. That occasionally happens. I have sympathy with the point. No more than anybody else do I wish to see legislation on our statute book without our having had the opportunity to scrutinise it. That is a subject on which we are all in agreement and on which I am quite certain we can persuade the other 14 members of the European Union to go with us.

Aziza Tribunal
2.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the intention of any member state to raise at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland the sentences passed by the Aziza tribunal in Nigeria.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of no specific intention. However, Commonwealth leaders will discuss ways of taking forward work on the Harare Declaration. I have no doubt that the issue of military governments and the recent events in Nigeria will be discussed fully.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the Prime Minister's suggestion, as reported in this morning's papers, is taken
1572
up—namely, that states which are not in compliance with the Harare Declaration or the rule of law should have to submit six-monthly reports to the Commonwealth Secretariat and to be on sufferance as members pending their compliance—will one of the conditions in respect of Nigeria be that the proceedings of the Aziza tribunal, which were a gross violation of the rule of law, would have to be quashed before the threat of suspension on Nigeria is lifted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, prior to a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government which will address the issue of adherence to the Harare principles and the question of human rights in the Commonwealth, there are a number of speculative articles in our newspapers. I cannot tell the noble Lord from where this one came. We deplore the continued use of secret military tribunals such as the Aziza tribunal and the continued suspension of habeas corpus. That is the kind of matter which should come under scrutiny and no doubt by this time in two weeks we shall be a little wiser as to what the Commonwealth has decided.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, did the Minister have the opportunity last Thursday of seeing the documentary on Channel 4 on Delta Force, outlining the plight of the Ogoni people? Is she aware of the 115-page report of the prominent QC Michael Birnbaum, who reported that those tribunals breached both Nigerian and international law? Will she give the House some assurance that Her Majesty's Government will exert continued pressure for some protection for the Ogoni people of Nigeria?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was not able to see the television documentary last Thursday, nor have I had a chance to see the video since. However, the Government are deeply concerned about Ogoni land and what has happened there. In case there should be any doubt, let me make it clear that the Shell Oil Company, which is frequently blamed for what happened, have had no operations in Ogoni land since 1993, though it still operates within the Delta. In relation to the report on Article 19, issued by Michael Birnbaum QC, we have a great deal of sympathy with what he wrote. We have been making our views firmly known about the way in which the so-called "trial" was conducted. As I said some moments ago, we will follow it up in every way, not only with the Commonwealth, but also with the European Union, the United States and other partners.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, how can we get more teeth into the Harare Commonwealth Declaration?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, by examining the dentures very closely in Auckland next week.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister explain why export licences of CS gas and rubber bullets were issued for the Nigerian police in the summer? Does she not agree that, in the light of the report from the Commonwealth human rights initiative

1573
on the blatant disregard of human rights by the security services in Nigeria, those sales contravene the European Union's criteria on arms exports?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have not granted any licences except where we have been satisfied that the use to which the equipment is to be put is for completely normal peacekeeping operations at a time when peace is threatened by civil disturbance. We and our European partners continue to reserve the right to consider new licences for equipment for the Nigerian police and its peacekeeping forces. The noble Baroness will know that it is not our practice to reveal details of individual licences or applications, but I can assure her that we have been absolutely rigorous in every aspect of that work.
The noble Baroness will be aware also that we are deeply concerned about human rights in Nigeria. I cannot say what will come out of the discussions in Auckland next week, but Nigeria must heal the divisions and promote reconciliation if it is to make any progress politically. So long as there is no political progress in Nigeria, there will be no economic progress, and the people of Nigeria badly need economic progress.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, why did the Government agree to see Mr. Shonekan when he was here recently, in contravention of the spirit of the European Union ban on ministerial contacts? Will the Government consider that the Commonwealth might turn up the heat on Nigeria by making it impossible, not only for Ministers, but also for their stooges, to travel abroad and meet their opposite numbers in democratic countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that Chief Shonekan is in no way a stooge of the Nigerian Government. That was an unworthy comment for him to make. Chief Shonekan came with a message from General Abacha following the efforts that our Prime Minister had been making to ensure that the sentences were commuted on those accused of coup plotting. That was the reason for the contact. It was arranged with the knowledge of our partners and was not at variance with our agreement with those partners.

Consolidated Fund Bills: Procedure
2.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether the Select Committee on Procedure of the House has yet considered the question whether the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill should be debatable in this House.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Procedure Committee has considered this Question twice in recent times: in January 1993 and in March of the same year. On each occasion the committee endorsed the guidance given in the Companion that procedures on Consolidated Fund Bills are, by convention, taken formally. I have given
1574
notice that the committee will be asked to meet early in the new Session of Parliament on 27th November. At that meeting it will consider the matter again on the basis of submissions by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can he explain why this simple and straightforward issue involved such a long delay on the part of the Procedure Committee, leisurely body though it may be?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I take full responsibility for the delay and would not wish to suggest in any way that it was the fault, if fault there be, of the Procedure Committee. First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the delay. Perhaps I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it was in March, some seven months ago, that the noble Lord submitted the memoranda on the matter.
The reason for the delay is that, as your Lordships will be aware, the Procedure Committee has been preoccupied with the report of the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, on declaration and registration of interests. I was anxious that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should not come to the committee and have to wait an interminable and perhaps intolerable time before being able to put these matters before it. I therefore take full responsibility for the delay. As it was necessary for the Procedure Committee to decide the matters arising from the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, as quickly as possible, I felt it right that the meetings on 17th July and 16th October should be devoted almost entirely to that issue. That at least enabled declaration and registration—they are not insignificant matters—to be brought before your Lordships at as early a date as possible.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are grateful to the Chairman of Committees for his explanation. No deliberative Chamber in the world matches your Lordships' wealth of experience and knowledge on economics, finance, commerce, industry and all budgetary matters. Is it not therefore strange that there is no opportunity for your Lordships to give counsel on such matters between the Finance Bill in the spring and the debate on the Queen's Speech in the late autumn? Is not there a tendency to regard your Lordships' primary role as merely to process through great gobbets of government legislation?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I would not attempt to challenge the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in relation to the knowledge, expertise and ability in your Lordships' House. That is clearly evident. The question of debates is a matter for the business of the House rather than for the Procedure Committee. If the noble and learned Lord is suggesting, arising from his supplementary question, that he is seeking a more limited opportunity to debate Consolidated Fund Bills—say just in the summer—on

1575
the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill rather than on all the Consolidated Fund Bills, that may well be a matter which the Procedure Committee will wish to take into account when it meets on 27th November. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will wish to ensure that that issue is in the minds of members of the Procedure Committee for that occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while some of us on this side of the House who are interested in these matters wish to express our agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on his repeated insistence on raising these matters, we thank the noble Lord for his initiative?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am conscious that differences of view exist. The Procedure Committee has, on more than two occasions over the years, considered this matter and brought it before your Lordships. In the past your Lordships have wished to adhere to the previous practice.

Breast Cancer Screening
3 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to extend the breast cancer screening programme to women over the age of 64.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, last month we announced two pilot schemes to extend breast cancer screening to women up to the age of 69.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that short and concise Answer. Bearing in mind the fear that women have of breast cancer, would it be possible for scanning to be extended both to elderly and to younger women? Has any action been taken by the Government on the double X-ray which has been recommended in the media recently?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. As I said, we are extending, through pilot schemes, screening for older women. Indeed, we have a research project for younger women—those from 40 to 50 years old. We have also taken on board the recent research on two-view mammography which detects more cancers. It reduces recall rates and we know that it is very cost effective. That is the Government's policy now and every mammography unit of the NHS will have introduced the new scheme by 1st August this year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that we are all pleased by the Minister's response to the new research, which is very encouraging. As it is so encouraging, does she agree that it would be advantageous if the double-mammography approach was extended to include women of all age groups and
1576
was available at every appointment? It would therefore be offered not only at first appointments but would be available at follow-up visits.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, implementation for all age-groups will depend on research studies that we are conducting. At the moment the facility is offered only on the first appointment. The researchers are looking at the efficacy of offering it for every appointment. However, at the moment our advice is that it would not be effective.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is a problem in terms of the additional radiographic exposure required for the double view, and whether the radiation dosage now required is being reduced by improved techniques or films to offset the need for the double imaging?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a marginal increase in the amount of radiation that women get through this process. However, it is very minimal and it is well below the limits that have been set.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House why pilot schemes are necessary for a measure which is so obviously desirable and necessary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a very expensive process to introduce nationwide. We do not know at the moment how many women would take up this opportunity. We do not know what the costs would be in terms of the detection of cancers. It is traditional in the health service, before introducing very costly schemes, to run pilot studies so that we can learn from them.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve the treatment of cancer for women?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, an enormous amount is going on in terms of improving the treatment of cancer. In April we published a new policy called A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services. Its key recommendation is that all patients should have access to the best possible cancer service regardless of where they live. We are also introducing guidelines through our clinical outcomes group. We are increasing the number of consultants and the number of breast care nurses. Over the past three years we have provided £15 million to health authorities and trusts for equipment for diagnostic and treatment services.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, it is clearly early days but the noble Baroness referred to high costs or added costs. Can she give an indication of what would be the added cost for carrying out the scheme that is now being proposed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have the details of that. To set up the two pilot schemes will cost in the region of £80,000. What we do not know is how many cancers will be detected and what implications that will have for the whole of the service. One of our greatest constraints is not so much the

1577
funding of the services but ensuring that we have trained staff to carry out the procedures once the cancers have been detected.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the cost is therefore not necessarily a prohibition on introducing the scheme.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, your Lordships will he aware that year on year we spend more money on the National Health Service. Spending has never been higher. On the question of cancer services—I am aware that this is a very sensitive time to be talking about the funding of any service—the greatest constraint is manpower rather than cost.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the pilot studies. In the sums of money that are going into improved breast cancer care, has adequate thought been given to increasing the number of specialist breast cancer nurses? I understand that in this country we need 250 specialist breast cancer units whereas we have only 170 specialist care nurses. There is a great gap and I hope that some of the money will go towards increasing that number.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the introduction of breast care nurses is a new development. The increase in their number over the past three years has been considerable. We share the noble Baroness's view that they are most effective, especially in terms of communicating bad news and, indeed, sometimes good news. But again the question is one of training, and it is up to local health authorities to decide whether to purchase services that include breast care nurses. We believe that many of them are doing that.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present when the Minister gave her Answer. Does she not think that the time has come for a 10-year overview of the screening programme, as happens in Sweden? Does she not agree that one should he looking at all the problems, such as two-dimensional imaging, the ageing bracket and the interval for screening; and, above all, at what the EU now calls in its third action plan "the women of suspect image"? Those are the EU's words. I think that those issues are important and I hope that my noble friend will pay particular attention to them.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that I covered all the points that my noble friend has made. He will be able to read them in Hansard. If there is anything outstanding, I shall write to him.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the Royal Marsden Hospital is now absolutely safe in terms of its future, as the hospital was under threat at one time by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have discussed the Royal Marsden on many occasions in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Marsden is now part of the general scheme of things. It is a trust; and like every trust, its services are purchased through the health authority.

Tributes to the Late Yitzhak Rabin
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement.
I am sure the House would not wish to let the day pass without honouring the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, who was cruelly murdered last weekend.
The late Prime Minister of Israel was a soldier. Like all true soldiers, he pursued his profession in order to achieve the ultimate security of his country. Your Lordships, perhaps better than any other assembly, know that peace alone can provide any nation with that security. There was therefore no paradox in the fact that the general became the peacemaker.
I believe that the whole House will acknowledge that the most appropriate memorial that the nations can erect to Mr. Rabin is a lasting peace settlement in his homeland. If his untimely death is to serve any purpose at all, let it accelerate the conclusion of that settlement rather than delay it.
Our deepest sympathy goes to his family, to the Jewish community in this country which contributes so much to our national life, and, of course, to his countrymen.
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I start by thanking the Leader of the House for giving us the opportunity of expressing our sentiments at these dreadful events. May I echo what he has just said about our sympathy going to Mr. Rabin's family, the Jewish community and the whole state of Israel. The killing of Yitzhak Rabin last Saturday evening is one of those, thankfully, rare events which really make us wonder for the future. It is almost a truism to say that Israel and the Middle East will never be quite the same again; but it is so. One gathers that inside Israel itself there is a feeling of shock and revulsion; a sense of bewilderment and perhaps, too, a feeling of self-questioning in the light of the fact that the assassin was himself a young Israeli. As one Minister put it:
"I always stubbornly thought that perhaps we are better than others, but we are not".
It is this threatened loss of national self-confidence and sense of identity and unity in Israel which could now prove to be one of its greatest dangers. Israel is a young country and a young democracy. Its institutions are going to come under severe strain in the coming months. It is important that we should all do what we can to help to nurture that democracy and help preserve those institutions. They will need all the help that we can give them in the aftermath of this terrible blow.
There is almost a classical sense of tragedy about these events—a soldier turned peacemaker killed as the peace process he did so much to promote gradually gathered momentum. The awful fact is that he was shot by one of his own countrymen and not by one of his former enemies. Finally, there is the extraordinary contrast between his last words and the act that almost immediately followed them.
At that final rally last Saturday, Mr. Rabin said:

1579
"I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take a chance for peace. And you"—
addressing the audience—
"by coming to this rally prove that the people truly want peace and oppose violence".
He then said this:
"Violence erodes the basis of Israeli democracy. It should be condemned, expunged and isolated. It is not the way of the State of Israel. There is democracy. There can be disputes, but the outcome will be settled in democratic elections".
I believe that Yitzhak Rabin was one of the great figures of our time. He was one of those very rare people who genuinely shaped and changed events. I found the sight of so many Arab leaders at his funeral this morning profoundly moving, as it was to see the King of Jordan expressing himself to an Israeli crowd in the way that he did and with the emotion that he so clearly felt. It would have been inconceivable a few years ago. As the Leader of the House said, his most fitting memorial would be to take forward the process towards peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. That is a process which in his lifetime he did so much to promote and for which in the end he gave his life.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to express our horror at the murder which took place on Saturday. We send our very sincere sympathies to Mr. Rabin's family, to the Government and Parliament of Israel and to Jewish people throughout the world for whom Israel and its future are matters of cardinal importance.
Mr. Rabin was here some months ago and he addressed us in the Moses Room. Those of us who had the opportunity to be there were, I believe, enormously impressed by the courage, determination and skill of that very great statesman. To those who were listening to him—to me most certainly—it came over very strongly that he must have been aware of the dangers that he encountered. Of course, he was a soldier and a leading statesman and never let those factors deter him in any way.
I join very much with those who say that the best tribute to him would be the continuation and successful conclusion of the peace process. It has got so far but it is far from concluded. Let us hope and pray that it will be possible for that process to be taken forward swiftly while the horror of what has happened is still with the people of Israel and before any other events intervene in the progress towards peace.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I knew Yitzhak Rabin and I admired him enormously. Certainly, within the Jewish community here he was a figure who had assumed an enormously important role. He will be greatly missed. It is a terrible tragedy borne of dark and irrational forces with a vested interest in fuelling hatred and seeking to take advantage of legitimate anxieties which afflict both sides in this lasting, long-enduring tragedy. But it also provides a strong moral for democratic leaders opposing a government's policy in a democracy. They should distance themselves from that hate and refuse to collude in its dire consequences. I fear
1580
that that has been the story in Israel, with the burning of effigies of the leaders and the pouring of odium and hate on their heads.
Yitzhak Rabin was a man of extraordinary frankness, and indeed bluntness, which could displease a lot of people quite often. But he spoke as he felt. The one thing that he felt so deeply about was the security of Israel and the promotion of peace with the Palestinians and her Arab neighbours.
I remember vividly meeting him just after his election victory in the summer of 1992. He was not in the least triumphalist and neither was he daunted by the immense challenges that he knew that he faced. He was dedicated to the task that he knew was his. Along with Shimon Peres, that task was to bring the opportunity of a peaceful solution to the problems of Israel and her neighbours. As a general he had seen too much blood of young people spilt. He hated that. He played a pivotal role, along with his colleagues—and, it has to be said too, with Yassir Arafat—in stimulating the peace process. He enjoyed a huge confidence in Israel in his strong leadership and in his vision, even though there was also massive criticism—for no one can dispute the divisions that exist in Israel and among the Palestinians about the peace process. One can only hope that Shimon Peres is likely to become the next Prime Minister and that he and Yassir Arafat can translate the vision of that great statesman, Yitzhak Rabin, into a lasting reality.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who, I believe, would have been the right person to express the feelings of the Cross Benches today, I would like to be associated, on behalf of the Cross Benches, with the tributes which have been paid.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, outrage and sorrow about this assassination are deeply felt by Christian churches throughout the world. It was because Yitzhak Rabin was such a tough, battle-hardened warrior, as the Leader of the House has already said, that he was so effective in leading his people towards reconciliation. He pursued peace as boldly and courageously as he had fought in war.
The killing of this brave leader was a violation of the sacred commandment against murder which is at the centre of the Judaeo-Christian religion. It is a reminder of how demonic religion can become when it is perverted by hatred and fundamentalism. In the name of the God of justice and love, I express my abhorrence of this crime, my heartfelt sympathy for the people of Israel in their grief and my profound hope that the momentum towards lasting peace will continue as Yitzhak Rabin would have wished.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if a Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Loch Leven and Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON AND AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (54) as first printed by the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
30 Clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Part, references to a service provider who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to a service provider who—

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

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

30A The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
Because the definition of discrimination in Part III of the Bill should not be widened to include treatment of a person who is not disabled or whose condition does not have a substantial effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 30A.
The amendment seeks to extend the coverage of Part III to people who are not covered by the definition of disability in the Bill, either because they do not have a disability or have only a mild disability, but who are "treated" by service providers as if they were disabled.
The Commons have now considered this amendment and have disagreed with it,
1582
"Because the definition of discrimination in Part III of the Bill should not be widened to include treatment of a person who is not disabled or whose condition does not have a substantial effect".
I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons.
Over the past year, we have consistently emphasised that the Bill is concerned with discrimination against people who are or have been disabled. It will not provide protection for all those who may be discriminated against. The definition the Bill uses is therefore a clear one: it covers people who are disabled in common sense terms.
Any attempt to widen its scope to include those who are merely thought to be disabled would dramatically reduce the Bill's effectiveness. I am convinced that service providers will respond positively to the legislation, but we will have to carry them with us. Vagueness and uncertainty will not do. They must be clear about what their obligations are, who has rights and who can take them to court. What they would fail to understand, and in many cases refuse to accept, is a Disability Discrimination Bill which sought to protect people who were not and never had been disabled. The success of the legislation rests on its credibility and public acceptance of it. This amendment would raise enormous questions of principle which might fatally undermine that acceptance.
And what about the burden on service providers, upon whom the successful implementation of Part III depends? We must remember that discrimination against disabled people is not like discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. It introduces the concept of reasonable adjustment—taking practical steps to make jobs or services accessible. Covering non-disabled people and those with minor conditions would result in an unacceptable degree of uncertainty on the part of the service provider. He would never know for certain whether a customer was someone for whom some form of adjustment was necessary; for example, a change to a policy or practice which made access unreasonably difficult. This would create a considerable burden for a small business trying to come to terms with its duties under the Act.
I do recognise that there may be concerns over people whose impairments have only a minor effect on their normal day-to-day activities. But it is hardly likely that service providers will treat people with an impairment which has substantial effects fairly but discriminate against those with a milder form of disability without substantial effects. That is not the way in which commercial enterprises operate. When they overhaul an existing policy or practice, they seek to create a consistent new approach which minimises needless distinctions and rules. The Government have pointed out frequently that the Bill will prompt people to reconsider their attitudes. Their duties to disabled people will produce new non-discriminatory business practices from which everybody stands to benefit. However, this change of attitude depends crucially on public acceptance of the basic purpose of the Bill—to deal with the genuine discrimination and disadvantage suffered by people with substantial disability.

1583
Furthermore, let us be sure about the degree of disability covered by the Bill's definitions. "Substantial" disability does not mean severe disability. The word "substantial" is used in the definition to indicate an effect which is more than minor. As a result, I believe that many disabled people, who may think the Bill does not cover them, will find that they enjoy its protection. This will become clearer once we have published guidance on the definitions.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to some of the consequences of the way in which the amendment has been drafted. First, the amendment removed the subsection which makes victimisation unlawful under Part III. I feel sure that that must have been an error on the Opposition's part. The prohibition of victimisation against those who have, for example, given evidence in court in support of a disabled person who had been discriminated against is an important element in the Bill and corresponds to a similar provision in race and sex legislation. In fact, one could argue that the provision is all the more necessary in disability discrimination legislation because the victims will often be amongst the most vulnerable in society.
That is not the only serious drafting problem. The amendment also has the effect of creating a new definition of the word "discrimination" which applies to non-disabled people. This means that the vital elements in the existing definition do not apply in this context; for example, there is no requirement that the treatment must be "less favourable". It could mean that a service provider who merely offered to help an apparently disabled customer could be committing an unlawful act. In other words, it might operate to outlaw favourable treatment.
Perhaps more importantly, the provisions allow no scope for justification. If the service provider treats a non-disabled person in the way described in the amendment, he has discriminated and—in legal terms—he is strictly liable. There is no scope for him to say there was a perfectly justifiable misunderstanding, for example, or that the treatment would have been fully justified and therefore lawful if the person had been disabled. That is not a protection: it is a ludicrously unreasonable burden which it has never been suggested should apply even in the case of people who are genuinely disabled. Those effects may not have been intended, but they mean the amendment is fundamentally flawed. They are further reasons why we cannot afford to allow the amendment to remain on the face of the Bill.
The amendment is misconceived in intention and would be damaging in effect. I urge the House not to insist on it.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 30A.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side are doubly sorry that the Government overturned this amendment in the other place. Basically, it is a sound amendment but I am perfectly willing to accept
1584
that, as the Minister explained at some length, it may have been flawed. However, given that the amendment was supported by your Lordships in Committee, the Government had Report stage and Third Reading in this House, as well as the opportunity of amendments in the other place—three occasions—on which they could have amended it had they seen fit. Therefore, that is not a substantive objection.
Why is the amendment sound? Without it, someone may not be discriminated against if they are disabled, but they may be discriminated against if they are thought, wrongly, to be disabled. We believe that that is perverse. Perhaps I may give two simple examples.
First, a publican may not refuse service to someone who has epilepsy, but if he thinks, wrongly, that that person has epilepsy he may discriminate against him and not come within the law. Secondly, a publican, cinema owner, or whatever, may discriminate against someone who is severely deaf. If, however, that person is merely wearing a hearing aid and the publican thinks, nonetheless, that that implies severe deafness when it does not, the publican may discriminate and does not come within the framework of the law.
The difference between us is that the Minister is focusing upon the issue of disability while we on this side are focusing upon the question of discrimination. We believe it perverse that a person may not discriminate against someone with a severe or substantial disability but may discriminate against someone with a minor or a falsely believed disability. That is equally offensive. It is the first reason for being sorry that the Government have seen fit to overturn the amendment. They are left in a perverse position.
The second reason is a more general one. The Bill started on a negative note. It started because the Government resisted and rejected the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. So the opening of this round of debate was on a negative note. To our sorrow, it has closed on a negative note. When the Government vetoed the amendment, the last words the Minister spoke in another place were to ask for the rejection of an amendment that disabled people wished to have. It is churlish and grudging that the Government's last word on this matter in the other place should have been to negative an amendment, something which we, at this stage, can do nothing but acquiesce in.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the amendment were accepted, a provider of goods and services would be offending against the new law if he were to discriminate against someone who was thought to be disabled but in fact was not, or against someone with only a slight disability who would not fall within the definition of the Bill. Virtually everyone concerned agrees that there must be a definition of "disability" for the purposes of the Bill. That includes in the Bill people who have had a recognised degree of disability in the past which might recur. It would be going too far to include people who are not disabled but are merely perceived to be so. A whole range of people and cases having little connection with real disablement would come within the terms of the Bill.

1585
My understanding is that the Bill was never intended to deal with discrimination of all kinds. It is directed towards disabilities of significant handicapping kinds. It is indeed the first measure in this field ever to be introduced by a government in this country. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. There is another relevant consideration. I have had the privilege of associating with people with disabilities and organisations concerned with disablement for 50 years, ever since I sustained a physical disability in World War Two. Over that long period, I have come to know severely handicapped people who make light of their personal difficulties and manage cheerfully and skilfully to cope with life. They deserve our admiration.
At the other end of the spectrum, however, there is a minority of citizens under the delusion that they are suffering from disabilities when there is in fact little wrong with them. There are hypochondriacs in disability as well as other medical conditions. This addition to the Bill would be an invitation to some of them. It could become a charter for such hypochondriacs.
The amendment would apply only to Part III relating to goods and services. There was debate at the beginning of our Committee stage on 13th June on amendments to introduce perceived disablement into the definition. Those amendments were withdrawn after full debate. Later that day, an amendment worded similarly to this one, but applying to Part II of the Bill on employment, was not moved as a result of the debate. The amendment to Part III was the result of an unusual Division at about 9 p.m. on 15th June when voting was 94 for the Opposition and 50 for the Government. The Government were clearly caught napping on that occasion.
It was a well organised operation on which I congratulate the Opposition Front Bench. It was good clean fun. From a seemingly empty House, numbers of Opposition Peers materialised from nowhere late in the evening. I have taken part in similar episodes when I was in opposition in another place, also with success. So I appreciate and can admire a skilful exercise of that kind.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that some votes are more real than others?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, not at all. The noble Baroness has been on the Opposition Front Bench for a long time. She must remember many Divisions after 9 o'clock in the evening when figures of 94 were not registered because no one was expecting such a Division. I have the Division List with me. I could read out some of the names, but I do not want to bother the House now. Noble Lords can look them up for themselves. On 17th June they will see the names of people who do not often appear here after 9 o'clock at night. I say, with admiration, that it was a well-organised operation.
The amendment was successful while equivalent amendments to other parts of the Bill were not even pressed to a Division. This left inconsistent definitions for different parts of the Bill. The amendment happened to be the beneficiary of an unusual Division. It applies to part of the Bill only and is inconsistent with the
1586
definition applying to the rest of the Bill which was not put to a vote. The Government were right to advise reversing it in another place and to propose that we should now agree with the Commons in their view.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the fact that the amendment was accepted by a surprise vote late at night, as the noble Lord said, does not matter very much. The fact is that the Opposition won the vote. If every time we disagreed with noble Lords on the Government Benches we were to have a Division, we should not have had a summer break and would still be going through the Division Lobbies. We have to be selective when choosing when to make a stand.
Regardless of technical deficiencies, the amendment's aim was to introduce a wider definition of disability as a whole. The Government said that they did not want that but that they wanted targeting. We have heard a great deal about targeting and resource allocation. We have it again in the Bill.
The amendment's aim was to ensure that discrimination in itself was seen to be something that was wrong. Surely, every opportunity should be taken to achieve that. That is why I have no reservations about opposing the Commons. I understand, however, that it is not the opinion of the Benches to my left that we should do that. Therefore I am reluctantly forced to back down.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I had not intended to speak because we are not pursuing this issue, as the Minister knows. It is a bit rich for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to talk about unknown and unfamiliar faces voting on this side of the House when that happens every day on practically every vote on that side of the House. It is a bit rich for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to make that accusation. It is staggering. He was selective in saying that votes we win really do not matter while votes that they win do. That is an odd version of democracy. He is in the wrong country to be putting forward that kind of view.
More seriously, the defeat of this amendment means that even with a Bill about discrimination it will still be legal to discriminate against people who are perceived to be disabled when they are not. That is absurd. Written into the Bill is a provision that no undue burden should be placed upon the providers of goods and services. Given that provision, which we accept, and indeed which we advocated, I do not see why the Government cannot accept the amendment because it would be a reasonable provision. I am sorry that the amendment cannot be accepted.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am glad that the amendment was not accepted because it widened the Bill far too much. Instead of the Bill having the effect that we all wanted—that is, really helping disabled people—it would have produced a counter-reaction from people who thought that it was unreasonable. I refer in particular to self-perception, not merely to how others perceive one. In our debates we discussed how one might perceive oneself. I know many people who have unfortunate perceptions of themselves and who, under the Bill as it would have been worded

1587
as a result of the amendment, might have been able to bring cases and cause a great deal of hostility towards the Bill. Therefore, I am in favour of the amendment being refused by the Commons.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in Committee I was not in favour of the amendment because it is impractical. I am glad that the Government have reversed it in another place. If the amendment remained it would not do the Bill any favour. This is the first piece of legislation in this country relating to disability discrimination and we have a great deal to learn about it. I believe that the question of perceived disability is extremely difficult to deal with at this stage and I prefer it to be left out of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lord Swinfen who takes a great interest in these matters. He clearly underlined the distinction that I tried to make on a number of occasions during the various stages of the Bill. It was that the Bill is not a general discrimination Bill, as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ashley, would prefer, but it is a disability discrimination Bill. With the backing of many of your Lordships, I and the Government are intent on trying to prevent discrimination against disabled people. We believe that the amendment before us would widen the Bill to such an extent that it would be almost impossible for the ordinary person, the ordinary service provider, to apply the definition. As I said, this is not a general discrimination Bill but a Bill about discriminating against disabled people. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will not insist on your amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 18, page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this section, treatment is justified only if—

(a) in A's opinion, one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are satisfied; and

(b) it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) in any case, the treatment is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of any person (which may include that of the disabled person);

(b) in any case, the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;

(c) in a case falling within section 16(3)(a), the treatment is necessary in order for the disabled person or the occupiers of other premises forming part of the building to make use of the benefit or facility;

(d) in a case falling within section 16(3)(b), the treatment is necessary in order for the occupiers of other premises forming part of the building to make use of the benefit or facility.

(4) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a), or that mentioned in subsection (2)(b)—

(a) is to be taken to be satisfied;

(b) is to be taken not to be satisfied.

(5) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances (other than those mentioned in subsection (3)) in which treatment is to be taken to be justified.")

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
43A Line 22, leave out from 'which' to end of line 25 and insert—

(a) it is reasonable for a person to hold the opinion mentioned in subsection (2)(a);

(b) it is not reasonable for a person to hold that opinion.'.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43A to Lords Amendment No. 43.
This amendment restructures subsection (3) of Clause 18, one of the provisions relating to premises in Part III of the Bill. The key element of a justifiable refusal to sell or let property to a disabled person is not simply that one of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is met but that it is reasonable for the landlord to hold the opinion that one of the conditions is satisfied. An example of this could be if a landlord thought that a prospective tenant with a mental disability was not capable of understanding the terms of the lease. This amendment makes the clause consistent and coherent regarding the concept of reasonableness and the part that this plays in any justifiable refusal to sell or let premises. It makes this section of Part III consistent with the right of access to goods and services. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 43.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
50 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
("PART IIIB PUBLIC TRANSPORT Taxis
TAXI ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("taxi accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

(a) for disabled persons—

(i) to get into and out of taxis in safety;

(ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

(b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

(i) to be conveyed in safety into and out of taxis while remaining in their wheelchairs; and

(ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

(2) Taxi accessibility regulations may, in particular—

1589

(a) require any regulated taxi to conform with provisions of the regulations as to—

(i) the size of any door opening which is for the use of passengers;

(ii) the floor area of the passenger compartment;

(iii) the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment;

(iv) the fitting of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of a wheelchair while the taxi is moving;

(b) require the driver of any regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the carrying of ramps or other devices designed to facilitate the loading and unloading of wheelchairs;

(c) require the driver of any regulated taxi in which a disabled person who is in a wheelchair is being carried (while remaining in his wheelchair) to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the position in which the wheelchair is to be secured.

(3) The driver of a regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by the regulations; or

(b) the taxi fails to conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform.

(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5) In this section—

"passenger compartment" has such meaning as may be prescribed;

"regulated taxi" means any taxi to which the regulations are expressed to apply;

"taxi" means a vehicle licensed under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869,

but does not include a taxi which is drawn by a horse or other animal.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
50A Line 49, at end insert the following clause—
'Designated transport facilities.
.—(1) In this section "a franchise agreement" means a contract entered into by the operator of a designated transport facility for the provision by the other party to the contract of hire car services—

(a) for members of the public using any part of the transport facility; and

(b) which involve vehicles entering any part of that facility.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the application of any taxi provision in relation to—

(a) vehicles used for the provision of services under a franchise agreement; or

(b) the drivers of such vehicles.

(3) Any regulations under subsection (2) may apply any taxi provision with such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) In this section—
"designated" means designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State;
"hire car" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
1590
"operator", in relation to a transport facility, means any person who is concerned with the management or operation of the facility;
"taxi provision" means any provision of—

(a) this Act, or

(b) regulations made in pursuance of section 20(2A) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which applies in relation to taxis or the drivers of taxis; and

"transport facility" means any premises which form part of any port, airport, railway station or bus station.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A to Lords Amendment No. 50.
The strength of feeling voiced by some of your Lordships when we debated the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, at Third Reading did not go unheeded. I am pleased to see the noble Lord in his place.
As I have explained to the House, that amendment then before us was seriously flawed. I am pleased to recall that enough of your Lordships agreed with me to carry my position in the Division Lobby. It would have undermined the ability of airport operators in particular to protect the interests of their passengers by regulating fares. The purpose behind the amendment—to enable disabled people the same freedom of access to onward transport as other travellers enjoy—was, however, one that we could endorse and the intervening time has allowed us to bring forward amendments which achieve that purpose without the unacceptable difficulties which would have been created by the earlier proposal.
Our amendments do not call into question the principle of a contract between the operator of a transport facility and a taxi or private hire vehicle firm. We believe that there is considerable merit in these contracts. They enable a menu of fixed fares to be agreed for the benefit of all passengers. If we had agreed to let taxis ply for hire at all transport facilities there was a danger that people could be over-charged by unscrupulous drivers once the taxi had left the area in which it was licensed.
To avoid this happening, the amendments before us look primarily at the vehicles used. The effect is that the Secretary of State can, where appropriate, apply the taxi provisions, modified if necessary, to the vehicles used under these contracts.
For this purpose, the Secretary of State is given a regulation-making power. That power could be used to ensure that when accessibility requirements are in force for taxis generally, equivalent requirements can be imposed on vehicles used under a contract to provide hire car services at say, an airport. It is a flexible power—sensibly I suggest—so that the Secretary of State is well able to solve problems as and when they arise.
But the principle is that it will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the standards of accessibility for vehicles used under contracts can be kept in step with those for taxis generally. It can also ensure that the drivers can be placed under the same obligations as the drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis. I hope your

1591
Lordships will agree that this is both a sensible and a proper response to the concern which has understandably been voiced on this issue in previous debates. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 50.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at Third Reading it was accepted on all sides that my noble friend Lord Gladwin had demonstrated a loophole in the provision of taxis. He demonstrated that, without such an amendment, where there was a monopoly provision of services—for example, at an airport or railway station—a disabled person who was highly dependent on public transport might not be able to find a taxi which was suitable or available to meet his needs.
At Third Reading the Minister vigorously argued that such an amendment was not only unnecessary but highly undesirable. I believe that he will now admit that his reply did not convince the House—and possibly not himself. However, given the votes to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred earlier, the amendment was passed.
We are delighted that as a result of that debate the Minister and his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport have, even at this late stage, been able to close a loophole. A former Member of another place once said that when he realised that he was wrong he changed his mind. That was Aneurin Bevan. I believe that it is in order to congratulate the Minister on following that precedent and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gladwin. We warmly congratulate the Government on seeing the wisdom of my noble friend's amendment, even at this late stage, and we welcome their climbdown.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will be good enough to make just one thing clear. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, which has been accepted, referred to taxis when used for disabled people whether or not they are in wheelchairs. However, the new clause which has just been introduced refers to "a franchise agreement" and "a designated transport facility". Can my noble friend simply confirm that those facilities may or may not refer to the carriage of disabled people? They may in fact be just for the transport of the public generally.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the general welcome for the amendment. Noble Lords who were present when we divided the House on Third Reading will recall that the Minister said that he did not accept that there was an argument at all. I believe that that was the night that we got into "high windage" as regards problems of delay of airliners. It was interesting that during the whole of the debate the Minister for Transport (the Minister's noble friend Lord Goschen) was sitting alongside him. Six days later we received an amendment which seemed to do everything that I had been seeking to achieve from 15th June. Mr. Norris in another place was kind enough to say that as
1592
soon as the matter was drawn to their attention they immediately thought that it had merit. But 15th June to 30th October is not my idea of immediacy, even in this relaxed atmosphere.
However, one must not be churlish. I welcome the amendment. But there is a problem; namely that the way the matter has been handled has meant that there has been no consideration of the amendment that the Government tabled in another place. Questions asked by my honourable friend Tom Clarke from the Opposition Front Bench and indeed by Mr. Vivian Bendall, the Member for Ilford, North, were not answered by the Minister because he did not have time to do so. Therefore, I wonder whether our Minister could respond to some of them.
First, for example, the new clause refers to "taxi provision" with "modifications", but what kind of modifications? The key taxi provision in the Bill states that all taxis are to be wheelchair accessible. Is there to be a movement away from that principle? Secondly, the new clause will apply only to transport facilities that are "designated" by the Secretary of State. Which transport facilities are likely to be so designated and on what basis will the choice be made? Thirdly, why does not the new clause give us a definition of "hire car"? It says that a hire car shall have,
"such meaning as may be prescribed".
But what definition is likely to be prescribed? As I said, I welcome the new clause. I believe that it solves the problem that the Government belatedly recognised. But that late recognition has denied both Houses the opportunity properly to discuss the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to express my thanks for the amendment which will, I hope, remove the hitch in what will eventually prove to be a trouble-free journey on wheelchair-accessible transport. It is indeed most welcome.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their welcome of the amendment. Those noble Lords who were present the other day will be happy to hear that my plane was, as I predicted and as usual, on time this morning. That topic formed part of the discussion that we had when we turned to the subject of airports.
I should like to help my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, by saying that, of course, the requirements on vehicles will be equivalent to those in the main part of the taxi legislation. There will also be similar requirements on drivers, because it would not be sensible to require vehicles to be wheelchair accessible, or disabled person accessible, and yet not require the drivers to carry disabled people. Noble Lords who have taken an interest in the matter will know that I am merely paralleling here what is in the main body of the taxi part of the legislation.
None of that will happen until the taxi regulations come into force. Those who have listened to the debates on the subject will know that we have not yet reached the position where the kind of vehicles that we think we can reasonably expect taxi operators around the country

1593
to purchase and use are available. However, with the regulations on design, and so on, coming in and with the new methods being used by the builders of cars and taxis to deal with the problems associated with disabled people as regards their ability to get in and out of motor vehicles, we hope that vehicles will come on the market in the foreseeable future which will in fact meet the standards that we all wish to see.
I trust that what I have said has gone some way towards meeting the points raised. I was asked what services would be designated. I am afraid that I must give a fairly vague answer in that respect because that will become obvious when we come to designate them. Clearly it will depend on the circumstances. There may be many transport facilities which have a contract with a local transport firm, but the latter may already be in the taxi business and all its vehicles may well be accessible at that time in the future. It is difficult to give a straightforward answer as to what facilities will be designated. It will rather depend on the circumstances at the time and where such problems arise. I hope that that response is helpful.
I believe that I have now answered most of the questions, except that regarding hire cars. I am not sure that I can give an answer in that respect. However, I guess—and I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—that the definitions will be the same as those currently used in the main part of the Bill (which will ultimately become the Act). We are talking about the "plying for hire" part of what I suppose could be described as the taxi business, but it is wider than that. We are not talking about private hire where you phone for a car and it comes to collect you; we are talking about people who ply for hire whether in the street or in the town square or, indeed, transport facilities.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
89 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION TO PARLIAMENT
("—(1) This Act applies to an act done by or for purposes of the House of Lords or the House of Commons as it applies to an act done by a private person.
(2) For the purposes of the application of Part II in relation to the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House shall be treated as the employer of a person who is (or would be) a relevant member of the House of Commons staff for the purposes of section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), for the purposes of the application of sections 12 to 15, the provider of services is—

(a) as respects the House of Lords, the Corporate Officer of that House; and

(b) as respects the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House.

(4) Where the service in question is access to and use of any place in the Palace of Westminster which members of the public are permitted to enter, the Corporate Officers of both Houses jointly are the provider of that service.
(5) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament prevents proceedings being instituted before an industrial tribunal under Part II or before any court under Part III.").
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
89A Line 8, leave out '188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995' and insert '139 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 89. The amendment ensures that the correct reference to existing legislation covering House of Commons staff is made. Without the amendment the effectiveness of the provisions applying the Disability Discrimination Bill to Parliament would be weakened, and that should clearly be corrected.
I am sure that everyone on all sides of the House would wish to join me in congratulating the House authorities on their decision and also in welcoming the amendments which apply the Bill to this House. They give the clearest signal that we recognise how important it is to provide the fullest possible access to the political process for disabled people. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 89. — (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
128 After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE 2A
PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER LEASES
PART I
OCCUPATION BY EMPLOYER OR TRADE ORGANISATION
Failure to obtain consent to alteration
1. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 6 or section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to the premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.
Joining lessors in proceedings under section 8
2. — (1) In any proceedings under section 8, in a case to which section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) applies, the complainant or the occupier may ask the tribunal hearing the complaint to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.
(2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the complaint begins.
(3) The tribunal may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the complaint begins.
(4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the tribunal has determined the complaint.
(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the tribunal finds that—

(a) the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable,

it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.
(6) A declaration or order under sub-paragraph (5) may be made in substitution for, or in addition to, any steps taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).
(7) If the tribunal orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not make an order under section 8(2) ordering the occupier to do so.
Regulations
3. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

(a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

(i) withheld his consent;

(ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;

(iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

(b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;

(c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

Sub-leases etc.
4. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.
PART II
OCCUPATION BY PROVIDERS OF SERVICES
Failure to obtain consent to alteration
5. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 15 duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.
Reference to court
6.—(1) If the occupier has applied in writing to the lessor for consent to the alteration and—

(a) that consent has been refused, or

(b) the lessor has made his consent subject to one or more conditions,

the occupier or a disabled person who has an interest in the proposed alteration to the premises being made, may refer the matter to a county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff.
(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule "court" includes "sheriff'.
(3) On such a reference the court shall determine whether the lessor's refusal was unreasonable or (as the case may be) whether the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable.
(4) If the court determines that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable it may make a declaration to the effect that if the lessor were to give his consent subject to such condition or conditions as may be specified in the declaration he would be acting reasonably.
Joining lessors in proceedings under section 20
7. — (1) In any proceedings on a claim under section 20, in a case to which this Part of this Schedule applies, the plaintiff, the pursuer or the occupier concerned may ask the court to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.
(2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the claim begins.
(3) The court may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the claim begins.
(4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the court has determined the claim.
(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the court finds that—

(a) the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable,

it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.
(6) If the court orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not order the occupier to do so.
Regulations
8. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

(a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

(i) withheld his consent;

(ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;

(iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

(b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;

(c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

Sub-leases etc.
9. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
128A Line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert—
'(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the tribunal may determine—

(a) whether the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.

(5A) If, under sub-paragraph (5), the tribunal determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

(a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;

(b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;

(c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
(6) Any step taken by the tribunal under sub-paragraph (5A) may be in substitution for, or in addition to, any step taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).'.
128B Line 77, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

'(4) If the court determines—

(a) that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable; or

(b) that the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable,

it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order.
(4A) An order under sub-paragraph (4) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
128C Line 92, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
'(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the court may determine—

(a) whether the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.

(5A) If under sub-paragraph (5), the court determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

(a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;

(b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;

(c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128A, 128B and 128C en bloc as amendments to Lords Amendment No. 128. The amendments seek to clarify certain aspects of legal proceedings relating to leases. Under Amendment No. 128 as it stands, an industrial tribunal can make a declaration that the consent required by an employer, should there he a restriction in a lease which prevents a reasonable adjustment, was unreasonably refused by the landlord.
However, that declaratory remedy is insufficient because a declaration that a consent was unreasonably refused does not amount to permission to the tenant to carry out the alteration. For the provisions to be effective for disabled people and employers the tribunal should be able, after hearing all the evidence including the landlord's evidence and arguments, to make an order that the refusal of consent was unreasonable and the tenant is entitled to carry out the alteration. In order for the landlord's interests to be protected, it is also important that the Bill should make clear that the court or tribunal may impose conditions on the way the alteration is carried out; that is, conditions that the landlord could reasonably have attached to his consent.
In Amendment No. 128A we also believe that the schedule should make expressly clear that the issue of the reasonableness of the landlord's actions can only be considered by the tribunal if the landlord has been made a party to the proceedings and hence has the right to appear and argue his case. At the moment this is implicit but clarifying the remedy makes it important to set out clearly this safeguard for the landlord.
The provisions on leases are broadly the same for the right of access to goods and services as they are for the employment right. That explains Amendment No. 128C. On Amendment No. 128B, however, because of the greater number of disabled people and wider range of disabilities which many service providers will encounter, we want to encourage service providers to comply with their duties in advance of being required to
1598
do so by a disabled person. This will promote a more comprehensive approach to the accessibility of public places. Part II of Schedule 2(A) therefore includes an additional provision which would allow a county court to consider an application made directly by a service provider who feels he has been unreasonably refused permission to make an alteration to his premises required in order to carry out his duty. This means he can have the matter determined even though there has been no specific complaint by a disabled person. Here, too, the purpose of Amendment No. 128B is to make clear that the court has the power in such a situation to make an order authorising the service provider to proceed with the alteration subject to any condition the court might make. The provisions I have mentioned will also apply for trade organisations covered by Part II of the Bill.
These amendments clarify the relationship between the duty of reasonable adjustment on businesses and the implications for landlords. The amendments provide a fair balance between the needs of disabled people and the requirements on businesses and landlords. We will ensure that disabled people, businesses and landlords are among those consulted on the regulations. This is an important area. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C as amendments to Lords Amendment No. 128.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C amend, obviously, Amendment No. 128. We are content with the substance of the amendment and the subsequent amendments, but Amendment No. 128, the original amendment, states in paragraph 4:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision".
I believe that this is the final time today that the word "regulation" will appear before the House. I wish to discuss that briefly rather than speak to the substance of the amendment.
This Bill contains about 63 regulatory powers. Some three major issues have been fought which I believe define the Opposition parties' thinking on the Bill and that of some opposition-minded people on the Government Benches. The first concerns the definition of disability which we discussed earlier today. That includes perception. The second is the fact that small firms employing fewer than 20 people are exempt from certain provisions. That includes firms in large swathes of our rural countryside. Thirdly, we fought over the issue of the National Disability Council and the powers it would have. As regards regulations on the perception of disability in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, it is clear that where, for example, social prejudice and stigma or perception of disability have the effect of restricting an individual's ability to function the Secretary of State may rule that that prejudice could, if such a regulation were introduced, bring the person affected within the framework of the Bill.

1599
On the issue of small firms, the Secretary of State has the power by regulation to reduce the figure of 20 down to the more acceptable figure of, for example, five. Clause 15 contains abundant powers to require employers and the providers of services to make proper adjustments. Clause 23(3) concerns the powers of the National Disability Council. The Secretary of State may by order add any additional functions—except that of investigating complaints—as he sees fit. He may require the body to advise, to assist, to research, to educate and to review. I have no doubt there are many other additional functions we would wish to see bestowed.
The Bill, as I said, contains some 63 regulatory powers. But the issue of regulation in this Bill, as opposed to the Jobseekers Bill, has not been aired in this House. I am authorised to say that the next Minister with responsibility for disabled people will use all of those powers where they extend, expand and strengthen the rights and opportunities for disabled people.
I have to say—and I can say—that my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke, is delighted at the range, extent and armoury of powers that have been bequeathed to him by this outgoing government which will allow him to address the issues of the perception of disability, the size of small firms and the role and function of the National Disability Council. With such an array of powers we will be able virtually—although not completely and entirely—to construct a civil rights disability Bill by regulation. Never have so many regulatory powers been welcomed by so many disabled people and never will they be put to such good and benign use as by the next government. Then, and only then, will this be a good enough Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wish to respond to those comments which I believe have some relevance to the amendments I moved. I am always interested to hear what the honourable friend of the noble Baroness in another place has to say. I am particularly interested to hear it this week, given that yet another inquiry—this time by the Labour Party—has been instigated as regards his local authority which he (at the beginning at least) used to say was as pure and white as the driven snow, or words to that effect. He has changed his mind once or twice since then and probably will do so again.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness has cleared her comments with Mr. Brown, who is supposedly the keeper of the public purse for the party opposite and who is telling the taxpayers of this country that there will be no higher taxes or public spending than at present. I hope that he has been consulted. However, above all, I hope that I misheard the noble Baroness. I hope that she meant to say that in the event of the party opposite gaining office some time in the next century, or the century after that, it will undertake the consultations on which I gave assurances from this Dispatch Box before any secondary legislation is passed through the House. I made a point of mentioning the people and organisations we would consult. I am sure the noble Baroness meant to say—although I did not hear her say it—that the party opposite, in the event of gaining office in the future, might produce some
1600
statutory instruments and secondary legislation after consultation with all the people whom governments are obliged to consult.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
140 Schedule 6, page 36, line 45, at end insert—
(". In section 13(6A)(b) for "Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983" substitute "Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
140A Line 2, leave out from '(6A)' to end of line 4 and insert for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute "; or
(b) functions conferred by or under Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 are exercisable in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs.".'.
141 Page 37, line 9, at end insert—
("12A. Omit sections (Education of disabled persons), (Further and higher education of disabled persons) and (Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland).
12B. —(1) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "taxi" substitute—
""taxi" means a vehicle which—

(a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

(b) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver."

12C. For section (New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations) substitute—
"New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations.
.— (1) The Department of the Environment shall not grant a public service vehicle licence under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 for a taxi unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the taxi accessibility regulations with which it will be required to conform if licensed.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if such a licence was in force with respect to the vehicle at any time during the period of 28 days immediately before the day on which the licence is granted.
(3) The Department of the Environment may by order provide for subsection (2) to cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.".
12D. Omit section (Exemption from taxi accessibility regulations).
12E. In section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs)(7) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12F.—(1) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(5) and (6) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(9) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12G. Omit section (Requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland).
12H. —(1) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(1) for "a licensing authority" substitute "the Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(2) for "licensing authority concerned" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(3) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(3) for the words from "the magistrates' court" to the end substitute "a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in which the aggrieved person resides."
12I.—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute—
""public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

(a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and

(b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(7) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
12J.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates)(2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
"(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".
12K.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Approval certificates)(1) for "he" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Approval certificates)(6) for "his" substitute "its".
12L. In section (Special authorisations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
12M.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Reviews and appeals)(2) for "him" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Reviews and appeals)(6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".
12N. — (1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Fees)(2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".
(3) In section (Fees)(4) for "he" substitute "it".
12P. — (1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".
(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(7).
(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(11) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
12Q. — (1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it"
12R. Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.)(3).")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
141A Line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) In section (Designated transport facilities) for "Secretary of State", wherever it occurs, substitute "Department of the Environment".'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 140A and 141 A.
As I am sure your Lordships know, Northern Ireland has its own separate body of legislation and administrative structure. Modifications to the provisions of the Bill in order that they fit in with existing Northern Ireland legislation and structure are set out in Schedule 6. Amendment No. 140A corrects Schedule 6 and removes a paragraph, which relates specifically to Scottish law, that is unnecessary for the Bill to operate in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 141A corrects Schedule 6 in relation to the new clause introduced about designated transport facilities. These two technical amendments will, of course, bring all the advantages which this important piece of legislation will bring to disabled people in Great Britain to the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 140 and with Amendment No. 141A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No.141. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
4.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Basis on which compensation is to be calculated]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Provision shall be made for compensation to be paid for mental injury alone in accordance with such provisions of the Scheme as may be relevant, but in particular—

(a) mental injury shall not be considered an accidental injury for the purpose of any exclusions from the Scheme; and

(b) provision shall be made for compensation to be paid for mental injury alone where such injury is sustained by a person who, during the immediate aftermath of a crime of violence or offence of trespass on a railway, was involved in containing, limiting or remedying the consequences of that crime or offence, whether or not that person had a close relationship of love and affection with the person who sustained the injury.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a small and select body of amendments which we have been able to table following the very welcome publication of the second draft of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and tariff. We express our gratitude to the Government for making it possible for us to see that on Wednesday evening of last week. I am afraid that it has meant that we were not able to table our amendments until Friday, which explains why they are starred on the Marshalled List today. But I hope that, despite that short time, your Lordships will feel that it is desirable and legitimate to raise at this stage of the Bill issues arising from the new draft of the scheme and the tariff.
I emphasise that in all of these amendments which we are putting forward, we are using the text of the Bill to raise issues which we accept will be dealt with in the tariff. That is the way in which we must secure debate in this House on what are still important matters which your Lordships have to consider. &
Amendment No. 1 is concerned with a particular issue of mental injury which is defined in paragraph 9 of the new scheme as a medically recognised psychiatric or psychological illness. Paragraph 9 of the new scheme defines the circumstances in which compensation for mental injury will not be payable by defining the circumstances in which it can be payable by itself; in other words, not accompanied by physical injury or disease.
The four conditions under which compensation for mental injury can be paid are: when the applicant is put in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm; when the applicant has a close relationship of love and affection with the person when that person has sustained a physical injury; thirdly, when the applicant was a non-consenting victim of a sexual offence; and fourthly—I am merely reading out the gist of what the scheme says—when the applicant is employed in the business of a railway and has witnessed an occasion when another person sustained physical injury attributable directly to an offence of trespass. In other words, that is normally a train driver who has had a suicide on the line or somebody in similar circumstances.
So far, so good. Your Lordships may think that those requirements for compensation for mental injury alone might be broadly acceptable. But then, if one looks at paragraph 12 and in particular paragraph 12b, one sees that compensation is not payable for accidental injury by a person who is engaged in any other activity directed to containing, limiting or remedying the consequences of crime unless the person injured was, at the time that he sustained the injury, taking exceptional risk which was justified in all the circumstances.
We debated that provision at some length at earlier stages of the Bill when we were concerned with fire fighters who have protection if they are taking exceptional risks—for example, entering a burning building to rescue somebody—but not in other circumstances. I do not raise that issue again but I should point out that there is a potential conflict between paragraphs 9 and 12.
Many of the people who may need to be compensated for mental injury—what is very often called trauma—as a result of an incident which could be caused by a criminal action will not be taking exceptional risks. They will be doing their job. They may be driving a train or bringing first aid to a victim of a criminal act. It could occur other than on the railways. Therefore, we feel that the second draft of the scheme needs to be thought out much further in order to be sure that the provisions of paragraph 12b do not negate the provisions of paragraph 9. While the Government may not necessarily wish to accept the amendment, we note that the Government will recognise that further drafting is necessary before the scheme is put before Parliament.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this amendment is aimed at the exceptional risk provisions of the draft scheme (the latest draft of which was made available last week). Under those provisions, an award is not payable for injury sustained accidentally unless the person sustaining the injury was, at the time, taking an exceptional risk which was justified in all the circumstances. The first limb of this amendment would seek to exclude mental injury from this prohibition.
We accept that employees in the business of a railway and who are deemed eligible for an award for witnessing or clearing up a suicide on a railway—under paragraph 9d of the draft scheme—may, as the scheme now stands, be excluded from an award by the effects of paragraph 12b. That was not the intention. The noble Lord is right to point that out. We shall therefore make this quite clear by adding to the end of sub-paragraph 9d the following sentence:
"Paragraph 12 below does not apply where mental injury is sustained as described in this sub-paragraph."
I believe that that will meet the concern of the noble Lord. The second limb of this amendment is not dissimilar, and seeks to extend the scheme so that mental injury suffered by anyone involved in helping at the scene of a crime or its immediate aftermath would be eligible for compensation. I am afraid that is not acceptable.
I recognise that this is a contentious and difficult area of the common law, and one which is continuing to develop. And there is of course the work of the Law Commission, which continues to examine the position of what are generally known as "secondary victims", namely, those who have been indirectly affected in one way or another by injury inflicted on others. But, as has been made clear on many occasions during earlier stages of this Bill, we are no longer attempting to provide finely judged compensation on the same basis as before, nor attempting to match each and every head of damage that might conceivably be available under common law damages. We must set some limit on what the taxpayer can reasonably be asked to pay for. Thus, while we feel that "secondary victims" who have a close personal relationship with the victim should be able to qualify for

1605
mental injury under the terms of paragraph 9, we do not think it would be right to include others as suggested here, be they "professional" rescuers or anyone else.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her response to the first part of the amendment which is clearly totally satisfactory. We look forward to seeing the amended text and, indeed, to debating that amended text in Parliament when the orders are laid.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness about the second part of the amendment. I believe that there should be more recognition of the mental as well as the physical risks which rescuers take in the course of their work, which is often unpaid and voluntary. They may be amateur rescuers; for example, from the St. John's Ambulance or the Red Cross. However, this is not an issue on which I wish to divide the House at this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where provision is made under section 2(2)(c) for an additional amount of compensation calculated with respect to special expenses, this provision shall include an amount for unpaid care provided at home by a relative or friend of the person to whom an award is being made, whether or not that friend or relative has suffered any actual loss of earnings or incurred additional personal or living expenses.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 refers to paragraph 35 of the second draft of the scheme. We are grateful for the recognition in the second draft of some of the arguments that we put forward at earlier stages of consideration of the Bill. Those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in these matters will recall that we were particularly concerned that there should be compensation, not just for paid care and associated expenses, but also for unpaid care provided by friends or relatives. Apart from the argument of principle, we put forward the practical argument that if the Bill compensated paid care but not unpaid care, victims would no longer receive unpaid care but would be tempted to go for paid care instead and the taxpayer would have to pay for it. Part of that argument is recognised in the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 35 of the draft scheme which says:
"the expense of unpaid care provided at home by a relative or friend of the victim will be compensated by assessing the carer's loss of earnings and/or additional personal living expenses".
That nearly goes far enough but not quite far enough. I apologise for continuing to press the matter. It must be recognised that often many hours of unpaid care are provided by carers which do not involve loss of earnings. The unpaid carers would not otherwise have been earning, and it would not involve additional personal living expenses. Of course, if they were not to devote themselves to the care of the victim of crime they could be earning. Therefore, I believe that what is needed is a simple additional phrase. There is a requirement for recognition of earning capacity as well as actual loss of earnings. I believe that such an
1606
amendment will be in the spirit of the progress that has already been made in the direction of an improved scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that we can meet the intention of this amendment by making it clearer in the draft scheme that unpaid care can be compensated. The operation of the scheme has to rely, as far as practicable, on demonstrable, quantifiable costs rather than on wholly notional figures. But in this area we believe that the approach should be to take account of the time which the relative or friend is devoting to the care of the victim and make an assumption about how much that may represent in loss of earning capacity, even if the carer has not been in employment. We shall therefore amend the last sentence of paragraph 35 of the draft scheme to include reference both to the carer's loss of earnings and earning capacity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish I could have said it so well myself. I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where provision is made under section 2(2)(c) for an additional amount of compensation calculated with respect to special expenses, this provision shall include an amount for unpaid work normally carried out by the person to whom the award is being made but which (in the opinion of the person determining the award) it is now necessary for another person to be paid to carry out.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also relates to paragraph 35. We are pushing a little bit further each time. Amendment No. 3 is concerned with childcare and housework. Victims (or applicants, as they are referred to in the scheme) do a considerable amount of unpaid work such as childcare and housework in addition to that which is already recognised in the scheme, which is the maintenance of the house, garden, vehicles or whatever it may be. It is oddly sexist to recognise tasks that male victims may be prevented from doing—by reason of their disability but not those that female victims may be prevented from doing—not that I believe it right that women should do any more than their due share, or no more than half, of the housework in any house. However, there ought to be a recognition of childcare and housework. I hope that the Government will be as accommodating in this matter as in the previous one. I should have said that women should do no more than their share of childcare or housework.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment would allow additional compensation to be paid to cover unpaid activities formerly undertaken by the victim. I believe I need to remind the House that, while we have taken forward with the new scheme the main elements of the common law damages scheme, we do not intend that the new scheme should comprehensively enable payment for absolutely anything available under common law in relation to special damages.
Victims incapacited for 28 weeks or more will receive generous compensation for the injury itself, for loss of earnings, for loss of earning capacity, for special

1607
expenses for the adaption of accommodation and for the cost of care. However, we believe that a line has to be drawn somewhere. We do not consider that the taxpayer should be asked to go further and pay what would be notionally calculated extra amounts in respect of home decoration, repairs, gardening or other unpaid activities. This is just one bridge too far in these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we had a fourth and fifth reading we might push a little further forward and make more progress, as we have done so far. I am disappointed, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Appeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("but no such reduction shall be made unless the appeal has been referred by the adjudicator for an oral hearing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that this is a particularly abstruse point, for which I apologise. We turn now to paragraph 71 which is concerned with what happens in appeals that are determined without an oral hearing; in other words, on the basis of the papers alone. Paragraph 71 provides:
"Where an appeal is not referred under paragraphs 69 or 70 for an oral hearing, the adjudicator's dismissal of the appeal will be final and the decision taken on the review will stand".
We are worried about the next part:
"The adjudicator may, however, reduce the amount of compensation to be awarded by such amount as he considers appropriate, where he is of the opinion that the appeal was frivolous or vexatious".
We do not object to action being taken against frivolous or vexatious appeals, but surely an appeal cannot be considered to be frivolous or vexatious when it is only at the screening stage on the basis of papers alone. If somebody pursues it to an oral hearing, patently does not have a case and the matter can be described as frivolous or vexatious, it seems right that there should be penalties. But when it is dealt with purely on the basis of papers and is only at the screening stage, and when no other public money is expended on the costs of an appeal, surely the provision in the second sentence against frivolous or vexatious appeals and the associated power to reduce the award are not appropriate. I cannot believe that that is intended. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I would oppose the amendment. In this type of administration you have to have some safeguard against vexatious and frivolous appeals. There is a similar provision in so many other jurisdictions, indeed including the courts. I think that in this type of administration there is nothing wrong or inherently unfair about it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. However, I was about to accept that there is a case for saying that if an appeal
1608
is to be rejected on the ground of being vexatious or frivolous, it will be on the basis of an oral hearing. It is our intention to delete the second part of paragraph 71.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's answer. I am grateful to her for giving it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Parliamentary control]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
("(3A) Before making any alteration to a provision of the Scheme which—

(a) gives a right of appeal, or

(b) specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by a hearing,

the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of the provision as proposed to be altered.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is, of course, a little unusual to bring forward government amendments at so late a stage in a Bill's proceedings. However, the amendments touch on an aspect of the scheme—namely, the appeals provisions—in which it is clear, from the several debates we have had on the subject at earlier stages of the Bill, that many of your Lordships take a particular interest. Indeed at Report stage I undertook to consider how we might be able to respond to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. These amendments fulfil that undertaking and represent our considered response.
As your Lordships will recall, as a result of changes we made to the Bill in Committee, the complete scheme will now have to be approved by Parliament, by the affirmative resolution procedure, before it can come into force. Thereafter, if change is considered necessary or desirable, Parliament will have to approve such change. The more important, or "key" features of the scheme will require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while all other features will require approval by the negative resolution procedure. The Executive will no longer have the power to change any aspect of the scheme, however minor, without securing the appropriate parliamentary approval in this way.
It is of course a matter of judgment as to which features of the scheme should require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and which by the negative. In our view, Parliament ought not to be overburdened with more minor points of detail. We accordingly made a judgment as to what might reasonably be regarded as the "key" features of the scheme, and those are set out in Clause 11(3). In the main they relate to the tariff itself and to matters bearing on quantum.
However, it became clear in debate that a number of your Lordships take the view that provisions relating to appeals are also of sufficient importance to merit inclusion in that part of the Bill which would require subsequent change to be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
The first amendment makes it clear that before any changes can he made to a provision of the scheme which gives a right of appeal or which specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by an oral hearing, parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure will now be necessary. The second amendment is a minor consequential. That effectively means that any provision of the scheme touching on eligibility for appeal or the circumstances in which an oral hearing can be granted et cetera are caught.
I hope the House will agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic solution which achieves the right balance, and affords the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment follows closely Amendment No. 27 which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and I put before the House at Report stage. I have no doubt that the wording is better than that which we put forward. The amendment recognises the point made. That is confirmed by the Minister's speech.
Of course we are not too grateful because we would have preferred the appeals procedure to be on the face of the Bill. We believe that appeals procedures are by their nature quasi judicial, provisions for which should not be tucked away in a scheme even though alterations to a scheme are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, this is the best that we shall gain; and we are grateful for the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was slightly involved in this matter. One has the feeling again that one has not striven in vain. Although we have not achieved exactly what we sought, we have achieved recognition that the scheme may be so amended subject to circumstances which are never so easy to define. For my part, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for going that far.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 26, after ("(3)") insert ("or (3A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. The Bill paves the way for a new criminal injuries compensation scheme under which compensation will be paid to blameless victims of violent crimes on a statutory basis. The new scheme to be made under the Bill's powers will concentrate on a straightforward tariff approach for the majority of victims. But it will also ensure that the needs of those most seriously affected by their injuries are generously met. We believe such an approach strikes the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of taxpayers.
In our view, continuation of the old scheme, based on common law damages, was no longer a sustainable option. Costs were rising rapidly, and the backlog of unresolved cases was increasing steadily, despite the best endeavours of my noble friend, Lord Carlisle, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—mainly by
1610
reason of the year by year increase in applications made. And perhaps I may again pay tribute to my noble friend and his colleagues for all the good work that they have done and, indeed, continue to do, achieving notable improvements in productivity in recent years.
Perhaps I may say as an aside that I know that my noble friend would have been in his seat today but for an accident; he is unable to be in the Chamber today. On your behalf, I send him our best wishes.
Nonetheless, they have inevitably been constrained by the parameters of the scheme they have had to operate and which have tended to militate against more speedy resolution of cases.
The new tariff scheme, on the other hand, should be easier for victims to understand and, for the great majority of cases, simpler to operate. Most victims should have a better idea when they apply how much money they are likely to receive, and they should receive that money more quickly. The new scheme should also enable costs to be more readily predicted and controlled. Yet the new scheme will continue to be the most generous anywhere in the world. We expect to pay out some £1 billion in compensation between now and the end of this decade. That is by any standards a significant amount of taxpayers' money and will enable us to run an unparalleled scheme of which we can rightly continue to be proud.
In drawing up the new scheme, we of course paid regard to the criticisms of the earlier, non-statutory tariff scheme which was withdrawn earlier this year, following the ruling of the Judicial Committee of this House. And we have continued to listen to the many helpful comments made in both Houses, and in other quarters, as the Bill has proceeded through its various parliamentary stages. This has enabled us to make a number of improvements, both to the Bill and to the draft scheme itself that will, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, shortly be presented to Parliament for approval.
Perhaps the most far-reaching change effected in this Chamber during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House was the group of amendments dealing with parliamentary control over the new arrangements. The whole scheme will now require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure before it can be brought into force. Previously only the "key" features of the scheme—that is, those relating to the tariff itself and matters bearing on quantum—would have required parliamentary approval. But the Bill goes further than that. It now also provides that any subsequent change to the "key" features of the scheme, however minor, will require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while a minor change to any other features will be subject to approval by the negative resolution procedure. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a very significant change indeed, since it gives Parliament rather than the Executive control over all aspects of the scheme. Ministers will no longer be able to make any changes at all to the scheme without the consent of Parliament.
I made reference a moment ago to the helpful debates we have had on the Bill both here, and in another place. Much of that debate was, inevitably, focused on the

1611
provisions of the draft scheme rather than the provisions of the Bill itself. I have to say that your Lordships were not inhibited in letting us know quite firmly where you felt change or improvement was needed. In the light of those debates we have made numerous changes to the draft scheme.
Key changes include greater consistency in the terminology used throughout the draft scheme. We have provided a table of contents and set out the scheme's provisions in a more logical fashion. We have clarified the criteria for waiving time limits. We have clarified the provisions for loss of income, in particular those aspects relating to pension rights and the use of multiplier tables. We have also amended the provisions for special expenses to make it clear that they cover unpaid care by a relative or friend. Fatal provision now covers a former spouse, and we have now made clearer the circumstances in which deductions may be made from awards. We have clarified the provisions relating to oral hearings, the adjournment of hearings and the circumstances in which interim payments will be made. I think the new draft scheme is very much the better for all these changes, and I hope your Lordships will share the feeling of satisfaction that this House has once again made a significant contribution to an important piece of legislation that will directly affect many tens of thousands of people each year.
We have, as a number of your Lordships will know already, just produced a further draft of the new scheme. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House for perusal by those of your Lordships who may not yet have had an opportunity to see it. It will be our intention to lay the scheme before Parliament for formal approval as soon as possible after the next session starts.
Finally, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to deliberations on the Bill, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In his inestimable way he pointed out many of the ways in which changes have been effected to the Bill, with help at the Dispatch Box from his noble and learned friend Lord Archer.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his contribution to the Bill, as I thank my colleagues on these Benches, particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Even with his busy schedule he found time to lend assistance to me on the Bill. I am enormously grateful for that assistance and for the expertise which he lent during the course of the debate. I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lord Courtown. This is his first Bill and I am grateful for his help. Also my noble friends on the Back Benches have been hugely helpful and constructive, even though we have not met them on absolutely every detail.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are three kinds of Bill which come before your Lordships: first, those which are uncontroversial—and I shall not waste time by referring to them; secondly, those where we are sharply divided on political and ideological
1612
grounds, such as the poll tax Bill or large parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, to take recent examples. On those, there is nothing to be done except to slug it out, toe-to-toe. Then there is the third kind of Bill where there is a measure of agreement about the principle behind it, yet we feel that inadequate thought and consideration have gone into its preparation. I believe that this Bill is in the third category.
I forgive the inadequate thought and preparation to some extent. Without going into the murky history of the illegal actions of the Home Secretary, it must be recognised that the Home Office had a relatively short time between 5th April, when the existing scheme was found to be illegal, and today, which is almost the last day on which the Bill can pass both Houses in order to take effect by 1st April 1996. Thus many of the defects of the Bill are understandable, but they are still there and need to be dealt with. Many needed to be dealt with by this House rather than another place.
We have made substantial changes. We have not achieved some of the major objectives which we had in considering the Bill. Although we accepted that in practical terms we had to move to an enhanced tariff scheme, nevertheless we felt that the permanent, on-going, long-term features of the scheme should be on the face of the Bill in the form of primary legislation. Our amendments at the Committee stage were devoted to that end.
It is disappointing to find that, despite the movement towards parliamentary involvement in the form of the affirmative resolution procedure to which the Minister referred, nevertheless parliamentary approval is a good deal less effective than it would have been if it had been on the face of the Bill and subject to amendment.
We are disappointed about a number of details of the scheme. We still feel that it is wrong to put entirely on the social services the responsibility regarding loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks, not least because approximately 12 million people in the country do not benefit from statutory sick pay. That is either because they are not employed or because they are not employed by people who are able to recognise the scheme.
We do not believe that the treatment of multiple injuries is right. It is based on a false statistical calculation and when the scheme is in action it will prove to be inadequate. We do not believe that the scheme is adequate in its recognition of the differences in compensation which should be due to people of both sexes or in different age groups. We feel that the scheme is too cursory and does not allow for recognition of real differences, particularly, for example, with facial injuries according to how young one is and of which sex.
Adequate attention has not been paid to the issue of compensation for pregnancy following rape. There is compensation when the pregnancy results in a live birth and the child is kept, but in other cases there are injuries which are still not adequately recognised in the tariff.
We are not happy about many things, but I have quite a long list of provisions which have been changed as a result of amendments proposed by Labour—not that

1613
Labour has won any amendments. We seldom put matters to the vote and this was not the kind of Bill where we sought to win on the Floor of the House. Concessions have been made following the amendments which we put down at different stages of the Bill. For those, we are grateful.
First, regarding time limits, we did not succeed in getting the time period extended from two years to three years. However, what was originally a criterion for out-of-time applications of exceptional cases has now been amended to relate to special circumstances. We understand that it may well be amended further to relate to particular circumstances following the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. That is one good point.
We have just been debating unpaid care at home by a friend or relative. First, it was conceded that there would be payment for loss of earnings or extra expenses. Now it is conceded that there will be payment for loss of earning capacity. Regarding awards for frivolous or vexatious appeals, it has been agreed in the last few minutes that the provision will apply only where there is an oral hearing and not where a decision is made on the papers alone.
The most recent amendment which the Minister persuaded noble Lords was right, with our agreement, was that major changes to the appeals procedure would have to go through the affirmative resolution procedure. Again, that follows amendments which we put down at earlier stages. There has been clarification as a result of amendments which we put down in Committee about what happens when a person who was fatally injured was temporarily on state benefit. In those circumstances, the calculation of dependency is on the basis of potential loss of earnings, as it should be. We believe that we have got somewhere in paragraph 32 of the tariff on the use of actuarial Ogden tables for the multiplier. The note to the scheme is better than it was and less crude, but we believe that an even better way of calculating compensation could be found. However, the wording is still to be finalised.
On those and probably other matters which I have overlooked, there has been substantial improvement in the Bill. For that I am most grateful to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who agreed to see me, unusually, both before the Committee stage and between Committee and Report stages.
I believe that we have had constructive exchanges which have resulted in a scheme which everybody agrees is better than it would have been if we had not had those opportunities. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for his support. He is sorry that he is unable to be here today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for his support in the early stages of the Bill. 'Working with the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Carlisle, in a spirit of consultation, I suppose, has been a particularly great pleasure.
1614
I wish the Bill well. I hope that further changes which may be necessary will be made without unnecessary contention. As a result, I hope that we shall have a scheme of which we can all be proud.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am very happy to associate these Benches with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may also say how much I appreciated the very constructive and reasonable way in which the Minister approached the Bill. She was sympathetic at all times to the views expressed from all sides of the House. If the face of the Bill has not been much amended, nevertheless commitments have been given which on the whole are very satisfactory. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I welcome the fact that a revised draft of the scheme has been available and, as I understand it, will now be available in the Library.
I have also respected the assiduous way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, since the Bill was given a Second Reading on 19th July, has pursued the details of the Bill. The House owes much to him for the extent to which the Bill has been improved during its progress through the House.
On Second Reading I mentioned five points which I felt were important. First, I said that, if one had to choose, I reluctantly accepted the idea of a tariff system. Secondly, I declared that I was unhappy about some of the reasons given for restraining costs. Thirdly, I believed that more of the contents of the scheme should be on the face of the Bill. Fourthly, I was concerned, as other noble Lords have been, with parliamentary control in these matters. Fifthly, I referred to the speed in compensating victims. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to cover all that ground now and I shall confine myself to one or two remarks.
The Minister said again today that this is the most generous scheme in the world. Not for a moment do I doubt that. But I still take the view that the proper basis for comparison must be within our own priorities. Although I understand the reasons why both the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition are anxious to restrain costs, we must keep an open mind and be prepared to pay whatever is necessary to compensate the victims of crime in an appropriate way.
With regard to wanting more on the face of the Bill and parliamentary control, as I said, some progress has been made. Even if the outcome is not entirely satisfactory, we are now better placed than we were three months ago.
I return very briefly to the question of the tariff system. On Second Reading I said that in my view there was much virtue in having a tariff system with banding. I have not changed my mind about that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested what I considered to be a very interesting thought; namely, that it would have been possible to have a hybrid scheme in which—I believe that these are his figures—85 per cent. was fixed tariff and 15 per cent. allowed for discretion, I assume within limits. My own view is still that, given that every victim is different and every injury distinctive, it would have been a much better scheme if there were banding as a simple way of administering the

1615
scheme for most of the cases; but in particularly difficult circumstances, where the injuries themselves might be different and might have a different bearing on the individuals, it would have been better to have an element of discretion and that is lacking.
That having been said, inevitably this is rough justice. But it is justice of a kind. Time alone will show how watertight our scheme is. I join with those who welcome the Bill and hope very much that it will meet the needs of those whom it is designed to help.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than two minutes. Before we finally finish with the Bill, I want briefly to commend the Government on two fronts. The first is for producing the Bill at all. We all remember, do we not, the scheme which the Home Secretary sought to introduce without parliamentary approval—and he was not allowed to do that. It was the wrong scheme and everybody said so. He was not allowed to implement it because the courts said that he exceeded his powers. The Government could have sought to introduce that scheme in Parliament in a Bill. I believe that they are to be commended because they listened to what was being said both in this Chamber and in another place about the original scheme. The Bill was very different and very much better. The Government are to be commended for listening.
The second reason why I feel that the Government ought to be commended has already been mentioned; namely, the way in which the Bill has been handled by my noble friend the Minister in this House. As always, she takes infinite pains. She listens most carefully and is most willing and helpful, wishing to co-operate and meet points when she can do so. I dare say that she has battles with the Secretary of State about what she is and is not allowed to give. She seems to win quite a lot of those battles. We are very fortunate to have her.
I still believe that the original scheme which has been in operation for many years is absolutely first class. I accept the reasons why we have to have this one and I am glad that it is a great deal better than was originally conceived. I wish it well.
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have taken a very small part in the Bill but I should like to make shortly four points at this stage. I am afraid that only the first two will be generally acceptable.
The first one is to thank the noble Lords on whom has fallen the main burden of discussion of the Bill. They are inevitably the Front Benchers. If a debate goes on after the dinner adjournment, it is almost exclusively the Front Benchers on whom the burden rests. We are greatly in their debt. There has been remarkably rapid progress on the Bill, partly because of the precision of mind of those on the Front Benches who have been principally concerned and partly because of the good humour that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if I may say so, brings to the Dispatch Box. All that makes the proceedings so much quicker and more pleasant.
1616
My second point has been referred to already; namely, the improvement in parliamentary control. My demur is apprehension lest a government department tries to get away with the least parliamentary control that is possible. There again, we have been greatly indebted, as so often, to the Scrutiny Committee. I agree that in this Bill the parliamentary control, even if not wholly satisfactory in the way that has been described, has been enormously strengthened.
The third—I am conscious of being on my own—is a point to which I referred at an earlier stage; namely, whether we are justified at all in having a scheme of compensation for victims of violence. The noble Baroness said that it is the most generous scheme in the world. That means that the taxpayers are being asked to make an exceptional contribution.
A whole number of anomalies exist, both external and internal. One internal anomaly referred to frequently during the course of the debates was the omission of certain types of injury. Perhaps the most striking omission, if I read the scheme rightly, is the omission of injuries caused by crimes committed with a motor vehicle, except in very limited circumstances. There have been other matters, some of which were referred to this evening.
There is the anomalous fact that we are compensating victims of violence, not victims of crime generally. Crimes against property are not within the scheme any more than they were within the common law scheme or the original tariff scheme. The only justification that I can see for compensating victims of violence is that society owes a duty to protect its citizens from criminal activity. But if that is so, then crimes against property should equally be the subject of compensation. That would make it even more expensive than the original scheme. That was quite exorbitant (far more than we could possibly afford) and was rightly withdrawn.
My last point concerns the conduct of the Secretary of State. I referred to it briefly in an intervention at Second Reading. After the noble Baroness had made her clear introduction of the Bill, I asked humbly whether there was to be any question of contrition on behalf of the Secretary of State; after all, he had acted illegally. Worse still, he had acted illegally in the knowledge that there was a 50 per cent. chance that his actions were illegal. But worst of all, illegal or not, he acted unconstitutionally in thumbing his nose at Parliament by failing to bring into action the scheme which Parliament set out at length in a schedule to the statute, and instead brought in an extrastatutory scheme of his own devising. The noble Baroness merely dealt with that point by saying that the Secretary of State acted throughout in good faith. What does that mean—illegal action, in the knowledge that it is unlawful or may be, in good faith?
Your Lordships may remember Hamlet's "poison in jest". Is that not what the noble Baroness was saying? Or perhaps even closer, the final verdict of the tribunal in the Dreyfus case. In order to spare the reputation of the Army the verdict brought in was treason, but with mitigating circumstances and the whole affair then dissolved in derision. The fact is that your Lordships will not be seeking the humiliation of the Secretary of

1617
State; but your Lordships will be looking for some humility on his part. I am afraid it does not stand alone; It is only one of several actions by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State refused the Carr amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, so taking the discretion away from the justices. One is bound to say that that must also be viewed with the wholesale ouster of the justices' discretion in the Child Support Act and its various measures. More recently, the Secretary of State was implicated in the way the Ackner amendment was treated on the Criminal Appeal Bill. I do not believe the Secretary of State can be regarded as being primarily responsible; the responsibility must lie in this House. But what was done was that an amendment of great importance, supported by the Lord Chief Justice, by his predecessor, Lord Lane, by a former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and, we were told, by a practically unanimous view of the judiciary, was passed in this House by a large majority—an astonishing majority considering that government supporters were whipped. That decision was reversed on a Monday in the other place by the use of the Government Whip, and the Commons disagreement was brought before your Lordships in the dinner adjournment the following day on the shortest notice.
As I said, I cannot regard the Secretary of State as being primarily responsible for that; but undoubtedly he was implicated and therefore we ought not to depart from this Bill without considering his unconstitutional actions, his illegal actions, under the Bill and its predecessor. We say that in the hope that the Secretary of State will have closer regard in the future to his constitutional duties and in particular be much more cautious in setting himself up against the unanimous views of the judiciary, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham warned when that matter fell for decision.
Having made those two disagreeable points, I hark back to my two originally favourable comments and wish the Bill well.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as the number one troublemaker in this particular field perhaps I may add one or two brief comments. The tariff scheme started life in an unhappy way, well described in general terms by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. It was significantly altered, and for that the Government must take some credit, and the Minister considerable credit.
The tariff scheme has the inevitable disadvantage of inflexibility. That was conceded by the noble Baroness who spoke of the rough justice product which will occur. That feature is said to be balanced by the speed with which the new scheme will operate and by the saving of money which will occur as a result of applying the tariff rather than the more difficult concept of common law damages. Whether the one compensates for the other we have yet to see, but I, too, would like lo associate myself with those who have spoken of the great abilities with which the Minister has presented the Bill. An enormous amount of preparation must have gone into it. As one who has listened over many years
1618
to arguments being propounded from the Bar, it was a pleasure to listen to the way in which the noble Baroness dealt with criticism, even though in some respects it was a sadness to have to see her adopting the particular line which she did. I, too, wish the Bill well.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1995
5.11 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Insurance Brokers Registration Council proposes to introduce compulsory qualification by examination. This would require an amendment to Section 3 of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, which currently allows insurance brokers to be registered on the basis of experience alone. Perhaps I should explain why the Government agree with the council that this change would be in the interests both of the profession and its clients.
As your Lordships will know, compulsory examinations are a common feature of controlling access to professions on which the public rely for important advice and services. The council is committed to raising the professional standards of insurance brokers and believes that the time has come to introduce compulsory examinations in this field as well. But it is important to stress that this is an evolutionary, not a revolutionary, step.
The council has for some time encouraged insurance brokers to obtain voluntarily the Associateship of Chartered Insurance Institute—the ACII. About a third of the profession now hold it. The council has offered guidance to all insurance brokers on what constitutes professional good conduct in relation to continuing professional education. Now the council proposes, if the order is approved, that new entrants to the insurance broking profession be required from 1st January 1997 to have passed four specified subjects of the ACII. The council further proposes, as a second stage from 1st January 2000, that new entrants to the profession be required to obtain the full Associateship of the CII.
I should explain before I go on that alternatives to CII qualifications will also be considered. Indeed the council anticipates that a number of university qualifications will be equivalent and proposes, if the order is made, to begin to look in detail at the syllabuses of other qualifications such as NVQs. However, the Chartered Insurance Institute has long been the traditional provider of qualifications for the insurance sector, and so it is its qualifications that are the model for the council's proposals.
I should also, for the sake of completeness, make a few other points on the detail of the council's proposals. The first is that the order provides for one exception to

1619
the requirement for compulsory exam qualifications from new entrants to the insurance broking profession. The exception derives from the 1976 Insurance Intermediaries Directive, which provides that where one member state admits entry to the profession on the basis of experience alone then, so long as that experience matches the conditions laid down in the directive, other member states must accept the qualification even if they themselves have a requirement for previous training. The effect of this is that we cannot impose our own compulsory examinations on EEA brokers to whom the directive applies. It is worth noting, however, that the council anticipates that only a few EEA applicants will need to be considered under the directive on the basis of experience alone. Increasingly, in Europe insurance intermediaries are being required to obtain examination qualifications.
A second point is that at the second stage of the council's proposals, from 1st January 2000, new entrants will be required to hold a qualification that can be used under the European Community Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive to gain entry to the activity of insurance intermediary in other member states where such qualifications are required. An amendment to the UK regulations implementing this directive will be needed to take account of the IBRC's role as a designated authority.
The order comes into force on 1st January 1997. It needs to be made now, however, in order to give prospective applicants to the profession the time and opportunity to obtain the required examination passes.
I believe that the council's proposals offer significant benefits to consumers. Consumers increasingly expect better standards of knowledge from insurance sellers. They expect these standards to be required by regulators such as the IBRC. The increasing sophistication of insurance products available means that insurance brokers need to be more knowledgeable in order to serve their customers properly. It is worth noting that most sellers of life insurance are already required under the Financial Services Act to demonstrate their knowledge through qualification by examination.
The proposals also reflect developments in the European Community. The Commission issued a recommendation in 1991 that, among other things, suggested that member states should set minimum knowledge entry requirements. The council's proposals clearly demonstrate our compliance with the spirit of this recommendation.
We are, of course, keen to see that legislation strikes the right balance between consumer protection and burdens on business. A detailed cost of compliance assessment has been prepared in consultation with the trade bodies and a number of individual insurance broking companies. It is worth highlighting again that the council's proposals only apply to new entrants to the profession—the proposals are not retrospective. So no one already in the business will face any extra cost at all. In addition, they only apply to those who wish to use the style "insurance broker". Those who act as insurance intermediaries under another style will not be affected by the council's proposals.
The Office of Fair Trading has been consulted. Its conclusion is that the proposals are not anti-competitive. The costs and standards of the examination do not constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry. I am satisfied, on the basis of this work, that the benefits to the consumer far outweigh the burdens they place on business.
To sum up, the council's proposals come at an appropriate stage in the development of the insurance broking profession. More importantly, they also improve consumer protection in a way that reflects market developments, and without imposing unnecessary burdens on business. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from this Front Bench we give a welcome to the proposals. I am glad the Minister indicated that there was a fair element of consumer protection as well as an intention to make more stringent the rules and conditions under which one can use this title. I was intrigued to note that the proposals merely protect the title "insurance broker" and that there could be other people who are doing precisely what insurance brokers do but who call themselves something else. The Minister should take that point on board.
I realise that the matter is very much wrapped up with the industry's professional body. I recall, as a Member of another place when this measure was introduced in the 1970s, that there was resistance from the profession to the need perceived by the then Government and by the people in the country to bring in some form of regulation. The Minister should know that in insurance matters most people are, if not ignorant, then not very knowledgeable, about the terms, the understandings and the nuances. In one's personal life one takes out insurance and one can have the benefits explained. But sometimes, to one's cost, it is not until later that the disadvantages of the arrangements are brought to bear. We on this side of the House certainly view the order as a benevolent measure.
Will the Minister say more about trying to ease the passage of those who may be qualified in some other way and who wish to comply with the new regulations? Before now experience was perfectly valid and fair. The institute should be commended for wanting to tighten membership qualifications. When I was a student at the Open University I remember that under the system it operated exemptions were obtained provided one had qualifications which were acceptable to other bodies. Can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in discussions between the institute and others as to the level at which the qualifications of the outside bodies will be accepted? For instance, there may well be exemption at an intermediate level; at a preliminary level; or even in certain subjects. On this side of the House we recognise that even if it costs more and takes more time, the reputation of the industry is at stake. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues would do

1621
well to look on the matter in that light. Other than that, we on this side of the House give the recommendations and changes our approval.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I have an interest to declare. I am an ACII with three subjects at distinction. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for introducing the order so clearly. I believe that it is something which the insurance industry will welcome. I hope that we shall shortly pass it.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I would say that the activities of the intermediaries other than insurance brokers—I am not sure what the nomenclature is supposed to be because we are actually considering insurance brokers and not anything else—are of those who sell general insurance. They are governed by the Association of British Insurers and its code of practice. I believe that that may partially answer the question. I am not quite sure what kind of animal we are devising on this matter. There is little evidence to suggest that all independent intermediaries should be regulated by the IBRC. It is an issue that was most recently reviewed in the light of the European Commission recommendations on insurance intermediaries. The Government's conclusion, announced in the House on 19th July last year, was that the most cost-effective response to the recommendations was to build on the existing arrangements.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that my honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Stuart Bell, made a fair point. He said that it is still open to practitioners to pursue what is essentially the same
1622
business under another style and without registration. I do not have an interest to declare, but I have an interest in the travel business. Invariably, when there is trouble, it is through companies or businesses which are not members of ABTA or IATA, the two recognised registered bodies. The unaware customer, who should be aware, goes into a shop which appears to be selling holidays at an advantageous price. It is only later that the customer realises that protection is not there.
The point I am making—and it is not a stick with which to beat the Government—is that they should be aware that although we are protecting the term "insurance broker" because that is what this order is about, one also needs to recognise that in the normal consumer protection sphere there will still be people who avoid registration but who could nevertheless very well take the customer for a ride.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that point. We shall certainly take it on board. As to qualifications other than experience, that does not come into effect until 1st January 1997. That gives people some time to consider their role. If they have adequate experience before then, there is nothing to prevent them applying. The council is willing to consider alternatives, as I mentioned. It anticipates that a number of university qualifications, for example, and other TII qualifications, will be partly equivalent. If the order is made the IBRC will begin to look in detail at the syllabuses of other qualifications. I hope that covers the point which the noble Lord raised. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.