---

Mr. Forth: Will the Minister answer the question that I raised on new subsection (3)(b) in clause 1? My reading of that is that there is a danger that it could become unlawful for an association to refuse to accept an application for membership from a woman at all—in other words, that an association would be simply unable under that provision to refuse membership. It is not clear to me from the words of that provision that it would apply simply on the basis of a woman's gender, and my fear is that it would mean that a private
 
14 May 2004 : Column 627
 
association would be unable to refuse membership for any reason. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is wrong, because the point is important.

Jacqui Smith: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that reassurance. As I have suggested, there is nothing in the Bill that restricts an organisation's autonomy to set criteria for its membership, but if an organisation accepts members of both genders, it cannot then discriminate against people, in terms of membership, on the basis of their gender. I hope that that reassures him.

The Bill really is not the undermining of our private lives or our civil society that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst attempted to set it out as. It is a sensible, pragmatic and reasonable response to the discrimination that people still face in private clubs that accept members of both sexes. I hope that hon. Members agree that such practices and beliefs belong to a different time. They have no place in Britain today, and we should take this opportunity to allow the Bill to be considered in Committee and, I hope, make further progress.

1.14 pm

David Wright: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank the Minister for her powerful speech, and to thank the Government for supporting the Bill.

I believe that this was the first appearance at the Dispatch Box for the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and, on today's evidence, there will be many more over the coming years. He did a fine job and, although I did not agree with everything that he said, I enjoyed his contribution. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for the support of the Liberal Democrats. They have a history of supporting the Bill through its several mutations in the House, and I appreciate their support today.

I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He made a number of important points, and I hope that we can return to them in Committee. He was quite constructive in the way he approached the debate today, and I appreciate that. I will enjoy having further discussions with him about the mechanics and detail of the Bill; there might be some issues relating to gender neutrality that need to be looked at in relation to its drafting. We would have to return to those matters and I give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment that I shall listen carefully to his points throughout the progress of the Bill.

I mentioned in my earlier speech some correspondence that I had received from the Royal and Ancient golf club, and I am willing to deposit it in the Library for other Members to see as we go through the process. That correspondence is particularly important, because the R and A is a significant body in the governorship of golf.

Mr. Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman had indications from any other umbrella organisations—or, indeed, individual associations—about their reaction to the
 
14 May 2004 : Column 628
 
Bill? What measure has he of the acceptability of his proposals to the people out there on the ground who are running these private organisations?

David Wright: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about inviting comment via this Second Reading debate were important. The CIU is broadly supportive of the proposal, as the Minister has said, and the Equal Opportunities Commission has supported the measure historically and continues to do so. I am more than happy to take contributions from other clubs, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be keen to bring examples to the Standing Committee, should he choose to serve on it.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

1.17 pm

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm whether the Government have today tabled amendments to the Pensions Bill that would provide for a compensation fund retrospectively to compensate those workers who have lost their pensions in occupational pension schemes through no fault of their own? If that is the case, is this not an example of why it is so important for people to join trade unions and to have a Labour Government?

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have seen an amendment that has been tabled by the Government today that would create a financial assistance scheme for people who have lost their pensions. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that 60,000 people have been the victims of pension scheme wind-ups. As someone who has campaigned with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), attended the marches and led a debate on this subject in January 2003, I would like to pay tribute to the all-party campaign that has finally made the Government see sense. However, should not a Minister come to the House and make a full oral statement about such a significant change of policy?

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were led to understand yesterday by the Leader of the House, no less, that the Government were going to table 100 amendments to the Pensions Bill. If those 100 amendments have now, rather belatedly, been tabled by Friday afternoon, and if the House is going to consider the Bill in detail next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, those with a legitimate interest in the matter have been left with a pathetically short time in which to consider those amendments before we start to deliberate on them in the House. Is it too late for an appeal to be made to the Government to postpone consideration of the Bill next week, so that those people with a legitimate interest in the 100 amendments can look at them properly and let Members of Parliament know what they think?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I am not aware of the matters to which hon. Members have
 
14 May 2004 : Column 629
 
referred, or at least I am not as up to date as they appear to be. A certain amount of information that has resulted from the original point of order may be helpful to all hon. Members present. Hon. Members who visit the Table Office or Public Bill Office will see the current state of play.

 
14 May 2004 : Column 630
 

Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.20 pm

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made, I am sure that everyone in the House will strongly welcome the tabling of those amendments today and the fact that we now have a listening Government who have responded to concerns. I strongly welcome that and, because of the all-party campaign that has been running for some time, I hope that all sections of the House will welcome today's news.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): It is not clear from the amendments whether the scheme will apply to all those who lost their pensions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think perhaps that we should now move on to the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill.

Mr. Love: Not having seen the terms of those amendments, it would have been difficult for me to comment in any detail.

This has been a remarkably productive Friday, with three Bills going through. I do not want to say that I hope to be as lucky as the first three, as that lies in the hands of the House and not my own. I shall endeavour to be brief, recognising the time.

The Bill seeks to make provision for the prosecution and punishment of offences that are or are treated as being offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 or the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. As I have said, the reason for proposing these changes is the prevailing concern, shared widely by industry and the legal profession, that health and safety offences are treated less seriously than they ought to be. A case in point was the recent Morecambe bay tragedy in which 20 people died. That reminded us in the most shocking terms of the need to protect workers when subjected to the harshest and most dangerous working conditions in which workers can be exploited by a system thriving on the taint of illegality.

In the UK, we have a long history of trying to confront and address health and safety problems caused by work activities. My researcher discovered that, about 200 years ago, Parliament introduced its first attempt to regulate aspects of occupational risk, the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802. The main provision in relation to these matters was in 1974, when the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive were set up. The legislation brought together many of the regulatory bodies dealing with occupational risk and provided a framework of duties on employers and employees.

Huge strides have been made in improving health and safety standards in the quarter of a century since the Act, with the rate of fatal accidents in the UK down to less than a quarter of what it was in the 1970s. However, the Institute of Directors told me that, over the last five years, industries in the private sector have had fatal and
 
14 May 2004 : Column 631
 
major accident rates exceeding 250 per 100,000 employees. These include industries such as construction, mining, quarrying and transport, as well as other varied manufacturing industries.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the original Act. The Act was a great achievement at the time, but we now need to re-engage with companies that evade their health and safety duties and which subject some of the most vulnerable workers to the hidden dangers at their work. These workers are often employed in a twilight world where the worst types of working conditions exist. Such worker exploitation can only occur when companies are allowed to put workers' lives at risk and where the small number of bad employers are able to undercut the good.

In 2002, the Institute of Directors said that public confidence in parts of the business community had been severely damaged as a result of a number of tragic and heavily publicised accidents. Occupational health and safety is an integral part of workplace well-being and many business voices accept the need to tighten the law covering health and safety.

I consulted the business and industry community widely in respect of the Bill. Following the introduction of the Bill in February, the CBI wrote to me to say that its members had

"no serious objection to the Bill proceeding to committee stage",

and that there

"must clearly be severe sanctions for persons and organisations that have caused death by their deliberate and negligent acts or inaction."

The Federation of Small Businesses, which I also consulted, commented:

"The FSB accepts that all employers have a general duty of care towards their employees and a duty to the inspectorate process. We also understand that there should be penalties attached to any infringement of the Act."

Much more recently, the Institute of Directors told me, when I spoke to its health and safety officer, that novel approaches to health and safety breaches could be considered, such as the ability for courts to order a safety audit at the organisation's expense, or company probations involving implementing a safety system that was recommended following such an audit.

It must be pointed out, however, that those three organisations also have concerns about the Bill, particularly about its proposals for extending custodial sentences. Although they believe that the custodial sentences option should continue to be available to the courts for a limited range of offences, they believe that it should be used only if the circumstances of the case are sufficiently extreme to warrant it. I shall return to their comments later in my speech.

---