House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Apr 1993

Column 959

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question has been raised before, in general terms, about the transfer of written questions to individuals, writing on behalf of a particular executive agency.

What concerns me is that I asked a question of the Chairman of the Catering Committee--which, as you will appreciate, is not an executive agency--and it was transferred to the director of catering services. I ask you to discourage that practice, particularly as the question was about what appears to be the theft of a large quantity of cutlery and silverware. It concerns you particularly, Madam Speaker, because it carries the portcullis, the insignia of the House of Commons. That was not removed before this cutlery ended up on sale in the United States, apparently in considerable quantities.

I understand that the Catering Department managed to get the sum of £109 in scrap value from the sale of some of the items. Knives, forks, spoons, milk jugs, cream jugs, teapots and a range of items are on sale from an American firm. For example, a meat dish is on sale at roughly £250.

This is a matter of considerable importance which the Chairman of the Catering Committee--I notified him that I intended to raise this point of order with you--has shuffled off on to the director of catering services. A matter that concerns both you, regarding the control of the Portcullis and the disposal of these items, should, it seems to me, have been dealt with by the Chairman of the appropriate Committee.

Column 960

Madam Speaker : The House, I am sure, knows that I do not believe everything that I read in the press. However, I did believe one item that I was told about--that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had tabled a question for answer by the Chairman of the Catering Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter with me, I shall certainly raise it with the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Every morning, Monday to Thursday, as you know, about 2,000 people come through the House of Commons on the Line of Route. This morning, information was passed to me that a considerable number of people who follow the Line of Route would be barred from doing so. I made inquiries and found that one of these Common Market Presidents was due to come here, the one from Portugal.

Frankly, I think that it is totally and utterly wrong that people who, in some cases, have travelled 300 or 400 miles to London to visit the House of Commons should be barred from the Line of Route just to allow the President of Portugal to come into the Chamber on his own, irrespective of who was responsible for the invitation. People talk about the classless society in this place, but today's example shows that it is as far away as ever.

Madam Speaker : I am aware that the President of Portugal visited the House this morning and I am proud that he did so. I understand that he was invited to view the Chamber by an hon. Member. In deference to the visit of a Head of State, and on grounds of security, the admission of visitors to the Chamber was delayed by some five minutes. I am content with the arrangements that were made.

Column 961

Adoption Leave Arrangements

3.34 pm

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them ; to make provision for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down ; and for connected purposes.

I welcome this opportunity to bring the Bill before the House. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to confer employment rights on adoptive mothers similar to those rights enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them. It would also provide for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down.

It seems extraordinary in this day and age, when we have made great progress in recognising the role that women play as mothers, that we should still sustain in our system an inequality against families who provide a home for a child through adoption. At present, adoptive parents do not have the statutory right to return to their jobs after taking a break to care for a new addition to their family. Nor do they receive any statutory payment during any such absence, even though they may well have paid the same national insurance contributions as those who have children born to them, and should thus have access to such entitlements.

I believe that it is the role of Parliament not only to legislate for the majority of its citizens but to revisit legislation and collect those groups of people which it may have missed. In this case, adoptive parents are missed, and are missing out.

In preparing the Bill, I have received tremendous support from Jill White and British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. I pay tribute to the work they do and the way in which they take up issues on behalf of families seeking to adopt children.

Adopters provide a tremendous service not only to the children they adopt but to the country as a whole. In many instances, the financial burden of raising a child may have fallen on the state. An adoptive parent takes financial responsibility for that child, thus saving the taxpayer money, but, more importantly, no one can disagree that a child raised within a family circle and having the stability of a warm and loving home has a much better start in life than a child who does not have that opportunity. Therefore, an adoptive parent makes an invaluable contribution to the welfare of an individual child and, ultimately, to that child's chances in life--something on which we cannot put a price.

The demands made on a family by the arrival of a new child are similar for birth parents and adoptive parents. In fact, parents who are accepted for adoption may find that their child arrives at very short notice. Like any other child being born into a family, an adopted child needs to spend time with its new parents, especially during the first few weeks when the bonding is established between parents and child. Why should we omit adoptive parents from the protective legislation afforded to birth mothers? There is no good reason for doing so.

I consider this to be not a political issue but one of common sense. That is why, in presenting the Bill to the

Column 962

House, I have been supported not only by members of my own party but by members of the Opposition. I am very grateful to all supporters of the Bill.

The Bill would confer the same entitlements on adoptive mothers as on birth mothers, with the proviso that a prospective adopter must inform her employer in writing, first, of her and her family's approval as prospective adopters, and, secondly, as soon as is practicably possible, of the impending placement for adoption once a child has become available.

The Bill would give an adoptive mother the same right to return to work as a birth mother, and it seeks to extend the rights provided by the Employment Protection (Consolidated) Act 1978 by substituting the words "adoption leave" for the words "maternity leave" and the words "placement for adoption" for "pregnancy and childbirth".

Introducing the same legislation for adopters as for natural mothers would also have benefits for employers, who, unless they have special arrangements, now risk losing valuable trained staff. Individuals who have passed through the necessary screening procedure to be accepted as potential adoptive parents are usually among the most reliable and responsible members of our society, yet we put them in a position in which they may even have to choose between their jobs and adopting a child. I have not sought to restrict the provisions of the Bill with an age limit for the child, because that would be a matter for deliberation in Committee.

I shall give the House an example involving a constituent of mine, a general practitioner, who, together with her husband, has been approved by the local social services department for adopting a baby. She would like to take leave from her partnership when a baby becomes available, and her partners support her. She hoped that she would be eligible for the 13 weeks of locum payments from the family health services authority, in line with its usual practice on maternity leave for birth mothers. But her application was rejected, and she is pursuing the matter with the relevant authorities, now with my help and support. She feels--I agree with her, and I am sure that every Member of the House will also agree--that it is discriminatory to prevent her from experiencing motherhood without having to pay a penalty.

The adoption agency rightly requires that the adoptive mother be absent from work after receiving the adopted child so that she can spend time with that child. Failure to agree to that condition would disqualify her from being an adoptive parent. So if she wishes to continue to be available to adopt, she is faced with some pretty tough decisions about her livelihood.

My Bill seeks to deal with just such cases and to relieve the stress and strain of the uncertainties in that area--uncertainties that arise as a direct result of a lacuna in the legislation. Many letters received by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering reflect that uncertainty. Some employers seem willing to grant adoption leave ; others do not. Potential adoptive parents are unsure about their position in law and often ask for clarification, only to be told that they have no rights.

That area of law is in urgent need of review, so I hope that the Minister will consider my Bill carefully. If we cannot make progress with this ten- minute Bill, I sincerely hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to produce amending legislation to end the additional burden and uncertainty for a group of people who provide a wonderful

Column 963

start for so many of our youngsters, and who surely deserve at least the same protection as that afforded by our laws to a natural parent. Let us really level that playing field for our adopted children and their parents.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Joyce Quin, Mr. John Sykes and Mr. Richard Spring.

Adoption Leave Arrangements

Ms Cheryl Gillan accordingly presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them ; to make provision for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 May, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

Column 964

Orders of the Day

National Lottery etc. Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

New clause 7

Annual reports by distributing bodies other than Millennium Commission

.--(1) As soon as possible after the end of every financial year, each body that in that year was paid any money under section 22 or distributed or applied any money under section 23 shall make a report to the Secretary of State on the exercise during that year of its functions under this Act.

(2) The report shall set out any directions given to the body under section 24 that had effect during the financial year to which the report relates.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section before Parliament.

(4) This section does not apply to the Millennium Commission.'.-- [Mr. Key.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.44 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker : I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following : Government new clause 8-- Accounts of distributing bodies other than Charities Board and Millennium Commission.

Amendment No. 26 : in clause 23, page 10, line 18 at end insert-- ( ) A body shall report to the Secretary of State each year on the distribution under subsection (1) which it has made during that year.'.

Government amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71.

Mr. Key : It is a great pleasure to come back to the Floor of the House with the Bill. It is quite rare for a Bill to have been so amended in Committee. It gives me pleasure to say that, because we have been engaged on an important piece of legislation in creating the first national lottery in this country this century, and we have been determined to get it right. We have listened to representations from all parts of the political spectrum and from all interest groups that are involved or that might be affected. I have no doubt that the Bill today is better than the Bill on which we embarked in Committee some weeks ago. I thank all members of the Committee who made that possible. It was a constructive Committee and we had the benefit of a great deal of advice from beyond the Committee.

In Committee, I undertook to consider ways in which to ensure transparency of accounting for lottery funds. The new clauses would ensure that Parliament would be able to see clearly exactly how all funds from the lottery had been spent. Amendment No. 26 is intended to ensure the same. As our new clauses and amendments meet, I hope, the intention of amendment No. 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I hope that she will accept new clause 7 and the other amendments and that she will withdraw her own.

Column 965

The reason why I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment No. 26 is that the Millennium Commission is likely to have as one of its members the Secretary of State, so it would not be appropriate for the commission's report to be submitted to him before being laid before Parliament. I hope that the hon. Members who tabled amendment No. 26 will accept that our new clauses and amendments would meet their purpose.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : I know that in legislation the term "Secretary of State" is a generic term to cover all Secretaries of State. Where the new clause uses the words "Secretary of State" in terms of reporting for the Scottish Arts Council and for the Scottish Sports Council, does it mean the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Secretary of State for National Heritage?

Mr. Key : It would be the Secretary of State for National Heritage, because it is our lottery.

Mr. Maxton : I find that a slightly odd reply in relation to Scotland. It is clear that the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sports Council come under the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are his responsibility, he appoints them, and they report on all other matters to him. I do not, therefore, understand why the Minister says that on the issue only of the spending of national lottery money, the report will go to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. That seems a strange decision and I should like a slightly fuller explanation.

Mr. Key : It is really very straightforward. It is a national lottery and the Secretary of State for National Heritage is responsible to the House for the operation of the lottery. The Arts Council in Scotland is a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain as presently constituted. Next year, it will become the Scottish Arts Council in its own right and will then be answerable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the national lottery will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and he will be responsible to Parliament for it.

Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde) : This debate is turning into a bit of a lottery already.

I propose to speak to amendment No. 26, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and others. I am afraid that I must disappoint the Minister : we shall not readily give in unless we receive a satisfactory reply.

We consider it important that bodies distributing lottery proceeds should be fully accountable for their decisions. In that context, we believe that they should be required to report each year on the grants that they have made from national lottery proceeds. The spirit of the Government's amendments is that bodies distributing lottery proceeds should be required to act in a responsible and transparent manner. That is fair enough and we accept that there has been some movement on that, but we believe that, as part of that commitment to responsible action, distributing bodies should be required to report each year on the grants that they have made. An onus should be placed on them to demonstrate that a proportion of their funds has been spent for the benefit of low-income groups. In our view, that would demonstrate a commitment to responsible action.

There is much evidence to suggest that low-income groups will contribute disproportionately to the purchase

Column 966

of national lottery tickets. The report by DKM Economic Consultants commissioned by the An Post lottery company in 1990--a report of which the Minister knows because it was mentioned in Committee--concluded that participation in the lottery is fairly constant across all classes. That claim has been seriously challenged by Desmond Norton of Dublin university. In his analysis of the report's findings, Norton shows that, on the contrary, education and income are key variables determining spending on the national lottery. The skilled working class and the unemployed spend more on tickets than do the middle classes.

That finding is confirmed by earlier research conducted in the United States by Clotfelter and Cook. Research recently undertaken by Saatchi and Saatchi on behalf of the Sports Council supports the view that participation in the lottery will be weighted towards those in the lower income groups. That survey, which examined the public's intention as regards the purchase of national lottery tickets, suggested that a larger proportion of those in social classes C1 and C2 than in the AB category would be regular lottery participants. In his report on the national lottery for the Gulbenkian Foundation, Professor John Kay notes that the Saatchi and Saatchi findings "are consistent with the results of the surveys in other countries. The general finding is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income on lotteries."

Professor Kay quotes seven different studies that have reached the same conclusion.

The aim of the lottery is to raise money for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millenium fund. Many of us fear that a large proportion of lottery money will be spent on high prestige projects such as opera houses and historic buildings. We have nothing against opera houses and historic buildings, but we want them to be put in context. Research on the current patterns of use of such facilities shows that low-income groups are less likely to benefit from such projects than high earners. We may regret that, but it is none the less the case.

The evidence suggests, therefore, that the lottery could be a form of regressive taxation, obtaining money from the least well-off to finance services for the better-off to enjoy. Opposition Members believe it essential, therefore, that information should be available about the pattern of participation in lottery play.

The amendment places on lottery distributors a duty to report annually on the grants that they have made from their allocation. If purchasing patterns for lottery tickets mirror those in other countries, the distributing bodies should be able to show that their allocation is being used in some measure to benefit those on low incomes. That could include providing funding for the development of access programmes in the arts, sport and heritage, as well as ensuring that programmes that are currently of direct benefit to those on low incomes are properly supported.

The Minister rightly said that the Government had moved a good way to meeting the points made in Committee. I hope that the Minister will go that bit further and accept the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) : I apologise to hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee for intervening in the debate on Report, as I was not a member of that Committee. However, as some of my hon. Friends will know, as Arts Minister, I was extremely active for 18 months in support of the cause of the national

Column 967

lottery and in persuading my colleagues, including some rather intransigent colleagues at the Treasury, to support the idea. The Treasury naturally objected to any idea of hypothecation of revenue and therefore to revenue going to causes outside its control. For 18 months, as the Arts Minister, I had a hard battle to win the Treasury round to my way of thinking. However, perhaps more of that later.

I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) about amendment No. 26, and although I fully appreciate the social causes and motives which caused him to table his amendment, the idea that the national lottery should in any way be used to fulfil social objectives- -objectives that are in themselves worth while--strikes horror in my heart. That cannot be the purpose of the national lottery.

If those who are to subscribe--one hopes weekly, for fun, entertainment and in the hope of winning £1 million and in the knowledge that, if they do not win, the money will go to good causes--become aware that there is a weighting in favour of social security objectives, it will destroy the whole purpose for which the national lottery is being created.

Of course I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that some people may be more interested in the redevelopment of the Royal Opera house or in building a new museum of modern art for the Tate gallery than others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for example, on the Millennium Commission or elsewhere, will have to help people to take difficult decisions in due course. However, the aim must be to encourage people to take part in a lottery which is essentially for fun and for good causes as well.

If an underlying thought develops that there is a social security element and objective involved, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde would find that the take-up of lottery tickets, upon which everything depends, would be very much less than it would otherwise be. As a consequence, the whole purpose of the lottery, to raise substantial extra funds for heritage, sports, the Arts, for smaller charities and for the millennium fund will be lost.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rather gave himself away when, towards the end of his remarks, he said that the proposal could become a form of regressive taxation. We must avoid precisely the thought that this is taxation. If people come to believe that the lottery is a form of regressive taxation and a supplement to Treasury money, or a way of replacing money which the Treasury would otherwise have to provide to the Department of Health for hospitals or to the Department of Social Security for income support, the lottery is bound to fail.

Although I know that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has a long- standing interest in supporting, encouraging and increasing sports facilities in this country, I believe that he should not press his amendment. The thought behind it is contrary to the spirit that is necessary for the national lottery to be the great success that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope it will be.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : The House should be worried by the last line of new clause 7 which states that anyone who is spending money or receiving cash must put a report before the House, but

Column 968

"This section does not apply to the Millennium Commission." New clause 7, which is slipping through the House unnoticed is a perfect example of pork-barrel politics. Why should details about money given to the Millennium Commission not be reported to the House? The answer is simple. Anything spent in the year 2000 is likely to have a great effect on a general election that might be called in 2001.

Once the fund is established, anything linked to the year 2000 can be provided from a slush fund to buy votes. If we were at that stage now, the Government would be telling the managers of Newbury race course, "We will give you a new tote and some new tapes. You can run the Grand National here, so that the tapes do not break and everything does not go wrong. It is all to celebrate the year 2000 ; it has nothing to do with the Newbury by-election next week." Already, the Prime Minister has been to Manchester and said, "We will back your bid for the Olympic games." Who will pay for that? Not the taxpayer. The Prime Minister has not obtained a single extra penny from the Treasury. No--he will dip his hand into the national lottery slush fund, and the Millennium Commission will get £60 million every year from now until the year 2000. The Prime Minister can spend all that lovely money, and he can say, "We, the Tory Government, have backed the Olympic games that will take place in the year 2000, and all those in marginal seats in the Manchester area--where we have created the jobs-- should be desperately grateful to us."

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government have already stated their intention of supporting the Olympic games and contributed £15 million towards the building of a new stadium in Manchester?

4 pm

Mr. Ashton : They have not done so yet. They have said that they will back the games, but they have not given a penny, because no money has come in yet.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : The Government cannot commit the money.

Mr. Ashton : Why not? It is to celebrate the year 2000.

Mr. Corbett : It is not within the Government's gift to spend a penny of the lottery money on their own say-so.

Mr. Ashton : My hon. Friend has been in the House for a long time, as have I. He must be very naive if he honestly believes that the Government have no method of shifting money from one project to another in order to gain votes and popularity.

What is to stop the Government from applying new clause 7 to the Millennium Commission? Why should not a report be presented to the House? The new clause states :

"The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section"--

that is, clause 22, which applies to distribution, and indeed clause 23, which concerns the application of money--

"before Parliament."

That, however, does not apply to the Millennium Commission.

Column 969

Mr. Key : If the hon. Gentleman allows me to get a word in edgeways, I shall explain to him that the millennium fund is dealt with specifically by clauses 38 and 39.

Mr. Ashton : If I am wrong, I will withdraw what I have said. However, we shall not know whether I am wrong until about 1998, and by then it will all be lost in the mists of time. The matter will be the third item of the business on the Order Paper, and someone will come along at about 1.30 am and slip in an amendment of which no one else is aware. That is how the House and the Government tend to work.

A phenomenal, unbelievable amount of cash is involved ; yet its control is very vague. It should not be thought that Governments do not give election bribes--especially a Tory Government who sold council houses for about a fifth of their value in order to win the 1983 election. Such bribes have been given many times.

Will the Minister tell us why, according to subsection (4) of the new clause, it does not apply to the Millennium Commission? Perhaps he will refer later to clauses 37 and 38.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : (Lancaster) : The Millennium Commission is more tightly bound than any of the other bodies. Under clause 38, it must make a specific report. The clause states : "the Millenium Commission shall lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of their functions during that year."

That is a much more specific requirement than those applying to other bodies.

Mr. Ashton : The Government can do anything they like. The hon. Lady is saying that, once the Bill is passed, it is written on tablets of stone and nothing can be altered for the next six years. She must be very naive if she thinks that.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Waltoned the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared."

Does that not leave my hon. Friend with some forebodings about the amount of latitude that the Government will have on that statement?

Mr. Ashton : My hon. Friend knows exactly what I am saying. I do not trust any Government--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashton : Sit down. I shall not give way. I have given way five times in about three minutes.

The next general elections will probably be in 1996 or early 1997 followed by the year 2000 or 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is right to say that when a general election is approaching, the temptation to use the money on election bribes for any Government who face a difficult by-election will be irresistible. The Bill has built into it the facility for the Government to do so.

Next Section

Home Page