I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a technical amendment, which applies only to Scotland. It arises because of the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trail in Scotland. A prosecutor must prove the nature and contents of a container, such as a bottle or a tin, and evidence would require to be led of scientific analysis of the contents having been carried out by two forensic scientists. That is so even when the contents are specified on a label on the container or where the nature of the contents is not a matter of dispute between the Crown and the accused.

The amendment will do away with the need for full scientific examination in every case by creating a presumption, for the purposes of any trial, that any substance in a container, whether or not the container is sealed, shall be presumed to conform to the description of the substance in the container.

It is important to emphasise that that is a rebuttable presumption and does not compromise the accused's position. When the matter is contentious the accused can insist on full scientific proof. Under subsection (7) the prosecutor must give notice to an accused person of his intention to rely on the presumption, and thereafter it is open to the accused to give counter-notice of his intention to challenge the presumption.

The use of the presumption is, therefore, expected only in cases when the matter is not in dispute. In such cases, much time and expense will be saved in proceeding to trial without needing full scientific evidence. I understand that there are precedents for that principle.

The amendment would do away with the need for a procurator fiscal in Scotland to have the contents of packets of Skoal Bandits or cigarettes chemically analysed if all parties agree that the packet contains what it says it contains. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for introducing this useful technical amendment in the other place, because it should further simplify the prosecution of those who sell tobacco products to young people under 16, but it will not prejudice the fundamental rights of the defendant.

I do not wish to delay the House, in view of the importance of our next business. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his excellent Bill for the benefit of disabled people and I am pleased that I was able to assist him during its Committee stage. However, I shall dwell on my own Bill for another couple of minutes, because the amendment provides a useful opportunity to press the Minister on the enforcement of the Bill when, as we hope, it comes into effect in about three months' time.

The Bill has two fundamental purposes. The first is to make it easier to prosecute those who sell cigarettes to youngsters. It is a national scandal that this poisonous trade is being carried on to the tune of £90 million a year. A new generation is getting hooked on the lethal addiction to nicotine and we expect the Government and the prosecuting and police authorities to take action to deter the trade when the Bill comes into effect.

The most recent Government figures show that fewer than 50 prosecutions a year are made against those involved in the £90 million trade. It is clear that the old legislation has become a dead letter. My Bill should make it possible to crack down on that trade and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is his intention.

The second intention of the Bill is to extend the ban on the sale of tobacco to youngsters to include tobacco for oral and nasal use, which specifically includes the notorious Skoal Bandits. Many of us would like to ban these dangerous products altogether, and it is nonsense that the people who produce them have been able to escape the ban on sales to youngsters. They are exempt from tobacco duty, they do not yet have to carry a Government health warning on the products and the United States tobacco company that manufactures them has even had a Government grant to establish a factory in East Kilbride.

I hope that my Bill will be the beginning of the end for Skoal Bandits in Britain. I am grateful to the House for supporting this measure to deal with a serious problem, and I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead for piloting the Bill through another place.

We must stress that legislation is not enough. It must be enforced, to deter the unscrupulous people involved in this trade. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to crack down on this trade as soon as the Bill comes into effect.

The Opposition welcome the amendment. It is useful, in that it will speed up justice and save time and administrative costs in a number of cases. In the past, prosecutions may not have been successful because the evidence has not been proved beyond doubt or because it was suggested that the contents of a box were different from those described on the label. Do the terms of the amendment already apply in England? If not, why has a similar procedure not been introduced to save the public analyst's time when a dispute arises?

Finally, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on bringing the Bill forward. It will be a useful addition to our legislation. Under-age smoking is one of the most serious questions before us, and if this small step helps young people not to become addicted to nicotine before the age of 16, as I am sure it will, all hon. Members will welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has rightly pointed out that this is a technical amendment that arises because of the rules of evidence applicable to a criminal trial in Scotland. The amendment applies only to Scotland, and I can tell the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that I understand a similar problem does not arise in England. The hon. Member for East Lothian spelt out clearly the reasons for the amendment and it would serve no purpose for me to repeat them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's intention regarding enforcement of the Bill. Clause 3(3) states that the Act will come into effect three months after the day on which it is passed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to have a wide-ranging publicity campaign through the Scottish Information Office, to educate the public and we shall bring the Bill to the attention of health boards, the police and prosecuting authorities in Scotland.

I am sure that the passing of the Bill and the publicity which it receives will have a substantial deterrent effect on those who may be tempted to sell tobacco or tobacco products to young people below the statutory age. Clearly there is limit to the extent to which chief constables can deploy resources to combat the problem, but I am sure that they will have due regard to it within the competing demands on their resources.

Finally, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on steering the Bill so successfully through and I assure him that Ministers with responsibility for health will use their best endeavours in the current discussions with United States Tobacco to ensure that Skoal Bandits are not sold to anyone below the appropriate age.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—

"(2A) In relation to a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed by virtue of subsection (3) of section (Appointment of authorised repesentatives of disabled persons), subsections (1) and (2) above shall each have effect as follows—

(a) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection(3) (a) of that section, the words "the parent or guardian of" shall be inserted after the words "if so requested by";and

(b) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) or (c) of that section, the words "if so requested by the disabled person" shall be omitted."

No. 3, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—

"(aa) in hospital accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, in hospital accommodation (other than accommodation at a State hospital) provided by the Secretary of State under section 36(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, or"

No. 4, in page 2, line 45, at end insert—

"(4A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) "voluntary organisation" in relation to England and Wales includes a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985."

No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 34.

No. 6, in page 3, line 37, after "appropriate" insert

"and such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned"

No. 7, in page 4, line 2, at end insert—

"(9A) An order under subsection (9) may provide for any provision of regulations made under section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) to have effect for the purposes of the order with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, and in that event the reference in subsection (1) of that section to regulations made under that section shall be read as a reference to any such regulations as they have effect in accordance with the order."

No. 9, in page 4, leave out line 8.

No. 10, in page 4, line 9, at beginning insert "and"

Before I address the detailed amendments to clause 1. I want to make a few general comments about the progress of the Bill in another place.

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to keep in order. We must address ourselves to the content of the amendments before the House.

As one who has witnessed the expertise from the Chair this morning in controlling difficulties on other measures, I shall do my utmost to keep in order. However, it is appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Masham of Ilton who steered through almost 100 amendments in concert with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Baroness Trumpington, to whom warm thanks are also due, especially in view of her other responsibilities.

The small band of civil servants — indeed, key officials — in the DHSS has also laboured hard to improve the Bill. They, in consultation with Mr. Peter Mitchell, Mr. John Healy and Mr. William Bingley, have done a superb job in bringing the Bill to the House in its present shape with the new clause and the amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that they have made our task this morning a great cleat easier and we must thank them for it.

I apologise to the House for the reams of Lords amendments, including those that we are now discussing, which need to be considered today. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate that another place was in many ways compelled to do the Committee work on the Bill that emerged from this House which might will have been done upstairs if Ministers had accepted rather earlier the principles which I am now happy to say they so warmly espouse.

Clause 1 has been split into two for convenience. The new clause contains all the provisions relating to the appointment of authorised representatives by disabled people or on their behalf. Most of the new clause consists of regulation-making powers in relation to the complex balance needed where the disabled person is unable to appoint someone himself.

After five months of intense thought by all concerned, including a seminar held at MIND — to whom the presence of these clauses are largely due—it has been concluded that there are no organisations in the country other than local authorities on which the duty to make the necessary arrangements for these people could be laid in primary legislation. I understand that "double delegation" would have been frowned on by the courts—that is, giving the Secretary of State a free hand to choose the intermediary bodies at a later date and also giving those bodies the power to delegate the responsibility as they wish.

Nevertheless, the local authority will also he the authority providing the services in relation to which the representative will operate. This potential conflict of interest is not wholly satisfactory, as the Minister will probably agree. One of the most important characteristics of the concept of representation or advocacy for disabled people as it has developed in this country and abroad is that the representative owes sole loyalty to the disabled person and is truly independent of the service-providing authority.

Where representatives are perhaps too pushy, too demanding, or too successful, there may be a temptation to get rid of them. It is vital that once the Bill becomes an Act careful consideration is given to the rules that will cover this issue to ensure that sufficient independence is built into the procedure, especially where, under (4) (b) (i) local authorities appoint representatives themselves. Therefore, the wording of the amendments explicitly leaves open the possibility that the local authority might set up a panel, or appoint a voluntary organisation, to fulfil this function so that it can remain at arm's length. I wish to make only one other brief comment on the procedures relating to adults who are unable to make an appointment themselves on account of incapacity. The decision whether someone is unable to appoint an authorised representative himself may not be cut and dried, and the amendments include a stipulation that the regulations may require the advice of a doctor. However, they also allow others to be consulted on that question. Those caring full-time for a disabled person may have valid views on this as valid as a doctor, who only sees a person occasionally.

11.30 am

On the detail of new clause 1, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for disabled children. In most cases parents will appoint representatives for their children, but at a late stage the Department expressed concern about parents who had, for example, harmed their children in some way. Therefore, the amendments envisage the appointment of an authorised representative for children in care, to be made by the local authority. Unfortunately, at a stage too late for amendment, it was pointed out that there might be a few children who had neither a parent nor guardian and who were not in the care of a local authority.

Perhaps I may be permitted a mild criticism. Some of the technical problems with what was, after all, the Government's new clause — which was introduced on Report — have been rather late in emerging. Nevertheless, I do not want to appear to be ungrateful or churlish. I am convinced that the new clause provides an adequate framework for achieving the Bill's intentions.

I am sure that you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is little to say about Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 to clause 1, which are largely consequential. However, amendment No. 3 is most important, and will greatly assist people who are seeking to move from hospital into the community. It allows access for the authorised representative to people in hospital in advance of the general extension of the clause to the NHS. I am rather sorry that it appears there is some accommodation for children in England and Wales—but not apparently in Scotland — excluded from the list. Again, that was discovered rather late in the day. However, I am assured that that will be tidied up in the forthcoming child care Bill, and the Minister may also have something to say about that.

In connection with amendment No. 6, may I ask the Minister when he intends to commence the consultation regarding the extension of the clauses to the NHS and other local authority services. The vast majority of people and organisations, in response to the Government's consultative document on the Bill earlier this year, expressed concern that the Bill recognises the representative only in relation to social services provided by a local authority. As I am sure that the House would agree, one of the main purposes of representation is to prevent disabled people from falling through the net of services that are increasingly provided by different authorities. It makes little sense to limit the scope of a representative to just the social services.

Finally, it might be appropriate if the Minister, when he responds to each group of amendments, could say when he expects to be able to bring each clause into force. I am aware of the Minister's commitment to the principles of the Bill, and I welcome that. It was helpful at several stages. I am sure that he appreciates the despondency, not to say anger, that would be widespread in the country if key parts of the Act languished ineffectually on the statute book.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose assistance I most readily acknowledge, just as my fellow sponsors would do, received a letter from the Prime Minister which was rightly widely publicised, and which is relevant to this clause and the amendments. In response to my right hon. Friend's question about resources, she did not appear to be particularly generous. I must admit that that happened at a fairly early stage in our discussions, and so, given the Government's rethink on these matters and the Minister's input, especially in recent months, I hope that it will be accepted that this part of the Bill will lack true meaning unless the necessary resources are provided.

I do not believe that the House or the other place would appreciate any Government who hid behind the Treasury in saying that the resources cannot be made available. After all, both Houses have expressed themselves clearly on the priorities that we hope to identify. Today of all days, on 4 July, it is important to assert the independence of disabled persons. They are intitled to that independence. They are entitled to enjoy the same liberties as the rest of us: true liberty in the meaningful sense of that word. I believe that the Bill will assist in many ways in achieving that objective, which is widely shared by both Houses and by the people of this country. We know that the authorities want to implement the Bill. The message from this House, supported overwhelmingly by the country at large, must be, "Give them the money, and let them get on with the job."

Unhappily, in the past seven years or so there has been some diminution and erosion of elements of our social services provision, and that has adversely affected some groups of people. Probably no group has suffered more as a result than handicapped persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has, therefore, done a great job in introducing a Bill that at least makes some contribution towards making up for the losses that have been sustained by handicapped persons. He has earned himself much credit in the House, and if there is a heaven he has earned himself some good Brownie points there.

I rise only to ask about some minor points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has unparalleled expertise in this area, and perhaps he will be able to put me right. Subsection 4(a) of the amendment requires the local authority to

"obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner"

and would seem to be a sensible provision, but subsection 4(c) requires the local authority to consult

"(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or

(ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description."

What sort of people could they be if their views were authoritative but if they were not medical practitioners? Why has a distinction been drawn?

Incidentally, there is also a typographical error on page (3) of the Amendment Paper, in that at the end of line 5 there are some closing inverted commas for which there do not appear to be any corresponding opening commas. I just mention that so that the error can be put right when the Bill is reprinted, as it will have to be.

What is the reason for amendment No. 9, which would leave out line 8? Its effect would apparently be to leave that part of the Bill without any definition of a health board. I cannot think why we should want to define everything else except that. But perhaps I have misread it, and if so I apologise.

Order. I shall try to help the House by pointing out that the closing inverted commas to which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred are those which appear to follow the opening inverted commas at the beginning of the second line of amendment No. 1.

I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. I hope that within a short time it will complete its passage through Parliament.

I ask for some clarification of the Government's intentions with regard to Amendment No. 1. Proposed subsection (4)(b) says that regulations may make provision

"for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disable person is so unable, either—

(i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or"

alternatively

"any voluntary organisation, person or persons".

I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is intended to make that a hard and fast provision. Subsection (4) is a permissive provision under which a local authority may appoint a representative. I should like an undertaking that that will happen. We discussed in Committee the position of those who were severely handicapped who could not appoint representatives of their own. Those are the people who most need the Bill's provisions.

Clause 1(9) presents another aspect of concern. I should like confirmation that the changes made in the other place help rather than hinder the progress for which we hope by extending the provisions to health authorities and local authorities where appropriate. Many people feel that such a provision is needed. I hope that there is no diminution in our intention to extend the provision in that direction in due course. Again, subsection (9) is a permissive provision. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that he hopes to move in that direction at an early date after the implementation of the Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his hard work and his achievements in getting the Bill to this stage. I hope that I shall not again detain hon. Members for too long.

On this important day for my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has my warmly renewed congratulations and for whom I am full of admiration, I know that he will join me in paying tribute to the sustained and invaluable help he has received at all stages of the Bill's consideration from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who, sadly, is not able, because of constituency commitments, to be with us this morning. My right hon. Friend has played a distinguished part in all our proceedings on the Bill, and he will be as active in campaigning for the Bill's full and speedy implementation as he has been in its making.

I know that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) regret very much that they cannot be here for these final proceedings. As the House knows they, too, are tried, trusted and widely respected campaigners for disabled people.

11.45 am

This is an important part of the Bill. It brings representation into rehabilitation, which could do much, given the support that it merits, to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and to ease the strain on families. Much progress has been made over the years in strengthening the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and in extending its implementation. Yet all too often the emphasis has been too much on what the providers of help under the Act think best rather than on what its recipients see as most likely to meet their needs. Now we seek to redress that imbalance, and, as the House as a whole must agree, not before time.

Rehabilitation is best defined as giving the disabled person the right help in the right place and at the right time. The disabled person and/or his or her representative have an important role in ensuring this, and I welcome the painstaking work that has been done in another place.

With regard to subsection (4), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred, for perfectly acceptable reasons the procedures for the appointment of representatives have not been fully worked out. The clause is, of course, designed to give the DHSS sufficient flexibility in writing the regulations. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to my hon. Friend's important points.

The most important issue is whether we can extract from the Minister dates for the implementation of each clause and a commitment to allocate the necessary resources. I want strongly to press the issue at this first opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to the Prime Minister's letter to me of 24 April, in which she said:

"The Government have made it clear that, if the Bill is enacted, it would not be possible to make commencement orders to bring into effect the provisions of the Bill which have significant financial implications until such time as the necessary funds could be made available."

That is just not good enough. I hope that the Minister will now give us much better news than that conveyed by the Prime Minister. For this and other key parts of the Bill to lie impotently on the statute book, without being brought into force, would be widely seen as a betrayal of the many thousands of people with disabilities whose initiative and lobbying helped to create this important and humane Bill. I welcome the work done by Lady Masham and others on both sides of the House in the other place and urge the Minister now to give us the best possible guidance that he can on implementation and the provision of resources.

I, too, begin be extending my congratulations to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his success in steering the Bill to this position, which we hope is almost the last stage before royal assent, to all the hon. Members and people who have been mentioned in the debate who have played an important and supportive part and to my noble Friends, who were rightly mentioned, for their work in the other place.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West made what for him must count, I suppose, as a slightly acid remark about how we might have had fewer amendments in the other place if the Government had behaved differently earlier in the Commons. I do not want to sully this morning's proceedings by engaging in an argument along those lines.

Although this is unquestionably the Bill of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, the Government have clutched it to their hearts with considerable enthusiasm, as reflected in the devoted work of DHSS officials, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly played tribute. I wish to add to that tribute. I was in some confusion when contemplating this debate as to whether the hon. Gentleman or I was supposed to be moving that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I am sure that it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have done so. That is the spirit in which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends approached the Bill, although I would have been happy to have undertaken that task.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West has already explained that the main substantive change to this part of the Bill, introduced in another place, is that the clause now spells out in more detail the Secretary of State's power to make provision by regulations for the appointment of representatives for disabled people who, because of mental or physical incapacity, are unable to appoint someone themselves. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said on Report that further consultation with the Bill's sponsors would be needed on that matter in relation to the Bill as it then stood. I am delighted that those consultations have produced the reasonably satisfactory outcome which we now have before us. We do now genuinely have a sound legislative basis for the provision of representatives for disabled people.

Hon. Members have raised many points during the brief proceeding. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have kindly spared me the task of pointing out to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the inverted commas at the end correspond with the inverted commas at the beginning. That is not a matter which need detain the House for long. For all I know it may be that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar has some other motives for raising these points which are, at the moment, obscure to me.

Heaven forbid.

I will not speculate further on that.

The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar did raise some other points, especially in relation to subsection 4 of the new clause, about the types of person, other than medical practitioners, whom we might envisage being involved. We had in mind carers and relatives in particular. However, there will be full consultations on the details of the use of the powers in that subsection. He also asked about the reference to health boards and why they were not defined. The reference to health boards was deleted because it has been included in the general definitional clause 12 under amendment 78.

The child care aspect of the clause was raised by the hon. Member for Monk lands, West. I used to be, although have not been for some time now, the Minister responsible for child care matters. If one starts to look into the complexity of current child care law and the various provisions under which children may be taken into care and the associated provisions, they are of almost incredible complexity. It is a pity that the Department has not spotted every last arcane corner of this aspect in its work, but I cannot say that I am entirely surprised. We shall certainly seek to remedy any defects that there may prove to be in the legislation which, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government are hoping to undertake in relation to child care law generally. Meanwhile, I accept what he said about the need for careful consultation and we shall seek to meet any of those tidying up points in the way that I have described.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked about the proposed Subsection (4)(b) and what we have in mind there. We are not proposing a compulsory duty on local authorities to set up arrangements for appointing representatives for people unable to act. We feel that that should be left to local decision in the light of local priorities. I hope that that does not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman because my understanding is that that has been made clear to the Bill's sponsors throughout all the proceedings.

I am afraid that it does come as somewhat of a surprise because, at earlier stages of discussion, we made our belief clear that the right to representation should be a right to a disabled person. If that person, because of his or her disability, cannot exercise that right, it should not be any less of a right. That requires there to be a responsibility either for a local authority or somebody else to make that appointment. I am not splitting hairs as to who should be doing it, but I am absolutely certain that somebody should be doing it.

It comes as a bit of a shock at this late stage to understand that it will be left to the whim of a local authority. The local authority may not use the powers available and disabled people would miss out. It may be too late at this stage of the Bill to change anything in terms of the provisions of legislation but I press the Minister strongly to think further on this matter. It does not put an additional cost on local authorities. It is a duty that can be put on them very reasonably and disabled people would expect that to happen.

I note what the hon. Gentleman said and I will think further about it. He knows me well enough to know that it would be my hope and expectation that these provisions should be used. However, we have to think with some care before deciding to go down the track of compulsion against the background of a position in which, whatever resources are made available local authorities will have a range of decisions to make about the balance of priorities and the way in which they use particular provisions and provide services generally. However, I note, not merely as a routine gesture, the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made and the strength with which he feels about this matter.

In case I have misunderstood more in relation to these provisions, could the Minister confirm that a disabled person who is capable of appointing a representative does have that as of right, under the provisions of the Bill? What we are saying is that the right exists without question for people capable of exercising it and it is only those most in need and who are incapable of exercising it who will not have it as a right.

That is a slightly tendentious way of putting it. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right in respect of the right of disabled people to appoint representatives. The issue is whether we should impose a duty on local authorities of the kind he described in relation to those unable to appoint representatives for themselves. There is probably very little between us. Indeed, there is probably nothing between us about what we would like to see. However, I would not wish to disguise from the hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is not in our mind to impose that duty on local authorities. I shall reflect further on what he has said although, manifestly, there is now no further opportunity for amending the Bill.

The main thrust of the remarks from virtually every direction, certainly from the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), concerned the question of implementation of this clause and other provisions in the Bill. There is no doubt that the representation provision will have clear resource implications for local authorities and, if the provisions are extended to them, for health authorities. At this stage I cannot attempt to give a precise estimate of what those costs might be because that is something that needs to be assessed in further consultation with the authorities concerned. It would be wrong for me to attempt to second-guess the outcome of that further work in advance.

The House knows already, because it was said on several occasions during the proceedings in the House and, no doubt in the other place, that the total annual cost of implementing the Bill has been estimated to be something in excess of £100 million in a full year. That is not just a figure that the Government have dragged out of the air in order to show some of the difficulties with which we are faced. It rests to a significant extent on the figure that the local authorities have placed on the provisions. It is also clear that the cost of implementing the representation provisions could represent a substantial proportion of that total.

It is only honest for me to say to the House that against that background I cannot, at this stage, give an undertaking as to when resources might be available to bring this part of the Bill into effect. I have already said that I sympathise with and share entirely the wish of hon. Members to press ahead as soon as possible with implementation of the Bill, and I hope to be able to be a little more specific and helpful about some later parts of the Bill that we shall be considering. I have to say, however, that it would be wrong to impose extra burdens on local authorities and health authorities under this part of the Bill and others, which have significant resource implications, until we can ensure that the resources are available to carry them out. It is against that background that we shall have to consider when we are able to bring these provisions into effect.

The Prime Minister appeared to say that this and other parts of the Bill requiring extra finance will not be implemented for the forseeable future. Will the Minister say when he expects this part of the Bill to be brought into effect by commencement order?

I do not think that I can add to what I have already said, which is that the timing of bringing into effect these provisions must depend upon when we are able to ensure that local authorities, and health authorities if the extension takes place, have the necessary resources to carry through the extension. We shall do our best to ensure that we reach that position as soon as possible. I cannot give any undertaking of what "as soon as possible" means in this context. I mean that we shall be working with a view to making progress as rapidly as we reasonably can.

It is in the light of these considerations that we shall have to consider the timing of further consultation on the possible extension of the representation provision to health authorities and to other local authority services, and on the appointment regulations. It may be that there will be work there that can be undertaken in the course of refining what the cost of implementing the proposals would be. That is something to which we shall give careful consideration.

I am sorry not to be able to be more forthcoming with right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that they will take account of the fact that we have been making progress in a variety of ways. If I were in a different frame of mind, I would take up one of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. We have been making progress in various ways in improving both benefits and services for the disabled, and most recently in the extension of the invalid care allowance to married women. I resist any implication by anyone on either side of the House that the Government have not shown their concern to maintain the pace of development in this area.

There are several hon. Members who know as well as anyone that the range of demands, requests and pressures, and the scope for developing both services and social security benefits for the disabled is almost infinite. Careful choices and difficult decision are involved. We shall continue to make what progress we can, but I cannot put a date on the particular piece of progress that we are discussing.

I welcome unreservedly the fact that these provisions are to go onto the statute book. I hope that their mere existence on the statute book will have a helpful effect in causing local authorities to think about the way in which they seek to meet the perceived needs and wishes of disabled people in the way in which they provide services.

I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 12, in page 4, line 26, leave out from "(1)" to "the" in line 29 and insert

" , or the period mentioned in that subsection has expired without any such representations being made, and the authority have reached a decision on the question referred to in that subsection (having taken into account any representations made as mentioned above)"

No. 13, in page 4, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

"(a) either specifying—

(i) any needs of the disabled person which in the opinion of the authority call for the provision by them of any statutory services, and

(ii) in the case of each such need, the statutory services that they propose to provide to meet that need,

or stating that, in their opinion, the disabled person has no needs calling for the provision by them of any such services; and

(b) giving an explanation of their decision; and

(c) containing particulars of the right of the disabled person or his authorised representative to make representations with respect to the statement under subsection (4)."

No. 14, in page 4, line 40, leave out from "services" to end of line 43.

No. 15, in page 5, line 2, leave out from "matter" to "that" in line 3 and insert

"included in the statement supplied under subsection (2)".

No. 16, in page 5, line 6, leave out "further".

No. 17, in page 4, line 6, leave out

"the particular need in question"

and insert "that matter".

No. 18, in page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—

"(a) consider (or, as the case may bc, reconsider) whether any, and (if so) what, statutory services should be provided by them for the disabled person to meet any need identified in the representations; and".

No. 19, in page 5, line 15, after "Where" insert "(a)".

No. 20, in page 5, line 17, after "writing" insert

"(or in each of those ways)".

No. 21, in page 5, line 18, after "incapacity," insert "or

(b) both of those persons are in that position (whether by reason of the same incapacity or not,".

No. 22, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—

"(6A) In determining whether they are required to provide any services under subsection (6) to meet any need of the disabled person or his authorised representative and (if so) what those services should be, the local authority shall have regard to any views expressed by either of those persons as to the necessity for any such services or (as appropriate) to any views so expressed as to the services which should be so provided.".

No. 23, in page 5, line 28, leave out from "both," to end of line 39.

No. 24, after Clause 2 insert the following new Clause—

We are now considering a group of amendments to the clauses which are concerned with local authority assessments in general, and in particular those under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is rightly remembered for his immense contribution in piloting that measure through the House.

Clause 2 was introduced by the Government on Report, and it is fair to say that its substance was widely welcomed when canvassed in the consultation document. On reflection, however, the drafting was seen to be unnecessarily restrictive and would probably have caused more problems for local authorities if there were arguments as to whether a disabled person was entitled to a review.

Broadly speaking, amendments Nos. 11 to 18 ensure that a disabled person or his representative may receive a written statement if they request it after any assessment and may ask for a review of any decision in any circumstances. I shall refer only explicitly to the substantive amendments. Amendment No. 12 gives a right to a written statement even if there had been no representations by a disabled person or his representative before the assessment.

Amendment No. 13 requires the statement to specify the needs of the disabled person as well as the services to be provided to meet them. This may seem a minor clarification but it will prove useful if there is a dispute as to how the needs should be met — for example the common choice between a stairlift or downstairs adaptations on which there is often disagreement between disabled people and the social services. In combination with amendments Nos. 14 and 18, it provides the right of review on anything in the statement.

Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 clarify the right of either a disabled person or his representative to assistance if either or both have a communication handicap. Amendment No. 56 to clause 5 extends this right to communication assistance to carers during a local authority assessment of the disabled person. New subsection (6A), introduced by amendment No. 22, attempts to meet some of the concern expressed principally by the British Deaf Association. In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his representative, who are, of course, uniquely qualified to identify what is required.

During the passage of the Bill through both Houses there has been some confusion over the right to ask for an assessment for services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, in particular in relation to the carers' clause, where many right hon. and hon. Members believed that it was essential for carers to have the independent right to ask for an assessment of the person for whom they were caring. The purpose of this was to prevent their own possible breakdown and enable the social services to fill the gaps so that the disabled person could continue living in his own home on the basis of genuine shared care.

To be frank, I never really understood Ministers' objections to the original carers' clause, and I said so at the time; but, being a reasonable person, despite the acid comments which I might make from time to time, I accepted the half loaf that the Government offered on Report and rested content with three and a half of the four key points I was asking the House to accept then. During discussions since then, however, the Department agreed to introduce the new clause after clause 2. Happily it is one of the most comprehensible clauses in the Bill and puts beyond doubt the duty of a local authority to assess the need of a disabled person for any of the services listed in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on request of the disabled person, his or her authorised representative or the carer as defined in clause 5.

Apart from the carers' issue a problem has arisen, certainly for lay people and even for some lawyers, from the complex drafting of section 2 of the 1970 Act. Although the best legal advice and, indeed, the departmental circular issued in August 1970, has always maintained that a local authority has a duty to make an assessment, this is not stated clearly in that section, and as recently as February 1986 a disabled person received a letter from a chief executive's department which flatly denied that the duty existed.

Baroness Masham quoted at length from this letter when moving this new clause in another place, and I shall not repeat it here. I shall only restate my thanks to Ministers for responding to the concern expressed. I can now claim to have at least three and three quarters of what I was seeking on Report—and even a bit more.

However, there are still some fears, among disabled people that clause 5 could be misinterpreted and encourage local authorities to look to residential care as a solution rather than to provide the domiciliary help specified in the 1970 Act. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that his Department's circular will be explicit on this point, and state unreservedly that the purpose of the Act is to enable disabled people to remain living in their own homes as long as they wish to do so.

Finally, on implementation, the new clause should come into force immediately as it is simply a confirmation of the existing law. There should be no difficulties. Not to do so might increase the confusion as some people might think assessments were not necessary until it was in force. I also hope that clauses 2 and 5 could come into force next April, as there is nothing totally new involved. Many local authorities, all of which have been widely consulted, will have to make only minimal adaptations to their procedures, although some will obviously have to take their responsibilities under the existing law more seriously and thereby incur greater expense.

I am bound to say, with all the charity that I can muster, that amendment No. 11 is nonsensical. It replaces one definition with another that says exactly the same thing, but takes much longer to say it. We can always be sure that when departmental lawyers start to draft amendments they will ensure that the revised wording is a good deal longer than the wording that went before, even if it says the same thing.

In this case, four words are replaced by 23. Let me paraphrase what the two versions say. The first says, "on any occasion". The second one says, "on any particular occasion or any other occasion." Can anybody tell me, in terms of the well of English, pure and undefiled, what difference there is between those phrases? I can find no difference,. What would be the difference between a ticket from London Transport that said, "This ticket entitles you to travel to any station on the system", and one that said, "This ticket entitles you to travel to Piccadily Circus or any other station on the system."? What would be the difference between my referring to every hon. Member and referring to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and any other hon. Member? This is just a piece of normal, legalistic verbal diarrhoea that comes from the recesses of departmental meetings.

Amendment No. 14 is the only one of their Lordships' amendments with which I disagree, but because I do not wish to waste any time I shall not press my strong disagreement to a Division. The amendment takes away the obligation, when a disabled person has authorised representations that have been turned down, for information that he has the right to make further representations to be given to him. I cannot see any justification for that. It is contrary to all our traditions.

12.15 pm

I can take a parallel from the Minister's Department. If an insurance officer rejects a claim, the notification of the rejection of the claim is accompanied by a notification that the claimant is allowed to appeal against that rejection. In some cases, for example in applications for immigration or entry certificates under the immigration rules, the rejections of representations have the notification that an individual is allowed to make representations to another authority.

Do we not want handicapped people to exercise their rights? What is the good of giving them rights if we do not facilitate the exercise of those rights? We must remember that we are talking about people who are badly handicapped. In the nature of things, many handicapped people and their representatives will not know, when their application is turned down, that they have a right to come back. Why should we not tell them? This is an infringement of civil liberties. If we had been in other circumstances than midday on Friday, I should have wanted to divide the House against the amendment.

As in the previous group of amendments, if this group is implemented, it will involve some expenditure, perhaps more than that occasioned under the previous group. When dealing with that group, the Minister said —doubtless he will say the same thing on this group when pressed — that he could give no guarantees about implementation. It is a little hollow for him to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on all the work that he has done and his achievement in getting the Bill so far if he will not provide the wherewithal for the Bill to be effective. My hon. Friend cannot provide the wherewithal. It must come from public funds. Although local authorities are involved, we know that with the inextricable weaving of local and national finances, the extent to which the Bill will be implemented, if at all, depends on the extent to which the Minister can chisel a bit more money out of one who is probably the most uncaring Chancellor of the Exchequer this century.

Unless the Minister is prepared to have a bash at the Chancellor, his congratulations to my hon. Friend are hollow. It is only my charitable nature that prevents me from using a more perjorative word than that. I urge the Minister to try to put money from the Chancellor where his mouth is.

I intervene to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said about implementation of clauses 2 and 5 and to endorse his submission that the clauses could and should come into force at the beginning of the next financial year, in April 1987. We are at the beginning of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee annual round. There is thus plenty of time for additional money needed by local authorities to be built into the rate support grant. Will the Minister be pressing for that to happen? In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), will he be tryng his best to influence the Treasury fully to implement the Bill at the earliest possible date?

There are some who feel that the local authority associations have been "bidding" up the costs of clause 2 for wholly understandable reasons. They see a close parallel with the Government's volte face over the invalid care allowance. As soon as the Government were forced by the European Court to extend the benefit to married women, the cost of doing so fell both inexplicably and dramatically.

I am convinced that once the Bill becomes an Act and the local authorities and the Department of Health and Social Security start serious negotiations, within the scope of next year's social services expenditure, the hon. Gentleman will end up with an estimate of its cost which he will be able to persuade his colleagues is both acceptable and excellent value for money. Certainly it would be far better value for money than most of the substantial amounts that his Department currently pays out in board-and-lodging payments to rather dubious private homes.

The Government have cut social security spending by £11·1 billion, while giving £4·4 billion in tax cuts to those earning more than £30,000 a year. When they came to power, the Government promised to "single out" disabled people for special help. Yet all of us, on both sides of the House, know from our mail bags and from our meetings with disabled people that many of them complain today of being "singled out" for special hardship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to new subsection (7), which meets some of the concern that has been expressed by the British Deaf Association. In determining both the need for communication assistance and the nature of that assistance, the local authority must have regard to the views expressed by the disabled person or his or her representative. I am extremely glad that there has been some, even if still an inadequate, response to the very important representations made to all hon. Members by the British Deaf Association.

I turn to clause 4, which is about services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This clause, inserted in the other place, confirms the right of a disabled person to an assessment of his need for any of the services listed in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now anticipating matters that are set down for debate later on. He will note that amendments Nos. 34, 35 and so on deal with clause 4, but we have not yet reached them.

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My purpose was to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West, who told the House of a letter that was written to a disabled person by a chief executive, in which he said that there was no duty to assess. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise his deep concern about that letter. There is a duty to assess, and clause 4 puts the matter beyond doubt. It also confirms the right of a carer to ask for an assessment of a disabled person for whom he is caring, which goes some way towards restoring the essence of the original clause 5, which the Government insisted upon deleting on Report in this House.

I hope that the Minister will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend and that he will return to the vital questions of implementation and resources.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has very clearly and helpfully set out the purpose of the various provisions that we are discussing and I shall not attempt to go over the same ground. As he made clear, a written statement can now be requested, whether or not the disabled person made representations before the assessment was made, and subsequent representations can now be made if the local authority has indicated that it is prepared to meet some but not all of the needs which the disabled person himself or herself has identified.

I shall take note of what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said in one of his engaging and frequent interventions during our proceedings this morning about amendment No. 14. However, if he studies the affects of amendments Nos. 11 to 18 he will see that representation rights, far from being reduced, as he half implied in his remarks, have been extended by the work that has been undertaken in another place in the cooperative spirit that has pervaded most of our proceedings. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will welcome that.

I welcome in particular the amendment that, as has been acknowledged, has been made largely in response to representations by the British Deaf Association not least because, as the Scottish or near-Scottish hon. Member who is present in the Chamber will be interested to hear. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) recently made a substantial expedition to Rothesay on the Isle of Bute for two hours on one morning to address the triennial congress of the British Deaf Association. I am well aware of the importance that it attaches to some of these provisions and to improving the rights of disabled people generally. It is good that we have been able to respond to its interests and representations. That provision requires local authorities, when considering whether interpretation services are required, to have regard to the views of the disabled person on the need for such services and, if considered appropriate, what they should be.

I apologise for having commented in the absence of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar on his first point, but the other point that he raised with me related to the reason for the drafting of amendment No. 11 in that particular way. I have been advised to say that—

The hon. Gentleman does not believe it, does he?

I do not think that I am qualified to comment on the draftsman's choice of words. What is apparent, though, is that neither I nor my officials have the faintest notion of why the draftsman chose to draft the amendment in that way. I shall not, therefore, attempt to go further, other than to say that, so far as I can see, it does not damage anyone's interests. It may improve the interests of lawyers by making the legislation slightly more complex than otherwise it would have been. I shall draw the attention of the draftsman to the hon. Gentleman's observations. May I pay a small, informal tribute to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar for the remarkable skill with which he focuses his mind on some of these points, at what I take to be reasonably short notice, and then comes out with some remarkably good points.

On the implementation of clause 2, as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar expected, I have to repeat what I said about clause 1. There will be substantial resource costs for local authorities. I resist the suggestion that the Government's approach is in any sense hollow. I hope that I carry those Opposition Members who are concerned with the Bill with me on the proposition that, throughout, the Government have made it clear that their co-operation with the Bill necessarily rested on the need for commencement orders which the Government would have to consider in the light of when resources could be made available. There has been no deception or disingenuousness about that approach throughout the Bill. The Government have proceeded on that basis.

The right hon. Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to the basis on which local authorities made their estimates. Whatever else may lie between us, we clearly need to have a fairly good estimate of the likely costs before deciding when to make commencement orders. I shall not speculate whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in his virtually explicit suggestion that local authorities have exaggerated the costs of the clause. However, it would be helpful to refine those estimates and reach ones that he would be prepared to accept as more realistic and we regard as reliable. We must have a reasonably reliable estimate before we can decide whether to bring the clause into effect.

I hope that I made it clear earlier that I shall, with best endeavour, attempt to ensure that we reach that stage as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect me to discuss the nature of any exchanges within central Government that might underlie that process.

I am pleased to say that I can be more forthcoming about the new clause. It puts beyond doubt that local authorities have a duty to consider the need of the disabled for services under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, if so requested by the disabled person, his representative or his carer. Some concern has been expressed that the current law is not entirely unambiguous. We were pleased to co-operate with the Bill's sponsors in drafting the new clause to put the matter beyond doubt. We intend to bring the provision into effect at the earliest convenient opportunity. I understand that local authorities may, unless there is good reason, find it convenient for those parts of the Bill that can be implemented soon to be brought into effect together at the beginning of the next financial year. We shall aim at a date of 1 April, 1987, which is what the sponsors want.

Clause 5, which relates to carers, was discussed at length on Report. I undertook to consider whether its intention could be clarified by changes in the drafting. After careful consideration we decided that the suggested changes would substantially widen the effects of the clause. I understand that the Bill's sponsors accept that the wording should remain substantially unchanged. However, I note the helpful comment of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, who said that he thought that he was getting three and three quarters out of the five that he wanted.

Following the commitment given by my right hon. Friend on Report, an amendment has been tabled to ensure that interpretation services are provided if carers are unable to communicate because of disability and the local authority needs to communicate with them to determine whether they can continue to provide care. I hope that it will be possible to implement that clause not later than April 1987, in line with the sponsors' request.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about clarifying the general purpose of clause 5. The aim is not to encourage residential care, but to help people who so wish to stay in their own homes, if that is the best solution to their problems. I emphasise that the overall objective of this clause, together with all provisions relating to services for the disabled, is to ensure that we find the best answer to the problems of the individual. Although we all accept that more often than at present people should stay in their own homes, that cannot always be the case. The Bill cannot eliminate the need for residential care, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not implying that the disabled should be kept in their own homes regardless of considerations that might mean that they should be in residential care. The general thrust is to improve the opportunities and services for people to stay in their own homes if that is what they want, so there is no difference of opinion between us on that.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe strayed into the somewhat more contentious area of alleged cuts in social security and the position of the disabled. I simply do not accept what he said, but I shall not spend much time on that argument. Far from there having been cuts, the social security budget has risen substantially in real terms, as has the overall value of benefits paid to the disabled for a variety of reasons, including the increased numbers of disabled people receiving benefits, the real value of which have increased. The Government have made a number of significant improvements, not least in the real value of mobility allowance, by removing the invalidity trap that affected many people on supplementary benefits, by introducing the severe disablement allowance and by extending the invalid care allowance. Therefore, although I do not wish to turn the debate into an argument about Government policy, I felt that I had to explain why I simply could not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said.

I welcome and endorse the Lords amendments and hope that the House will approve them.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we shall discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 26, in page 6, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 7 and insert—

"the appropriate officer", in relation to the child or person referred to in the provision of this section in question, means such officer as may be appointed for the purposes of this section by the local authority for the area in which that child or person is for the time being ordinarily resident;"

No. 27, in page 7, line 12, leave out "college of further education" and insert "further education establishment".

Although the amendments to this clause are long and complex, they are necessary to give substance to the principle accepted by the House on Report—that there should be a social services assessment before disabled children leave full-time education either at school or a further education establishment.

The notification by LEAs to the social services of the school leaving date must take place not earlier than 12 months after, and not later than eight months before, that date. The social services assessment must be arranged within five months of that notification. Therefore, it should be undertaken at least three months before the young person leaves school, which should give the authorities time to make whatever practical arrangements are necessary.

The great bulk of amendment No. 25 concerns what should happen if it is not possible to give eight months' notice because of a late decision or because a child moves school to another area after the procedures in subsections (1) and (2) have taken place. The same is true of the new clause introduced by amendment No. 33, which requires the local education authority to keep under review the expected school leaving dates of disabled children covered by clause 3 and which, in conjunction with amendment No. 29, specifies that the LEA responsible for a disabled person when he leaves full-time education at school shall remain responsible during his time in further education.

It is fair to say that further education is still a very grey area, especially for disabled people. Further education was omitted from the 1981 Act, partly on the understanding that a review of the legal basis of further education was in progress. That review has apparently evaporated, and the hole identified by the Warnock report is still there. The new clause, however, gives me hope that the DES is beginning to look favourably on maintaining statements of disabled children during further education. Indeed, it is the obvious logical next step.

Only two items have been lost in the transformation of this clause, and I should like to mention them. In the original Bill, the notification could take place only with the consent of the parent or disabled person. Subsection (4B) now allows only the parent or young person to decline the subsequent assessment—the previous notification will be automatic. I hope that LEAs will be encouraged to give parents or the disabled student full information about the Bill's requirements at that earlier stage.

The second loss—I understand for legal reasons—is that students who are over 19 on the date eight months before they are due to leave are excluded from the Bill. I believe that the guidance to LEAs and social services departments should ask them to be included, albeit on a non-statutory basis. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this.

I should like to thank the Minister and his officials for their hard work on the complex drafting of this clause. I hope that he will answer any detailed questions on the wording. On implementation, which is also crucial here, it seems to me that, as the whole clause depends on the formal opinion as to whether the child is disabled given by the social services under subsection (1) or (2) soon after his 14th birthday, it is absolutely essential for the clause to be brought into force immediately so that the whole process can begin.

I remind the House that the purpose of subsection (1) was simply to exclude non-disabled children from the later procedures—in most cases it will be obvious to everyone that a child is disabled. I hope, therefore, that severely disabled children now over 14 who may never fall within subsection (1) will not necessarily be excluded from the benefits of notification and assessment. I should have thought that LEAs could be encouraged to operate notification of obviously disabled children and young people informally this autumn, and social services departments could be asked to make assessments before they leave school or college next summer. I shall listen to the Minister with great interest and care.

Although clause 5 has more than doubled in length, the effect of the changes is minor, which will perhaps remind the House of one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I agree with the Minister's tribute to my hon. Friend. We have had a virtuoso performance from him today.

One slight disappointment that I have is that, for legal reasons, under subsection (3), the clause will apply only to disabled people who are under 19 on the day eight months prior to their presumed leaving date. The Department of Education and Science has informally promised to advise local education authorities to apply the same procedures for people just over 19, and the DHSS has promised to do the same for social services departments whose duties under subsection (4) apply only to those formally notified under subsection (3). It would be helpful if that commitment were to be stated in the House today. I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies.

As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) explained, the amendments to this part of the Bill, although a further formidable compliment to the powers of the draftsman, basically tidy up the Bill. The most significant change has been to reduce the advance notification of the expected school leaving date for a disabled child or young person from nine months to eight months.

Many tributes have been paid this morning and perhaps I might add another—to the Department of Education and Science officials who have also worked hard, especially in respect of this part of the Bill. They have undoubtedly contributed to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of disabled young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 19. Formally, clause 3 covers only disabled people in full-time education under the age of 19 on the date that notification is due. However, if they become 19 during the notice period it will not affect the duty of the appropriate officer to make the necessary assessments under the welfare enactments. The reason for that restriction is because full-time schooling under the Education Act 1944 and the making of statements for those at school under the Education Act 1981 is geared to the maximum age of 19 years. It is necessarily within those constraints that the amendments have been drafted.

12.45 pm

However, the Government have no wish to deprive disabled young people who stay on in full-time education after the age of 19 of rights which they would have enjoyed had they decided to leave full-time education at 19. We shall make that clear in guidance to local education authorities and social services departments. I hope that that is a helpful assurance to the House.

I turn to the now hallowed issue of implementation. If possible, we should like to bring the provisions into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is by the autumn of this year. We shall be consulting urgently with local authority associations about achieving that. It has been pointed out that children leaving school next summer could not in any case fall within the scope of clause 3(1)(a), which requires an opinion as to whether a child is disabled to be recorded at the first annual review of the statement by the local education authority after his 14th birthday. However, we shall consider with the local authority associations whether any administrative way can be found of enabling children who have already at the time the clause comes into effect had this review to benefit from the notification and assessment provisions provided for in the later parts of the clause. I hope that the House will find that assurance helpful.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about the duty of local education authorities to give parents and young people full information about assessments. I am happy to give him an assurance that we shall aim to cover the point that local education authorities should be encouraged to give full information about assessments to both parents and young people in the guidance which we hope to issue. I hope that that will all be of help to the House and that it will accede to the motion to accept the amendment.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 35, in page 7, line 27, leave out from "discharged" to end of line 35 and insert—

"the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that date—

(a) to the health authority in whose district or area it appears to the managers that that person is likely to reside after his discharge (unless the managers are that authority),

(aa) to the local authority in whose area it appears to them that that person is likely then to reside, and"

No. 36, in page 7, line 36, leave out—

"where that person will be"

and insert—

"in the case of a person".

No. 37, in page 7, line 36, leave out "the age of 19" and insert "the relevant age".

No. 38, in page 7, line 37, after "date," insert "to".

No. 39, in page 7, line 37, at end insert—

"as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date is known to the managers."

No. 40, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—

"the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland or by".

No. 41, in page 8, line 2, leave out "in a hospital".

No. 42, in page 8, line 5, leave out from beginning to "subsection" in line 7 and insert—

"the managers of the hospital shall give written notification of that person's discharge in accordance with paragraphs (a),(aa) and (b) of".

No. 43, in page 8, line 8, at end insert—

"(2A) Where—

(a) a health authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), or

(b) the managers of a hospital from which a person is to be, or is, discharged as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) are the health authority referred to in subsection (1)(a),

that authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under the 1977 Act or 1978 Act which the Secretary of State is under a duty to provide; and in making any such arrangements a health authority falling within paragraph (a) above shall consult the managers of the hospital in question.

(2B) Where a local authority receive a notification given with respect to a person under subsection (1) or (2), the authority shall (subject to subsection (3)) make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of that person with respect to the provision of any services under any of the welfare enactments.

(2C) A health authority and a local authority who are by virtue of subsections (2A) and (2B) each required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a particular person shall co-operate with each other in the making of those arrangements.

(2D) Any assessment for which arrangements are required to be made by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be carried out—

(a) where the notification in question was given under subsection (1), not later than the date mentioned in that subsection, or

(b) where the notification in question was given under subsection (2), as soon as is reasonably practicable after receipt of the notification."

No. 44 in page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

"(3) A health authority or a local authority shall not be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a person by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B) if that person has requested them not to make any such arrangements.

(3A) Nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a person who is being discharged from a hospital for the purpose of being transferred to another hospital in which he will be an in-patient (whether or not he will be receiving medical treatment for mental disorder); but any reference in subsection (1) or (2) to a person's having received medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for the period mentioned in that subsection is a reference to his having received such treatment for that period as an in-patient in one or more hospitals (any interruption of that period attributable to his being transferred between hospials being disregarded)."

No. 45, in page 8, line 16, leave out "is" and insert "are".

No. 46, in page 8, line 16, after "authority" insert "or, in Scotland an education authority".

No. 47, in page 8, line 17, leave out "its" and insert "their".

No. 48, in page 8, line 18, after "authority" insert "or (as the case may be) education authority".

No. 49, in page 8, line 20, after "where" insert ", in England and Wales,"

No. 50, in page 8, line 20, leave out "is" and insert "are"

No. 51, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—

"health authority"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means a District Health Authority, and

(b) in realation to Scotland, means a Health Board;"

No. 52, in page 8, leave out lines 23 to 33.

No. 53, in page 9, line 3, leave out

"within the meaning of the 1978 Act"

No. 54, in page 9, line 19, at end insert

"and "the relevant age"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means the age of 19; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means the age of 18"

No. 55, in page 9, leave out lines 20 to 23.

Clause 4 has perhaps seen more changes of substance, as opposed to drafting, than any other clause in the Bill, so I shall spend rather more time explaining individual amendments than I have on other clauses. I should first, however, like to remind the House of the changes to the clause during its passage through this House. In the original Bill the requirement was for hospital managers to inform the social services 28 days before anyone was discharged who had

"been receiving medical treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient for a period of, or periods totalling not less than, six months in the preceding twelve months."

The social services were then required to make assessment of their needs within 28 days.

On Report the Government produced a clause which simply required notification of discharge by hosptial to social services — a procedure described by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities as a waste of paper. I had already reluctantly agreed to drop the totalling of short periods and tabled a new clause which required hospital managers to arrange an assessment before a person was discharged. It had been agreed in discussions with the associations that the initiative should be taken by the hospital. My new clause was accepted by the Government and the House.

As the Minister for Health said, there were certain illogical aspects in the drafting, although the purpose was clear. In particular, the clause as it stood required the hospitals to arrange an assessment of a person's social services needs, but there was no duty on the social services to co-operate.

It would, perhaps, have been easy for the Minister to have taken a minimalist approach; but I am delighted to say he did not do so. Encouraged by the associations—the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Association of Health Authorities — who clearly wanted an effective clause, agreement was reached on the amendments which we are considering.

Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 38 and 39 require the hospital managers to send written notification of the date of discharge to the local authority of the area in which the patient is to live and also to the district health authority and the local education authority if the patient is under 19. I should say in explanation that in most cases the "hospital managers" will be a district health authority and there are exclusions throughout the clause to prevent them informing themselves or consulting themselves if the same DHA will continue to be responsible for the patient.

Following notification, amendment No. 43 ensures that each authority will be required to take action as follows. Under subsection (2A) the district health authority must assess the patient's need for services under the National Health Service Act 1977 in consultation with the hospital managers. Under subsection (2B) the social services department must assess the need for services under the "welfare enactments" and, of course, in this case clause 2 will also apply.

Subsection (2C) also places the additional duty on each of these authorities to co-operate with one another in making the arrangements for assessments. In many cases authorities may wish to undertake joint assessments; but it was not felt right to tie their hands in primary legislation and tie the practical arrangements to a precise formula which may not be credible or operable in all circumstances.

Subsection (2D) requires both these assessments to be undertaken before the discharge, or as soon as possible after discharge, following the order of a mental health review tribunal or, in Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission or the sheriff. Where a discharge is properly planned there should be no fear of it being held up by this clause. As the Mental Health Act Commission asserted in its first biennial report in 1985:

"Discharge should be a process, not an event."

Where the temptation might be to make an overnight decision to discharge someone, the clause will ensure adequate planning for that person. In any event, subsection (3) in amendment No. 44 allows patients to waive their right to an assessment.

The duty on the local education authority is not so clear. I understand that if the patient is under 16 the procedures under the Education Act 1981 will apply. The LEA will either initiate an assessment of the child's special educational needs or amend an existing statement. What will happen if the patient is over 16 but under 19 is less clear, but perhaps the Minister can clarify this in his speech.

Subsection (3A) in amendment No. 44 is a technical amendment to stop assessments being triggered by transfers between hospitals and also to confirm that time spent in different hospitals will be added together for the purpose of the six months mentioned in subsection (1).

The remainder of the amendments are either technical or are necessary for the application of the clause to Scotland.

The clause introduces significant new duties to make assessments and in view of the dearth of provisions for people who are mentally ill in many parts of the country there will — rightly—be a knock-on effect on services and some authorities will need to incur substantial expenditure. Nevertheless, I am sceptical about some of the estimates that I have seen which seem to involve building new mini-institutions for people with mental illness. I say again in connection with this clause that there will be dismay around the country if excuses are made for delaying its implementation, since the principle has now been accepted.

Assessment is fundamental to the successful discharge of long-stay patients into the community. The clause is needed immediately; indeed, it is long overdue.

We owe a special debt of gratitude to another place for its work on this part of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will join me in that tribute.

We are dealing with an extremely important provision. If there is a failure properly to assess a disabled person leaving hospital, he or she is all too likely to end up back in hospital rather than in the community. I know that the Minister will appreciate the importance of this part of the Bill and will do all that he can to ensure its implementation at the earliest possible date.

There has been repeated emphasis on the two vexed issues of implementation and resources. We shall return time and again to those issues to make absolutely certain that this extremely important Bill is implemented fully at the earliest possible date.

As the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained, following our extensive debate on the clause on Report, another place has helped us to get the provisions into what is generally accepted to be a satisfactory form. I am particularly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's warm acknowledgement of the fact that we have all sought to get the provisions into an acceptable form and have not adopted what he calls a minimalist approach. I should certainly not wish to see such an approach.

Health authorities and social services departments are to be required to make arrangements for an assessment of the needs of a disabled person for their respective services. When they receive notification that a long-stay patient is to be discharged, the authorities and departments will be required to co-operate with each other in making the arrangements.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West asked about the duties of local education authorities if they are notified under clause 4(1)(b) of the discharge from hospital of a child or a young person aged under 19. The general purpose of the subsection is to ensure that local education authorities are in a position to discharge their responsibilities either under the Education Act 1981 or clause 3 of the Bill.

The hon. Member rightly said that in the case of a child who is at school the local education authority will be required to consider whether amendments are needed to the terms of any existing statement of special educational needs or, if no such statement exists, to consider whether the child's education needs should be assessed with a view to making a statement.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a little more about those over school leaving age. In the case of a child over 16 who is already subject to a statement and transfers to a full-time course of further education, the local education authority is no longer obliged under the Education Act to maintain the statement, but it will be under a duty, under clause 3, to inform the social services department in due course of the child's leaving date.

In the comparatively rare cases of children who are subject neither to the Education Act 1981 nor to clause 3—children who are not, or have not been, subject to a statement and who either transfer to further education or cease full-time education — it will be for the social services department, under clause 4, to assess their needs.

I know that this is a slightly complex issue, but I hope that my explanation will help hon. Members and those outside the House who are following our proceedings carefully.

Predictably and understandably — I make no complaint about it—the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) returned again to the implementation of an important clause which I am pleased to see in the Bill.

1 pm

On Report, the hon. Member for Monklands, West said that he was prepared for the implementation of this clause to be delayed slightly longer than other clauses in the Bill—although I realise that he would not expect that to be a long time — in order to allow adequate preparation. He said that he hoped that the target date would be set no later than 1988–89. 1 regret that, once again, I must be a little less forthcoming than I have been on one or two other clauses that we have discussed recently. As always, we are once again back in an area where resources are an important factor.

As yet, we have not come to a common view with the local authority and health authority associations on how, if at all, changes introduced to the Bill on Report, as subsequently refined in another place, will affect the overall costings. In other words, there is still a good deal of uncertainty about costings in this area and it inescapably follows from that that it is impossible for me to make any useful comments at this precise point in time about when the clause will be implemented.

However, we shall continue discussions to try to make sure that we obtain the best and most reliable estimates of what is involved as soon as possible. Then, as I have already said, we shall be looking for ways forward to achieve the speediest possible implementation, subject always to the availability of the money—in other words, finding the resources to make sure that local authorities and health authorities have them.

The Minister talked of the Bill costing an estimated £100 million. He talks about costs; we talk about net costs. Clearly, there will be savings on this part of the Bill if the right action is taken at the right time. If a person leaving hospital is not properly assessed, he or she is likely to return to hospital at far greater cost to the taxpayer than if adequate help is provided in the community. Can we be assured that full consideration will be given to the savings that will accrue if disabled people are given the right help in the right place at the right time?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an entirely legitimate point about the potential savings that might arise from some forms of expenditure under the clause. But, in doing so, he will, as I hope he will acknowledge, have to bear in mind some of the difficulties in achieving a good estimate of the cost of such provisions. Making estimates of the kind which he implies are required is a difficult and complex matter. I cannot add to what I have said. The Government are approaching the matter in the spirit of wishing to make progress as soon as possible, but I am unable to give a precise implementation date at this stage. We shall do what we can to get into a position to make a better assessment of the costs as soon as possible, which, in turn, will enable us to make a better assessment of when we may be able to make a commencement order.

May I press the Minister a little on this because it is obviously important? I do not want any delay in the introduction of the clause to be a reason for not pressing ahead with the integration of people from long-stay hospitals into the community. There may be some who believe that it would be preferable to wait until better safeguards are available but that would be detrimental. The Under-Secretary of State wrote to me last month telling me that the average cost in England for a stay in hospital for mentally handicapped people is £227 a week and for mentally ill people, £255 a week. That shows the fairly considerable costs that there are and I should have thought that, following what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said a few moments ago about achieving a balance between the figures, we should try to make rapid progress in this matter.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I can assure him that the Government are not looking for ways to diminish progress towards care in the community in the sense that he is talking about. Indeed, I think that it is fair to claim that that has advanced rapidly under the Government, especially in relation to those who were formerly in long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped, and, not least, in respect of children in such hospitals, where the drop in numbers has been dramatic during the past few years. We are all anxious to see that momentum sustained.

One of the other complicating factors is that much of this assessment work already goes on. It is not the practice suddenly to decant children, or indeed adults, from long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped without taking a look at what their needs will be in the community, and making provision for them.

Thus it is quite a complex business to assess what additional resources will be involved in implementing the clause. However, we shall be doing so as soon, and as effectively as possible. But I think that the hon. Member for Monklands, West will recognise that the task is complex. We shall not drag our feet, but I am not in a position to be more specific today.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 65, in page 11, line 10, after "persons" insert ", or" No. 66, in page 11, line 12, leave out

"under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968"

and insert

"to whom section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968applies".

No. 67, in page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

"(2) In section 2 of the 1968 Act (social work committees and functions referred to them) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "as read with sections 1 and 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986".

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section extend to Scotland only.".

No. 68, after clause 9, insert the following new clause

We now come to the Scottish part of the Bill, and I am happy to say that most of the amendments are technical. Perhaps I should say that I have reached the "exclusively" Scottish part, as all the Bill applies to Scotland except clause 3, whose Scottish equivalent is the new clause represented by amendment No. 68. Its construction is significantly different from the English clause, because of the very different and, dare I say better, construction of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which seems to bridge the gap between school and further education that I mentioned in relation to clause 3.

The establishment of a Future needs assessment has already been represented as a method of improving the lot of youngsters before they leave school, in that it offers an opportunity for all involved with the child's education to consider progress to date and to plan for the future. Yet in many parts of the country, including in my constituency, improvement has not been effective because the agency that must take responsibility for helping the young person in the next stage of his life, the social work department, has not been involved.

The new clause will avoid that break in the link and will provide an opportunity for improving the considerable progress that has been made over the past few years. If any right hon. and hon. Members have detailed questions to ask about the new clause, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will no doubt be delighted to reply.

Hon. Members will recall that on Report a clause relating to joint planning in Scotland was deleted after the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), promised to arrange for the introduction of a clause in the other place to provided reserve powers to put joint planning in Scotland on a statutory basis. He wished, as we all did, to include the elderly. But the powers that be have decreed that it is impossible to make the necessary amendment to the long title.

Consequently, Lord Skelmersdale repeated a committment given to me privately that the Government would introduce the amendment to the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill. I find that arrangement entirely satisfactory. My aim is to see the legislation that we all want on the statute book and in force, and not to pack all and sundry into this Bill in order to boost the status of the so-called Tom Clarke Bill. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that view.

Although I should like to place on record my appreciation for the Government's action on this matter, I must at the same time express some reservations. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will convey them to his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. My reservations reflect the concerns expressed to me by the care in the community working party, which brings together a wide range of voluntary and professional organisations in Scotland. It is concerned that the Scottish Office has not been able to produce the relevant clauses for discussion. Its attitude has been in sharp contrast to that of its English colleagues, who have devoted time to consulting my advisers on the most effective means of improving the legislation.

I hope that the time scale for the implementation of the Bill in Scotland will be similar to that, or perhaps shorter than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. At an earlier stage, I wondered whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland — the hon. Member for Argyle and Bute—and the Minister for Health were Mr. Nice and Mr. Nasty. I hope that they will prove themselves to be Mr. Quick and Mr. Speedy and that the Minister for Social Security will show the same urgency in implementing the Bill. They may be sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and 1 and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House will pounce on any signs of lethargy or lack of application.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has explained the reasons for these amendments with his customary excellence and clarity.

I emphasise that the Government share the concern of the Bill's sponsors that effective joint planning arrangements should operate in Scotland and that voluntary organisations are brought into the process, because they have their proposals to contribute.

The hon. Member referred to specific provisions and the reasons why no amendment to clause No. 11 had been moved. I confirm that, when a suitably comprehensive clause is included in the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, a motion to delete clause 11 will be tabled.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about commencement. I confirm that it is likely that the Government will wish the various provisions of the Bill to commence simultaneously throughout the country. However, we must recognise that commencement will depend in practice on a number of factors, including the availability of resources. That point was made clear during proceedings in the House and in another place. I can fully assure the House, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has every intention of implementing the Bill as quickly as that can be done in the circumstances prevailing at the time and in the light of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, the resources available may be subject to different pressures and priorities north and south of the border. A facility for separate commencement is therefore clearly necessary.

I add my congratulations to those of other right hon. and hon. Members to the hon. Member for Monklands, West.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 77, in page 13, line 23, leave out "1(5)" and insert

Inevitably, all these amendments are consequential. The definitions in particular have been moved around the Bill and a number of new definitions have been added. As clause 14 concerns both commencement orders and extent, I should like to put on the record my pleasure at the statement in the other place by Baroness Trumpington on behalf of the Government to the effect that consultation on how the Bill might be translated to Northern Ireland will be put in hand if the Bill is enacted. This was much more positive and constructive than earlier ministerial statements. I am delighted that the Government now accept that the benefits of the Bill should be afforded throughout the United Kingdom to people with disabilities.

As we come to the end of our deliberations may I take the opportunity to thank the ministerial team which has been responsible for the Government's input into the Bill? I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my right hon. and hon. Friends for the work that they have done in taking the Bill this far. There has been an enormous amount of commitment, especially on the part of organisations for the disabled and many others. I believe that the strength of support for those organisations led the Government to many of the decisions they have taken in the course of the Bill's passage through both Houses.

1.15pm

We have had a most interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), in the characteristically generous manner we have come to expect from him, predicted that one day I might find myself in heaven. I hope that that will not be too soon because I am not sure that my constituency Labour party would welcome a by-election at this early stage. If that ever happens I am sure that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar will be there in his rightful place, at the very least as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. I do not know whether there is a St. Ladbroke up there but if there is not I am sure that he will deal with that matter as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave magnificent help during the progress of the Bill and I know that that is appreciated by everybody on both sides of the House.

We have reached the stage at which I would like to move the amendments before the House. In the spirit of the ministerial statements that we have heard from the Dispatch Box on other causes, may I say that I have no doubt that the discussions in both Houses and outside the Palace of Westminster that have led to this comprehensive view of the problems of disability show that the British people have set a clear priority.

I accept, as I did on Second Reading, that it will be necessary to consider implementation on the basis of phasing. Nevertheless, I believe that in this clause, as in others, the British people and the House will not accept that resources cannot be made available. We believe that even the figure that the Minister has given on several occasions today does not represent something which is extravagant in the extreme.

We believe that disabled persons and their carers, mentally handicapped persons and families up and down the country have experienced serious problems. The Bill attempts to right some of those problems, although not all of them. However, given the commitment on the part of the Government and the House, which has been shown almost unanimously at every stage, recognised and reflected at the Treasury, the Government are compelled to recognise the strong feelings and make sure that resources are made available.

I shall respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) by saying that in my judgment the Government have shown, persistently over six or seven years, their commitment to the needs and interests of disabled people in a variety of ways, including the improvements and extensions of social security benefits in the way I described a little while ago. We shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that that progress is more than maintained. It is in that spirit and against the background of what we have already been able to achieve that we shall approach the consideration of the implementation of those parts of the Bill with significant effects on resources.

If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you inadvertently cut me off without a word on the previous group of amendments and I had some modest news to impart, I should like to impart that good news now. I am talking about clauses 6 to 8. On the matter of timing and implementation, I hope, subject to discussions with local authority associations and other bodies concerned, that it will be possible to bring clauses 6 and 7 into effect no later than April 1987.

Clause 8 deals with reports to Parliament. We shall consider the possibility of bringing the clause into effect this autumn, and making the first annual report on the basis of 1985 data before the end of the year. I hope that the House will find that helpful. We should be able to produce a more informative report when what is known as Körner data—that is improved information about the Health Service—become available, but that will not be until 1988.

Perhaps those undertakings and hopes give some further emphasis to what I said about the Government's commitment to continue the progress of improvements for disabled people in a variety of ways.

I wish to pay my last tribute in these debates to all those who have been connected with our proceedings. I add my words to the kind remarks that have been made about the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), whose performance has been such that I think that he would be well qualified to be a Government Whip, bearing in mind the efficiency that he has shown in organising the proceedings of the House. But perhaps he would regard the prospect of being elevated to the post of Government Whip as a fate worse than death. However, his efforts in organising our proceedings have been of significant assistance to us all. I am grateful to him for what he has done to support the hon. Member for Monklands, West and us all in achieving the happy position in which we find ourselves. We hope that Royal Assent will be only a short time away.

Many who are present congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) at the outset of today's proceedings. I have reserved my congratulations to this final stage so as to be absolutely certain that the Bill is bound for the statute book. This is an extremely important measure and my hon. Friend has been skilful and tireless. He has been wholly superb throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

I hold it to be the bounden duty of the Minister — as a member of a Government who have given over £4·4 billion in tax relief to those earning over £30,000 a year — to press upon his colleagues the point that implementing this Bill must now be a priority of priorities.

Again, I most warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West. He will be thanked by disabled people everywhere for nudging things forward on their behalf. I hope that we shall be rejoicing very soon about the full implementation of his legislation.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, leave out

'under the age of 16 years'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 41, after 'offence', insert

'if that step-child is either under the age of 21 or has at any time before attaining the age of 18 lived in the same household and been treated as a child of his or her family.'.

No. 3, in page 3, line 2, leave out '16' and insert '21'.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and I voted against the Bill as it stands. That is the reason for the amendments. Due to some confusion, which I have not yet managed to unravel, or a misunderstanding, my name was not printed as a supporter of the amendment along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling.

This is not a simple matter. To a non-lawyer, it seems to be complex and legal. The Bill, which has not been amended, may improve one area of Scots law. I do not think that anyone would argue with that. However, if the amendments are not accepted, it will bring about what some non-lawyers may believe to be a legal and moral conflict, which in the end will be likely to create greater social and moral problems. This conflict would be created by problems arising from this Bill and the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986.

If one takes the view that marriage is more than just a legal matter—that it is ordained for the procreation of children, as the marriage service says—how can it be right for our law to allow an act that could result in the procreation of children, but not allow that act to take place within the institution of marriage? That is an impossible position.

I am sympathetic to what the Bill is trying to do, but I find it impossible to support a law that would allow an individual to sleep with his stepdaughter over the age of 16 provided that the stepdaughter gives her consent. She would probably become pregnant in the circumstances that one envisages, but, provided that she gives her consent, it is all right for her to become pregnant and have a child. As the law stands, and if the Bill is passed unamended, she will be the mother of a child, the father of which cannot, in law, become her husband. Surely that is nonsense. It is wrong to ask Parliament to put such a measure into legislation unamended. That is why these amendments are so important.

I recognise, as I am sure that everyone else recognises, that many reforms are required to put right the anomalies in Scottish law. However, is it right for us to write into law that it is in order for a stepfather to sleep with his stepdaughter and produce children, but not legally right for him to marry the 16-year-old, or older, girl? If so, we are saying that fornication and adultery are preferable to marriage.

One-parent families are a growing public concern. No one doubts that this matter is causing concern for those involved in social work and activity, those concerned with the churches and anyone who cares deeply about our society. If the Bill is anamended, it will make a positive contribution towards the creation of more one-parent families. The House cannot approve of that.

More important—and it is to this issue that we must turn our attention—are the children who are likely to result from such a relationship. Does anyone really believe that children conceived in this way would not at least have a real prospect of becoming what is known as problem children—another concern for our modern society? The important aspect is what it does to the children, but another aspect is the attendant cost for the public purse and taxpayer if the situation were to get worse.

Does anyone believe that bastards conceived between a stepfather and a stepdaughter aged 16, 17 or 18 can hope to be anything other than, at best, a curiosity to other children and other members of the community where they live? We all know that children can be very cruel, and often that makes life extremely difficult for sensitive youngsters. We have a duty and responsibility to them to think about the children who may be conceived as a result of the provisions of the Bill. At best, they will be a curiosity to other children and other members of the community in which they live. At school they will be abused and given, I have no doubt, hideous and horrendous names. Does anyone seriously believe that this is a recipe for a happy and stable home life? Does anyone seriously believe that the legal prevention of marriage between father and mother can make any kind of contribution to a stable home life for either the mother or the child.

It is difficult for those of us who have a good home life and who enjoyed a good home life as children to envisage anything like this. If a stepfather finds, after his stepdaughter's mother dies, that his stepdaughter is attractive, although she does not find him attractive, does anybody believe that considerable pressure will not be exerted on the child? I do not have the slightest doubt that incest is committed. I do not know how frequently it is committed and I do not know how large the problem is, but it is reasonable to envisage circumstances in which, because of the conditions in the home, the stepdaughter has to comply with the invitation or the order —depending upon how one views it—to get into bed with the stepfather.

I understand that it is extremely difficult to prove whether or not consent was given, demanded or accepted and that the circumstances become terribly fraught and difficult. However, our duty is to examine the areas of possibility, to find out which of them are likely to be areas of probability and then to reach a decision. Recently a Bill was introduced to prohibit marriage under the age of 21. If this Bill is passed, we shall be saying that provided the 16-year-old stepdaughter has agreed, this is acceptable in law. That would create a huge anomaly. If a stepfather forces a child against her will to get into bed and have intercourse with him, another member of the family has to provide evidence that that has happened. Somebody else is needed to clype—in other words, to tell.

We have to reach a decision against that background. All this happens within the family home, where there is the real danger of abuse. We are considering legislation that is designed to deal with such abuse. As I said earlier, I am not a lawyer; I am not qualified to deal with complex and difficult legal matters. However, I know that it would be extremely difficult for me to accept that it is all right to have intercourse and to produce children but it is not all right for those children to be given a legal father.

I believe that these amendments are essential. If it were to be left unamended, the Bill would he an affront to the Christian beliefs of the people of Scotland. Does anyone seriously believe that they can defend the Bill unamended? Could anyone attend church in Scotland on a Sunday and defend a position where marriage between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prevented—

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill in its unamended form is substantially the product of a Bill put forward by the Scottish Law Commission, which invited comments from various authorities, including the churches? Only one of the many denominations raised any objection to the Bill. The others welcomed it.

I do not argue with that, but the hon. Gentleman must agree that that was before the Act prohibiting such marriage reached the statute book. It is the relationship between and the difficulties and anomalies that arise from those two Acts that present the problems.

The hon. Gentleman has the privilege to be the constituency Member of Parliament for my parents. I have considerable sympathy with his point. Can he explain the specific wording of amendment No. 2 which, because of the word "or" in line 2, appears to do rather more than the purpose he has outlined? It could mean that a stepchild of any age—even above 21—who had lived in the same household while under the age of 18 could be caught by the provisions. Will he address himself to that minor but important point?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The object of the word "or" is to prevent someone saying, "But she is no longer living with us." It is well known in Scotland that one of the most common lines of defence when going before the courts is to say, "I didna ken", to which the judge might reply, "Well, you ken noo." If the hon. Gentleman's parents have the good fortune to live in the beautiful part of the world that I represent, they will well understand that.

I want to know how anybody could go to church on a Sunday and defend a position where marriage between a stepfather and his stepdaughter is prevented by law, although it is perfectly in order — if the Bill is unamended—for them to live together, sleep together and produce children. That question must be answered. I know that I would find it impossible— as, no doubt, would any hon. Member—to persuade the elders of the kirk that somehow that was acceptable.

I do not pretend that we are dealing with a simple matter. We are not. But that is no excuse for putting into law another anomaly, especially one which, in my judgment as a non-lawyer, in practical terms could have an horrendous impact on the children produced from such a liaison. We must think about the road along which we are travelling and where we are going. Those who support: the Bill and reject the amendments will be saying that fornication and adultery are preferable to marriage. In the old days, the minister would stand up in the pulpit and point out the sinners. That practice has long since passed.

There are too many of them now.

I accept that. Who can throw stones? Probably nobody can today. I am concerned about the children who can be produced from such a liaison. Although the minister can no longer stand up in the kirk and point to the sinners, we should not think that the congregation do not look around and comment. We can all imagine them asking, "Have you heard?" The children will be born out of wedlock, but we are saying that that is preferable to their being born in wedlock. That must be unacceptable for anybody who supports the Christian teachings and values of the Scottish Church.

The Scots will not take kindly to being lectured on fine points of law. Many, especially those who go to church, will point to God's law. That law will be in conflict with the Bill if the amendment is not made.

I have two apologies to make. The first is that this is the first time that I have had the temerity to speak in a debate on Scottish law. 1 have to confess that I do not understand Scottish law, although I have heard many hon. and learned Members say on other issues that Scottish law is in many respects simpler than English law. That may not be true here, however. There is, I suppose, good and less good on both sides of the border.

My second apology is that I am not terribly clear of my stance on the amendments. I think that I support the general thrust of the Bill, which seems to be to bring Scottish law into line with English law concerning a stepfather having a relationship with his stepdaughter over the age of 16. I understand that the Bill would make that not an incestuous relationship.

I did not quite follow what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was saying about marriage. I am aware that the two are tied up in that there can be issue from a relationship such as we are discussing. He went on at some length about the problems of such children. We are all concerned with them, but the debate is more narrow and concerns only whether a relationship between a stepfather and a stepdaughter over 16 is incestuous. I understand that the amendment would increase the age from 16 to 21. I have mixed feelings about that. I have been forced to be interested because of the increasing and, in many ways, welcome discussion about incest, which until fairly recently has been swept under the carpet. We should all welcome the fact that now both men and women are beginning to discuss these problems, which are particularly difficult for the girl or young woman involved in what amounts to violence against her by a member of her family. I am talking about the normal incestuous relationships about which we hear. It is time that the House, not necessarily this afternoon but on some other occasion, debated the difficulties that face girls and young women who are forced into this type of relationship.

1.45 pm

My ambivalence about the amendments arises from my belief that basically young women at the age of 16 should be able to decide on their own relationships. Generally, I would be unwilling to increase the age limit to 21 except in respect of incestuous relationships between a stepfather and stepdaughter. That must be considered in a different light.

I am sure that hon. Members will have had cases to deal with. I have had several. I do not know whether it is that women feel more able to talk about incest to a woman Member than to a male Member, however sympathetic and receptive he is. Many women of all ages have told me of the pressures on them from their fathers, stepfathers or, in some cases, their elder brothers to develop a relationship. It can start at an early age when the young girl does not know what is happening, is frightened, and knows that something is wrong but does not know what. She is threatened by her father, stepfather or the boyfriend of her mother who may say to her, "You must not say anything about this because your mother would be very angry and it would hurt her." Some of those women have told me that, despite that, they have a curious attachment to that person because of the secret between them. They do not like it. Indeed, they are often ashamed and worried about it. My ambivalence about the amendments arises I am worried whether 16 is the age at which a young woman with such a history of pressure, in this case from her stepfather, can make up her mind whether she has a proper relationship which she wishes to perpetuate into marriage with that man.

At some stage we should clarify the matter in a much better way. A year ago I read a piece in The Sunday Times about the complex legal barriers to marriage. It is time that we faced that and, perhaps, the Bill will lead to our facing it. Certainly it is wrong that a stepfather and stepdaughter, at whatever age, with a genuine relationship, should not be able to get married, if that relationship is properly established. Marriage-enabling legislation is usually considered in the House of Lords. I remember reading about a 62-year-old widower who was allowed to marry his 58-year-old stepdaughter through such legislation. Those people would not be included in the categories covered by this Bill. It is wrong for such cases to be decided at personal expense, because they can be very costly.

The Bill originates because sex between a stepfather and stepdaughter is prohibited by the Incest Act 1567. I am sorry that I am not more of an expert in the subject, but I was interested to hear that the roots of that Act are to be found in the book of Leviticus which describes a husband and wife as being "of one flesh".

It is interesting that we still have on the statute book legislation based on a doctrine which is obviously out of line with English law. In this case I think that English law is best. It seems that the doctrine dates back 2,000 years.

I support the thrust of the Bill, but I have to say something which is not often said in the House of Commons—I honestly do not know what to do about the amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can help me.

I am afraid that I cannot help my hon. Friend in her dilemma. The Scottish Law Revision Committee recommended the amendments which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is proposing. However, the Criminal Law Revision Committee for England and Wales, after initial hesitation and considerable thought, recommended that we should go further than the Scottish Law Revision Committee and adopt the argument presented by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). There is a clear difference between the two law committees. The issues are difficult and sensitive. Arguments exist on both sides. The difficulty has been considered in great detail.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that two different conclusions were reached. That gives me strength to say that I still do not know the answer. If they cannot agree, who am I to decide?

If I have to take a view, on balance I think that I am in favour, marginally, of increasing the age to 21, on the ground that incest is such a difficult subject. But I am open to argument. Incest can begin with such violence—that is what worries me—and at such an early age. If such a relationship has gone on for a long time I wonder whether at 16 a young woman—however much she might feel that she is consenting, and no matter what affinity she has with her stepfather—has had a chance to discover her own feelings. However, that applies to marriage rather than to making the relationship incestuous.

We are not suggesting, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North seems to suggest, that everyone over the age of 16 who is affected in this way should marry. We are debating whether the law should say that with young women over the age of 16 the act is incestuous. I think that I am talking myself into remaining where I was on the age of 16.

I apologise for my rather confused remarks, but I am pleased that we have had a brief opportunity to discuss the Bill. I hope that it will lead to a more leisurely and better attended debate — perhaps a thoughtful and philosophical discussion—about incest, on which there has been much research by many bodies.

It is time that the House faced up to the fact that there is considerable violence against young women and children by members of their own families, whether step-relatives or otherwise. I suspect that almost every family knows someone who has suffered. We ought not to sweep the issue under the carpet. We must see whether we can help children and, I hope, their parents.

I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that anything that I said was condoning incest or suggesting that the subject should be swept under the carpet. I find it so horrendous and horrible that I want all aspects of it properly and fully debated.

I keep coming back not to the father, but to the mother and the child, because they are the important people and we must give them adequate consideration and protection. That is the purpose of the amendments.

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is saying that extending the age to 21 would give a young woman more protection. However, the Bill says only that with young people under the age of 16 an act should be regarded as incestuous and that if they are over the age of 16 there will not be an incestuous act. I cannot see how extending the age to 21 would help the young women.

Would not it be better for the children about whom the hon. Gentleman was talking not to know that they were born of an incestuous relationship? Perhaps I am not making myself clear. If so, it is too late for me to apologise now. This is a confusing issue in a confusing Bill. Even our wonderful Library, while perhaps not finding the Bill confusing, found it difficult to follow. I hope that in the not too distant future we shall have a wider discussion of the problem.

My name appears on the amendments for a procedural reason. The Public Bill Office and those advising me on the Bill did not expect that we would have an opportunity to debate it and, so that it could be deemed to be unopposed and, therefore, agreed to, I added my name to the amendments.

These are not wrecking amendments. The Bill could live with them, but I should strongly prefer them not to be accepted.

Let me try to put the amendments into context and perhaps clarify matters for the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). The present law on incest in Scotland is based on the Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1567, which, in turn, is based on the 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus in determining the persons between whom sexual relations would be deemed to be incestuous and criminal.

I know nothing about Scottish law, but I know the book of Leviticus and the passage to which the hon. Gentleman refers contains no reference to a stepfather.

With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of Leviticus I do not dispute, over the years the Scottish courts have deemed that the step relationship is covered by one of the verses of Leviticus. I regret not having come armed with the Bible and, more particularly, for the purpose of the Act, the 1562 Geneva translation. My point is that the chapter includes relationships, both affinity and blood, and the substantial thrust of the Bill is to decriminalise relationships by affinity.

2 pm

The related offences which are referred to in the Bill's title give protection to certain categories of persons who are not related by blood—stepchildren under the age of 16 and children under the age of 16 for whom an adult is in some position of trust. Some parts of the criminal law already give protection, but the Bill extends the sanctions that can be imposed if, for example, there is a breach of that trust. Indeed, if a case is brought on indictment in the High Court, it allows a sentence up to life imprisonment. One should be under no illusion about the seriousness which Parliament, and, indeed, society, attach to such offences.

The age of 16 was arrived at by the Scottish Law Commission after much deliberation. I, too, gave considerable thought to whether it should be 18 or 21. Indeed, it was only after I had discussed the matter at considerable length with the Scottish Law Commission that I accepted that 16 was the appropriate age.

I was guided by the fact that we are dealing with consensual intercourse between two people. If it were not consensual, it would be rape, for which there are the full penalties and rigours of the criminal law. For a child with a step-parent it may be difficult to prove consent, but that applies below the age of 16 as well as above. In fact, one might say that above the age of 16 it is a lot easier to prove because the person concerned is more likely to be forthcoming or to go to the police if he or she— it is more likely to be she—is subjected to undue pressure.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the age of 16-plus is still extremely difficult in the circumstances that can exist surrounding this horrendous situation. I have a 16-year-old daughter at home and I can imagine situations in which she would find it extremely difficult to speak out in any forms against her father who in no way behaves in the manner that we are talking about. A person of 16 is still a child. We must recognise that the circumstances of the domestic home impinge on the ability of the child who is the victim to say anything because that child may end up out on the street.

I never sought to minimise the difficulties. Under the age of 16 it is even more difficult for the child to speak out.

A woman in her thirties may marry but soon separate from a man in his twenties and the man could fall in love with that woman's 17-year-old daughter. That relationship would be caught by the Bill and it would be a criminal offence if this amendment were to be accepted. They are not related by blood. Parties may have parted and after many years the stepfather and his stepdaughter may meet. If the stepdaughter had lived in the house and been treated as a member of the family, even if when they subsequently met he was 39 and she was 35, that would still be criminal and subject to life imprisonment.

We are more likely to be dealing with a child who lives at home passing the age of 16 and who is exposed to this problem than with the delightful, romantic but theoretical proposition that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I believe that we should deal with what is likely to happen.

I was merely pointing out what the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's amendment might be. We are giving protection to the child of a step relationship. However, if the parties have not married, a girl in a similar position, who might be subject to similar pressures, could well find that she does not have that protection. Therefore, there are arguments to be made on the ground of consistency.

As I have pointed out, only one denominational church, one of the free Presbyterian churches, has expressed any objection. It has been said that that was before the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill was passed. But that suggests that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has not given much thought to his proposals. That Act makes the situation less anomolous than it would have been at the time when the church did not raise any objections. Then there was no provision for a marriage between a step-parent and a stepchild. Now there is, subject to certain conditions. However, the hon. Gentleman has sent me a note saying that if I reject the amendments, he will talk out the Bill on Third Reading. I do not want that to happen, because if this Bill is lost after the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill has been enacted, it would be perfectly legal for parties to marry, but it would be criminal for them to have sexual relations with each other. Undoubtedly, that is what the hon. Gentleman would achieve. Interestingly enough, however he would not protect adopted children.

At present, it is believed that the law of incest does not apply to adopted children. This Bill covers that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tayside, North would like to appear in church on Sunday to tell his congregation why he wanted to stop a Bill that would protect adopted children. At present, the law does not protect illigitimate children either. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell his congregation why he did not want to protect them.

I shall always be happy to stand up in church, or anywhere else, and say that I have not supported legislation that I deem to be so flawed and faulty that I cannot accept it. That is really what we are talking about.

I think that I have made my point. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether he wishes to press the amendment, or whether it might be better to withdraw it. Some highly anomalous cases might come up, and people may find themselves facing criminal sanctions although the vast majority of people would not think that any criminality attached to their behaviour.

Two married people may indulge in an adulterous relationship. They are not free to marry, but the law does not make their relationship criminal. I do not support or encourage the sort of relationships to which the hon. Gentleman referred; nor does the Bill. The Bill means that they would not be deemed criminal relationships. The hon. Gentleman used the example of a child of a relationship not having protection. I accept that, but that could happen now. Today the parties could also find themselves in prison. What would happen to the child then? We are not giving our moral approbation. After all, adultery is not morally approved by society, but for many years we have not thought fit to make it a criminal offence.

If the amendment is passed, at least we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that, under the law in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's consent is needed for every prosecution. I am sure that he will have the good sense, if anomalies arise, not to consent to prosecution.

The House will have listened with interest to the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I should like to make it clear — I do not think that those hon. Members dispute this—that we all have a clear interest in ensuring that the Bill is passed with, or without, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. Under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 there are a number of relationship in which marriage can now take place but where marriage partners would be commiting incest if they consummated the marriage.

The Government remain neutral on the Bill's details. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North told the House, the effect of the amendment would be to prohibit intercourse with a stepchild under 21 or for all time if the stepchild before attaining the age of 18 had lived in the same household as the accused and had been treated as a child of the family. This matches exactly the conditions laid down for marriage in the 1986 Act.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland put forward strong reasons why the amendments should not be accepted. He said that they were at odds with the existing law on the age of consent and created a serious criminal offence in circumstances where it seems inappropriate to invoke the criminal law—for example, where a man has intercourse by consent with an adult woman of, say, 20 with whom he has never lived in family but who happens to be the daughter of his wife or former wife. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that prosecution would remain a matter for the Lord Advocate.

I hope that I have fairly summarised the arguments. The Government are neutral on the details of the Bill I hope that it will pass through all of its stages this afternoon.

I should like to take this opportunity to speak more generally about the Bill, which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He discussed its background during the previous debate on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). As the hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised, the Bill follows a report of the Scottish Law Commission. He is to be congratulated on putting forward this legislation. As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, it is a complex Bill.

The Bill deals with a matter of importance which can arouse fairly strong feelings. The House will have listened with considerable sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North who referred to the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and himself in Committee. Hon. Members were concerned about the difference between the marriage and the incest legislation and about the pressure which could be brought to bear on a stepchild over 16.

I think that it is fair to report that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling expressed a worry in Committee that the Bill would allow intercourse between step-relations who, in terms of the marriage legislation, would not be able to marry. He pointed out that if intercourse led to conception it would prevent the father of the child in that union marrying the mother.

Should the Bill fail to secure a Third Reading we shall be faced with a situation where, if and when the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 is commenced, persons in a step-relationship marrying under that Act will, if they consummate the marriage, be committing incest.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on bringing forward the Bill and I commend it to the House.

I thank the Minister for his kind words. It is only fair to say that the real hard work in regard to the Bill was put in by the Scottish Law Commission in terms of the consultative document it initially sent out, which was the product of a considerable amount of work. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said in the previous debate, this is a serious subject that evokes emotions and has sociological aspects. In the Scottish Law Commission's work on this some of those aspects were looked at. The Scottish Law Commission certainly drew on the work that has been done by many sources in dealing with the serious problem of incest.

We are grateful to the Scottish Law Commission and I am grateful to the officials in the Scottish Home and Health Department. Although the Government were neutral in the matter the Scottish Home and Health Department was obviously concerned that if legislation was going through it should be in a good and proper form and it assisted me in that aim.

In some respects it is rather sad that, if the Bill proceeds to get the Royal Assent, the previous Act will cease to exist. I do not think that we will ever again pass legislation that says:

"quhatsumever persoun or personis they be that abusis thair body with sic personis in degre as Goddis word hes expreslie forbidden … as is contenit in the xviii Cheptour of Leviticus salbe puniest …"

Draftsmen these days seem to have a more simple and colourful way of putting things forward. It is certainly simpler than the previous Act. If the Bill becomes an Act I believe that it will improve the position of criminal law in Scotland and I commend the Third Reading to the House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on seeing the good sense of accepting the amendments. Like him, I cannot pretend that everything is as we would have wished but it is an improvement on the present position. I believe that, with the passage of time, the amendments will be seen to have been of considerable value.

This will not be the end of the debate on this delicate, important and often distressing and disturbing matter. I am confident that we shall return to it again at a later stage because some aspects still need to be tidied up. I was never opposed to what the hon. Gentleman or the Scottish Law Commission were attempting to achieve but I believe that they were exposing individuals unnecessarily to a situation that ought not to happen. That was why I tabled the amendment.