My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Simon) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General principles]:
moved Amendment No. 1:
1: Clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) Independent living support should be provided and arranged in such a way as to ensure that no disabled person has to rely on care and support provided by a child or young person such as may impair the health or wellbeing or educational and leisure opportunities of the child or young person.”
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall be speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12. These amendments have been developed by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in conjunction with the Disability Rights Commission. Their aim is to clarify the principles that should underpin the delivery under the Bill of support to families and children affected by disability. In strengthening and clarifying the rights of disabled people to independent living, the Bill will have a direct and hugely positive impact on the one in four families in the United Kingdom that include disabled members, and more particularly on the 175,000 children and young people who are relied on by disabled family members for care that would normally be expected of trained adults.
We know from the 2001 census that, in that year, 18,000 children aged between five and 15 provided 20 hours of care or more a week, which is nearly three hours a day, and that a further 9,000 children provided at least 50 hours a week—that is more than seven hours a day—of whom 800 were under seven years of age. I find that terrifying. The main reason why children and young people find themselves taking on these support responsibilities is that their disabled parents do not get the assessments and help from local authorities to which they are entitled.
Amendment No. 1 establishes the principle that, in exercising their duties under the Bill, the responsible bodies—local authorities, health services and their partners—should ensure that independent living support is delivered in such a way that no disabled person has to rely on care or support provided by a child or young person, such as may impair the child or young person’s educational opportunities, health or well-being.
Amendment No. 2 amends the definition of “accessible information” given in the Bill so that it is clear that it includes information that is suitable for children—whether disabled children or children with disabled siblings or parents. Young carers will, of course, have rights to information and advice under Clause 12 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 11 tackles the need for improved joint working and more effective co-ordination between children and adults services to support families affected by disability. It is inspired by the work of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, the Disabled Parents Network and the Children’s Society in developing an exemplar protocol for children and adults services. A few local authorities already have a protocol that sets out the roles of children and adults services in ensuring that families affected by disability receive appropriate support rather than having to rely on the inappropriate caring role of a child. The amendment specifies that measures towards this must be included in the local independent living strategies. This complements other measures in the Bill that support families.
Amendment No. 12 specifies that registers of disabled persons should include the details of any carers whom a person may have to enable better forward planning and to facilitate identification of carers who may have support needs.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will be able to accept the amendments in the group and thus enhance the delivery of support to families and friends affected by disability. I beg to move.
I realise that it is not the Government’s position to respond formally to these amendments, but I thought that it might be useful to the noble Baroness to know what the Government’s view is. I have, as noble Lords know, been privileged to speak for the Government on two previous occasions in responding to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—a wonderful and extraordinary campaigner, who has done so much to improve the lives of people with disabilities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to two noble Lords who are not in their places today; I am sure that they would wish to be here but they cannot be because of ill health—the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lady Wilkins. We wish them well.
I hope that I have made clear to your Lordships just how committed the Government are in supporting independent living for disabled people. I well understand and appreciate why the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has suggested the changes in the amendments to protect children and young people from unnecessary levels of responsibility in caring for disabled parents and other family members. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers does a fantastic job. We thank it, especially for its work with children and young people.
As noble Lords may be aware, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the New Deal for Carers on 21 February. A key component of that new deal will be a review of the Government's strategy on carers. This is a pan-government strategy and I will ensure that the point at issue about the well-being of children who care for sick or disabled people is drawn to the attention of those charged with the review of the strategy.
We have just heard two excellent speeches, which began the debate with great understanding and which I commend very warmly. I am glad to say that I accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. One of the greatest scandals of our social care system is that children can be robbed of their childhood by the failure of statutory services to provide the necessary services. These amendments deal with that issue, so I am happy to accept them.
I thank the noble Lord for accepting the amendments and I thank the Minister very much for saying that she will draw the attention of the government strategy review to this debate. I think that the Office for Disability Issues has another independent living review. Perhaps she could update us on that. I thank her very much for the letter that I received today on the issue that I raised on Second Reading: how the age equality regulations will impact on specialist agencies employing carers for severely disabled people, which is a very demanding job for people above a certain age. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Minister has today placed a copy of the letter in the Library and I thank her for the very sympathetic way in which she has handled the issue. I am delighted that the amendments will be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
moved Amendment No. 2:
2: Clause 3, page 3, line 12, after “Welsh)” insert “and in versions suitable for children”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 3:
3: Clause 3 , page 3, line 16, leave out “National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Welsh Ministers”
The noble Lord said: All the amendments grouped are intended to respond to and implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They make some further small drafting changes. I do not want to bore the Committee; they are technical but necessary amendments. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for drawing these points to my attention on Second Reading. She is always making constructive contributions, and none more so than this. Without the amendments, we would be nowhere, the Bill would be technically inoperative, so I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Amendments Nos. 3, 32 and 33 and 38 take account of the Government of Wales Act 2006, following which regulations and orders should be made by Welsh Ministers rather than the National Assembly. We wrote in the National Assembly for Wales early on, not realising the changes that had taken place. The amendments will fix that.
Amendments Nos. 13, 20, 21 and 25 address a concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that there are clauses in the Bill which do not specify who is to make the regulations. The committee recommended that it should not be left to implication that these powers, too, should be exercisable by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers. Hence, the amendments make it clear that the appropriate authority is responsible.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, 17, 22, 24, 26 and 27 and 31 and 34—I did say that this would be technical and boring—leave out those subsections which enable the appropriate authorities to “make further provision” in connection with the relevant section. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the regulations should not be included in the Bill, as it is not clear what such broad delegations might be used for, and I would be happy for them to be removed.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and 35 to 37 relate to parliamentary procedure on the use of delegated powers. All the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Bill, except the power in Clause 24(2), would be made subject to the affirmative procedure by Clause 36(2), including commencement orders and the orders applying the Bill, with modifications, to the Isles of Scilly. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented that the only power in the Bill that seems to warrant the affirmative procedure is that in Clause 3 to extend the definition of “disabled person”. The amendments therefore act on that recommendation. If the amendments were accepted, regulations and orders made under the Act would be subject to the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure of both Houses of Parliament, or of the National Assembly for Wales, as appropriate. The exception would be the definition of “disabled person”. The amendments specify that only the Secretary of State, not Welsh Ministers, could extend the definition of a disabled person.
Amendment No. 15 would make it clearer that the regulations referred to in Clause 14(2) are those to be made under subsection (5) of that clause. Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 28 and 29 would amend references in Clauses 14 and 19 to consultation with the organisations of carers and of older people to consultation with organisations representing those groups, bringing it into line with the wording used elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment No. 30 would remove some superfluous wording in Clause 21(2) where, given the definition of “prescribed”, the words “in regulations” are unnecessary. I beg to move.
I congratulate the noble Lord on his patience and perseverance in having made all these technical changes. I am sorry to say that I was the person from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee who drew his attention to them, but he has clearly done a good job, and I support the amendments.
I promised not to speak too long on the Bill. I shall say simply that, in the context of the Bill, my noble friend’s amendments appear to be very sensible and reflect exactly what the noble Baroness and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said. As noble Lords are aware, the Government have set out a 20-year strategy to improve provision and services for disabled people. I explained at Second Reading the many initiatives that we already have in place and in the pipeline. I believe that the Government can be proud of what has been achieved to date. We recognise that much more is still to be achieved, but we believe that huge strides have already been made and that the right foundations are in place to ensure continued progress.
The Government do not believe that we have a monopoly of wisdom on what is needed for continued improvement. We will continue to listen to, and to learn from, all those with an interest and knowledge in this field. However, the Government remain unconvinced of the need for legislation of this nature and at this time. I assure the Committee that the Government share wholeheartedly the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to the principles underlying the Bill. However, there are undoubtedly some aspects of the Bill with which we would disagree or which we believe are already achieved through existing provisions. There would also be major cost implications in implementing all that is proposed here, especially at the pace implied.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, asked earlier about the independent living review, which I announced last year. It will report this summer. This 12-month project, led by Jenny Morris with the help of an expert panel chaired by Dame Jane Campbell, is considering whether any changes to legislation are needed to support independent living. Here I should like to congratulate Dame Jane Campbell on being nominated as a People’s Peer. We look forward very much to welcoming her and benefiting from her great expertise in this House. The panel is developing a five-year strategy to deliver independent living for disabled people. However, it is not possible at this stage to make any statements about the final recommendations of the project.
All of this demonstrates our shared commitment with my noble friend Lord Ashley, but we do not believe it is necessary to deliver our common goals by means of imposing legislation, at least until we have the results of the important review of independent living. I am grateful to my noble friend for again giving us the opportunity to discuss these extremely important issues.
I appreciate the comments made by my noble friend, but I disagree with her about the timing. I believe that we should get on with things now rather than wait. We have had many investigations, inquiries and reports and we could go on like that without ever reaching a determined end. I am confident that my noble friend has the welfare of disabled people very much at heart and that she will do all she can. None the less, my fear is that, with the Government adopting this position, things will just drag on while the need for strong legislation is urgent. However, I accept what she has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
4: Clause 3 , page 3, line 35, at end insert “by the Secretary of State”
5: Clause 3 , page 5, line 11, at end insert “or by the Secretary of State where so specified”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [National independent living strategy]:
moved Amendment No. 6:
6: Clause 4 , page 6, line 9, after “practical” insert “advice, advocacy,”
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. These amendments address Clause 4, which is probably the heart of the Bill. They have been tabled to draw attention to the need for advocacy and support for any form of independent living. Making sure that you actually get the right advice and that it is delivered in a way that can be understood is crucial to anyone who wants to conduct their life in their own way. Knowing what is out there and engaging in an interchange of ideas is vital. I suggest that Amendment No. 6 would strengthen the core aim of the Bill.
The same is true of Amendment No. 7, which would enable people to go to the organisations that are effectively the bulwark of those support groups which actually help people through advice and advocacy procedures. The organisations for and, better still, of disabled people that address these issues on a day-to-day basis will be the best source of practical information for those involved in giving the right advice.
I commend both of these amendments to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and I hope he will take them in the spirit in which they were put forward. The amendments will strengthen the Bill and I hope that he will feel able to support them. I beg to move.
While I was chairman of the Stroke Association, as I was for 10 years, I would have reacted like a scorpion to the second of these amendments. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Addington, intends the organisations referred to in Amendment No. 7 to be provided by the taxpayer, they would also have to cover the various charities which do such enormously good work for disabled people. I would be very surprised if many of those charities would agree to such an amendment to this Bill or any government legislation, should they come forward with yet another amending Bill to the Disability Discrimination Act.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this amendment. It would be prudent to include specific reference in Clause 4 to advice and advocacy for disabled people and to funding for disability organisations. This business of advocacy is vital for disabled people, and it must be considered as part of the national independent living strategies. I applaud the work done by the National Centre for Independent Living in supporting disabled people with direct payments and building the capacity of local support groups in spite of inadequate funding, and indeed its work in campaigning for the Bill. It has been vociferous in its advocacy of the Bill. I readily accept the amendments.
Despite the warning shot from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I believe that those organisations for disabled people have to be in the Bill because they are such a bank of knowledge. We may be able to correct the wording slightly, but their information must be in here. I suggest that the amendments will strengthen the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 7:
7: Clause 4 , page 6, line 10, after “living” insert “(including, in particular, that provided by organisations for disabled people)”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Further duties of local authorities]:
moved Amendment No. 7A:
7A: Clause 6, Page 7, line 8, after “accommodation” insert “, a register thereof”
The noble Lord said: I regret to say that I put this amendment down very late. I warned the Minister that I had done so, but unfortunately I was unable to inform the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
Members of the Committee—though not, I fear, the Minister, who I do not think was in her position at the time—will remember the debates we had during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill over the winter of 2005. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was pressed on all sides, both in Committee and on Report, to legislate for local authorities to set up accessible housing registers, listing all properties in their area that had been adapted to make life easier for disabled living. We were told that, however much the Government approved of what was proposed, that Bill was not the place to legislate. The then Minister went on to say that she did not feel the amendments proposed were necessary anyway because the subject was covered by a local authority circular, by which means the Government encourage local authorities to maintain lists of suitable accessible properties for disabled people.
I shall quote from the only paragraph in that circular, which is called Revision of the Code of Guidance on the allocation of accommodation, and was published in 2002:
“The Secretary of State recommends housing authorities to maintain lists of properties which are suitable for disabled people and other special needs groups. These lists could be made available to relevant applicants as part of the general information supplied to applicants under section 166”—
of the Housing Act—I think of 1992, but I would not swear to it. Anyway, the circular explains what ought to happen under that Act. It goes on:
“Such lists might include all accessible or significantly adapted local authority stock”—
registered social landlord properties—
“and private sector properties to which authorities nominate tenants”.
So far as I know, that circular has never been updated. It is pretty darned weak.
We on this side of the Committee agree with the Government that, to quote 1066 and All That, accessible housing registers are “A Good Thing”. The question that this Bill allows me to ask is: how successful has that paragraph in that circular been in persuading local authorities of the benefit of such registers? How many local authorities have set one up? Do the Government agree that these registers save money? The housing department in Bradford believes that its register saves £1 million a year. This does not mean that less money is invested; it spends far more on adaptations than previously. The two things do not necessarily go together, but the department’s savings come from void/rent losses, and officer and customer time savings.
The Bill is all about making life easier for disabled people, enabling them to live as normal a life as their disabilities will allow them. Yet again, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on persevering with it. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with me that life for disabled people would be made a lot easier if they did not have to trudge around looking at properties which were unsuitable for their needs, before alighting on one that would fit in with the easier life that we all want them to lead. I beg to move.
The register of housing availability sounded like a good idea when I first heard about it when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and I were working on the previous Bill. It is still a good idea; it still offers tremendous savings. If this is not the right way of bringing it into this Bill, I would be interested in seeing one that is.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, both for giving me advance notice of his amendment and for explaining why he has suggested this addition to the Bill. I well understand his interest, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in the availability of accessible accommodation to meet the needs of disabled people, which is very important. I made inquiries of the DCLG, which confirmed that it does not hold a central record of the number of local authorities that maintain an accessible housing register. Therefore, I regret that I cannot answer his question in terms how many local authorities have such a register.
It was commented that such registers can save money, as the example in Bradford which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, cited shows. They would therefore seem to be an excellent idea for that reason as well as for all the reasons that he suggested. The Government are still very much in favour of the voluntary approach, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Hollis in the debate to which the noble Lord referred. However, as the circular clearly has not been updated—perhaps it was not even properly circulated—the DCLG should perhaps give attention to it. I will certainly discuss with my noble friend Lady Andrews whether the circulars could at least be updated and some measure taken to ensure that all local authorities were aware of their duty to make them widely available.
It was good of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to apologise for not letting me know about the amendment, but he need not have bothered because the grapevine here is so brilliant that I heard about it within two seconds of his deciding to put it down. I was therefore well aware of it. I cannot understand why the previous Administration resisted such a sensible suggestion. I strongly support the amendment.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for those comments. I am also grateful to the Minister for doing her best at very short notice to answer my question. However, it is not satisfactory to have a paragraph in a circular such as this from the DCLG. There is no record of what, if anything, it has produced. The Government do not want to legislate in this area and are in favour of continuing the voluntary approach. If the voluntary approach is not working, it is the Government’s duty to fix it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 8:
8: Clause 6 , page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (6)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Further duties of NHS bodies]:
moved Amendment No. 9:
9: Clause 7 , page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (5)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Co-operation to promote independent living]:
moved Amendment No. 10:
10: Clause 8 , page 9, line 32, leave out subsection (10)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Independent living strategy]:
moved Amendment No. 11:
11: Clause 9 , page 10, line 2, at end insert “and to improve joint working between children’s and adult services to support families affected by disability”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Duty to identify and maintain register of disabled persons]:
moved Amendment No. 12:
12: Clause 10 , page 10, line 44, after “including” insert “a record of any carers such persons may have and”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Right to self-directed assessment of requirements]:
moved Amendment No. 13:
13: Clause 13 , page 14, line 10, leave out “Regulations shall” and insert “The appropriate authority shall by regulations”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 14:
14: Clause 13 , page 14, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) In this section a reference to an assessment of requirements includes any re-assessment or review of a disabled person’s requirements.”
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 14 and Amendment No. 23, which is grouped alongside it, are about the periodical review of assessments. If an assessment is taken under this Bill and found to give the right support, it should in most cases be reviewed periodically. This will depend on the nature of the person; the condition or disability they have; whether they are improving or deteriorating in terms of physical or mental health, et cetera. Unless we get the review in here, what was appropriate X amount of time ago may still be applied now when it is no longer appropriate and we may end up quite simply wasting money and effort. On Amendment No. 23, the period after a stay in hospital, for instance, might be thought to be the appropriate time to call for a review of any package. I would suggest that the amendments are a sensible way of making sure that if help is given, it is updated and made to be consistently appropriate. I beg to move.
I am happy to accept both amendments. Clearly the more information we can disseminate, the better. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and to the organisation Age Concern for taking such a close interest in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Duty to make arrangements]:
moved Amendment No. 15:
15: Clause 14 , page 14, line 21, leave out “this section” and insert “subsection (5) below”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 16:
16: Clause 14 , page 15, line 22, after “training,” insert “communication skills training,”
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 16, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and was suggested by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, is simply to ensure that explicit reference is included to communications skills training in relation to disabled people’s rights to associated support services. The Bill provides new rights to rehabilitation for groups such as blind and partially sighted people, and specific reference is made in Clause 14(3)(b) to some of the key elements of rehabilitation packages for blind and partially sighted people, namely mobility training, low-vision training and equipment.
Examples of communication skills include learning how to read and write embossed media such as Braille or Moon, making use of writing frames, learning handwriting techniques, continuing to be able to use the telephone and find telephone numbers, and so on. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will see fit to accept this amendment as well. I beg to move.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is doing a very good job, especially on this issue. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in supporting this amendment. I am happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 19:
17: Clause 14 , page 16, line 45, leave out subsection (14)
18: Clause 14 , page 17, line 6, leave out “of” and insert “representing”
19: Clause 14 , page 17, line 7, leave out “of” and insert “representing”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Individual and delegated budgets]:
moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 22:
20: Clause 15 , page 17, line 16, after “regulations” insert “made by the appropriate authority”
21: Clause 15 , page 17, leave out line 42 and insert “The appropriate authority may by regulations make provision—”
22: Clause 15 , page 18, line 11, leave out subsection (8)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Discharge from hospital]:
moved Amendment No. 23:
23: Clause 16 , page 19, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) A disabled person to whom this section applies is entitled to a review of arrangements and a further assessment of his requirement within such reasonable period following his discharge from hospital as may be prescribed.”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 24:
24: Clause 16 , page 19, line 12, leave out subsection (8)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Authorised representative]:
moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
25: Clause 17 , page 19, line 32, after “Regulations” insert “made by the appropriate authority”
26: Clause 17 , page 19, line 38, leave out subsection (5)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Disputes between carers and disabled persons]:
moved Amendment No. 27:
27: Clause 18 , page 20, line 12, leave out subsection (4)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Charging of disabled persons]:
moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
28: Clause 19 , page 21, line 15, leave out “of” and insert “representing”
29: Clause 19 , page 21, line 16, leave out “of” and insert “representing”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Determination of living arrangements]:
moved Amendment No. 30:
30: Clause 21 , page 22, line 6, leave out “in regulations”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Amendment of the Mental Health Act 1983]:
moved Amendment No. 31:
31: Clause 24 , page 24, leave out line 1
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Inspection]:
moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
32: Clause 25 , page 25, line 17, leave out “National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Welsh Ministers”
33: Clause 25 , page 25, line 26, leave out “National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Welsh Ministers”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Advocacy]:
moved Amendment No. 34:
34: Clause 27 , page 27, line 23, leave out subsection (3)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Regulations and orders]:
moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 37:
35: Clause 36 , page 31, line 17, leave out “or orders”
36: Clause 36 , page 31, line 18, after “under” insert “the definition of “disabled person” contained in section 3 of”
37: Clause 36 , page 31, line 19, at end insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations or orders made by the Secretary of State under any other provision of this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations or orders made by the Welsh Ministers under any provision of this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Commencement and extent]:
moved Amendment No. 38:
38: Clause 38 , page 31, line 29, leave out “National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Welsh Ministers”
The noble Lord said: I hope that I am in order in thanking the Deputy Chairman for conducting these proceedings in such a tactful and helpful way, for which I am most grateful. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.