RETIREMENT AGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

RETIREMENT AGE (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the average life expectancy of Singapore residents has risen steadily, from 68 years in 1970 to 76 years when the Retirement Age Act was enacted in 1993. The average life expectancy has increased further to 81 years in 2009. Sir, it is a good thing that we are living longer but as we live longer, many Singaporeans want to work longer. Working not only enhances their financial security in old age, but also provides an added sense of purpose in life. They can remain active while making valuable contributions to their organisations. Employers can also tap on this increasing pool of experienced and skilled older workers to supplement their workforce.

Column: 2220

Older workers are a critical source of manpower, experience and skills to sustain our economic vitality. For these reasons, we need to create opportunities for our workers to work longer, beyond the current retirement age of 62. We have studied what other developed countries have done to enable their workers to work longer. Their experiences have shown that merely raising retirement age may not be the most effective approach. Japan, for example, is a country with an ageing workforce and yet enjoys one of the highest employment rates for older workers. It was the first to legislate re-employment in 2006.

Re-employment provides both employers and employees the flexibility to make necessary adjustments to employment terms and conditions to meet their respective needs. This flexibility will help to allow older workers to work longer without imposing undue burden on employers. Therefore, we have decided to take a similar approach by introducing re-employment.

Sir, let me elaborate. First, the statutory minimum retirement age will remain at 62 years. This means that employers have the flexibility to stipulate a mandatory retirement age as long as it is 62 years or any higher age.

Second, employers will be required to re-employ those who have reached retirement age but are willing and able to continue to work up to age 65 as a first step and later to 67 as provided for in the Act. Re-employment need not be for the same job or on the same terms. The employer and the worker have the flexibility to make changes to the existing job arrangements to suit their needs. For example, employers may have to consider their organisational needs, such as leadership renewal, and may have to re-deploy older workers. On the other hand, older employees may wish to take up a different job – a lighter one perhaps – so as to spend more time with their family.

Column: 2221

Re-employment allows both parties to consult each other and work out mutually agreeable arrangements.

Sir, the tripartite partners have been preparing the ground since 2007 when the Government first announced our intention to introduce re-employment. We released a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees in March 2010 to help employers put in place re-employment practices. In addition to regular industry briefings and seminars, the tripartite partners have put in place a variety of resources and programmes such as the re-employment website portal, the ADVANTAGE! incentive scheme, training programmes and guidebooks to provide employers and workers with the support they need to prepare themselves for re-employment.

We have made good progress since 2006. According to a survey done by my Ministry in 2009, nearly two-thirds of companies surveyed already allowed their employees to work past age 62, either on an existing employment contracts or through offering re-employment. Of those which had employees reaching the age 62, a vast majority – 92% to be precise – of their employees were allowed to work beyond age 62. The Public Service has also taken the lead to implement re-employment early. In November 2010, the Public Service Division released a set of guidelines to implement re-employment for eligible public service officers who turn 62 on or after 1st July 2011.

Sir, we are now ready to introduce re-employment legislation. This Bill amends the existing Retirement Age Act (RAA) to introduce re-employment. The Bill seeks to achieve two objectives.

First, it will provide opportunities for workers who are willing and able to continue working to do so beyond retirement.

Column: 2222

Second, it will provide flexibility to facilitate employers to retain their older workers beyond retirement.

The RAA will be renamed the "Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA)". The Bill introduces a new Part III which contains the provisions on re-employment and a new Part IV which provides avenues for employees to seek recourse for re-employment disputes. We also took the opportunity to make technical amendments to update some of the existing provisions in the RAA.

Sir, I will now elaborate on the key provisions in the Bill.

The RRA will come into effect on 1st January 2012 and re-employment will apply to eligible employees who attain the specified age on or after 1st January 2012. The specified age is defined in section 2 of the Act as the minimum statutory retirement age of 62 or contractual retirement age if it is higher. Section 7 in the new Part III of the RRA spells out the two criteria for employees to be eligible for re-employment: i) the employee must have at least satisfactory work performance; and ii) the employee is medically fit to continue working.

Employers should put in place appropriate performance appraisal systems to evaluate workers' performance. The law places the onus on employers to show proof that an employee is not eligible for re-employment. Open and early communication is also important to reduce misunderstanding and ensures smooth implementation of re-employment. Section 7A(8) requires employers to give reasonable prior notice to those who are not eligible. Section 7A(10) similarly requires employees to give reasonable prior notice to their employers if they do not wish to work beyond retirement. While "reasonable prior notice" is not defined in the law, the guidelines which I have mentioned earlier encourage

Column: 2223

employers and employees to inform each other of their decision at least three months before retirement.

Sir, certain groups of employees are currently exempted from the minimum retirement age under section 11 of the Retirement Age Act. This includes foreign employees holding work passes, employees whose job requirements are physically demanding and employees who before the enactment of the Act in 1993 are covered under retirement benefit schemes that are linked to a contractual retirement age lower than the statutory minimum retirement age of 62. With the introduction of re-employment, we have been reviewing these exemptions in consultation with the relevant employers and unions to examine whether the exemptions are still required.

Employees who are recruited at the age of 55 or above are also currently exempted from the RAA. To ensure that their employability will not be affected, these employees will continue to be exempted from the minimum retirement age provisions. However, employers will be required to offer re-employment to these employees if they meet the eligibility criteria for re-employment and have at least three years of service upon reaching the age of 62. We will continue to work with the relevant unions and employers and complete the review before the implementation of the re-employment law.

Sir, section 7A of the Act stipulates the re-employment obligations of employers. Re-employment is defined in section 2 of the Act as the employment of an employee by the same employer. This is because employers should not be allowed to discharge their re-employment obligations simply by transferring their older employees to another employer who is not obliged to keep the employees until

Column: 2224

they reach 65. If the employee does not wish to be re-employed by his employer and chooses to work for another employer instead, then the previous employer is relieved of all re-employment obligations.

Under section 7A(4), employers may offer a new re-employment contract upon the employee attaining the specified age. To provide re-employed employees with greater certainty and assurance, sub-section 6 of section 7A requires the re-employment contract to be of a minimal duration of one year at each instance or up to the point when the employee turns 65. Some employers, especially the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) may not have formal re-employment contracts but continue to employ their workers on the same job and terms up to the age of 65. They will be deemed to have fulfilled the re-employment obligations.

Sir, a key feature of re-employment is the flexibility that it provides to allow employers and employees to make adjustments to employment terms and conditions. In designing jobs and remuneration for older employees, employers should exercise fairness in making any adjustments to terms and benefits of re-employment, such as wages, medical benefits and leave benefits. Similarly, employees should exercise flexibility and be ready to accept the necessary adjustments for re-employment including accepting a salary that is commensurate with the job worth and going for training to take up new job responsibilities.

Section 7A(5) requires any adjustments to be based on reasonable factors such as the employees' productivity, performance, duties and responsibilities and the wage system such as seniority wage system applicable to the employee. The tripartite guidelines describe the principles on how this could be done. For example, taking into account the extent of seniority-based wage in the company, employers could adjust wages using the

Column: 2225

midpoint of the salary range of the job as a reference while accounting for the experience and competency of the worker.

Under section 7B, the period of service prior to retirement is disregarded to signify a fresh term of employment for re-employment. However, when an employer enters into multiple employment contracts with his employees, the period of service accumulated from employment under the various re-employment contracts will be considered as a continuous service.

Section 7B(2) also stipulates that employees who are re-employed are not required to fulfil the qualifying period for sick leave and annual leave as they would have been working with their employers for a long time.

While the main objective of the law is to create employment opportunities for older workers, we recognise that some employers may not be able to find suitable jobs for employees eligible for re-employment. As a last resort, section 7C of the Act requires employers to offer a one-off Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) to eligible employees who wish to work beyond retirement but are not re-employed because their employers are unable to find a suitable job vacancy for them.

Sir, the purpose of the EAP is to help the workers while they look for alternative employment or undergo re-training. It is not meant as a compensation for loss of income or recognition for past years of service. Due to diversity in employment contracts we should not hardwire a formula or quantum for the EAP in the law. This will create rigidity in implementation. Instead, reference points for EAP amounts can be found in the tripartite guidelines. For example, the tripartite guidelines suggest that the EAP could be three months of the gross

Column: 2226

monthly salary, with a minimum amount of $4,500 and a maximum amount of $10,000. These reference points are carefully calibrated after discussion with the tripartite partners to ensure that it does not cause undue burden on employers or disadvantage low-income workers.

Employers or employees with re-employment disputes may approach the Ministry for Manpower for conciliation and mediation under section 8A of the Act. If this fails, they may either appeal to the Minister of Manpower on grounds of unfair denial of re-employment or lodge a claim with the Commissioner for Labour for the purposes of claiming EAP. This is similar to the existing dispute settlement procedures under the Employment Act.

Sir, we have also taken the opportunity to make technical amendments to update the existing provisions in the Act. Amendments are made to raise the penalty fine for non-compliance with the Minister's order, from $5,000 to $10,000, and to increase composition fine for offences from $500 to $1,000 to bring it in line with the Employment Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill will provide more opportunities for older workers to continue to work. As I have mentioned earlier, our statistics show that the majority of the employers are generally able and willing to re-employ eligible workers given the flexibility that re-employment offers. Moreover, our experience during the recent economic recession shows that employers in general do recognise the value that older employees bring to their organisation. Many retained their older employees who bring with them the knowledge and experience needed by the company. As a result, the employment rate of older workers aged 55 to 64 held steady at 57.2% in 2009, and improved to 59% in 2010 as the economy recovered. While the recession did not have any negative

Column: 2227

impact on the older worker employment, it impeded our progress towards achieving the target of 65% employment rate for residents aged 55 to 64 by 2012. We will need to regain the momentum by pressing on with our efforts to encourage adoption of re-employment and promote the employment of older workers.

Sir, we have had extensive consultations with the public and our tripartite partners – Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) and National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) – during the drafting of this Bill and have taken into account their concerns and feedback.

We have also updated the tripartite guidelines, and these guidelines will be released today. It contains more details on the implementation of re-employment. The tripartite guidelines will be published in the Gazette as it serves to complement the law and provides a basis for mediation and adjudication of re-employment disputes.

Sir, the Bill balances the objectives of providing opportunities for more employees to work beyond retirement, with the need to maintain flexibility in implementation. This will allow employers to continue to tap on the pool of experienced and skilled older workers while remaining competitive. In the longer term, the introduction of the Retirement and Re-employment Act will help employees who are able and healthy to continue working and make valuable contributions to their organisation and the society. This will also help us better utilise our limited manpower resources and reduce the reliance on foreign workers to ensure sustainable economic growth for Singapore.

Sir, on this note, I would like to thank all who have contributed to the process of introducing re-employment, in particular the NTUC and SNEF and members of the Tripartite Committee and Tripartite

Column: 2228

Implementation Workgroup on the Employability of Older Workers. They have provided valuable feedback and suggestions which helped us fine-tune our proposals. I seek the continued support of our tripartite partners to ensure an effective and smooth implementation of the re-employment law.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.16 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

Through the re-employment provisions enshrined in this Bill, Singaporeans will now be able to work until 65 years of age or even longer if their contract of employment allows them to do so. As the Minister for Manpower had said, there is a steady increase of older people working beyond 62 years of age, and this Bill will certainly empower and assist many more to do so. There is no reason why people cannot work for as long as they can or want to for whatever reasons; whether because they need the income, or of equal importance for many, to keep them productively engaged as their children have flown from the nest and they want to keep healthy in body and mind.

Sir, I notice that this Bill now clearly stipulates that the retirement age stipulated in it is the minimum, which means that there is nothing to stop any employer from employing or re-employing anyone for as long as they want to. I am in no doubt at all that the existing law already provides for this but in view of the confusion that has arisen, where many had erroneously assumed that the retirement age provision in the Retirement Age Act was an obstacle to employers offering a higher retirement age, it is useful for the Bill to now provide for this explicitly.

Column: 2229

The other interesting feature of this Bill is the way it has provided extensively for disputes on re-employment to be dealt with. A worker denied of re-employment opportunities or dissatisfied with the terms of re-employment or quantum of employment assistance payment, can now refer the matter to the Commissioner for Labour for conciliation. Providing an effective mechanism for the settlement of re-employment disputes is important. Otherwise, as we have observed from a comparable Japanese legislation, the law will become a dead letter.

The most significant point about this Bill is that it will now give workers the right to work up to 65 years which is a significant benefit. Of course, this right comes with willingness to adjust to be flexible. But nevertheless, it is still a right to work after 65 years. The choice lies with the worker whether or not to continue working. But if he chooses to do so, then the employer has to make arrangements to accommodate him.

I would like to make a few points on this Bill. First, Sir, on the salary cut at 60 years of age. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is a need to retain the provision which allows companies to cut a workers’ pay by up to 10% when the worker reaches 60 years of age. As the new Bill allows adjustments in workers’ salary when re-employment is offered at 62 years, will this not amount to a double cut and is excessive? Would it be counter-productive to our efforts to encourage older workers to remain employed? I had expected this provision to be removed or modified in light of the re-employment provisions and in line with the established principle that a worker should be paid according to the value of his job, including an older worker.

On the same point, I also notice that the Bill has retained section 5(4) of the original Act, which allows an employer to retire an employee who does not agree with the company’s proposal to cut his

Column: 2230

salary. Although the law also states that the cut should be based on reasonable factors such as productivity, seniority-based wages or performance, section 5(4) clearly states that "if an employee does not agree with any proposed reduction in his salary, he may either retire or be retired by his employer on or after attaining 60 years of age notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act". This implies that the employer has the right and the discretion to decide whether or not to cut and how much to cut, and if no agreement is reached with the employee on this, the employer could retire him at the age of 60 years. There is nothing in the existing Act or the new Bill on what a worker or his union can do if they disagree with the cut.

This provision can be contrasted with the new provisions on re-employment which provides that if the worker does not agree with the terms of the re-employment offered by his employer, he can refer the matter to the Commissioner for Labour for conciliation. Could the Minister clarify why this conciliation provision is not extended to disputes over the salary cut at 60 years of age? Will it lead to a situation where employers could circumvent the re-employment law simply by retiring a worker who is 60 years old if the worker disagrees with the pay cut since the employer has the discretion to do so under section 5(4) of the Act? What recourse is available to a worker who does not agree to the pay cut at 60?

My second point is on the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP). Whilst this provision is meant to help workers in situations where the company has no vacancy to re-employ them, there are concerns that employers would take the easy way out and pay the EAP instead of making every effort to find a job for the workers. Employees earning higher pay feel particularly vulnerable as they view the EAP quantum of $4,500 to $10,000 as too little to act as a deterrent to

Column: 2231

employers. I urge the Ministry to monitor the situation closely so that the EAP will not become a convenient loophole for employers to avoid their re-employment obligations. The EAP should clearly be the last resort when really there are no jobs. There are cases where the employer claims that there is no job available but soon after retiring the worker, advertises for his position. In such situations, the inference is clearly that the employer has not made reasonable attempts to find a suitable vacancy and is a violation of the Act.

My third point is on the requirement for workers to be medically fit to continue working before they will be offered re-employment. On this point, I am not clear on the meaning of section 7(2) of the Act. This provision says that an employee is presumed to be medically fit to continue working, which is very clear to me. But then it goes on to say that "unless the employer of the employee proves on balance of probabilities that the employee is not medically fit". My understanding is that whether or not an employee is medically fit to continue working should be decided by a medical doctor. This provision seems to imply that the final judge should be the employer and even if the doctor certifies the worker medically fit to work, an employer could on a balance of probabilities prove otherwise. I would like to seek some clarification from the Minister as to the meaning of this provision and how it would be applied in practice.

My fourth point is on the exemption list which currently covers 26 categories of workers who are excluded from the Act. Could the Minister give an update on the outcome of its review of this list as too many exemptions would also defeat the purpose of the Bill, and currently how many workers are exempted from the Retirement Age Act? Even as we are

Column: 2232

debating this Bill, we are also acutely aware that there are now more contract workers being employed in Singapore. Could this become a convenient loophole where employers could avoid the retirement and re-employment law completely by employing people on contract which could undermine the objective from the law? It is also important to make sure that those categories of workers who are exempted from the Act are also given support and assistance if they wish to work longer so that their retirement age will not be completely out of whack with the rest of the population. As I hear that there are workers in some companies that are exempted facing this difficulty, could I ask what kind of recourse these workers have if they need help?

My final point is on the procedure for referring claims to the Commissioner. Under the Act, a unionised worker can be represented by an officer of the trade union that he belongs to. As not all unions have the expertise or resources to represent their members themselves in hearings before the Commissioner, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether an officer from the NTUC could be allowed to do so. That means to represent them before the Commissioner, if the union is affiliate to NTUC. In other words, whether the interpretation of an officer of the trade union could also cover an officer of the federation of unions to which the union is affiliated?

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to thank MOM for this far sighted legislation, and in working very closely with the tripartite partners to iron out some of the issues. This would now give workers the legal right to work up to 65 years and even to 67, if subsequently that it is decided once it comes into effect in 2012. Although the law comes into effect in 2012, I hope that employers will not wait until then to introduce re-employment. Our unionised

Column: 2233

companies have fared well, but the non-unionised ones are still lagging behind. I urge MOM and employers to do more so that more workers could benefit from re-employment. This will be a particular challenge for the SMEs, and the Minister has also acknowledged that. The Association of Medium and Small Enterprises (ASME) have estimated that only 357 out of their more than 6,000 members had adopted the re-employment policy. As SMEs collectively employ a huge number of workers, we need to have more concerted and targeted efforts to assist them.

Sir, I would also like to thank the Government for agreeing to implement the re-employment provisions including the EAP in the public sector in July this year, instead of waiting until January next year. This is a very enlightened move on the part of the public sector and will benefit many civil servants. I hope that this would lead the way for the private sector. Certainly, I am also very happy that we have worked very closely with the Government and particularly public sector division – more with the NTUC and public sector unions – in order to have the re-employment provisions in the public sector implemented in July this year.

Sir, the key thrust of this Bill is flexibility, both for the employers and employees. For the employers: flexibility for the employers to continue to use skilled experienced workers longer and to adjust their cost. For the employees flexibility to adjust themselves for new jobs and opportunities and to learn new experiences. I think this element of flexibility for both parties is extremely crucial for the success of the re-employment legislation.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

3.27 pm

Mr Teo Siong Seng: ( In Mandarin ): [ For vernacular speech, please refer to

Column: 2234

_Appendix A * _ .] Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) and the Managing Director of Pacific International Lines. I have two points regarding this Bill, from the perspective of the business community. First, the Amendment Bill will help ease the labour shortage problem, but we need to exercise flexibility in its implementation and, second, I hope the Government can put forward effective relief measures to reduce the burden for employers, especially SMEs.

In recent years, the topic of re-employing older workers has been widely debated among the tripartite partners. Statistics from MOM show that the employment rate of workers aged between 55 and 64 had risen to 59% last year, thanks to a strong economy. It demonstrates that the labour market does need older workers.

SCCCI recently did a survey to find out the views of its members. Among the companies surveyed, over 90% expressed willingness to hire older workers. Some already started to do so. Over 50% are SMEs. It shows that SMEs are more concerned with this issue.

Singapore companies have long been facing a labour shortage problem, although the Government has taken many steps to solve it. Under the multiple impacts of capital shortage, foreign labour reduction and an ageing population, SMEs are struggling. The Bill is very timely, and will deliver a clear message to both employers and workers. It will not only have a great impact on ensuring older workers' welfare but also help ease the ever pressing problem of labour shortage. We wholeheartedly support this decision.

However, different industries have different characteristics, and the

*Cols. 2337-2340.

Column: 2235

implementation is not going to be smooth. Employers and workers must work together and make mutual adjustment for the Bill to be truly effective. For example, construction, electric and precision engineering, and marine operations require their workers to be either physically strong or have good eye sight. Older workers might find it hard to continue with such jobs. In this situation, employers and workers must try to reconcile and resolve their differences.

I am pleased to see that the tripartite partners have drawn up a practical guideline. Currently, MOM is reviewing 26 categories of workers to be exempted from the Bill, with reasons such as physical demand. I worry that for those older workers who are not under these categories and whose performance is not up to standard, the employer will have to pay them between $4,500 and $10,000 employment assistance if he does not wish to re-employ them. This adds on to the labour cost and the financial burden of the employer.

Undoubtedly, SMEs will face a two-fold cost challenge in the future. On one hand, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) recommends increasing Singapore workers' wage to $3,100 by 2020; on the other hand, companies cannot expect too much on production efficiency after employing older workers. Therefore, we must have effective measures to help companies reduce cost and grow.

Hence, I propose that the Government puts forward an incentivising mechanism similar to the Jobs Credit Scheme to encourage companies to re-hire older workers by giving out grants. During the financial crisis, the Jobs Credit Scheme proved to be very effective. It helped to retain workers' jobs and lower companies' costs; hence it was supported by both the employers and workers.

Column: 2236

While the new Act is being implemented, it will take some time for the older workers and the employers to make adjustments. From the employer's perspective, the company will have to re-design work processes to suit the older workers. If the type of work is changed, the employer also needs to encourage the older worker to undergo necessary training. If the Government can provide incentives to benefit both the employer and the worker, it will definitely raise both parties' enthusiasm.

Human resources form Singapore's precious capital. Older workers are experienced and can help train the younger generation. Re-employing them will not only solve the labour shortage problem but also improve the company's competitiveness. This, in turn, will help our economy's continuous growth.

To conclude, the business community supports this Bill to re-employ older workers. However, the Bill must take into consideration the different characteristics of different industries. In the meantime, we hope the Government can put forward an effective incentivising mechanism to help companies to implement the changes as fast as it can.

I support changing the Retirement Act to Retirement and Re-Employment Act.

3.33 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] When we debated the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill in September 2007, the Workers' Party objected linking the retirement age with the CPF draw-down age. We were also against increasing the draw-down age from 62 to 67. Although Singaporeans are living a longer life these days, longer life does not necessarily mean they still have the energy and health to continue working. What is more, whether

*Cols. 2341-2342.

Column: 2237

there are employers willing to hire people reaching 60 years is still a question. We were worried that the CPF policy will put people in an awkward situation whereby they cannot find a suitable job on one hand and, on the other hand, they cannot take out their CPF savings to maintain their livelihood. They might end up "hanging in mid-air".

Now we are debating the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill to try to solve the problems we have pointed out before. The Bill requires the employer to offer workers reaching 62 a new employment contract and re-hire them. However, we should take note that the Bill also gives employers the option of not doing so. Instead, they can offer the older workers a one-off employment assistance payment. If the employers are allowed by law to do this, then workers reaching 62 are likely to lose their job. If they cannot find a new job and are not allowed to take out their CPF, how can they make a living?

The Bill also provides that if the employee's performance is not satisfactory, the employer has the option not to offer him a re-employment contract. While drawing up the new contract, the employer can also change employment terms and conditions including the wage, type and scope of work. In fact, under such circumstances, the employer can easily make the contract so harsh that it cannot be accepted by the employee.

In my view, this amendment is a half-baked Bill which seemingly can solve the employment issue before people are allowed to take out their CPF savings, yet in reality, it cannot guarantee that Singaporeans will continue to be employed until the age of 65, only by then can they take out their CPF savings.

The dilemma Singaporeans will face in the future is that they might lose their job

Column: 2238

when they reach 62, and yet are not allowed to take out their CPF – the money that has been saved all their life for retirement. Now, they have to wait till 65, 67 or even older!

I think the Government should allow people to take out their CPF savings when they reach 60. Retirement age shall not be linked together with the CPF draw-down age. The Government can, through incentives, encourage people to continue working and delay taking out their CPF savings voluntarily.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

_Sitting accordingly suspended at
3.36 pm until 4.00 pm. _

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Column: 2238

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: Column: 2238