| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It will not. That is all I can say. I have to deal with the amendment as it is. It seeks to qualify the condition relating to profit—that is the point about heading (c)—by exempting circumstances where the proceeds of an entertainment after deductions of expenses of any exempt lottery are applied for purposes other than private gain. That is where I understand the point being made about the village fete to lie.
The only way we could make that work would be by examining the accounts—not so much those of a village fete, but let us think, for example, of a Live Aid concert or an entertainment where people are paid to take part. I referred to such a case at Second Reading: a choir and an orchestra play in a church and the choir is not paid but the orchestra is. Are we going to examine the accounts every time? Even if the proceeds of an entertainment are not intended for private gain, they will be licensable if they are provided for members of the public—which is the village fete. Incidentally, any memorial service is exempt under Schedule 1(9).
To return to the example, unless I wholly misunderstand the nature of his village fete, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is forgetting the provision of the Bill which says that if there is provision for an audience of less than 500, and provided that there are no more than five occasions, which can each be three days long, in any one calendar year, notice must merely be given; there is no provision for a licence. Does the noble Lord's village fete attract more than 500 people for more than three days, more than five times a year? I very much doubt it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: A few days ago, I attended a memorial meeting of a secular nature for a celebrated forensic scientist. It was held in a room in a college at Cambridge University. Some recorded music was played, chosen by and at the request of, the deceased person's children. It seems to me that that would be caught under the Bill as it was not a religious service. If so, I invite the Minister to reconsider whether that is appropriate.
I refer to an example I gave earlier. I am a trustee of a small mental health charity in mid-Wales which holds events in private houses, sells tickets to members of the public and, typically—because we have a large number of young harpists in Montgomeryshire—we invite a harpist to play. Are we really to be subject to licensing in such a situation? If so, it seems to me a ludicrous piece of regulation. A government who seek to support small charities such as ours, which do a lot of work that used to be done by the National Health Service, should make life easier for us, not more difficult.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which, after listing descriptions of entertainment, states,
- "where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I am unswayed by it. He is not right in saying that one does not need a licence for a fete—he said that there must be five occasions. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong to say that schools are excluded from the provisions of this licensing regulation. Can she show me where they are excluded? There is no reference to schools' exclusion from this legislation. The amendment applies to sub-paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). Nothing that the Minister has said affects my case. We will certainly bring this back at the next stage.
Baroness Blackstone: Before my noble friend gets up, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I did not say that schools were exempted. On the contrary, I said that schools, colleges and HE institutions are covered by the existing licensing regime if they are holding events
involving the public and charging, for commercial purposes. There is no change from the longstanding situation. We have not had complaints from either the Department of Education or schools.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With great respect to the Minister, I heard her correctly. I am reluctant to contradict her blankly, but there is no option. She is not taking account of the fact that sub-paragraph (2)(a) stands alone. To be caught by this Bill, an event does not need to involve charging or to be run in a school for profit. The mere admission to an event of any member of the public, or any section of the public, whether or not there is a charge, will catch it, with the result that it will be licensable. That is new. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.42 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]
Winter Fuel Payment
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the winter fuel payment has been extended to any other groups of people in the past two years; if so, to whom; and whether they intend to extend it further in the next two years, and, if so, to whom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, winter fuel payments were introduced in the winter of 1997–98. They are universal, non-contributory, age-related payments made to those ordinarily resident in the UK. We have recently agreed with the EU that EEA citizens receiving WFP in this country may port them to another EEA country.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Does she agree that many severely disabled pensioners receiving the attendance allowance and many severely disabled younger people receiving the disability living allowance are struggling to get by? Pensioners receive the winter fuel allowance, which is very helpful, but incredibly, the Government refuse these payments to younger severely disabled people. That cannot be right, because their needs are very similar. When will the Government reconsider this? Chronically and severely disabled people are just as vulnerable to the cold, whether they are old or young. That is why the issue needs reconsideration.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to disappoint my noble friend. It is not the case, as he says, that severely disabled people are as vulnerable to the cold as are older people. Severely disabled people are less poor than older people. Far fewer of them are in fuel poverty compared with older people. Above all, they are at far less risk of dying in the winter due to cold. Something like 95 per cent of the additional deaths that occur during the winter months are of those aged over 60 or 65. It is therefore not the case, as my noble friend says, that severely disabled people are at greater risk as a result of their disability.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has rejected the appeal by the noble Lord behind her, but can she confirm that it is possible that some people who have gone to live in warmer countries will still be in receipt of the winter fuel payment? Can she also confirm that men between 60 and 65 who were affected by the European Court's decision can still have their claims backdated three years? If that is so, how many have been paid?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the first of those two questions, some countries in the EEA, such as former French colonies, have warmer climates, but many, such as Scandinavia, Germany and the like, have very cold winter temperatures. As a result of the agreement with the EU, we expect that something like 30,000 people may be able to export their winter fuel payments. They can do so only if they acquire their eligibility while ordinarily resident in the UK. So far, about 2,000 of them have claimed it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister please bear in mind that in some areas in the north of this country, particularly up in the mountains, the weather in the winter is very much colder than it is in the south? Will the Government please consider that people living in those areas might need more help with fuel in the winter than do people in the south? I live in one of those areas. I am lucky enough not to need such help, but I know plenty who do.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lady is right. That is why over the past year about 1.8 million cold weather payments were made, totalling something like £15 million, disproportionately to Scotland. The right answer is obviously to make sure that houses are well insulated and, as a result, people can afford to heat them properly. I am delighted to report that under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, around 400,000 households have been able to take advantage of grants of up to £1,500 to do precisely that.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the allowances that are given to the severely disabled are targeted to meet existing and current needs? Surely it is not beyond the powers of the Government's imagination or totally removed from
their thinking to make a cold weather payment for the specific small group who have problems generating body heat or are incapacitated.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |