Sitting of 5 July 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WORK AND PENSIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Unemployment (Nottingham, North)
    Mr. Graham AllenIf he will make a statement on the consequences for his Department of recent trends in unemployment in Nottingham, North. [181887]
    The Minister for Work (Jane Kennedy)The UK has one of the best labour markets in the world. We now have just over 28 million people in employment, which is more than ever before. We also have the best combination of employment and unemployment figures of the major industrialised countries and, as a result, my hon. Friend's constituency has experienced a 44 per cent. fall in unemployment since 1997.
    Mr. AllenI thank my right hon. Friend for those statistics, and urge her to keep unemployment on the agenda. The Government's success in tackling unemployment is in danger of knocking it off the agenda, when we should be celebrating that success. Does she accept, however, that there is a law of diminishing returns: the more we conquer unemployment, the harder it is to get those who remain unemployed back into work? Will she therefore look at the action teams for jobs and at the possibility of devolving authority from employment centres right down to our estates by deploying individuals to those estates who know the people and who can tailor the service to get the people who find it hardest to get jobs back into employment?
    Jane KennedyI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and for the close interest that he takes in this subject. Despite the success of our labour market policies, we are not complacent and we know that there is more to be done to help those groups of people—and the areas that he has rightly identified—who need extra support. He rightly draws attention to the work of the action team for jobs in Nottingham, which, with the employment zone, has helped more than 1,700 people into work.

    Economic Inactivity
    Mr. David WattsWhat recent progress has been made in tackling economic inactivity. [181888]
    Jim KnightWhat progress has been made in tackling economic inactivity in the last six years. [181896]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)Thanks to sound economic management and the new deal, Britain has record employment and the lowest unemployment for nearly 30 years. The number of economically inactive people claiming benefits has fallen over the past seven years, with, for example, nearly 200,000 fewer lone parents on income support. While we have achieved a great deal, there is still more to do. We are tackling economic inactivity by requiring everyone applying for benefits to have an interview about work, and by providing effective help so that more lone parents and people on incapacity benefits move off welfare and into jobs.
    Mr. WattsI thank my right hon. Friend for that response. St. Helens has set up a local partnership, but it has found five major problems: a lack of long-term funding; a lack of joined-up government; a lack of training; discrimination by employers; and a low earnings threshold. Will he assure me that all those issues will be addressed in his review?
    Mr. SmithYes, indeed, and I commend my hon. Friend for the support that he gives to the active partnership in his constituency, which plays such an important part in tackling these challenges successfully. With regard to joined-up government, we are doing pioneering work with the Department of Health on the pathways to work initiative, to bring together at local level primary care providers, rehabilitation services and the Jobcentre Plus effort. This is a clear pointer to the way forward. We are tackling discrimination through the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and through the draft Bill that is currently before Parliament, both of which will provide huge moves forward on that agenda.
    Jim KnightDoes my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to tackle the problem of economic inactivity is to deal with health-related problems before a pattern of inactivity traps an individual? What is his Department doing to realise the potential role of rehabilitative and occupational therapies in tackling this problem?
    Mr. SmithAs I have just been saying, the link with primary care, rehabilitation and condition management services is absolutely crucial. We are running pilots on the role of better occupational health, and on tackling ailments such as back pain and stress. As my hon. Friend says, if we can work with employers to tackle these problems before people leave work in the first place, we will face less of a problem with people moving on to incapacity benefit long-term. Mounting evidence, including an important report published last month by Professors Gordon Waddell and Kim Burton, points to

    533
    the clear medical benefits of therapeutic and rehabilitation activity in the workplace, and shows how, in most cases, people's medical condition is helped by getting them back to work as soon as is sensible.
    Sir Archy KirkwoodThe Secretary of State will understand that this is one of the most important areas for Government action in the coming months and years, and there is mounting evidence to show that the stock of people on long-term disability benefits is not diminishing at all. How soon will it be before we can evaluate the pathways to work pilots? It would be interesting to know. I am particularly concerned about the case-loading that some personal advisers to jobseekers and disability employment advisers have to cope with. The case load is so great that they cannot give the individual attention that those clients need.
    Mr. SmithFurther evidence on the performance of the pathways to work pilot and early indications of the difference it is making will be published over the summer. The information that I have received anecdotally is very encouraging. The first step in full evaluation will not be published until next spring, and we all look forward to that.
    On case-loading, I agree about the importance of the work that personal advisers have to undertake. Of course, with the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus and work-focused interviews, everyone who applies for the so-called economically inactive benefits, as well as active benefits, must have those interviews. We are developing further the programme of support that is available to follow up the interviews, as well as the help that is available through the existing new deals and, I might emphasise, the new deal for disabled people, the performance of which is improving month by month.
    Mr. Graham BradyThe Secretary of State referred to 200,000 lone parents no longer on income support, but a written answer that I received last week from his Department made it clear that 106,570 lone parents have been through the new deal at least twice. Does he accept, therefore, that a large number of people are coming off benefits not because they are moving towards work but because they are trapped in a revolving door that takes them back to the new deal for lone parents, back to benefits and back to the new deal again?
    Mr. SmithI find it difficult to accept that those people would be better off if there were no new deal programme to help them, which, of course, is the policy of the Conservative party. I accept—I am sure everybody would; it is common sense—that we must continue to work to improve those programmes so that a still-higher proportion of those who go through them stay in jobs. As I reported in a previous, similar exchange, the record for parents staying in work who have been through the new deal is considerably stronger than that for those who have moved into work without going through the new deal—so it is definitely adding value in terms of people moving into jobs and staying in them. We need to build on the new deal, not scrap it.
    Ms Dari TaylorI seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend. Recently, I visited Jobcentre Plus, which, with a private trainer called NETA—the north-east training association—is delivering effective, excellent skill training. It is doing so, however, in response to an employer's demand, so employment is absolutely assured. The work force are in their late 30s or early 40s, and none of them thought that they would get skilled training ever again. Will he reassure me that the Ambition programme will be financed in future? It is excellent, and my people thoroughly approve of it.
    Mr. SmithMy hon. Friend, rightly, is enthusiastic about what the Ambition programme is achieving, both in Ambition: Energy and across a number of other sectors. As she says, a distinctive strength of the programme is that it involves not simply programme-push on people being put into the labour market, but employer-pull in ensuring that they have the skills that employers require.
    In relation to the Ambition programmes and, more generally, to ensuring that we have better joint working with the Learning and Skills Council and business links, we must ensure that our employment programmes are ever more effectively targeted on ensuring that people have not only the basic skills and employability but the specific vocational skills that employers require to fill their many vacancies.
    Mr. Michael WeirEconomic inactivity is a serious problem in many areas, but the Secretary of State will also be aware that a report last week disclosed that Glasgow is the poorest city in the UK, with 41 per cent. of households in poverty. What good will the measures that he talks about do unless he acts to tackle the low-wage economy that keeps people in poverty, even if they are able to get work?
    Mr. SmithGlasgow is also an employment zone, and as such has seen good achievements in helping the long-term unemployed back into work. Much pioneering work has been done through community-based initiatives in Glasgow to help the economically inactive into jobs. As far as low wages are concerned, this Government have introduced not only a national minimum wage but tax credits that make sure that work pays. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) said a moment or two ago, the better we equip people with skills, the more we can help them to progress in a job and towards a career: it is not simply welfare to work but welfare to a career. That is the direction in which our policies are moving, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will support us.
    Mr. David Willetts (Havant) (Con)Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on the latest figures, 1,023,000 people aged between 10 and 24 are not working, not studying and not training? Will he confirm that, despite all the initiatives, programmes and schemes that he has mentioned, the number is virtually unchanged compared with the number in 1997? Why is it unchanged?
    Mr. SmithThanks to the new deal—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear it because it is so important and because it is true. The employment rate is crucial, and the employment rate of the group to which the hon. Gentleman refers is up. As the report of the independent National Institute for Economic and Social Affairs showed, the unemployment rate would be twice as high were it not for the new deal. In making claims about the figure mentioned, the hon. Gentleman ignores the increase in the numbers of students and in the number of people on shorter training courses, who may be classed as inactive but who are moving closer to work, gaining precisely the skills that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) mentioned a moment ago. In proposing to abolish the new deal, the hon. Gentleman would not only deny those young people the help that they need but go back to the bad old days of the stay-in-bed culture, which inflicted so much damage the last time the Tories were responsible for employment policy

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Peter LuffWhat his most recent assessment is of the level of benefit fraud. [181889]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)We are winning the war against benefit fraud. Since 1997, we have reduced fraud in the two main working age benefits by 38 per cent., which is equivalent to £280 million. We are now in the middle of our latest "Targeting Fraud" advertising campaign, and we have just launched a new series of hard-hitting radio adverts. I am confident that that will help us to meet our challenging target of a reduction in fraud and error of 50 per cent. by 2006.
    Mr. LuffI am glad that the Government think that they are winning their war on benefit fraud—we all want them to do so—but at what cost is that war being won? May I read to the Secretary of State the comments of my constituent, Max Harper, about whom I wrote to the Minister for disabled people on 16 June? He says:
    "I live in fear now that if I lift a camera I will be reported to the DWP and will lose benefit or worse."
    He is a severely depressive individual whose only pleasure is photography. The combination of the abolition of the therapeutic work rule and the introduction of the permitted work rule and notional earnings rule has destroyed his life. Will the Government reconsider the way in which the rules work, and make sure that they work in favour of the mentally ill, whom the Government say they want to get back into work?
    Mr. PondWe are reviewing those rules. The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not seek to target individuals in those circumstances through our antifraud campaigns and new investigative measures. I am sure that he would agree, as do nine out of 10 of the British public, that tackling benefit fraud—I am talking about fraud is extremely important. That is why so many of them are joining us in fighting fraud, and using
    536
    the fraud hotline—0845 854440. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has any information about true fraudsters, he will give us a call.
    Mrs. Ann CryerDoes my hon. Friend agree that a universal ID card could assist in the battle against benefit fraud? It might also help those with proper and legitimate claims to access services and benefits.
    Mr. PondYes, the Department supports the identity card proposals. We believe that it would help not only to root out identity fraud, for which we already have successful measures in place, but to make sure that in the longer term people who are entitled to benefits receive them. It might also improve take-up.

    Disabled People
    Vera BairdWhat progress has been made in enabling disabled people to play a full and active role in society. [181890]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)Good progress is being made. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will have achieved the biggest improvement in civil rights for disabled people in the history of this country. We established the Disability Rights Commission to act as the official champion of disabled people. From 1 October, we will extend employment rights to 7 million additional jobs, in which 600,000 disabled people already work. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill will further improve the position.
    More disabled people are now in work than ever before. In 1998, 43 per cent. of disabled people had a job: in 2003, the figure was 49 per cent.
    Vera BairdOutside the world of work, what impact does my hon. Friend imagine those changes, and the establishment of a commission for equality and human rights, are likely to have on the social lives of people such as my constituent, Jamie Hood, a tetraplegic young man who has had some difficulty in gaining access to a wide enough range of social facilities to suit his young age of 32? From time to time, he has become depressed because of that. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it is essential for disabled people to have lives as full as all the rest of us, in every way.
    Maria EagleI strongly agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who works very hard on this issue, particularly in her new role as chairman of the all-party group on equalities.
    I believe that the new commission for equality and human rights will lead the fight to turn rights into a reality for people such as my hon. and learned Friend's constituent. Provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the new Bill will guarantee access to goods and services, so that people such as my hon. and learned Friend's constituent have the chance not just to go to work but to access life in full, which is what we want them to be able to do.
    Mr. Julian BrazierI have several disabled friends, including two former members of the Army who are wheelchair-borne, and I strongly endorse work on behalf of the disabled. Is it not a fact, however, that disability benefits have become a dumping ground for people who would otherwise be unemployed? Does the Minister accept claims by charities such as the Shaw Trust, which does excellent work placing disabled people, that approximately a third of those currently claiming disability benefits could be in the work force if they were given proper encouragement?
    Maria EagleI believe that many people on incapacity benefit who in the past have been written off and deemed incapable of work can work, with the right support and help. That is why we are developing our pathways to work programme, which will help them in that way. It is also why we can say that 6 per cent. more disabled people are now in work—the greatest number ever. The Conservatives put 1.9 million extra people on to sickness and incapacity benefit; we have created 1.9 million extra jobs, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
    Miss Anne BeggOne way in which disabled people can get involved in society is by getting involved in voluntary work. A few years ago, Aberdeen Action on Disability was given a lottery grant to encourage voluntary work among disabled people. Will the Government consider piloting a similar arrangement to encourage disabled people to enter the volunteer work force, which might eventually lead them into full-time work?
    Maria EagleMy hon. Friend is right: volunteering can make an important difference to individuals who are trying to become more active in all kinds of ways. The Joint Committee considering the draft Disability Discrimination Bill has made recommendations in that regard, and we will respond to them within the time scale that the Committee has set.
    Mr. Paul GoodmanThe Minister has now mentioned the draft Disability Discrimination Bill three times, I think. As she will know, disabled people are seriously concerned about its future. Many of them believe that if it is not introduced in the current Session, it will not reach the statute book. The Joint Committee's report, signed by six of the Minister's colleagues, states:
    "We believe that the full Bill should be introduced this Session."
    Will the Minister guarantee today that it will be?
    Maria EagleWe will respond to the Committee's report within the time scale set by the Committee. We will also ensure that we fulfil our manifesto commitment to see the Bill on to the statute book during the current Parliament. The hon. Gentleman should not make the mistake of assuming that we are like his party, which spent 16 years trying to stop disability civil rights. We will fulfil our commitment, and we will do so during this Parliament.

    Pensions
    John RobertsonWhat plans he has to protect the pension rights of workers transferred from one employer to another. [1818931
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)Measures in the Pensions Bill will protect the pension rights of employees where there is a TUPE transfer. No longer will employees who have access to an occupational pension scheme with employer contributions risk losing their benefit when a transfer occurs. Our Bill will ensure a decent level of pension provision by their new employer.
    John RobertsonI thank my hon. Friend for his answer. During consideration of the Pensions Bill, he expressed concern that obliging transferee employers to provide pension schemes broadly comparable to existing ones could encourage such employers to pull out of pension provision altogether. On the basis of what advice and evidence does he make that assessment, and does he believe that it constitutes the right balance between giving flexibility to business and providing genuine and worthwhile protection to employees on the transfer of an undertaking?
    Malcolm WicksWe wanted to get the balance right because often it is in the interests of a company and its work force that the work force be transferred to another company. We require the new employer to provide transferred employees with a defined benefit occupational pension, or a defined contribution pension with a matched employee-employer contribution of up to 6 per cent., or a stakeholder pension with a matched contribution of up to 6 per cent. That provides a decent minimum standard for such employees.
    Mr. Bill TynanMy hon. Friend will recognise that sometimes employees transfer to inferior schemes. Will he support re-examining compulsion—whereby the employer has to put in 10 per cent. and the employee 5 per cent., for example—to ensure that we create an occupational pension scheme that is fair to all in the event of a transfer?
    Malcolm WicksWe will look at the more general question of a voluntary-versus-compulsory approach when we receive the advice of Adair Turner's Pensions Commission. The Government are committed to a voluntary approach, which has many advantages. However, it is right and proper that the Government—a Labour Government—have for the first time legislated to give private-to-private transferred employees a decent minimum pension standard. As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) know, in the light of the good service that they have provided on the Pensions Bill Standing Committee, that is what we intend to do.
    Kevin BrennanLast week, my hon. Friend publishcd some details on those who have lost their pensions rights through insolvency and who may be entitled to make use of the financial assistance

    539
    scheme. He said that the scheme's generosity will be affected by a number of factors, including whether there is funding from industry. What progress has been made in persuading industry to contribute to the scheme?
    Malcolm WicksAs the House knows, we have decided that £400 million of public money should be provided for the assistance scheme. That was the right thing for the Government to do because, apart from the justice of the case, we have an interest in restoring confidence in pensions, as does the pensions industry. We have written to a number of organisations and we will soon have meetings. I very much hope that the industry will make its contribution to the assistance scheme.

    Departmental Scheme Appraisal
    Sandra GidleyIf he will make a statement on how the new appraisal scheme is intended to help motivate staff, improve efficiency and improve performance in the Department. [181894]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)The new scheme has a number of features to motivate staff, including clear work objectives, regular feedback on performance and a strong focus on personal development. It will help to improve efficiency and performance by more rigorously identifying and rewarding different levels of contribution by staff, which has been shown to work successfully in the public and private sectors.
    Sandra GidleyThe Secretary of State will be aware that 50 per cent. of staff at the Department who are at a predetermined level will be rated "poor", and that only 10 per cent. can be rated "excellent". Under the previous scheme, 30 per cent. of staff were rated "excellent". As 97 per cent. of staff voted against the proposal, does he agree that it is unhelpful for the public to have to deal with demotivated staff, and will he think again about this proposal?
    Mr. SmithI do not accept the hon. Lady's categorisation of the proportion of staff who would be rated "poor", or the other figure that she mentions. However, we do recognise the concerns expressed by our staff, and we will undertake a continuous improvement review of the new system over the summer, following the end of the appraisal round. We have invited our trade unions to contribute and I hope that they will do so, so that together we can continue to drive up performance, staff have a more rewarding job, our customers get a better service and we give the taxpayer better value for money.
    Mr. Peter KilfoyleLet me take up the concerns of staff and my right hon. Friend's concern for them. According to figures issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister two weeks ago, the Breckfield ward in my constituency is the most deprived area in the country and the epicentre of what the Treasury describes as the biggest poverty cluster in the country. However, last week I was given to understand that there was a strong probability that the pension centre, which is the single employer of note in the area,
    540
    will be closed—scrapped and gone—in the name of efficiency. Some 316 people face the prospect of the scrapheap unless alternatives are found for them. I have spoken briefly to my right hon. Friend about the matter, but what guarantees can he give loyal staff in an area of high unemployment and high need? Under the aegis of the Government's stated intention to relocate jobs from Whitehall to the regions, and bearing in mind the fact that his is the Department of Work and Pensions, what does he intend to do to ensure that those people do not lose their livelihoods?
    Mr. SmithI acknowledge my hon. Friend's dedication to the needs of his constituents and I appreciate how difficult this news was. As he said, we spoke at the time of the announcement. When the number of centres has to be reduced—as it must—it is never easy for management to decide where it is to happen. The decision was the product of a careful review, although that will come as little consolation to those who face the possibility of losing their jobs. I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend further to discuss how we can move forward, but, as I said to him before, no effort will be spared to try to find those members of staff alternative jobs, whether by way of redeployment in the DWP or elsewhere. With the movement of jobs out of the south-east, following the work of the Lyons review, we are considering destinations for those jobs in areas such as the ward he describes. I shall work closely with him, other local Members of Parliament and the local authorities to do everything we can to ensure that the closure of the pension centre does not mean that those people face a life without work.
    Mr. David WillettsI have been looking at the Department's annual report on its performance, and I draw the Secretary of State's attention to page 133—"Managing Attendance". Will he confirm that his Department had a target for sickness absenteeism in 2003 of eight working days lost per person per year? Will he further confirm that in reality 12.7 days were lost per person in 2003? Why was the performance so far below the target, and why should we believe anything that the Government say about efficiency savings when they cannot deliver such an elementary objective?
    Mr. SmithAs the hon. Gentleman will know from previous exchanges, we recognise that the sickness absence rate is not good enough and that further progress must be made to hit the target. None of us expects taxpayers to subsidise a higher rate of sickness absence in the public sector. We have taken several steps, including making it clear to managers that sickness absence must be managed downwards, both by tackling its causes by improving occupational health in the workplace and by taking tough action against those who abuse the system. We have introduced mandatory return-to-work interviews and tighter disciplinary procedures and we are looking further at evidence of best practice and what works effectively in other businesses.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Harry BarnesHow many of the families who have qualified for child tax credits have as a consequence been removed from

    541
    access to the qualifying benefits which would make them eligible for consideration for discretionary grants or loans under the social fund. [181895]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)We estimate that fewer than 50,000 families will be moved off benefits that would have qualified them for consideration for a social fund budgeting loan or community care grant. The vast majority of those families stand to gain substantially from that change, many by more than £20 a week, and will continue to have access to crisis loans and elements of the regulated social fund.
    Mr. BarnesTo be considered for a discretionary grant or loan under the social fund, families have to be in receipt of a qualifying benefit, such as income support, but have not child tax credit payments moved some needy families out of that qualifying regime? Will that not get worse when the child benefit element is migrated into child tax credit later this year? Can we not get round the problem by making maximum child tax credit payments a qualifying benefit as well?
    Mr. PondMy hon. Friend will understand that we want the discretionary social fund to be focused on those who need it most, which normally means those on income support, but we shall continue to look at ways of improving the social fund and access to it, in the context of wider changes in its operation.

    Disability Living Allowance
    David TaylorHow many people were receiving disability living allowance in (a) the east midlands and (b) England and Wales in (i) 1990, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2004; and how many of them were registered as unemployed in each year. [181897]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)The requested information for 1990 is not available because disability living allowance was not introduced until 1992. As at 28 February 2004, the latest date for which information is available, about 2.2 million severely disabled adults and children in England and Wales were receiving disability living allowance, 10,400 of whom were also receiving a jobseeker's allowance. In the east midlands, about 185,000 severely disabled adults and children were receiving disability living allowance, 900 of whom were also receiving a jobseeker's allowance.
    In 1997, just over 1.5 million severely disabled adults and children in England and Wales were receiving disability living allowance, 10,800 of whom were also receiving a jobseeker's allowance. In the east midlands, about 126,000 severely disabled adults and children were receiving disability living allowance, 1,100 of whom were also receiving a jobseeker's allowance.
    David TaylorWhen last in power, the Conservatives were shameless in manipulating unemployment figures by shunting the jobless on to other benefits. Now their media acolytes and indeed, earlier, the hon. Member for
    542
    Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is no longer in the Chamber, level the same charge against the Government. Can the Minister comprehensively strangle that canard and summarise any policy changes since 1997, either in he way that unemployment figures are calculated or in eligibility for DLA or incapacity benefit?
    Maria EagleI am not sure that I know how to strangle a canard, never mind comprehensively, but perhaps I can attempt to explode a myth. Indeed, the figures from the constituency of my hon. Friend actually do that. In North-West Leicestershire, JSA unemployment is down by 55 per cent., employment in that region of the east midlands is up by 104,000 and about 84 per cent. of his working-age constituents are in work. We have seen a fall in the number of people on JSA and an increase in the number in work, and a small increase in his constituency in the number of people on incapacity benefit. That explodes the myth—I am not sure what to do about strangling canards.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Win GriffithsWhat percentage of eligible pensioners are claiming pension credit in (a) Bridgend, (b) Wales and (c) the UK. [181900]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)We cannot estimate eligibility with precision at the regional or constituency level. Up to 31 May, 2.5 million pensioner households, including more than 3 million individuals, were receiving pension credit in Great Britain. Of those, nearly 180,000 people are in Wales. I am also pleased to inform my hon. Friend that 4,405 individuals in Bridgend now receive pension credit, with an average award of £42.62 a week.
    Mr. GriffithsI thank my hon. Friend for that response. I am sure that the statisticians scattered about the United Kingdom could put together a programme to enable us to make the estimates, but can he tell me what further steps the Department will take to encourage more people to apply for the credit? From my experience, I know that a number of pensioners who have applied lately were amazed at how easy it was and at how helpful the phone line was in enabling them to get their forms filled in and benefit received.
    Malcolm WicksWe are increasingly going local with the take-up campaign's local advice surgeries and the excellent work of our local Pension Service, and people are pleasantly surprised when they realise that they can apply for pension credit over the telephone. Indeed, I read of a case study in The Daily Telegraph—so it must be true—where a man who had applied on behalf of his elderly mother-in-law said:
    "I found the phone form-filling service to be first class, sent all the information requested, and my mother-in-law quickly received her extra per sion … Again, everybody was most helpful."

    543
    Certainly, in Porthcawl, I know of case studies where people thought that they might be not eligible for pension credit, but £93 a week was awarded in one case. They said:
    "To say we are pleased would be an understatement."
    We need to go local, and we will.
    Mr. Nigel WatersonCan the Minister confirm that the figures that his Department produced only today show that, between now and 2014, the projection of individuals eligible for pension credit will rise from 4,850,000 to 6,550,000—an increase of 35 per cent.? Should his own assumption that 1.4 million of the poorest pensioners never claim pension credit be increased proportionally to show an extra 500,000 people by 2014 not claiming what they are entitled to?
    Malcolm WicksThe crucial thing is that the pension credit has been a success. More than 3 million individuals now receive it and the older elderly particularly benefit—the very group who were neglected by the last Tory Administration. In terms of gender, it is important to note that, of those 3 million individuals, 2 million are women, who often have the poorest pension record and whom we are now targeting. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman, instead of being cynical about the pension credit, would get out into the community and help to make it an even greater success.
    Mr. WatersonDo not those figures show the inexorable rise in means-testing projected under this Government? Is it any wonder that a recent survey conducted for Age Concern England showed that nine out of 10 pensioners receiving pension credit were not happy with the pension credit process and that they wanted the Government to provide a higher basic state pension? Will the Minister now look seriously at the Conservative policy of restoring the link with average earnings?
    Malcolm WicksI will look seriously at Conservative policy when I see a serious policy, rather than the absurd apocalyptic vision that the hon. Gentleman is presenting, according to the national prints today: a ridiculous idea that what he calls a pension crisis—we call it a pension challenge—can be equated with the threat to this country from international terrorism. I think that he should grow up in his analysis.

    Child Support Agency
    Miss Anne McIntoshIf he will make a statement on the level of error in Child Support Agency decisions. [181901]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)Last year, 85.7 per cent. of decisions on old scheme cases were correct to the nearest penny—the best ever level of accuracy, against the target of 82 per cent.—and 14.3 per cent. contained errors. From a sample of new scheme cases taken in February and March this year, 82 per cent. of decisions were correct to the nearest penny, against an agency target of 90 per cent. We will not be satisfied until we get accuracy to the highest levels that we target.
    Miss McIntoshWill the Minister undertake to take a personal interest in the individual cases of error found among constituents who live in the Vale of York? Such errors are deeply distressing and stressful for the individuals involved and cause a great deal of upset. Will he also look into a case that has just to come my attention where a father who is in receipt of incapacity benefit is, in fact, working for a family firm and not making any payment? That is clearly an error that has not yet been identified. Will he take a personal interest in that case?
    Mr. PondWe understand the hardship and heartache that can be caused when errors occur, both for parents with care and non-resident parents, which is why we are doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that there is as much accuracy as possible. I, or my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, would be happy to talk to the hon. Lady about specific cases to find whether there is anything further that we can do to help to resolve them.
    Mr. Gordon PrenticeWe all know of individual case examiners who have found CSA error, after which they often recommend a consolatory payment. I have a constituent whose life was put on hold for more than two years, during which he lost his driving licence, who was offered a consolatory payment of £250. What is the average amount paid to people who have suffered at the hands of an incompetent CSA, and what are the Government going to do about the problem?
    Mr. PondMy hon. Friend will understand that averages are not always terribly helpful in such circumstances because payments relate to the details of each individual case. He will not expect me to comment on those cases. However, we want to ensure that people who have suffered due to errors that the agency should not have made are properly compensated. I extend the offer that I made to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). If my hon. Friend would like to discuss individual cases, I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Hollis or I would be happy to do so.
    Mr. Steve WebbThe Minister will know that the independent case examiner deals with the most difficult cases from constituents who have had no satisfaction from the CSA. Last week, she produced her annual report, which showed a 50 per cent. increase in complaints during the first year of the Government's shiny new CSA system. I think that the Minister admitted to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the new, simple "really-easy-to-do" system had more errors in it than the old system. When will he admit that the new system has failed?
    Mr. PondI am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the report carefully, as have I. He will be aware that only 0.15 per cent. of CSA clients complained last year and that more than half the increased number of cases were not accepted for consideration by the independent case examiner. However, she pointed out:
    "As the year started, the Child Support Reforms had just come into effect. It is not surprising that the major legislative, system and organisational changes faced by the Agency in implementing the Reforms have engendered a variety of problems and resulting complaints."

    545
    There are reasons why there has been a substantial increase—it is actually a 31 per cent. increase—in the number of cases that could be referred to the independent case examiner, but we are not complacent. We have firm targets on improving accuracy, and we intend to do that.
    Mr. Peter PikeGiven the welcome news about the improvement in the accuracy of CSA cases, will my hon. Friend tell me when we will complete the transfer to the new scheme? People are getting agitated while waiting to move from the old system to the new one.
    Mr. PondWe understand the impatience of some clients of the CSA, although there is often a difference of opinion between parents with care and non-resident parents. I understand the impatience of hon. Members for the transfer to a system that we all think will be simpler and more effective. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on several occasions that we will not transfer old cases to the new system until we are absolutely certain that the technology is working effectively. It would be irresponsible to do so before that time, so I cannot give my hon. Friend a date on which it will happen. We will make the transfer as soon as it is responsible to do so.

    Pensioner Poverty
    Laura MoffattWhat measures he has taken to eradicate pensioner poverty. [181902]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)We have taken many steps to tackle pensioner poverty, including the introduction of pension credit and winter fuel payments and a 7 per cent. real rise in the level of the state pension. As a result, we will be spending nearly £10 billion more a year on pensioners, including £5 billion more on the poorest third. That means that the poorest pensioners are on average £33 a week better off than they would have been under the 1997 system. Relative pensioner poverty is down by 500,000, with absolute poverty down by 1.8 million.
    Laura MoffattWill my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to organisations such as the Crawley pensioners action group that continually draw attention to issues relating to our poorest pensioners. Does he agree that those community groups help to raise such issues and ensure that pensioners know about all the new benefits available to them through their campaigning activities and that they play an essential part in improving pensioner incomes?
    Mr. SmithYes. I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in praising the work of the Crawley pensioners action group, with which I know she works closely. Such groups—in Crawley and up and down the country—not only make an invaluable contribution to the debate about pensions and future pensions policy, but enrich our democracy in many other ways. The active engagement of senior citizens in assessing and working with services locally, and in helping us to formulate policy, is invaluable. We are developing closer
    546
    partnership working between the Pension Service and such groups and there is funding available through the new partnerships fund, of which I will send her details.
    Sir Nicholas WintertonWill the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom he worked for many years, to see whether, to reduce pensioner poverty rather than increase bureaucracy, the Chancellor will entirely exempt from taxation the state retirement pension for all, and reduce the rate of taxation on all pensions and annuities for those who are responsible enough to save for their retirement years? Is that not the way to encourage a reduction in pensioner poverty without increasing bureaucracy?
    Mr. SmithIt is not increasing bureaucracy to operate the pension credit in the effective way that we are, given the example cited in Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions referred. More than 3 million individuals are getting that money, and it is much needed by them. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the progress that we are making on that and join us in pressing for higher take-up.
    On the hon. Gentleman's points about taxation, of course I speak to the Chancellor about those matters. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that it would involve a redistribution of income from poorer working people to more affluent pensioners. On reflection, I think that he will see that that would not necessarily be the fairest thing to do or the best use of available resources to ensure that they reach the pensioners who need them most.

    Pension Protection
    Mr. Jonathan SayeedIf he will permit unclaimed assets to be used to offer further assistance to those occupational pension scheme members who will riot be covered by the pension protection fund. [181905]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)The Government laid a report on 30 June on their research into the numbers affected where pension schemes wind up underfunded with insolvent employers. That suggests that some 65,000 people face significant losses of more than 20 per cent. of their expected pensions, of whom around 35,000 face losses of over 50 per cent. That confirms that our commitment of £400 million of public money over 20 years provides a sound basis for a worthwhile assistance scheme. We hope that industry will add to that.
    As for unclaimed assets, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in the March Budget that we want as much as possible to reunite unclaimed assets with their rightful owners. That is our No. 1 priority. Where the assets cannot be so reunited, they should be reinvested to benefit the whole of society. There are no plans to use such assets to provide assistance for those people who have lost pensions.
    Mr. SayeedThat is a very disappointing answer. The Minister knows that £20 million a year is just a small proportion of the less that has been suffered by those

    547
    pensioners. First, does he accept that that is the case? Secondly, as the Chancellor has already taken his cut of the unclaimed assets, would it not be much better to assist pensioners who face real hardship by allocating that money when it is clearly proved to be unclaimed?
    Malcolm WicksI do not accept that the money that the Exchequer has made available—£400 million—is a small proportion. It will enable the restoration of a significant proportion of people's pension rights, and that is important. The assistance scheme is a major move in the right direction. What was disappointing was the Conservative Opposition asking the House to decline to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading.
    Mr. Dennis SkinnerWill my hon. Friend look seriously at the claim by Anglo United, which used to be Coalite Products Ltd., because a number of people are affected as a result of changes that took place in the company some time ago? Will he tell me in writing whether they are included in the scheme that he announced a few weeks ago? It would be helpful to know that they are, and I am expecting good results.
    Malcolm WicksOf course, we are looking at the details of all schemes to see whether their members are eligible for the assistance package. We now have research evidence on the numbers affected and are in consultation with trade unions and others to get the details right with a view to laying regulations later this calendar year and putting a scheme in place by spring next year so that benefits can be paid soon after. I will, however, write to my hon. Friend about the case that he raised.

    Carer's Allowance
    Mr. Huw EdwardsHow many carers in (a) England and (b) Wales are in receipt of carer's allowance. [181908]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)On 28 February 2004, the latest date for which information is available, some 351,000 carers in England and over 29,000 carers in Wales were receiving carer's allowance.
    Mr. EdwardsI acknowledge till improvements that the Government have made to carer's allowance, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is the lowest income replacement benefit of all at £44.35? Will she acknowledge the campaign to try to increase it to the level of the state pension, which would be a significant improvement in the provision for 400,000 carers and
    548
    one more measure to add to the many that the Government have introduced to increase provision for carers?
    Maria EagleI am glad that we have reached a question about carer's allowance, which is something that I can talk about at length, if you would allow me, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-known efforts on behalf of carers. He is recognised in the House as a persistent and effective advocate for their rights and opportunities, not just in his own constituency but throughout Britain. I am aware of the campaign highlighted by Carers UK in the recent carers week to increase carer's allowance.
    My hon. Friend thinks that £44.50 or so a week is at the lower level of income maintenance, but carer's allowance can give rise to other payments. Some 300,000 carers are eligible for carer's premium in the income replacement benefits and the Government recently increased that premium by more than £10 a week, so there is an additional £25.55 a week, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am sorry for demoting you, Mr. Speaker—in income-related benefits. A slightly different payment—
    Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Deputy Speaker will be on duty by the time that the hon. Lady finishes.
    Mr. Simon BurnsDoes the Minister acknowledge the tremendous work and contribution of carers throughout the country? The figures that she gave the House suggest that a significant number of people are not benefiting from the allowance and I suspect that a number of my constituents who do a fantastic job, day in, day out, caring for others may be ignorant of their entitlement. What assurances can she give my constituents and those of other hon. Members that the Department will draw attention, through advertising and other targeted means, to the fact that they might benefit from the allowance?
    Maria EagleThe hon. Gentleman is right that many carers eligible for carer's allowance do not claim it, but 420,000 do so. We make every effort to make clear to people who interact with the benefits system what benefits are available and many local carers' groups also undertake such work. I am sure that, as a result of efforts by the Department, hon. Members and carers' organisations, carers who may benefit from those payments will find out about them and apply for them. They can now do so via the internet, as the allowance is one of the first Government benefits that can be e-claimed and 3,400 people have already made such a claim.
    Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Lady for her brief reply.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas SoamesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that defence is the first charge on any Government, and given that there are now more troops on operations overseas than at any time since the 1950s, are you aware that the Secretary of State for Defence will come to the House on Friday 16 July—a private Members' day—to announce substantial cuts in both manpower and capabilities in the armed forces? Do you agree that such an important announcement should not be made to Parliament on a Friday, and that to bury bad news in such a way the day after two by-elections is hopelessly unacceptable and serves to compound the Government's endless felonies in that regard?
Mr. SpeakerThere will be at least one session of business questions before 16 July when the hon. Member and others may be able to raise that matter, and there are the usual channels. If there is deep concern about the matter, I urge the hon. Member to seek to have it negotiated through the usual channels.
Mr. SoamesFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall indeed pursue the action you suggest, but may I ask you to make a general point that announcements of such importance should not be made on a Friday, when many Members are unable to be present in the House because of duties elsewhere? It is quite wrong that such an important announcement, touching on the security of the country and the future of our armed forces, should be made on such a day.
Mr. SpeakerIt is difficult for me from the Chair to make a judgment about which statements are important and which statements are less important. It is not for me to be drawn into that argument.

Point of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    FOUNDATION FOR UNCLAIMED ASSETS
    Mr. Frank Field, supported by Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Derek Wyatt, Kevin Brennan, Mr. David Willetts, Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. Steve Webb, Annabelle Ewing, Sandra Osborne, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson and Adam Price presented a Bill to establish the Foundation for Unclaimed Assets and make provision as to its functions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed. [Bill 131]
Opposition Day
[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Postal Services
  Mr. SpeakerI have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.33 pm
  Michael FabricantI beg to move,
  That this House notes the failure of Royal Mail plc to deliver first and second class mail reliably and on time and regrets the damage this is doing to businesses and private customers alike; notes with particular dismay the threatened closure in Leicester of the Knighton Church Road Post Office, Knighton, and the East Park Road Post Office, Spinney Hills; calls on the Government to end the uncertainty facing the future of rural post offices as a result of the Government's refusal to announce further funding until after 2006; deplores the inadequate consultation procedure of the Urban Reinvention Programme despite the Government's recent announcement to review urgently the arrangements for the consultation currently employed; expresses continued concern about the Government s implementation of the different Direct Payment options which has caused significant problems particularly for elderly and disabled customers in Stechford, Shard End and Hodge Hill in Birmingham; condemns the Government for its failure adequately to promote the take-up of Post Office Card Accounts; and further calls on the Government to provide more details on the implementation of the Exceptions Service.
  You will have heard of the Midas touch, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the Government seem to have the Frank Spencer or Del Boy touch. No matter how much taxpayers' money they throw at a problem, it all goes horribly wrong. No wonder, then, that so many people feel let down by Labour—and so it is with our postal services, which we must never forget the Government own. Too many aspects of Royal Mail's operations are failing, and that is a matter of grave concern to both sides of the House. Of course, many thousands of postal workers and management take their job seriously and are highly professional, but a minority are not.
  On 6 May this year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry apologised to the House and to the people of this country for Royal Mail's failings. She accepts that the buck stops with her, and I give her full credit for that. However, it is not unreasonable to say that an apology is not enough. The Government have a duty to ensure that standards rise.
  In 2001, the Royal M ail Group recorded a huge loss of £1.1 billion. I might add that that was £1.1 billion of taxpayers' money. With fresh management, that has been turned around to some extent, to a profit of £220 million in 2003. That is without question a considerable achievement, and a welcome one at that. It came, however, at considerable cost.
  In order to prevent the company from haemorrhaging money at an alarming rate, a tough restructuring process was announced by the Secretary of State in March 2002. I am not here today to argue that many of the tough decisions that have been made were not necessary: they were, but their implementation and the methods employed have been immensely damaging.
  Mr. David CameronDoes my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the Post Office has cut its costs is by getting rid of two deliveries in a day? Is he aware of the problem that some businesses, especially in rural areas, are facing, which is that the single delivery is now coming too late for the banks' cut-off time for same-day cheque crediting? For small, growing businesses in constituencies such as mine, that is calamitous and it needs to be sorted out. If we are to have one delivery a day, it needs to be made in good time.
  Michael FabricantMy hon. Friend, who is an assiduous Member and constituency MP, raises an important point. The problem to which he refers is creating difficulties not only for growing businesses, but for well-established mail order firms, as I shall mention later. The biggest problem of all, which I shall also mention later, is uncertainty. People could plan ahead if they knew precisely when the delivery was going to be made, but in so many areas—not only rural areas, which he mentioned, but urban areas—the time of the first delivery seems to differ from day to day.
  Mrs. Gillian ShephardMy hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) mentioned the problems caused for businesses by a single delivery postal service. Will he comment on the extraordinary case of 49 packages sent to East Anglian MPs labelled "Postwatch misdelivery campaign" and posted on 13 May, none of which was delivered to Members of this House? It is indeed a mysterious occurrence, on which the chairman of the Post Office can throw no light, save to ask me what the turnaround time is for letters in my office. Does my hon. Friend have any points to make about that?
  Michael FabricantIf the issue were not so serious, it would almost be a laughing matter. I wonder whether the problem arose because of unreliability in the postal service or whether it could be connected—perhaps the Minister will expand on this when he replies—with the question of deliveries during the general election, when some items of mail were not delivered. It is not for Post Office workers to decide whether a Post Office item should be delivered, so the question is whether it was incompetence or deliberate action by Post Office workers that prevented what was issued by Postwatch from being delivered.
  Mrs. ShephardI thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. The chairman of the Post Office, to whom I obviously wrote, replied:
  "We have no trace of the letters being posted, as they were reportedly posted over a post office counter. The most likely place of loss would be at that post office … which is one of our best with no previous problems."
  Michael FabricantMy right hon. Friend makes a serious point. If the Post Office and the Minister have doubts themselves about the service of Post Office Counters Ltd., it is a clear indication of how far standards have fallen in the past few years.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill rose—
  Michael FabricantIf I may, I shall move on, but I shall give way later.
  552
  First, I shall examine post office closures. As urban and rural post offices continue to close across the country, the needs of our local communities and the vulnerable people within them are not being adequately met. In urban areas, the urban reinvention programme—in truth, the urban post office closure programme—is occurring at breakneck speed. Of the 9,000 urban post offices operating at the start of the programme, 1,211 have already closed, and that figure is set to rise to 3,000 by the end of this year.
  Mr. Humfrey MalinsI am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care. The post office is a vital part of any community, and not only rural post offices but urban post offices are under threat, including five post offices in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend, like me, believe that post offices, which are an important social addition to any community, should be preserved?
  Michael FabricantI agree that post offices should be preserved and that they play a vital part in the fabric of life in our constituencies. Like the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, however, I "regretfully and reluctantly" accept the need for some closures, which so many people feel are badly handled. Local characteristics are not being taken into account; local communities are not being properly consulted; the long-term planning is inadequate; and a co-ordinated framework has not been implemented.
  On 13 January this year, I made those points at the Dispatch Box, and it must be said that the Government acknowledged the problems—again, I welcome that acknowledgement. In a written ministerial statement, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services stated:
  "In particular, the consultation arrangements have been criticised. There has been mounting evidence that in too many cases Post Office Limited has not handled them appropriately, or with sufficient sensitivity."
  He went on to announce changes to the consultations, which would:
  "make them more inclusive and appropriate to achieve a viable network to serve the public after the programme is concluded."—[Official Report, 5 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 49WS.]
  I thought, "Hooray! The Government are finally getting a grip," but I was just too trusting.
  Gregory BarkerDoes my hon. Friend agree that the issue concerns not only the nature of the closure programme, but the transparency of the process? When my constituents have campaigned to save post offices, they have been unable to get round the Post Office, which will not make available the business case on which the closure of local services is based. My constituents understand that hard economic decisions must sometimes be made, but, given that the Post Office does not reveal what its decisions are based on and offers cash incentives to close post offices, my constituents are sceptical about whether the process is anything more than closure by diktat.
  Michael FabricantMy hon. Friend is renowned for having his finger on the pulse, and he is right to say that the process is not transparent.

  553
  Postwatch remains critical. It states that
  "there is little evidence of Post Office Limited attempting to mix and match 'leavers' and 'stayers' to produce a smaller but optimised network as envisaged by the Performance and Innovation Unit Report of 2000".
  Postwatch issued that statement after the Minister released his written ministerial statement that all things would change. I was gullible to believe that things would change—they have not.
  Mr. Mark FieldI agree with my hon. Friend's line of argument on the urban reinvention programme. Does he agree that such decisions too often involve a deal being cut between the Post Office and the long-standing—or, perhaps, short-standing—local postmaster, rather than their being according to community need or finance? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) says, such a lack of transparency does not make local residents think that the process is being run fairly or firmly.
  Michael FabricantAs ever, my hon. Friend raises an important point. He refers to the compensation programme that is made available to post office operators—postmasters—who give up their post offices. That compensation is very generous and equates to around 30 months of profit, which is more than someone would normally get. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong. That is why Postwatch said that there is no real effort to mix and match to ensure that services are provided to those who need it in a given locality.
  Mr. O'Neill rose—
  Michael FabricantI give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. O'NeillI am not right hon.—I may well deserve to be, but that is for others to decide.
  I have two points for the hon. Gentleman. First, he made some very serious allegations about the nature of postal deliveries during elections. If those allegations are of any substance, they should have been referred to the Electoral Commission much sooner than today, with the appropriate evidence. If he did so, perhaps he could tell us about its findings.
  Secondly, although it is true that compensation is generous and that there are problems in relation to mixing and matching, the hon. Gentleman is not telling the full story. I understand that between one in three and one in four of all applications for early premature closures has been refused—in other words, of the 2,500 to 3,200 applications that have been made, around 800 to 900 have been refused. A substantial number of people who have tried to get out of the postal services for financial reasons have been refused. The hon. Gentleman is not giving the whole picture.
  Michael FabricantThe hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, should be a Privy Councillor, but sadly he is not.
  554
  I tabled a question to the Minister about deliveries to which he gave a full comprehensive written reply, so I can at least say that the matter is in the public domain if the Electoral Commission wishes to take up the matter.
  As regards post office closures, I am merely repeating what Postwatch says. I quote it again:
  "there is little evidence of Post Office Limited attempting to mix and match 'leavers' and `stayers'".
  Postwatch was established to watch the Post Office as the guardian of the consumer. I would not make a statement of such importance were it not for the fact that Postwatch has made it.
  Postwatch also expresses particular concern about the future of post offices in deprived urban areas where there is nothing in place to discourage sub-postmasters from quitting and taking a generous golden goodbye from Royal Mail, thus creating gaps in the network. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Indeed, the compensation offered by Royal Mail is often an encouragement to do just that. I think that Members on both sides of the House remain of the view that consultation remains inadequate.
  Let us take a constituency at random. When I was in Leicester, South last week, I learned that 10 post offices are due for closure in the city. More than 15,000 people signed a petition to keep them open. Mrs. Gladys Kenney, who is 86, is very worried about the closure of the West Knighton post office on Aberdale road. Her nearest post office is a 20-minute uphill walk away; and, like many other post office users, she is old and infirm. Why does the Post Office still refuse to take such factors into account? Fortunately, Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative parliamentary candidate in Leicester, South, is fighting to keep the post office open. He told me:
  "I want to retain the excellent local services provided by the post offices at West Knighton and Boundary Road and I am determined that other possible closures including the Knighton Church Road Post Office just don't happen."
  I support him in that fight. Chris has collected thousands of names on a petition, and I hope that the Post Office will listen to him and to other post office users.
  Mrs. Gwyneth DunwoodyWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Michael FabricantI shall give way to—is she the "right hon." Lady?
  Mrs. DunwoodyNo. The hon. Gentleman should know that we Select Committee Chairmen are the foot soldiers of Parliament.
  I have listened to the hon. Gentleman carefully but I am not clear about whether he is saying that the Post Office should not offer compensation to someone who runs a business and discovers for various defensible reasons that it is no longer viable or whether he simply suggests that that person should be forced to continue until inevitable bankruptcy.
  Michael FabricantI am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I shall do so now. As in all things, it is a question of balance. Over-generous compensation that

  555
  creates gaps in the network must be wrong, but no compensation at all would be equally wrong. My point—perhaps more important, that of Postwatch—is that the balance should be even to ensure that there are no holes in the network.
  Gregory BarkerI am especially interested in my hon. Friend's comments because I was in Leicester, South last week. People there are angry, as are many Conservative Members who have heard the extent of people's anger about post office closures. The initiative to close those vital community assets does not come from the postmasters or people who run the post offices saying that they are not viable, but from Whitehall. Lucrative packages are being offered to bribe postmasters to close services in the full knowledge that that amount of money is unlikely to come the way of people on such incomes again. They are left in an invidious position. The initiative to close the post offices comes from Labour in London.
  Michael FabricantMy hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. The Secretary of State was right to accept responsibility. The way in which Post Office Ltd. and the Royal Mail Group were set up means that the Government own 100 per cent. of the shares. She accepts that the buck stops with the Government, who must ensure that the post office network remains viable.
  Mr. Michael WeirI have never been to Leicester, South and I have no intention of going there in the next week or otherwise, I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments and I agree with him up to a point, but given that post offices also closed under the previous Conservative Government, how does he define the gaps in the system? What would he put in place to ensure that gaps in the network did not occur?
  Michael FabricantIt is not a matter of how I define the gaps but how the Post Office defines them. The Post Office says that the distance from one post office to another in an urban area should be no greater than 1 mile if that can be avoided. Moreover, the Post Office is meant to take into account obstacles to people walking from one area to another. There is no point in the presence of a post office a few hundred yards away if a major motorway, canal or possibly Ben Nevis are in between. The Post Office must take that serious issue into account given that so many customers tend to be elderly. That is the point about balance that I made to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) earlier.
  My hon. Friends have mentioned the position in urban areas and I shall now move on to that in rural areas. Uncertainty about the future of the rural post office network hangs over it like the sword of Damocles. Sub-postmasters continue to leave in large numbers. Indeed, the number of closures in rural areas last year was up to 149 from 115 the previous year, despite Government support. An uncertain future means that it is difficult to find people who are willing to take over rural post offices that are for sale. The Government have provided a three-year funding programme to support rural post offices, and I applaud that. However, that finishes in 2006 after the next general election. What will happen then? Nobody knows, and that is the problem. It
  556
  is essential that the Government make it clear how these businesses are to be made viable in the longer term, but they have consistently refused to do so. I hope that the Minister will step aside from that uncertainty when he responds to this debate, and make it clear what the future of rural post offices is to be.
  This uncertainty is having a devastating impact on rural communities throughout the country. Rural post offices play a critical role in sustaining the social and economic fabric of our society, and their closure has far-reaching consequences. Closures cause considerable anxiety to many people, particularly the elderly and the disabled and those who do not, or cannot, use private transport to get into larger towns. The Government have caused enough damage to rural communities, and they must now make the future of rural post offices clear. I hope that the Minister will do so today.
  Leaving aside the issue of post office closures, we have seen a devastating deterioration in the standard of the Royal Mail's delivery service, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) pointed out so well. In the latest report on mail delivery, all 15 of the existing 15 delivery targets were not met in the most recent financial year: 15 out of 15. This included a failure to meet the minimum targets for the delivery of both first and second class post. In the year to March, 90.1 per cent. of first class mail was delivered the next day, but the target is 92.5 per cent. Meanwhile, 97.8 per cent. of second class mail arrived on time, which is below the target of 98.5 per cent.
  Royal Mail is due to make compensation payments of about £80 million, on top of any penalties that the industry regulator, Postcomm, might impose. That is £80 million of taxpayers' money. Furthermore, there have been desperate problems associated with the decision to abolish the second delivery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) pointed out. In principle, that seemed like a sensible cost-cutting measure. However, the reality is that the one single delivery is now due at any time between 7 am and—well, who knows when? This is causing havoc for mail order companies and other businesses that need a quick turnaround. These failures to meet minimum delivery targets and the switch to a single daily delivery are causing considerable damage to both business and private customers, and need urgently to be addressed.
  Gregory BarkerMy hon. Friend is being extremely generous in allowing me to intervene on him again. Does he agree that the abolition of the second delivery effectively means the end of the next-day service for many people who have to leave home at a reasonable time to get into the office? They will no longer be able to have something sent to them in the certainty that they will receive it before they leave for work. That means the end of a proper first class post service.
  Michael FabricantMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. He comes from a business background, and he can anticipate the problems that businesses encounter. This is a serious issue—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) just said, but

  557
  as Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee he will understand the importance to trade, industry and businesses of a reliable postal service.
  Mr. O'Neill rose—
  Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
  Michael FabricantBefore I give way to the hon. Member for Ochil, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
  Mrs. BrowningI am glad that my hon. Friend has moved on to the subject of businesses in rural areas. I have heard of a lot of problems in that regard, not least from a major company in my constituency which used Royal Mail to send out a coupon that was time-limited, only to find that it had been delivered after the time limit had passed. It was a seasonal matter, and that company says that it is now desperate. My business community is crying out for some competition and reliability so that it can get on with its business, because Royal Mail is unable to assist it any more.
  Michael FabricantThat is an unfortunate fact. Often deliveries are time critical, and when a delivery is not made on time that creates real difficulties for business.
  Mr. O'NeillI understand that, in a previous incarnation, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was a Merchant Banker—capital M, capital B. He probably started work rather early in the morning. Most people who do so never see the mail until they come back home, and there are arrangements whereby businesses can have it delivered at a given time on a regular basis. Once again, I do not think that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is telling the whole story. A lot of businesses can get the mail delivered within reasonable bounds of their choosing. Most of the working population, especially those in the south-east who have to commute, must leave the house long before the mail arrives.
  Michael FabricantWith the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite in touch with reality. I have received hundreds of letters from different people who say that the Post Office says to them, "If you want the delivery, you can collect it yourself." However, often it is not practical for businesses or individuals to collect the post themselves. Anyway, what have we come to when the Post Office says, "We can't deliver to you reliably; you've got to go and collect it from the sorting office yourself'? That is nonsensical.
  More seriously, Richard Bradley tells me that, in Northampton, despite paying for his mail to be diverted to another address, that did not happen—even after making many complaints. What was the result? His postal ballot paper was lost. As a consequence, he was prevented from voting. Such mistakes have serious implications, not only for business, but for our democracy.
  558
  Even services here in Parliament are not immune to the effects of such failures. On 12 May 2004, the Serjeant at Arms informed all Members of Parliament that, for a three-month trial period, starting on 1 June—we all saw that announcement in the all-party Whip—Members' incoming mail that is forwarded from Parliament to an external address would be sent by first class post instead of by special delivery. He did that for all the right reasons—it would lead to savings to the taxpayer of £500,000 annually. However, on 3 June—just three days, not three months, after the start of the trial—a new message came from the Serjeant at Arms saying that the trial had to be suspended
  "until Royal Mail can guarantee a First Class delivery service".
  If this were not so serious, it would be the subject of an Ealing comedy. Frankly, the complacency of Ministers is a disgrace.
  We have used Opposition time before to debate the Government's direct payment programme; we return to it again, and make no apologies for that, because we recognise the scale Dr the public's concern at the way changes are being made. The Government, in contrast, have been more reluctant to debate the issue in their own time. I am not surprised.
  To those of us across the House, not just those on the Conservative Benches, who suggested that there are too many steps needed to open a Post Office card account, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
  "Let us be clear: then are three steps that individual claimants need to take."
  Strangely, online, the BBC set out seven steps; Postwatch listed eight; and a Post Office analysis detailed 20, from the receipt of the Government letter asking for account details to the claimant's receipt of cash through the card account. To those of us who complained that the Government are biased against the Post Office card account in favour of bank and building society accounts, the Secretary of State said that
  "about 2 million Post Office card accounts have already been opened. That scarcely bears out the absurd allegations being made about how we are biasing the system, driving people away from the Post Office card account and making it impossible for anyone to open one. That is complete nonsense."—[Official Report, 24 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 909–10.]
  Well, if it is "complete nonsense"—[Interruption.] Both Ministers say that it is. Why, then, did Age Concern, Citizens Advice, the National Consumer Council, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Communication Workers Union and Amicus, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, and members of the public across the country share our concerns?
  If it is "complete nonsense", why did a leaked Department for Work and Pensions document say to staff:
  "We need to pay most of these customers into bank accounts which cost 1p, rather than into Post Office card accounts which cost up to 30 times more You"—
  post office workers—
  "should be aiming to get nine out of 10 new claimants"
  to use
  "bank accounts, with a small proportion paid through Post Office card accounts"?

  559
  There it is in black and white—concrete evidence that the Government have been determined right from the very start to steer people away from the Post Office card account. I will happily give way to the Minister, who, I hope, is going to apologise to the House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): No, I am going to set the record straight. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the memorandum to which he refers was a Jobcentre Plus memorandum, and was therefore aimed at people of working age. As he well knows, the Post Office card account, whatever its other merits, cannot help people to be ready to accept a job, as it cannot be used to accept payments of wages. That is an important message and it would be irresponsible of Jobcentre. Plus staff not to get it across to people actively seeking work.
  Michael FabricantI hope that the Minister is not saying that people of working age should not receive benefits? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that people of working age should be discouraged from opening a Post Office card account because it would make it easier to get benefits? Of course he is not. The point at issue is that the Government and the Secretary of State denied that they were making it more difficult to open a Post Office card account, but it is clear from the memo that that process is being made more difficult. Besides, if Post Office Ltd says that it takes 20 steps to open a Post Office card account, is it not difficult? Of course it is.
  It is fair to say that many pensioners have chosen Post Office card accounts. Three million have done so, as the Government's amendment to our notion states. I have no doubt that the Minister will quote that number in his response, but the question is: how many more people would have chosen the account if the Government had made the process more simple? There are no grounds to congratulate the Government on card take-up. On the contrary, I congratulate those pensioners who, despite all the hurdles and obstacles that the Government have put in their way, have been able to open the account. It is they whom we should congratulate.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry became remarkably aggressive about our many concerns in the last debate. Our claims were described as "complete nonsense" and "absurd".
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)Yes.
  Michael FabricantAs the Minster confirms from a sedentary position, the Secretary of State said that our claims were absurd.
  Yet, in the past few months, we have discovered that the Government have, very belatedly, started to take some steps to improve the Post Office card account process. A written answer from the Department for Work and Pensions, dated as recently as 7 June—perhaps the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services is not aware of this—stated:
  "We have already made some improvements to the Post Office card account process where real problems have been identified and continue to closely monitor its operation. We want to make further changes which would include less form-filling and a straightforward process for customers getting account details back to DWP via their postmaster."—[Official Report, 7 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 84W.]
  560
  At last, there is an admission that our concerns were justified. We—and the vulnerable constituents whom we serve—must be grateful for very small mercies. Yet this has taken two years to put right. Even now, Postwatch says that the changes are not as extensive as it would have liked and that they do not tackle the large backlog of applicants who are stuck in the application process.
  Finally, I want to ask specific questions of the Minister. We welcome the exceptions service, under which cheques are issued to recipients of benefits, but the Government must do all that they can to publicise it. What steps are being taken to ensure that such publicity will happen? The cheque-based system is vulnerable to periods of disruption such as postal strikes, or even first-class post delivery. What contingency arrangements are in place to ensure that people will continue to receive their benefits in such circumstances? I look forward to the Minister's response.
  So there we have it. I suspect that the Government do care about the vulnerable; I suspect that they do care about the elderly; I suspect that they do care about businesses that use the Post Office. But it is what the Government achieve, and what they deliver with taxpayers' money, that will count in the end.
  The Prime Minister said that 2001 would be the year of delivery. That died a quiet death. With a million truants on our streets, a million people waiting for hospital appointments and a million illegal asylum seekers in our country, and with the north-south and rich-poor divides becoming even greater, there has been no delivery. In 2004, we have had the year of non-delivery—non-delivery of Britain's mail.
  4.11 pm
  (Mr. Stephen Timms)I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "supports the Government's strategy for a viable Post Office network; welcomes the delivery by Royal Mail of 93 per cent. of first class letters the next day in the first half of 2003–04; shares the Government's disappointment over the drop in performance since then, which rightly falls short of customers' expectations; calls on Royal Mail and the unions to work together to improve the quality of service; notes that the closure of any post office is regrettable but supports the Government's view that, without rationalisation, unplanned closures would continue, leaving damaging gaps in the network; supports the Government's commitment to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of the urban population will live within one mile of their nearest post office; supports the Government's commitment to ensure funding of rural post offices until at least 2006; welcomes the changes to the urban reinvention consultation process and the extension of the consultation process from four to six weeks; supports the Government's move to Direct Payment and welcomes the fact that already more than half of customers are getting their benefits, pensions and tax credits paid straight into accounts, of which 3.2 million are Post Office card accounts; notes that the Opposition wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the Benefit Payment Card scheme; supports the facility for those who cannot be paid through an account, particularly the most vulnerable older people, to receive a cheque payment; and recognises that change was needed and congratulates the Government for its strong, decisive action."
  I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate postal services and the post office network.

  561
  No one disputes that the Post Office is a business that has had its problems. Just two years ago, Royal Mail was losing over £1 million every working day. It lost more than half a billion pounds in the financial year 2002–03, the year after the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). But last year, as the hon. Gentleman said, it made a profit—a small profit, it is true, but constituting an unmistakable sign that the business is being turned around, that the Government's policy is working and that the customers of the Post Office can look forward to big improvements. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is a considerable achievement, and it is to his credit that he acknowledged it.
  The reason that turnaround is being achieved is very straightforward: the Government are investing in Royal Mail. The last Government, for 18 years, simply used it as a cash cow, scandalously neglecting the needs of the business. Today we are seeing the investment that the business needs.
  Mr. Simon BurnsIf everything is so wonderful because of what the Government are doing, can the Minister explain why Royal Mail missed four targets in 2001–02, 12 in 2002–03 and all 15 in 2003–04?
  Mr. TimmsAs I have been saying, the business is being turned around. That process is under way as we speak. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not possible to go on taking money out of a business and expect it to go on generating cash. That is what the last Government did: they took up to 93 per cent. of the profits. As Allan Leighton said when the losses were at their height,
  "these losses did not happen overnight".
  He said
  "unresolved issues and problems stretching back for up to a decade are reflected in these results".
  The truth is very simple. The investment that should have been made under the last Government was not made, and the business therefore inexorably got into the problems about which we have quite properly heard today, but which are now being addressed as the business is turned around.
  Past neglect has been at the root of the problems. If a business is to be healthy, there must be investment, and the last Government did not invest in the Post Office. After the failed attempt at privatisation, they simply allowed it to drift rudderless. There was no direction, and it fell sharply behind its international counterparts. By contrast, we have given the organisation a direction, turning the business around, investing on a completely unprecedented scale, and as a result giving the business a prospect not of the depressing decline of the past but of a bright future in a dynamic and competitive market. That is good news for the people who work in the Post Office, and good news for all of us too, because we all depend on the services that the Post Office provides.
  Mr. John HoramThe Minister makes the point that the Post Office is turning round
  562
  because of investment. On the contrary: it is turning around because it is dumping the second daily service and closing post offices up and down the land.
  Mr. TimmsIn a moment I shall spell out to the hon. Gentleman the unprecedented scale of investment that is being made. Of course, turning the business around is a difficult job. Neglect is easy, and if turning the business around had been easy, no doubt even the previous Government would have done it. However, doing so is hard, so they did not do it. We have been willing to make the hard decisions that were needed. More importantly, we have been prepared to make the big investments that are needed. The result will be a far better service ahead.
  To respond directly to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), over the decade from 1997 we will have invested more than £2 billion to modernise the post office network, and made more than £1 billion available to the letters business to implement its renewable plan, in order to return the company to sustainable profitability. It was the failure to invest in the previous 18 years or more that is at the root of the problems that we still see today.
  Mr. Mark FieldThere is one issue in respect of which the Minister cannot blame the past—the urban reinvention programme. He will have read in today's London Evening Standard that his own London Labour MPs—I note that none of them is on the Benches behind him—are complaining about the lack of transparency in the Government's urban reinvention programme, and about the fact that the figures have dripped out constituency by constituency, rather than giving the context throughout the capital. Does the Minister feel that urban reinvention is likely to work in London, and will he apologise for the lack of transparency that has vexed so many of his colleagues?
  Mr. TimmsI will say a good deal about that programme in a few moments. However, in opening the debate, even the hon. Member for Lichfield acknowledged, a little grudgingly, that the exercise needs to be conducted because of the position that the business has got itself into.
  There certainly problems for Royal Mail customers—no question about it—and they deserve a good deal better. Thanks to the determination of the management team that we brought in to turn the business around, and to the investment that we have been prepared to make, customers will get a much better deal in the future. Credit where credit is due: Royal Mail has held up its hands and acknowledged the problems. Allan Leighton and his team have given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me a firm commitment to sort out the current quality of service problems. I am confident that the organisation will deliver on the commitment that has been made.
  Mrs. ShephardThe Minister is extremely generous in giving way. He has spoken of the need to take tough decisions, so I wonder whether he will comment on the criteria that the Post Office uses when deciding which post offices to close, particularly in urban areas. In the most deprived ward in my constituency, the Post Office has decided to close a post office that serves a community of 4,000 people that is two miles from

  563
  another post office, which has an irregular bus service, and of which one third are elderly or disabled. That community also has a large number of young mothers with one or more children. The problems are therefore perfectly clear for the people whom the closure would affect. When I discussed the criteria that had been applied to select, unerringly, the ward with the greatest difficulties, Post Office officials told me that there had to be a certain number of closures per constituency. Does the Minister agree with that criterion?
  Mr. TimmsNo, I most certainly do not. We have insisted that in the 10 per cent. most deprived urban wards, if there is no alternative post office within half a mile of the post office that is proposed for closure, it should not be closed. If the right hon. Lady wants to drop me a line about the case that she raised, I will be happy to consider it.
  I want to address the concerns that have been raised about postal services, before going on to discuss the post office network. It is certainly the case that Royal Mail failed to meet quality of service performance targets last year. I have seen in my postbag the scale of the problems that have resulted and the anger that that has caused. In fact, in 2003–04 Royal Mail still delivered more than 90 per cent. of first-class letters the next day—the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr Burns) was right to draw attention to this issue—despite the impact of industrial action. However, 90 per cent. is not good enough and the level ought to be a good deal higher, as he rightly said.
  The picture is in fact varied. At lunchtime, I met a group from an organisation called North West in Business. A representative of one of the big accountancy firms told me that his company enjoys a superb postal service in its offices in Manchester and Liverpool, and that he does too, at his home on a farm in a rural area that receives van deliveries every day. He described the service as "superb". Elsewhere, however, that is not the case. The problem is a localised one. Royal Mail accepts that current performance is not good enough and is committed to putting things right. Agreement has been reached with the trade unions for a massive restructuring of the delivery and the transport systems, and everybody is working hard to get the service back to the levels that customers are right to demand.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlinThe Minister has just referred to the role that the trade unions play in this issue. Does he agree that the role that the trade unions have played in the past has led to some of the Post Office's problems? If he does, has he had any talks with the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education to ask him why he should not take the blame for them?
  Mr. TimmsMy right hon. Friend has taken a considerable interest in the Post Office in his former career and as a Minister. We need a much closer partnership between management and the trade unions, and I am pleased with the progress that we have made in the past few months. My noble Friend Lord Sawyer has played a helpful role in that respect, and there is now much more optimism about the future. That area is another that was scandalously neglected by the previous Government.
  564
  Allan Leighton was appointed as chairman to provide the leadership to turn the company around, and we have since made other changes to strengthen the board. We agreed a three-year renewal plan and we have put in place a financial package of more than £1 billion to support its implementation. That plan has just entered its final year. From the bleak position that the hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned, Royal Mail made an operating profit last year. That is impressive, but the turnaround to sustainable profitability is not yet complete. This final year is crucial as major changes are made to the way Royal Mail operates to remove inefficiencies and to tackle the quality of service problems that have arisen.
  A key element of the restructuring is the move to a single delivery. That is by far the most visible change to the company's customers and its introduction has not been straightforward. It has involved a massive reorganisation, but we must recognise that the UK is the last place in the world to move to single delivery. Second delivery used to account for 4 per cent. of the mail but 20 per cent. of the cost. The change was essential if Royal Mail is to be viable and competitive in the modern postal market. Those figures make it clear that the financial case for retaining the second delivery simply could not be made.
  Mr. Mark FieldWhile I appreciate what the Minister says about the financial viability of a second delivery, surely he must realise that Royal Mail no longer has a meaningful monopoly, what with electronic mail and the other new ways of communicating? Will he talk to his friends in the trade unions or with Royal Mail to ensure that some long-term vision is implemented? The organisation needs leadership, because that is what has been lacking so visibly. All consumers of Royal Mail services now have a wide range of communication options, and they can say, "Enough is enough, whether we have one, two, three or four deliveries." E-mail, for example, provides multiple opportunities with umpteen different daily deliveries, and it is a direct competitor to the Royal Mail.
  Mr. TimmsLeadership is precisely what Allan Leighton and his team have provided. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the market is increasingly competitive and it will be even more so in the future. That is why it has been so important for the organisation to turn around as it is now doing.
  Each day, Royal Mail delivers more than 82 million items to up to 27 million addresses. The amount of mail for daily delivery every day is equivalent to the highest Christmas peak of 30 years ago, so we have not seen a decline in overall volumes. The number of addresses to which deliveries must be made has also increased significantly. Change is unavoidable and the competitive market is one of the reasons.
  A consequence of the change to single deliveries is that postmen and women will be delivering for longer, which means a later start on some routes in order to sort mail for delivery and put it into route order. The aim is to deliver to the majority of customers by lunchtime and for all rural deliveries to be completed by 3 pm.
  Mr. BurnsWill the Minister give way?
  Mr. TimmsI want to make a little more progress before I give way again.

  565
  The whole House will realise that change had to be made. For the most part, the change has gone reasonably smoothly and in most places things are now working well. In some places, however, there have been serious problems and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been given Allan Leighton's personal assurance that those problems will be vigorously tackled, while the single delivery is being introduced, and that solutions will be found. Adam Crozier has taken personal responsibility for improving the company's performance and I shall be watching out to ensure that the problems are solved and that performance is restored to at least the level achieved last year, when there was next-day delivery of 93 per cent. of first-class letters.
  The post office network has been the subject of numerous debates in the House, with a further one today, reflecting the immense interest of all Members in the post offices in their area. Under the previous Government, the background was familiar: a failure to invest, resulting in inexorable decline—a decline that we have been determined to reverse.
  We brought in a new management team, led by David Mills as chief executive of Post Office Ltd. He has a successful background in banking and has been doing a superb job since his appointment. We have invested in the network; £500 million to computerise and connect every post office branch, which is one of the biggest IT projects ever undertaken in the UK and an unqualified success.
  We have encouraged the introduction of new products and services, taking advantage of the fact that IT allows electronic banking to be offered at every sub-post office in the country. We have recognised that the number of post offices in urban areas needs to be reduced to reflect the fact that fewer people are using them and so that the business has a viable future serving all our urban communities as well as our rural areas.
  Malcolm BruceWill the Minister address the particular problems in Scotland, where the Scottish banks have not co-operated with the Post Office? There is a rundown of services and a switch away from benefit payments at post offices, but the option of receiving payment through a bank account will not be available in Scottish post offices. Does he have a separate plan for Scotland? In Aberdeen, where the Post Office wants to close 15 branches, when the city asked for discussions with the Post Office about council tax payments being made through local post office branches, the Post Office was not even prepared to discuss it. Can the Minister explain that?
  Mr. TimmsOn the hon. Gentleman's first point, every high street bank, including those in Scotland, is now offering basic bank accounts, which can be accessed at every post office branch, including those in Scotland. Secondly, there have been some encouraging discussions—several of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have taken part in them—with at least one of the Scottish banks, which suggests that we may see some progress on that front. I agree that it is important for Scottish post office customers that we encourage the banks to consider opening up their
  566
  accounts to access at post office branches, as we have seen on the part of Lloyds, Barclays and Alliance and Leicester in England and Wales.
  The programme that commenced at the end of 2002 is difficult and is causing inconvenience, but it is absolutely necessary to maintain an urban post office network with reasonable access for customers in every urban area. With about 16,000 branches, the network still has more branches than all the high street banks and building societies put together. Before the programme started there were more than 1,000 urban offices with more than 10 others within a mile. There is no longer sufficient business to sustain so dense a network, and to his credit, the hon. Member for Lichfield has accepted that.
  Mr. WeirI notice that the Government's amendment to the motion reiterates their view that no one should be more than a mile from a post office. Although the latest letter that I have received from the Post Office about branch closures mentions that in passing, it also states:
  "It may be helpful to explain the access criteria agreed with Postcomm, the postal regulator, that 95 per cent. of people in the UK will have a Post Office branch within 5 km (3 miles) of where they live."
  Can the Minister explain which figure is correct? Is there to be a post office within one mile or within three miles? If it is to be three miles, most medium-sized towns could be served by one office in the centre.
  Mr. TimmsAt the end of the urban reinvention programme, at least 95 per cent. of residents in urban areas should live within 1 mile of their nearest post office. That clear criterion has been laid down for the whole programme. The alternative to the managed restructuring that is under way would be an unmanaged, unplanned contraction of the network, with ad hoc closures leaving a very uneven geographical spread of offices and some art as losing all access to post office services. The managed programme to reduce overprovision—difficult though it undoubtedly has been—is far preferable to the alternative of uncoordinated closures resulting from falling income.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield in suggesting that the compensation available has been excessive. A standard formula, based on 28 months' income, has been negotiated with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The 28-month figure for the value of a post office business is of long standing and well understood. We are effectively saying that the compensation is roughly equivalent to what sub-postmasters could have expected if they sold their businesses two, three or four years ago, before the changes of the past few years. That is fair. It is entirely reasonable that people should receive a decent price for their businesses—in many cases, after giving years of valuable service to their local communities. His remarks about excessive payments will cause great offence to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and its members.
  Michael FabricantI am not commenting on the size of the thing—28 months may well be appropriate—and I certainly do not suggest that it should be decreased, but does the Minister not accept that Postwatch says that the closures have been patchy? Where closures have taken place, the distance between consumers in an urban

  567
  area and the next post office can be more than a mile, and where the distance is less than a mile, sometimes—we gather from our correspondence that this happens more than sometimes—major obstacles, such as hills or major roads, prevent vulnerable people in our communities from getting to those post offices. Should those issues not be taken into account?
  Mr. TimmsThose issues certainly should be taken account of, and they are being taken account of. The chairman of Postwatch has told me that the consultation process has improved significantly following my statement on 5 February, and that the process itself works well. That is not to say that there will not be closures that cause inconvenience to significant numbers of customers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the reality is that it is not possible to close a large number of offices in the way that we have to without causing inconvenience to some, but the issues that he raises are precisely those that are taken account of in the consultation exercise.
  Mr. A. J. BeithThe Minister will remember that, on 26 February, he replied to an Adjournment debate about the closure not of a sub-post office, but of a main Crown post office. Surely it is not part of any planned programme that there should still be no main Crown post office in Berwick nearly a year after the original closure? Although there is talk of a franchisee being found, does not that reveal that the Post Office should have a fall-back plan for such circumstances?
  Mr. TimmsThe right hon. Gentleman did indeed raise his concerns about that case in a debate with me some time ago. I am disappointed to hear that the case has not been resolved as yet, but he will acknowledge that it is not through want of trying on the part of the Post Office. A rather different category of case is involved from those being considered under the urban reinvention programme, but I will certainly find out from my officials what the latest developments on that branch are.
  Mr. McLoughlinWill the Minister give way?
  Mr. TimmsNo. I need to make some progress.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield surprised the House by drawing attention to issues in Leicester, South. Post Office Ltd. has not yet reached a decision on the proposal to close the Knighton Church road, or south Knighton, branch. The company is giving the proposal further consideration in view of issues that have been raised during the consultation by the community and Postwatch. The programme is not about only closures. The plan for the area includes the proposal to relocate a branch at Park Vale to a nearby convenience store to offer improved facilities for customers. If the proposals for Leicester, South go ahead, there will be £150,000 of improvements to the remaining branches in the area that will receive additional custom as a result of the closures. The previous Government did not undertake such investment, but it is now, thank goodness, coming into place.
  Mr. McLoughlinWill the Minister give way?
  Mr. TimmsNo, I need to make some progress.
  568
  The network has been in decline for some years, and the programme will help to restore the confidence of sub-postmasters in their future prospects, while reducing the level of over-provision and leaving a viable network. That job had to be done, and the process has been given strong support by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The increase in the business of the remaining offices, backed up in many cases by funding from the £30 million that we have made available for investment grants, will go a long way towards ensuring that the sub-postmasters who run them may have confidence in their prospects. That is vital for the future viability of the urban network as a whole.
  The £2 billion funding that we have made available since 1999 was the first money provided by any Government for the urban post office network. Such action was in stark contrast to the behaviour of the previous Government, who starved the Post Office of the investment that it needed. Some 20 million existing current account holders can now use banking services at every post office in the country. Universal banking services provide customers with free access to their basic bank accounts at post offices, and I am glad to say that there is a substantial growth in the number of those accounts that are being used.
  We have encouraged the introduction of a range of new products, the first of which was personal loans, which were made available at every post office in the country. The Post Office successfully provides travel insurance and is now the country's leading supplier of foreign currency exchange, which is a successful development.
  On Friday, I visited the Crown post office in my constituency of East Ham and met the new manager, Mrs. Jay Shri Patel. She gave me its trading figures, which every member of its staff now has the chance to see. The branch is not yet profitable, but there is much optimism that it will be as a result of the changes that are being made. Last year, its income from banking increased by 2.5 per cent., but so far this year that has increased by 19 per cent., compared with the same period last year. Its income from travel services has increased by even more than that, which has offset the loss of income from its benefit business. The new car insurance product has a great deal of promise. That is the picture that we want to see throughout the network in the future. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, Postwatch and Post Office Ltd.—three organisations with different perspectives—have all agreed that the programme is essential if we are to avoid the alternative of unmanaged decline, and hon. Members also recognise that hard reality.
  Mr. McLoughlinI have raised with the Minister on many occasions the closure of four of the five post offices in Belper. Does he think that that policy has lived up to the undertaking in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election, which read:
  "There will be increased incentives for people to take over and modernise post offices"?
  If there were five post offices, but there is now one, where is the increased incentive?
  Mr. TimmsThere are greater incentives for people to do exactly that, which is the purpose of the £30 million

  569
  fund that sits alongside the funding agreed by the House in October 2002 to allow the programme to go ahead. We are experimenting with new ways of delivering post office services in rural areas. Above all, the incentive that people need to invest in the post office network is the prospect of a secure business future, so the process of rationalisation through which we are going is an indispensable contribution towards bringing that about.
  Keith VazI appreciate all the effort and work that my hon. Friend has put into the issue, but it remains the case that local people feel that they are not being listened to by those at Royal Mail. As he knows, there have been more than 10 post office closures in Leicester, although we are delighted that Clarendon Park post office has been given a reprieve. I am very grateful to the Minister for that, even though it is not in my constituency. The fact remains, however, that if people had confidence in the consultation process, the proper points that he is making would be understood by the public.
  Mr. TimmsThat is why I have made sure that Postwatch has played a key role from the beginning, and is able to examine each and every proposal and to monitor the programme as a whole.
  Mr. BurnsWill the Minister give way?
  Mr. TimmsNo, not at the moment.
  There have been more than 1,200 closures since the start of the programme following the vote by Parliament to provide funding. In more than 50 cases around the country where Postwatch has become convinced that a proposal should not go ahead, the decision has been reversed following public consultation. What my hon. Friend is rightly calling for is indeed what has happened. In addition, 57 proposals were withdrawn in the light of Postwatch's preliminary views and comments before the public consultation stage. About 200 proposals have been amended as a result of issues raised during consultation.
  Research carried out separately by Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch shows that nine out of 10 customers of branches that have closed under the programme have moved their custom to offices that the company predicted would benefit from additional custom as a result of a nearby closure. That is clear evidence that customers are continuing to use post offices and that the programme is achieving its objectives, boosting the businesses of the branches that remain.
  Of course the programme was always going to be controversial, but the vast majority of closures have been accepted as necessary and have attracted little criticism. Following concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about the consultation, I asked Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch to review the arrangements and to propose changes to make them work better. I subsequently announced a number of changes in a statement on 5 February, and I am pleased that the process has worked much better since then.
  Mr. BurnsI do not know whether the Minister has been involved in any part of the consultation process in
  570
  his capacity as a constituency MP, but I have to tell him that, regardless of the figures that he cites, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is right. Seven urban sub-post offices have been closed in the past 15 months in Cholmsford, and to be frank, the consultation process was a farce. The Post Office was utterly courteous in its dealings with those united in opposition to the closures, but it did not pay one iota of notice to the representations and just rammed through the closures.
  Mr. TimmsAs I have said, Postwatch has been able to take an independent view of each proposal, and where it has concluded that a proposal should not go ahead, the matter has been taken to the Post Office, an escalation procedure has been put in place, which I think has worked well, and as a result there have been a significant number of changes to proposals around the country. That is how, the exercise should work.
  Mr. Jim CunninghamFirst, the initial consultation was all right until what was to be closed and not to be closed was published, and then it became very difficult to have any further meetings or discussions with the Post Office. I accept what my hon. Friend says about Postwatch. Secondly, many people have volunteered to take redundancy, for want of a better term, but there has been a problem finding others to take over the service where it might be needed. That is one of the problems that we have encountered in Coventry.
  Mr. TimmsThe intention behind—indeed, the justification for—paying compensation is to enable a branch to close, thereby supporting the viability of other branches in the area. My hon. Friend is right; one problem has been finding people to run the offices on the basis of the business as it was. That is one reason why we have had to make the changes—reducing the overall number of branches in urban areas and so making the businesses more attractive propositions for the future.
  Local post offices also have particular importance to those living in rural areas. The network of post offices serving those communities is especially important to maintaining local access to essential services for those who are less mobile than others. That is why we have taken steps to protect rural post offices. In October 2000, we placed on Post Office Ltd. a formal obligation to maintain the rural network and prevent all avoidable closures of rural post offices, in the first instance, until April 2006. Post Office Ltd. appointed a network of 31 rural transfer advisers, who often become closely involved with community efforts to reopen or save rural branches. They have had considerable success in finding alternative sub-postmasters to replace those who have left, locating suitable replacement premises where necessary, and encouraging community efforts to provide services to the local community.
  We have made £450 million available for Post Office Ltd. to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures until at least April 2006, thus helping to ensure that reasonable access is maintained for all citizens to over-the-counter services in rural areas. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield, we will make decisions on future support for

  571
  the rural post office network beyond 2006 in good time to allow for a smooth transition from the current arrangements. We are considering the options at the moment, and will make an announcement in good time. We want to minimise any uncertainty, both for sub-postmasters and for people in rural communities, and to take account of lessons from the pilots that are under way.
  Direct payment of benefits provides a modern, secure, efficient system that is cheaper to administer. It is not new for benefits to be paid into an account—indeed, it is increasingly the norm. Before the decision by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), and his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to switch to making all payments by direct credit, more than 43 per cent. of benefit recipients already had payments made directly into their bank accounts, an increase from just over 25 per cent in 1997, when a dramatic change in people's behaviour began. Nobody should be surprised that more and more people want to use bank accounts. For example, 93 per cent of all new child benefit recipients and more than 90 per cent of newly retired pensioners choose to have their benefit paid directly into their account. The old order book system is out of date, as it is based on ration book technology. It is inefficient, open to fraud and abuse, and expensive to administer. It must be modernised to keep in step with changing customer needs and to reflect the fact that owning and using a bank account is now the norm. Over 87 per cent. of benefit recipients and 91 per cent. of pensioners already have access to a bank account.
  Mr. O'NeillA great argument for the new system is that it will reduce the number of fraudulent claims and the loss and theft of benefit books, but how low are the figures, assuming that take-up is a wee bit higher than currently projected? We have heard the costs of the existing system, but what are the costs and, by definition, the savings of the new one? I do not believe that that has ever been put on the record before.
  Mr. TimmsWe certainly expect significant reductions, and I will ask the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, to respond to that point in his winding-up speech.
  The changes, of course, will result in other benefits. Citizens Advice recently published a booklet on financial inclusion, in which it said:
  "The government, the banking industry and the Post Office should be commended for the progress they have made in establishing Universal Banking Services. The ambition to enable all people to own the most basic of financial services—a bank account—is one we share."
  Citizens Advice is right to celebrate direct payment as a method of financial inclusion—a goal that we all share. Post offices should be attractive places that offer services that people want to use and to which they want to return, not places that people are forced to use because they have no alternative. We share that vision with the Post Office, and increasingly it is being realised in practice.
  I conclude by taking the opportunity to praise the men and women who work in the Royal Mail. They have been much maligned by the media in recent
  572
  months. The truth is that the vast majority of Royal Mail staff do a superb job with real dedication. They are honest and hardworking and they take pride in the work they do. They are a vital part of the fabric of our communities in rural and urban areas.
  The reforms of the services that we have introduced—greater commercial freedom for Royal Mail, independent regulation and a stronger consumer body—are providing the right framework for a modern, competitive postal market. It will maintain the universal postal service and give consumers more choice. It gives Royal Mail the opportunity to compete with confidence in an increasingly dynamic market. There have been problems. They can be overcome and they will be. We have given a clear message to Royal Mail and its trade unions that they must work together to restore public confidence urgently.
  As regards the post office network, we will continue to work with the company as it faces up to the challenges of changing demands from customers and society. I am certain that the organisation can look forward to a future much brighter than the experience of the past few months, and its customers can do so as well. I call upon the House to support the Government amendment.
  4.51 pm
  Malcolm BruceI commend the Minister for the energy and enthusiasm with which he responded to the debate. He must almost believe everything he said, and believe that he could persuade the House. If the picture were as rosy as he describes, people would be clamouring to open post offices, rather than snatching the money to close them as fast as they can. That is the reality. Nobody wants to open a post office in the present circumstances. We have a long way to go before we can achieve even an equilibrium and a confidence in the future of the post office network that will encourage people to retain or move into the business. That is what concerns many of us.
  I shall deal first with issues relating to the Royal Mail service. It is true that the letters service has come back into profit in the past year, which is welcome. The loss in the previous year was partly due to the fact that in spite of the Royal Mail's application for a postal increase, it was denied for more than a year and the company lost £1 billion of revenue. Although Royal Mail should properly justify increases and ensure that it maintains efficiency, when costs have genuinely risen and the revenue is not allowed to rise, that clearly drives the organisation into loss. As a consequence of that, many of the savings come from reductions in service, rather than from the investment about which the Minister boasts.
  I accept that it is difficult to defend the long-term future of the second delivery, given the disparity between costs and customers. Most of us could be persuaded to accept that if we were confident that the standard of the first or only delivery was rising, rather than falling. Royal Mail has difficulty in creating confidence because it has only bad news to tell.
  Michael FabricantThe hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister said that many other countries have only one delivery. Is it not the case that that one delivery is usually before 10 am and is reliable and predictable,

  573
  whereas the Government are speaking of deliveries right up to 1 pm or 2 pm, and those deliveries are decidedly unreliable?
  Malcolm BruceThat is a point to bear in mind. Those of us who visit post offices, as we all do at various times of the year, have some sympathy with people who have to come in at 4.30 am, 5 am or earlier to sort and deliver the mail. I can see the difficulties in making them come in at 2 am. That is where investment is required to increase mechanised sorting, so that the whole process can be completed early enough to achieve an acceptable delivery time.
  This week, for example, I received representations from a company that has made representations to me before that its delivery has slipped back two or three hours. When a company complains, the Post Office endeavours to accommodate it by shifting the delivery around. That means that someone else's delivery is put back and, when they complain, the original schedule is reinstated. Until the whole delivery system is brought forward, the problem will not be solved; it will merely be moved about.
  A new development that has not been mentioned slightly puzzled me, and it is rather important. Last week, my local postie arrived and asked whether I liked his new transport. He said, "I've become white van man." He had parked a hire van outside my front door. I asked what had happened—I assumed that he had accidentally put his vehicle off the road. He said, "No, it is new policy in the Post Office not to own the fleet, but to contract it out and reduce its size."
  That is a serious point. If hired vans of any hue can go around masquerading as Post Office vans, it will have an effect not only on image, but on confidence. When people see the little red van coming up their drive, they know and have confidence that it is their local postie. Allowing some anonymous white van to deliver the mail clearly opens up the possibility for fraud, misrepresentation and lack of confidence. If there is a serious cost saving to be made, as I am assured there is at a local level, we should know the ramifications. This is not just a matter of diluting an image; it has serious further implications. I would be interested to know whether there is an answer and explanation at a policy level.
  Another service that I think many of us use personally, but which is also used commercially, is the household delivery service, whereby postal deliverers will deliver unaddressed mail along with addressed mail. That service is used by supermarkets, commercial operators and, believe it or not, by political parties to get their message through people's doors. It is increasingly difficult, however, to negotiate with the Post Office in order to transact such business, which must be bad for both the commercial and the public service operators that want to do so.
  My experience is that it is impossible to get a firm cost, time or schedule. Indeed, the clear indications are that the Post Office does not want such business, which is regarded as a nuisance. Private companies are moving into the field, charging more and not necessarily giving as good a service. Again, no rational explanation has
  574
  been given. It seemed to us that the service was a good one, and that it was good for the Post Office to ride on the back of the fact that it was delivering to households anyway. It is not clear whether the Post Office has decided that such business is not profitable, that it does not want it and that it is prepared to leave it to private operators—if that is so, it would be better if it were open about it—or whether, as has been suggested to me, some other constraint is preventing it from expanding what should be a profitable add-on business that supports the rural network.
  Mr. Russell BrownCould it be that there is so much business of that sort and the demand is so great that the Post Office has to turn some of it away? That might be why it is not quick to respond. Like many other businesses. if it is inundated with work it will be slow to respond, thereby putting off a potential customer.
  Malcolm BruceThat may be true, but my experience—I have also talked to one or two colleagues—is that we do not get a constructive relationship in which the Post Office says, "If you bid for this, you can have it" or "We can't do it." Instead, we get a lack of response, firm dates and clear guidance, which is poor management. it seems to me.
  I do not know what such business represents for the Post Office, but it is going the right way about losing it. It is clear that other organisations think that it is worth stepping into that business and taking it away. As a customer, my local party—this point is relevant to everybody who uses such services—is now contracting privately, not out of choice, but because we cannot contract with the Post Office. That is unfortunate. I do not know whether there is an answer, but it would be appropriate for Royal Mail to explain why it regards such business as marginal or of limited interest. If such business is development business, it would be interesting to know why the Post Office is not developing it more efficiently and in a more organised way.
  A poor delivery service, the phasing out of the second delivery and a growth in competition are creating a worry about Royal Mail's future. When one speaks to it, it says that the most serious competition that it faces comes from the Dutch and the Germans. Most of its business is business-to-business business of the sort that is not based on delivering granny's post card. Businesses simply want guaranteed delivery on a large scale. They do not mind who does it, but they want reliability at a competitive price.
  If Royal Mail does not respond soon, it will find when it has put its house in order that a lot of the business has already gone elsewhere. That is a matter of concern. Indeed, Royal Mail's capacity to maintain a universal service would start to be called into question if it were to lose too much of its business to competitors. I do not share the Minister's confidence that the management can deal with that competitive threat.
  For most members of the public, concern about the mail pales into insignificance compared with the future of their local post office and post office services. Perfectly rightly, the Minister said that the culture has changed, and that people prefer to have payments made into their banks and no longer want cash from the local

  575
  post office in the same numbers. None of us denies that point, and we all recognise that we must respond to it. However, many people, including those with bank accounts, want to use their local post office, whether to obtain cash, make payments or use other services. They want to know that such services will exist in the future, but that is not currently the case.
  I am slightly surprised that the Conservatives chose to debate this topic, because 3,344 post offices closed between 1981 and 1997 under the Conservative Government—2,543 post offices have closed since 1997 under the Labour Government. My concern is that few more than 14,000 post offices, half of which will still lose money, will be left at the end of the current process. Postwatch says that 250 post offices that closed in recent times should not have done so given their locations and the need for them, but such decisions cannot be revisited in order to reopen post offices.
  One of the most difficult tasks for any MP is to persuade the Post Office to open a new post office, even after a major population change occurs. During my 21 years in Parliament, I have succeeded precisely twice, and the second opening caused the Post Office promptly to close another post office in the same town, so my campaigning had a marginal effect.
  The Government have not made it clear what will happen in the future. If the branch network were reduced to 14,000 offices, half of which would lose money, what aspect of the business plan leads the Minister to believe that enough business, whether public or private, exists to secure a viable, long-term future? His assurance that the network will be stable at the end of the organised programme is belied by the fact that post office closures will continue once the programme is completed—they will continue haphazardly as people retire or decide to give up because they are not making money.
  Michael FabricantAlthough the Minister assured us that the transition, which will occur from April 2006, to supporting rural post offices will be smooth, until an announcement is made—I noted that he was unable to make an announcement today, despite his being asked to do so—uncertainty will continue to exist, which makes people unwilling to open rural post offices.
  Malcolm BruceThe hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that we must wait until closer to an election—perhaps a rural by-election—for an announcement, and I confidently expect such an announcement before the next election.
  The hon. Gentleman's serious point is that an announcement is needed, but an announcement will not solve the rural network's problem, although it will extend the uncertainty. This is not an argument for withdrawing money from post offices, but both rural and urban post offices want to know about guaranteed public business, access to services such as vehicle licensing and passports, and how long it will take for the private business that the Post Office is bringing on stream to provide viable business plans for individual post offices that make them worth investing in and that give them long-term futures.
  No one whom I have met in the post office business is confident. When I talk to postmasters and postmistresses, they say that they are hanging in until
  576
  they retire, until they are told to go or until something happens, and not that they really want to be in the business.
  Mr. WeirI am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments and broadly agree with them. Like me, he represents a constituency that is partly rural and partly urban. Does he agree that sub-postmasters are trapped in a vicious circle because they do not know the future of the business but are having to go through the reinvention programme in urban areas, which is closing post offices? Does he further agree that in the absence of an overall view, our constituencies' postal provision tends to be haphazard or lopsided?
  Malcolm BruceThat is exactly right. I do not want to identify individual post offices, but I can say that in the past couple of weeks I have spoken to owners in my area and in Leicester. One said, in effect, "I'm just taking the money because it's on offer." Another said, "I don't want to talk about it because I know that the community is not happy and I'm a bit embarrassed." I said, "You shouldn't be embarrassed, because you're looking after your own interests, which is understandable." However, they still would not discuss it.
  Another owner said, "A year ago, the Post Office asked me to take voluntary closure, and I decided against it because I was happy to carry on with the business even at that level." She told me that her office was then designated a compulsory closure under the Aberdeen closure programme. She asked me not to fight for it, saying, "If you succeed, given the state of the business now I'll have to close it in six or nine months' time anyway because there will be no business left, and there is no virtue in hanging on to a business that is not viable." However, it was viable 12 months ago. A particular difficulty is that 150 child benefit element payments have been reduced to four. She told me, "I don't just lose the payments. When people came into the shop they bought sweets, newspapers and other things; now, they don't come into the shop at all. We've lost the footprint—as has the Post Office, because people are going to other businesses for banking services." Where can the Post Office get that business from once it has lost it? That is a serious point of concern.
  The Post Office's management have ambitious plans. They are bullish about what they can do, and I wish them nothing but joy and success. However, they are moving into a highly competitive area of business where other companies are involved, and we have yet to see how successful they can be. Because of underinvestment, they are having to develop in partnership with private collaborators. Although there is nothing wrong with that in principle, the fact that they have to share the profits to get access to investment reduces the value of the potential benefits involved. In that context, we must recognise that we do not yet have a business plan that delivers results.
  Several hon. Members have been to Leicester, South because of the by-election. When I visited that constituency as my party's spokesman on post offices, I was told that four post offices are threatened with closure—three under the urban renewal programme and one because it is under review. Massive petitions are being signed in the community. People said, "We can assure you that we are using these post offices—

  577
  sometimes they bulge at the seams and you can't get near the counter because there are so many people coming and going—but we are told the service is no longer required." When I asked them how they felt, they said, "We feel utterly confused, to be honest. These are busy post offices and we use them, but the Post Office, the Government or whoever say they are not necessary." I assure the Minister that that will register when people vote, because they do not understand why it is happening and can see no benefit.
  Another issue is that of the activities of supermarkets that have taken over post offices. It is mentioned in the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The Post Office contracted for a number of supermarkets to operate post offices in their premises. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now they tend to say that they can make more money selling beans and would rather not have the post offices. That creates further problems. My information shows that Tesco notified the Post Office of 44 closures after the recent takeover and that Morrisons gave notice of 21 after its takeover of Safeway. That presents genuine difficulties because alternative premises and venues may not be available. The Post Office and the Government have lost control, which was effectively surrendered when the branches were given to the supermarkets. Now that the supermarkets no longer want the branches, there is a huge problem. Who will pay for finding alternative premises? Will the cost be so high that the community will lose the post offices?
  Mr. John LyonsThe hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Safeway, which has been taken over by Morrisons. Post office closures, which were never threatened under any programme, are now taking place effectively as part of Morrisons' policy. That is happening in my constituency.
  Malcolm BruceThe hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If the Post Office's presumption was that a post office was needed in a locality, it should go through a process that is different from simply asking, "Is someone available who is prepared to take it over?" There should be positive action, with some investment if necessary, to replace the post office in a suitable nearby location. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
  Mr. Russell BrownI agree with the hon. Gentleman and I know fine well that it appears that Safeway in Dumfries will lose its post office. However, does not that provide a God-given opportunity in Dumfries for the business to be redistributed among the three, possibly four, other sub-post offices within three quarters of a mile of the supermarket site, thereby strengthening their position?
  Malcolm BruceThe hon. Gentleman knows his constituency and his suggestion may be the right answer for it. The decision must be based on local circumstances. If the community accepts it, that is fine. However, I am worried that we are closing so many post offices and it is simply assumed that the business will
  578
  transfer to neighbouring ones, but that will not happen to all of it. In some cases, the long-term business does not exist, so further closures may be in the offing.
  Mr. TimmsThe hon. Gentleman is making an important point and I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the assurances from Tesco and Morrisons that they will work closely with Post Office Ltd. when they review their stores that currently accommodate post offices. They will not act precipitately. Only Post Office Ltd. can make a proposal for the permanent removal of a post office. Tesco, Morrisons or any other body cannot make such a proposal; there must be a consultation period in accordance with the code of conduct. I believe that we can work through the issues to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention.
  Malcolm BruceI hope that that is the case. Unsurprisingly, Tesco has asked to see me tomorrow and perhaps I shall get some further information. I do not make an attack on Tesco and Morrisons; I simply draw attention to a problem that should be properly tackled, not realised by default.
  I am conscious of the time, but I want briefly to refer to Aberdeen, where the situation has given me cause for concern. I wish to make it clear that the city of Aberdeen is not part of my constituency, but one of the sub-post offices, Bankhead, was in the Gordon constituency before the previous boundary changes and should be in that constituency after the next boundary changes. However, that will not happen because it will be closed. There are 14 other post offices in the city of Aberdeen, and I made a point about that in an intervention, to which the Minister did not respond.
  There was a change of administration in the city council last May, when the Liberal Democrats formed an administration with Conservative support. It approached the Post Office early to discuss the possibility of paying council tax through local branches. The Post Office was not prepared even to discuss it, despite the council's indicating that it expected a budget transfer of £100,000 to the small post offices. That is a disturbing attitude by the Post Office. It claims that it is trying to develop business, but when business is on offer it is not even willing lo discuss the possibilities.
  The same applies to utility payments and other matters for which the Post Office claims to have an ideal network. I was discussing with a credit card company, which I shall not name, its attitude towards its relationship with the Post Office, and it said, "To us, the Post Office's unique selling point in getting us to use its services is that it has a major network, but it is in the process of destroying it, so why should we bother to engage with it?" That is a serious response from a serious business, and if the Minister does not take it seriously, he is really not in touch with what is happening.
  The post office network has to settle at a viable size that people will be convinced will stay viable. In spite of Ministers' assurances people working in the Post Office do not believe that that will be the outcome of the current processes. I think that the Minister is genuine in his belief, and honestly confident that business will come, but many people engaged in the process cannot see it coming through at anything like the speed or volume necessary to sustain the network that we will have by, say, the middle of next year.

  579
  I have mentioned my concern about the situation in Scotland. One of the arguments that has been put to me is that part of the revenue stream w ill come from people carrying out cash transactions on their own bank account through the Post Office. In Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland have refused to co-operate with that scheme, which affects the vast majority of account holders in Scotland. The only other bank of any significance is the Clydesdale bank, which might be having discussions about it—
  Mr. O'NeillThe TSB?
  Malcolm BruceWell, the TSB is important, I agree, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland play a considerable part, and that, because of the decisions made by those banks, Scottish post offices will be significantly disadvantaged in regard to revenue potential, compared with those in England, yet there is no plan to offset or compensate them for that.
  The contention that my colleagues and I are making is that change is necessary and desirable. However, a lot of what the Government call investment is actually dead money being paid to shrink the network. In reality, the Post Office needs investment to develop new services, and Royal Mail needs investment to compete with the private sector. The Government's business plan does not inspire confidence that either of those two wings of the post office network will be able to make the investment needed, on the scale required and in the time scale that we face, to deliver a viable, profitable future. In those circumstances, the question will continue to be asked as to whether the Government really are in control of Royal Mail and the Post Office.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Martin O'NeillWhen I got back last night from a foreign trip with the Trade and Industry Committee and read my Whip, I saw that today's debate was to be on postal services, so I thought that we would be discussing the delivery of letters. However, such is the understandable ambition of a frustrated Opposition Front Bencher that a scattergun approach has been adopted and everything is the subject of attack. I suppose I shall have to revise my notes a little as a result.
  I want to start by discussing the Royal Mail. I welcome a debate on this subject, because it is probably an appropriate time to have a discussion in the House on this issue. The Royal Mail has had a chequered experience in recent months—I use the term "months" rather than "years". Last September, a vote was taken on a strike and, to my surprise, it was won by the management. I had thought that other factors were at work and that the workers would come out.
  I recognise that neither the Post Office nor the postal service is a monolith. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) either has not read or does not know the work of Tom Sawyer and his consultancy, which introduced some seminal changes into the thinking on industrial relations on both the employer and the trade union side. His analysis of the situation bears repetition today. He identified a number of groups employed in the Post Office. First
  580
  there were the people who had been there for many years and who were Royal Mail loyalists. They in turn could be split into two camps. The first consisted of those who were prepared to work for what is really a pittance. If there was a cause for dispute at the time of the ballot, it was the fact that all the people who deliver our mail every day get less than £300 a week. If anyone is telling me that people should get paid less than 15 grand a year for doing work of that nature, that is a disgrace. We cannot run a high-quality service on low-paid workers.
  A number of people formed their view on the basis that they had been at the Post Office a long time. I do not have the exact figures and they vary across the country, but in my constituency a job with Royal Mail, as it is now called, is perceived as a good job. It is regular employment and it has an index-linked pension at the end of it. A number of people who entered into that ballot took the view, "We don't get very well paid, but we're getting near retirement so we don't want to rock the boat and we certainly want to retain an index-linked pension." It is to the credit of the management that they expressed in the evidence that they gave to us recently a continuing commitment to the index-linked pension, which has to be there as a reward for people who for too long have been too lowly paid.
  Historically, some people who joined the Post Office came from the services. One problem that we have had with the Post Office, which was identified by Sawyer, is the fact that the management structure has, on occasion, been militaristic, multi-layered and authoritarian. It has not been conducive to changes in working practices—which takes us on to the second group. These people may not like the pay and may be more recalcitrant, but they nevertheless have a loyalty to the concept of public service as expressed in the delivery of mail. They were, in large measure, the ones who were fed up and last year voted for strike action. However, the negative vote meant that it did not take place. None the less, some of those people took strike action.
  There is a third element, which is most pronounced in the big cities—the people who are part of the churn. They work at Royal Mail for a relatively short period and, frankly, are not interested in the long game. They are certainly not the kind of people who by and large want to go out on strike, because they are happy to take what they can get for as long as they need it and then move on to another job. Some have been unemployed while others have left a job to go to Royal Mail. They see it as a pathway to other areas of employment.
  So the labour force are not monolithic, but the people who work at Royal Mail are highly committed to a concept of service. One management shortcoming was that, before the ballot, they were unable to sell the changes in work practices. It is fair to say that the person who has fought hardest for the single delivery is the general secretary of the union, Billy Hayes. Billy has argued consistently that a system that accounts for 4 per cent. of the mail but, as the Minister said, 20 per cent. of the costs is an unreasonable burden to place on his members.
  I merely ask whether anyone on the Opposition Benches—their numbers are more depleted than once they were, although I realise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lichfield, had a captive audience;

  581
  they were agog at his oratory while mere mortals such as me have to put up with a far lower turnout—is prepared to defend a system that accounts for such a large part of the costs while being responsible for such a small part of the delivery.
  Michael FabricantI am bitterly disappointed that, despite my oratory, the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee cannot remember what I said. I made it very clear that we think there should be only one delivery, for all the reasons to which he has already referred. Does he not accept the point made by Conservative Members—and, indeed, by Labour Members in previous debates—that it is unacceptable for the single delivery to happen at inconsistent times day by day so that businesses and individuals just do not know when it will be made? When deliveries are made so late, that delays the first class post by, in effect, a further 24 hours.
  Mr. O'NeillThe hon. Gentleman makes a couple of points with which I would not altogether disagree. On occasions, the service has been highly variable. My understanding is that it is beginning to bed down and the obvious excesses are now being removed. We must also recognise that not only do most other countries have just one delivery but few have the standards of delivery—even the ones that we fail to achieve—that we must currently put up with. It takes a lot longer for mail to be delivered in most of Europe, and that is certainly not matched in the United States.
  Were we to have a regular system of delivery, whereby everything that could be delivered was delivered by 1.30, there would probably be an awful lot of mail turning up the next day. There would be a knock-on effect. As we are talking about trying to find a means of reducing costs, one of the major contributors to which is the removal of the second service, we must recognise that there will be differences. Nobody argued that a single delivery would be as good as two; they said that it would be almost as good, and that with other improvements, it could be as good in future.
  To take a different tack, the selling of the one delivery was not well handled by the management. More than any other single issue, the problems that arose after the vote—with a number of areas taking the view that they wanted extra money and that they wanted it right away, for which they went on strike—are responsible for the failure to meet performance standards over the past 12 months.
  Therefore, in the pursuit of cost reduction, the Post Office management have sacrificed service. They have gone for a quick financial fix. They have not done that only by taking out the delivery. There have been the usual things: they have reorganised, got rid of properties, realised assets that have been lying dormant, and got a far better grip on the finances. Across the board, in the public sector, one of the problems is that, provided that an enterprise does not make a profit or does not wash its face in only one year in every four, it is not too closely examined. If we consider British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and some other public enterprises still in state ownership, we see that the quality of accounting has left a lot to be desired. The Government, as a consequence
  582
  of their endeavour to have both transparency and accountancy, have been hoist with their own petard because, occasionally, they have brought out the inadequacies of the funding arrangements.
  The Royal Mail left a lot to be desired. There was rigidity in the management and a failure to invest, and on a number of occasions only one target was identified—to make sufficient money to give to the Treasury to satisfy the Government of the day. It is common knowledge that until about two years ago there was no automatic sorting equipment for A4 envelopes. Given the amount of A4 mail that we receive in our mailbags—we could be regarded as small businesses—and given the nature of business in Britain, let us consider how much business mail was unsortable for a long period due simply to the fact that the Royal Mail, the Post Office, or whatever incarnation it was in, lost that opportunity.
  In some respects, the service offered by Royal Mail is not rocket science. We have first class and second class mail, and then there is special delivery. That is all that is offered. For a price, FedEx and the other speedy couriers can deliver packages and letters very quickly.
  Parcelforce has been a problem—some might call it an unmitigated disaster. I would not go as far as that, but I would say that it has been a source of embarrassment to a major international logistics company—for that is what Royal Mail is. It has not been able to organise the delivery of parcels. Equally, it has been extremely cautious and conservative about the range of services it has offered as a mail deliverer. That is one instance in which the old guard of the Post Office must stand condemned, and the problem dates back to before 1997. Successive Governments have demanded far too little from the postal service in terms of product range.
  We are told that none of this really matters because we are moving to the age of the paperless office. That is nonsense. However, one thing that is relevant to the paperless-office argument is the internet. Why was Royal Mail not an internet service provider? Why did it not get in on that act it the outset, and why does it not do so today, when it has at least 16,000 retail outlets online? It could install keyboard facilities and the like, thus providing community access to the internet as well as access for those behind the counter. That is one of many lost opportunities.
  Malcolm BruceYour Guide was aimed at dealing with the public service side. Surely the Post Office does see this as an opportunity, and intends to take advantage of it. Would not the development of Your Guide have made a contribution?
  Mr. O'NeillLet me explain to those who may not be as clued up as the hon. Gentleman that Your Guide was intended to be a community access point. In many respects, it was about simply providing information, and it could be described as a repository of information.
  One reason why I discovered the subject of today's debate so late was that last week I was in the United States looking at, among other things, e-government and interactivity. It is clear that we still have a long way to go. Institutions such as Royal Mail could be far more interactive, not least because we now have a network of

  583
  post offices online. If we want to increase footfall, we should bear it in mind that many people do not receive benefits and do not currently visit post offices. In fact, they are the majority. There is currently a captive market consisting of clients who receive benefits. Those of us who are not in receipt of benefits rarely go into post offices, because in general we have other means of getting rid of our mail. We only visit them when sending packages or buying stamps, and stamps can be bought in many places now.
  We could meet at least part of the footfall challenge. It may be too late for Royal Mail to become an internet service provider. It could be argued that most ISPs in the United Kingdom with any aspirations to size and critical mass are still quite short of that, and that there are difficulties that we may well have to reap in the future. We should, however, look beyond that and consider issues relating to the delivery of mail and the question of liberalisation. I think it fair to say that the pick-up of mail will continue to be a major responsibility for the Post Office as far as post boxes are concerned. One thing that a lot of our constituents do not really understand is that boxes are opened and emptied only once a day not because the Post Office is out to save money, but because of the scale of the sorting operations that the new equipment requires, which means that it need run only in the evenings to get the sorting done. If the sorting were done during the day, the equipment would be running at only half-cock, so at least part of the pick-up function will remain.
  It is understandable that banks, utilities and local authorities, which all send out monthly bills and statements, might well be attractive customers for Deutsche Post or the Dutch postal service. However, it is interesting to note—no one who has spoken so far has mentioned this—that at the end of last year, Royal Mail entered into an agreement with one of the main private operators on the cost of access to the system, which had been one of the major obstacles to liberalisation. The Post Office is now working with the private sector to deal with some aspects of the pick-up and sorting of mail.
  On sorting, the picture is now a lot better than once it was. In some areas of the country, certain sorting offices had many of the industrial relations problems that I hinted at, such as a recalcitrant work force who were resistant to change and resentful of the financial rewards that they were receiving, and who wanted to make higher pay claims. As a result then were difficulties, but at least to some extent they are now diminishing, although they have not gone away I would like to think that the difficulties associated with the sorting of mail, which in many respects is the most critical part of the process, will be resolved before too long.
  The last part of the process is of course the last mile delivery. I know from discussions with potential players in a liberalised market that they are not interested in delivering mail. Postman Pat's future is safe and anyone who suggests the contrary is scaremongering in the extreme. It must be made clear that the delivery of mail will remain, as far as I can see, the long-term monopoly of the Post Office, but it will not have a total monopoly. It will be subject to competition, and in some respects the competition will be painful; but I am confident that there is a mood abroad in the Post Office that can
  584
  accommodate that. Both the trade union and management have shown a willingness to co-operate in this regard.
  I was very critical of the Post Office's approach to the urban reinvention programme, and I remain critical of the amount of time allowed for consultation. Six weeks is too short a period; it probably should have been 12 weeks, as it is for a number of similar exercises. If local government, for instance, wants to do something, 12 weeks are usually given for consultation. One could argue that even 12 weeks is not long enough for some people, but it is probably true that the Post Office's intransigence has helped to stoke some of the fires of resentment. It should consider the issue again.
  It is abundantly clear that Royal Mail is now willing to explain—it will do so if it is given the chance—that there is now a rationale behind the system of closure. There used to be no rationale to the way post offices were opened and developed in the United Kingdom. When the distribution of lottery outlets was conducted, however, Camelot used a map of the UK to identify centres of population, so that nobody would be denied access to the lottery—so that no one should be denied access to being ripped-off once a week if they so desired. In areas where that would have been difficult, Camelot changed the criteria and allowed smaller, less economic outlets the opportunity to sell lottery tickets. The Post Office did not have that luxury. Like the man going to Cork, it would not have started from where it was, but the post office network now has some rationality.
  I accept that mistakes are made, sometimes serious ones, and they are sometimes badly handled—examples have been given today. However, by and large, the process is working reasonably well. As I said earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Lichfield, between one in three and one in four of the applications for financial reimbursement for closure have been denied. The argument is that it is Liberty Hall for post offices and if the owners want to close them they can, but that is not so.
  There are even those who argue that the 28-month offer is too generous. Post office owners can not only close the shop but sell a piece of real estate and make a sizeable profit. In the grey areas that are not quite urban and not quite rural, people can acquire nice properties that used to be post offices at a reasonable price. That does not happen in all cases, but the property boom has meant that the price that can be realised for the post office building has been a significant factor. However, that is a risk that we have to take. Besides, we cannot keep people in business who do not want to be there. If people have worked in a post office until they are 65 or have reached an age at which they want to stop, it is not for Royal Mail to tell them to carry on.
  We must also recognise that a post office may not be the kind of business opportunity that a young couple or a couple in early middle age who have retired from other occupations would necessarily find attractive. Franchised businesses are among the most dangerous and unsatisfactory activities for certain people. The Trade and Industry Committee last week took evidence from tenants of tied houses with the new pub companies. In some instances, people have put sizeable amounts of their own money into businesses that did not merit

  585
  support. The evidence suggests that the average length of tenancy in a public house in such conditions is no more than three years. People have taken up options that were not realistic, and the position is similar for petroleum retailers. People have entered into complicated franchise agreements for gas stations across the country on the basis of poor information and advice. It ill behoves us to assume that a business that has provided a reasonable way of life for some retailers of a bygone generation will provide conditions that are attractive to people today.
  Mr. Nigel WatersonThe hon. Gentleman makes an important point that the network reinvention programme was oversubscribed—more people wanted to receive compensation than could do so—but does not that undermine the Post Office's claim that once its plan has been carried out in any particular area, there will be no further closures? In reality, if other post offices are operating at the margins, they may go out of business subsequently anyway.
  Mr. O'NeillThere is a flaw in the hon. Gentleman's logic. If there is a limited amount of business in an area and one of the players is taken out of the equation, the same business is spread between fewer people. If the smaller number still cannot operate, that is another issue. It is fair to say that there are people in the business with artificially low ambitions. We have all been in some pretty appalling post offices. The best are very good—excellent outlets—but some are dreadful. Sometimes, it is as if people in such post offices are doing us a favour by offering services that they are required to provide under their agreement. People expect to be able to shop all day on Saturday, but some post offices close at 12 noon on Saturday. Why? Because they have always shut at 12. That is just one example of apparent indifference.
  It could be argued that such people were not making enough money from the business, but that is why the Government have made £30 million available, through the Post Office, to improve facilities. Some post office counters have closed but the shops have been left open and are being given assistance to tart themselves up—for want of a better expression. The rate of take-up may not be as high as it should be because people are uncertain, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested.
  The process of getting post offices online has been an unsung triumph for the British IT business; it took a long time to get to that point, but it is now remarkably successful. However, we do not yet offer anything like the range of services that we should. When I raised with one of the Scottish banks the fact that it was denying my constituents access, I was told, "You've got to appreciate that the Post Office signed an agreement with Allied Irish Bank, so why should we allow a competitor privileged freedom of access to our customers?"
  The Royal Mail was damned if it did and damned if it didn't. David Mills has done a remarkable job at Post Office Ltd., but the fact that he is able to offer a range of financial services has of necessity put the nose of some of the other banks out of joint. What brought the issue
  586
  to the table was the failure of the British banking system to take into account small savers and people whose accounts were not particularly active; it penalised them. Now, we have a commitment to a more social banking system. I hope that the financial services regulator will return to the issue and will set up incentives, or perhaps impose penalties if there is a failure to address the social obligations in the banking system. For all their good intentions and warm words, nobody could describe bankers as philanthropists.
  We cannot deal with the issue once and for all; we must return to it. The spread of banking facilities and the integration of banking in the post office system is something that we cannot afford to ignore.
  The Royal Mail had a monopoly in the public sector. Competition and liberalisation are beginning, and with a system of regulation and service obligations, are enabling those of us on the left of politics to see how important financial services can be offered in a socially responsive way throughout the country. The Conservatives are not interested in addressing that challenge. They want privatisation and liberalisation of the Post Office, probably through a more rigorous form of franchising than exists at present. I certainly think we could improve the franchising arrangements but under the Conservatives they would be rather more punitive than the laissez-faire approach that, sadly, the Post Office and its predecessor bodies have adopted.
  The Post Office is still an organisation in transition. We have legislated to create the regulatory system and the system of obligations and to make the Royal Mail independent of Government interference. Of course, the difficulty is that putting something at arm's length from the Government does not protect them from the responsibility of taking the blame for everything that goes wrong. This Government do not need to take too much of the blame.
  I have not spoken this evening about direct payments, cards and the like. I have gone over all that on a number of occasions, and my hon. Friend the Minister knows my views. Good friends though we are, there are some things on which we might well disagree. There is evidence of a small change, even on those issues. The Department for Work and Pensions, which I never find the most sensitive of Departments, was perhaps at least to an extent stung by the criticisms made by my colleagues and me about the way in which the card system was foisted on people, the limited range of choice and the cynical way in which the system was presented.
  There is evidence of a change of tack. Whether the Department has gone as far as we want, or whether it could go as far as we want and still retain the existing system is a different matter, but the Government and the Royal Mail have a sense of the fact that there must be change. The trade union is trying its best to bring its people behind those changes, but none the less there is a feeling—I have some sympathy with it—that a system of mail delivery in the broadest sense should be a national priority and that, given its near monopoly status in that last area, it should remain in public ownership.
  If the Government are true to their word—I like to think that I can believe my colleaguesߞwe will have a publicly owned Royal Mail service that enters into competition and benefits from liberalisation. Before too long—let us hope that this happens in the next

  587
  12 months—we will see an improvement in the standards of service, which have been sacrificed because of the need to sort out the Post Office's financial circumstances. I do not justify that, but I understand it. If we can get strong finances, good investment and good industrial relations, we will get the proper kind of service delivery that we want.
  We may not hit all 15 targets next year—there is more than an even chance of doing so—but I hope that the four targets that the board members and senior management depend on for their bonuses will be regarded as a priority. If they are not regarded as a priority and they are not met, I hope that we will consider extending the criteria on which those bonuses are paid. Financial hanging very often concentrates the mind. That need not be done at the moment because I am confident that Allan Leighton, Adam Crozier and their colleagues barely need to be told what their responsibilities are. That is one of the jobs of government, and I am confident that my right hon. Friends are making it quite clear that we will not stand for an inadequate postal service and an inadequate Royal Mail, which should be a source of pride as a British institution, but was in danger of becoming a source of embarrassment. We have just avoided that, but there is still some way to go before it is the kind of institution in which the public sector and the public at large can take pride and satisfaction.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Simon BurnsI am sure that, for a variety of reasons, it will come as a considerable relief to the House that I do not expect to speak for very long, particularly given that, for almost two and a half hours of this three-and-a-half hour debate, we have only heard speeches from those on the Front Benches and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. No Back Bencher with constituency interests has had an opportunity to speak, and it does not look as though other hon. Members will have much opportunity to do so.
  I am particularly pleased that we are holding this debate today because, as a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have said, we all face serious constituency problems that particularly centre on the closure of urban sub-post offices and the poor delivery of mail. I listened with interest, then incredulity, and then concern to the Minister's speech. As always, it was delivered courteously, as is typical of this Minister, but I simply could not believe that he believed some of the mantras that he kept repeating. There is a saying that, if something is repeated often enough, people will come to believe it. For a Minister, seven years after the Government came to power, to rest his case and his failings primarily on the previous Government rather beggars belief. There comes a time when even this Government must start to accept responsibility for the action or the inaction that they have taken over the past seven years.
  On the Royal Mail's record, the Minister told us—I assume that he believed it because he kept repeating it—that the Royal Mail had turned around and that everything was getting better. On the narrow point of the Royal Mail's profits and losses, yes, the Minister is right, but it seems rather odd that he thinks that the whole thing has been turned around and is beginning to
  588
  perform wonderfully, given that the Royal Mail missed four targets in 2001–02, missed 12 in 2002–03, and went for the jackpot last year and missed all 15. I do not think that that shows that the improvements are coming and that everything is getting better. It seems to me that, once again, given the increasing failure to meet the targets—year in, year out—the Royal Mail is getting worse in the service that it is meant to deliver to the public.
  At the same time, just to add insult to injury, the poor punters—those who post the letters—must pay more. The price of the first-class post went up in 2003 and that of the second-class post went up in April this year, to make more money for Royal Mail, to help it to offset its losses, but without any improved service. On balance, there is probably good reason for the withdrawal of the second delivery, but the first class post should now be delivered in urban areas by lunchtime. The trouble is that no one has defined what lunchtime actually means. To Americans, it is 11.30 in the morning. To others, it may be 12.30 or 1 o'clock. What does lunchtime mean? Is it so wonderful a target for the Royal Mail to perform against?
  We as hon. Members probably send and receive more mail than most individuals, so we have first-hand experience that allows us to monitor what is happening. Sadly, despite the great improvement that the Minister keeps talking about, Chelmsford does not enjoy a good mail service. In fact, the service is so appalling that, if I hold a surgery in Chelmsford on a Friday afternoon and I manage to complete my dictation before the sub-post office in my area closes, I am provided with a free special delivery service from Chelmsford to the House of Commons—that service is usually provided the other way around—to try to guarantee that my dictated surgery notes get to my secretary on a Monday morning. If I post them first class on a Friday night in Chelmsford—only 35 miles up the road—invariably, they do not turn up until the Tuesday. Given that we are paying through the nose for the service, it seems disgraceful that something cannot be delivered a mere 35 miles away three days later. So the authorities have kindly given me that special service, which seems to work. The post generally turns up by lunchtime on a Monday. I should have thought that it could turn up by 8 o'clock in the morning, but that is asking too much.
  Why does Chelmsford have such an appalling service? Many of my constituents, as well as me, would dearly love to know. The target is for 90.5 per cent. of all post to be delivered by the next day, but the figure in Chelmsford last year was 85.8 per cent. The CM postcode area is the ninth worst in the whole country. At least 92.5 per cent. of letters posted in the CM area for delivery in that area are supposed to be delivered by the next day, but the figure is sadly only 89.9 per cent. It is especially disturbing that the figures are worse now than they were last year, despite the fact the Minister seems to think that everything has turned around and the Royal Mail is getting better. No one is confident that they will receive their mail by the time the Royal Mail promises that it will be delivered, and my constituents are disgusted by that situation, as am I.
  On top of that problem, we, too, have experienced the closure of a series of urban sub-post offices over the past 18 months. Seven have closed down, two of them in probably the most deprived ward of my constituency.

  589
  To return to a point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) when she intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), a disproportionate number of people in that area are elderly and do not have cars, so they might find it difficult to go further afield to the sub-post office that they must now visit, following the closures. Young mothers with children, but probably without vehicles, must now also walk further.
  There was considerable concern about all the closures, so several people wanted to try to do something about them. They took at face value the Post Office's mantra that there would be a consultation process during which all views could be invited, given, listened to and considered. Action groups were set up and petitions were distributed. I met representatives of the Royal Mail to discuss the closures. They were courteous—I have no complaint about that. They sagely nodded as I made my points, as did my constituents and Chelmsford borough council, and ooh-ed and ah-ed at the appropriate points during the discussion. However—did they do anything? They did not do a single thing; all the sub-post offices closed as soon as the statutory time scale for consultation expired.
  It is all right for the Minister to say that the Post Office listens, and to produce the odd statistic to back up the fact that it cares and takes account of cases made for keeping post offices, but certainly in West Chelmsford and, if the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is to be believed, in Leicester, we find that it listens and goes through the motions, but does not pay one iota of attention to what is said or the case that is made. It closes the post offices because it wants to eliminate its losses and get back into profit.
  I might be cynical, but it is perhaps a strange coincidence that few complaints are heard from sub-postmasters about the closure of their sub-post offices. If people's businesses are to be closed down by another body, they are usually the first to lead the battle to try to save them. Sub-postmasters do not do that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, they are being bought off with extremely generous compensation.
  Mr. WatersonWhen we went through the process in Eastbourne, my petition was displayed in shops, shopping centres and other places throughout the constituency and it ultimately attracted thousands of signatures. However, the places in which copies of my petition were not welcome were the sub-post offices slated for closure.
  Mr. BurnsMy hon. Friend makes a good point. All too often, sub-postmasters and mistresses have been content for their businesses to close because they have been bought off by advantageous financial packages. I do not begrudge the payment of compensation if a business is closed down, but "compensation plus" is being paid to try to silence the opposition of the people who one would think would be most directly affected by the closure of the businesses. They have been reassured by the amount of money made available to them.
  590
  Notwithstanding the case that the Minister made, I join the hon. Member for Leicester, East in saying that the consultation process is a farce and that it does not work. The Post Office does not want it to work because it is determined to close the sub-post offices that it has identified for closure. That is the experience in Chelmsford and, according to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, in Leicester, although it might not be the experience everywhere. We know that a decision to close some 50 sub-post offices was reversed, but do not know their location. Given where we are in the electoral cycle, they may well be in marginal Labour constituencies. If the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), were to let us know their locations, we would be able to form our judgment on whether that is the case. They could be in Sedgefield or Hull—
  Mr. WatersonOr Leicester.
  Mr. BurnsLeicester is an interesting case. Despite the Minister's rosy words about the consideration given to the situation in Leicester, I bet my bottom dollar that the sub-post offices will either be saved on about 12 July, or closed on 16 July—certainly not before that. I cannot predict which of those two scenarios will occur, but if they are to be closed, there will be no announcement until 16 July at the earliest.
  There is great concern and growing cynicism in my constituency not only about the poor delivery of mail, for which people must pay more because of price increases, but about the elimination and closure of valuable, badly needed urban sub-post offices, especially those in the socially deprived area in the west of the town—as far as that can be defined in Chelmsford.
  I give a warning to the Under-Secretary. For reasons that will become apparent, especially to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), we get a perverse consolation from the situation. Not even this Government can get everything right. They made the mistake of announcing the first two closures in the west of Chelmsford four months before the local elections in May last year. It might surprise the Under-Secretary to hear that Labour councillors are few and far between in Chelmsford—we did not have any during the ten years up until 1995. We had five up until May last year. Three of them were in the ward in which the sub-post offices were located, but sadly for the Under-Secretary, they all unexpectedly lost their seats. When I spoke to Labour activists after the election, all that they could say was, "The war in Iraq, and those bloody post office closures that the Government inflicted on us." Let that be a warning, because people care about their sub-post offices and want a local service on their doorsteps. If the Government do not listen to public opinion, it is amazing what can happen to councillors and Members of Parliament.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Russell BrownI apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for missing his opening contribution because I was delayed before the start of the debate. From what my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, he made an excellent speech—at least that was what I picked up.

  591
  On the back of an extremely lengthy and difficult period, postal services and deliveries are beginning to bed down, to put it in the terms used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil. I honestly believe—I have spoken to colleagues who have witnessed it personally—that single delivery is beginning to show some positives, although we are not out of the woods by any manner of means. I agree with those who have said in this debate that the Post Office's quick financial fixes are not necessarily the answer to the significant difficulties faced by a public service that we all hold close to our hearts and in deep affection, but sentimentality cannot and will not win the day.
  Like colleagues on both sides of the House, I have witnessed some closures of rural post offices in my constituency. It is very difficult when the business of a small shop, which has been the home for the village post office and which serves perhaps only four or five dozen houses, starts to decline—not because people do not want to use the facility, but because a greater choice has developed over many years, and they have access to the main town that is 5 or 6 miles away. We have all witnessed that. It is never easy to turn such decline around. Sentimentality for a local village post office will not sustain the service for many years to come; we must be honest with ourselves.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who has left the Chamber, passed comment on the Postwatch estimate of 250 post offices that need not and should not have closed. That is worrying. The situation should never have arisen, but it is unlikely to be reversed.
  The hon. Gentleman also commented on supermarkets. I intervened on him and referred to the proposed closure of the post office in the Safeway supermarket in Dumfries. I want to be perfectly open and honest about this: I was serving on the planning committee of the council when Safeway applied to develop its site and talked of the potential for a post office in the supermarket. I objected to that at the time because I did not think that it was right. However, permission was granted and the post office came into being, and now Morrisons, which has taken over such sites, has decided to give up the franchise.
  Some say that we should be manning the barricades and fighting for the retention of the post office in the supermarket, if not run by the company, then run by someone else. The last thing that we need is a knee-jerk reaction. That was the very point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman. Within three quarters of a mile to a mile of that supermarket site, there are three or four sub-post offices. We need to consider how those businesses are running and whether there is potential to divvy up among them some of the services currently offered by the supermarket post office, such as foreign currency exchange, the issuing of vehicle excise licences, the all-international parcel service and a lottery payout facility. There should be some sincere thought about that and some answers from the Post Office. I have written to the chief executive to ask him what the plans are and whether there can be some open consultation.
  Debates on postal services and post offices always come round to the argument about the move to direct payments for pensions and benefits and the Post Office card account. It is argued that if all those with a pension book or a benefits book—whether incapacity benefit or
  592
  child benefit—moved to a Post Office card account, everything would be rosy. That is clearly not so. In many debates in the House and in Westminster Hall we have heard of the difficulties that people have had in securing a Post Office card account. I believe that the decision to move to direct payments was the correct one, if for no other reason than its potential for limiting fraud and other criminal activities, especially robbery and theft from pensioners. The system is far safer if used correctly.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), and I have been in correspondence about the card account. He has also been in correspondence with one of my constituents, a gentleman from Dumfries and Galloway elderly forum who believes that it is not the correct system. My constituent looks at the matter from the narrow perspective that there is every likelihood that, after full investigation, someone who reports the loss or theft of their payment book and counterfoils in adequate time would not be penalised financially. However, lying behind the new seemingly failsafe system that cannot be tampered or interfered with, and on the back of the banking code of practice, is a £50 penalty for someone who loses their card on which a transaction is subsequently made.
  We might say that, if someone loses their card or it is stolen, there is little likelihood of someone having the pin number. On Friday evening, a sincere and genuine couple came to my surgery and, to all intents and purposes, pleaded with me to visit their sub-post office in Dumfries to see pension day in operation. Elderly people are handing over their card then going into their purse or diary and reading out their pin number. That is breaking the contract, but we are talking about elderly people who—I say this with the greatest respect; I sincerely hope to be elderly myself one day—do not on occasions understand what is going on around them, or realise who is standing behind them and listening. There is therefore great potential for an apparently failsafe system becoming open and vulnerable.
  Michael FabricantThe hon. Gentleman is raising a fascinating point, which I am following with great interest. He mentions the security of what is in effect chip and pin. Is he aware that only this week a major bank said that we should be using automated teller machines less frequently, not because people might see the pin number entered, but because the machines might have been tampered with and be making a record of the numbers punched in? He is absolutely right to say that nothing is infallibly safe.
  Mr. BrownI thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall not name the bank involved, because I am not sponsored by it and should not advertise for it, but I am aware of that point. The issue of ATMs immediately sprang to mind when considering the card account.
  The couple whom I was talking about told me about the deep anxiety, distress and sleepless nights that the direct payment system is causing elderly people, many of whom are worried to the point of becoming ill. They even told me about one elderly lady who was having great difficulty in changing to a Post Office card account. She ended up unwell, and spoke to her son on the telephone about the problem. He came up to try to assist

  593
  in submitting her name for a Post Office card account. We would all agree that that is a decent thing for any son or daughter to do, but he lives down south and made a 400 or 500-mile round trip to a constituency just over the border to carry out a simple transaction, even though his mother did her very best to speak to someone at a call centre to try to make them understand her difficulties.
  The change also poses difficulties for the home carer service, although I have no figures to illustrate this. In my area—I know this is the case in other constituencies—home carers have taken their client's pension book to the post office and collected their pension for them. However, a clear policy has been established whereby home carers' employers—in most cases, the local authority—are not prepared to allow their staff members to use a card and PIN number to access something which, to all intents and purposes, is a bank account. I am delighted that the Department has decided to introduce cheque payments in October for people who find it extremely difficult to use the direct payment system. Many people will be relieved by that concession, although I appreciate that it will apply only to people who have difficulties with direct payments. Last week, the local Pension Service in Motherwell told me that in the past couple of weeks a direct payment team has been set up to look at the difficulties that individuals are experiencing and consider whether there is a specific problem. I applaud my hon. Friend the Minister, his team and the Pension Service for taking that step.
  The other evening, the sub-postmaster and his wife made it abundantly clear that we are where we are and that the decision is not going to be reversed. They were glad, however, that progress has been made in looking at the problems. While someone's age should never determine whether they are fit enough to cope with the change, they suggested that the Department should have introduced direct payments for everyone below, for example, 75. That does not mean, however, that everyone under 75 can cope with the new system. People over 75 with a pension or benefit book should be allowed to continue to use it until they are no longer in receipt of benefit because of what eventually overtakes us all.
  I do not know whether the Minister will consider that a helpful change to the system, but the direct payment system is causing people more than just a little worry. It is causing them deep anxiety and, as I said, they are becoming physically ill. It was right to introduce a safer method of payment that should have benefited everyone. Regrettably, however, it has become a vulnerable system for some people in our society because of the way in which they conduct their business. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will address people's deep concerns about the Post Office card account when he sums up the debate.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Mark FrancoisI am pleased to speak in this important debate, which has a bearing on the lives of all our constituents. I have spoken before about Post Office closures in my constituency and I do not intend to repeat my argument today, other than to say that I am extremely dissatisfied with the way in
  594
  which the process has been handled. I remain convinced that the so-called "consultation process" on closures, even in its amended form, is little more than a sham. I shall concentrate instead on the failures in the Royal Mail's delivery network. I have raised the issue in business questions, both before and after the Whitsun recess, and am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the matter in greater detail today.
  The changeover to the single delivery system has clearly not been a success. In May 2004, Royal Mail admitted that it had not met any of its 15 delivery targets in the year to March, and had failed to achieve its core objectives on the minimum delivery targets for first and second class post. In the year to March 2004, 90.1 per cent. of first class mail was delivered the next day, compared with a target of 92.5 per cent; 97.8 per cent. of second class mail was. delivered on time, as opposed to a target of 98.5 per cent. In addition, while some first class mail may technically be delivered the next day, it now arrives so late that it is difficult to take practical action on it in normal working hours. In effect, traditional first class post has been virtually abolished, and in many areas the time of delivery is largely a matter of pot luck, regardless of the class of postage.
  Anyone who thought that these problems were exaggerated needed only to watch the recent "Panorama" programme to be disabused of that notion. The BBC painted a truly shocking picture of life at a major London sorting office, with poor or indifferent management, sometimes militant staff and generally very low morale at all ranks. Royal Mail attempted to cope with changes in its system by recruiting large numbers of temporary staff, some of whom, to be frank, had difficulty reading and writing and finding even the most obvious addresses, leading to one near-farcical scene that was secretly filmed in a block of flats. Mail was frequently abandoned in delivery rounds or lost at the sorting depot. The worst cases exposed by the programme were of systematic fraud and theft, and it secretly filmed some members of organised gangs—not ordinary postal workers, I hasten to add—infiltrating the delivery network to steal high-value items such as credit cards and cheque books.
  Some of those problems have been replicated in other parts of the country, including my own county of Essex, where the changeover was rolled out in the first half of 2004. Those problems were amply demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and I should like to expand the argument with examples from my constituency and neighbouring areas, many of which are similar to the problems in London highlighted by "Panorama".
  In the spring of 2004 a young female reporter from the Evening Echo, Anita Patterson, went undercover and took a job as a temporary postal worker for Royal Mail. She was based at the Basildon sorting office for about a week, although the experiences that she described are indicative of problems across south Essex, including my own constituency. She described the situation on the ground in a major article entitled, "We expose mail chaos"—I have brought it for the Minister to see, in case he thinks I am exaggerating—and her account is extremely depressing.

  595
  The changeover led to a large backlog of undelivered mail. At one stage more than half a million items were piled up at the Basildon sorting office awaiting delivery—a fantastic number of items waiting to go out. In addition, a large number of experienced postmen who knew their rounds well began leaving, with large numbers of inexperienced casual staff desperately being recruited to try to fill the gap. At one stage there were more than 40 casuals operating from the Basildon office alone. While some of the newcomers were reportedly keen and wanted to do their best, they often did not know the areas in question and had to work from maps, so deliveries took much longer than when undertaken by experienced personnel with good local knowledge, who knew exactly where they were going.
  Many of the individual delivery rounds had been significantly expanded as part of the changeover process, so that customers at the back end of a round, so to speak, were receiving their mail very late in the day, with many letters and parcels not being delivered until the early evening. One Royal Mail manager quoted in the subsequent Evening Echo report stated that the previous system had run like clockwork compared with the new system, which he described as "a bloody mess".
  Even brief hindsight reveals that the exercise was badly planned. The entire process should have been much more thoroughly prepared for and the subsequent execution of the changeover should have been much better thought through. The staffing implications of the change were obviously not considered properly, and neither were the potential impact on morale and the related impact on the retention or otherwise of experienced staff. The dramatic alteration in the well established delivery rounds persuaded many experienced postmen to leave, which had a detrimental effect on those who were left. It also meant that more casuals were employed, and they had to work harder to make up. The system became a vicious circle. Royal Mail appears to have had scant regard for the effect on its customers, who were effectively taken for granted throughout the process, and in many parts of Essex still are.
  I shall conclude, as I know there is one other hon. Member who is anxious to speak and I want to give him his chance. I, for one, have little remaining confidence in the senior management of Royal Mail. From the people who brought us Consignia and then the post office closure programme, we now have a service that cannot even deliver letters properly and that sets 15 performance targets and then proceeds to miss every single one of them. If anybody ever wants to organise a party in a brewery, I suggest they do not go and ask the management of Royal Mail how to do it.
  The Government cannot escape responsibility in the matter. It is important to remember, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) at the start of his speech from the Front Bench, that it is the Government who ultimately own the Post Office and Royal Mail. However they try to spin it—I admit that in opening the debate for the Government, the Minister valiantly tried—these problems have occurred on their watch. They are ultimately responsible for the chaos on the ground. The buck therefore stops with Ministers. They need to take
  596
  a firm grip on the situation and do something about it, or get out of the way and allow others to do so who are more confident to perform.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Michael WeirI was intrigued by the Minister's description of the reinvention programme in his opening remarks. I am sure that if it worked in the way that the Minister set out for us, it would indeed be a wonderful thing, but in my experience the reinvention programme is neither consistent nor systematic. Despite the promises that we received in the Minister's statement earlier in the year, I can see no practical difference between the consultation process undertaken now and that which was undertaken before, apart from the fact that we now get a letter from the Post Office with a printout and lovely coloured maps. The process is as bad as it ever was.
  Let me give an example. Just before the Minister's statement, the Post Office announced that it was changing the way in which consultation was carried out. There was no longer to be a piecemeal process, post office by post office; it would look at a constituency as a whole. I was intrigued by that and wondered how it would be done in a rural constituency, but I hoped there might be a systematic examination of post office provision. A few days later I got a letter saying that one of the post offices in my constituency was closing. I asked what had happened to the constituency-wide appraisal, and was told that that had not started yet. That post office duly closed, despite widespread local opposition.
  In April I received a wonderful letter from the Post Office giving me the grandly titled Post Office area plan for Angus. As I said, it was accompanied by a nice printout and brightly coloured maps. What it lacked was any sort of strategic thinking about the post office provision needed in a constituency such as mine. I shall give an example of the level of strategic thinking that it contains. As part of the customer profile for one of the post offices, it states:
  "Most business comes from the local authority housing behind the office"
  and
  "the majority of customers are elderly".
  So where were those mainly elderly customers to go? They were expected to go to another post office that is just under a mile away. So far, so good, but how are those mainly elderly customers supposed to get there, as many do not have their own transport? Under the heading "Bus routes", the same wonderful printout states:
  "There are no direct services available".
  In other words, customers cannot get to the alternative post office by bus, and in any event it is situated on a busy road adjacent to traffic lights where there is often a heavy build-up of traffic.
  I approached the Post Office with the concerns expressed to me by my constituents and I made observations to the company regarding that closure and the difficulties with bus transport to alternative offices. The response was that buses are a matter for the bus company. So much for consultation. Surely it is a matter for the Post Office, which is—or at least used to be—a public service.

  597
  The consultation process is seriously flawed and is no more than window-dressing for decisions that have already been made. The motion, for obvious reasons, specifically mentions post offices in Leicester and Birmingham. As someone who has no intention of going to south Leicester or Birmingham, I can say that it affects all parts of the United Kingdom, including my constituency. Will the Minister please tell us the strategic thinking behind the post office reinvention programme?
  Under the latest proposals there are to be three closures in Angus—one in Montrose, one in Arbroath and one in Forfar. The result is that there would be one post office left in the town of Montrose, no post offices in the west side of Arbroath, the largest town in the county, and in Forfar, the county town, two post offices close together, with nothing for the majority of the town. We were told again by the Minister today that the programme is meant to stabilise and modernise the provision of postal services. Instead, it seems to be completely haphazard and dependent on which sub-postmasters want to or can be persuaded to retire. All too often it seems as though the management approach local postmasters, saying, "We've a tub of money. Who wants to go?"
  Surely the proper way to deal with the matter, as the Minister told us, although it is not what is happening in practice, is that there should be a genuine look at the entire area—constituency, local authority or whatever—mapping out the post offices required properly to serve the needs of the population. In my constituency that is not happening. We have a haphazard and unbalanced system, and I am sure that that is the experience of many other hon. Members.
  As I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, despite the fact that he said there should be a post office within a mile of where people live, the Post Office says that under its agreement with the regulator there should be a post office within three miles. As I pointed out, in any small or medium-sized town that could easily be achieved by having one sub-post office in the centre of the town. It occurs to me that the real strategy behind the reinvention programme might be to cut down the number to one in each town. This is a matter of real importance, as the programme has been funded entirely by taxpayers' money. In effect, we are paying for the reduction in our own services, and no one believes that the current round will be the last.
  The situation is worse than that. When the Post Office proposed the closures, I asked it what would happen if we found someone who was willing to take over a post office at which the current postmaster wanted to leave or could not make a living. I received this response:
  "I'm sure you appreciate that as we are still in public consultation, we cannot explore this suggestion any further until a decision is made, and obviously only then if the decision is taken for the branch to remain in the network."
  So the Post Office will not look at an alternative for a post office until it decides whether it wants to close it. That does not fill me with confidence that it will look seriously at alternatives.
  598
  Mention has been made of the rural post office network, but time is running short so I shall not speak about it in any great detail. Obviously there are serious things to come, and we expect many closures when the money runs out in 2006.
  I shall stop there, as I am being signalled that time is indeed short, but I have serious concerns about this whole process.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Nigel WatersonThis has been a very useful debate, and it has given us an opportunity to highlight problems with post offices in Leicester, South, Birmingham, Hodge Hill and across the country. It is perhaps depressingly reassuring that the problems described by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) are exactly the same as those that we have encountered in Eastbourne, on the south coast.
  The facts about the Post Office are dismal and incontestable. In total, there have been more than 1,200 closures under the so-called urban reinvention scheme. On that basis, I suppose that the blitz could have been called the urban reinvention scheme in its day. We have heard about the problems in terms of rural closures, particularly from the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). We believe that something might happen after 2006, but the Government do not quite know what.
  We have also heard about the failure to meet targets. Four targets were missed in 2001–02 and 12 were missed in 2002–03, and there was a spectacular failure to hit any of the 15 targets for last year. As the Postwatch press release said,
  "there are no longer any more targets to miss."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) graphically described the effect of missing those targets on real People in his constituency. We have also heard about the senior management and in particular about Mr Adam Crozier, formerly of the Football Association. His apparent inability to get the ball into the back of the net makes him the David Beckham of the postal world.
  In the short time that is available, I want to concentrate on the way in which those problems affect the most vulnerable in our society—the elderly and the disabled. Closures ale obviously a problem for them, and I also want to mention direct payments, the botched introduction of PIN pads and the exceptions service.
  We have heard about closure numbers, but each statistic conceals a real problem for a real community—a community that will be that bit poorer because its local post office has closed. In my constituency, which was one of the first to be subjected to the area plan approach, five post offices were closed, including the main post office. The word "flawed" is one whose application to the so-called consultation I would entirely endorse. As far as I am concerned, the entire process was a complete farce from start to finish. Despite hundreds of letters, thousands of signatures on petitions and a well-attended

  599
  public meeting in my local town hall, none of what was said made any difference at all. The process was wholly bogus. Indeed, it is so clear that that is the case that no less a person than the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services had to issue not a three, five or 10-point action plan on consultation, but a 12-point plan, closing the stable door firmly after the horse was long gone. Touching on what my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said about closures, all too often the Government have stuffed sub-postmasters' mouths with gold and gone ahead and closed their offices anyway on that basis.
  On direct payment, there are, in theory, three options for customers. What the Government have tried to do from the start, however, is have an extremely uneven playing field in terms of the Post Office card account. Indeed, at an early stage, when I was doing the same Front-Bench job as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), it emerged from a leaked civil servant document that the phrase "actively managed choice" was being used. That was the way in which the Government and the Post Office were trying to bully older people into going for a particular one of the options.
  We have heard about the seven, eight or maybe even 20-stage process that is needed simply to open a Post Office card account. With the massive understatement for which the Post Office is quite well known, it said in its briefing for this debate:
  "It does appear, however, that customers are being slower than expected to complete the conversion journey and start using their new accounts."
  I wonder why. Let me give the example of a lady from Southampton who wrote to me. I received her letter only today in my role as a shadow Minister. She says:
  "This month, I received my Post Office Card … At a swift count I have made three telephone calls, received four pamphlets, two forms, three notifications, seven letters, one post Office Card and one Proof of Receipt (2 sides A4) from Preston, Warrington and Chester with envelopes marked for non-delivery from Liverpool, Preston and Belfast."
  She first applied on 20 December last year. No wonder Age Concern has said:
  "We are concerned at the considerable hurdles that seem to be being put in the way of opening a POCA. One cannot simply go to a post office and open an account."
  Citizens Advice and the National Consumer Council have expressed similar concerns. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters says:
  "It is very clear that the Government prefers people to access their benefit payments through a bank account than via the Post Office card account."
  The exceptions service is designed to help people who are elderly, disabled or housebound and need a special service after the new arrangements are finally in place. We are told—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that the full details are expected to be in place by October this year. We are told that cheque payments will start in October, and that until that time, affected customers will continue to use their order books. It would be interesting to know what projections the Department is making as to the number
  600
  of people who will take up the option, although Ministers are, of course, keen to make it clear that it is not an option. With his usual ability to calm people's fears, the Minister for Pensions said:
  "The advice to people at the moment is do not panic."
  I have to say that that is not quite the advice that people were seeking. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry had this to say:
  "It is clear from the evidence presented to us that the failure of the DWP to develop its ideas for the Exceptions Service in advance of the introduction of Direct Payments has led to uncertainty and confusion over the means by which some groups of disabled people will receive their benefits in future."
  It is also clear that there was a failure to listen in advance to advice from organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind about the design of the PIN pads, which have had to be redesigned. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) made some very pertinent comments about that issue and about security in general. An apology was eventually prompted from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who said:
  "I agree that it would have been better if the original PIN pad had been designed with full regard to the needs of people with different disabilities."—[Official Report, 24 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 910.]
  Finally, it seems to me that there is an enormous paradox at the heart of the policy of both the Government and the Post Office senior management. On the one hand, they want to streamline and modernise the Post Office, restore profitability and extend the range of services. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, dealt in some detail with the issue of why the Post Office had been so slow to look at other services that it could be selling and at issues such as e-mail, which it could have been getting into at an early stage.
  The Post Office wants to extend its range of services and invest £125 million in a link-up with the Bank of Ireland to provide financial services. That is fine and good, but paradoxically it is shutting the very retail outlets that would help it to sell those new services, alienating existing and previously loyal customers and making life exceptionally difficult for elderly, vulnerable or disabled people, by adding to their worries. In no other area of Government is the gap between spin and reality so painfully wide; I urge my hon. Friends to support the motion.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)This is the third Opposition day debate on post offices this year. If as much concern and energy had been invested in the post office network when Conservative Members were in a position to do something about it, 3,670 post offices might not have closed during their term in office. No Conservative Back Benchers were present in the Chamber—let alone contributed—for much of their own Opposition day debate.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) opened the debate by generously accepting that the Government care about the vulnerable, the elderly and small businesses that run local post offices. I confirm that we care, which is why we are investing £2 billion in the post office network, and why we are spending £10 billion a year more on pensioner incomes.

  601
  People listening to this debate will find it hard to resist the suspicion that the Conservative party's newly discovered concern for post offices in Leicester, South and Birmingham, Hodge Hill is nothing but opportunism. [Interruption.] "Absolutely" says the Conservative Whip. The Government believe that the post office network is essential to local communities, whether they are in Leicester, South or Birmingham, Hodge Hill, and, working with the Royal Mail board, we are determined to do everything that we can to ensure that Post Office and Royal Mail customers receive efficient and high quality services, which is why we are committed to a post office network containing bigger, brighter and more welcoming outlets that provide people with the goods and services that they want. We want customers to return again and again through choice, and not because they are tied to a post office in order to collect their benefit.
  Following years of neglect, which the previous Administration ignored, the Government have grasped the nettle to secure the future of Royal Mail and a viable network of post offices. Radical change is required if the post office network is to remain relevant in a modern society. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services pointed out in his opening remarks, we are investing substantial sums to support the transformation of the entire network. For example, £500 million of Government support for one of the UK's largest IT projects has resulted in the computerisation of every post office, which allows the Post Office to continue to make benefit and pension payments in cash and provides it with a vital opportunity to widen its customer base by increasing its range of banking products, which is key to its future.
  The heart of the Post Office's problem is that it has been locked into a shrinking customer base, because its income has been heavily dependent on benefit payments. I should like the House to compare the situation in 2001–02 with that five years previously, excluding benefit recipients who access money through a bank account. Even before the move to the direct payment of benefits and pensions, retirement pensions and widow's benefit paid by order books and giros decreased by more than 1 million from just more than 6 million to less than 5 million, although the total number of pension recipients increased by more than 1 million. Child benefits paid in that way dropped from just less than 5 million to less than 4 million, and incapacity benefit payments decreased from more than 2.5 million to less than 1 million.
  The drop in benefit transactions at post offices involves more than people switching to bank accounts, and I will not apologise for one such reason: our record on job creation and getting people off jobseeker's allowance and income support has resulted in the best employment figures for 30 years. I will not apologise for that record, but hon. Members know that it has implications for Post Office income, and post offices must therefore find an alternative future, which we are helping them to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) reminded us that sentimentality, of which we have heard much from Conservative Members this afternoon, will not be enough to secure the Post Office's
  602
  future. The Government want to implement the vision in the performance and innovation unit report of a thriving network, and the task is to continue to serve existing customers excellently, to attract new customers and to give the post office network access to expanding banking markets, rather than, as in the past, dwindling markets.
  We have heard much about the promotion of the Post Office card account, and I doubt whether the few remaining minutes will provide an opportunity to respond to every point. The Government remain committed to ensuring that those who want to can continue to collect their benefits and pensions at post offices free of charge after the move to direct payment. Last year's successful launch of universal banking services, which not only the industry, but many of the voluntary organisations to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services referred in his opening remarks welcomed, has allowed us to keep that promise.
  Customers have three account choices under the new arrangements for benefit payments. They decide whether they want their benefit to be paid into a current bank account, a basic bank account or a Post Office card account. Choice is important, and the customer should decide which of those accounts is most appropriate to their circumstances. In the debate, we heard that a post office card is not necessarily appropriate for jobseekers, but it may be appropriate for other groups.
  The Government have always accepted that some people cannot open an account, including, for example, some homeless people or those with an illness, infirmity or disability—others may also be in that position for short periods of time. That is why my officials and I met customer representative groups last year, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Help the Aged, Age Concern and Mind, to ensure that the cheque-based system was designed to meet the concerns raised in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and other hon. Members. The system is designed to avoid many of the fraud problems that we encounter under the current system—for example, 100 pensioners have their pension books stolen each week, which creates heartache.
  The heart of the Post Office's problems is that it has been locked into a shrinking customer base. Its task is to continue to serve these customers excellently, to attract new customers and to access expanding banking markets, rather than dwindling markets, as in the past. On top of the step changes in new banking services, other initiatives, including accepting debit and credit card payments, telephone services and a major advertising campaign for travel insurance and bureau de change services, contribute to making post offices places that customers want to visit. The Government want people to use the post office because they wish to, and not because they are forced to.
  The evidence clearly shows that the Post Office cannot prosper or even survive if it stands still, and the challenge is to adapt to meet the changing demands of customers and society. The Government are determined to make sure that the Post Office has that future and that it continues to provide the highest quality of service to its customers and to be the heart of local communities.

  603
  We are making that investment. The Conservatives have made the investment of three Opposition day debates this year, but from the point of view of the people who work in the Royal Mail on behalf of the customers who depend so much on post office services, this will look like yet more of that party's crocodile tears. I commend our amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 253.

  Division No. 212]

  [7:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gummer, rh John

  Allan, Richard

  Hague, rh William

  Amess, David

  Hammond Philip

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hancock Mike

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W & Abington)

  Baldry, Tony

  Barker, Gregory

  Harvey, Nick

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Barrett, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howard, rh Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brazier, Julian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Johnson Boris (Henley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burnside, David

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Burstow, Paul

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Cameron, David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Cash, William

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lillev, rh Peter

  Llwyd, El yn

  Chidgey, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Clappison, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Doughty, Sue

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfitld)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Murrison Dr. Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Flight, Howard

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Flook, Adrian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Paice, James

  Gidley, Sandra

  Paterson, Owen

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Goodman, Paul

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  604

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Syms, Robert

  Randall, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Teather, Sarah

  Ruffley, David

  Thurso, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  Trend, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Selous, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Watkinson, Angela,

  Shepherd Richard

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Weir, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Wilkinson, John

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Willis, Phil

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Young, rh Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hugh Robertson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bailey, Adrian

  Colman, Tony

  Baird, Vera

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cummings, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  David, Wayne

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, rh John

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cairns, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Challen, Colin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Clapham, Michael

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  605

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McDonnell, John

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, rh John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McKechin, Ann

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heyes, David

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mole, Chris

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Owen, Albert

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purnell, James

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  606

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruane, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Watts, David

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Southworth, Helen

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wills, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Straw, rh Jack

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Gillian Merron and

  Timms, Stephen

  Vernon Coaker

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the Government's strategy for a viable Post Office network; welcomes the delivery by Royal Mail of 93 per cent. of first class letters the next day in the first half of 2003–04; shares the Government's disappointment over the drop in performance since then, which rightly falls short of customers' expectations; calls on Royal Mail and the unions to work together to improve the quality of service; notes that the closure of any post office is regrettable but supports the Government's view that, without rationalisation, unplanned closures would continue, leaving damaging gaps in the network; supports the Government's commitment to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of the urban population will live within one mile of their nearest post office; supports the Government's commitment to ensure funding of rural post offices until at least 2006; welcomes the changes to the urban reinvention consultation process and the extension of the consultation process from four to six weeks; supports the Government's move to Direct Payment and welcomes the fact that already more than half of customers are getting their benefits, pensions and tax credits paid straight into accounts, of which 3.2 million are Post Office card accounts; notes that the Opposition wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on the Benefit Payment Card scheme; supports the facility for those who cannot be paid through an account, particularly the most vulnerable older people, to receive a cheque payment; and recognises that change was needed and congratulates the Government for its strong, decisive action.

Personal Indebtedness and Savings
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)We now come to the second debate on Opposition motions. I must announce that Mr. Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.14 pm
Mr. Oliver LetwinI beg to move,
That this House notes that household indebtedness has now reached £1 trillion; is concerned that the household savings rate has halved since 1997; and believes that the Government, through the extension of dependency on means-tested benefits in retirement, its attack on the tax advantages of savings vehicles, and its £5 billion a year raid on pension funds, has diminished incentives to save.
Two issues arise from the motion. One is short term and the other is long term. The short-term issue is indebtedness or household debt and the long-term issue is savings or their lack. I begin with household indebtedness. We have almost certainly reached the £1 trillion level of household indebtedness, which is broadly equivalent to our gross domestic product. That fact has become increasingly interesting to the media. A set of changes underlies that state of affairs.
Household indebtedness has recently increased annually by approximately 12 per cent., despite having slowed a little from an even higher figure. Much of that has been in the form of mortgage indebtedness or secured lending. According to the latest reckoning, some £818 billion of mortgage debt forms part of the £1 trillion total. Mortgage debt, at around 13 per cent. a year, has been growing even faster than overall household indebtedness, although it, too, has slowed slightly.
Mr. Kelvin HopkinsSurely that is not a problem, provided that people can finance their debt. Were we not simply rising out of a low level of debt after the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism and emerging from the recession that the right hon. Gentleman's party created?
Mr. LetwinI agree that a given amount of debt is not a problem for those who can easily manage it. I shall shortly refer to those for whom there is a problem, but I also want to tackle the question of whether the current indebtedness causes a general problem for the economy as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene again when we reach that part of my remarks, because I believe that ample evidence shows that there are problems on both those fronts. I want first to present the facts.
Mr. Lindsay HoyleDoes the right hon. Gentleman want to return to the days of high interest rates for mortgages? Does he want them to double and treble? What are his views?
Mr. LetwinClearly, none of us wants mortgage rates to increase, and it is therefore regrettable that they had to rise recently and that they are likely—it is not certain—to increase in the near future. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman and I agreed on that. I shall describe why the recent increase in mortgage
608
payments is by no means purely an accident and how the actions of members of the Treasury Bench have partly created it. I hope that he will join me in regretting those actions.
Vera BairdThe four increases in interest rates have had an impact on mortgage lending. Secured lending increased by its lowest amount for nine months in May—significantly less than in April. It appears that people are capable of dealing with such debt and spreading it out.
Mr. LetwinThe hon. and learned Lady is right that, as I said, the rate of increase has slowed slightly. That is welcome. Unfortunately, as I also said, it is currently approximately a little more than 13 per cent. on an annualised basis and that figure is high. I fear that I do not follow the hon. and learned Lady's logic and that is unusual. Even when I do not agree with her, I can normally follow her logic and have done so in many debates. However, I cannot understand the argument that the fact that we have annual increases of "only" 13 per cent. in mortgage lending means that people will always be capable of fulfilling their obligations. I shall shortly outline why I believe that there is an increasing problem.
Lending is not the only problem. A considerable amount of mortgage equity withdrawal is also happening. That was negative in the mid and late 1990s, but it is now running at about £60 billion a year. Our fellow citizens are drawing down on or adding to their mortgages by about £60 billion a year at present. Some of that is going on consumption, and some is undoubtedly being spent on the expansion of assets, as people add to their housing stock by enlarging and improving their houses.
Mr. Desmond SwayneWould my right hon. Friend like to comment on the fact that a significant proportion of that equity release is going to people who have retired and who require it for consumption? They are certainly not using it to acquire additional assets.
Mr. LetwinMy hon. Friend is undoubtedly right: a substantial proportion is almost undoubtedly going for consumption. I say "almost undoubtedly" because there are no reliable figures available. Perhaps Ministers will tell us to the contrary tonight, but I know of no reliable survey that has been carried out into how much of that mortgage equity withdrawal is going on consumption and how much is going into assets. I fear that my hon. Friend is probably right to say that a substantial proportion is going into consumption.
Labour Members are clearly gagging to hear what the problems are in this regard. We have set out the facts, and everyone knows the figures. Ministers undoubtedly have even more up-to-date figures. They probably receive updates every 24 hours; I do not know. In any event, we can all agree on the broad facts, but the question is: what do they mean? We do not have to take a flier on this, and we do not have to trust the views of

609
politicians. Indeed, I do not suppose that many of our fellow citizens trust the views of politicians of any colour on these matters, alas.
Mr. SwayneShocking!
Mr. LetwinShocking it may be, but it is nevertheless the case that politicians are not much trusted in Britain today. However, some people are trusted, and one such person is the Governor of the Bank of England. One reason he is trusted is that he is the Governor of the Bank of England. Another is that he is the man he is. That powerful combination means that he is highly trusted, and he has said some remarkable things recently.
The Governor of the Bank of England is a very subtle individual—more subtle, I suspect, than any of us in the Chamber tonight or, indeed, than any politician in Britain. Of course, it is in the nature of governors of central banks that they should be exquisitely subtle. I believe that it was Lord Cecil, under Elizabeth I, who was described as being so subtle as to be invisible. The Governor of the Bank of England, though exquisitely subtle, is not invisible, however. Indeed, he has recently become quite surprisingly visible. Governors of the Bank of England have frequently sought to be invisible, but he is not such a Governor. He has made himself visible by making remarks—admittedly, exquisitely subtle remarks—which, in their pointedness, have been perfectly well understood in the City of London by the economic fraternity, by journalists and, I suspect, by the Government, although they would certainly not admit it.
What has the Governor said? In effect, he has said that the very large rise in household indebtedness, and the very large rise in house prices that is intimately linked with that, have not come about by accident. They are associated with the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in enlarging Government. We have a bigger Government, more spending and more borrowing. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that he is not persuaded that there is a sustainable path in place—or at any rate, that is what he has, in his exquisite subtlety, suggested.
Mr. Hopkins rose—
Mr. LetwinI shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have now arrived at the first point that I made to him a moment or two ago.
Mr. HopkinsThe right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that, if the Government have a fairly generous fiscal policy—with which I totally agree—the Governor of the Bank of England should intervene and introduce high interest rates to dampen the economy with monetary policy. Would that not be a dangerous intervention in politics? Would not the Government be right to say, "Hang on. Dealing with inflation is one thing, but countering Government policy is another."?
Mr. LetwinOh dear, oh dear! I shall have to save the hon. Gentleman from his wit and, indeed, from those on
610
the Treasury Bench. I hope that I shall be able to provide him with sufficient armour plating in case he should meet the Chancellor in the near future, because what he has suggested runs counter to the entire structure that the Government established—rightly, I may say—when they established the independence of the Bank of England. The whole point of that independence is that it acts as a check on undue extravagance or fiscal laxity on the part of the Government, and it is acting in just that way now. The Governor is not disobeying his remit; he is fulfilling it. He is doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him to do when the Bank of England was made independent and an inflation target was established.
I expect that the Chancellor has frequently congratulated the Governor on what he has done. I imagine that he has been sending messages to the Governor over the past few weeks to thank him for his advice and to let him know just how grateful he is to the Governor and his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee for raising interest rates to counteract the effects of fiscal laxity in the pre-election spending spree that the Government are wrongly engaging in. I imagine that the Chancellor is also thanking him for warning him in advance that interest rates might also need to rise further as a result of that.
Mr. HopkinsThe Governors of the Bank of England—two of them, now—have played a splendid game and, in my view, they have got interest rate policy right. However, there is a difference between adhering to an inflation target and deciding to counter Government fiscal policy.
Mr. LetwinBut it is perfectly clear that the Governor and the Monetary Policy Committee as a whole are, in a serious-minded way, trying to live up to the inflation target. It is not that they are trying to counteract Government policy; they are trying to counteract the effect of that policy on inflation—not only on asset price inflation but on general inflation. Indeed, it is general inflation that they are required by law to target, and they are doing so. However, asset price inflation has an effect on general inflation. Household indebtedness, when it consists of a large amount of mortgage equity withdrawal and a large increase in mortgage lending, has an effect on house prices. The Governor is quite rightly taking all those factors into consideration.
A short-term problem for the economy is being generated by a traditional, classical pre-election spending spree, which is being financed by traditional, classical deficit financing. That is not what we were told this Government were about, or what this Chancellor was about. We must thank the Lord that we have a central bank that is able to counteract the effect of that activity. We shall not see it come through in inflation, but we are seeing it come through in higher mortgage payments. To address the point raised by the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), I would suggest that that might become a problem for the fairly large section of the population whose mortgages represent a substantial multiple of their income and which were, and probably still are, quite affordable because of low interest rates, but which will become progressively less affordable as interest rates rise.

611
I am not making a partisan point here; I am reflecting the point made by the Governor of the Bank of England. He has pointed out that house prices—and hence mortgages—are at multiples of income levels that could cause difficulties to some people if they do not watch out.
Mr. Tom HarrisUnder the Conservative Government, we had relatively low levels of public spending and historically high interest rates. Now we have very high levels of public spending and historically low interest rates. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he prefers the former option?
Mr. LetwinThe cause of the his interest rates—
John RobertsonAnswer the question!
Mr. LetwinOf course I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I would not have given way unless I intended to do so. I always answer questions; it has been my downfall on many occasions. I shall certainly do so now that I have the right answer.
The cause of higher interest rates is not purely due to the expenditure, but to the fact that it is being deficit-financed. The Government have gone on a spending spree through deficit financing, and there is every prospect of those deficits remaining large for some time. Indeed, there is some question as to whether the Chancellor is going to be able to obey his own fiscal rules. The Government are therefore pushing interest rates up by engaging in fiscal laxity, which is called a pre-election spending spree. There is no way the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) can get around that by saying that some other Government at some other time did something else. The fact is that the Government are doing something to the country: they are pushing up mortgage payments.
Mr. HopkinsI thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is very generous in taking interventions. Is not the basic reason why our Government have had such success with the economy that they have kept sustained demand by having a reasonable fiscal policy and relatively relaxed monetary policy as well? Is he suggesting that we should do something different?
Mr. LetwinOh dear. I will have to provide the hon. Gentleman with even more protection from the Chancellor, because the Chancellor has long claimed that his fiscal policy is intended not to be a demand management system, but to stick within very strict fiscal rules to ensure the long-term and medium-term sustainability of the public finances across the cycle. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Chancellor and not with the hon. Gentleman.
The problem with the Chancellor is not that he does not have the right idea, but that at present he is not following it very well. Thank goodness, the Governor and his colleagues are taking appropriate action, but the corollary of that is that there are people for whom there is an increasing instability—an increasing problem of the relationship between their mortgage payments now and their likely mortgage payments in the near future
612
and their income. This is not a crisis, but it is a problem. If it becomes much bigger, it could turn into a serious problem.
Ms Sally KeebleI would agree with the right hon. Gentleman's argument except that, under the last Conservative Government, people in my constituency who did feel the rub felt it because there were high interest rates, a crash in property prices and high unemployment. There is absolutely no sign of those last factors being remotely on show now, and interest rates are increasing only slightly.
Mr. LetwinFor the sake of the country, I profoundly hope that the hon. Lady is right and that there will not be any horrible sequel. I hope that as a householder, as a parent and as one who is concerned about the welfare of this nation. That, I am sure, is common ground across the House—but let us not be complacent.
Let us be clear about the fact that when there are very high multiples at work, when there are increases—which, although from a low base to a low number, are nevertheless in proportionate terms quite large—in people's mortgage payments of 10 or 20 per cent. in many cases, and when those may go up overall by 30 or 40 per cent., again admittedly from a low base, problems can be engendered. We should not consider that lightly. We should not ignore it; we should not be complacent about it. That is my first point.
My second point is that, for some people—I absolutely accept that this is only a restricted group who are on low incomes—there is, unfortunately, accumulating evidence of the problem of the debt spiral. For such people, this is not a minor matter and it is far from a laughing matter. It can cripple lives. It is very small so far, thank goodness. Let us hope it remains so, but around us are signs of more people who are closer to it than we can be comfortable about.
I believe that 42 per cent. of those with new babies are in arrears, as are 48 per cent. of lone parents and 52 per cent. of those who are recently separated. Those are all life circumstances that tend to give rise to considerable indebtedness, and I do not say that this is a sudden crisis, but I do say that if we asked the citizens advice bureaux and the various debt advisory bodies we would receive the same response from them all.
The problem is not currently widespread and it has not reached crisis proportions, but there is a worrying increase in the number of low-income individuals who are caught in debt spirals. That, I think, will worry everyone on both sides of the House. I hope that there will be a considerable consensus also on how to deal with it.
Mr. HopkinsWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. LetwinIn a moment. My hon. Friends and I have promoted—I think for the first time in Britain—a wide-ranging seminar among the lenders and those concerned with debt advice. No doubt the Treasury has seen both groups individually; we tried to put them together. Also, we have asked Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach—who, incidentally, has the distinction not merely of advising

613
us, but of having advised the Chancellor on international debt issues, and who happens to be someone with real understanding of these issues—to look in fine detail, by going out and asking, at what really are the circumstances that give rise to debt spirals and to make recommendations, which of course we will share with the Government and with other parties, on how we can cure that problem.
Those are the short-term problems, as I see it, and I want to move on to a great big problem of a very long-term and deep kind, which is what has happened to savings in this country.
Mr. Hopkins rose—
Mr. LetwinBefore I do so, I shall give way—
Mr. John RedwoodWill my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. LetwinOf course, but may I give way first to the hon. Member for Luton, North, as he has been my most persistent questioner?
Mr. HopkinsI thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. He seems to be suggesting that we ought to tighten monetary policy. The effect of that would be not only to moderate house prices, but to push them down. If house prices fall, people could fall into negative equity and perhaps even have problems with sustaining their mortgage at all. Would that not make debt far worse and bring people to the situation that pertained 10 years ago in my constituency, which was the No. 1 for negative equity and repossessions?
Mr. LetwinLet me be clear with the hon. Gentleman: I am not making a recommendation about monetary policy, because I believe in what he clearly does not. I believe in the structure that the Chancellor himself established; I believe in the independence of the Bank of England; and I believe it is right that decisions on monetary policy should be taken by a group of people removed from politics.
My argument is very clear: the Chancellor has created circumstances with his pre-election spree that are leading the Bank of England to a certain set of responses, which it is trying to engage in very delicately, subtly and carefully precisely to avoid circumstances of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There is no question at all but that members of the MPC are acutely aware of the dangers to which he refers and seek to avoid them, but the fact is that it would be better if the Chancellor had not put them in the position of having to respond as a result of the spending spree and the deficit financing in which he is engaging.
Mr. RedwoodGiven the crucial nature of house prices in this country—they are central to economic well-being—is my right hon. Friend as disturbed as I am about the row that is clearly under way between the Governor of the Bank of England on the one hand, warning that house prices might fall, and, on the other,
614
the Treasury, spinning like mad through the press, for obvious reasons, that they definitely will not, or at least certainly not before an election?
Would not it be better if the debate were held in the open and the Chancellor made both a statement on the subject and adjustments to the remit of the Bank of England, if he is as unhappy with what it is doing as he seems to be, because he is right in thinking that house prices are central to the future economic well-being of our country?
Mr. LetwinAs usual, my right hon. Friend is right, as well as being honourable. He accurately diagnoses a real problem. The Chancellor has set up the independence of the Bank of England, and presumably believes in it, but he does not like it when the Bank of England acts in the way that his remit asks it to. Of course, he does not want to say that, because it would be a mite embarrassing to set something up and then, when it does the thing it has been asked to do, get explicitly cross about it.
So, the Chancellor sends his henchmen out to say, inexplicitly, that he is absolutely furious about it, in the hope that, somehow or other, this message will, by osmosis, reach the Governor and that the Governor will desist from saying and doing what in fact the Chancellor has asked him to say and do. Of course, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would be much more open if the Chancellor were to make a clear statement on his views about the Governor. I think that the chances of that occurring are exactly as high as those of pigs flying.
Now, savings. This is very serious stuff, because savings matter enormously to our economy and to our society. We cannot have a strong economy across the decades unless the domestic savings ratio is relatively high. Ultimately, the productive capacities of our economy across a long period are heavily determined by the degree to which we save and invest as a nation.
No Government in British history since the war have managed to achieve as high a savings ratio as many of us would like. I recall, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will also recall, times under the previous Administration when we worried—I think we were right to do so—about whether the savings ratio was high enough. Little did we know.
At that time, the savings ratio averaged just over 9 per cent. That was the proportion of our national income that we saved on average between 1979 and 1997. We thought that that was not good enough, but since 1998, persistently, that ratio has been significantly lower. Between one point at the end of the previous regime and one point now, it almost halved. On average, it has gone down by a third. This is very worrying. It does not matter for six months; it matters an awful lot across a long period.
Why has it happened? There are all sorts of reasons, and it is important to disentangle the most important from the less important, and to try to get a clear picture of what Governments can and cannot do about it. There is a major accusation to be levelled against the current Government, and a major step that this country needs to take to resolve the problems caused by the Government in this area.
Before I describe those two points in more detail, let me say that it is very misguided, should Ministers or others wish to do so, to blame the savings industry

615
primarily. The savings industry is not perfect—no industry is perfect, and nobody is perfect—but it tries on the whole to do its best. Most of the problems that afflicted the savings industry are on the way to being, to a considerable degree, cured. There is a vast expansion of a much more transparent form of saving through unit linking. There is no doubt at all that prices for savings products have been coming down. There is no doubt at all that the savings industry is now engaged in much more realistic risk assessment than previously, and although I am in some respects a critic of the Financial Services Authority, some of the credit for that goes to the FSA. We cannot stand here blaming the savings industry for the reduction in the savings ratio in recent years. Certainly, it is not the principal culprit.
When we turn to the Government, however, I fear that the position is different. First, there is the £5 billion a year raid on the savings industry. Recently, we have begun to see just how serious that was. Recent figures, which have come to light in the past few days, indicate that the extent to which that bit into what were otherwise tax advantages for saving was greater even than imagined at the time, when many Conservative Members complained vigorously and bitterly about the £5 billion raid. Evidently, when the Prime Minister claimed that the £5 billion raid was to be justified because equity prices were high, he was not to know, but he might have guessed, that there would come a time when equity prices were not so high. The £5 billion a year raid has a bizarre effect: as well as causing more trouble now that equity prices are not as high as they once were, it has undoubtedly contributed to the underperformance of the UK stock market, which has underperformed every other major stock market except Japan's in recent years.
Alas, the £5 billion a year raid is not the only item to discuss in terms of diminishing the attractiveness of savings in this country.
Mr. RedwoodMy right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. The main raider that has damaged the savings industry is the Government. Will he remind the House that the Opposition not only warned at the time that it wound do damage but quantified it? We said that because the market then valued a stream of income from a company at 20 times the income, if the Government took £5 billion a year out of the stock market, £100 billion would be knocked off the value of shares earned by all those pensioners and savers in the country. It was a smash-and-grab raid, it took £100 billion off, and the Government should apologise and give it back.
Mr. LetwinThere is no doubt that that is accurate—it constituted a smash and grab raid. The Government grabbed a large amount of money, and smashed a large amount—clearly, my right hon. Friend's approximate figure of £100 billion is of the right order of magnitude—off the value of savings in this country.
Vera BairdWe must keep our feet on the ground about this alleged smash and grab. The Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont twice cut the rate of the advance corporation tax concession, of which the right hon.
616
Gentleman now makes such major complaint, and clearly saw it as an anomaly even then. I have not heard about any Tory cuts to restore it.
Mr. LetwinI shall come on to what we intend to do to remedy those bad effects. The problem with the hon. and learned Lady's argument, which is exactly what I was about to discuss, is that the £5 billion raid was not in the context of a large number of other measures of the kind that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lamont was then taking to try to encourage savings. Alas, it was in the context of a set of other raids on savings, decreasing their tax advantages.
This Government have reduced significantly the attractiveness of individual saving accounts, for example. ISAs are now significantly less attractive in many respects than their tax-exempt special savings account and personal equity plan predecessors, which were the brainchild of none other than Lord Lamont and his colleagues. In various and important respects, the Government have made savings less tax advantageous in this country. There is no getting away from the fact that that can only have one effect directionally: it cannot increase the savings ratio; it must tend to reduce it. As we know, as an empirical fact, that the savings ratio has on average gone down by a third, and point to point, by a half, some of that is undoubtedly caused by the Government's actions. They are not the main ones, however, as I will come on to the real disaster story in a moment.
Vera BairdLet me come back to the advance corporation tax. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong that it was not accompanied by other measures. The corporation tax rate was cut at the same time. I asked him once, and I ask him again, whether there are any plans to restore this alleged concession, which was the source of such a smash and grab.
Mr. LetwinI shall come on to something that we will do to cure the biggest of the problems that are attached to, and are the cause of, the reduction in savings. That is the first place to put the money. We would like to do many things, but there is one that we must do. I shall deal with that now, because without it, as far as the long-term picture for savings in this country is concerned, we are sunk.
One of the saddest things about the Government is that they started with the possibility of a real improvement in the character of our country through the achievement of a real consensus. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) came into government at the beginning of this Government's tenure with great hopes invested in him not merely by Labour Members—I suspect that many Labour Members did not invest great hopes, including the Chancellor, who hoped that he would soon disappear and achieved that ambition—but by Conservative Members and by the country more widely, and rightly so. For many years, he had with passion, vigour and intelligence identified a critical feature of the problems facing this country—means-tested benefit dependency was causing an erosion of the savings culture. He set to work to try to deal with that, and he received the backing of my hon. Friends. I remember walking into the Lobby with him and his friends on the Labour

617
Benches, to the discomfiture of some Labour Members, on a famous occasion, as we were so determined to support actions that could rescue us from an over-dependence on means-tested benefits in this country. Alas, as we all know, it did not take terribly long for the Chancellor to destroy not only the ambitions but the policies of the right hon. Gentleman and to move in precisely the opposite direction.
The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said that he wished to see the right hon. Member for Birkenhead think the unthinkable. Little did he know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to think the unthinkable—that means-tested benefits should be widely expanded in Britain by a Labour Government. That was a most astonishing, and much more importantly, catastrophic turn of events. Fifty-four per cent. of our pensioners are now on means-tested benefits of one kind or another, and the number is growing apace. Most people believe that, on present policies, it will not be long before three quarters or so of our pensioners are on means-tested benefits of one kind or another.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has rightly made it clear what he thinks the effect of this is and will be. He said that the message is going from grandmothers to grandchildren, "Don't bother to save dear, it didn't do me any good." What does he mean? He means something clear: if a person has saved throughout their working life less than £180,000, there is a strong chance, and a great likelihood, that they will find at some point, at the end of their working life, that they are losing between 40p and 85p in the pound for each pound of income from saving. It is not worth it.
Of course, the savings industry recognises that. It is terrified of mis-selling, appropriately, and is therefore increasingly not aiming to sell savings policies to a group of people whom it knows will typically lose a large part of income from savings later in life. It knows that that could be regarded, ex post facto, as a terrible example of mis-selling.
Alas, much of our nation's saving has always been through inertia. Much of it occurs only if the savings industry makes us save by coming to us with the product. When the industry desists from that for fear of mis-selling because of means-testing of benefit for those in retirement, the savings ratio drops. That is the single biggest cause of the present problem—the present disaster—of the reduction of a savings ratio that was already too low by a third—or by half, depending how it is measured. Until the increase in means-tested dependency is dealt with, this terrible problem will continue.
There has also been a catastrophic social effect. I do not know what single thing could do more to harm the social fabric of the country than a message sent to hard-working people who save that saving is not worth it, and that those who have saved will be clobbered. That strikes me as profoundly wrong—and it is another of the points made so powerfully and passionately by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead over so many years.
Mr. Bill TynanThe right hon. Gentleman has made great play of his belief that
618
means-tested benefits are the main problem in terms of poverty. What would he tell the individual in my constituency who found that she did not qualify for the minimum income guarantee because she had £26,000 in the bank, and now finds herself—with that £26,000 in the bank—gaining by £46 a week from pension tax credit?
Mr. LetwinI would tell that lady that when we have done what we need to do, and what the country needs us to do, and what the hon. Gentleman's party will eventually agree with us must be done, she will be as well off as under the present scheme, but people will not have the same disincentives. What we need to do as a country is take our courage in both hands, and raise the basic state pension to the point at which it will cross over with pension credit.
Ms KeebleWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. LetwinI will in a moment, but I want to make this point because it is absolutely critical. Opposition Members can then debate it at length. I do not think that anyone could accuse me of having been ungenerous in giving way.
Unless we take our courage in both hands, we will not solve the problem. The difference between the basic state pension and pension credit is that, unlike the basic state pension, pension credit is means-tested. In our first Parliament, we can lift a million pensioners out of means-tested dependency by raising the basic state pension in line with earnings, and we need to do so. We need to meet the associated costs, and my spending plans provide for that. Half will be met by erosion of the entitlements of those whose basic state pensions are rising to means-tested benefits that they will not need because their incomes from the basic state pension will be rising. The other half, in those first four years, will be met by removal of almost all the new deal, which has been an expensive failure.
At the beginning of the present Administration, a million young people were not in work, not in training and not in education. Now, £310 million a year later, with a new deal for the young unemployed, what do we find? A million young people are not in work, not in training and not in education. What a way to spend money that we could be spending on raising the basic state pension and restoring the incentive to save.
Mr. John GummerWill my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. LetwinI give way, finally, to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. GummerMay I return my right hon. Friend to his point about the effect on the nature of society? It is a crucial issue. If a large number of ordinary people have nothing at stake in society, their attitude to society must be fundamentally changed. The one common factor in the history of recent years is that societies that get into that state very soon break down, as social cohesion itself breaks down.
Mr. LetwinI agree profoundly with my right hon. Friend. When all has been said about the economic effects of the diminution of the savings ratio, the short-term effects of the encouragement of too much household indebtedness and the precariousness of our housing, that abiding social question is the most important.
The fact is that we cannot expect to go on having the kind of society in which we want to live if it is a society in which a large number of people approaching retirement look to those of working age to sustain them, thus creating a persistent tension between the two groups. We must have a society in which all of us, in our working lives, believe we have a reason to build for our retirement in due course, if we have the financial capacity. That is the way in which we can create social cohesion, and the way in which we can reward fairly those who make an effort to do the right thing. If there is one important thing about society, it is that it rewards those who try to do the right thing.
That is what we need to do, and the fact that the Government are doing the opposite will be their undying shame. I hope it is not too late for them to recognise that, and come round to our view on this critical matter. If that does not happen, we shall see persistently low savings, the corrosion of our society and long-term economic damage.
7.55 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"believes that a strong and stable economy is the foundation of families' confidence in their own finances; notes that economic stability has delivered low and stable inflation, interest rates have been at their lowest since the 1950s, employment is at a record high and unemployment at its lowest since the 1970s; further notes that as a result households are better able to judge their long-term commitments as macroeconomic stability has reduced the risks to household finances of sudden and sharp rises in interest rates as seen in the past; believes that the Government has tackled the scandals it inherited and created a world leading system of financial regulation allowing people to save with confidence, simplified savings markets allowing people to make informed choices about what and how to save and taken action to tackle financial exclusion; recognises that most household debt remains affordable and that total interest payments are now 7.6 per cent. of disposal income compared with 15 per cent. in 1990; believes the biggest risk to household finances and consumer confidence would be a return to economic instability; and rejects the short-term boom and bust economic policies of the past that saw interest rates hit 15 per cent. and inflation hit 10 per cent. in which circumstances households had to save more to make up for the loss of value of their savings due to inflation and prepare in the event of becoming unemployed."
This Government have delivered an unprecedented period of stability and growth. Notwithstanding the doom and gloom that is the stock-in-trade of some—although, in fairness, not all—Cotservative Members, this Government are confronting the demographic challenges surrounding provision for financial security in old age with vigour and determination. I hope that we shall be able to demonstrate that this evening to the satisfaction of the House. Indeed, I think my hon. Friends' interventions on the specch of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) demonstrate
620
Labour's commitment to savings, to pensions and to the importance we ascribe to sustainability, in terms of not just public but personal finances.
Mr. HopkinsWill my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. BoatengI shall be only too happy to give way to my hon. Friend shortly. I saw him in action during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. However, I should like to have my little say first, if I may.
Those are real demographic challenges, and we are confronting them. We are creating the right incentives for saving, and extending the opportunities created by savings to those previously denied them. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency. For most households, debt remains affordable. Interest payments currently amount to 7.6 per cent. of disposable income, compared with highs of over 15 per cent. in 1990, when the economy was under the stewardship of the Conservatives. Consumer confidence remains above its long-run average, reflecting sound fundamentals. Low inflation, and expectations of low inflation, mean that households are better able to make judgments about what debts to take on. As I have said, however, there is no room for complacency.
We have that in common with the right hon. Gentleman and, I hope, with all Members on both sides of the House. We accept that there are those who are not saving adequately for their retirement. Some 3 million are seriously under-saving, and between 5 million and 10 million should be saving more. The Government are addressing that, aiming not to tell people how much they should save but to enable them to make informed choices about retirement. Such informed choices are the bedrock of our policy.
Now I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. HopkinsI merely wanted to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point about sustainability. Does he agree that a crucial component of sustainability is ensuring that consumer demand is kept at a sensible level so that the economy can continue to prosper?
Mr. BoatengThat component undoubtedly plays its part.
The contribution of the right hon. Member for West Dorset was a serious and informed one, although I disagreed with a number of aspects of it. It was interesting to hear the praise that he now affords to the monetary policy framework that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put in place, and which has indeed delivered this long and sustained period of economic stability. In the Mansion House speech to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that economic stability drew congratulations from the Governor of the Bank of England. Indeed, the Governor offered congratulations not just on the Chancellor's longevity, but on the
"successful pursuit of economic stability—not even Gladstone achieved such stability."
The cornerstone of that stability has been the monetary policy framework, which has delivered low and stable inflation. Central to that have been the role of the Monetary Policy Committee and the independence of the Bank of England. But the right hon. Member for West Dorset, who has shared his views with us this

621
evening, voted against the creation of the MPC, and was opposed to giving independence to the Bank of England. As with a question of pronunciation—"Cecil" or "Cicil"—a vote of opposition remains a vote of opposition, and that is what we got from the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has come round to our way of thinking, and I hope to persuade him this evening to come round just that little bit more, and to recognise what we are trying to do.
Let us consider the reality of higher savings in the early 1990s. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the period in which the Conservatives were responsible for the stewardship of the economy, and to the track record of Lord Lamont. To do so in the way that he did was a little surprising. It would not be uncharitable to say that Lord Lamont scared many people into saving, because they were aware of the consequences of the boom and bust period that I fear characterised the Conservatives' stewardship of the economy.
Mr. HopkinsIs this the same Lord Lamont who sang in his bath when the economy was in the greatest crisis of the last three decades?
Mr. BoatengI am not privy to what occurred in Lord Lamont's bathroom, save to say that it is undoubtedly true that while he was Chancellor, all sorts of ills and misfortunes were visited on our nation's economy. If my memory serves me well, the right hon. Member for West Dorset was then a young, up-and-coming tyro in Conservative central office; indeed, he may even have been at the Treasury at the time. He will correct me if I am wrong, but he certainly had a hand in matters and would want to have a hand in them again.
The reality was that in the 1990s, households—
Mr. LetwinWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. BoatengOf course.
Mr. LetwinJust to correct the right hon. Gentleman, I am flattered that he thinks me so young, but actually I left the employment of Her Majesty's Government some six years before Lord Lamont entered the Treasury. At that time, I pursued my business in the private sector, so I am very well aware of the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Is he seriously arguing that the savings ratio was as high as it was between 1979 and 1997 only because people were continuously scared into saving, and is he suggesting that he wishes now again to scare them into saving?
Mr. BoatengI make no such point, but I do say that households had to save more to make up for the loss in value of their savings due to inflation, and to provide a cushion in the event of being unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the asset side of the household balance sheet today remains strong. Household net wealth, taking account of the recent fall in equity prices, is more than 50 per cent. higher than at the beginning of 1997. So this debate has to be placed in the framework of a thriving economy.
Britain's economy, alone among the major industrialised economies, has not only averted recession and continued to grow in every quarter for the past
622
seven years; it has also had the longest period of continuous sustaine I growth for some 200 years. We have the lowest inflation levels for 40 years, interest rates have been at their lowest since the 1950s and we have the highest employment levels in our history. Again, there is no room for complacency, but economic stability, continuing economic growth and sound public finances do provide the best environment for savings, and for ensuring that existing levels of household debt are sustainable.
Mr. Letwin rose—
Mr. BoatengI give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LetwinI am doubly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am glad that he thinks there is no room for complacency. Does he agree that there ought not to be, given that our growth rate is the lowest of the Anglo-Saxon economies, our productivity growth rate has gone down by a third, our savings ratio has halved, we have dropped from fourth to 15th in the international competitiveness league, Ireland now has a higher per capita income than ours, we have the largest trade deficit since the 17th century, and we are facing tile very serious problem of over-inflated house prices?
Mr. BoatengI really am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman adopts that approach. The reality, as he will recognise, is that the economic fundamentals of this country, in comparison with those of our partners and competitors, shine out as an example of what stability can bring and of what needs to be done to create jobs. Some 2 million jobs have been created since 1997, and Members from all parts of the House ought not to forget that it was the Opposition who told us that we would lose 1 million jobs as a result of introducing the minimum wage. Thai is the reality.
In 1997, we inherited the historical legacies of poor and ineffectual financial regulations, the pension mis-selling scandals of the 1980s and a lack of initiatives to educate and support consumers effectively. The right hon. Gentleman will understand, therefore, why we decline to take from the Opposition lessons on the virtues of saving and on our own supposed failures in that respect. In tackling that inheritance, we have created a world-leading system of financial regulation. That is not just our doing; it is the result of a partnership with the industry and with those who make, and who are responsible for the creation of, the wealth in the City of London and throughout the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman really ought to pay tribute to that partnership.
We have overhauled the regulation of financial services, which led to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We have set up a single regulator, in the form of the Financial Services Authority, to ensure that the market is properly regulated through a risk-based approach. Many other countries have now copied our successful, world-leading approach by establishing their own unified regulators, and we have created a single ombudsman and a single compensation scheme for consumers, ensuring that they have free access to redress and compensation. All of that was necessary to give people a sense of confidence in saving, and to create

623
the context in which our strategy for promoting saving and asset accumulation can succeed. It is founded on some important principles. Those principles address opportunity, security and responsibility, and I see no reason why they should divide us across the Floor of the House. We embrace those principles because they underpin the very notion of the welfare state. On the principle of opportunity, assets enable individuals to take advantage of opportunities throughout life and widen choice. On the principle of responsibility, the development of the savings habit promotes independence. On the principle of security, individuals can be assisted to accumulate a stock of financial assets for times of adversity. Those principles should unite us in agreement that they should form the basis of effective policy.
Mr. HopkinsThe right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) listed the apparent problems of the British economy. He seemed to suggest that we should tighten monetary policy and raise interest rates, but would that not strengthen the pound, depress investment and make our balance of trade position worse, thus damaging the economy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our policy of lower interest rates is more sensible?
Mr. BoatengI certainly endorse our policy. Indeed, it would be rather alarming if I did not! I also cast doubt on the remedies proposed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. We would like to know a little more about those policies, how much they would cost and how they would be paid for. The right hon. Gentleman was remarkably reticent about that. I hope that he has had discussions with the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who has come up with a range of products that apparently are the answer to the problems that the right hon. Gentleman outlined. We look forward in the coming days, weeks and months to seeing the bill for some of the hon. Gentleman's proposals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can assure us tonight that those proposals have been costed and that he has approved them. He says, "Of course." In that case, he will no doubt tell us how much they will cost in due course, although the hon. Gentleman was remarkably reticent on the issue in his press release before tonight's debate. We will tease the details out in due course.
We are charged with the responsibility of encouraging people to save for their futures and of working with the industry so that it provides products that people can understand and trust.
Mr. TynanThe Government should be praised for their economic record over the past seven years. However, one of the issues that we should address is the practice of the banks in sending offers of loans to individuals that make it very easy—especially for young people—to fall into debt. Do the Government intend to deal with that problem, which discourages saving and increases indebtedness?
Mr. BoatengI know that my hon. Friend has taken an especial interest in that issue and I shall describe shortly several measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is taking and that he will find of interest.
624
We have developed a stakeholder product suite to ensure that consumers have access to simple, good value investment products, with increased incentives to save. The right hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned ISAs, which were introduced in 1999. More than 15 million people now have an ISA, with more than £130 billion subscribed. He should remember in his strictures to us that ISAs are supported by some £1.6 billion of tax relief for saving. The suggestion that we do not back ISAs with tax relief is not fair. ISAs have increased take-up of savings products compared with TESSAs and PEPs, for both low-income earners and the young.
On top of tax-free savings products such as ISAs, a 10p starting rate of income tax has applied to income from savings since April 1999, with a lower rate of 20 per cent.—rather than 22 per cent.—applying up to the basic rate limit. We are also looking at new ways of supporting savings, such as the saving gateway, through which the Government match the savings of low-income families up to a limit of £375. Initial indicators from an interim evaluation are positive.
In last year's Budget, the Government also introduced the child trust fund, which the Conservatives have criticised and the Liberal Democrats would axe. It is a ground-breaking initiative that will strengthen financial education, promote positive attitudes to savings and ensure assets for all children, regardless of family background. All children will receive £250 and children from poorer families will receive £500. The Government will also make further payments when the children reach the age of seven.
We are also taking specific steps to raise the level of consumer financial literacy so that consumers are empowered to make informed choices and manage their finances better. With the support and active involvement of the Financial Services Authority, we seek to ensure that, year on year, the scale, range and topicality of its public awareness work adds to that financial literacy.
We are aware of the need to tackle financial exclusion and we are taking steps to do so. In the Budget this year, we committed to continuing our efforts, working in partnership with the sector and with voluntary and community bodies to achieve dramatic reductions in the number of households without bank accounts and a significant increase in the availability of affordable credit for those on the lowest incomes. The right hon. Member for West Dorset is right to draw attention to the particular dangers of debt for those on low incomes. We all know from constituency experience of the ravages of loan sharks on some of our more deprived housing estates. It remains our ambition to achieve a step change in the availability of free debt advice.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) in response to his question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry introduced a consumer credit White Paper in December last year, in which she set out a policy on tackling over-indebtedness, unfair lending practices and loan sharks. The next phase of that work will come later this month, with the publication of the DTI's strategy for low-income, indebted households. Real issues are being addressed with practical policies.

625
The issue of pensions is a legitimate one for concern. The issues include longer lifespans, the level of pension saving, the complexity of products, and the number of people leaving employment too early and too suddenly. We are taking action to address those issues. We have introduced a Pensions Bill that sets out our proposals to renew the pensions partnership between the Government, individuals, employers and the financial services industry; introduces the pension protection fund; radically simplifies the taxation of pensions; replaces the eight current regimes with a single lifetime allowance on the amount of pension savings that can benefit from tax relief; and empowers individuals to make informed choices about working and saving for retirement, so that future pensioners receive the income in retirement that they are entitled to expect.
The Pensions Bill is being backed up by practical measures to bring home to people the reality of the situation that they may face. We will issue 1.6 million state pension forecasts to the self-employed by the end of 2003–04. We will be sending out 8 million automated state pension forecasts in 2005–06. By the end of that year, we shall ensure that more than 6 million people receive combined pension forecasts that give details of current private pension arrangements as well as state pension income. All that will contribute to greater awareness and understanding so that people can make informed choices. We believe that confidence in our occupational pension system must be restored and we have taken the necessary steps to restore it.
The right hon. Member for West Dorset made much in his remarks—as he often does—of changes to advance corporation tax. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) highlighted the issue, but unfortunately even after the right hon. Gentleman's responses to her questions we are no clearer as to whether he has any intention of reversing our actions on ACT. He had the opportunity at least to tell us that it features among his priorities, but there was not a word.
That is hardly surprising, however, because the hon. Member for Havant has already told us that the Conservatives have no intention of reversing the change. He made that clear in an interview in the Western Daily Press, in which he said, "I can't promise it". When he was asked about it by The Observer, he apparently said:
"Ah, er, erm, it's a good question."—[Hon. Members] What is the answer? My hon. Friends may laugh, but we have made some progress: we have gone from "I can't promise it" to "Ah, erm, it's a good question" to absolute silence. The right hon. Member for West Dorset is completely stumm—not a word, not a sound emanates from his lips.
We are entitled to know, however. What are the Conservatives' plans to help pension funds and to increase savings? First, apparently, they would let pension credit die—their words—despite the help it gives. Just an inkling that they recognise that it has helped more than 2 million people with modest savings would give some indication that the Conservatives live in the real world, in which practical measures such as the pension credit actually make a real difference to people with modest savings. It helps to create a different culture.
626
We know that the Conservatives would scrap the state second pension, with the result that millions of carers, disabled people and low earners would lose £43 a week.
Ms KeebleDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative proposals represent a shift from purse to wallet? Getting rid of the pension credit and the state second pension and putting the money into an increase in the basic state pension would hit women very hard, because only 14 per cent. of them qualify for the state pension through their national insurance contributions, despite the fact that record numbers of them work. Our policies seek to overcome the problem that their pension prospects are defined by motherhood and widowhood.
Mr. BoatengMy hon. Friend makes a fair point; she has long championed the cause of women in that regard. She knows that if one is serious about tackling poverty the best thing to do is to put money into the pockets of women. That is the way to tackle family and child poverty. Opposition Members must provide an answer for carers, disabled people and low earners and tell them what will actually happen to them in the absence of a second pension.
The Conservatives claim that they would introduce a new savings account, yet the right hon. Member for West Dorset has made it clear that he is committed to cuts of about £18 billion across the board. They tell us they will earnings-link the basic state pension, but we have heard nothing about how they would pay for it, and what we have heard is far from convincing.
We know that the Conservatives want to axe the new deal, but even the right hon. Gentleman has admitted elsewhere that after four years he would have to make some painful decisions in order to fund his commitment. We need some indication about just how painful those decisions will be and where the axe will fall. Who will actually have to pay for that policy? Or does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the pensions commentator who said that returning to the earnings link
"is not affordable and would not be well targeted"?
That particular commentator said those words on "On the Record", and now we have them on the record; he is the hon. Member for Havant. To pretend that their policy will not have a cost is disingenuous.
I have tried to outline a range of measures that we seek to take to deal with the problem. We recognise that that package of measures—about which we have talked during the debate and which includes financial education and access to secure, quality savings vehicles—has to be seen in the context of the overriding imperative of helping people off benefit and into work; to help make work pay and to provide affordable housing. All that would be put at risk if the Conservatives had their way, because they would axe the new deal and scrap the tax credits. They would scrap the very things that make work pay—that move people off benefits and into the world of work.
Ms KeebleWill my right hon. Friend comment again on the fact that the Conservative programmes would particularly disadvantage women? The child care tax

627
credit has revolutionised things for women; it pays their child care costs so that they can actually have choices about going out to work.
Mr. BoatengMy hon. Friend is right. [Interruption.] Ah, that is very interesting. Of course, I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LetwinThe hon. Lady made a very serious intervention about wallets, purses and pensions, and it is something with which we are wrestling, but, on her last point about the child care tax credit, I am afraid that she is completely up the spout. We have made it perfectly clear that we have no intention whatsoever of doing any damage to the child tax credit. [Interruption.]
Mr. BoatengI give way to my hon. Friend.
Ms KeebleI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clarify his point about children's tax credit, child tax credit and the child care tax credit because, as my right hon. Friend knows, it is the child care tax credit, which pays about £105 a week for child care costs, not the children's tax credit. that has been so important. If the Opposition are prepared to give that assurance, that is great, and we will hold them to it as we approach the election.
Mr. Letwin rose—
Mr. BoatengI give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LetwinI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it is rare for these debates to constitute a useful purpose, but this is one. What my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and I have made abundantly clear is that, although we believe that we need to raise the basic state pension and lift people off pension credit, as for the working life tax credits, including all those the hon. Lady describes, we have no plans to remove or diminish them whatsoever. My spending plans specifically provide for them to continue and for current and expected expenditure on them to continue.
Mr. BoatengThat has been a very interesting and informative exchange, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is interesting how the hon. Member for Havant so often lets the cat out of the bag. We look forward to hearing what was said in tonight's much vaunted speech. I am interested in the fact that the Conservatives have gone back on what he said not so long ago:
"But most of all I want to end the ludicrous tax credit system Gordon Brown has introduced, which was a failed idea from the 1970s."
The Conservatives have now apparently changed, but I am not the slightest discomfited by that. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that we might be discomfited by his support. I am not discomfited in any way, but I am very interested in it because it demonstrates the journey that Opposition Members have apparently travelled. We remain unconvinced because we know what their record was. We know that their sums do not add up, and
628
we are determined never again to return to the boom and bust that characterised their stewardship of the economy.
We have strong fundamentals. We are making great strides towards improving the consumer credit and financial product markets. There is no room for complacency, but we are increasing incentives to save and improving financial literacy, and we have put in place a secure and stable environment to encourage savings. With that record and that assurance, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to follow me and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary into the Lobby tonight, against Opposition Members.
8.32 pm
Dr. Vincent CableI broadly agree with the motion moved by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and am happy to support it. I am pleased that there has been some recognition of the scale and seriousness of personal debt. I have been banging on about it now for two years and was initially dismissed with some ridicule, so I am glad that it is now being taken further. I take the view that imitation is the best form of flattery. I therefore feel flattered that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up the issue and even more flattered that the Governor of the Bank of England now takes it seriously, too.
I wish to say a few words about pensions, because the right hon. Gentleman's comments raise many questions about his own proposals, which, frankly, rather worried me. Clearly, his basic point is right: there is a serious, fundamental crisis in the pension system. The data that have emerged in the past week reinforced that view. Statistical evidence shows that average pensioner incomes fell in the last financial year for which data are available—2002–03—because of falling annuity income and falling income from private pension schemes. The average pensioner income is currently falling in nominal terms before taking account of inflation.
The Office for National Statistics has also produced alarming figures on the collapse in contributions. The initial estimate was £76 billion a year. It is now down to £27 billion. That is the second revision. These are tricky numbers—they are difficult to get hold of—and they may be revised again, but it is clear that, because of the difficulties of occupational pension schemes, there is a collapse in contributions going into the system. All those things are building up difficulties for the future, and many of the explanations that the right hon. Gentleman gave were right, not least the massive disincentives in the benefit and tax system. I accept that the pension credit is a considerable improvement on its predecessor, but the effective marginal rate of tax is still 50 per cent., which creates a massive disincentive to save.
The right hon. Gentleman's basic conceptual approach on providing a solution to the problem is right, which is getting people out of means testing altogether. However, my mind started to boggle when he came up with what I thought was the proposal that all pensioners should be removed from means testing—

629
lifted above the means-tested level—and have their pensions earnings-linked simultaneously. That is an attractive idea.
Mr. LetwinI understand why the hon. Gentleman found his hair starting to rise a little. Our proposal is progressively to lift pensioners out of means testing by progressively raising the basic state pension. If he thought I was saying that we would raise the basic state pension first to a level that would get all pensioners out of means testing, and then link it, he was misinterpreting my remarks. We are suggesting their progressive removal from means testing.
Dr. CableI thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which makes his proposals a good deal more affordable. Such changes would have to be very progressive and slow to be remotely affordable. I have done the sums myself, and lifting all pensioners out of means testing would cost about £13 billion a year. The proposals that he advanced on removing the new deal—there are arguments for and against that—and means-tested provisions would not come remotely near to meeting that sum, unless we were talking about a long and slow phasing-in process.
Mr. LetwinAs we seem to be following the tradition of having an interesting discussion, it is worth pointing out that we estimate that our proposals would lift the first million pensioners out of the means-tested benefit trap over the first Parliament. The system would be progressive and thus take some time to achieve its full effect.
Dr. CableIf that is the case, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion may be quite similar to our proposals, albeit using a slightly different mechanism. It is possible to move in that direction if we consider a limited group of pensioners. If that is his proposal, it is less sensational than I thought, but more credible. If we want to get all pensioners out of the means-testing system in the long term, we must start to grapple with tricky ideas such as raising the pension age, which the radical pension reformers are talking about. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman mention that, but such measures must be introduced if we want radical reform. We will have to wait to read the small print tomorrow to find out where this all leads.
The right hon. Gentleman framed the debate by considering whether there is a problem with personal debt—I agree that there is. Thoughtful interventions from Labour Members challenged whether that was the case and echoed several arguments that have been put forward in the academic community, especially, by people such as Professor Steve Nickell, who is on the Monetary Policy Committee. They ask whether there is a debt problem, so it is useful to rehearse some of the arguments, because although it is not altogether clear that there is such a problem, it is true that on a balance of probabilities, a serious problem is building up.
There are two key points to consider. The level of personal household debt as a measure of people's income is about 135 per cent. That figure has never been approached in recorded economic history, so we are
630
considering a new phenomenon. People such as Professor Nickell argue that that is fine and that most people are coping with it in practice, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said. Few people, with the exception of low-income debtors, are defaulting on their debt, so most people are coping. Additionally, people say that the ratio of payments to income is not exceptional. However, that will be true only while interest rates remain close to their current levels, but all the evidence shows that there is now a movement towards significantly higher interest rates—I am not advocating that, but describing what is going on in the world. That is happening in the United States, it will probably happen in the European Union and it is certainly happening here. One need only look at what is happening in the forward markets, which expect interest rates to rise significantly and are factoring that into market expectations. Once interest rates move up by 1.5 or 2 per cent., many of the comfortable assumptions about the ability of debtors to sustain their repayments become very questionable.
There is another key point of the argument, which was put to me by the Chancellor when I first raised the issue in Treasury questions. We may complain about the debt, but on the other side of the household balance sheet there are some pretty juicy assets, so on paper things do not look too bad. The problem is that almost all those assets are in the prices of people's houses. One can take different views about whether houses are overvalued. Most of us are not qualified to pass judgments on that, but bodies that are technically competent to make such judgments, such as the International Monetary Fund, are extremely worried and are arguing that on most plausible measures house prices are probably — to 30 per cent. above what we would expect them to be on some economic test. Many others in the City see the problem as a good deal worse.
Were the correction to take place, there would be the problem of large numbers of people finding themselves in negative equity, which, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) reminded us, has occurred before. For those reasons, we must regard the problem seriously; there are high risks. The problem will not necessarily prove unsustainable, but the risks are mounting. The fact that the Governor of the Bank of England and his deputy have been so pointedly clear about the dangers should be a warning to us all.
What should be done about that in policy terms? What concerns me most is the vacuum of responsibility. When the Government came to office, they made what many of us felt was a sensible decision to subcontract monetary policy to the Bank of England. They also subcontracted regulation to the Financial Services Authority. Those were wise decisions, and the functions have been generally well executed by the bodies given responsibility. However, some big new problems are looming as a result. There are asset bubbles in housing and—potentially—in other things, and big problems of household debt, but it is not at all clear who is responsible for that.
Are the Government responsible, through the Treasury? Is the FSA or the Bank of England responsible? Indeed, who in Government is responsible for the issue of long-term savings, about which the right hon. Member for West Dorset talked? Is there a

631
Government policy on long-term savings? My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked the Financial Secretary some time ago about the mandate of the Government agency responsible for national savings. The answer was that it did not include savings. He was told that it has other roles, but savings was not one of them.
What has happened in practice, and has happened over the past few weeks, is that the Governor has exceeded his mandate. There is nothing in his mandate that tells him that he is responsible for house prices and personal debt, but he has taken responsibility for that because no one else is doing so and because he can see the dangers. The problem is that he has only one policy instrument: interest rates. The danger of using interest rates to deal with such a scenario is that the British economy will become even more in balanced.
One of the key trends in economic performance over the past seven years under this Government has been the extent to which the growth of the economy has been driven by personal consumption. There has been quite impressive and steady growth, but it has been driven by personal consumption and boosted by personal debt. Of the average 2.8 per cent. growth, 2.3 per cent.—about 80 per cent.—has been driven by personal spending. Trade has deteriorated—net exports have detracted from economic growth—and there has been little contribution from business investment. If interest rates are used to deal with the asset bubble in the housing market, the exchange rate will inevitably be pushed up, as the hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out, making it even more difficult to export and to compete with imports, and making investment even less profitable. As a result, the economy becomes even more imbalanced.
What are some of the other policies that the Government should be considering? I helpfully produced a 10-point plan, and shall make a few suggestions relevant to our debate. First, the Government ought to look at the structure of incentives for savings and investment. It is striking that there is no restraint on borrowing. If I go into a bank, I can see that the walls are covered with advertisements urging me to take out credit cards and additional debts. All the bank employees earn bonuses by pushing out more debt to their customers, but there is little compensating incentive for anyone to invest their capital. Indeed, if someone tries to invest a few thousand pounds they have to go through a complicated process of filling in forms with a financial adviser. Those procedural difficulties have understandably arisen from past mis-selling, but they have resulted in an enormous bias in the incentives system to borrow and not to invest. I hope that the Government, in their review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, will consider and analyse the fundamental issue of incentives. Is there over-regulation of investment and under-regulation of credit provision?
Secondly, I urge Ministers to consider the important but neglected issue of payments insurance. If large numbers of people get into difficulties with their mortgage—they might not, but they might—insuring their payments will be an important safety net. There is a market for payments insurance, but it is unsatisfactory. The margins are enormous, it is provided by a handful of brokers and banks, and it is not taken up by most people. There is a lot of mis-selling—
632
the institutions that promote the mortgages also promote the insurance—and there is little genuine competition. It is a classic example of something that calls for Government intervention—the Office of Fair Trading needs to look at the market and make sure that it works better—so I hope that they are persuaded to take an interest in it.
Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) has touched on the issue of debt distress and people who are affected by loan sharking and comparable activities at the bottom end of the market. The paper produced by the Department of Trade and Industry makes some sensible suggestions, but the process of implementing them is slow, so it would be helpful if the Financial Secretary told us when they will come into effect. For example, there are sensible recommendations about stopping the ludicrous practice of penalising people for making early repayments, which would do a great deal to change the culture and encourage people to adopt a more prudential approach to personal finance.
Finally, to expand a debate that I had with the Financial Secretary about 18 months ago, the Government should develop their initiatives on financial advice—a subject in which she takes a personal interest. It should not be impossible to get the industry—the banks, insurance companies and so on—to set up, through a small levy, a national system of genuinely impartial personal advice. At the moment, it is difficult to get independent financial advice, because most advisers are tied to the industry, and the polarisation changes do not make their position any easier. A system of genuinely independent financial advice centres dealing with people before they get into difficulties, not afterwards, would go a long way towards easing people's anxieties before they enter into major financial contracts. The Government want to develop such proposals, but I can see little evidence of their doing so. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that progress has been made on that agenda.
8.48 pm
Mr. Tom HarrisI welcome the opportunity afforded by our debate to discuss personal debt and savings, a crucial quality-of-life issue that affects all of our constituents and probably every Member of Parliament. When things are going well and we have plenty of money—we have more savings than debt—everything in the garden is rosy. When, however, we cannot cope with personal debt, lives and marriages start to fall apart, which has a huge negative impact on wider society. It is therefore entirely appropriate to debate the matter this evening.
The Government have created a climate in which people feel secure about their finances. When interest rates are at an historic low, inflation is low and unemployment is low, it is inevitable that people feel a little more secure about taking out personal loans and credit cards. That is even more the case when they realise that the value of their house has increased substantially since they bought it, perhaps only a short time ago. In those circumstances, people will inevitably get into personal debt that they can manage.
That is a fact of life and we should not necessarily be afraid of it, but the corollary is that when unemployment is high, interest rates are high and

633
inflation is high, as happened under the previous Conservative Government, absolute personal debt may be lower, but the ratio of personal debt to personal income is much higher. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, that ratio is about half of what it was eight or nine years ago. It is now about 7.5 per cent. Although personal debt in this country has gone up, I believe, to more than £1 trillion, the crucial point, which we should welcome, is that that is largely manageable debt, compared with what it was in times of recession.
Norman LambI accept that the ratio of repayments to income is significantly different from what it was in the early 1990s, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the trend is very much upwards? Many people predict that we will return to ratios similar to those in the early 1990s.
Mr. HarrisThere is no denying that recently the trend has been upwards, but I am not convinced that it will become as unmanageable as it was in the middle to late 1980s, when the country was in an interest rate crisis. Thanks to the Government's economic management, interest rates are historically low. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on the Conservative Front Bench smirks at such a statement. It is bizarre that Conservative Members cannot admit that interest rates are now a fraction of what they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
Mr. SwayneI appreciate that the amount of debt to which people are exposed is much larger, as the hon. Gentleman says. Interest rate sensitivity is therefore much greater. A relatively small movement in interest rates—much smaller than in the period he refers to in the late 1980s and early 1990s—will have a disproportionate effect on disposable incomes. For example, a 2 per cent. increase in interest rates could leave people paying a quarter of their disposable income in interest payments.
Mr. HarrisThe hon. Gentleman is right. A 2 per cent. increase in interest rates would effectively be a 25 per cent. increase in payments. Interest rates are low, so it is inevitable that a small increase has a proportionately bigger effect than in 1989, for example, when interest rates went up from 11 to 12 per cent., which was an increase of only one eleventh.
Mr. Paul GoodmanI apologise to the hon. Gentleman for smirking, as he put it. I was merely recalling that in the early 1990s, our membership of the exchange rate mechanism was supported by the then Government, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the CBI, the TUC and the Church of England bishops, as far as I know—indeed, by everyone.
Mr. HarrisThat was before my time. All I remember is that I was encouraged at the time by the reassurances of the then Prime Minister, John Major, to take out a five-year fixed-term mortgage on my new house at 9.9 per cent. one month before September 1992, and for
634
the next five years was paying substantially more than I would have been paying had I ignored the advice of the then Prime Minister.
The point I want to make is not partisan and has not been referred to in the debate so far. On a number of occasions in the Chamber I have fulminated against the instant gratification society and blamed it for all sorts of things. It is informative to bring up the subject in this debate. We are all bombarded day in. day out with images of stuff—posessions, designer labels, new cars and houses—in advertising, on television, the internet and radio and in newspapers. Some people who see pictures of David and Victoria Beckham in the newspapers may want to buy clothes of whatever designer label the couple is wearing, from shoes to sunglasses. On some of the cable channels, such as E4 or Granada Plus, almost every single advert is for a personal loan. If it is not for a personal loan, it is for insurance.
It is hardly surprising that when children, who are subjected to such images of the fantasy lifestyle that we are told we can pick up off the shelf, find on leaving school that they do not have the income to buy into the lifestyle that they have been told by the media for many years that they can achieve, they take out loans and get credit cards or store cards. If they want to buy something, the idea of saving for it is anathema; it is an unknown idea. If somebody wants something, they get it. How do they get it immediately? They take out a loan. That is the culture in today's Britain. That is how we are being told to live our lives. There is no suggestion that we should ever save up to buy anything. We are always told, "Buy it now, as you can have it now; simply take out a loan." That is not a healthy attitude for us to adopt.
At the end of last year, the Government produced a White Paper, "Fair, Clear and Competitive", looking at reform of certain aspects of the consumer industry. I want briefly to refer to four suggestions in the White Paper, one of which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who referred to the ending of punitive penalties levied in the event of a borrower wishing to pay off a loan early. Sadly. the practice continues whereby banks and lenders put all the interest for a loan up front, even if it is a three or four-year loan, so that in the first six months or so when one is paying it off, one makes no impact on the capital. If somebody feels after six months that they can pay off the next two and a half pars of the loan, they will find that they have to pay off all the debt, and that all that they have done so far is pay interest. That appalling practice takes a number of people by surprise who find themselves in the lucky position of being able to pay off a debt early.
The White Paper proposes that the rules on advertising should be changed to ensure, for example, that the annual percentage rate offered by a particular company has more prominence than other information about that company. That will be welcomed by anybody who wants to make a genuine comparison between the different products on offer. Another proposal is to introduce a standardised way to calculate the APR. Thank goodness for that. If a gun were put to my head and I was told to explain how an APR was calculated, I could not do so. When the White Paper was published, I was astonished to find that there is more than one way

635
of calculating the APR. I cannot understand how the industry has managed to survive to date without a standardised form of APR, and I am delighted that the Government are now looking at ways of standardising it.
All those proposals will be especially welcomed in my constituency. In Castlemilk, for example, there is a shop that has, for many years, put on sale products and advertised hire purchase agreements with extortionate interest rates that are well beyond what anybody would expect even from the most notorious store card. It advertises those rates of interest not because its target audience and clientele can afford to pay them, but because it knows that they cannot afford them and that there is money to be made from getting people into debt to the point at which they cannot afford the repayments. For the sellers, that can often be a win-win situation, but for the ordinary people who are trying to make the payments, it is almost always a lose-lose situation. Another example, which a constituent brought to my attention, recently appeared in a local paper in Glasgow. It concerned a company that sold second-hand personal computers, and the repayments on its loans were structured to attract people who would not normally obtain credit from outlets such as PC World to buy a brand new computer. Such people prey on the most vulnerable and poorest people in our society, and I am glad that the White Paper will combat that practice.
Vera BairdMy hon. Friend's reflective speech makes me think what a bind such companies get ordinary people into. He made the strong point that the charges for paying off a debt early are onerous, but one also incurs onerous charges if one makes a late payment. If one does not toe the consumer credit companies' line, one gets oneself into deeper and deeper debt.
Mr. HarrisMy hon. and learned Friend is right. We could have a full day's debate on the various sharp practices used by banks and lenders, and perhaps we will have such an opportunity. Banks are not slow to penalise people for making late payments, but they are not particularly quick to come forward when they make a mistake—but that is a separate debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Many people do not save enough, and far too many people save nothing at all—I suspect that it has always been thus, and it has certainly been thus in recent history. The Opposition blame the Government for those ills.
Mr. SwayneQuite right.
Mr. HarrisThe hon. Gentleman is a partisan fellow, and he has his opinions. It is difficult for the Conservative party to blame the Government unless, of course, it turns a blind eye to some salient facts: it is difficult to cope with a large debt if interest rates are 10 or 11 per cent., as they were under the Conservative party; it is difficult to cope with a large debt if unemployment is more than 3 million, as it was under the Conservative party; and it is almost impossible to manage a large debt if inflation is in double digits, as it was on a number of occasions under the Conservative party. This Government have done more than any previous Government to encourage people on middle
636
and low incomes to save, and they have done more than any previous Labour or Conservative Government to provide economic circumstances in which saving is not only a financial necessity, but a bonus that allows people to prepare for the rest of their lives.
9.3 pm
Mr. Mark HobanThe debate is important, and I support much of the analysis outlined by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris).
It is easy to be puritanical about increased consumer debt, which is approaching £1 trillion. It is also easy to criticise people who take out store cards, credit cards and personal loans, but who can blame those people when some of today's circumstances encourage them to do so? Factors such as low interest rates on savings and rising house prices lead people to ask, "I have got more money and more wealth; how can I best use that wealth?" However, the seeds of economic uncertainty for not only individual households, but the economy as a whole lie in the sense of increasing affluence and the ability to service higher debt, which is the point that I want to discuss this evening.
Hon. Members from both sides commented that lower interest rates allow people to service greater debts, and households are gearing their debt to reflect the lower cost of servicing it. The debt-to-household-income ratio is 140 per cent., which is one of the highest levels ever. People can service that debt at the moment. They are gearing up—borrowing more—because of the low interest rates.
People are optimistic about their future; they are prepared to continue to take on extra debt if they believe that the economy is stable, that they will stay in employment for the foreseeable future and that interest rates will be low. Moreover, if they sense that their personal wealth is increasing, they will start to borrow more. Equity in a house was previously viewed as an intangible asset that was difficult to realise without selling the house and downsizing; nowadays, it is realised in many different ways. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) cited the increased use of retirement income schemes, which take out equity from a house to provide income for retirement. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
Another factor in the rise of the borrowing culture is the decline of the savings culture. Returns on savings are low. The FTSE 100 has barely moved during the past seven years, whereas stock market indices in other leading economies have gone up. We have already heard about the £5 billion raid on pension funds. We must also consider the rigidity of certain savings products: for example, it is very difficult to access one's pension fund before retirement; and if one takes money out of an individual savings account to meet a short-term financial crisis, one loses the tax relief on one's savings.
Some people are having to shoulder higher levels of debt at the start of their career. I do not wish to make partisan points about the level of student debt, but it is clear that top-up fees will saddle students with more debt that they have to pay off over a longer period, so they will not have the free cash available to put money

637
aside for a pension or to save for the deposit on a house. The pension credit has a particular effect on tomorrow's pensioners' incentive to save.
On current returns, the structure of the savings market encourages people to borrow money instead of saving for the future. That sows the seeds of several economic problems. First, strong borrowing for personal expenditure adds to the volatility of the economy. If people perceive the economy as continuing to grow, they will continue to borrow on the assumption that their income will increase in future and they will be able to service the debt from it. One of the Bank of England's most recent inflation reports included a very good chart that showed the strong correlation between the increasing level of equity withdrawal from houses and household consumption: as people took more equity out of their houses, they spent it on a new car, a holiday, or a new kitchen or bathroom. People have started to borrow out of their principal asset—their house—to fund future consumption. Once they start to lose confidence in the future of the economy, they will borrow less, and consumer expenditure, which has been one of the main drivers of the economy over the past few years, will start to come under pressure.
Secondly, people have re-geared their debt to reflect low interest rates, which mean that they can afford to borrow more. Because of the significant increases in house prices, people borrow ever-higher multiples of their income in order to be able to afford to buy a new house. When I first bought a house, the maximum multiple was three times one's salary; now it goes up to four or five times one's salary. Such a high level of borrowing increases the volatility exposure of households to high amounts of debt. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West expressed that eloquently in an earlier intervention. If interest rates are 5 per cent., a rise of 1 per cent. would increase the interest cost by 20 per cent. If interest rates are 10 per cent., a 1 per cent. rise would increase the debt service cost by only 10 per cent.
Mr. Tom HarrisPerhaps I did not address that point fully when the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) raised it with me. Although an increase of 1 per cent. is a large proportional increase, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the actual net increase in pounds per month would be exactly the same as the increase if interest rates were even higher?
Mr. HobanThe hon. Gentleman needs to be careful because although there is an interest rate, we should not forget that people are also borrowing more. A repayment element therefore needs to be taken into account. Borrowing more means repaying more as well as paying slightly less in interest.
Mr. GummerIf one borrows when interest rates are low and house prices are high, without considering that house prices might not continue to rise but that interest rates could, one finds oneself absolutely out of kilter. That does not happen if house prices have ceased to increase so quickly or interest rates have been reasonably high for some time and one has made a
638
decision in the context of high interest rates. It is a question of when one makes a decision and in what context.
Mr. HobanMy tight hon. Friend makes a powerful point. People who borrow when interest rates are high benefit significantly when they fall. Much of the increase in disposable income is a consequence of that. When the reverse happens, and one borrows on the assumption that low interest rates will continue for some time, but they rise significantly, disposable income, after taking account of interest payments, begins to diminish. Such matters lead to volatility starting to creep into the economy. People gearing up debt present a risk to both their personal finances and the economy. As people increase the amount of interest that they pay on their debt, they will be forced to reduce their personal consumption to keep their books balanced, and that will have an impact on the wider economy.
The deputy governor of the Bank of England summed up the matter neatly when he said in March:
"Since there are, at present, relatively high levels of debt and these are rising faster than income, it is likely that potential vulnerabilities from increased gearing are rising … And we know from experience that unexpected shocks from one source or another can upset individuals' predictions and behaviour."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to those shocks when he mentioned the changes in the economy that force up interest rates. We should be mindful that we are considering not only straight economics but people's lives and that personal debt has a huge impact on all our constituents.
In my constituency, the citizens advice bureau said that, according to it referrals, in 2002–03 the average debt was approximately £11,500, whereas in 2003–04 it was £17,000. That shows some of the vast personal debt that people are incurring. We are therefore presented with a difficult position and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) picked up on that when he probed Government and Opposition Front Benchers about interest rates.
The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England is in a difficult position. Interest rate increases are significant and could lead to a hard landing for the economy as people cut their spending to meet high borrowing costs. Small increases in interest rates, however, might not send the right signals to consumers, and the house price increases might continue, forcing people to borrow more money so as to be able to afford a house. A difficult dilemma faces the Monetary Policy Committee; it has to get the interest rate right both in terms of controlling inflation in the short term and in regard to the longer-term implications for house prices, consumer debt and the long-term structural stability of the economy.
One might ask what the Government are doing in this regard. In an interesting article published last month, Ros Altmann, a Government adviser on pensions, wrote:
"The UK economy's remarkable recent performance has been supported by a housing boom and government spending on job creation in the public sector. Is this all part of the Treasury's plan? Rising house prices have a positive wealth effect, increase consumer spending on housing-related items and fuel sharp rises in borrowing, all adding to short-term economic strength."

639
That is the view of someone who advises the Government.
This is how we come to understand the nature of the economy. If we continue to fuel short-term growth—and as long as the economy continues to grow, and interest rates and unemployment remain relatively low—borrowing may well be sustainable. However, we cannot rely on a positive view of the economic outlook by the Government. Steps have to be taken to introduce stability into the economy. That is why we need stronger incentives for saving, not only for retirement but for the pre-retirement period. We also need less rigidity in the savings products that are available and encouraged by the Government, if we are to encourage more people to save. If we do not have the counterbalance of savings in the economy, the threat that borrowing poses to the stability of the economy in the medium to long term is significant. That is a challenge that the Government have yet to grasp, but my right hon Friend the Member for West Dorset demonstrated in his opening speech that the Conservatives certainly have grasped it.
9.17 pm
Vera BairdA generation ago, Britain was a country in which debt carried a stigma and borrowing was known as living beyond one's means. Now, however, personal borrowing has risen to £1 trillion. There has been a profound cultural change, and the key to that is our affection for home ownership. As many hon. Members have said, 80 per cent. of the £1 trillion consists of mortgage borrowing, but the impact of the housing market boom goes much wider than the headline figure. Many People have seen the value of their home double in the list five years. People who were never asset-rich before have become so, probably faster than at any time in history. At the same time, with low interest rates, low inflation and low levels of unemployment nationwide—although not throughout all the regions—it is cheap to borrow.
Low interest rates also fuel the notion that it is not profitable to save. I have never been entirely sure whether that is right, because inflation—which fuels higher interest rates—makes savings look attractive, but if they are fuelled by inflation, their benefits are wiped out. However, it looks as though it is not worth saving at the moment, and that illusion is widespread. Lenders, too, have obviously become—let us put it generously—flexible, but as long as everyone agrees that credit is being used as a tool for financial flexibility in a manageable way, it is part of economic growth. It creates employment in the service sector and contributes to gross domestic product, and our economic performance has outshone that of France and Germany recently.
I listened to a commentator from Ernst and Young on the BBC recently. I was impressed that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) gets his views from professors; I listen to the BBC. That is the best I can do. The spokesperson from Ernst and Young made it clear that, without the explosion in borrowing, UK growth rates would have been much lower, the UK economy would have been much smaller, and the corporate sector would have been less profitable. There would also have been fewer jobs without the impetus of personal borrowing. There seems to be consensus among financial commentators at the moment that people are
640
in the main still servicing their debt reasonably comfortably because of low interest rates, but I accept that, as hon. Members on both sides have pointed out, it does not take much of an interest rate change for that to become a problem.
However, there is an historical point. Capital Economics, quoted in a Money Observer article that I read recently, cited the fact that from the late '80s, long before economic gearing started to peak—we have talked about the levels of economic gearing tonight—people in households took action to cut their debt. It has been shown that the recent increases by the Monetary Policy Committee are having an effect on mortgages. Secured lending rose by only £8.5 billion in May, which is the lowest increase for nine months and down from an increase of £9.2 billion in April. So, one hopes that people are reading the signs as they come and that there will not be any real developing crisis.
A MORI Market Dynamics poll recently referred to the fact that thousands of pounds of credit card debt are in the hands of people it calls convenient controllers—that is, by and large, people who cope with paying off their balance every month. Only about 5 per cent. of card holders are classified as spiralling debtors with large debts relating to their income. It is right to point out, however, that the Consumer Credit Counselling Service says that 5 per cent. represents an enormous number of people. With 61 million credit cards, that is likely to be true.
I want to point out some oddities that presented themselves to me in recent days as I reflected on this debate and which have perhaps pushed people towards borrowing rather than saving.
Mr. Tom ClarkeMy hon. and learned Friend's analysis is absolutely correct. One wonders whether Opposition Members are amazed, and even perplexed, by the fact that the figures she has given on inflation, interest rates and the rest have all been achieved under a Labour Government. Perhaps it is difficult for them to come to terms with that.
On the specific issue of credit cards, does my hon. and learned Friend agree, on the basis of constituency experience, that many people are deeply worried about the increase in credit card fraud? Therefore, should we not quite properly be addressing it?
Vera BairdMy right hon. Friend is correct. People are very concerned about credit card fraud and about identity theft, which can go beyond credit card fraud. It is a most serious issue indeed. There are, of course, steps that the Home Office is countenancing now to try to make clearer what people's identities are in the hope of at least partly combating that issue.
May I return to credit cards specifically and some oddities between pressures that push people towards saving or push them towards taking credit? A number of people have said to me in the last few days that having a savings account in a bank for several years does not help a person to get a credit rating—particularly not a young person, apparently. Getting a credit card does help a young person to get a credit rating.
In addition, people who go to buy a car in cash are told that they should borrow the money if they want a discount, because cash purchases are no use to the

641
salesperson. Discounts are available only for credit. I recall that there used to be discount for cash, but it seems that the clear message now is that there is no point in saving up for a car because people who do so will not get as good a ticket price as they would if they borrowed the money.
Whether those factors play a role it is hard to know, but it is hard to suspect that they do not. Of course, inequity has come into play. The pattern is that the lower the person's income, the higher the interest charged, together with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, penalty charges for being late by a day and penalty charges for paying debt back a few days early.
Over-indebtedness is a real problem for people on low incomes and it can result in significant costs—health problems, depression and deterrence from moving into better employment leading to homelessness. There are 3 million households in arrears with credit repayments on household bills and problem debt is primarily concentrated in low-income and other socially excluded groups. For example, 57 per cent. of over-indebted households have an annual income of less than £7,500.
Of course, low-income groups also experience the most directly serious debt—priority debts—such as utility and council tax bills, which are likely to result in eviction, imprisonment, disconnection or repossession. High repayments also leave people with little disposable income. According to the Office of Fair Trading family expenditure survey, in this day and age, 5 per cent. of the poorest decile spend 90 per cent. of their income servicing debts.
The debt problems of the lowest group are not caused primarily by irresponsible money management. Mostly, people on low incomes have reasonably sophisticated budgeting skills—I suppose that, by necessity, they must have. In most cases, initial triggers for debt are life events: losing a job, moving in and out of work, separating, becoming ill, developing a disability, having children, or being on a long-term low income. One in five households in arrears or financial difficulty attributes it to redundancy, and one in seven people cites living for long periods on a low income as the cause. Those are the kinds of people whom Redcar citizens advice bureau deals with. Last year, 42 per cent. of the 23,500 issues that came before it related to debt, and it has dealt with approximately £2.5 million worth of debt.
In addition, the community legal service partnership in Redcar has found a high need for debt and money advice in the borough. It now has a money advice worker who has dealt with 100 clients over the past financial year and debts totalling about £1 million. Apparently, the average debt is around £10,000, and that partnership too finds that the reasons why people get into debt tend to be life events and not mismanagement. It points, however, to a number of features that exacerbate the situation—for example, the fact that debt is easily accessible. In particular, once into debt, people get another debt to pay off the last one, and again and again.
Problems are apparently encountered with the commercial side of debt advice, in which individuals tend to be recommended to consolidate their debts into
642
a personal loan, which will have "a lower interest rate", but which will go on for very much longer, and therefore, in the end, be very much more costly to service. In particular, people get talked into secured personal loans, which will not only increase the amount that they will have to pay back over the years but put the roof over their heads at risk if they are unable to make the payment. I was shocked to find that there are commercial debt counsellors who charge for debt counselling. I was completely unaware of that. Happily, free services are provided through the CAB and National Debtline, although it is a moot point whether those are sufficient.
A further problem is that 41 per cent. of adults on Teesside have numeracy and literacy problems, which feeds the problem. People do not understand contracts, do not know how to choose the best deal, and do not understand what APR is, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, which one of us does? Furthermore, they do not know what the term?interest free" may mean, as, again, many of us do not. Addressing adult numeracy and literacy problems will help people to have greater financial understanding. Redcar CAB does some proactive work in schools and at Sure Start venues, where it tries to teach people how to void debt from as early as 15 or 16 years of age, which, I would imagine, is the type of work that the Government would like to encourage even further.
I want to mention only two things that the Redcar CAB and the welfare advice department are concerned about, because their effects are capable of making matters worse. Under changes to income support from January 2005, no amounts will be provided under it for children, and claimants will be moved on to child tax credit to support their children. That means that some people will be lifted off income support, even though they will not get any additional money paid to them. As a result, they will stop being passported through to the social fund, although budgeting loans and community grants are important to enable people to buy large items that wear out, such as washing machines. The question is: if people are no longer able to access the social fund, what will that do to families who are currently struggling and just managing to hold off debt? In addition, the new working tax credit, which of course aims to help low-income workers with children, is perhaps a tad unresponsive to changes in the household, such as someone going sick, or someone leaving the household, as it is based on the last year's income. Many people in the Redcar area who suffered overpayments through no fault of their own are having to repay from this year's award.
I know that the Government, who are very concerned about these issues, will want to consider those two potential problems, and decide whether they are likely to have an impact or whether there is already a solution to them.
I do not believe that the current levels of borrowing constitute a crisis, or are seriously damaging at the moment. I think that we can take it easy in the short term, although we must not be complacent. For a narrowing band of society, however—the poorest—there is a serious debt problem, and where debt has its impact in that sector it is very severe.

643
Let me say a quick word about pensions. If the basic state pension were increased to pension credit level, that would do no good to the 87 per cent. of women who have no basic state pension. Their pension credit would be wiped out pound for pound. It would benefit only the more affluent pensioners whose savings take them well above pension credit level, most of whom receive occupational pensions. That would clearly be regressive in terms of income distribution, but above all it would be deeply sexist.
Mr. LetwinWhat does the hon. and learned Lady make of the 1 million pensioners who are entitled to pension credit and do not take it because of its awesome complexities—including, of course, many hundreds of thousands of women?
Vera BairdAs I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the figures show an improvement in take-up of pension credit. He must also know that the application forms have been made much more strikingly similar to others. The Pension Service's telephone responses are being praised by all those in my constituency—I have mentioned them—who help elderly people with means problems. The right hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.
Mr. Tom HarrisIf some pensioners believe that the forms are too complicated, might that not be at least partly because every time a Conservative MP goes on television to talk about pension credit he or she never misses the opportunity to perpetuate the myth that they are far more complicated than they are?
Vera BairdMy hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is time the Tories stopped saying how hard it is to obtain pension credit, and started to encourage a few more elderly people to claim it.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes my point that his proposals to alter the basic state pension are profoundly sexist, and will certainly not appeal to female voters.
Mr. GoodmanThe hon. and learned Lady overestimates our influence if she believes that we are responsible for the present non-take-up rate of pension credit, which is 40 per cent.
Vera BairdI would not dream of overestimating the Opposition's influence. I do not believe that they have a great deal of influence, or that they have exercised much of it tonight.
I look to the right hon. Member for West Dorset to explain how it is possible to advocate what he has advocated tonight in regard to basic pension increases without being profoundly sexist, as well as redistributive in a regressive way.
9.34 pm
Mr. John GummerI refer the House to my declaration of interests, and particularly to my independent chairmanship of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers.
I wonder how we have managed to talk about mortgages for a whole evening without mentioning the shortage of homes. There is another issue besides the
644
price of a mortgage—the issue of supply and demand. One of the reasons why house prices have risen so sharply is the Government's failure to ensure that enough homes are built, and enough land released on which they can be built. But we in this House must be careful not to take the doom and gloom view that everything is bound to get worse, nor to adopt the unbelievably self-congratulatory attitude of the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who introduced the Government's case. There ought to be something in between, and that is what the Opposition are trying to underline.
The simple point is this. It is not surprising that concern exists if the very high level of debt is based on the belief that interest rates will for ever remain low, or if such debt is being forced on people because of a shortage of homes, and they are pushing up the proportion of income that they are prepared to risk in such circumstances, simply to get a roof over their heads. Such concern is indeed what the Opposition are expressing. In doing so, we are not being party political, for this is precisely the concern that the Governor of the Bank of England has expressed, as have many independent and largely left-leaning commentators.
Our concern is increased because of the Government's complacency. Have they read their own alternative motion? It is the most self-congratulatory and complacent statement of the situation that one can possibly have read—a fact that should concern us all. The second worry is that huge disagreement exists within the Government, with the Chancellor on one side and a whole range of people from different elements of the Government on the other. This is, after all, a Chancellor who is at odds with the Governor of the Bank of England. This Chancellor thinks that he can do better at solving the housing problem than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Most people think that, but this is a very curious situation. Two major offices of state have publicly announced different ways of solving the housing problem, and both are pushing forward their ideas in total contradiction of each other. The Chancellor has also fallen out with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over how we are to deal with housing and planning issues.
All those issues feed into the considerable concern that we must feel at the fact that the level of debt is based on the Micawber-like principle that everything will be okay because interest rates are not going to rise. Well, they will not rise very fast, but I certainly do not want this nation to be dependent not only on interest rates not rising, but on the value of houses not falling—for that, too, is a major issue. I doubt whether there will be a collapse, but it will be avoided not because of the Government's management of the economy, but because of the shortage of houses. There is now huge pressure on the system in terms of supply and demand. Some 58 per cent. of the new homes needed are needed by those whose marriages have broken up. The deposits that such people can put down are significantly larger than those that first-time buyers can put down. Such factors complicate the situation, but the Government have not properly considered them.
I would not be proud of a record that shows that per capita wealth in Britain is now lower than that of the Irish, much as I like and am enthusiastic about the Irish,

645
and much as I am pleased that the European Union has improved Ireland's economy, as it has done in many other cases. That is a great achievement that Britain never managed, and it is another good reason why we should be extremely pleased to be part of that organisation. But it is important to point out that this Government do not make that comparison, and the reason why is that they have presided over an economic policy that has made it more difficult for business to thrive, thanks to the restrictions that they have placed on it. Nor would I be enthusiastic about defending a savings rate as low as we see today.
It was difficult to follow the Minister's argument, because he essentially said, "We have done this, that and the other, and we have done more and extra, to try to encourage saving, but people have ceased to save." We have done everything for them, and we have a wonderful committee—on which I sit with the Financial Secretary—to educate people, but the savings ratio continues at a very low level. Indeed, it is much lower than it safely should be.
I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). A society that does not have a relatively high savings ratio and in which savings—large and small and across the social structure—are not considerable in proportion to the assets and earnings of individuals is a society that in the end destroys its own cohesion. A safe society is one in which each individual has a real stake in their future and knows that when they save they are contributing to the improvement of that future. A society that makes it better not to save is a society that removes from people that important social asset of a commitment to order, progress and security. Societies that have ignored that have ended up in political disorder, have destroyed their progress and have removed their security. History is a hard teacher on that issue, and this Government have done much to undermine this society.
9.41 pm
Mr. Paul GoodmanThat was a very fine speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). It was a fine contribution to what has been a good, serious and reflective debate. It is worth saying that debt is not always bad, and indeed that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). Firms must often borrow to invest and people must often borrow, for example, to improve themselves, their homes and their lives. None the less, the facts on debt are extremely worrying, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made a fair attempt at trying to establish just how worrying they are.
Lending to individuals has almost certainly now broken through the £1 trillion barrier, so it has soared. The facts in relation to saving—a point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) dwelt at some length—are alarming. Between 1998 and 2003, the savings ratio was never higher than 6.7 per cent. In the previous seven years, it was never lower than 9.3 per cent., so saving has fallen sharply. It is around the two polarities of debt and saving that this debate has turned.
646
According to the family resources survey, 27 per cent. of households have no savings at all and a further 23 per cent. have savings of less than £1,500. The Bank of England's chief economist has noted that the gap between what British households should be saving to ensure a comfortable retirement and what they actually save is £27 billion a year. Unsecured personal debt is now £172 billion, or more than £500 a person. What does all that mean for homeowners and for the vulnerable? The latter group includes some homeowners, but of course not by any means all of them.
According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, a household with average earnings, average mortgage and average levels of unsecured debt now uses 34 per cent. of its income to service that debt. According to Capital Economics, a 1 per cent. rise in interest rates would take the gearing on that debt to just over 24 per cent.; a 2 per cent. rise would result in households paying just over a quarter of their income in servicing debt; and a 3 per cent. rise would raise that figure from a quarter to 28 per cent. Indeed, as we have heard from the Governor of the Bank of England, house prices are
"well above what most people would regard as sustainable in the longer term".
The trend of rising interest rates has the potential—I put it no more strongly than that—to damage the lives of millions of homeowners who would be hit if the Government won a third term, a prospect that is looking increasingly unlikely given the damaging combination of interest rate rises and Labour's third term tax rises, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham alluded. Of course, there is always the risk of the transfer of debt to the next generation.
None the less, I want to assume, for the sake of argument, that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is right to say that
"current … levels of debt are clearly an issue, but they are not as dramatic in the secured sector as in the unsecured sector".
I want to assume that the council is right, because although most home owners may be able to endure the debt culture, there can be no doubt that the poor and the vulnerable—a group that includes some home owners—cannot endure the debt culture. That group of people is losing out, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) reminded us in his interesting speech, so I shall turn to their plight.
The debt to income ratio is highest in the poorest households; it doubled between 1995 and 2000. Forty-two per cent. of families with a new baby are in arrears, as are 48 per cent. of lone parents and 53 per cent. of recently separated couples. Over the last five years, inquiries to citizens advice bureaux rose by 46 per cent.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders said:
"There are some signs of financial pressures building in the unsecured sector. Recent trends in consumer credit appear to suggest that the debt position of a significant minority of households leaves them vulnerable to default."
We believe that the Government's White Paper does nothing substantial to help that group. It does not address the growing failure of people to save. It does not address the growing problem of the debt culture and it contains no significant proposals on education, savings or alternative sources of finance. As my right hon.

647
Friend the Member for West Dorset said earlier, that is why the Conservative party has set up a commission to report on debt and savings. The debt commission will be independent of the party and will report later this year. It will be chaired by the distinguished figure of Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, who was of course head of the Downing street policy unit when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Before Labour Members work themselves into paroxysms of wrath, I remind them that Lord Griffiths is an adviser on third world debt to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so they should not laugh too loudly, because the Chancellor, who is a very influential man these days, as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) reminded us recently, might hear them. The members of the commission include the Right Reverend James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool and Keith Tondeur, the national director of the money education charity, Credit Action.
The commission is charged with finding ways of relieving the debt burden and of reviving the savings culture and will examine ways of improving education and saving. However, we do not believe that the Government have to wait for Lord Griffiths before acting to slow the debt culture and to revive a savings culture, because one fact is clear: there will be no savings culture if three quarters of all pensioners end up on means-tested benefits, and that is exactly where we are heading. Half of all pensioners are already on means-tested benefits. By 2025, three quarters of them are expected to be on means-tested benefits. In short, 4 million pensioners will have to reveal all the details of their personal financial circumstances to a Government official so that he or she can determine the total income they should have.
Means testing not only increases dependency and decreases dignity but also destroys saving. The Government's mania for means testing is throwing their pensions strategy into chaos. Ministers have declared that they want to shift the pensions balance; they want 40 per cent. of pensioners' incomes to be funded by the public sector and 60 per cent. by the private sector. When they came to office, those figures were almost the reverse: 58 per cent. were funded by the public sector and 42 per cent. by the private sector. Since then, the shift has been not from public to private but from private to public.
The percentage of pensioners' incomes funded by the public sector has risen to 61 per cent. while the percentage funded by the private sector has fallen to 39 per cent. The pensions industry cannot plan the Government say that they want to decrease state dependency yet act to increase it. People will not save if the shift to means-tested benefits penalises them for saving. The Government are unwittingly creating a vicious cycle, in which low saving boosts dependence on means-tested benefits, which in turn boosts low savings.
That cycle must be broken. The way to break it is evident: a lifetime savings account—a flexible way to reward saving—and a pension linked to earnings. That would float 1 million pensioners off means testing in just one Parliament and would allow them to save on top. However, I doubt that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will announce either proposal tonight. The Opposition certainly would not expect that from a Government whose raid on pension funds has cost a scandalous £5 billion a year.
648
Slowly but surely—perhaps unwittingly—the Government are destroying our savings culture, which is why I urge the House to vote for our motion.
9.50 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)We have heard some excellent contributions to the debate, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I shall respond to some of the detailed points that the Opposition have raised in a few moments; but, first, I should like to put the debate into some sort of context.
The important achievements of this Labour Government—economic stability, continued economic growth and sound public finances—all provide the best possible environment for savings and ensuring that existing levels of household debt are sustainable. Opposition Members have lectured us on the economy—that from a party that, when in government, had inflation running at 10 per cent., interest rates at 15 per cent., and 3 million people unemployed twice. It ran up a huge deficit. Some 1.5 million people were in negative equity, and there were 250,000 home repossessions. The Conservatives had to break every promise that they made on tax.
Britain has grown in every year of this Labour Government, while under the Conservatives this country had two of the worst recessions in its history. Higher savings in the early 1990s, which Opposition Members are so fond of quoting at us, were a symptom of macro-economic instability. Households had to save more to make up for the loss of the value of their savings owing to inflation and to provide a cushion in the event of becoming unemployed.
I cannot resist drawing attention to some of the analysis carried out by the Bank of England, as Opposition Members are so fond of quoting the Governor of the Bank of England, and indeed pointing to the savings ratio performance under this Government. Of course, I treat all these statistics with a measure of caution, as hon. Members will appreciate, but I refer them to an analysis of the savings ratio carried out by the Bank of England, which concluded that, when inflation is taken into account, the savings ratio since 1998 is significantly higher than the average over the previous 40 years.
If hon. Members look at the facts, they will see that, under this Government, inflation has averaged just 2.4 per cent. compared with 6 per cent. under the Tories—the peak was 21 per cent. Interest rates have been averaging 5.2 per cent., whereas they were on average 10.5 per cent. under the Tories. Mortgage rates have averaged just over 6 per cent. under Labour, while they averaged 11 per cent. under the Tories.
Conservative Members opposed each of the decisions that we took to put the economy on a sound and stable footing. The decisions that they would have made had they been in government would have put Britain into recession, instead of which Britain is growing. Indeed, when we introduced tough fiscal rules, the Conservative party opposed them. When we introduced the symmetrical inflation target, the Conservative party

649
opposed it. When we made the Bank of England independent, that was opposed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
Mr. LetwinI am sorry to intervene on the hon. Lady, and I am grateful to her for giving way. Is she really trying to tell the House that she thinks that the current level of savings is satisfactorily high?
Ruth KellyI would not claim that for one moment. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has pointed to the fact that 3 million people seriously under-save and that 5 million to 10 million do not save enough, but I point to the Conservative party's flawed analysis, flawed facts and inability to grasp the reality. Instead of standing up to apologise, as the right hon. Gentleman should have done, he has proposed a policy that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) described a few years earlier as wild, uncosted and opportunistic. I have not got much time tonight. I would love to take hon. Members through each of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but let me look at just some of them.
First, let us turn to the housing market. The right hon. Gentleman will know that both the Treasury and the Bank of England have consistently forecast a slowdown in consumer spending and house-price inflation as the UK and global economic recoveries gather pace, and because UK interest rates have risen from last year's historic low levels. The recent speech made by the Governor of the Bank of England in Glasgow pointed out the surveys that show early signs of a slow-down in the housing market. The right hon. Gentleman cannot obscure that fact by citing annualised rates; surely he can see the evidence. As he knows, there are important reasons to believe that household overall balance sheets will remain consistent with macroeconomic stability.
As Mervyn King said in his speech, there are good reasons to think that the long-term level of house prices relative to earnings has risen. For a start, as the Barker review shows, house prices reflect the balance between the rising demand for, and restricted supply of, housing in the UK. Additionally, the success of the new economic policy framework in delivering economic stability with low interest rates and strong labour market outcomes has made people more confident about taking on new risks, which is likely to have contributed to a rise in the equilibrium of the house price to earnings ratio.
Quite unlike during the late 1980s, the low interest rates delivered by greater macroeconomic stability have ensured that household interest payments remain low by historical standards. The ratio of interest payments to household disposable income has remained close to 7 per cent. since 2002, compared with its peak of more than 15 per cent. in 1990, when consumers were hit simultaneously by rises in interest rates that were well into double figures and rapidly rising unemployment. The result of that is that the asset side of the household balance sheet is strong, with household net wealth, despite the recent fall in equity prices, still more than 50 per cent. higher than at the beginning of 1997. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless appreciate that when developments on both sides of the household
650
balance sheet are taken together, the ratio of household debt to total wealth remains stable around its longterm average.
Instead of looking at the facts, the right hon. Gentleman tried to make a rather tortuous argument about the impact of mortgage equity release on interest rates, arguing somehow that that is fuelling an increase in consumption that will thus hit interest rates. Given that he is so keen on the Bank of England. I shall cite an analysis in a recent inflation report that examined mortgage equity release and argued that that was largely driven by demographic factors and unlikely, therefore, to have had a significant impact on consumption.
I could back up that analysis with figures from the Office for National Statistics, which suggests that most of the mortgage equity release that has been withdrawn over the past few years has been saved, not spent. Three quarters of the increase in mortgage debt since early 2000 has been matched by a build-up of money and deposits, while the savings ratio has remained broadly stable. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to undertake more cautious analysis in the future before making great claims about the effect of mortgage equity release on consumption. I agree that there are real issues to address regarding the impact of debt.
Mr. LetwinBefore the hon. Lady continues, will she admit to the House that the Treasury has no accurate figures at all on the use of mortgage equity withdrawal?
Ruth KellyI have cited two sources for our estimates on mortgage equity withdrawal: the Office for National Statistics, which most people would say was at the cutting edge of international statistics; and the Bank of England, which the right hon. Gentleman has cited throughout the debate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that we must take the impact of debt on vulnerable consumers extremely seriously. We want to have well-informed consumers who are able to take sensible and appropriate decisions about their long-term finances. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that from 31 October 2004, we will regulate mortgages for the first time. The Financial Services Authority will require a key facts illustration on all mortgage agreements, which will make clear to consumers the effect that a 1 per cent. rise in rates would have on repayments. We are also considering the proposals suggested by Professor Miles in his review.
The Government's vision is of a simpler, more transparent market in long-term savings in which trusted and trustworthy providers sell simple, good-value products to informed consumers. We have been working towards that for the past six years with measures—
Mr. Peter Luff rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 269.

Division No. 213]

[9:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Allan, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Amess, David

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hendry, Charles

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hermon, Lady

Bacon, Richard

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Barker, Gregory

Hogg, rh Douglas

Baron, John (Billericay)

Holmes, Paul

Barrett, John

Horam, John (Orpington)

Beith, rh A. J.

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bellingham, Henry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Boswell, Tim

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brazier, Julian

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bruce, Malcolm

Lamb, Norman

Burns, Simon

Lansley, Andrew

Burnside, David

Leigh, Edward

Burstow, Paul

Letwin, rh Oliver

Butterfill, Sir John

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Cameron, David

Lidington, David

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Lilley, rh Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cash, William

Loughton, Tim

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chope, Christopher

Mackay, rh Andrew

Clappison, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Malins, Humfrey

Collins, Tim

Maples, John

Cotter, Brian

Mates, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Maude, rh Francis

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Djanogly, Jonathan

Mercer, Patrick

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Doughty, Sue

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Moore, Michael

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Moss, Malcolm

Evans, Nigel

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Ewing, Annabelle

Norman, Archie

Fabricant, Michael

Öpik, Lembit

Fallon, Michael

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard

Flight, Howard

Paice, James

Flook, Adrian

Paterson, Owen

Forth, rh Eric

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Garnier, Edward

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Pugh, Dr. John

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Randall, John

Gidley, Sandra

Redwood, rh John

Goodman, Paul

Rendel, David

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Grayling, Chris

Roe, Dame Marion

Greenway, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gummer, rh John

Sanders, Adrian

Hammond, Philip

Selous, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Shepherd, Richard

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Simmonds, Mark

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Harvey, Nick

652

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

Trend, Michael

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Smyth, Rev, Martin (Belfast S)

Tyrie, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Walter, Robert

Spicer, Sir Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Watkinson, Angela

Spring, Richard

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Stanley, rh Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Steen, Anthony

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Stunell, Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Swayne, Desmond

Wilkinson, John

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Willetts, David

Syms, Robert

Willis, Phil

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

(Macclesfield)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Teather, Sarah

Young, rh Sir George

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Thurso, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Hugh Robertson and

Tredinnick, David

Mr. Mark Francois

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clelland, David

Alexander, Douglas

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Allen, Graham

Coaker, Vernon

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cohen, Harry

Atherton, Ms Candy

Colman, Tony

Austin, John

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bailey, Adrian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Baird, Vera

Corston, Jean

Banks Tony

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Barron, rh Kevin

Cummings, John

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Begg, Miss Anne

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Benn, rh Hilary

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Bennett, Andrew

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

David, Wayne

Berry, Roger

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Best, Harold

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Betts, Clive

Dawson, Hilton

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dean, Mrs Janet

Blizzard, Bob

Denham, rh John

Boateng, rh Paul

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dismore, Andrew

Brennan, Kevin

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Browne, Desmond

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Edwards, Huw

Burgon, Colin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burnham, Andy

Etherington, Bill

Byers, rh Stephen

Farrelly, Paul

Caborn, rh Richard

Fisher, Mark

Cairns, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Casale, Roger

Follett, Barbara

Caton, Martin

Foster, rh Derek

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Challen, Colin

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Chaytor, David

Gerrard, Neil

Clapham, Michael

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Gilroy, Linda

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Godsiff, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

653

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mclsaac, Shona

Grogan, John

McKechin, Ann

Hain, rh Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McNulty, Tony

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hanson, David

McWalter, Tony

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McWilliam, John

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Healey, John

Martlew, Eric

Hendrick, Mark

Meacher, rh Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Heppell, John

Merron, Gillian

Hesford, Stephen

Michael, rh Alun

Heyes, David

Miliband, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Miller, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mole, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Mountford, Kali

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Mudie, George

Munn, Ms Meg

Howells, Dr. Kim

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Hara, Edward

Humble, Mrs Joan

Olner, Bill

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

O'Neill, Martin

Hutton, rh John

Owen, Albert

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Perham, Linda

Illsley, Eric

Picking, Anne

Ingram, rh Adam

Pickthall, Colin

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Plaskitt, James

Jamieson, David

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Jenkins, Brian

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Pound, Stephen

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Purchase, Ken

Jowell, rh Tessa

Quin, rh Joyce

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quinn, Lawrie

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Khabra, Piara S.

Kidney, David

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Rooney, Terry

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Lammy, David

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Savidge, Malcolm

Leslie, Christopher

Sedgemore, Brian

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Shaw, Jonathan

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sheerman, Barry

Linton, Martin

Sheridan, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Short, rh Clare

Love, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McAvoy, Thomas

McCafferty, Chris

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCartney, rh Ian

Soley, Clive

McDonagh, Siobhain

Southworth, Helen

McDonnell, John

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

MacDougall, John

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

McFall, rh John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

654

Stinchcombe, Paul

Ward, Claire

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Wareing, Robert N.

Stringer, Graham

Watts, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Timms, Stephen

Wills, Michael

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Winnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Truswell, Paul

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Worthington, Tony

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wright, David (Telford)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Walley, Ms Joan

Joan Ryan and

Margaret Moran

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Question on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 162.

Division No. 214]

[10:14 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Alexander, Douglas

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Allen, Graham

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clelland, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coaker, Vernon

Austin, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bailey, Adrian

Cohen, Harry

Baird, Vera

Colman, Tony

Banks, Tony

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Barnes, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, rh Kevin

Corston, Jean

Beard, Nigel

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Begg, Miss Anne

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cummings, John

Benn, rh Hilary

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Bennett, Andrew

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Berry, Roger

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Best Harold

Davey Valerie (Bristol W)

Betts, Clive

David, Wayne

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Blizzard, Bob

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Boateng, rh Paul

Dawson, Hilton

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brennan, Kevin

Denham, rh John

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Dismore, Andrew

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Browne, Desmond

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Buck, Ms Karen

Drew, David (Stroud)

Burgon, Colin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Burnham, Andy

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Byers, rh Stephen

Edwards, Huw

Caborn, rh Richard

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Cairns, David

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Farrelly, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fisher, Mark

Casale, Roger

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Caton, Martin

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Follett, Barbara

Challen, Colin

Foster, rh Derek

Chaytor, David

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

655

Gerrard, Neil

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McDonnell, John

Gilroy, Linda

MacDougall, John

Goggins, Paul

McFall, rh John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mclsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McKechin, Ann

Grogan, John

McNamara, Kevin

Hain, rh Peter

McNulty, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McWalter, Tony

Hanson, David

McWilliam, John

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Martlew, Eric

Healey, John

Meacher, rh Michael

Hendrick, Mark

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hepburn, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Heppell, John

Michael, rh Alun

Hesford, Stephen

Miliband, David

Heyes, David

Miller, Andrew

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Moffatt, Laura

Hinchliffe, David

Mole, Chris

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Morley, Elliot

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mountford, Kali

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mudie, George

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Munn, Ms Meg

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Howells, Dr. Kim

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Owen, Albert

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Perham, Linda

Hutton, rh John

Picking, Anne

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Illsley, Eric

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Ingram, rh Adam

Plaskitt, James

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Jamieson, David

Pound, Stephen

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Quin, rh Joyce

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Khabra, Piara S.

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Kidney, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Rooney, Terry

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Lammy, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Sedgemore, Brian

Leslie, Christopher

Shaw, Jonathan

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Sheerman, Barry

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sheridan, Jim

Linton, Martin

Short, rh Clare

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Skinner, Dennis

Love, Andrew

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCafferty, Chris

Soley, Clive

McCartney, rh Ian

Southworth, Helen

656

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Walley, Ms Joan

Ward, Claire

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wareing, Robert N.

Stinchcombe, Paul

Watts, David

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Stringer, Graham

Wicks, Malcolm

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wills, Michael

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Winnick, David

Timms Stephen

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

Trickett, Jon

Worthington, Tony

Truswell, Paul

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wright, David (Telford)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Joan Ryan and

Margaret Moran

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Allan, Richard

Gidley, Sandra

Amess, David

Goodman, Paul

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Grayling, Chris

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Greenway, John

Bacon, Richard

Grieve, Dominic

Barker, Gregory

Gummer, rh John

Baron, John (Billericay)

Hammond, Philip

Barrett, John

Hancock, Mike

Beith, rh A. J.

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Bellingham, Henry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Harvey, Nick

Boswell, Tim

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Heald, Oliver

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Hendry, Charles

Brazier, Julian

Hermon, Lady

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hogg, rh Douglas

Bruce, Malcolm

Holmes, Paul

Burns, Simon

Horam, John (Orpington)

Burnside, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Burstow, Paul

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Butterfill, Sir John

Hunter, Andrew

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cameron, David

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Cash, William

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Chope, Christopher

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lamb, Norman

Collins, Tim

Lansley, Andrew

Cotter, Brian

Leigh, Edward

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Lidington, David

Doughty, Sue

Lilley, rh Peter

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Evans, Nigel

Loughton, Tim

Ewing, Annabelle

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Fabricant, Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Fallon, Michael

Mackay, rh Andrew

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Flight, Howard

Maples, John

Flook, Adrian

Mates, Michael

Forth, rh Eric

Maude, rh Francis

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Garnier, Edward

Mercer, Patrick

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

657

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Steen, Anthony

Stunell, Andrew

Moore, Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Moss, Malcolm

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Syms, Robert

Norman, Archie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Page, Richard

Teather, Sarah

Paice, James

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Paterson, Owen

Thurso, John

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Tredinnick, David

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Trend, Michael

Randall, John

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Redwood, rh John

Tyrie, Andrew

Rendel, David

Walter, Robert

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Waterson, Nigel

Roe, Dame Marion

Watkinson, Angela

Rosindell Andrew

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Whittingdale, John

Sanders, Adrian

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Selous, Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Shepherd, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Simmonds, Mark

Willetts, David

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Willis, Phil

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Soames, Nicholas

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Young, rh Sir George

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Spring, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Stanley, rh Sir John

Hugh Robertson and

Mr. Mark Francois

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that a strong and stable economy is the foundation of families' confidence in their own finances; notes that economic stability has delivered low and stable inflation, interest rates have been at their lowest since the 1950s, employment is at a record high and unemployment at its lowest since the 1970s; further notes that as a result households are better able to judge their long-term commitments as macroeconomic stability has reduced the risks to household finances of sudden and sharp rises in interest rates as seen in the past; believes that the Government has tackled the scandals it inherited and created a world leading system of financial regulation allowing people to save with confidence, simplifed savings markets allowing people to make informed choices about what and how to save and taken action to tackle financial exclusion; recognises that most household debt remains affordable and that total interest payments are now 7.6 per cent. of disposal income compared with 15 per cent. in 1990; believes the biggest risk to household finances and consumer confidence would be a return to economic instability; and rejects the short-term boom and bust economic policies of the past that saw interest rates hit 15 per cent. and inflation hit 10 per cent. in which circumstances households had to save more to make up for the loss of value of their savings due to inflation and prepare in the event of becoming unemployed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LANDLORD AND TENANT
  That the draft Rights of Re-entry and Forfeiture (Prescribed Sum and Period) (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Revocation) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. MembersNo.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 7 July, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003 (Deferred divisions)].
  Mr. Mark PriskOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the motion that was opposed will now be dealt with in a deferred Division? Should it be clearly put on the record that that has occurred only due to vigorous opposition by Conservative Members, while not a single word was heard from the Liberal Democrats?
  Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but a means of trying to continue the debate.
  Mr. Oliver HealdFurther to that point to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the tradition in this place that if a matter is of great importance to a party, its spokesman on aviation is here, but there is no Liberal Democrat; is not that unusual?
  Mr. Deputy SpeakerI think that the ruling that I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) also applies to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  CRIMINAL LAW
  That the draft Discharge of Fines by Unpaid Work (Prescribed Hourly Sum) Regulation 2004, which were laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET 2005
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 11th May 2004 relating to the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2005; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Finney Green Post Office
  10.29 pm
  Mr. George OsborneI wish to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Barbara Watson and more than 800 residents of Wilmslow and the surrounding area.
  The petition states:
  The Petitioners declare
  That they oppose plans made by Tesco to close the Finney Green post office in the Somerfields shopping centre at Dean row and that they are leading a campaign to keep the post office open.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign to keep Finney Green post office open by doing all in its power to bring about a review of Tesco's proposals.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Romford Post Offices
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew RosindellI rise on behalf of many constituents in Romford, especially members of the Roman Catholic parish of the church of St. Edward the Confessor, who are appalled by the recent closure, without notice, of the main post office in Romford town centre. Thousands of local people, especially elderly people who depend on the facilities, used the post office. They were shocked when, at the end of March, it suddenly closed without warning. The people of Romford are deeply concerned that, months later, there is no sign of a new post office.
  They are also deeply worried about the potential simultaneous loss of many local sub-post offices. Both issues are the subject of many petitions that have been presented to me. I, in turn, intend to present them to the House. The first is the petition of St. Edward's Catholic church and it contains 145 signatures.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The Petition of the congregation of St. Edward's Roman Catholic Church
  Declares that Romford's post offices are under threat of closure and that Romford's main post office has already been closed.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do all in its power to keep as many of the local post offices open in Romford as possible and to urge Post Office Ltd. to reopen Romford's main post office without delay.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Development Sciences Research Council
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
10.32 pm
Mr. Tony McWalterThe subject of the debate is the need for a development sciences research council. I shall speak rather quickly because I have a lot to get in.
I begin with a problem, which is somewhat indelicate to state. Human beings have a propensity to defecate in places that are clean and do not bear the signs and smells of others of their species. There are also advantages to performing that bodily function near a running stream. So far, so natural. A tribe of a few hundred souls, camped by a fast-flowing river, might suffer no great disadvantages from what one could describe as natural toilet arrangements. If their neighbours down-river are not too near, or if the river flows fast enough, they might suffer no ill effects. However, if the population increases and inordinate pressure is put on a community's natural infrastructure, there will come a time when the natural arrangements have terrible consequences.
For example, the tribe might need to access ground water. Water gets polluted and water tables can become not a source of life, but agents for blindness and early death. A society caught in transition, clinging to the old ways but under pressure from "progressives" to change, clinging to a set of customs and cleaning rituals that seem no longer effective, might find it difficult indeed to adjust its culture and ways to take account of new knowledge. That applies especially when the new knowledge is scientific in character and describes invisible organisms that have the propensity to threaten life itself.
When those who propound the new knowledge enjoin all the members of the tribe to defecate in the same place, when they then say that the products of the toilet must be collected together and either dried to make biofuel or treated to be spread on fields, and when they are asked to drink only water collected by evaporation on funnel-shaped plastic sheeting, strong cultural resistance is hardly surprising, yet that is the programme that Professor Silas Lwukumba at the Kigali institute of science and technology advocates. I should like much of his work at the institute to receive proper support.
There have been solutions to those problems. Sometimes, tribesmen of the kind that I have described have been commanded or compelled to adopt the ways of their conquerors, but we now live in times in which the abolition of a community's modus vivendi is rightly seen as neither the right nor the prerogative of those with a more scientifically advanced culture. Most of those involved in development issues have given up what might be called the push model. Unfortunately, the pendulum might have swung too far in favour of a pull culture, in which only a tribe that asks for something gets anything at all. In that new, liberal way of dealing with problems, many development workers now claim to work only on problems that the tribe itself specifies as a problem. That cannot be right either. Those who are familiar with western science are often good at knowing the vast variety of resources available to solve problems in the developing world. We acknowledge, of course, that many of those problems are themselves products of inappropriately applied western technology.

661
Scientists should not always wait for those in developing countries to specify their problems or to say which of their needs they want to be addressed. Sometimes, western scientists know that there is a problem even when, as with sanitation, the problem consists of certain invisible organisms. I shall give an example of this. I recently returned from Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world. In one area, there is a major problem with ground water, with the chromium level at 16 times the World Health Organisation recommended level, and fluorine at eight times that level. That is a potential problem, in terms of water purification, and a potential opportunity.
For all I know—I am pursuing the matter—a mining engineer might feel that the levels that I have mentioned might be worth an assay. If it turned out that there were local rocks with high levels of chromium, there might lurk in that water impurity a resource that could help that community to move from extreme poverty and starvation towards having an industry and a worthwhile source of income. People who ask those who know no science to decide how their problems should be solved might condemn them never to escape the sentence of extreme poverty and an early death.
We need neither a push model, in which solutions are imposed on people who might not be ready for them, nor a pull model, in which western societies and engineers might decide not to vouchsafe an analysis or a solution until it is asked for. We need a push and pull model—a co-operative model—in which both the community and a helping agency are given a sense of ownership both of the problem and of its solution. Those who recognise that a culture has ways that are conducive to its own immiseration or destruction should work with such groups to evolve new cultural forms that respect the old culture but moderate it so that changes can be introduced that work with the grain of that culture but are more protective of the health and life chances of the members of the tribe.
I am arguing that, in a development context, we need what we might call a push and pull model for intervention. Such a model would bring together experts from very different disciplines to work to push appropriate technologies on to communities at a pace and in a style that identified and worked with the belief systems of the beneficiaries of such new arrangements. In the case that I have mentioned in Rwanda, for example, a push and pull model for development would bring together engineering, philosophy, anthropology, language study and chemistry, among many other disciplines.
How well equipped is the UK to help with push and pull development models? I submit that our own capacity in this regard is weakening, and I shall make some suggestions here about how it might be strengthened. I submit that, in strengthening our own system, we would also be protecting and enhancing our own capacity to retain a healthy economy, although that is not my central concern in this debate. Why is the UK not well positioned to translate our scientific expertise into programmes that will assist the development of poor countries? I have time here to address only two of many weaknesses. First, science in the UK has a bad image. Secondly, our structures are ill equipped to
662
translate whatever scientific expertise we do have into projects that will benefit developing countries. My treatment of the bad image will lead to recommendations on our structures.
On that bad image, when the public hear "chemical" as a noun, they are more likely to associate it with "toxic" than with anything positive. Science has a poor profile with many citizens, and if people in the UK see in an article about pollution a picture of a man in a white coat standing beside a river, they are more likely to think of him as a cause of the problem than the person who has the power to solve it.
One key question that we need to address is to what extent scientists address the question of that bad image. In my view, they address it not well at all, yet if one visits a poor country one is struck forcefully by one key difference between such a country and ours: in our country, one is surrounded everywhere by science and the technology derived from it.
In the poor country, 80 per cent. of the population work on the land, but even with that huge effort they are barely able to feed themselves. A store half-full of maize in November will result in death by famine in February. I have seen such stores. Meanwhile, in our country only 3 per cent. of the population need work on the land. With chemical inputs, agricultural knowledge and high-tech machines, they produce enough to feed the rest of us. That leaves the remaining 97 per cent. of the work force to produce a huge range of goods and services for the betterment of quality of life for the population not just of this country, but of countries far beyond its borders.
It seems absurd on the face of it that science and technology should be held in low regard by the hundreds of millions of people who gain so much from them, but in many western countries they are rated so low as to be constantly vilified. Part of the negative picture of science is derived from what it has done to threaten the quality of life rather than improve it. Whether it is the nuclear bomb or the gases in the chambers of the holocaust, most people can think of an example of scientific knowledge turned to terrible, evil account. Whether it is a dam that floods a valley and destroys the livelihood of thousands, pesticides on fruit, experiments on animals or the premature release of genetically modified crops to the environment, most people can cite an example of a scientific technology that discomforts or alarms them.
Those examples stack up to a negative image. The result is that a large majority of young people switch off science—they have no ambition to do it—to the point that our capacity to develop new scientific ideas and technologies is eroded.
My suggestion for what might switch young people back on to science is as follows. Young people are often idealistic and, if they can, they want to help in particular those in the world who face premature death or avoidable painful diseases. Most young people do not consider science as having a positive connection with those goals, yet manifestly it has.
A high capacity to do science or engineering in the UK not only brings the potential security of our being able to make and pay our way in the world in a century that will undoubtedly be characterised by new discoveries, but ensures that we have the capacity to

663
help other countries, including some of the poorest in the world, to build their capacity to address the terrible problems that so many of them face.
One suggestion that I have is, in essence, simple: teach youngsters science and technology in the context of how the ideas, techniques, mechanisms and material studies can help radically to improve the quality of life in the poorest parts of the world. We should be making in education explicit connections between science, technology and development, but it is hard to make those connections at present. One major obstacle is the structure of our research councils. I want to suggest how that structure should be changed.
I shall focus the rest of this speech on engineering, because that is an area where, increasingly, our capacity in the UK is being compromised and because engineers have done very little to make any explicit connection between their subject and development issues. Engineering has a research council—the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—but does it take much interest in development issues? No. Could it take much interest in such issues? Only with difficulty. After all, the job of the research councils is to push back the frontiers of knowledge, and in that cause they allocate grants for research on problems that are at the cutting edge.
An academic in an engineering faculty in a university will develop an interest in development issues at his peril, for the current wisdom is that those who do engineering in developing countries are not so much pushing back the frontiers of knowledge as applying what is known already in a new situation. Applied research is regarded as of lower grade in the university's research assessment exercise—RAE—on the understandable grounds that while many people can apply a known technology to a new situation, it is a rarer gift to be able to develop a new technology in its entirety. The research council, the EPSRC, funds the latter type of projects and not the former.
The matter does not end there. If a university department gets a low RAE score, it gets less money, and its continued activity, even its continued existence, is threatened. Its existence is especially threatened when in addition to a low RAE score, it finds it difficult to attract students, and engineering courses generally do so, not least because, in addition to engineering's image, which I mentioned, it is perceived as needing high mathematical skills, and students notoriously avoid such subjects. Engineering is expensive, because it needs equipment that costs a good deal of money, and often needs considerable space to be housed. If an engineering department did dedicate itself to working on the problems of developing countries, it would also need to conduct its operations both in the UK and in those countries. Once again, those operations would be expensive to the point that it would be difficult to generate the resources to ensure continuing funding.
I can summarise those factors as follows. A university engineering department—I speak with some passion, as my university's civil engineering department has just closed—which decided it wanted to use its expertise especially to address the problems in developing countries would be financially unviable. It would fail to attract EPSRC money, a high RAE score, a sufficient number of students, the space needed for its operations,
664
or the necessary funding for travel. In short, such a decision would be suicidal. The wonder is that a few departments still try valiantly to do their best.
The result of these considerations is that engineering departments in universities are rational if they fight shy of being seen as a resource for capacity-building in developing countries. The effect of that, basically, is to connect them to rich countries, which in turn consolidates the perception of engineering as unresponsive to the greatest of human needs—those of the poorest in our globe.
Of course, the engineering profession lacks a voice that might proclaim that the subject does contain idealists who want to use their skills to make the world a better place for the poorest as well as the richest of their fellow human beings. To start with, engineers divide themselves into myriad respective constituencies, so that civil engineers do not talk in the same breath as electronic engineers. The body that one might expect would speak for all engineers, the Royal Academy of Engineering, seems to be dumb on most of these issues. Recently, it has even declined to give evidence to the Science and Technology Committee about development issues on the basis that it "lacks the expertise".
The Royal Academy of Engineering was not always dumb. Its chairman, Alec Broers, said to me today:
"Throughout the 1990s, on behalf of the British Government, we ran the UK secretariat for the UN's International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction"—
supported by the Royal Society—
"which ceased at the end of the decade once the funding from DFID had dried up. In its prime this was a very substantial activity."
DFID has much to answer for. There have been major vacillations in DFID about whether it wanted an infrastructure programme, and it has recently incorporated its engineering division into a policy area that now does not explicitly mention engineering at all. That is not surprising, as, increasingly, its main functions seem to be economic rather than technological.
Why should all this matter? What has been done? And what can be done? It matters because it is a matter of life and death. Only if money is translated into scientific and engineering skills in a push-and-pull model will the welcome, improved financial commitments made by this Government serve to improve life chances. Real material changes in infrastructure benefit the poor—let us consider my Rwandan example—and those changes are not easily translated into a Swiss bank account.
What has been done? It would appear that if anything there has been retrogression rather than progression, despite DIFD's increasing budgets. That is because it lacks a scientific culture. It cannot even decide to have a chief scientist. Its policy echoes that of Churchill, who wanted his scientists on tap but not on top. I want them nearer the top than DIFD's economists would like.
What we must do is ensure that if we can put development sciences on the same level as other studies to try and avoid the problems that come from having research councils that are specialised rather than at least one being explicitly interdepartmental—and there is no more interdepartmental subject than the future of the globe itself—we can give our system an incentive to put people into this area of work. That would mean that

665
excellent work in development sciences of any sort would receive the five-star rating that is so essential to continuing departmental funding in our universities. It would also rescue development studies from the clutches of departments of economics. I am not saying that economists do not do valuable work, but the emphasis in DIFD should shift. Scientists should not be constantly consigned to membership rather than leadership of a team.
If my Rwandan sanitation problems were taken seriously, that would bring together experts from every one of the existing research councils—except, perhaps, the particle physics one. What if a team were able to solve such a problem in a way that was eventually adopted so that it became standard, widespread practice in Rwanda? Does anyone seriously think that it would not be a first-rate problem, whose solution would require great intelligence and ingenuity of just the sort that distinguishes the most exceptional achievements in other sciences?
I do not argue for a development sciences research council as a sop, so that those who work in the area might be compared with those who work in particle physics. I make my case because the problems are just as demanding as the problems of particle physics, and those who apply themselves to such problems should achieve appropriate recognition. Co-ordination of knowledge from a number of different areas in the interests and service of mankind is itself a first-rate intellectual challenge.
Those who say in derogatory fashion that in development work we apply known knowledge to a new area are quite wrong. Whenever we bring a body of knowledge to bear on new problems, we are likely to find that the knowledge with which we started is radically deficient, and needs amendment and rethinking. That is just what the best research so often produces. The award of moneys for such a purpose by a development sciences research council would be a powerfully effective use of resources; and, at last, the full range of ethical concerns of scientists and engineers would be manifest.
10.53 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the debate. I listened with interest to his example about the provision of toilets in the developing world. Let me begin by drawing his attention to the work of Phoenix Developments, a company based at the University of East London's docklands campus in my constituency. It is dedicated to the development of a low-water-consumption toilet, specifically because the engineer who leads the company wants to contribute to well-being in the developing world and to achieving the millennium development goals, with the same passion that my hon. Friend showed in his advocacy of the engineering profession.
My hon. Friend made an effective case for the creation of a development sciences research council. I know there is a lively debate about the subject between different members of the Science and Technology Committee, and I look forward to seeing its conclusions in due course.
666
Let me begin by referring to a couple of speeches made recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—who I am delighted to see is present—reflecting the importance that he attaches to the subject. I was present last week when my right hon. Friend spoke at the annual dinner of the Institution of Civil Engineers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said that engineers have done very little to make an explicit connection between their subject and development issues. However, my right hon. Friend made a very clear connection in his speech between international development and engineering. Indeed, his speech was very well received by the ICE, and I certainly came away from that event with the strong impression that, in fact, there is a very deep commitment on the part of engineers that their skills be used in addressing the problems of poverty in the developing world. We took a collection at that event for a charity called "Engineers Against Poverty", which, if I understood correctly what was said that evening, my right hon. Friend's Department supports. That reflects the aspiration that my hon. Friend has been calling for.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also spoke recently to the Foundation for Science and Technology. He echoed my hon. Friend's view that science and technology can indeed be critical to achieving long-term and sustainable development, and I know that he is looking forward to giving evidence this week to the Science and Technology Committee. I, too, would like to acknowledge the importance of the Committee's current work in looking into science and technology's role in international development policy.
In his speech, my right hon. Friend pointed out that his Department has a very clear mission–to help reduce world poverty—and that everything that his Department does has to be judged against that yardstick. He pointed to examples of science playing an extremely important role when he spoke about:
"Every day, 16,000 people contract HIV/AIDS, and a further 8,000 will die from it. Women are increasingly the most affected, and … science can help. The UK is a world leader in microbicides. Imperial College and the Medical Research Council are developing vaginal microbicides in the form of a cream, or gel, that reduce the chance of HIV/AIDS infection. DFID is putting £17 million into large-scale effectiveness trials of possible microbicides. With only moderate uptake, they could prevent 2.5 million deaths every three years".
In a changing world—climate change, conflict, population growth, killer diseases and the challenge of pulling Africa out of poverty—science and technology need to produce solutions for developing countries. Malaria kills 3,000 people a day. We do not yet have adequate, high yielding drought-resistant crops appropriate for the diverse and rapidly changing ecosystems of Africa. So it is right that increased attention be paid, not just in the UK but internationally, to how science and technology can contribute to international development.
Kofi Annan has commissioned 10 taskforces to review progress on the millennium development goals, one of which is concerned with science and innovation. The inter-academy council of sciences has just undertaken a study to develop a strategy for building worldwide capacities in science and technology. The New Partnership for Africa's Development, an African-led initiative, will discuss the role of science from an African perspective. Sir David King, the Government's

667
chief scientific adviser, made a presentation today at the Africa Commission's London School of Economics brainstorming event on capacity-building in science and technology. So this is a truly international effort, and the UK is very strongly represented.
Is a UK development sciences research council the best way to equip the UK in helping developing countries to evolve the new technology that will prove of lasting value? DFID is certainly looking into ways of developing a more coherent approach to the funding of development research. That is particularly important in the context of the two White Papers on international development that have been published since 1997, both of which highlight the importance of science and technology. On the one hand, a dedicated council would give development research a high profile and increase opportunities for a multidisciplinary approach. On the other, such a council might discourage existing research councils from working on development, as the Medical Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council extensively do, for example.
It is not always easy to separate development issues, and it is better to consider the relevance to development of all research. My hon. Friend's suggestion is a valuable idea and one that will repay careful reflection on the part of the Government. I assure my hon. Friend that it will receive that.
I wish to respond to some of the specific points that my hon. Friend made about the research assessment exercise, and I note his concerns. He may know that the most recent UK research assessment exercise was carried out by the four UK higher education funding bodies and was completed in 2001. The purpose of the exercise was to provide authoritative and comprehensive quality ratings for research in all disciplines. The funding bodies recognised—as my hon. Friend pointed out—that the research assessment exercise does not deal well with interdisciplinary
668
research. In preparing for the next exercise, the funding bodies have been consulting and exploring ways to improve performance.
It was announced in February 2004 that the next exercise, planned for 2008, will use quality profiles to provide a fuller and fairer assessment of research carried out in universities and colleges in the UK. The funding bodies believe that that new approach, which has been fully supported in the consultation, will provide a fairer and more accurate way of assessing and funding research quality.
To respond to my hon. Friend's point about education, my right hon. Friend's Department recognises that raising awareness of development issues among people in the UK is extremely important. My right hon. Friend is especially keen to reach out to young people. His Department allocates £6.5 million a year to development awareness, and part of that money has financed the production of a book for key stage 3 and 4 pupils. It has been very popular. DFID also funds a booklet on developing a global dimension in the English school curriculum, which is also very popular. It is published jointly with others and sent to every teacher in every subject at every stage in the school education system. His Department is about to publish a similar booklet for Scotland and is in discussion with the Welsh Assembly.
My right hon. Friend's Department, together with the Office of Science and Technology, is currently consulting on support for the Kigali research institute, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The Department has recently introduced a post of head of profession—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Lord Leitch
Alexander Park Leitch, Esquire, having been created Baron Leitch, of Oakley in Fife, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Levy and the Baroness Goudie.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Delyth Jane Morgan, having been created Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, of Drefelin in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Gale and the Lord Turnberg.

National Parks
2.48 p.m.
Lord JuddMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that government departments are committed to the preservation and enhancement of national parks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)My Lords, the Government remain completely committed to the purposes of the national parks.
However, the duty on government departments and others to take account of the purposes of national parks needs to be clear. Therefore, my officials will be consulting those who are required to take into account the purposes and a list of the bodies affected, with guidance, will then be publicised.
Lord JuddMy Lords, I hope that my noble friend will accept warmest congratulations on the designation of the New Forest National Park. But how will the Government ensure that that park, with its small boundaries, and those parts of the New Forest Heritage Area not within it are able to fulfil their purposes amidst the huge development pressures of the south-east?
Would my noble friend agree that the pressures and stresses of modern life have made the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty more indispensable than ever for the psychological and physical regeneration of the nation and that their invaluable statutory
508
purposes—if they are to be fulfilled—demand the unremitting and uncompromising commitment of all government departments and ministries?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, in this, the first National Parks Week, I undoubtedly endorse pretty well all that my noble friend has said. Certainly, the creation of the New Forest National Park is a major step towards protecting the unique landscape and land management in that area, which would otherwise be—and has been—threatened by some development pressures. In that national park and others, we need to take account of the original purposes of the national parks, which are to provide protection and conservation of the landscape as well as an outlet away from the stress of development and other stresses of modern life. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend on that as well.
Lord BridgesMy Lords, is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that there appear to be considerable differences of opinion within the Government on this question? Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I, too, am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and am painfully aware of the situation. Does the Minister remember that when we debated the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill towards the end of last year, I asked whether the Government would confirm that the Sandford principle still applied? That sets out in statute that should there be a difference between the environmental considerations and the social and economic considerations, the environmental considerations would always win or be given prominence. The Minister and his colleagues very helpfully confirmed that that was the case. However, since then, a senior Minister in Defra has issued a press release on the national parks, written on the official notepaper of his department, with a headline one inch high, saying, "Conservation is not enough". Both these things cannot be true.
Does the Minister agree that it is highly desirable that, should the Government decide to change the Sandford principle or the Act setting up the national parks and AONBs, they should come before Parliament to do so, rather than seeking to nudge the policies in the direction some Ministers require by nods and winks and sharp elbows? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to satisfy me on that.
The noble Lord will be aware of the dangers—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have to refute the accusation made in the latter stages of the noble Lord's remarks. Yes, it is true that the Sandford principles still apply and that conservation is the prime purpose, therefore, of national parks. It is also true—and it can be logically reconciled—that conservation of itself is not enough. Conservation requires a degree of economic activity to be clear in relation to the parks, and the enjoyment of conservation requires a degree of access. It is only when issues are in direct conflict that

509
the Sandford principles apply. It is therefore important that all these aspects of activity within the national parks are taken into account.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. Does the Minister agree that the issue for many national parks is that those who have for generations lived and worked in them find that their children can no longer do so because of the lack of affordable housing? Will he encourage other national parks to look at Exmoor's example, where only housing for local people will be permitted as new build?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, the national parks and the planning authorities have to take account of such aspects in their approach to planning proposals which relate to housing in national parks. It may well be that Exmoor has shown a good example in this respect. This underlines what I was saying—people need to work in national parks and to be able to access their work there if the principles of conservation, preservation and enhancement of the landscape are to be achieved, and that requires a degree of economic activity.
Lord Eden of WintonMy Lords, with regard to the New Forest proposals, is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Court of Verderers will continue to operate, as now, and that those who have grazing rights will continue to have them?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, there are obviously changes in the administration of the national park, but those arrangements will be maintained.
Lord Campbell-SavoursMy Lords, my question will be brief. Will my noble friend block any attempts by any national park authority to charge for vehicular entry?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, my answer needs to be equally brief. I am aware of no such immediate proposition, but it may be part of the way in which a national park authority conducts its business to ensure that there is not over-congestion and that access for the many continues to be achieved by some restriction on excessive access for the few. Therefore, I would not like to rule out all such possibilities.
Baroness NicolMy Lords, I hardly dare admit it, but I, too, am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. Can my noble friend offer any assurance that during the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review, the many benefits that the national parks offer will be recognised and will be adequately resourced?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I think that your Lordships will recognise that, much as I might desire to do so, I have no authority to anticipate any aspect of the forthcoming spending review.
Lord Dixon-SmithMy Lords, recent draft planning guidance includes the following sentence:
"Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should not create 'buffer zones' around international or nationally designated areas and apply policies to these zones that prevent the development of renewable energy projects".
That appears to suggest that the Government might be sanguine about what I would call a ring fence of wind farms around the periphery of national parks. Would the Minister care to comment?
Lord WhittyMy Lords, the sentence to which the noble Lord refers, covers a wider range of matters than wind farms, although I know that he and many of his colleagues are obsessed with proposals for wind farms. Clearly, however, wind farms or other large projects close to national parks would have to take into account the objectives of national parks, but that would not mean that every development within X yards to miles of a national park would automatically be covered by the same restrictions as apply within the national park.

Age Discrimination
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Greengrossasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the draft regulations on age discrimination in employment and vocational training following the Equality and Diversity: Age Matters consultation paper, published in July 2003.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the Government are currently reviewing the timetable for future consultation on the legislation outlawing discrimination on the grounds of age in employment and vocational training. We are doing so in light of our clear commitment to give those with rights and responsibilities as much time as possible to prepare for the new legislation coming into force. We remain on course for the legislation coming into force on 1 October 2006. We shall announce the new timetable as soon as possible.
Baroness GreengrossMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. We all wait with bated breath for the Government's view; the sooner we hear that, the better. However, I urge the noble Lord to be brave and opt for no mandatory retirement age, even though I fully understand the difficulties many employers face, or will face.
Does the noble Lord agree with this week's Economist that "culling by age" is a reflection of "lazy management", and that we will have to tackle this difficult issue sooner or later? Is he aware of how important it is to get across to the media, as well as employers and employees, the fact that retirement age is not the same as pension age?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the noble Baroness is a powerful advocate in this cause. She will

511
recognise that the Government are also concerned to emphasise that there is no relationship between retirement age and when the state pension is paid.
On the broader issue, the noble Baroness, who has many friends in government, will also know that there is much to be debated in the country as a whole. The long-term issues are quite clear, but she will appreciate that the short-term costs are frequently borne by business. That is why we need to engage in full consultation on these issues.
Lord Brooke of Sutton MandevilleMy Lords, why are the Government proposing to express this matter not in the form of primary legislation, which can be amended, but in regulations, which cannot, given the scale and latitude of discretion which the directive affords us in this country?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, we are intending to conduct the fullest possible consultation on the nature of the legislation, bearing in mind the important point that we need to get the legislation right. That is why we have been engaged in consultation during the past year on the Age Matters framework. We shall of course not be introducing any legislation until October 2006. By that time, we expect to get the legislation right.
Lord PestonMy Lords, is the Minister aware that your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee studied this subject at enormous length and published a major report on it? Perhaps he is not aware of it because it has been six months since the report appeared and we have not yet found a minute in which to debate it. None the less, in that report, we showed the enormous scale of ageism and age discrimination in employment in this country. We showed in particular that among the worst offenders was the public sector itself. We do not need legislation for the public sector to put its house in order and stop discriminating against the employment, the education and the training of older people."Older" these days seems to mean over 40, which, in this House, would mean that we would all be finished long ago.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, my noble friend is another powerful voice in the cause as is the committee which he chairs. He will recognise that while our consultation is going on—the public bodies too are playing their part in it—we will be bearing in mind how the argument is developing. I assure him that we are on course to meet our requirements under the directive. Lest noble Lords think that the Government look unduly tardy on this issue, I emphasise how difficult the issues are and that, as my noble friend knows, all other countries in the European Union, with very few exceptions, are very wary about the decisions that they intend to take, because they are of profound significance to our societies.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a perception that while the DTI may be, in his words, "unduly tardy", the DWP is not? Older people
512
who are seeking to extend their working life may ultimately find themselves caught between the two. Does the Minister agree that there is a greater need to change the attitudes of employers than those of older people who want to work?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, on complex and difficult issues such as this, it is not entirely surprising that different government departments start out from different positions and those need to be reconciled in government policy and future legislation. The noble Baroness is quite right. In my original Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I was seeking to emphasise that there are key issues with regard to the attitudes of employers in this country to age discrimination and that it is not an easy issue for us to resolve. Nevertheless, we recognise the developing strength of opinion that ageism, like any other form of arbitrary discrimination, is not acceptable in our society.
Baroness Miller of HendonMy Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that a major problem for older workers who seek new employment is the existence of company pension schemes which mitigate against late entry? Would the regulations prohibit the treating of such pensions as a valid reason for not employing older workers?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, that is a very important dimension. That is why the Government have been concerned to increase the flexibility of pensions. We all recognise that it is a severe barrier to people changing jobs if enormous costs are to be borne in terms of their pension entitlements. That is one of the many factors which make this issue very difficult for us to resolve and why it is important that we should get the matter right.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords—
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)My Lords, we are on 15 minutes.

Draft European Constitution
3.4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnertonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commission a revised version of the draft European constitution in plain English.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is currently in the process of producing a short and clear

513
guide to the Constitutional Treaty, setting out its main points in plain English, as promised by the Prime Minister on 4 May.
Lord Thomas of SwynnertonMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Speaking as a "human person", as defined in the preamble to the treaty, does she realise how this badly written, badly translated, often vacuous and repetitious document damages the European cause? Would it not be wise to have not just a guide, but a completely rewritten document in plain English, to serve as a kind of unofficial, but authorised, substitute?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I am not sure what kind of person one might be other than a human person, but answering as a human person, I think that that there has been a great deal of misinformation about what the treaty says, particularly in some sections of the media. It is important that the British public is provided with the facts. A plain-speaking guide will enable an informed decision on what the treaty really means. There is, however, a process still to be followed. In a week's time, representatives of each member state will run through the treaty with the juris linguis. All amendments will then be agreed by consensus, so we will not receive a final text, agreed by all 25 countries, until about the end of October, but we would hope to publish something by the end of the year.
Lord Howell of GuildfordMy Lords, I am sure that the Minister is right in saying that there is a good deal of room for misinformation on the whole of the project. However, will she clarify one matter? Do the Government regard the document on offer as a proper written constitution, in which every word in the text therefore has legal validity and is justiciable in the European Court of Justice, or do they regard it as just another broad set of aspirations? If the former, is it not difficult to see how it can be shortened or how a guide can be developed which does not end up being misleading and undermining the guidance of the view taken by the courts, which will be very strictly according to the precise text and what is in it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I can well understand the noble Lord's point. One has to be enormously careful about any document that is a guide to a treaty, particularly when treaty language is so important. That is why I stressed my point about the juris linguis to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. We need to see the documents that are produced together—the final version as it has been agreed across the 25 languages—and the guide at the same time. However, I assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is sensitive to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, has raised and that Ministers will be careful in the language used.
Lord TomlinsonMy Lords, when the Foreign Office has finished producing a summary in simple English,
514
will it turn its attention to producing an annotated version of the treaty so that we can see quite clearly how many of the clauses in the new treaty are completely unchanged from existing texts? We could therefore determine where the original liability for those words actually lay.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanYes, my Lords, we shall certainly be doing that. The Foreign Office is going to publish a wide range of material to accompany the Constitutional Treaty in addition to the lay person's guide, including—my noble friend will he pleased to hear it—a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the existing treaties and the new Constitutional Treaty. I look forward to that very much.
Lord Maclennan of RogartMy Lords, while the lapidary clarity of the United States may not have given legal certainty, will the Minister agree that those scholars who have gone beyond the age of reading Janet and John might find the draft constitution quite a good read? It will be further embellished by the simplicity of the Government's guide, which will be strongly welcomed. It would be highly desirable if it were delivered to the households of all those who will have ultimately to make up their minds whether to accept the extravagancies of much of our British press.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, it is certainly an informative read. It will be even more informative when the British people are able to look at what is in the Constitutional Treaty and compare it to the four preceding treaties. There is an incredible amount of nonsense around claiming that the treaty is breaking new ground in all sorts of areas where it is in fact reiterating ground that has been well covered in the past. Of course no one would deny that there are some new areas, but much of what we have heard is pure sensationalism.
Lord Pearson of RannochMy Lords, is the Minister suggesting that the British people are aware of what is in the present treaty, up to and including the Treaty of Nice? If so, how did they become aware of it when there has been no national debate about the present situation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, many people on reading our national newspapers will think that the treaty is breaking new ground in all sorts of areas when, as the noble Lord himself has said many times in this House, some of the issues complained about in the press have been part and parcel of the current European Union since the signing of the accession treaty. We have been over this ground before. The noble Lord has been frank in his view that he believes that what is wrong with the European Union goes back to the treaty of accession through the Single European Act, Maastricht and everything else. We need to understand where all those issues begin.
Lord Phillips of SudburyMy Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the text of the lay

515
version to which she referred is not contentious and therefore it is widely accepted as being a fair reflection of the constitution? Will she therefore consult the other parties and interests to that end and, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan requested, distribute a copy to every house in the land?
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I fear that it will be impossible to write a document on the European Union that is not contentious somewhere. We all know, even discussing issues in the most neutral terms in your Lordships' House where there could be no fairer jury, that there will be contention in whatever is said.
This will not be part of the referendum exercise, which of course will come under the aegis of the Electoral Commission. Whether it will be delivered to every house is exactly the sort of issue on which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is currently consulting Ministers and elsewhere. I shall certainly convey to him the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as reported, they propose to abolish the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)My Lords, the Secretary of State for Health's Statement of 20 May 2004 made it clear that one of the parameters for the review of Department of Health arm's-length bodies was a 50 per cent reduction in the number of those bodies. A report on the review will be published later this month, which may affect the position of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. However, the Government are committed to the long-term future of patients' forums.
Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall that on 18 May, less than seven weeks ago, he said,
"My Lords, we are satisfied generally with the progress made"?
In reply to a supplementary question that I asked—it was not my Question—he explained at col. 641 that the commission was responsible for putting in place the system. He went on to say,
"We need to give the system time to run at local level to ensure that it is the success that we all want".—[Official Report, 18/5/04; cols. 640–41.]
How can he account for the great change of heart in such a short time when he appeared to be so satisfied? It is now said that in spite of the spend of £23 million and the 150 staff employed by the commission it may be abolished.
Lord WarnerMy Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness will have to wait patiently until later in July to see the way in which we immaculately reconcile the views I expressed earlier with the Government's future policy.
Baroness PitkeathleyMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government's record on patient and public involvement and the encouragement thereof is second to none; and that proof is given by the establishment of a senior post within the Department of Health to ensure that the voice of the patient is strong throughout policy development?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, my noble friend is right. Patients' forums are the cornerstone of the arrangements we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services. We are completely committed to those forums and ensuring that we capitalise on the momentum that they have begun to generate in influencing the delivery of health services locally.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, while the Minister pronounced the Government generally satisfied on the development of forums, is he aware that the chair of the London Ambulance Service forum said recently that forums have virtually no capacity to scrutinise the NHS because they have no resources, no facilities and no infrastructure? In view of that, can he defend the increased amount of money spent on the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health compared to the one that was effectively run by community health councils?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, the noble Baroness will have to await the review's report on arm's-length bodies later in the month. We know that some people have expressed concerns about particular forums.
Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, will the Government tell the House what is the current take-up of places on patients' forums?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, about 5,000 people have been appointed to patients' forums.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour: T
Lord WarnerMy Lords, as I understand it, all forums have met their minimum legislative requirements in terms of members, which from memory is seven, but I shall check that figure and write to the noble Baroness.
Earl HoweMy Lords, whatever the Government's decision on the commission's future, will the Minister confirm that its main functions of supplying staff to patients' forums and performance managing them to

517
national quality standards are of central importance if there is to be proper scrutiny of the health service by patients?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, we certainly accept that the commission's main functions are to support, fund and advise patients' forums and it is critical to their success that those functions continue to be discharged properly in the future.
Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the work currently being carried out is as good as when the community health councils were running things?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, the noble Baroness is ingenious at trying to get more out of me than I am prepared to say. She will have to wait patiently until later this month.
Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, if the Government are to close those helpful forums for patients to put their point of view into the machine, what will take their place?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, the noble Baroness must have misheard me. I said that the Government were committed to patients' forums continuing into the future. We were discussing in the Question the position of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill
3.18 p.m.
Lord GrocottMy Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 52,

Schedule 1,
Clause 53,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 54 to 62.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

University of Wales, Cardiff Bill [H.L.]
Lord GrocottMy Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the University of Wales, Cardiff Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with, read a third time, and passed.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"REASONABLE CHASTISEMENT

Battery of a child cannot be justified in any proceedings on the grounds that it constituted lawful punishment.

(2) Battery of a child is not unlawful if the act amounts to the use of reasonable force in order to—

avert an immediate danger to the child or any other person;

(b) avert an immediate danger to property; or

(c) prevent the commission of a crime, or an act which would be a crime if the child had reached the age of criminal responsibility.

(3) For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2) above "child" means a person under the age of 18.

(4) Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (cruelty to persons under sixteen) is amended as follows.

(5) In subsection (7) at end insert "subject to subsection (8) below".

(6) After subsection (7) insert—

"(8) Corporal punishment administered to a child cannot be justified in any proceedings on the ground that it was administered in pursuance of a right exercisable by virtue of subsection (7) above.

(9) For the purpose of subsection (8) above, administering corporal punishment to a child means doing anything for the purpose of punishing that child which would constitute unlawful battery."

(7) This section extends to England and Wales only."

The noble Baroness saidMy Lords, the aim of the amendment is to give children the same protection from assault as adults currently enjoy, and yet allow parents to take actions needed to protect their child and others from danger. The issues behind this amendment go to the very heart of our own personal experiences as parents and children. Let me make it clear from the outset: I am not against disciplining

519
children. I am known to be strict and have firm boundaries. I greatly appreciate the time that the Minister has spent with me and others, discussing this issue in depth.
We have legislated for equality of opportunity and against discrimination in our society. We protect in law all our citizens from battery—but not our children. We have failed to give children equal protection in law from assault. Today noble Lords are being asked to consider whether assaulting children is right, or whether the time has come to listen to the evidence from those countries that have taken steps to respect their children and acknowledge their human rights.
We insist on zero tolerance of domestic violence once someone is 18, but for those under one year old, our society accepts that more than half will be hit at least weekly by their parents—14 per cent with moderate severity—and for what? They are hit for being hungry, or for needing a nappy change or a cuddle. By the time children are four, the Department for Health's own data reveals 38 per cent are hit more than once a week, often moderately severely and behind closed doors in the privacy of the family home. They often do not know what they did to deserve the hit; they are being taught that the way to get someone to do what they want is to hit him. The Government's Social Exclusion Unit found that eight out of 10 child runaways cite family violence as the cause. As one child runaway said, "I was sick of my dad and his girlfriend hitting me".
Twelve days' ago, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe noted that the European Court of Human Rights has found in successive judgments that corporal punishment violates children's rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Those decisions applied most recently within the family home; moreover, both the European Commissioner for Human Rights and the Court have emphasised that banning all corporal punishment does not breach the right to private or family life or religious freedom. The Association of Chief Police Officers, whose chairman has mailed me today to wish us good luck, and the Association of Directors of Social Services, have both issued statements in support of our amendments and have stated that they want to be directly involved in drawing up guidelines for handling reports against parents.
Amendment No. 106 is absolutist. It gives a clear message, in line with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which considers that,
"any corporal punishment of children is in breach of their fundamental right to human dignity and physical integrity. The fact that such corporal punishment is still lawful in certain member states violates their equally fundamental right to the same legal protection as adults. Striking a human being is prohibited in European society, and children are human beings. The social and legal acceptance of corporal punishment of children must be ended".
Children tell us how much smacking hurts them. It hurts them, not only physically but inside. They tell us that they think that very young children should never be hit and that it teaches a child a way in which to get
520
control over someone else's behaviour—so it is hardly surprising that they are the children that go on to hit others.
In Committee it was said that the kind of punishment that results in injury is clearly not reasonable chastisement and, as such, is already against the law. Sadly, however, there are cases to prove that point wrong. The very existence of the defence sends a clear message that hitting children is acceptable and lawful. Very few cases reach court because of the existence of the defence; the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social workers, paediatricians and so on, know of the defence and so do not press cases. That means that many assaults remain hidden from the public documenting procedures. In fact, prevalence research reveals a huge problem of violence against children and the family.
The Government are increasingly forceful in ensuring that violence in other forms is cracked down on, yet appear to condone, by resisting equal protection, the silent epidemic—that 700,000 under-one year-olds are hit in the privacy of their home before language and reasoning develop. Well over 4 million children in England and Wales experience being hit more than once a week in the name of discipline, year on year. Although one adult parent cannot hit the other parent, 97 per cent of these parents can continue to hit their child, aged one to four years.
Amendment No. 106 would not create a new offence but would mean that any assault that would be classed as criminal assault if aimed at an adult would become a criminal assault if aimed at a child. That is what equal protection means—it is not new. Since Committee stage, the Association of Directors of Social Services has reaffirmed its strong support for equal protection. It has taken a policy decision to support this position, not because it has any interest in parents being prosecuted for trivial matters but because it believes that children should be afforded the same protection of the law as other citizens.
The association feels that the new clause would not lower the thresholds for assessing the risks of significant harm, but would go a long way towards removing existing legal ambiguities concerning the protection of children and the rights of parents and carers to inflict violence on children. Such assessment focuses on the needs of the child, predicated on the principle enshrined in the Children Act 1989 that, wherever possible, those needs are best served within the child's own family. They, like the vast majority of your Lordships, believe that children can and should be firmly disciplined and be subject to clear, consistent parental controls, but that can be achieved without inflicting violence on children.
I have carefully read the evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as I fear that he has been widely and selectively misquoted. Just as most minor assaults against adults are not prosecuted, he suspected that most minor assaults would not be either. Such prosecutions would be very rare. But of course he emphasised that the far greater vulnerability of

521
children meant that he could not guarantee that it would never be in the public interest to prosecute in such cases, citing examples of particularly vulnerable children, such as a mentally handicapped child. The best interests of the child victim are invariably considered as part of the public interest test.
I encourage the minority who spoke in Committee on the perceived benefits of smacking to review all the research in the area. Overall, long-term outcomes of physical punishment in childhood show increased aggression and violent behaviour as a child and when adult; less capacity for empathy; less internalisation of moral aspects of discipline; increased probability of anti-social and criminal behaviour in adulthood, including spousal and/or child abuse; and evidence of compromised mental health.
Let us be clear, however. We do not expect to see research into the harmful effects of slapping women or mistreating elderly people in care homes. We assert their human right to the full protection of the law. We do not have to prove that smacking children is harmful to justify extending to them the protection that all other larger people take for granted. They share with us an equal human right to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.
Research overwhelmingly supports equal protection. But let us not be diverted into the arguments that distract attention from the basic wrong that we have an opportunity to right. Children tell us that the hitting occurs behind closed doors, where no one can see. Some know that their parents are ashamed of it much of the time, while others live in fear, not knowing what today will be allowed and tomorrow will receive a clout. We know that the baby's brain, and hence personality and behaviour, develop in response to stimuli. Calm loving will develop a disciplined mind; chaotic, violent families teach violence to their children, and those are the children who go on to perform poorly at school, are less able to resolve conflict without violence and are more likely to end up in youth custody. The child learns that the best way to get people smaller than himself to do what he wants is to hit them.
We can reverse the trend. Respecting the human rights of children promotes their dignified personal development. Amendment No. 106 aims to prevent the escalation of battery into systematic abuse. Prevention is all. Our amendment gives a clear message to society that hitting is wrong. When visible physical injury occurs, it is too late. We have to grasp and pursue the principle and then set about ensuring that the law provides equal protection and is implemented in the best interests of children.
3.30 p.m.
The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 106 has the support of 400-plus associations and people representing all elements of the child protection service that has signed up to the stated aim of the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance—which is the aim of equal protection. They have not done so without careful
522
thought. It is not an easy issue, but we have to move on as this huge body of professional opinion has already moved on in the light of evidence.
It seems absurd to say that equal protection is unworkable when children in 12 countries in Europe—just over a fifth of Europe's children—already enjoy equal protection from assault, most recently in Romania and Ukraine. That is a fundamental human rights issue. Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to take appropriate legislative and other measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence while in the care of parents or others. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has told the UK twice with increasing emphasis that we must prohibit all corporal punishment. The European Committee of Social Rights takes the same position. Let us be clear. The child learns that the way to get someone to do what you want is to hit them, especially if they are smaller than you.
I am aware that Amendment No. 106B, which I will address briefly, seems seductive. It appears at first sight to help to prevent abuse, but it does not prevent children being assaulted. Amendment No. 106B takes away the defence of reasonable chastisement in the case of a statutory offence, as in subsection (2). However, it leaves parents able to justify common assault—hitting and hurting—as reasonable punishment. You would still need to prove bodily harm; that is, something to show. Yet considerable soft-tissue damage, including brain damage, can leave no external mark, no fracture on X-ray, and it can be very difficult to prove that it was related to the witnessed episode of battery. The physical force behind a smack is very seriously underestimated by over half of hitters. It does not prevent the repeated subtle physical punishment of children behind closed doors, which cleverly results in no visible bodily harm when the child is next with those who might spot it. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to bring proceedings. Our amendment stops assault, but explicitly recognises the importance of protecting children.
Amendment No. 106B gives a mixed message to the public. As it says, you can go on hitting children, then you have to pick and choose between offences, to know whether you were acting lawfully or unlawfully. Our amendment simply says that hitting children is wrong. I do not consider that Amendment No. 106B would satisfy our human rights obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or the European Social Charter. The Committee on the Rights of the Child specifically emphasised in its report to the UK in October 2002 that proposals to limit rather than to remove the right to use corporal punishment do not comply with the principles and provisions of the convention. The committee stated that suggesting that some forms of corporal punishment are acceptable undermines educational measures to promote positive and non-violent discipline. The European Committee of Social Rights takes the same position.

523
The Bill is about children. Suzie, aged seven, said:
"If they changed the law then a lot of people will realise what they had done to their child, and they would probably be happy the law was changed. If they don't change the law they will think `Oh, well the child doesn't mind so we can just keep on doing it like we always have"'.
Amy, aged nine, said:
"A big person should not hit a small person, not anyone, ever".
Children should have equal protection under the law on assault. That is the effect of the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 106, with appropriate reassurance that parents can use physical actions to protect and restrain children, protect property and prevent the commission of a crime. As the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court have emphasised, banning corporal punishment does not breach the right to private or family life. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, Amendment No. 106B, standing in my name, offers an alternative approach to Amendment No. 106. I share the common aim of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the other supporters of Amendment No. 106. The abusive punishment of children is a serious social evil and the existing law needs to be strengthened to increase child protection. Like them, I believe that parents' unnecessary resort to smacking to discipline their children to be undesirable and, like many parents, I have to plead guilty to having done so myself on rare occasions.
But I have the misfortune to disagree about the choice of means adopted in Amendment No. 106, and regard it as fatally flawed. Unlike Amendment No. 106, my amendment seeks to outlaw abusive punishment without also outlawing reasonable parental discipline of children. Amendment No. 106B seeks to do so in a way that achieves the reasonable legal certainty required by human rights law. It was in fact not me but the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, who considered that that could be a possible solution when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 19 May.
According to my amendment, child battery cannot be justified as a "reasonable punishment" in any proceedings for wounding and causing grievous bodily harm, or for cruelty to children under 16, or for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The meaning of "actual bodily harm" under English law was conveniently summarised by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of A v United Kingdom as including,
"any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim; the hurt or injury need not be permanent but must be more than transitory or trifling".
It is also an offence under Section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to commit acts of cruelty to children, for example, to assault or ill-treat a child in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
My amendment ensures that it will not be possible to justify as a reasonable punishment an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Such a justification was relied upon in the notorious case of A v United Kingdom, where a jury
524
acquitted a stepfather who had caned a nine-year-old boy with considerable force on several occasions, causing serious bruising to the child. The European Court held, with this Government's agreement, that the failure to provide adequate protection in English law was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights. The court awarded £10,000 compensation and the Government undertook to amend the law.
My amendment seeks to give effect to that important government undertaking to the Strasbourg Court. Any assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a child will not be justified as constituting a reasonable punishment. That will put children on the same basis as adults in such cases.
It is also an offence under Section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to commit acts of cruelty to children, for example, to assault or ill treat a child in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary suffering or injury to health. My amendment would repeal the archaic and anomalous Section 1(7) of the 1933 Act, which allows parents to claim that acts of wilful assault that cause suffering to a child are reasonable punishment.
I shall not explain my objection to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford to my own amendment. They confuse the issue by seeking to convert my amendment into something akin to Amendment No. 106—a cuckoo in the nest. If Amendment No. 106 does not pass muster, I hope that the House will not be beguiled by his advocacy into treating the Thomas amendment as a workable compromise when in reality it would distort both the criminal and civil law of assault and their effectiveness.
I am delighted that the Attorney-General is in his place and I hope that he will be in a position to advise the House on the legal effect of all three sets of amendments. I am grateful to him and to Ministers for their willingness to discuss this important issue. It was as a result of our discussion that I withdrew my original Amendment No. 106A for its lack of legal certainty, and tabled Amendment No. 106B instead.
I greatly welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because he has such great experience and authority from the Victoria Climbiáe inquiry. I also welcome the strong and significant support of Liberty which, like me, is a signatory of the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance.
As I say, there is a need to strengthen legal protection for children whose parents are violent towards them, but I do not believe that parents should be criminalised for administering a light disciplinary smack because it is technically a battery; nor do I believe that equality requires such an extension of the criminal law.
Amendment No. 106 is seriously flawed. It is both over inclusive and under inclusive. It is over inclusive because it sweeps too broadly. It makes criminal any battery of a child however trivial and in whatever circumstances unless such conduct comes within the exceptions in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. It does so even though its supporters, including my own party, do not intend that minor parental

525
smacking should lead to a criminal prosecution. It is under inclusive because the exceptions in subsection (2) would authorise the use of reasonable force on a child, for example, to,
"avert an immediate danger to property; or prevent the commission of a crime",
exceptions that are dangerously broad and vague. Yet it would not cover the case where a parent smacks a child who has run into the road for the fifth time but whose life is not in immediate danger. Amendment No. 106 fails to ensure sufficient child protection and it lacks proportionality and reasonable legal certainty.
The Children are Unbeatable! Alliance does not campaign under the slogan, "Children are Unsmackable". If it did so, it would lose much of its support. That was recognised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley when she explained during the Second Reading debate on 30 March that:
"It is important to make it clear that the public interest will not be served by prosecuting caring parents for an occasional quick smack".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1222.]
In her reply the Minister explained that while the Government would not support a ban on smacking,
"The kind of punishment that results in injury is clearly not reasonable chastisement and as such is already against the law".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1308.]
That was an important ministerial statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that needs to be made clear in the Bill, as I have sought to do.
The question for the House is not whether parental smacking is undesirable, just as the use of violent language, screaming and swearing at a child are undesirable and a failure of parental authority, but whether all parental smacking should constitute a criminal offence, even where it does not cause physical or mental harm.
The alliance itself recognises that smacking which does not cause physical or mental harm should not result in the prosecution of the offending parent. It seeks to rely upon the Director of Public Prosecution's discretion to ensure that a battery in the form of parental smacking, which involves no harm to a child, would not in practice be the subject of a criminal prosecution. However, the director explained on 19 May to the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, why reasonable legal certainty is an essential requirement of the criminal law, and that it is for Parliament rather than the director to decide whether parental smacking, as distinct from beating, should be criminalised. Nor in my view can the absence of sufficient legal certainty be addressed by the publication of guidelines. Indeed, the director has made it clear that he could not publish guidelines which fettered his discretion and that it is for Parliament to decide the key issues of legal public policy in the way we make the law.
The principle of legal certainty requires the law, and especially the criminal law, to be adequately accessible. The citizen must be able to have a sufficient indication of the legal rules applicable to a given case. The law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable
526
the citizen to regulate her or his conduct. The citizen must be able reasonably to foresee the consequences that a given action may cause. The prosecuting authorities retain their vital discretion to ensure that proceedings are brought only in the public interest. However, what is unacceptable is to leave the scope and definition of the law to the discretion of the prosecuting authorities.
3.45 p.m.
If a law is enacted with no intention that a part of it should be enforced in practice, this not only brings the law into public disrepute, it also means a lack of legal certainty. If the meaning of the law is vague and leaves its scope and definition to the discretion of a public officer, that, too, means a lack of legal certainty and will weaken effective law enforcement in cases of abusive parental violence against children. My amendment seeks to achieve greater legal certainty by clarifying the legal framework protecting children from parental violence and abuse.
Like the noble Baroness, the alliance seeks legal reform to give children the same protection under the law on assault as adults. The principle of equal protection of the law is indeed another vital constitutional principle, anchored in international human rights law. I have worked throughout my life to translate the principle of equality into practical reality. However, it is not a mechanistic principle requiring literal equality in all circumstances. In law, as elsewhere, context is everything. Most people would surely agree that there is a difference between light parental smacking to discipline or train a naughty child and the hitting of one adult by another. A smack by a loving and anxious parent whose child has run into the road for the fifth time, despite repeated warnings, is not to be equated with a minor act of violence against an adult. Both involve battery but the context is different. Yet, as I have explained, Amendment No. 106 would criminalise such disciplinary action by a parent who seeks to teach the child not to run into the road again.
I think most people would agree that parents are responsible for disciplining their children as part of child-rearing, whereas adults do not have that responsibility for disciplining each other. In other words, the context is different when a parent smacks her child from when an adult smacks another adult. It is important for the law to recognise this commonsense difference, as it does in giving special protection to children in the criminal law that is not provided for adults.
In his second treatise on civil government, John Locke noted, in the chapter on parental power, that children,
"are not born in the full state of equality, though they are born to it",
a quotation drawn to my attention by my ever learned noble friend Lord Russell. It is a total misunderstanding of the principle of equality to ignore the context of parental discipline which does not apply as between adults.

527
I am indebted to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for their open-minded and positive approach. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her wisdom and enlightenment. I hope that they will be able to confirm as a matter both of policy and law that my amendment constitutes a significant further advance, clarifying the law and making it possible for the law to draw a workable distinction between abusive punishment that is unlawful and parental disciplinary conduct that is not unlawful.
Finally, I turn to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is trotted out again and again. Contrary to the advice given to the alliance, my amendment would meet the UK's obligations under Article 19 and Article 37(a) of that convention and would be a proportionate response to the pressing social need to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse. Article 19 requires states to take,
"all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures"
to protect the child against maltreatment while in the care of a parent or guardian or any other person who has the care of the child. It deliberately leaves a wide area of discretionary judgment to the state—
Baroness WhitakerMy Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does not Article 19 ask states parties to take,
"all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence"?
I emphasise the words "all forms".
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, of course, it does, but I was concentrating on the words,
"all … legislative, administrative, social and educational measures".
It leaves a wide area of discretionary judgment to the state to choose the appropriate means of providing such protection not only through legislation but also through,
"administrative, social and educational measures".
It does not require uniform solutions, and unless parental conduct involves,
"physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse",
it falls outside Article 19. Article 37(a) says that,
"no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Neither provision obliges the UK to criminalise a parent for disciplinary acts of battery that cause no mental or physical harm.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Committee responsible for monitoring the UK's compliance with the convention has three times been extremely critical of the failure of
528
the UK to change its legislation, not its education and social standards? In October 2002, the Committee said it was,
"very concerned that legislation prohibiting all corporal punishment in this context is not yet in place in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland".
That is only one of several quotes I could give the House, but I shall not waste any more time. I hope my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, of course I am aware of that too, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has to construe what is in the convention. I challenge any human rights lawyer to be able to demonstrate that what I have said is in error. The convention gives a wide area of discretionary judgment as to means. The legislation needs to be there, which is why I have introduced my amendment in order to produce legislative reform and not leave it entirely to the courts. I do not understand any expert on international human rights law who reads the words and looks at the background to that convention to say, as I think my noble friend is implying, that all states must criminalise by legislation all parental smacking. International human rights law does not go so far—it has a sense of proportion.
Forty years ago, a great judge told his fellow Americans that,
"The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right".
I also try to apply that to myself, you will be surprised to note. In an area where many campaign with what I can only describe as dogmatic certainty, it may be timely to remind ourselves of that enlightened, truly liberal wisdom.
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 106, and to my own Amendments Nos. 106C, 106D and 106E. My noble friend referred to me as a cuckoo in the nest. Well, normally we sing very sweetly together, and I hope we will do so again. As for my nest, I brought up four children in it—or rather my wife did, with my assistance—with a copy of Dr Spock set up against the twigs that formed our nest. Dr Spock is not the last word on childcare; indeed, I presented a copy of his work to my daughter-in-law not so long ago—a family relic, minus its covers—and she very politely handed it back to me. However, Dr Spock said in his day that if we were ever to turn towards a kindlier society and a safer world, a revulsion against the physical punishment of children would be a good place to start. At that time, in my youth, it was thought somewhat eccentric for a dad to want to be at the birth of his child. It was also thought rather eccentric to eschew for ever smacking one's child on principle. I never recall smacking my children and, I am pleased to tell your Lordships, neither do they, but I had no basic principle about it then. Experience, particularly as a lawyer, has changed my view.
Dr Spock never mentioned child abuse. It was hidden away. Amendment No. 106 is not primarily concerned with the "smack in the supermarket", as it is so often trivialised; it is about what goes on behind locked doors within families, what children suffer

529
privately and what they see happening to their brothers and sisters. We are concerned with a repeating cycle of violence. I recall when I had my first child I was engaged in a case where I defended a man on a manslaughter charge. I was a very young solicitor at the time. I persuaded the magistrates not to send him for trial at the Assizes. Ten or 15 years later I heard that he had killed his second child, and had admitted to having killed the first. Experiences like that change one's view of life.
I have prosecuted, and I have defended. Smacking can lead to battering, which can lead to death. Those of your Lordships who have experience in this field will know that we are presented with medical reports, social services records and school records. One can see the route to death that starts with the initial smack. Unfortunately, the Victoria Climbiée case is only one of a significant number. I have therefore come to the conclusion that assaulting children by way of punishment for past demeanours should be absolutely banned. My noble friend Lord Lester said that that is going to criminalise parents. I do not agree with his analysis. Assaulting an adult is a crime, as is assaulting another person's child. The ancient defence of "reasonable punishment" open to parents and those with parental responsibility decriminalises an act that would otherwise be a crime. There is no question of Amendment No. 106, or indeed my amendments, inventing a new crime for parents; they merely remove this ancient defence.
References have already been made to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. It has considered the report of the UK Government with regard to their compliance with the convention on children's rights on 4 October 2002. I add another quote to those that have been given.
"In light of its previous recommendation, the Committee deeply regrets that",
the United Kingdom,
"persists in retaining the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' and has taken no significant action towards prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in the family. The Committee is of the opinion that governmental proposals to limit rather than to remove the 'reasonable chastisement' defence do not comply with the principles and provisions of the Convention and the aforementioned recommendations, particularly since they constitute a serious violation of the dignity of the child".
It is astonishing that the Government have done nothing to respond to that report; that they introduce a Children Bill about systems and procedures and they introduced into England a Children's Commissioner with weaker powers than those for Scotland and Wales; and that they then leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to introduce an amendment on matters that trouble the United Nations committee. Even then they do not give leadership to their side, but talk about giving them a free vote.
It might be said that the voter will come to the conclusion that "beating children is what we do, and always have done"; that it is the common law of England, deeply embedded in our tradition and history. I was interested to find the earliest reference to this defence that I could without descending into
530
reports in Norman French. I got back to The Country Justice, written in 1690 by Michael Dalton. It is interesting to note the company that the defence of "reasonable chastisement of children" keeps. I quote from his work:
"Also though Assaults and Batteries be for the most part contrary to the Peace of the Realm, and the Laws of the same, yet some [people] are allowed to have a natural, and some a civil Power (or Authority) over others; so that they may (in reasonable and moderate manner only) correct and chastise them for their Offences, without any imputation of breach of the Peace; yea, they may (by the Law) justifie the same; and so in such cases the beating and battery of the person of another, maketh no breach of the Peace; but the manner of the battery only doth make the breach of the Peace.
"And therefore the Parent (with moderation) may chastise his Child within age".
That is the first point.
"So may the Master his Servant or Apprentice, for their evil Service.
"So may the School-master his Scholars.
"So may a Gaoler (or his Servant by his command) his unruly Prisoners.
"So may any Man his Kinsman that is mad, &c. And none of these shall be in peril therefore to forfeit any Recognizance of the Peace.
"Note, that the Master may strike his Servant with his hand, fist, small staff or stick for correction; and though he do draw blood thereby, yet it seemeth no breach of the Peace, as appeareth by the Statute of",
Henry VIII".
"Also the School-Master, with a Rod, may chastise his Scholar which is careless and negligent in Learning, or that shall abuse his School-fellows, or for other the like occasions.
"Also it is lawful for the Parents, Kinsmen or other Friends of a Man that is mad or frantick (who being at liberty, attempteth … to hurt himself or others) to take and put him into an house, to bind or chain him, and to beat him with rods, and to do any other forcible act to reclaim him, or to keep him so as he shall do no hurt".
In all of these areas, save that of the parent and child, we have moved on as a society.
4 p.m.
My noble friend Lord Lester's amendment retains the defence of "reasonable punishment" for common assault. He abolishes it only for assault causing actual or grievous bodily harm or for cruelty. It is as though the master may still strike his servant with his hand or his fist but not with his staff or stick. My other objection to the noble Lord's amendment is that it leaves the burden on the prosecution still to disprove the suggestion that the defendant's act was in reasonable punishment of his child. It is for the prosecution to prove that the defence, once raised, has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt.
What is "actual bodily harm"? The current charging standards of the CPS for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which is as far as my noble friend will go, involve injuries such as loss or breaking of a tooth, temporary loss of sensory functions including loss of consciousness, extensive or multiple bruising, displaced broken nose, minor fractures, minor cuts requiring stitches and psychiatric injury which is more than fear, distress or panic. That is the basis upon

531
which charges are brought today by the CPS for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On current standards, anything less than that would not be covered by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It is unlikely that a magistrate or a jury today would find that injuries such as those that I have described were reasonable punishment of a child.
Although I wholly respect the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his campaigning for human rights—far greater than mine—his amendment adds little to the criminal law. Two months ago a new code for prosecutors was published on the CPS website which said that the charging standards for common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm could be found in appendix A. There was no appendix A published, so we do not know what that said. Perhaps we may hear something about that today.
How does the prosecution prove the existence of injuries such as bruising, reddening or scratches—if that is the nature of the new guidelines? Some children bruise more easily than others, or may be hit in an area where bruising does not occur, but the pain is the same. How does the prosecution get behind the door to find out what has taken place to disprove the defence of reasonable punishment?
In any event, a magistrate or jury might reject the suggestion that such injuries were actual bodily harm. As a fairly experienced advocate in these matters, I would say that the aim of the defence advocate would be to persuade the court that the case was merely one of common assault and that the prosecution had failed to disprove the suggestion put forward by the defendant that his act was "reasonable punishment".
My amendments to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, do two things. I ask noble Lords to consider their terms carefully. First, they abolish the defence of "reasonable punishment" for a past misdemeanour altogether. Secondly, they recognise that there may be circumstances when a person has to act to restrain a child from causing immediate or future harm to itself or to another. Those circumstances may arise even if there is no parent-child relationship. I have deliberately used the word "defendant" rather than "parent" in the amendment. The circumstances may include pulling a child back from traffic, or from a hot stove, or preventing it hitting another child and may require a slap to be administered to restrain the child from that activity.
But if restraint is to be the excuse for what would otherwise be an assault, then my amendment would make it necessary for the defendant to prove it—not for the prosecution to disprove; for him to show that it was more likely than not that his purpose was to restrain and not to punish. I ask your Lordships to think carefully about the wording of my amendment. I commend it as a far better and more balanced approach than one that still condones pain to a child as punishment.
My first task is to urge your Lordships to pass Amendment No. 106, which has been prepared by the most experienced lawyers in this field and has been supported, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has
532
said, by many experienced organisations. If your Lordships, perhaps as the result of coercion, were unable to do that, I would ask noble Lords to support my approach to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and to ensure that we end up with legislation that truly advances the situation.
Lord LamingMy Lords, I support Amendment No. 106B and shall speak against Amendments Nos. 106, 106C, 106D and 106E. The whole House should feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester for finding a way of removing the defence of "reasonable chastisement" from our legislation, while supporting the thrust of legislation and policy in working constructively with parents, and keeping safeguards for children—as set out in the Children Act 1989.
I do not regard the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as a compromise. On the contrary, it has been deliberately framed with great care to achieve a specific objective. I support it not as a compromise, but because I believe it is right in the interests of working constructively with children and families in this country.
I am sure that we all agree that there is no place in our society for the defence of "reasonable chastisement". It is from an age gone by and should be removed from the statute book. I remind the House that the law recognises that children are different from adults and have specific needs. That is why we have had specific legislation that respects the needs and rights of children for hundreds of years.
So the issue is not about removing a defence that we all dislike. It is about which route to take and how best to continue working constructively with families, while safeguarding the rights of children. We would all hope that every parent in the country had the knowledge, understanding and skills to avoid the need for recourse to physical punishment—no matter how tired or harassed they might be. But the reality is that some parents will continue to need help both in developing that understanding and in developing better parenting skills.
I recognise the points made by noble Lords who have spoken in favour of Amendment No. 106, but I do not share their views, for four principal reasons. First, there is a real danger that Amendment No. 106 will bring a host of otherwise well meaning parents within the scope of being criminalised. We should recognise that the vast majority of parents in our society actually want the best for their children. If the state has a role, its primary role is to help them to achieve that objective.
Secondly, that amendment would work against the thrust of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. The main intent of that legislation is to accord paramount importance to the well-being of each child, by recognising that the well-being of each child is generally met by working constructively with the ' child's parents.
Thirdly, it may put at risk the willingness of parents to welcome into the home health visitors, social workers, a Sure Start worker, even a volunteer from

533
such excellent schemes as HomeStart. Why, they may say, run the risk of putting yourself in possible danger by welcoming these people into the home?
Fourthly, there are those who claim that a ban on smacking may not increase the number of parents being prosecuted. They may well be right, but that misses the key issue, which is that the police will have to investigate any and every allegation of assault on a child, however trivial or even mischievous it may be. It is the process of investigation—gathering the evidence, doing interviews, getting statements, with everything being recorded and reports produced for the Director of Public Prosecutions—which will have a huge impact on many parents. It will be that process that will make them feel under considerable threat. Now many claims have been made—
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Director of Public Prosecutions said clearly in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that prosecutions for adults for minor assaults were very rare, and that he was sure that prosecutions for minor assaults on children would be very rare indeed?
Lord LamingMy Lords, indeed I would accept that, for he was talking quite rightly about prosecutions. I am talking about the very substantial and demanding process that precedes any decision to prosecute.
Claims have been made already today about support from various organisations. Through my letterbox this last week came a statement, unsolicited by me, from the Association of Chief Police Officers. One small section of it says:
"National Crime Recording Standards, introduced recently by the Home Office, require the police to record any crimes reported to them. The police have a duty to investigate and where they are able to clear up crimes once reported, which would imply interviewing the suspect and then proposing either caution or prosecution".
We should not underestimate the impact that these investigations may have upon a family.
Last week I did something highly unusual, in that I wrote a letter for publication to a national newspaper. In it, I set out what I hoped were some of the chief points against a general ban on smacking. I am most grateful to the editor of the Independent on Sunday for publishing the letter in its entirety. It was the only letter on the subject, but it appeared under the headline "We need smacking ban". It just so happened that a "smacking ban" coincided with the editorial comment of that newspaper. I mention this not to express my frustration with the newspaper, which you may gather is keenly felt, but more because in that letter I quoted the late Lord Seebohm.
Many will remember Lord Seebohm's 1968 report on the future of the personal social services. Lord Seebohm spoke at length in the report about the need for the state to support the family unit, and for its services to be seen to support the family. He said:
"An effective family service must be concerned with the prevention of social distress. Morally, socially and economically this makes sense".
534
I suggest that preventing social distress is not best achieved by the state threatening parents with possible prosecution at any turn.
4.15 p.m.

The Government have promised a wide range of measures that will be introduced to support families in our society. In my view, the choice before us is either to respect the responsibilities of parents; to seek to work with them constructively in partnership; to pursue policies and practices which are based on encouragement, help and support—or to go down a route which is based upon threat and coercion.
In my view, in Amendment No. 106B, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has devised a way which can lead to a defence that we all abhor being removed from the statute, while at the same time ensuring that we continue to work constructively with parents and help them to feel secure in their parenting roles and responsibilities. If parents are helped to avoid the use of physical punishment they will then teach their children the need to avoid physical force. By that constructive means from generation to generation we will help to achieve a position that I am sure we all want: to avoid the use of unnecessary force and violence.
Of course, persistent abuse or physical hitting of children has a detrimental effect upon a child, which is why the Children Act 1989 places the well being of each child in paramount position. I believe that the choice before us this afternoon is simply between one of education, support and encouragement, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, or for the state to use its authority in ways which would be perceived by many parents as threatening and menacing.
Baroness Massey of DarwenMy Lords, it is a great honour to follow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I cannot support Amendments Nos. 106C to 106E but shall support Amendment No. 106B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
I have thought a great deal about the issue of "reasonable chastisement". I have attended innumerable meetings where it has been discussed. I have long supported the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance, and I agree that hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour and in itself wrong. I am an NSPCC ambassador, and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Children. I therefore talk to many people about children's rights and parental responsibilities. It is a great privilege to be associated with these organisations and with Members of your Lordships' House who consistently support the welfare of children. I find myself somewhat surprised and uncomfortable about being on the opposite side to a number of respected colleagues.
I do have great respect and admiration for the commitment and dedication of the movers of Amendment No. 106, and for the principles behind it. However, I cannot support it. While supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I do not think that we yet have the wording of anything quite right, and I hope we can move toward that.

535
If there is a risk of a parent being prosecuted for gently tapping a child in reprimand, then I cannot go along with that. The idea of a parent and children being in court for this is painful. The idea of being labelled a bad parent for this is painful. The language we are using is emotive, and I regret that. "Battery" can mean a slight tap, not a beating. When I see a headline on the letters page of today's Guardian, saying "A vote against violence", I get very offended.
I am against violence in any form, most of all to children. But violence is not merely physical; there are many ways of abusing children—some were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—including verbal means. The other day, I was sitting on a train near a woman with a small child—a four year-old— and, as he continued to tap the window, she threatened to sell him for doing so. I consider that to be violence, and I am against violence of any kind.
I believe that when we have finished with this Bill, whatever its outcome, we need to look seriously at how we as a society educate and support parents and prospective parents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about that. I am less worried about the concept of a nanny state than about securing the welfare of children.
I have listened to, and read about, the experiences of those who come under international anti-smacking laws, and I have concluded that they cannot be applied in this country. The wording of the Swedish law against smacking is absolutely brilliant. It speaks of the entitlement of children to care, security and respect, but it is found in the parental code. We have no such code. Would that we had; would that we had many things that would increase the protection of children. This Bill should tighten up on that.
Therefore, regretfully I cannot support Amendment No. 106 or the amendments to Amendment No. 106B, but I do support that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I hope that we shall eventually come up with legislation which is totally satisfactory all round and which will benefit both children and their parents.
Lord BlackwellMy Lords, I am conscious that the House will not want a long debate on these amendments, but I think it is important that a voice is raised to oppose all the amendments, as I do.
We have heard some noble and distinguished arguments on the legal distinctions between the various amendments. However, the simple view that I take is that we, in Parliament, cannot pass a law that we do not expect to be enforced. At present, as I understand it, injury to a child, as indeed to anyone else, is against the law. The law is very clear in that respect.
My reading of many of the amendments is that they attempt to cover a grey area between no smacking at all and the current position in law but in a way that will be almost impossible for the courts to interpret. The consequence of that will be the perception, at least, that Parliament intends that any smacking covered by the amendments should be investigated by the police. Parents will be completely uncertain about what is
536
intended and many will suffer police investigations as a consequence. I do not think that it is reasonable to pass a law and to say, "We didn't intend this to be taken seriously by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He will exercise judgment and discretion". If we pass a law to ban the use of corporal punishment or reasonable chastisement, we must expect the police to fulfil their obligation to enforce that law.
That takes us back to the question: what is our intention? Clearly, some in this House genuinely believe that any use of smacking to chastise a child is wrong and morally obnoxious and that it should be prohibited by the full force of the law. Equally, I have to say to the House that there are many, not only in this House but in the country at large, who think that it is a matter for individual parents to decide. So long as they are within a loving family environment, are using their best methods to bring up and control their children and are showing them the boundaries of what is or is not acceptable behaviour, as parents they are entitled to make that judgment according to their interpretation of a loving and caring upbringing.
We are not talking about situations in which children are damaged physically or mentally—that is already classified as an assault and is covered by the law. We are talking about the grey area where actions may be interpreted as right or wrong. Those in this House who hold a different view are trying to impose that view through the full force of the law. However, if this House imposed that standard on parents at large and used the full force of the law to do so, that would be a great intrusion into personal and family liberty and it is not an action that we should embark on lightly.
Baroness Richardson of CalowMy Lords, I have been sitting here trying to think what a parent will do when a child runs into the road for the sixth time. What sanctions are left once the "reasonable chastisement" of smacking has gone? I am not being facetious; I think that positive parenting skills need to be developed within our families.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have seen the programmes on television which show parents how to deal with troublesome children. The methods used do not involve any physical punishment whatever and they are usually very successful in producing good relationships between parents and their children. I believe we all agree that the right discipline is self-discipline. The first self-discipline to be found within a family should be that of the parent, who is able to respond to the needs of the child and to administer a punishment that reflects the misdemeanour of the child. Often a physical smack cannot achieve that. Whatever can a child make of being smacked for being in danger? The two things cannot be held together.
I support Amendment No. 106. We are not in the same position in the country that we were in before this debate started. It was known that this debate was to take place. If, at the end of it, we leave things as they are or pass a slight amendment to the law, we shall be giving a firm signal to parents that it is all right to carry on as they have been doing and that the positive

537
parenting skills that the amendment would secure, or perhaps at least encourage, would be in danger of not being taken up.
I beg noble Lords to pass the amendment in order to free society from the taint of physical abuse within families. We stopped thinking that it was all right for wives or partners to be battered and now we must take that a stage further and say that physical punishment has no place within a loving family and that there are other ways of ensuring that self-discipline grows within a child.
Baroness Howells of St DavidsMy Lords, I shall be extremely brief but I want to refer to a few words that have been used in the House today: "sufficient provision" and, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, "bruising". I remind your Lordships that we live in a multiracial society. I do not think that I need a photograph to show noble Lords that a mere tap on a white child creates a bruise, but it takes a great deal of that type of smacking for the bruises to show on a black child. I do not think that this is the first time that we have had to remove the ability to smack children from any one group. So far as I understand, teachers and policemen are no longer allowed to smack children.
I believe that the amendment before us today dodges the real issue. Smacking takes place when a parent loses control of a child. I believe that we should concentrate on helping parents to gain control of their children in ways other than smacking. I was brought up in the days when smacking was allowed but I am pleased to tell your Lordships that I have never been smacked or hit by any man or woman. However, I know of young people who, to this day, report having been smacked as a form of control. That has lived with them in a bruising way but it is a way that we cannot see.
I speak as someone who has lived, since birth, in a multiracial society. I know that one complaint from young people is that one has only to tap a white person and it shows, but a black person has to be given quite a whack before it shows. Let us not hang around looking at these amendments and let us realise that smacking must go and go now.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, I will be incredibly quick. I was taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said. She said that 3 million or 4 million children are hit every week. I ask myself what effect this legislation will have on that number. Will four million people suddenly be stopped or will they go on? I am only going to ask questions, because I do not know the answers.
Something that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said influenced me considerably. It concerned the case of the man who thrashed his daughter or step-daughter beyond acceptable limits and got off on reasonable chastisement grounds. That seems to me totally wrong. However, I still do not think that it should be
538
made completely illegal. My instinct, for what it is worth, is to vote for the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I will make on this occasion a very willing breach of my own principles.
A total ban is going too far. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is trying to tighten things up and make "reasonable" really reasonable as opposed to old-fashioned reasonable. That makes sense. I will still listen, but I just wanted to put a few doubts into everybody's mind to help the conversation along.
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, as other noble Lords have said, everyone here is united in an endeavour to achieve the same thing: to ensure that our children are fully protected and respected as individual human beings in our law. Where perhaps one or two of us differ is in believing that Amendment No. 106 is the way to achieve that purpose. Most noble Lords bring to this debate experience as parents and carers and many professional involvements with children and families. In my own case, that involvement includes a fair amount of work with voluntary organisations and school governors, as well as acting as a member of the ILEA and as chairman of an inner London juvenile court for 20 years or more.
Although I have the greatest admiration and respect for the views and experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and other noble Lords supporting this amendment, I am sadly not able to join them in the Lobby today. This is because I believe that most parents today are loving and caring. Even though they may be fearful for or exasperated by their child's behaviour on occasion, they are not and should not be labelled as child abusers—as I believe there is a danger that they may be. The proposed change in the law, whereby the rare smack at the far end of a parent's discipline could in some people's view be subject to legal action, is not only unnecessary but likely to undermine, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has said, the undervalued but vitally important and responsible role of parents in their children's upbringing.
Despite what has been said today, I believe that the amendment, if accepted, could well result in unnecessary or even malicious charges being brought. Perhaps even more important than that is that the amendment would hardly, if at all, influence the behaviour of those whose ill-treatment of children is its primary target—those who are indeed violent and abusive to children. The parents or carers of the children who are really abused physically and mentally and whom I saw in juvenile courts and elsewhere came mainly, though not exclusively, from backgrounds where this kind of behaviour, which often included domestic violence, had been practised over a number of generations. Sir Keith Joseph's cycle of deprivation—once derided but now fully accepted as social theory—is particularly relevant here.
I remain convinced that the only effective way to tackle this persistent problem—it is almost a gene—is at its roots. As others have said this should be done by education and positive help—working closely with such families right from day one. That is why, for example, I particularly applaud the Government's

539
Sure Start initiative. Considerable public resources have recently been devoted to this and similar projects. It is a brave move politically, as positive measurable outcomes reflected at the ballot box are unlikely to emerge within the lifetime of several Parliaments.
Of course we need effective laws to ensure conviction and punishment for violent offences against children and laws that are at least as effective as those dealing with violence against adults. However, there are relatively few cases where a conviction should have been but was not achieved because of a judge's interpretation of reasonable chastisement, and my preference would be for tightening the judges' guidelines for dealing with such cases. The more specific definition of offences given in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which was so clearly and admirably explained by someone who has spent most of his life working for human rights, is the way to achieve that aim and I shall support it.
Lord Phillips of SudburyMy Lords, after much careful thought I cannot support Amendment No. 106, despite the forceful and eloquent speeches that we have heard from those supporting it and the fact that I have complete respect for their motives and share their passionate concern.
To create a serious criminal offence, as this measure is intended to do, which makes citizens guilty without any proof of malign intent or of unreasonableness, or harm, is entirely contrary to our cherished traditions.
The proponents of the amendment reassure us that the offence will only be prosecuted with discretion. There should be, they say, wise government guidance on when to prosecute. Even if there is, that can never take away the right of an individual prosecutor or a member of the public to bring proceedings where reasonable people might not. Opinions in this area are notoriously diverse, as this debate shows. Given the seriousness of the offence, which will bar those convicted of it from any job having anything to do with children for example, and carry an imprisonment term of up to 10 years, that seems to me to be seriously inadequate protection.
The offence is absolute and denies magistrates the opportunity to form their own view on whether the seriousness of the offence warrants prosecution. They will be bound to convict unless there has been no physical discipline of any kind of the child concerned.
The effect of the offence being absolute is that the crucial and difficult judgment as to whether the particular facts warrant a conviction under the new law will effectively be decided not in open court before impartial judges, who have to hear both sides, but by the Crown Prosecution Service behind closed doors acting solely on information from the police. That seems to me to be so far removed from equal and proper justice that I cannot support it.
The new law will also bear down particularly hard on single mothers, particularly from parts of our society and indeed from minority communities with a more physical tradition than in some parts of the middle classes.
540
To the extent that the law is observed, it will often be at the expense of children being more abused psychologically, as others have said, by being shouted at, sworn at, frightened. demeaned and rejected. Where is the human dignity in that?
I consulted the 40 or so decent, experienced secretaries in my office on the matter. At first, they thought that I was joking. They were unanimously opposed to a blanket prohibition. My eldest daughter, who is an experienced clinical psychologist, wrote to me saying:
"Physical expression of all emotions, and dealing with the aftermath, is part and parcel of the human repertoire and you just can't wish it away. Parents actually need to be able to be imperfect and to model remorse to their children. On the odd occasions that I smack Marco I always wish I hadn't, but then it gives an occasion to talk to him about why I did it and to say sorry to him. That may not be ideal but I think that he learns something about me and we both learn something about the relationship".
She seems to me to speak for a whole swathe of wonderful parents, whereas the movers of the amendment have spoken only of abusers and a swathe of parents who would not feel that they had acted wrongly in giving the occasional physical correction. As long as it is well signalled, reasonable and loving, a quick, even a hard smack is usually emotionally understood, effective and often brings closure to seriously wilful misbehaviour by a child in at least as good a way as any psychological correction, which does not always work soon enough.
I believe that before we abandon reasonable chastisement, we need to make a concerted attempt to enforce the existing law effectively because it has been notoriously grossly underused and under-resourced. It will need far more resources, as indeed will the new law, if it is to be effective. It may need guidance, and it will certainly need an energetic education campaign by all those marvellous charities and individuals rightly passionate about the levels of real child abuse.
I listened with rapt attention to the exceptional speech of my noble friend Lord Lester. He gave us much food for thought. However, at this juncture, all I can say is that for the reasons given, I believe that Amendment No. 106 should not pass.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness WhitakerMy Lords, I support Amendment No. 106 not because I want to see more parents prosecuted: this new clause does not criminalise assaults on children any more or less than the law on assault criminalises assault between adults. I support it because in the end it asserts the principle of giving children equal protection with adults against assault. That seems to me to be a principle of cardinal importance, and one which merits a free vote. I can do no better than to quote the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which states that,
"in the context of the law on assault, … children should have the same right as adults to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law".
I think it should have a free vote because, while I feel committed to the principle, I recognise that others have strong personal feelings against it. My commitment

541
stems from the question: whose responsibility is it when children are bruised by the strap, or when babies under one year are regularly hit to encourage them to stop crying? I do not think that it is the parents' responsibility alone. I think it is ours, as legislators, to set a framework of what is acceptable, within which parents exercise discipline over their children, including physical force to restrain, but not to punish.
That is why, with the greatest respect, I do not find that Amendment No. 106B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, works at all. Indeed, his own noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has felt it necessary to propose and eloquently to advocate amendments to it. It certainly would contravene the recommendation of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to the UK as well as last week's recommendation from the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly that member states which legalise assault on children are in breach of the Convention on Human Rights.
This amendment seems to mean, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, that if a parent commits on their child an assault which causes actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm or is guilty of cruelty towards their child, then he or she will not be allowed to claim any more that it was reasonable punishment. But what jury or magistrate would ever think, under the law as it stands now, that cruelty or this kind of serious injury could ever be reasonable punishment? Is this amendment really a compromise at all? Only, I suggest, if the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, are accepted.
Actually, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is strangely familiar. It is very close to a Department of Health proposal in a consultative document in 2000. But in that same document, the Government published the results of a poll in which over 95 per cent of the public rejected punishment of children which resulted in bruising. People do not actually want parents to be more free to assault their own children.
What we are after, in Amendment No. 106, is moving a norm on: affirming publicly the value that violence is not an acceptable way to punish children. Not that punishment is wrong; not that discipline is wrong—far from it. It is the violence that needs to be demoted out of the concept of punishment or discipline. Take the light tap in the supermarket beloved of Ministers. Never mind that I have seen slaps which have knocked a child over in the supermarket. No matter how light, that tap is the pale end of a spectrum whose intense end is brutality—brutality which results in regular, condoned punishment beatings.
Let us consider for a moment stealing. All of us who are capable of distinguishing right from wrong become aware that stealing is considered wrong. Theft is a crime. But plenty of stealing goes on that is not serious enough to end up in court. People borrow books from me seemingly with no intention of giving them back. I have the impression that people have sometimes borrowed money in the same way. But we know stealing is wrong and that constrains behaviour. That is what would happen if the defence of reasonable chastisement, which condones assault, is dropped. Cumulatively, accelerated by support
542
for parents by the Government, and assisted by the obvious and explicit willingness on the part of the police and the social services to interpret the change constructively, our ideas of what is right and wrong would adapt and children would have equality of protection because of it.
It is our choice whether or not to follow those countries, increasing in number all the time, which have reduced brutality to children, and, it so happens, I think consequently, by children, and to consolidate this Government's achievements in dealing with domestic violence—no problem about intruding into the family there. If we fail to grant power to the individual conscience in this matter, we shall have held back a force for positive change.
There is much good sense in this Bill and sensible adaptations have been made by my noble friend. But in this issue, clarity has not been welcomed by the Government; human rights have not been heard; compliance with the Committee on the Rights of the Child has been breached; and a common sense view of the way the law works has been abandoned. I regret very much the Government's timidity in not standing up for the right of children to equal protection, to have lost their nerve over a change which will not result in a wave of prosecutions, any more than the Human Rights Act or any other rights measure has, but which will put a decent norm on the statute book, that our children, no less than adults, can no longer be beaten by their parents with impunity. I urge your Lordships to vote according to your consciences.
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords, —
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords,—
A noble LordLady Kenned!
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords, I hope it is not going to break into violence behind me.
This debate is about trying to shift a culture. That is why it is so important. Of course, all of us in this House share the same concerns about child abuse, but we also hear some polarisation in this debate. If you say to the 20 secretaries in your office, "Do you think smacking children should be criminalised, with you taken to court and it carrying a sentence of 10 years?" of course they are going to be appalled and horrified. Each and every one of them will have been a child and will remember a smack that did not have long-term effects on them. The idea of criminalising that would horrify them. Some of them will be parents who know that they, too, have fallen from grace, as many of us have.
The point of these charities coming together under this campaign is to say to us parents—imperfect as we may be, trying to be decent parents, probably pretty good at it—"You need to come in behind us in creating a message to those who feel beating their children is quite legitimate". They feel they can do that with impunity because there is a cultural sense that smacking is OK. It is read as a licence to those who take it to extremes. What we in this debate are saying

543
to the wider community is that of course there are times when one is pushed as a parent to do something that one regrets afterwards. But we must come together to create values and standards that send out messages to those who visit terrible abuse on children.
We have heard from many lawyers, and I am one of those who deal with court cases involving abuse of children. I promise you that, when you see them, you have absolutely no doubt as to how it starts and how people feel that hitting young children is a quite acceptable aspect of rearing. That is the message which is received by parents, because of the culture we currently live in. This amendment seeks to shift the culture. That is why we should come in behind it, knowing that it may be imperfect; knowing that occasionally the police may make a wrong judgement and, hopefully, good sense will prevail at the CPS. But the reason for doing it is to create a cultural shift which will stop the level of abuse that currently takes place. I urge you to support this amendment because we need that message. Law is about transmitting messages about the values we believe in to the community at large, even if. on occasions, we fall from grace. I urge your Lordships to accept this amendment for those reasons.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for giving way. Would she not agree with me that, first, we should not pass laws we think are imperfect? Secondly, should we not criminalise conduct unless we think it is sufficiently serious to be made criminal?
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords, the answer to that is that we should all recognise that hitting children is unacceptable. The examples that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave in this House—I am sure that each and every one of us brings our own baggage, and the noble Lord probably does, too—are never good enough.
There are always other ways of dealing with children who make you cross, who do unkind things to another child, or even those who seek to run into the road. We are the imperfect ones who fail to live up to the standards we would like to see set. We have to recognise that our imperfections are not good enough. When we ask for constraints in law, we are coming together to do this in the interests of children because we know that much worse is done in the name of the licence given for chastisement or lawful punishment. That is why we have to come together and why we must not make concessions, even in the instances we understand. We know we have to work for a better rule in order to prevent serious abuse.
Lord DenhamMy Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she explain what other option for the child running into the road there is, if it does it too often, without giving it a smack?
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords, you grab the child. You pull the child back. You say to the child, "You don't do that". There are many ways, I can
544
assure you. It is nonsense to put it up as an example, because if you did smack your child in those circumstances, do you seriously think a police officer is going to take you to court?
Noble LordsYes.
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords, no. To use that as an example, to put fear into parents, is really, I regret to say, failing to deal with the much greater abuse that this amendment is seeking to deal with. I do not accept that police officers are going to be running around arresting parents who grab a child and smack its bottom because it was running into the road for the sixth time. Good sense does prevail in policing.
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords,—
Lord HoosonMy Lords,—
Baroness AndrewsMy Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was raising a point before the noble Baroness sat down. Is that not right?
Noble LordsNo.
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I have been listening to this debate, and I find it of great concern that suddenly, on Report of a Children Bill, we have an amendment with enormous implications for millions of people. Yet there has been no public consultation of the people who count—the parents. We suddenly find Amendment No. 106, and the amendments to it, on the Marshalled List on Report of a government Bill in which the Government themselves have not included anything of the sort.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, will the noble Lord accept that Amendment No. 106 is laid in exactly the same wording as it was in Committee? The House debated it, but it was not moved at that stage. The new element on Report is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which is why my noble friend Lady Finlay, in moving Amendment No. 106, was obliged to give a slightly longer speech than might normally be required.
5 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I am well aware of all that. But for legislation of this importance there should have been—and still should be—wide public consultation because of its implications.
Of course, one has to be careful when speaking on amendments of this sort, otherwise one will be accused of being brutal to children. Let me say that, as a child, I was certainly slapped and caned by the teachers at my school. From some of the arguments that have been put, I should now be a brutal person myself, believing that the only way to settle disputes is by physical force. As a matter of fact, I have not engaged in physical

545
force in my life at all, and that goes for most other people as well. So that argument does not hold water at all.
Secondly, I have brought up three children and I have not smacked them. I have not felt it necessary to do so. But because I do not think that it is necessary to do so, it does not mean that other parents are able to control their children in that same way without smacking them. That is an imposition upon other people that ought not to happen.
Like many other noble Lords I read Dr Spock and applied his recommendations. But I found that I had been wasting my time—because at the end of his life Dr Spock recanted. All that we heard from Dr Spock was a load of nonsense according to him. We therefore have to be very careful of the experts. We have heard a lot about the experts today, but that is one expert who, after he had done all the damage in the world, recanted and said, "I was wrong all the way along".
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords, wrong on what?
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, on his recommendations for bringing up children, which included not smacking them.
Baroness Kennedy of The ShawsMy Lords—
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, the implications are very wide indeed.
Let us consider the position of a child who has been smacked in the garden and a neighbour next door reports it to the police. The police come along and ask little Johnny whether he has been smacked. He says that he has, so the police go away and prepare a case for the Director of Public Prosecutions and he decides to bring an action. What happens then? That child will be taken into court and he will have to give evidence against his father or mother.
Is that really what we want? Is that going to help families? Is that going to help to unify families? Is that going to help discipline in families? And suppose the punishment for that smack is for the child to be taken away. Social services do take children away from their parents and are very often wrong in doing so, as we have seen from some very famous cases.
What then happens to the child? Is he put into care? Does he go to foster parents who may be worse than his own parents? Or will he be put into a local authority home where children may be abused by their carers, sometimes in very nasty ways? These are some of the matters that need to be considered before we pass amendments of this sort.
I fear that we are in the grip of a group of people who see things only from their own point of view and do not understand the enormous pressures that parents, particularly those from working-class homes, are under for all sorts of reasons: the break-up of the family; shortage of money; living in poor circumstances; and,
546
indeed, not having the educational background to deal with children in a manner with which that group happens to agree.
These are dangerous amendments. Before we embark upon them we need a lot more research, a lot more consultation and also a lot more toleration.
Lord HoosonMy Lords, I did not want to follow immediately upon the previous speaker, but I was interested in his autobiographical note, which explains a good deal about him.
Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can explain that?
Lord HoosonMy Lords, I wish to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for this reason: with this Children Bill we need to send a clear and unambiguous message to everybody in our country, particularly parents. I wish to make it clear that most of the people in the country do not need the message at all but some of them certainly do.
These days one of the main environmental influences on children is the television set. They are very often fed from it a diet of unacceptable social behaviour, with violence and angry reactions being normal and acceptable.
Years ago, when I was a young barrister, I remember a great argument between a very distinguished Oxford don—a professor of jurisprudence—and one of the Law Lords. The don argued that the laws of a country are a reflection of its morality. The Law Lord did not agree and said that the morality of a country is created by its laws. I came to the conclusion that they were both right—it depended on the circumstances.
All the organisations concerned with the welfare of children support the amendment. What does that tell us about their understanding of the problems of children? In whatever form this Bill goes through, it will be interpreted by judges and magistrates. Those who are prosecuting will have to bear it in mind before they decide whether or not to prosecute. The police will have to interpret it. In my experience of the Bar—which goes back over many years—all these procedures led in the end to a very civilised approach in our country.
Let us look at one sentence in the amendment:
"Battery of a child cannot be justified in any proceedings on the grounds that it constituted lawful punishment".
We can argue in an interpretation clause exactly what "battery" means in this context, so that it can be spelt out clearly. It has been interpreted by a judge or magistrate and has been considered by other people beforehand.
It is important that a message goes out from Parliament as it has already gone out in Germany and Sweden, which have adopted the whole thing with no problems arising from parents being prosecuted or anything like that. These are bogey ideas raised by people who look for minutiae to undermine the Bill. There should be an unambiguous message that we

547
need civilised behaviour from this country and particularly from those parents who do not indulge in it.
Lord AcknerMy Lords, some of your Lordships may remember Sir Milner Holland, a well-known QC and one-time chairman of the Bar. I remember him addressing an audience on this subject many years ago. He said that he had never raised his hands against his children except in self-defence.
I cannot claim to be as perfect as that, but on the rare occasions when I did, I certainly do not concede that I had lost control of my children, as the noble Baroness suggested was the case.
I shall keep your Lordships very few minutes. My first point is that there is a heavy onus on those who wish to change the law to establish that the law does not provide adequate protection. There is no proper submission before your Lordships that the defence that, "I only use moderate and reasonable force in the correction of my child" does not provide an adequate protection for the child. It is hoped that by altering the law, in a manner which has been strongly criticised, you may achieve your desire to stop abuse—that you stop abuse by invoking the law that deals with abuse.
Secondly, a law against smacking would lead to an unprecedented level of intrusion into family life in England and Wales. It would probably result in disputes between neighbour against neighbour, with parent and child disputes being referred. A disharmony would grow up which we would all very much regret.
I submit to your Lordships that one has only to consider the scene in a supermarket: an overburdened wife, trying to cope with three children at a very busy period in the day, smacks her child for having disobeyed her for the fifth time in seizing material from the supermarket. She will be turned upon by people in the supermarket, who accuse her of ill treating her children. There will be complaints to the supervisor; the police will be brought in and charges may well have to be levelled, which are really quite unsustainable.
My next point, which is the same as that made by my noble friend Lord Laming, is that a law against smacking would divert already overstretched child protection resources away from the children who most need them. There is a limited amount of available police time and even social welfare time to cope with children's problems. To add this one to those that need intervention will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Finally, I think that some of us are overlooking the fact that parents have a unique relationship with their children. In order to fulfil their parental responsibilities, they have powers which they do not possess in relation to anyone else. To say that the child should have the same rights in this respect as if he were an adult and that parents should have the same obligations as if they were dealing with adults is to overlook the nature of the parent-child relationship, its responsibilities and its sensitivities.
Lord GrocottMy Lords, we are now nearly two hours into this debate and, as your Lordships will
548
know from the Order Paper, there is quite a bit of business to come afterwards. May I suggest, with the usual diffidence, and to test the mood of the House, that we have another two or three contributions before we begin the winding-up speeches? The Divisions afterwards will take some time, of course. I hope that that meets with the general agreement of the House.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness UddinMy Lords—
Lord PestonMy Lords, I want to ask a point of order and not make a speech yet. Two or three contributions might not include at least one of us who wants to speak, and who has been sitting here patiently. Since a great many people who spoke earlier spoke at great length, I take very strong exception to the notion that there should be only two or three more speakers, especially if one of the three is not me. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Chief Whip does not push this point too strongly. I can see at least six people ready to speak, all of whom I am waiting to give way to in order that, one day, I might speak. I agree that it will take time. I really would like to get home to see my dear wife—part of our loving family—one day. But I really do not think that this is the kind of debate that should be curtailed in any way whatever. I also ask my noble friend not to count my point of order as my speech.
Lord GrocottMy Lords, I am not equipped to deal with points of order, I am afraid. Let us aim at a rough time of around half past five, shall we? It is amazing what contributions can be made in three or four minutes.
Baroness UddinMy Lords, I support Amendment No. 106. I do so with great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for whom I have great admiration. I think that an outright ban is what we must look for in 2004.
As a mother of five children, I accept the ambivalence that we have all faced from time to time. But I also speak as one who has worked as a professional social worker and a child protection officer for many years. We are talking about 3 million children, although I am not quite sure of the numbers—I hesitate to say anything about the numbers. Anyone who has witnessed the pain of children would not argue for anything less than the fact that violence is totally unacceptable.
A number of points have been made very eloquently, and while I do not wish to go into them all now, I should like to pick up a couple. Reference was made to resources. I understand from speaking to people who operated a similar system in Sweden and Germany that there were issues of resources but it was a question of redirection, not additional resources. In any case, if resources are required to ensure that children do not suffer violence, we must be committed to that. It is their right.
Taking attention away from valuable resources and talking about the children, if we had not sanctioned the kind of behaviour that we are talking about,

549

Victoria Climbiée would not be dead today. It is not acceptable for us to argue that it is a matter of resources.
I was not in the House when the Children Act 1989 was debated. I ask noble Lords on all sides of the House to look at the debates that must have taken place during the passage of that Act. I can quote so many things that have been said, and I will bet my bottom dollar that they are exactly the kinds of things that were said then. How could we possibly have imagined, 10 or 20 years ago, when we were talking about domestic violence, that we would be talking about the chastisement of children in exactly the same way today? There are many similarities.
I accept that the problem is one of attitude change, but it is also about condoning violence. What the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said is very important. We must send a totally clear and unambiguous message that any form of violence is unacceptable. Unless we do that, we will fail the most vulnerable in our society, by which we will be judged for years to come.
Lord CondonMy Lords, I suspect that, like me, many noble Lords are torn between supporting Amendment No. 106 or Amendment No. 106B. Both approaches have enormous merit and have been argued for so eloquently and convincingly. However, I am absolutely certain that the status quo should not prevail and that your Lordships have an historic opportunity to establish a pragmatic, symbolic and new legal approach to protecting children.
Those noble Lords who are moving towards supporting Amendment No. 106 should not be deterred by a fear of unleashing hundreds of thousands of police inquiries into trivial allegations and pitting child against parent in frivolous circumstances. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Directors of Social Services have acknowledged that they can envisage a sensible and pragmatic regime with clear guidelines being established. Noble Lords will clearly respond to their own consciences on this issue, but they should not be deterred from supporting Amendment No. 106 for fear of hundreds of thousands of unnecessary, frivolous investigations.
Lord PestonMy Lords, I address your Lordships as an ordinary person with no expertise, but I must reveal a strong bias in that I was never smacked as child—it was impossible for my mother or father even to have thought that that was a proper way to bring up children—nor were my sister or my brother. It was inconceivable that my wife and I would have smacked or hit our own children. It was simply not regarded as proper behaviour. That does not mean that there are not any problems. Ten days ago, I was looking after my seven year-old grandson and trying to watch what I thought was a very important football match. He talked incessantly through it and I wanted to strangle him, but it would never have occurred to me to do anything like that at all. What I had to do was to listen to a football match while he talked non stop.
550
That is riot an impossible state of affairs. To noble Lords who have asked what one does when one has a problem with children, my answer is that sometimes one just has a problem with children. That is the way the world is. However, hitting them and using violence is morally wrong. It is all very well for noble Lords, including one or two of my noble friends, to say that they are not in favour of violence when they are supporting amendments that legitimise violence. There is no other interpretation. I sit here and listen to very clever lawyers, but what they end up saying is that, in these cases, hitting children is acceptable. I find that impossible to believe. I would not behave in that way and I think that a large number of noble Lords would not behave in that way, including some who have not spoken.
We have heard the supermarket example. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned it last, but he was not the originator of it. One of the puzzles about the example of the supermarket—where my wife first of all has to restrain me—is that if I see a mother hitting a child and tell her to stop, I receive a stream of abuse. However, if, after the stream of abuse, she hits me, I can call the police, sue her and so on. That takes me to a point where I disagree fundamentally with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He said that a child should not have the same rights as the adult; my view is that the child should have more rights than the adult, because the child is the defenceless person. That lies at the heart of our debate.
We have heard some odd cases being invented. I turn again to the supermarket example. When my little hand leans towards the double cream, my wife grabs me and says, "No! It's not good for you". However, the notion that the law should then be invoked for that violent attack on me to prevent me having the cream that is not good for me is ridiculous. But that is of the level of the cases that have been cited by noble Lords who support either the status quo or the other amendments, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
We have even heard some new concepts. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has invented the concept of the "loving smack". That is another definition of sadism. That is exactly what a "loving smack" is. It is all very well—
Lord DenhamMy Lords, is the noble Lord watching the clock? We are trying to fit as many noble Lords in as possible before the curtain comes down.
Lord PestonMy Lords, as I pointed out to my noble friend the Chief Whip, those who have behaved in the proper way in your Lordships' House, giving way to speech after speech, should, especially if they are supporting the main amendment, at least be allowed to make the points that they are trying to make. I regarded what my noble friend the Chief Whip said not as being mandatory, but as "guidance", which is a term that the Government often use. I am influenced by the guidance, but I still intend to make the points that I want to make.

551
My main point, on which noble Lords should reflect, is that this is not a utilitarian case. It is not a matter of balancing rights and wrongs or of saying, "These are the plus consequences; these are the minuses. Let's now evaluate them and find out what the net position is". This is a matter on which one should take a moral or an ethical stand. That is the main reason why I am dismayed by the position of the Government and my noble friends on the From Bench. On a matter of this kind, where a moral principle is involved—a principle in which many of us have believed for pretty well all of our adult lives and in which quite a number of members of the Government must believe—not to allow a free vote to encourage Members to vote for what they truly believe is shameful. I have been a member of this party for probably longer than any member of the Front Bench. I did not think that we would reach this position on a matter of this kind. Even if I am expelled from the group, I intend to vote for Amendment No. 106 if it is moved. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that my main reason for having gone on a bit is that I would like to encourage as many of my noble friends as have the relevant ethical beliefs to vote for Amendment No. 106.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, I speak with some diffidence this afternoon, mainly because I spent the weekend in extreme discomfort. It would be my natural inclination to stand with the alliance. I believe fervently that hitting children is wrong. If we had thought through the issue in more detail, we might well have come up with something that met our requirements in a better way. Neither Amendment No. 106 nor Amendment No. 106B will meet them in total. Therefore, I hope that a better answer will be found in the Commons.
I need to explain why I cannot stand with my colleagues and why I am so discomfited in spite of a whole weekend of deep thought about this issue. I am a social worker. I have many years of child protection experience. One matter that we need quickly to clarify is the difference between child abuse at its worst and families who inappropriately hit their children. Hitting children is wrong, but it happens in families.
The case of Victoria Climbiée is not a valid example. Her case was in a different league from that of the mum who slaps her child in the supermarket. We have to keep our minds absolutely clear about those issues.
I also fear that we are confusing the real issues about how children perceive life. I spent 15 years in Childline, listening to children's voices on the telephone. Children talk with huge distress about being hit. They talk about being knocked down, hit with sticks and thrown downstairs. Some of those cases should certainly be coming to court. I respect the alliance hugely for bringing this debate forward. With due respect to the noble Lord who said that there has not been a debate in this country, I have seen attitudes change as a result of the work of the alliance and I respect it for it.
552
However, a law that makes families uneasy about their parenting is a difficult one. I would do most things to change the law on reasonable chastisement, which I see as being as ancient and removed from reality as many other noble Lords, but Amendment No. 106 will not do that. Therefore, I shall be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although it does not answer the whole issue. What children also pointed out to me on the telephone was that however much they hated being hit, what they worried about most was getting their families into trouble. They did not want their families brought before the court, even for the most horrific abuse, and certainly not for cases of the kind we have been debating.
5.30 p.m.
Therefore, we should not make families feel that they are going to get themselves into such difficulty, but I would not like to lose the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is giving us. I hope that the majority of the House will carry through to remove that appalling piece of legislation from the statute book and that the Government will continue to find an even better way to prevent anything that is not common assault, which we should not allow for children. I hope that the majority of your Lordships will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but in the fervent hope that even that can be bettered.
The Earl of ErrollMy Lords, I had a gang of 16year-old schoolgirls staying at the weekend for a party. I happened to ask, without any canvassing, what they thought about banning smacking. They universally thought that it was crazy to ban it and that Parliament should get real, in their words. The problem is that we punish a child for disobedience, not for behaviour: it is not the running across the road but the repeated disobedience in doing it. The only time that I have chastised my children above once each was for disobeying their mother. They then knew who ruled the roost in their house: their mother—very simple.
I think that is how many reasonable families work. The problem is that we need to make the punishment fit the child. The notion that we should remove smacking from the options will not suit some children. Some children do not respond to reason, long arguments or some form of humiliation; in fact, it may be more damaging and the short, sharp shock should be left there for some parents in reasonable cases.
Another thing that worries me about Amendment No. 106 is the meaning of the word "battery". I understood—and I have just checked with a noble and learned Lord—that battery includes the threat; assault is the actual physical action. So the threat that one is going to carry out the action is battery—I am not sure that that is what is meant in the amendment. If that point can be clarified I stand to be corrected.

553
Guidelines can unfortunately be rewritten ad hoc, so I do not see them as the solution. If we want to rewrite some guidelines there is a perfectly good rule about reasonable chastisement: rewrite the guidelines on "reasonable" to fit the cases in a more human way.
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, will it assist the noble Earl to realise that assault is a threat; it does not have to involve touching, but battery involves contact?
The Earl of ErrollMy Lords, I thought that it was the other way round.
Earl HoweMy Lords, this has been a high quality debate. Perhaps I may begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in a principled way to the amendments and by making it clear that the Conservative Party believes that it is appropriate to allow a free vote on the issue. What follows therefore represents my personal views.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others was debated in Committee. I made it clear at that time that I could not accept it. Listening today to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has completely confirmed my stance. If we put the law of assault between parent and child on the same footing as the law of assault between adult and adult, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, seeks to do, there will be only one result: we will render any parent who administers a smack to their child liable to criminal proceedings. That is not something for which I am prepared to vote under any circumstances.
The noble Baroness argued that cases of minor assault would never in practice be prosecuted. If that is so, the law should not be changed so as to enable that to happen. If we change the law but in the same breath say that we do not want some elements of it to be implemented, that only brings the law into disrepute.
The Minister emphasised in Committee—and I agreed with her—that if there is a lack of clarity over what the will of Parliament amounts to, it is not fair on the public authorities to be expected to implement it. From a practical point of view, even if there is no prosecution in cases of trivial assault, one can envisage a huge and wasteful diversion of resources in investigating such cases, leaving fewer police and social workers to investigate and pursue perpetrators of real and serious abuse. That worries me.
With great respect, I disagreed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Condon. We should not underestimate the extent to which the amendment would encourage malicious complaints against parents by individuals with a particular agenda. Perhaps worse, it would run counter to the tenor of the Bill to create a climate in which loving parents felt intimidated in the way that they set about the responsibility of bringing up their children.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I was grateful for his helpful introduction and found myself in agreement with a great deal of what he said. My position is simple and I
554
hope and believe that it accords with his position and that of the Government. I want to make sure that children who suffer physical damage as a result of a beating by a parent are protected under the law, but I also want to make sure that a loving mother who wallops her child in the supermarket—to use the oft-quoted example—for repeatedly doing what he is told not to do, is not committing an arrestable offence. The state should not interfere in the way in which parents bring up their children unless real abuse or violence has occurred. Loving parents should be entitled to use moderate physical punishment if they deem it to be justified in their children's best interests.
The stated aim—which I applaud—of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is to bring clarity to the law while at the same time achieving the broad objectives of which he spoke. Although it is reassuring to hear that, in his opinion, his amendment passes the test of legal clarity, we can reach a final judgment on that score only in the light of the remarks of the Attorney-General, which we are about to hear. I have no difficulty with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that cruelty, wounding and grievous bodily harm should be proscribed. No one disagrees with that. Where I have some uncertainty is over the meaning of "actual bodily harm" as defined by case law. It has been put to me that the term is open to a range of interpretations and could include, for example, minor bruising or even a red mark on the skin. It would be helpful to hear from the noble and learned Lord whether that is so. Can he say whether there have been cases—as I am told there have been—of incidents resulting in very minor injury or even no injury being charged as actual bodily harm? If the answer is "yes", we need to be very wary indeed of jettisoning the defence of reasonable chastisement in such cases.
But there could also be perverse consequences from the amendment if the term "actual bodily harm" is open to interpretation. If, let us say, a child is seen to be smacked by a parent and to suffer slight and temporary pain in consequence, a charge of common assault might be seen as likely to fail in court because of the defence of reasonable chastisement.
The alternative for the police in order to get a result would be to bring a charge of actual bodily harm. By doing so, they would be able to guarantee that the defence of reasonable chastisement would not be available to the parent. That is a worrying possibility. Currently the way in which the charging standards are implemented varies widely across the country. We cannot rely on them to reassure ourselves that such minor assaults would not reach the court under the banner of actual bodily harm.
The question for the House is that posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner: whether the existing law is sufficiently defective to warrant a complete change. It has been argued that the current law falls foul of the UN convention. However, I note that the Government oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and are

555
allowing a free vote on that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That hardly indicates that they believe a change in the law to be necessary.
If there have been cases of real abuse that have not been prosecuted, that does not necessarily argue for a change in the law; only an improvement in the way that it is administered and enforced. The defence of reasonable chastisement is well understood by the courts, especially in the light of the ECHR decision in the case of A v the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, appeared to acknowledge that point.
I shall listen very carefully to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, but my belief is that the risks of changing the law considerably outweigh the risks of keeping the law as it is. Unless my mind is changed in the next few minutes, I shall vote accordingly.
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, as one of the movers of Amendment No. 106, I sometimes feel like Alice in Wonderland in a looking-glass world. First, I find myself, on behalf of my party, having to oppose a Back-Bench amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lester, whom I admire very much. I regret the need to do that, but I do so firmly.
Secondly, I find myself living in a country in which there is a bizarre situation worthy of the White Rabbit, the Queen of Hearts et al. The common law of this country decriminalises an act which, if committed against an adult, would be a criminal assault, simply on the basis that the victim is a child—and on no other basis. In other words, the person who deserves more protection actually gets less. There is no other situation in law in which a victim of a violent crime or his representative has to prove that he did not deserve to be assaulted.
I also find a fellow NSPCC ambassador, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, opposing the long-standing campaign of that organisation and all the other reputable children's charities representing the interests of children. It is a looking-glass world indeed, and I regret it.
I am proud to be British and I am patriotic, but I am not blind to my country's faults, and today I am trying to do something to redress one of those problems. This country has a culture of violence, and I want to redress the roots of that culture, which I believe lie in the hitting of children.
I agree with those who have said that children are different from adults, but that does not mean that they deserve any less protection under the law of assault. They are different for three reasons—and each reason supports the call for equality, rather than the other way about. First, children are smaller and more vulnerable and need more protection from anyone who seeks to use violence against them, not less. Secondly, they do not know how to behave and need to be taught. Their parents have the right and duty to teach them; they have a duty to teach them in the most effective possible way, but no right to do it in a way that infringes the child's basic human rights.
556
I am a liberal, like my noble friend, and I believe that we should not interfere in people's private behaviour unless it infringes the basic human rights of someone else. I believe that this is just such a situation, and I am supported in that belief by the United Nations and the European Council, whose assembly called only last week for a ban on all physical punishment in the family and said that it would not interfere with the right to family life.
The third way in which children are different is that they take life very much as they find it. Lacking other experience, they assume that what happens to them is normal and right. If their parents hit them, that is what happens in the world, and they accept it. That is why children who are beaten severely and frequently are usually ominously silent. They no longer cry—they just whimper.
Children know that hitting them does not work. Last week, we saw a presentation in the House from some children, and they made it clear that hitting them teaches them only one thing—that if you want your own way and you are bigger and stronger than someone else, violence can get it for you. We hit our children and they learn that; then they go out and hit their playmates, and we smack them for hitting little Johnny. How illogical is that? Then they grow up and have fights in the pub, or hit their own wives and children. We condemn the one but condone the other. How logical is that?
Violence hurts the child and damages his perception of what is right. It also damages the parent and the relationship between the two, and it damages society. Here in Britain we have a society in which the level of crimes of violence is very high, especially among young people. The whole country seems to think that violence solves things—and it does not. The terrible situation in Iraq should tell us that. We live in a country in which one to two children die from violence or neglect every week. That is the tip of a terrible iceberg. Below the waterline is an enormous amount of violence against children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, 75 per cent of babies are hit even before they have learned to talk. How can it be reasonable to punish a little baby that does not even know what is right and cannot in any way be expected to? Hitting a child is not the only way in which to teach him how to behave and certainly not the only way in which to teach him about danger—but it does teach him that violence works.
5.45 p.m.
This whole debate has become very legalistic. It has been said that there must be certainty under the law, and there has been a lot of scaremongering about the possibility of prosecuting caring parents, but I hope that your Lordships will listen to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who should know if anyone does. But I believe that this debate should be about principle, and it saddens me that the Government will not accept the principle of equality.
The fact is that the law of any country should say something about the morals and standards of that country, and what its people believe to be right. The

557
laws of this country say that hitting children can be justified. I believe that that is wrong, and I want the law to be clear in saying that hitting children is just as wrong as hitting adults—no more, no less—and that it should then be as understanding and sensible as it is about trivial assaults on adult victims when parents do not quite live up to that standard. I did not live up to that standard myself, as I have admitted many times in your Lordships' House. However, as with de minimis assaults on adults, the same charging standards should apply before any action is taken.
Every weekend we see assaults on sports fields when tempers rise; they even appear on national television, yet no action is taken. Every Saturday night, fists fly in pubs, yet action is very rarely taken. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that the interests of the child will be taken into account when establishing the public interest, and there is no public interest in prosecuting caring parents for trivial smacks, however undesirable they are. There, at least, my noble friend Lord Lester quoted me correctly. But the DPP did not endorse my noble friend's amendment. He simply said that taking away the defence of reasonable chastisement for all assaults except common assault was a possibility. He did not suggest that equal protection was unworkable.
My colleagues and I have never claimed that action should be taken every time a frustrated parent who cannot think of anything better to do hits the child he or she loves. We know from the polling on this issue that parents do not want to hit their children and usually regret it when they have done so. I know that I did. But it is not hypocritical to put past mistakes behind one and to move forward and change things, in the light of what we have learned from the experiences of other countries. None of us wants to feel like criminals, but we must realise that when we reach—
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, to get the matter absolutely clear, is it not the case that what the Director of Public Prosecutions in fact said about the proposal in my amendment was:
"That is a possibility and that would have the merit, it seems to us, of the legislation being more certain. I do not want to repeat myself but I think that we are a little uneasy at the idea that Parliament can fudge this issue and expect us to sort it out".
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. I want Parliament not to fudge the issue today, and I believe that his amendment will provide the same level of uncertainty for children that we have at the moment. The prosecution would have to prove that harm had been done to the child—or the various levels of assault or injury to the child. That is not going to move us forward as regards child protection.
I believe that the law should educate people about the standards that we expect in a civilised society, and deter them from harming the most vulnerable. I would hope that when we reform the law completely to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement and
558
give children equal protection, it will send out a very clear message that will make parents stop and think before hitting their children. If it stays the hand in the air, it will have achieved something, although none of us are deceived into believing that it will solve everything. It will not.
Let me tell noble Lords a little anecdote, which will answer the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I met a young man recently who told me that he and his four siblings had been regularly beaten as children—which, he said, had "really screwed them up". However, he accepted that his father loved them and was a very law-abiding man. He said that he was convinced that, had hitting children been as unlawful as hitting adults, his father would never have done it, and the psychological harm done to him and his siblings would never have happened.
If we put a clear law alongside a lot of publicity about all the better ways of teaching a child how to behave well, and a lot more resources into helping parents, we may in the fullness of time reach the situation of Sweden, which made this change 25 years ago. In that country child mortality from violence is almost nil, and children do not run wild. In fact, youth crime has not risen at all there in the past 20 years.
All this concentration on the courts misses the point. This is not about criminalising or prosecuting parents; it is about helping, supporting and understanding them. That is how it operates in all the 12 European countries where hitting a child is unlawful. There are no malicious private prosecutions for trivial acts, and the authorities channel parents who regularly hit in a way that harms the child into help, not prison. Please note that there are no sanctions in our amendment. It simply completely removes a legal excuse for hitting a child, except in situations of danger where physical restraint is acceptable.
So why are the Government, my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, resisting that reform? They say it is because they do not want to see caring parents land up in court and that would be the inevitable consequence of our amendment. That is a classic and common tactic of those who oppose any change. They take a possible consequence of the change and stretch it to unreasonable extremes. They claim that that is what would always happen if the change took place. That is an unreasonable extreme which of course nobody wants. Your Lordships are not stupid and will see through that tactic immediately.
We know that in all the other countries where hitting children has become as unlawful as hitting adults, the number of obligatory interventions into family life has actually fallen. Is that not what we all want to see? That is because help is given earlier, before there is a need for formal intervention. There has been earlier intervention and a reduction in serious physical abuse of children. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, quoted an early draft of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Its final statement supports our amendment, but asks for clear guidelines.

559
I will finish on this point. In Sweden—
Noble LordsOh!
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, I think that is unworthy of your Lordships. Noble Lords probably are aware that this campaign has been going on for many years. It is the first opportunity in 15 years for the issue to be attached to an appropriate Bill. It could be another 15 years before we get another opportunity. It is therefore absolutely vital that all the issues are properly aired and that a summary is made at the end of the debate. It would be inappropriate for my noble friend Lady Finlay—who will, as the mover of the amendment, make very brief comments—to answer all the points. So I think that I am behaving perfectly appropriately in giving a correct answer to the issues raised.
In Sweden, children know about the protection that they have a right to. They know that they and their parents have a right to help. They know that if they report that their parents are hitting them and need help to find different ways of doing their duty to discipline, they will receive that help. They are not in danger of having their family split up, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested might take place. That was one of the dire warnings given by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his speech in Committee. That has not happened in Sweden, nor in any of the other countries. There is not a big raft of malicious complaints and prosecutions anywhere else. Are we a malicious nation? Or do we really want to do something to move the protection of children forward? Amendment No. 106 will do that. I therefore beg your Lordships to vote for it. I cannot vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lester unless it is amended by the amendments of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, because I believe that it does not move child protection forward. It gives us the same level of uncertainty as we have now. Indeed, it could be even worse.
The trouble is that the Government will say that they have done something, because—make no mistake—that is a government amendment manquée. They cannot be allowed to say that they have done something if Amendment No. 106B is carried, and it could be another 15 years before we have the chance to put that right. I beg your Lordships to vote for legislation to protect children and give them the equal protection that you and I enjoy against assaults upon us.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I begin my paying tribute to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I believe that what unites every speaker in your Lordships' House is a desire to protect and support children. To that extent we share a common goal. I trust that no one watching, participating in or reading our deliberations will fail to recognise that. I pay tribute to all.
In the passion and emotion that underlay much of this debate—and indeed of the tabled amendments—there are two separate but interrelated questions—what is the legal effect of each amendment, and what are the policy and practical implications of each? I am
560
pleased that my noble friend the Attorney-General is here today. I am very grateful to him. I felt this to be such an important debate that the House should receive his view on the legal issue. I invite him to do so before I continue.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)My Lords, with the leave of the House I rise simply in the hope that I can be of assistance in my capacity as Attorney-General. It is not my intention to deal at all with the important policy issues raised today. That is an issue which the House—ultimately Parliament—will have to decide. My noble friend Lady Ashton will deal with the policy considerations.
My purpose in rising is threefold. First, I rise to assist the House by setting out the legal context in which these amendments fall to be considered; secondly, to advise the House of my view of the legal effect of each of the amendments if passed; and thirdly, in my capacity as superintending Minister for the Crown Prosecution Service, to deal simply with the suggestion made that it would be appropriate for Parliament to leave it to the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide when to prosecute in the case of minor smacking of children.
I deal first with the legal context. In law, any unwanted application of force to the body of another which is committed intentionally or recklessly will—unless there is a defence to it—be an offence. Technically this is known in law as a "battery", although often called an "assault". Assault without battery is where, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate and/ or unlawful violence. For convenience I will use the more common expression "assault", but noble Lords will understand that I mean by that an occasion where there is actual application of force.
To constitute an unlawful battery there need not be any kind of injury, so even a touching which leaves no visible mark at all can be an assault which is punishable by the criminal law. Some assaults will leave injuries, sometimes serious injuries—the law treats those cases more severely, of course, and there are as a result specific offences which apply where such injury occurs. I will return to that issue.
What then are the defences? There are several which the common law recognises, such as those which arise from the exigencies of everyday life—such as a slap on the back at a party, or jostling on the Underground. But the defence which is particularly pertinent here is the defence of reasonable chastisement. It has long been recognised by the law that a parent may inflict moderate and reasonable punishment as a correction to the child. That is the defence of reasonable chastisement. Without that defence, such punishment—including a single smack to a child—would be an unlawful assault and punishable by the criminal law.
I should underline, however, that the fact that the defence is available does not necessarily mean that a defendant will be able to avail himself of it. It is necessary that the force used is reasonable and moderate in all the circumstances. So the defence may be available but a jury

561
or magistrates may be satisfied that the force used was more than moderate and reasonable in all the circumstances and so convict of the offence.
6 p.m.
In considering whether the force used is reasonable the Court of Appeal has laid down that "reasonable" must be considered against a number of factors, including the nature and extent of the defendant's behaviour, its duration, its physical and mental consequences in relation to the child, the age and personal characteristics of the child and the reasons given by the defendant for administering the punishment.
That takes me to my first point on the effect of Amendment No. 106 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The effect of that amendment in my view would be to criminalise smacking except in the limited and narrowly confined circumstances set out in subsection (2) of the amendment. The defence of reasonable chastisement would not be available therefore to a parent who smacks a naughty child out of frustration at being unable otherwise to correct the behaviour of the child. Unless the purpose was to avert an immediate danger to the child—I note the word "immediate" in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 106, which would appear therefore to exclude cases where the intent is to avert danger to the child which is more remote—to avert danger to property or to prevent the commission of a crime, this smack would be a crime. It would not matter that there was no lasting injury or even a reddening of the skin—this would be an offence.
I therefore say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that the amendment criminalises smacking. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, when she says the amendment contains no sanction, that its effect is to bring in the existing sanction, at least for common assault, which is six months' imprisonment maximum. That would also be one of the effects of Amendments Nos. 106C, 106D and 106E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Later I shall explain why that is the case and deal with their other effects.
I am well aware that there are those who take the view that all smacking should be illegal. For them this amendment would achieve their ends. However, for those who wish to outlaw some degrees of physical contact or corporal punishment but do not wish to criminalise or ban smacking, the amendment would not have the effect they desire. It is, in short, an amendment whose effect would be to ban smacking save, as I have said, in all but some narrowly confined circumstances. That was also the view given by the Director of Public Prosecutions when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He said that,
"quite clearly this outlaws batteries and assaults in all but very exceptional circumstances".
It is appropriate to deal with the other issue raised by some noble Lords that it would be acceptable to ban smacking in this way but to leave it to the discretion of
562
the prosecutor to decide not to prosecute. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Sharp, referred to the evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said that he suspected—with respect, he did not say that he was sure—that most minor assaults against children would not be prosecuted. However, as he said, this was based on the fact that most minor assaults against adults are not prosecuted. He went on to say that the comparison with adult victims was not an accurate one because of the vulnerability of children. He went on to make two further points clear. First, he said that it would not be possible to frame guidance to prosecutors which would absolve all minor acts of battery against children. Secondly, he made the point that it is for Parliament to frame its legislation to achieve the result that it wants to achieve. I agree. It is for Parliament to decide if smacking is to be banned. It is not right to leave that important public policy decision to others.
I, too, am concerned about leaving what is in effect a fundamental public policy choice to the prosecutor. If Parliament removes the reasonable chastisement defence, as Amendments Nos. 106, 106C, 106D, and 106E would do, it is therefore criminalising smacking, and it is not fair on the prosecutor to leave the decision whether to enforce that law to the discretion of the prosecutor. Noble Lords might also think that it would be unfair on parents because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, they are entitled to certainty in the law so that they know what acts or omissions will make them liable to prosecution. This is a fundamental part of the common law and of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Therefore, I respectfully advise noble Lords not to assume that they can safely vote for Amendment No. 106 or those standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the belief that they need not be concerned that thereby the law would criminalise acts which they do not mean to criminalise because it can be left to the prosecutor. It is for Parliament to decide what it wants to achieve and for the prosecutor to give effect to the law as passed by Parliament, not to legislate himself.
I turn next to the effect of Amendment No. 106B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Essentially I agree with what he said about the effect of his amendment, but it is right that I should explain why in my own words. The effect of this amendment would be to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement in relation to offences of causing actual bodily harm and the more serious charges of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm, causing grievous bodily harm with intent and cruelty to a child. Nor could the defence be relied upon in any civil proceedings where actual bodily harm is caused. The defence would remain available to parents or those in loco parentis to a charge of common assault.
Noble Lords will therefore wish to know—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about this—when an assault leads only to a charge of common assault and when one of the higher offences, particularly assault occasioning actual bodily harm, comes into play. The standard legal definition of "actual bodily harm" is,

563
"any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the [victim]. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must … be more than merely transient and trifling".
So the offence does not require that there be a serious injury but that there be an injury which is more than transitory. Actual bodily harm is, moreover, not confined to physical harm but can and does include psychological harm. It would not include mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic, but where there is evidence of psychiatric injury, that can amount to actual bodily harm.
Reference has been made to the CPS charging standards. These are not in any sense legally binding on the courts but they guide police and prosecutors and represent the interpretation of the ingredients appropriate to an offence. In relation to an offence of common assault, the standards indicate that a charge of common assault will normally be appropriate where injuries amount to no more than grazes, minor bruising, reddening of the skin, scratches, superficial cuts or a black eye. At the moment the standards give guidance to prosecutors to focus on the nature of the injury caused and not on the circumstances of the victim when deciding which offence to charge. However—
Baroness Howells of St DavidsMy Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, the point I was making is that reddening of the skin cannot possibly apply in the case of black children.
Lord GoldsmithMy Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. I should like to tell noble Lords about the proposed changes to the charging standard which the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me he intends to make because those are very pertinent to your Lordships' consideration.
The revised charging standard will include guidance that where serious aggravating features exist, cases in which the level of injuries would usually lead to a charge of common assault, could more appropriately be charged as actual bodily harm. Such serious aggravating features would include the vulnerability of the victim, such as when they are a child assaulted by an adult. The effect of that pending change is that even minor assaults by a parent on a child, where grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye are caused, will normally be charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
However, given the publicity over the weekend and this morning, I should make it clear that reddening of the skin where it is merely transitory will usually still be charged as common assault. That is because the definition of "actual bodily harm" requires the injury to be more than transient. Where the reddening subsists for hours or days, that may suggest a charge of actual bodily harm.
That change, in combination with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would have the effect that the defence of "reasonable chastisement" could not normally be relied upon where any injury that
564
was more than transitory was caused. In my view, legally, the Lester amendment would have the effect of preventing harm to children without criminalising parents for minor disciplinary steps.
Finally, I need to deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, which I can do shortly. There are three points to make. First, the amendment, like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, abolishes the defence of reasonable chastisement in proceedings for all offences of assault and in civil proceedings, save for some narrowly defined exceptions, and has the effect of criminalising parents who administer minor disciplinary smacks.
Secondly, the amendment appears to be even narrower than that of the noble Baroness, because the only exception it permits is where the act was for the purpose of restraining the child from immediate or future harm to itself or another. It does not include, as Amendment No. 106 does, averting danger to property, or preventing the commission of a crime. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, intends the latter to be the case. There is a defence of preventing the commission of a crime in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The noble Lord has not proposed the disapplication in terms of that defence, but the position is not clear.
Further—this is the third point—the noble Lord proposes that there should be placed on the defendant the legal burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the act was reasonable for that purpose. That proposal creates a legal difficulty that I do not welcome. As noble Lords will know, it is rare for the law to place on a defendant the burden of proving a defence. Normally it is the prosecution who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the elements that make up the offence. Of course there are exceptions, but the courts have been much exercised by the question of whether such "reverse burdens", as they are known, are a breach of the right to a fair trial, and in some cases they have read those clauses down because of European Convention on Human Rights implications. Whilst the case law suggests that exceptions of this kind may be permissible, the difficulty they have caused in the past is such that we should not rush to create new examples of the reverse legal burden.
It is not clear that the burden intended by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, relates to proving that the battery was for the purpose permitted, or to proving that it was reasonable for that purpose, but without having to prove that was the purpose, or whether it is both. Noble Lords should bear in mind the fact that the consequence of putting the burden on the defendant on a particular fact is that if the magistrates or jury are in doubt on the matter, and cannot say that it is more likely than not that the defendant is right, they will have to convict, whereas normally, of course, the defendant gets the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I shall be brief. This debate is about the most sensitive and intimate relationship of all, between parents and their children, and about the parameters of the involvement

565
of the state in that relationship in order to protect those children. On Second Reading I indicated that, were an amendment to come forward that sought to give greater protection to children but did not criminalise parents, the Government would be willing to offer a free vote. The history of that position is as follows. Organisations and individuals have come to us and said they believe there are circumstances where children are subject to great stress and suffering, and where parents should be prosecuted but are not, either because of a mistaken belief about the way the law works, or because the law was too vague or too wide. We listened with great care to those organisations and individuals, some of whom are in your Lordships' House, and to all of whom I pay tribute.
Amendment No. 106 was tabled at Committee, and I indicated the reasons why the Government felt they could not offer a free vote. I indicated the two views that came together around the amendment: those who believed, as a matter of principle, that in all circumstances it is wrong for parents to use any form of smacking or slapping against their children; and others who believed that while a loving parent might do that in certain circumstances, it would never be prosecuted because the prosecutors would not pursue. My noble friends have given the answer to why we feel it is important that we cannot give a free vote on that issue. The amendment creates uncertainty at best, and makes it absolutely clear that parents would be criminalised.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Walmsley, have been extremely generous in giving me their time to discuss this issue. We have had many open and frank discussions, and we have not always agreed, but I recognise and pay tribute to their work. I have said to them, and I say again, that, whatever the outcome of today's debate, I look forward to working closely with them, to see what more we can do to support children, in the work that they do as ambassadors for the NSPCC and in other capacities. I genuinely look forward to that.
My noble friend indicated that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, provides greater protection for children without resorting to criminalisation of parents, which is why we are able to offer a free vote on that amendment.
I want to end with a couple of comments. I believe wholeheartedly that we need to do more to support parents. I believe in the Sure Start programme, for which I was responsible, and in education and support for parents. I also believe that the way to do this is to support and encourage parents, which is something the Government are committed to and, in a sense, is at the heart of this Bill. I also believe that it is very important that we do not leave it to those who would have to interpret the law to determine what our actions were meant to be. We are lawmakers. We should tread lightly in making the law in this way.
It is important that each of us recognises our individual role in this matter. I, as a Minister and as a person, have not spent more time on any other subject in the three years of my ministerial career than I have on this issue. I pay tribute to everybody who has come
566
to talk to me in many different meetings, not least in the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, to give me their views. I know how important this issue is in your Lordships' House, and I agree it is important to ensure that the law is in the right place. I am not ashamed of where I stand. It is important that we make sure we protect children appropriately.
It has been an important debate. We should take care of our children, and in our role as lawmakers, it is important that we take care. I hope noble Lords will reject Amendment No. 106, and Amendments Nos. 106C, 106D and 106E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because of the effect they would have. The Government believe that Amendment No. 106B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, affords the House an opportunity to search its own conscience, and to take a view on whether that amendment offers greater protection for children in the right balance of involvement in family life.
Baroness Finlay of LlandaffMy Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part, particularly the Minister, who has spent a great amount of time with myself and others discussing this issue. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for coming to the House today. As we have said, it is indeed for Parliament to decide. An important principle is involved: is battery of a child justified, or does it infringe the child's human rights? The police have said that this is a change whose time has come. We all support Sure Start, and all the other programmes that have been undertaken. No one condemns any of those.
The law must be clear and give a lead, as was clearly expounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The current law is confusing. I am concerned that Amendment No. 106B maintains that confusion, because of the difficulty of proving that there has been actual bodily harm, for the reasons so clearly outlined, depending on the physiology of the child, their race, where the blow was inflicted and so on. Therefore, in my belief that Amendment No. 106 is absolutely clear and sends a message to society that hitting children is wrong, I feel that I must test the opinion of this House.
6.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 249.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ells-Thomas, L.

Barker, B.

Falkland, V.

Berkeley, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Billingham, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.[Teller]

Bragg, L.

Gale, B.

Condon, L.

Garden, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Goodhart, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hamwee, B.

David, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

567

Harrison, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hattersley, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollick, L.

Renton, L.

Hooson, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rix, L.

Judd, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Laird, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Ludford, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Sharp of Guildford. B.

McNally, L.

Sheldon, L.

Maddock, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Stern, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Taverne, L.

Morgan, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Murphy, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northover, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Uddin, B.

Ouseley, L.

Wamsley, B. [Teller]

Oxford, Bp.

Warnock, B.

Patel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pendry, L.

Wilkins, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Colwyn, L.

Acton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Ahmed, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Alli, L.

Craigavon, V.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Crathorne, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the)

Crawley, B.

Council)

Crickhowell, L.

Andrews, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Astor, V.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Attlee, E.

Dearing, L.

Bach, L.

Deedes, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Denham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Desai, L.

Bell, L.

Dixon, L.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Birt, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Blackwell, L.

Drayson, L.

Blaker, L.

Dubs, L.

Blatch, B.

Eccles of Moulton. B.

Bledisloe, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Elder, L.

Borrie, L.

Elles, B.

Bowness, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brennan, L.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Emerton, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Erroll, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnham, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Buscombe, B.

Fearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Feldman, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Filkin, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Fitt, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fookes, B.

Carter of Coles, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Chadlington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Chandos, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Gavron, L.

Christopher, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Giddens, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Glentoran, L.

568

Golding, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Montrose, D.

Goschen, V.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Goudie, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Greengross, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Greenway, L.

Moser, L.

Grenfell, L.

Moynihan, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Hanham, B.

Naseby, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Nicol, B.

Hart of Chilton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Haskel, L.

Onslow, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Henig, B.

Parekh, L.

Henley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Parkinson, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Patten, L.

Hooper, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howard of Rising, L.

Peel, E.

Howe, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Quirk, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hoyle, L.

Reay, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rees, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Rooker, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rosser, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jones, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jopling, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jordan, L.

Sawyer, L.

Kalms, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sharpies, B.

Kingsland, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Laidlaw, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Laming, L.

Slim, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Snape, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Layard, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lipsey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Luke, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tebbit, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Thatcher, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Mar, C.

Trenchard, V.

Marlesford, L.

Triesman, L.

Marsh, L.

Truscott, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Vinson, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Waddington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wakeham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Monson, L.

Walpole, L.

569

Walton of Detchant, L.

Wilcox, B.

Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Weatherill, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.36 p.m.
[Amendment No. 106A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hillmoved Amendment No. 106B:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"REASONABLE PUNISHMENT

In relation to any offence specified in subsection (2), battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(2) The offences referred to in subsection (1) are—

an offence under section 18 or 20 of the Offences against the Person Act [861 (c. 100) (wounding and causing grievous bodily harm);

(b) an offence under section 47 of that Act (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);

(c) an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (cruelty to persons under 16).

(3) Battery of a child causing actual bodily harm to the child cannot be justified in any civil proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) "actual bodily harm" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).

(5) In section I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), omit subsection (7)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 106B, to which I have already spoken.
[Amendments Nos. 106C to 106E not moved.]
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 226; Not-Contents, 91.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Addington, L.

Bach. L.

Ahmed, L.

Barker, B.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Council)

Bhattacharyya, L.

Andrews, B.

Billingham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Birt, L.

570

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Borrie, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bowness, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Bragg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brennan, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brookman, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Buscombe, B.

Joffe, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jones, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter of Coles, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Chandos, V.

Kingsland, L.

Chorley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Christopher, L.

Laidlaw, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Laird, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Laming, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Layard, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lea of Crondall. L.

Condon, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller]

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lipsey, L.

Crathome, L.

Listowel, E.

Crawley, B.

Liverpool, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lyell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dearing, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Drayson, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Dubs, L.

McNally, L.

Elder, L.

Maddock, B.

Emerton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mar, C.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor

Mar and Kellie, E.

Marlesford, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Marsh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Massey of Darwen, B. [Teller]

Fearn, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Filkin, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Fitt, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Freyberg, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Montrose, D.

Gale, B.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Garden. L.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Gavron, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Giddens, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Golding, B.

Moser, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Murphy, B.

Goodhart, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Goudie, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Greengross, B.

Northover, B.

Grenfell, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Grocott, L.

Onslow, E.

Hamwee, B.

Orme, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Parekh, L.

Harrison, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Peel, E.

Haskel, L.

Pendry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Henig, B.

Prashar, B.

Henley, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Quirk, L.

Hollick, L.

Radice, L.

571

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rea, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Redesdale, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Richard, L.

Taverne, L.

Rix, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rooker, L.

Thornton, B.

Rosser, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Tordoff, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Triesman, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Truscott, L.

Sandberg, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Sandwich, E.

Turnberg, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Walpole, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Selborne, E.

Warner, L.

Sheldon, L.

Warnock, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Weatherill, L.

Slim, V.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Snape, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kalms, L.

Astor, V.

Kilclooney, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Bell, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morgan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Chadlington, L.

Moynihan, L.

Chan, L.

Naseby, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Deedes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dixon, L.

Patten, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rawlings, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Seccombe, B.

Falkland, V.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Feldman, L.

Sharples, B.

Fookes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller]

Stewartby, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hooson, L.

Tebbit, L.

Howard of Rising, L.

Thatcher, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trenchard, V.

Jopling, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jordan, L.

Vinson, L. [Teller]

572

Waddington, L.

Walmsley, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wakeham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.51 p.m.
Clause 8 [Information databases]:
Baroness Barker
Page 6, line 15, after second "the" insert "sole"
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising this issue. I will be as brief as possible. I hope that the Government have reassured noble Lords about the purposes for which we are proposing the establishment of information-sharing databases. We have no intention of using the Clause 8 powers for purposes other than co-operation to improve the well-being of children and arrangements to safeguard and protect their welfare. That is why we have drafted the clause as we have.
Amendment No. 106F would have no effect—if I can say that without in any way demeaning its purpose, because I understand it. It would have no effect because I am able to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is looking for. The clause as it stands gives the Secretary of State the power regarding the establishment of databases for the purposes of arrangements under Clauses 6 and 7 and under Section 175 of the Education Act 2002. There is no flexibility for the Secretary of State to exercise that power for any other purpose, and I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, I welcome that clear statement by the Minister—it was exactly the sort of assurance for which I was looking and her words are now on the record for those who will spend a considerable amount of time following the implementation of Clause 8. The statement is very important and on the basis of it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 107:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
"(2A) A database under this section may only include information falling within subsection (2B) in relation to a person to whom arrangements specified in subsection (1) relate.
(2B) The information referred to in subsection (2A) is information of the following descriptions in relation to a person—

his name, address and date of birth;

(b) a number identifying him;

(c) the name and contact details of any person with parental responsibility for him (within the meaning of section 3 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) or who has care of him at any time;

(d) details of any education being received by him (including the name and contact details of any educational institution attended by him);

(e) the name and contact details of any person providing primary medical services in relation to him under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49);

574

(f) the name and contact details of any person providing to him services of such description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify;

(g) information as to the existence of any cause for concern in relation to him;

(h) information of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 107, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 109 to 112, 118 to 123, 126, 128 to 130, 134 and 137 to 142. I shall do so as briefly as I can.
The amendments relate to the information databases and fulfil commitments that I have given in your Lordships' House to put more information on the face of the Bill. Noble Lords will know of the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and by noble Lords at Committee stage. There was concern that the powers were broadly drawn and that important issues are to be the subject of regulations. The Committee invited the Government to consider putting more detail on the face of the Bill. I offered a commitment that I would bring forward amendments on Report to address those concerns. During the Committee stage, I said that I was prepared to consider other changes.
I said in Committee that we would consider how best to place arrangements for practitioners to be able to signal to each other the existence of a concern. Noble Lords will know that there is a basic principle that we wish to achieve by this provision. We want practitioners to take appropriate action when they believe that a child is not thriving as he should be and then indicate on the database that they have done so and wish to be contacted by other practitioners who may become involved with the child because they have something to discuss. Of course, actions may vary, but any action would normally involve discussing the issues with the family and child and might well involve discussions with other practitioners, making a referral or simply a decision to monitor the situation.
What is certain is that signalling the existence of a concern must not be a substitute for doing something. We have debated that at some length and I recognise that the term "concern" has implications of child protection for some issues. Indeed, noble Lords who listened to the trailblazers will know that they raised issues about needing to look carefully at this area. We are talking primarily about picking up issues relating to the well-being and development of a child as part of our preventive agenda.
7 p.m.
For these reasons we are not proposing any amendment to the Bill, but we are committed to consult publicly this autumn on how this aspect of the database should operate to inform our regulations and guidance. That will be a formal consultation under Cabinet Office rules. It will provide us with an opportunity to gain reactions from practitioners, children and young people, families and other interested parties on specific propositions on how practitioners should indicate the existence of a concern on their part. It will be a public consultation and

575
among the issues to be addressed we shall examine the language and the phraseology to be used to describe what is to be done— indeed, the terminology and the flags of concern.
I shall endeavour to ensure that noble Lords who participate in this debate receive copies of that consultation when it is published and that a copy is placed in the Library of the House. It is important that before any regulations are laid or debated noble Lords have the benefit of knowing what the consultation has said.
Another issue that has been raised in your Lordships' House is sensitive services. We want to ensure that these issues are dealt with properly. So we propose also to include in the public consultation how best to deal with recording practitioner details in relation to sensitive services. Key issues that we shall need to explore are which practitioners would be able to see the involvement of those providing sensitive services and to what extent the inclusion of such information and the determination of who might see it should be subject to the consent of the child, the young person or the parents.
I wanted to say that at the beginning because I know that those issues have been raised and I wanted to lay out where the Government plan to take the consultation. I shall now briefly talk to the detail of the amendments that stand in my name. As I have said, they are in response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 107 and 126 and minor consequential Amendments Nos. 109, 118, 128 and 137. New subsections (2A) and (2B) replace current subsection (5) and amplify subsection (4) of Clauses 8 and 23. They provide for the inclusion in the Bill of specified basic information to be held on all children in the database, for the name and contact details of practitioners who are providing specialised services to a child to be entered on the database and for practitioners to be able to indicate the fact that they have a concern about a child.
I want to reassure noble Lords on the particular point about case information. If the drafting of this amendment does not do so, I undertake to take the issue away and consider it further to see if there is a further amendment that I can table at Third Reading. I know from discussions outside your Lordships' House that there is a concern that we should be very clear that the databases may not include information such as case data. I am very happy to consider that again. I do not want to pre-empt the debate, but it is important to say that.
The effect of the subsection is reinforced by Amendments Nos. 109 and 128. The information to be held is name, address, date of birth, person with parental responsibility, unique identifying number, educational setting and GP practice details.
Paragraph (c) is drawn more widely than those with parental responsibility so that the name of the person who has day-to-day care, for instance a foster carer, can be included. But we do not want to include nannies or
576
childminders who look after a child for only a number of hours a week. We shall specify in regulations who the people in paragraph (c) might be.
Paragraph (d) is intended to cover those educated at home, in pupil referral units, in prison or secure units or in hospital as well as in schools and colleges. Paragraph (e) provides for the inclusion of GP practice details. It remains our intention for health visitor details to be a part of the basic data that the databases collect. We have not been able to draft an amendment to make this clear at this stage; the legislative arrangements that cover health visiting are about to be changed through new nursing and midwifery orders. We propose to use regulations to make clear how contact details of those carrying out these functions should be included.
Paragraph (f) of the new subsection (2B) supersedes the original subsection (5)(a), which is removed by the minor consequential Amendments Nos. 118 and 137. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that the wording here is more tightly drawn.
Paragraph (g) replicates the original subsection (5)(b) on the existence of a cause for concern. Subsection (5)(b) is removed by minor consequential drafting amendments.
We have framed Amendment No. 107 in such a way as to define what is to be included in the databases more tightly but we want to retain the power in regulation to add information that may be required in the future. Paragraph (h) of subsection (2B) provides for regulation to specify that other information. This is not about creating the ability to change the purpose and nature of the databases. The purpose of this package of amendments is to make clear on the face of the Bill the key characteristics but to retain flexibility for any future organisational change, or for a new identified data requirement.
The approval of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure will be necessary. I stress that there is no intention to provide under this power for the inclusion of case information.
Amendments Nos. 110 and 129 carry out my commitment to bring forward an amendment that those agencies or bodies that will be required or permitted to disclose information to the databases will be specified on the face of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 112 and 134 list them.
New subsections (4A) and (4B) list the two groups of persons and bodies who are respectively required or permitted to disclose information for inclusion in the database. Paragraph (a) of (4A) refers back to the persons and bodies covered by Clauses 7 and 22. Paragraphs (c) and (d) refer to governing bodies of maintained schools and further education colleges, which are included in this clause by virtue of the link to Section 175 of the Education Act 2002, which came into force on 1 June. Paragraph (e) includes registered independent schools in the data.
New subsection (4B) lists the persons and bodies who will be permitted to disclose information to the database. This amendment will also allow social

577
landlords, for example, to be able to reply to requests from those managing the database. They may well have valuable up-to-date information to fill the gap on the basic data on a child. However, we are not talking about these people having access to the database as practitioners. Their role here is as a secondary source of some of the basic identifying data.
Similarly, paragraph (c) permits the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the databases. We expect that in practice the use of that provision will be limited to a supply of names and addresses and information from a child's benefit database to meet that type of request. Without that provision the Inland Revenue would not be able to meet those requests, but I can reassure noble Lords that this provision would not allow for information from databases to be disclosed to the Inland Revenue. We are not talking about Inland Revenue staff having access to the databases of practitioners or being able to comment on the existence of any cause for concern in relation to a child.
Both subsections (4A) and (4B) also provide flexibility, in paragraphs (f) and (e) respectively, for the Secretary of State and the Assembly to specify other people or bodies. As I have already said that this package of amendments is designed to capture new bodies; for example, there was a time when youth offending teams did not exist and quite rightly noble Lords have wanted to have them, in the best sense of the word, captured in the Bill, or the tendency of some public bodies—perhaps the health service is a good example—to change names or to change the way in which they are structured. Again, these provisions can be changed only through the affirmative resolution procedure or in the case of the Assembly, through its own legislative procedures.
New subsection (4C) would give the Secretary of State and the Assembly power to disclose information to the database. If we need to, we shall be able to make use of existing records held by government in ensuring that we have complete and correct information on the child's records.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 111 and 130, 121 and 140 and 122 and 141 which relate to conditions of access. Amendments Nos. 111 and 130 address a specific point made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that conditions of access should be contained in regulations, not directions. They insert the reference to conditions of access in subsection (4) which covers regulations. Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 140 and 141 make the consequential changes in subsection (9) which covers guidance and directions.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 138 address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the current sub-delegation provision at subsection (6) is too widely drawn. These amendments provide that decisions about permitting or requiring disclosure of information cannot be sub-delegated as the current drafting permits, but that only decisions about granting access to individuals may be sub-delegated. These amendments, therefore, restrict
578
the provision in subsection (6) to subsection (4)(d) only. As I said in Committee, we need to retain the power to sub-delegate decisions about individual access to databases because regulations cannot specify each individual practitioner or agency that can have access to the database.
Amendments Nos. 120 and 139 cover the common law duty of confidentiality. These amendments fulfil the last of the commitments made in Committee to introduce amendments on Report. They delete the two references to "must" in subsection (7) so that the regulations made under this subsection will not be able to require practitioners to do anything. If a practitioner has a statutory duty to disclose information this would constitute a defence to breach of confidentiality. The "musts" are therefore unnecessary.
This amendment also restricts the matters to which exemption from confidentiality applies. It may apply only to decisions by those bodies which are permitted to disclose information on to the database. It may apply only to specifically relevant aspects of regulation under this clause, whereas the previous wording encompassed all regulations under this clause. Amendments Nos. 123 and 142 concern crosschecking information between databases. These amendments, under subsection (9), respond to an amendment raised in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the importance of cross-checking data between databases. I said that I was prepared to consider including in the Bill guidance and direction that may relate to this point in particular. We regard the links between databases as crucial, as noble Lords will know. But I hope this amendment will satisfy noble Lords on our commitment to accuracy, on which we will probably hear more in connection with Amendments Nos. 115 and 132.
With apologies for galloping through this, I hope that I have covered the commitments made either to the Delegatory Regulatory Powers Committee or to the House about putting things very clearly to your Lordships, and I commend this package of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Barkermoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 107, Amendment No. 107A:
Line 9, after "or" insert "any parent or"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 107A, 108A, 110A, 110B, 111ZA, 113A, 118A and those other amendments in this group to which my name is attached but will stand in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I thank the Minister for that full and speedy introduction to the Government's amendments, many of which are welcome. But just as she prefaced her remarks with an opening statement, so too must I. It is important for me to say that the Government have it fundamentally the wrong way around. It is for Parliament to determine what the scope of a measure should be and then for there to be consultation, not the reverse. Therefore, it is only fair to the Minister to say now that, while I understand and appreciate the

579
constructive way in which she has dealt with many of the concerns we have raised from these Benches, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, there is a fundamental difference here which her speech did not sufficiently allay for me.
Simply put, it has been extremely helpful to establish in some detail those matters of fact which will be held upon a database. I do not think there is any noble Lord in the House who would have any problem at all with matters of fact being more easily and electronically accessible to colleagues working in the area of looking after children. However, once a database goes beyond the point of registration of objective fact—for we on these Benches that means flags of concern, because those are immediately subjective matters—then the nature of the regulation and operation of the database has to change and has to become altogether far more detailed. Speaking for myself and my colleagues on these Benches, I have to say that flags of concern—the transmission of subjective data by this means—are unacceptable. While I therefore welcome some of the elucidations she has given about points of fact, that remains a concern. The promise of consultation on that matter is insufficient for me. Therefore, many of the amendments which stand in my name—although I can happily tell noble Lords who wish to be elsewhere that they will not be voted on tonight—remain, and I will retain the right to return to them at a future stage.
Having said that we are opposed to flags of concern, it will not have escaped the Minister's notice that many of the amendments that stand in our names are designed to deal with the operation of them. I suppose it is not inconsistent to object to something while at the same time trying to limit its effect.
The purposes of our amendments are as follows. Amendment No. 107A is to insert "parents". It stays consistent with the Children Act 1989, which requires local authorities to inform and consult with parents, not just parents with parental responsibility, when making decisions about a child. That is consistent with the Government's view, which has been put forward on may occasions, that parents, not just parents with parental responsibility, should be involved and take responsibility for their children. In addition, many children spend a lot of time with a parent who is not the parent who has parental responsibility. In regulations, this duty could be dealt with by a wording such as "as far as is reasonably practical".
Amendment No. 108A leads us to a very important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has consistently talked about "cause for concern" throughout discussion of this Bill. The term "cause for concern" is not recognised in current social care work with children, or in any existing childcare legislation. Nor is it defined in the Bill. It will not address a key problem, that of different professionals having different views and different thresholds of understanding of the term, and the action that they are then supposed to take.
Therefore, we have sought to insert two recognisable, existing phrases from childcare legislation into the Bill: children who are "in need", and children who are "at risk of harm". Those are both linked to concepts widely
580
understood within the field of childcare. They exist in Section 17 and Section 47 of the Children Act. They also form a basis upon which childcare professionals know the threshold of activities that they are then supposed to follow. We have said throughout this Bill that registering a "cause for concern" on a database will not necessarily help any child, because it does not link to any action. Equally, we see that it could very easily be the case that a professional who becomes known for consistently flagging up every single little matter will eventually have his concerns ignored. That is why it is important to be consistent and to work with existing, understood terminology.
Amendment No. 110A recognises that in the modern world of social services, lots of services are contracted out to agency staff. It is important that it should be clear that agency staff are under the same duties as those employed directly by any of the bodies listed in the amendments.
Amendment No. 111ZA talks about denying access to the database. It is entirely reasonable that, should these databases go ahead and contain not just sensitive or subjective data, but factual data which is very powerful in the hands of certain people, there should be limitations to them. Take, for example, a simple matter of somebody's address. The address of a child can be a very important piece of information, particularly to those who may wish to do that child harm, or harm his family. Therefore, we believe there should be a power in the Bill to have set out in regulations either categories of people who should not be allowed access to databases or circumstances in which people should not be allowed access to databases.
I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said about the inclusion of the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue in her amendment and I understand exactly what she said about disclosure of information. I have to say that childcare professionals who looked at this had an instant reaction, which was "Is this the Proceeds of Crime Act?", a piece of legislation which I understand from those working in the field, was meant to catch rather big, gangster criminals, but was so badly worded that it is reaching out across many areas of life and netting people who are perhaps guilty of minor benefit fraud. Therefore, there was concern about whether the provision was intended to do that. If it is, perhaps the noble Baroness will say so; if not, perhaps she will make that clear.
I recognise the concessions that the noble Baroness has set out. I agree wholeheartedly with the purport of the amendments that stand in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, concerning paragraphs (f) (g) and (h) being so widely drawn—notwithstanding the explanations of the noble Baroness. As drafted, they are unacceptably wide. I understand that the noble Baroness has come some way to meet some of our concerns. I must say that she has not come far enough. I beg to move.
Earl HoweMy Lords, let me begin by acknowledging straightaway that the amendments take us forward quite considerably. I am grateful to the

581
Minister for following up some of the suggestions that I and others advanced in Committee and including a great deal more detail in the Bill. I shall now speak to the amendments in the group to which my name is attached. However, despite the government amendment, I am not sure that we are quite there yet.
The intention of Amendment No. 107 is clearly to narrow the information that will be permitted on a database, so that we get much closer to what the Minister has helpfully described as an address book, pure and simple. However, the main trouble is situated in paragraph (h), which states:
"information of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify".
That takes us right back to the concerns that many of us had about Clause 8(5)(a). The wording is so general that it could be used to allow all kinds of case-specific information to appear on databases, which is of course the very opposite of what most of us, including the Minister, believe to be acceptable and appropriate. If what is meant here by "information" is the name and contact details of some other organisation with which a child is in some way associated, I would have less trouble with it, but, as it stands, the wording will not do. I am glad that the Minister recognised that concern.
Working backwards through the government amendment, I am also not at all happy about paragraph (g). When a number of us attended the useful presentation given by the trailblazers a couple of weeks ago, one of the local authorities that came told us that it was using a system of flags, but that those flags were not, strictly speaking, flags of concern. They were flags denoting services being delivered to meet an assessed need. That was very interesting, because it gets us away from thinking about those flags as devices solely connected with child protection. I have a problem with the expression "flags of concern" for exactly that reason. If the Minister can come up with an alternative term at Third Reading, that might well be an improvement.
That leads me to wonder whether we need paragraph (g) at all. Several trailblazers have decided not to include flags of any description on their databases. Yet they appear to be perfectly satisfied with the results so far. One must ask what added value those flags really have. The point at which a database ceases to be an address book—this is exactly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—is when we start introducing flags of concern.
One of the trailblazers said that it feared that the ability to register a concern on a database, far from enhancing a child's wellbeing, might actually be counter-productive, if it were to lead to professionals thinking that they had done their duty by a child simply by creating a flag on a database and doing nothing else. Of course, many of us made that point in Committee. We must avoid flags being seen as a substitute for action. I know that the Minister is conscious of that concern. However, it is difficult to know how we will avoid that. Flags denoting serious
582
concerns may well be crowded out by flags denoting trivial matters—again, potentially making matters
worse rather than better for very vulnerable children.
I very much welcome the Government's intention to conduct formal consultation on that, but there is a simple choice before us: either we have no flags of concern at all or, if we do, we need to define a threshold that makes it clear to professionals what circumstances demand one. We read in the amendment the words,
"any cause for concern".
Left unqualified, that phrase could justify exactly the sort of undesirable profusion of flags that I described. So we must hear from the Minister exactly why she believes that that we need paragraph (g) at all and, if we do, whether the phrase,
"any cause for concern",
could be altered to something better.
I move back a step to paragraph (f). My concern here is that even the name and contact details of a person providing services to a child can be sufficient to tell a story. The most extreme examples are of course the name of a sexually transmitted infection specialist or a specialist at a mental health clinic. I appreciate why the Government want to include that paragraph, but if we were to ask a young teenaged girl whether she minded the police knowing that she had visited a family planning clinic, I think that in many cases the answer would be that that was none of their business. Even something less emotive, such as treatment at an obesity clinic, could be a matter that a child would want to keep confidential to his or her GP.
I suggest that a way might be found to make the inclusion of second-tier professionals on a database dependent on consent. In the trailblazers presentation, we heard one authority talk about above and below the line information. I do not see why we should not envisage paragraphs (a) to (e) as constituting first-tier information— above the line and not dependent on consent—and paragraph (f) as information for which consent needs to be sought.
The Minister can tell me if I am wrong, but my impression is that in most circumstances, second-tier information is unlikely to be of critical importance where children are thought to be at risk. It is usually information that it is merely desirable for professionals to have to gain a full picture of a child's situation. Many children, or their parents, will have no problem at all about the name and contact details of a professional person associated with them appearing on the database, but there could be circumstances in which they had deep reservations about that. We need to address that issue.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 112, I am concerned about the inclusion of proposed new subsections (4A)(f) and (4B)(e). It is positive that the clause will now specify who must and who may disclose information to a database, but then to include a provision potentially opening up the obligation or power to all and sundry tends to negate the previous tightening up of the wording. I noted what the Minister had to say about the Inland Revenue provision in the amendment. I should have tabled an

583
amendment myself to draw attention to that. It raises all kinds of issues about what information the Inland Revenue is empowered to reveal to third parties. When would it be permissible for the Revenue to raise a flag of concern? I understood the Minister to say that that was not the intention, but can she reassure me that the amendment would prohibit that? If someone from a child's school or social services were to ring up the Inland Revenue, what do the current rules allow it to disclose? That question is unrelated to the databases, but it is germane. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this.
I have said rather a lot but I have tried to cover the ground as concisely and briefly as I can. I look forward to the Minister's response.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of BrecklandMy Lords, perhaps I may briefly add one or two points. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made a number of points that I would have made otherwise. I will reinforce them and ask one or two questions for the record.
First, I will deal with flags of concern and the consultation. Like the noble Earl, I have real concerns that this might confuse child protection registers with those registers that look at service delivery. I hope that those two things are kept well and truly separated in any consultation and that we continue to ensure that when there is a real concern that a child may be in danger of harm the proper child protection procedures move into place.
I have a similar anxiety that if people think this has been put on some other sort of register they may absolve themselves of the duty. Having been a practising social worker for a long time, I know how easy it is do that when people are under huge pressure. I hope that any consultation has that absolutely clear and that we continue with it.
I asked the Minister about my second point privately. There has been criticism in the past which I have heard on the Floor of this House that a Bill has many amendments because the Government did not get it right at the beginning. I take a different view. It is a reflection of people listening and coming back with amendments and the Minister has listened particularly hard. I that hope she will continue to listen to some of these matters this afternoon.
I ask that in the long term we do not end up with mandatory reporting. This is a similar point to the one made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe: people can add or subtract to the list. For years Childline has talked to children and has been able to give information which has led to them coming forward with serious problems because there is no mandatory reporting. Should there be, I am sure that Childline would lose that capacity. The Minister has reassured me about that privately, but I would like to make the point on the Floor of the House.
I am very sympathetic to Amendment No. 107A and the inclusion of parents generally and I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in that. It could be difficult if we found ourselves with just one parent.
584
Having dealt with very complicated divorces in civil proceedings, I hope that we can ensure that that matter is properly covered.
I do not understand the point about the Inland Revenue so further elucidation would be welcome. This may be due to my limitations. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how and why they are going to have access.
I am also extraordinarily concerned about confidentially. As an adult, I do not want all and sundry to be able to see my medical records, even though there is not a lot in them. I feel that my life in my own and the information about myself is mine to be contained. I have talked to many children and they have the same view. We need to take extreme care that if some lass has been to the Brook Street clinic and does not want it on her database, it should not get onto it. I look for reassurance on that matter.
Those are all the points that I wished to make. I am extraordinarily grateful that we are going to have a consultation on "flags of concern". It is a difficult phrase and I hope we find another one to describe it before we go out to consultation.
The Countess of MarMy Lords, I rise to support all the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Barker. The Minister knows of my concerns on databases.
I have refrained from taking part in the proceedings since Second Reading because my main concerns have been about Clause 8 and I know that there is nobody more able to deal with these matters than the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. His expertise is of a very special nature. Unfortunately he is unable to be here today, but he has left me well briefed. I hope I can do him justice.
I am aware that the Minister has listened to the concerns and proposals of noble Lords in a constructive way, and I thank her. Some concerns still remain in respect of this clause, not least the issues raised by these amendments.
The Minister has gone to considerable lengths in her defence of the Government's proposition in Clause 8 to persuade us that the data to be captured within the proposed database is minimalist. In various ways and at various times, she has insisted that it is categorically not the Government's intention that case data should be in any way involved. In Committee she stated:
"This database contains nothing that would constitute opinion about any child; it is purely detail about the matters I have already indicated: name, address, date of birth, educational setting, name of person with daily responsibility for the child and GP services. All the other information would concern which practitioners are involved with the child.
Think of it as the yellow pages of the telephone directory. There will be no consequential access into another database".—[Official Report, 24/5/04; col. 1097.]
Moreover, in her letter in response to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers Committee, she states:
"The intention is to make it clear that no case information will be recorded on the databases, only the contact details of practitioners providing specialist services, as defined in regulations, to children will be recorded".

585
The point of the issue here is why are the Government seeking the reserve powers embodied in paragraphs (f) to (h) which could have the effect of guaranteeing that case data would be implicit in the record entry?
The Minister has stated her and the Government's intention plainly and unequivocally: no case data of any kind. I am therefore baffled by paragraph (g). It is difficult to understand the Government's logic in seeking this particular provision. As other noble Lords have said, presumably it is to permit databases to fly flags of concern. But as is evident from the debates on this matter in Committee, of themselves such flags constitute case data. To that extent, paragraph (g) is antipathetic to their stated aim.
As to paragraphs (f) and (h), noble Lords will recall that reference was made to "function creep". During the passage of the Bill, it has been slightly amusing to observe the way in which the noble Baroness has sought to distance Clause 8 from RYOGENS. In all sorts of ways, in so far as this is an accurate representation of her view, I am not surprised.
Be that as it may, this particular wheeze of the Deputy Prime Minister will sit on the margins of any of the databases emanating from Clause 8 if only because, as I understand it, it is intended that the youth justice system should form part of the "telephone directory". Over time, paragraphs (f) and (h) would permit Clause 8 databases to metamorphose into RYOGENS-type models—perhaps something even more insidious—with relatively little opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny. To my mind, this is wholly unacceptable.
I do not say that this is the intention of either the noble Baroness or the Department for Education and Skills. I take at face value the stated desire for flexibility but I do not believe that we should take undue risks in such a sensitive area as this. To grant to the Secretary of State powers of such "broad delegation" —to use the noble Baroness's own words—is, I believe inappropriate.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that noble Lords have given to the package of government amendments. I hope that in the course of my remarks I can deal with a number of the reassurances for which noble Lords have looked.
I would like to reiterate a little of what I was saying earlier about the consultation as that may assist your Lordships in looking at these amendments. I have indicated that we want to look not only at how flags of concern might work, but also the phraseology and terminology around them. As noble Lords have indicated, the very nature of those words makes some noble Lords and other colleagues unsure and uncertain.
It is important to think of the role of the database. It is a telephone directory as I described, and some of the trailblazers have treated it precisely as that. As the noble Earl indicated, some of them have an above-the-line and below-the-line approach to sensitive issues.
586
That is important, too. We want to explore that more fully because of the issues that have been raised around sensitive people by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Barker.
The Government are committed to saying that the database needs to be of use to practitioners in ways above and beyond the specific details that I have indicated. We have called that "flags of concern". Let me unpack that more for noble Lords. This is about ways in which practitioners will be able to do two things. The first applies where a number of different agencies involved with a child; for example, a child who has multiple disabilities and is in receipt of different services. If a particular practitioner is working with a child, he needs to be able to have that information available quickly from looking at the list. In other words, the practitioner can say, "Please ring me, because I am dealing with this child".
The other issue causes greater concern, hence our desire to consult on it more fully with practitioners. It would happen when a practitioner says, "I am concerned about this child and we need to think more fully about the situation". The noble Earl gave the example of a child attending an obesity clinic. It may well be that three things are happening in the child's life. The child is obese; there are some issues about the child being bullied at school as a consequence, which is not unknown; and the child is depressed. What we are looking for—and I hope that the consultation will enlighten us—is how to piece that information together in a way that means the GP or the school can support the child more effectively. It is not about pillorying children, it is about supporting them.
I recognise the difficulty that noble Lords have with this, and I hope that they will welcome the consultation. I hope that they will also welcome what I have said about the results of the consultation and the fact that nothing further can be done without affirmative regulations. That is an important point.
Let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that voluntary sectors are permitted, not required, in this context. We will be consulting on the sensitive services, as the noble Baroness would expect. There is no mandatory reporting, which I think was her specific concern.
Let me deal very briefly with the amendments. I see what noble Lords are seeking to do in Amendment No. 107A, but I believe that the wording in Amendment No. 107 encompasses all those who need to be covered to make sure that there are comprehensive contact details. I am advised that the only additional scope that the noble Baroness's amendment would afford would be to enable the inclusion of contact details for the natural father who is not on the child's birth certificate, not married to the mother at the time of the birth, has not subsequently acquired any parental responsibility, and does not have care of the child from time to time or at any time. Such details could be included only if his paternity were proven. Everybody else is included in the way in which we have defined this, because it comes under the provisions of the Children Act and parental

587
responsibility. I hope that that explanation clarifies the matter. It is, in a sense, why I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 108 would delete practitioner involvement and the flexibility to add to the list. One effect would be that databases would not be able to hold practitioner details. I hope that noble Lords recognise that that is an important part of what we are trying to do. As I have already said, I recognise the concerns about sensitive services, hence the consultation.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 108A would record the information that a child is at risk of serious harm. Amendment No. 118A would delete the provision to record concerns. This would mean that practitioners could record details that they were concerned about only when the concern had reached the point of a risk of harm, or actual serious harm being done to the child. We do not want to constrain in this way because this is a preventive measure. As I have already indicated, we want to address the detail of this through the consultation. But we want practitioners to communicate long before a crisis point is reached. We will look to consult formally on this, and we hope that that will enable noble Lords to feel easier about it. But we believe that relying on what is in Sections 17 and 47 puts the barrier too high. It does not enable people to say, "I am providing a lot of physiotherapy to this child at the moment. You might want to talk to me", or "I am involved with this child in other ways". It is very important that as we consult and look at what we call this, we ensure that we make a provision of a preventative nature by enabling practitioners to talk to each other. To turn it the other way round, if we had no details or information, what would we do if a child did not receive that bringing together of different services that I just described with regard to the noble Earl's example of a child attending a clinic for obesity?
Finally, on Amendment No. 108, 1 hope that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is reassured at my undertaking that we will be looking to introduce an amendment at Third Reading. Noble Lords have indicated a specific point about case data, and it might be better made in that way.
There is nothing about gender in the list, and it might be appropriate to include it at some point. This is about information which might be of relevance but which is not already included.
Amendments Nos. 110A and 110B would widen the list of persons or bodies required or permitted to disclose information to the database. Amendment No. 112 clearly sets out on the face of the Bill the statutory and other bodies and persons required or permitted to disclose information. I hope that noble Lords feel that we have covered the list of those who should be involved appropriately by reference back, in the way that I have indicated. I take the point about sensitive services and about being above or below the line information.
588
7.45 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 130, 135, 140 and 136 would remove the flexibility to add to the list of agencies or bodies providing information. Any change to the list would have to be made with the approval of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure and through the Assembly's legislative procedures. I have already said that youth offending teams did not exist some while ago, and neither did primary care trusts. We are looking to capture new ways of organisations working, or those bodies which might appropriately contribute positively.
Amendment No. 113A concerns the Inland Revenue. Under proposed new subsection (4B) (c) it is a one way-communication. It has nothing whatever to do with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I did not even have any knowledge of that until the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised it. It is only to allow the Inland Revenue to provide information of what is already prescribed on the database, and nothing else. There is no two-way street on that.
Amendment No. 111ZA deals with the very important aspect of those who would be denied access to the database. Obviously, appropriate practitioners must have access. Obviously, there must be stringent minimum requirements, Criminal Records Bureau clearance and relevant practitioner level protocol. They must have undertaken training on the safe and secure use of the system, including compliance with the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and, where relevant, the Caldecott principles. When we consider the formulation of these regulations, we will take into account the points that noble Lords have raised today in considering where access may and may not be given. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I am happy to discuss with her what that means in practice.
I hope that on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, I realise that we are on Third Reading and are under immense pressure, but there are a very few points I want to make. First, the noble Baroness talked about us welcoming the Government's package of proposals. No, we do not believe it is a package—we welcome certain aspects of the proposals and not others.
Many of the proposals that we put forward came from the meeting with the trailblazers. Two of them said that they do not want flags of concern on their systems. The Government, who have, throughout our discussions, exhorted us to listen to what these practitioners have said, should do the same.
Once the phrase "cause for concern" is on the face of the Bill, the Government can consult all they like—the phrase will be in the Bill. I do not think that the noble Baroness has yet made a strong enough case for moving away from existing recognised childcare terminology. I also do not accept her argument that by using that terminology, we leave matters until it is too late. From talking to trailblazers, it was clear that the

589
very existence of a database which included the names of other practitioners was a basis upon which much preventive work could begin much more speedily. I urge the noble Baroness to think about that in light of what the noble Earl said about being above or below the line information.
The noble Baroness also talked about the affirmative resolution procedure. I should like to know where that is—I do not see an amendment to Clause 8. Is it elsewhere in the Bill? I know that she has conceded the point, but this is not the Bill.
I remain of the view that while I accept some of the arguments and reject some of the details, we return to the fundamental principles. The minute the database moves away from anything factual, the restrictions under which it has to operate have to be a great deal tougher than those for a telephone book. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has mentioned all that we want, and I do not believe that consultation on that basis will be adequate. We will return to these matters, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 107A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 107, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 108A, as amendments to Amendment No. 107, not moved.]
Baroness Barkermoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 107, Amendment No. 108B:
Line 23, at end insert—
"(2C) The manner in which consent to inclusion of information (as defined in subsections (2A) and (2B) of a child, a parent or other person with parental responsibility, may be over-ridden."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to move an amendment to government Amendment No. 107, but one which is of a different nature from those in the previous grouping. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110C, 118B, 119A and 120A. They deal with different aspects of the operation of the information database which need briefly to be raised.
Amendment No. 108B would establish the circumstances or the manner in which consent to inclusion of information, as defined in subsections (2A) and (2B), can be overridden. One factor which clearly emerged from the trailblazers meeting was that all of those trailblazers had gone down the route of obtaining a priori consent from children and families. They viewed that as being a key part of the success of what they were doing.
I understand that it will be highly unusual for a database of limited factual information to be overridden. However, there are some circumstances in which it would not be unreasonable for a parent to object; for example, a mother who has been at risk of domestic violence may not wish basic details such as school and place of residence to be released. Equally, to a childcare professional, the refusal to give consent to basic information being put forward may also be a
590
signal that there are problems to be looked at. However, if the Government are going to override parental consent, they should say so.
Similarly, Amendment No. 110C would allow families to have an appeal mechanism against disclosure. That appeal mechanism would operate after disclosure has been made. It is rare—and trailblazers confirmed it—for people to use such a mechanism, but they should have the power to do so. As long as we are stuck with the reality of flags of concern, matters such as this become of much greater importance.
Amendment No. 118B is consistent with the principles of working in partnership. Co-operation and parental consent make for more effective plans for children's well-being and put the Bill in the right place in relation to Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment would require professionals to be accountable for decisions that they make to register concerns on the database.
Amendment No. 119A is required to avoid any doubt that the establishment and operation of databases should be in conformity with the Data Protection Act 1998. That is a matter which has been of consistent concern to us. So far, the Government have failed to convince us why these matters should circumvent that Act.
Finally, Amendment No. 120A underlines that information databases are a very serious business with serious consequences for the lives of children. It would create an offence of knowingly supplying information which is wrong. That is important. Childcare professionals who enter information in good faith should not be subject to prosecution, but those who supply false information with malicious intent, leading to serious consequences, should be subject to prosecution. I beg to move.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I shall speak briefly to my own Amendments Nos. 111A, 111B, 111C and the Welsh equivalents. It is important for there to be a set of clear ground rules, applicable everywhere, to govern the length of time that a child's records should legally be retained on a database. When someone ceases to fall within the ambit of Clauses 6 and 7, their record should be deleted. If we do not make a rule of that kind, we potentially have a system that will usher in compulsory identity cards by the back door. We are not legislating for that. At the same time, we need to ensure that records are not deleted prematurely; for example, when it is thought that a child has moved out of an area. There needs to be a process which ensures that if a child moves from Hull to Brighton, the school in Brighton can, if necessary, find out which social worker in Hull was assigned to the child and speak to that person. The same point could obviously apply across the board. Historic information can be as important as current information, but when I look at government Amendment No. 107, it rather seems as if only current information is to be allowed for. On the other hand, again, some historic information should

591
be deleted when it is of no relevance, especially flags of concern. I should be glad if the Minister could comment on those points.
That brings me on to Amendments Nos. 111 B and 111C. If someone becomes aware that information about him has been included on a database—I am talking partly about "below the line" information, perhaps of a sensitive nature—he should have the right to appeal formally against that. Obviously, if second-tier information is dependent on consent, that problem is less likely to arise, but it could arise in relation to a flag of concern. An out-of-date flag of concern should be removed. If there is a disagreement about what should be classified as "out of date" and therefore, in terms of someone's current situation, inaccurate, there should be a formal process by which the matter could be determined. The Data Protection Act 1998 allows only very limited rights to comment on something that is not accurate. We need to look further than just a right to comment. There needs to be clear process under which the issue is considered in a formal way.
Amendments Nos. 111 B and 111C go together, because there should be clear rules about the legal obligations of professionals and the obligations of those operating the databases to make sure that inaccurate or out-of-date information is corrected. The Minister has spoken to a very helpful amendment, Amendment No. 123, which is about cross-checking, but it does not cover procedures that are designed to ensure that what goes on to the database in the first instance is accurate and who carries the can if it is not. Nor does it cover the need to ensure that information about a child is kept up to date, particularly as regards the people listed in subsection (4B) of Amendment No. 112. Those are the bodies or individuals who have only a power to disclose information rather than a duty to do so and who may not view the removal of out of date or inaccurate information as a priority when in reality it is an important obligation.
8 p.m.
Nor does the Bill or the government amendment cover the rules that should determine when a flag of concern ceases to be an accurate indicator of a child's situation. People need to know that they have an obligation to remove a flag of concern when it is no longer applicable. I hope that those were comprehensible comments and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, the noble Earl is always comprehensible. The group of amendments rightly seeks that the database operates fairly in the way that information is handled. We are determined that that should be the case and I am grateful for the comments raised. I shall seek to address each of the amendments as best as I can.
Amendment No. 108A sets out that the regulations may set out the situations and conditions for which the lack of consent from children, parents and others may be overridden and the information included on the database in the absence of consent. We have been clear
592
that we believe that the value of the database is that it covers all children. There is a risk that some children who might particularly benefit from early concerted intervention to address problems might be among those whose parents might elect not to participate in an optional database.
The Data Protection Act 1998 regulates the situation in which data can be processed lawfully. That would include data on databases established under Clause 8. It provides the conditions for the processing of data where there has been no consent. We do not want to replicate the Data Protection Act or to cut across it in any way.
However, we intend to issue guidance on the circumstances in which information can and should be shared. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that that is important but this is a matter for statutory guidance rather than regulation. It is a matter where good practice relies heavily on professional judgment and interpretation, which cannot be properly covered in regulations.
We will also be issuing guidance on good practice in informing people about the purpose and operation of databases in any wider role out of databases provided under this clause. We intend that parents and young people should be informed that databases are being set up, how they will work and in broad terms what information will be included and which types of professionals will have access to them.
Good practice for practitioners will include telling children and parents that practitioners may use the database to record details of involvement or concern and for making contact with other practitioners. As I made clear in Committee, the database will operate under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act and parents and children will enjoy existing rights to see what information is held.
In many of the local authority areas that are piloting information sharing databases, the trailblazers, processing notices have been issued to local households explaining the new arrangements. As noble Lords have indicated, those who attended the meeting will probably recall that few parents have even questioned their child being included; and after further information most of them consented.
The trailblazers were clear that a national system should not have opt-outs for fears that some of those who would not then have records would be among the most vulnerable.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, will the noble Baroness acknowledge that at least two of those trailblazers were not using flags of concern?
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, when I brought the trailblazers to meet noble Lords I took a representative sample. They said what they wished. Other trailblazers are going forward. Hence what I said: this is a sensitive and difficult area, but the consultation, which I shall ensure that noble Lords see, will be about how we make sure that the Government's

593
intention to use the database to enable practitioners both to talk to each other and to alert each other when they have a concern is carried out properly.
I know that the noble Baroness takes a different view, but if she looks at it from my perspective she will see that what is important is that the trailblazers take differing views. They are looking for different ways of approaching the matter. I was clear with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that we wanted differing views to be put forward in the meeting and I am glad that they were.
Amendments Nos. 111A and 132 would provide for regulations about the length of time that information might be retained, as the noble Earl said. That is an important and difficult issue. We want information to be retained for as long as it makes sense in that context. I am happy to say that I understand what the noble Earl is seeking to do and undertake to table a government amendment at Third Reading to enable national standards to be set down in regulations, which will address his concern at least in part.
Amendments Nos. 111C and 133 concern the accuracy of the databases. The noble Earl will know that it was thanks to his prompting that Amendments Nos. 123 and 142 were tabled. I hoped that we had done it, but clearly we have not from his point of view. I recognise the important issue about misplaced concerns that he raised. We are looking through the consultation and the trailblazers' experience to see whether a record of the fact of the concern should be retained on the system until the whole record is deleted, or whether it should be removed after a defined period of time.
Because it is more multi-agency focused, our ambition is that the chances of such misplaced concern diminishes and we are clear that we want to issue the right guidance. I am comfortable to take the matter away in the light of what I have heard this evening and consider whether we can do a little more to satisfy the noble Earl and the noble Baroness on those points, because they are important.
Amendment No. 110C provides regulations prescribing procedures of appeal. Amendments Nos. 111B and 131 provide regulations to prescribe procedures of appeal against inclusion. I understand the issues raised. The Data Protection Act sets out the rights of individuals to object to the disclosure of data. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in particular, will know that we do not want to establish new provisions of appeal in relation to information on the databases. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured to some extent—although probably not as much as I would like—about our proposals on consultation.
We have the same point of view as regards inclusion of information; that the databases will operate under the subject access provisions for the Data Protection Act, and parents and children will enjoy existing rights to see what information is held and to ask for inaccuracies to be remedied.
594
The particular point that the noble Baroness raised, about the addresses of children when there has been domestic violence, is an important one. Indeed, some of the trailblazers are doing some work on precisely that issue to ensure that either it is above or below the line in terms of who might look at it. We are interested to ensure that the provisions work in that regard, and we are waiting for further information on the most effective way in which to address a very important concern.
As I have said, we do not want to make an optional database. We want to ensure that all children are covered and that we intervene as appropriate when children's needs need to be met. One issue that has emerged from discussion is ensuring that people understand their rights for information under the Data Protection Act, and how they can exercise them. I shall consider that issue again to see whether there is anything more that we can do, because, although we might understand how to gather information—although I am not entirely sure that I do—there may be more that I can do that will at least go some way to allaying noble Lords' fears.
Amendment No. 118B would provide notification to parents and children whenever information relating to subsection (5) is recorded. I want to make it clear that we are not seeking to change data protection law in respect of automatic notification; nor is it our intention to regulate under the clause to create such an entitlement in relation to information sharing. If we were to put in place a requirement that a written notification had to be sent whenever a practitioner discussed with another that they had seen that the practitioner was involved with or concerned about a child, we would have a level of bureaucracy that would inhibit information sharing. We shall underline in guidance that it is good practice to seek the consent of children and parents about information sharing, but I do not want to create unnecessary burdens that would not support what we are trying to achieve.
Amendment No. 119A would remove subsection (7), which allows practitioners working in those bodies to disclose information to a database without being constrained by the common law duty of confidentiality. In debating Amendment No. 120, I outlined why the provision on common law duty of confidentiality is valuable. For example, it would make it clear to those practitioners working in voluntary organisations that they do not need to face personal liability or risks relating to their common law duty of confidentiality when deciding whether they should provide details of a child's name or address for the database or signal their involvement with the child. The amendment would delete a valuable provision; any person processing information must conform with the Data Protection Act. That does not need to be put in the Bill.
Finally, with regard to Amendment No. 120A, I stated in Committee that we share the concern about penalties for misusing the database. However, as we have also said, we do not believe that the introduction of a new criminal offence, which is what Amendment No. 120A would do, is necessary. There are already

595
measures in criminal law which impose penalties for misuse of data in computer records. The Data Protection Act provides for a serious offence with a penalty of up to a maximum fine, which will be committed when personal data is unlawfully obtained or disclosed without the consent of a data controller. That is covered by existing legislation, so I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed and swift reply. As she would expect, she stands on one side of the line and I stand on the other. I take some comfort from some of what she has said. I am by no means satisfied by all of it, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 108B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 107, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 107 agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 109:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert "(subject to subsection (2A))"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 6, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

(aa) requiring a person or body specified in subsection
(4A) to disclose information for inclusion in the database;

(ab) permitting a person or body specified in subsection
(4B) to disclose information for inclusion in the database;"

Amendments No. 110A and 110B, as amendments to Amendment No. 110, not moved.
On Question, Amendment No. 110 agreed to. [Amendment No. 110C not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) as to the conditions on which such access must or may be given;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111ZA to 111C not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
"(4A) The persons and bodies referred to in subsection (4)(aa) are—

the persons and bodies specified in section 7(1);

(b) the Learning and Skills Council for England;

(c) the governing body of a maintained school in England (within the meaning of section 175 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32));

(d) the governing body of an institution in England within the further education sector (within the meaning of that section);

(e) the proprietor of an independent school in England (within the meaning of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56));

596

(f) a person or body of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.

(4B) The persons and bodies referred to in subsection (4)(ab) are—

(a) a person registered in England for child minding or the provision of day care under Part 10A of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41);

(b) a voluntary organisation exercising functions or engaged in activities in relation to persons to whom arrangements specified in subsection (1) relate;

(c) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

(d) a registered social landlord;

(e) a person or body of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.

(4C ) The Secretary of State may provide information for inclusion in a database under this section."
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 114, as amendments to Amendment No. 112, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 112 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 117 had been re-tabled as Amendments Nos. 111A to 111C.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Carter)My Lords, I remind the House that if Amendment No. 118 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 118A and 118B on the grounds of pre-emption.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 118:
Page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118A and 118B not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 119:
Page 7, line 1, leave out "(4)(b) to (d)" and insert "(4)(d)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy SpeakerMy Lords, I remind the House that if Amendment No. 119A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 120 on the grounds of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 119A not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from "which" to second "may" in line 5 and insert "may be done under regulations under subsection (4)(ab), (c) or (d) or (4C)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120A not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 121 to 123:
Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 7, line 15, leave out "any such database" and insert "a database under this section".
Page 7, line 18, leave out from "transfer" to end of line 19 and insert "and comparison of information between databases under this section"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 123ZA:
Page 7, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) For the first seven years following implementation of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report concerning the operation of all databases under this section."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness when she replies will appreciate the novel twist within Amendments Nos. 123ZA and 142A. It is common practice when asking for a parliamentary report to be produced to this House that noble Lords on this side ask to have them in perpetuity. On this occasion we have set a very definite and tight timeline of seven years. That is for two reasons. We think that that is a sufficient length of time to make qualitative judgments about the efficacy of the scheme, which is going to cost a fair amount. That is a matter about which we have not spoken at all this evening. The matter was raised in Committee, but has never been fully addressed. None the less, in principle, one should not set up legislation that continues in perpetuity.
The other reason for seven years is that it allows the scheme to continue for at least the length of a Parliament and a bit of extra time. That is a sufficient time for a change of policy to take place. That is the reason for those two amendments.
I wish to speak very briefly to Amendment No. 125A, which I think is the nuclear option on Clause 8. We discussed many of its elements in relation to Amendment No. 107 and the amendments to that put forward by these Benches. But there is one point that remains. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the content of the database in what the noble Baroness put on the face of the Bill this evening. However, there has been far less about the operation of the database. I return to the point of principle, that the moment that this database moves away from matters of fact and into matters of opinion and subjective and false data, its operation and the need to be clear in law about its operation increase dramatically. Therefore noble Lords will see in this amendment a very detailed—I accept far too detailed—set of recommendations about the operation of any databases.
I believe that the minute we move away from the factual database and into matters of a sensitive nature, leaving wide powers in the hands of a Secretary of State—as the noble Baroness has in her revised Clause 8—is unacceptable. I give notice that if there are no more concessions from the Government between now and Third Reading about that, and particularly about the matters we talked about this evening when we outlined our concerns, then we will return to discuss the operation of these systems. I beg to move.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I should like to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 123A and 143 standing in my name. I hope that the Minister will understand why some of us feel the need to maintain a sceptical stance on this clause, and the need for it.
598
We are in a rather extraordinary situation, where the Government are enthusiastically trumpeting the virtues of databases, when the trailblazer pilots have only just got going and are certainly in no position to reach considered conclusions about the effectiveness of the systems or their cost-effectiveness. We are being asked to approve a policy without the evidence base to back it up.
The Government want the databases to contain the names of all 11 million children in the country. The vast majority of these children will not be at risk. Yet apparently we need a mammoth system like that in order to pick up those children who may be at risk and to promote the wellbeing of the rest. I need to be convinced about that. In particular I need to be convinced that an all-encompassing set of databases, with access granted to a whole host of individuals, is a concept that is human rights-compliant in the fullest sense. In other words, can the databases be justified in ECHR terms purely by reference to the improvement of well-being and the promotion of welfare, as distinct from child protection? I need the Minister's explicit assurance on that point.
If, as the Government say, the justification for an all-encompassing database is that it will facilitate early identification of problems, I think we need some real evidence that this is likely to happen. Common sense would tend to say that predicting what may happen to a child depends on the knowledge and skill of frontline workers. It does not depend on databases. If databases are seen as the conduit for better communication between frontline workers, we need to remind ourselves that in the case of Victoria Climbié there were no barriers whatever to communication, either legal or procedural. Many would say, and have said to me, that the deficit here lies not in IT systems but in the numbers of people on the ground, and the skills that they have. Something in me still says that databases are the Government's solution to the Victoria Climbié problem; in other words, they are a top-down solution. If front line workers had been asked what would most help them in doing their jobs better, I wonder whether they would have put databases at the top of their shopping list. I suspect that many would prefer to be given more people, more training and less paperwork.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could assure me that these provisions are not connected to any plans for a pan-European arrangement of linked databases. I have heard a suggestion that this might be so. The problems associated with this do not really need stating but the most obvious relate to who in the various countries would be given the right of access and how one would overcome legal disparities between member states.
Databases present us automatically with a paradox. If too many people are allowed access to a database, security of the data flies out of the window. Leaks will be unavoidable and confidentiality will be little more than a fiction. On the other hand, if too few people have access, it is useless as a tool for information sharing. We come back to the question of how much added value the databases would actually give us. Those who need to exchange information about a child

599
can already do so, perfectly legally. A local authority that needs to know who a child's GP is has an easy way of finding out—it can ask the parents. The key point here is whether databases will bring with them added value of such a degree as to overcome the drawbacks that I and many others believe are inherent in them: the human rights considerations; the scope for serious concerns to be buried amidst a welter of minor ones; unauthorised leakage of information and the opportunity costs. I do not think that we can ignore these concerns and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide answers to them.
Baroness Ashton of UphollandMy Lords, I was slightly surprised that of all the things we have tried to do in the Bill the noble Earl should think that the database was the Government's solution to the Victoria Climbié case.
I agree completely with the noble Earl that there is no substitute for professional judgment and behaviour. The noble Earl might reflect on the experience of the trailblazers; namely, that in some cases it took, I believe, three days to contact the appropriate professional. We have consulted professionals and have considered all kinds of different ways of supporting front line staff. I agree with the noble Earl that it is a matter of people, training and other resources. This measure is not a substitute—it is not an "either/or" but a "both/and". It is very important to see it in that context. We believe that a universal database is justified under human rights. It enables a particular child to be correctly identified and for practitioners to have access to other practitioners' contact details.
However, we also agree that the entry of case details on such a universal basis would not be a proportionate response in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. I can state categorically that there are absolutely no plans for a pan-European database of any kind.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 123ZA and 142A which concern reporting annually to Parliament. I am not immediately attracted to the proposal although I was interested in the seven-year timescale. However, I am sympathetic to the concerns that the noble Baroness raised. I wish to reflect further on whether a statutory duty to report might be a sensible way forward. As noble Lords are aware, we are keeping open the possibility of local, national or regional level databases so we need to think about that in the context of whether a duty to report might be framed in advance of decisions on the geographical and organisational basis for the establishment and operation of databases. I hope that goes some way to meet the noble Baroness's concerns.
We were asked why we were bringing forward this measure now. I was mindful of what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said in a previous debate. We felt that this was an appropriate Bill and an appropriate moment to bring this forward. As noble Lords will know, often legislation is not the response that we put forward. Often there are other ways of supporting our practitioners and our children. This was an opportunity we did not wish to miss, and
600
therefore I hope noble Lords will see the amendments I have put forward as a response to concerns that have been raised, in exactly the kind of development of government strategy that noble Lords seek.
Amendments Nos. 123A and 143, 124 and 125A put in place a general information-sharing duty on those responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and indicate that the Children's Commissioner will provide guidance to support that duty. Amendment No. 125A removes Clause 8 and puts in place a power to share information. We have deliberately not sought to create in the Bill a general new duty to share information. There are difficulties in being too explicit about what information should be shared, as that could risk people labouring under the misapprehension that they can share that information only in the circumstances specified by legislation. We do not wish to do that.
Amendment No. 124 proposes that the information provision should apply to persons and bodies identified in Clause 7. It could therefore say to practitioners that information sharing should relate only to arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare, and not to co-operation to improve well-being as covered in Clause 6 and, of course, described in Every Child Matters. Amendment No. 124 also suggests that information sharing would relate in particular to cases where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. Again, there are difficulties of practitioners feeling they were only bound by the duty to share information in such circumstances, or worse, that they could not share information in other circumstances. Again, that illustrates why we have not gone for a general duty.
We are clear that comprehensive guidance to practitioners under Clauses 6 and 7 needs to bring clarity about the circumstances under which information may be shared to promote the welfare, safety and well-being of children under current law. Amendment No. 124 implies that the Children's Commissioner would hold responsibility for issues of guidance. I have already explained in debating earlier amendments why we believe absolutely that the responsibility for guidance on information sharing lies properly with the Government.
I turn briefly to the suggestion that guidance would be sufficient to achieve our aims and that we do not need to legislate as we are doing for the establishment and operation of databases. We need to do both. The clear message from the trailblazers is that legislation is needed to ensure that all bodies and practitioners know they can and should contribute. We could not have a position where, at every turn, those establishing databases might have to struggle to persuade key bodies that it was legal to contribute and that they should do so. We must put in place a system that covers all geographical areas with a common approach. Legislation enables us to do that. Information can cross borders and follow children, stopping them falling through the gaps.

601
I have already said that I firmly believe that noble Lords are in agreement on the need for effective information sharing to improve outcomes for children, but Amendment No. 125A illustrates the pitfalls that we have been at pains to avoid. I have suggested in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that there is a serious danger of constraining the circumstances in which practitioners feel they could, may or should share information, and we must avoid doing this by design or unintentionally. The effect of the amendment would be to establish an explicit power, not a duty, for people and bodies in Clause 7 to share information, but only in circumstances where there is reasonable cause to suspect that significant harm is likely. The noble Baroness may not intend it, but it would impose a grave limitation on the sharing of information, preventing practitioners from discussing a child until they were confident that significant harm was at issue, and not just around the databases.
I have emphasised in Committee that best practice includes seeking the consent of children and families to share information, but I cannot agree that it makes sense for practitioners to have a legal obligation to send a notification whenever they discuss a child, sending copies of what has been said. We believe this would be a bureaucratic burden that would inhibit information sharing. As the noble Baroness has said, Amendment No. 125A is mainly concerned with the operation of computer systems. During the course of our debate, I asserted that the database represents a valuable tool for practitioners. Those in the amendment are limited in terms of who they cover and what data they contain. They do not bring any real advantage in improving the sharing of information to help improve outcomes for children. I believe the proposed arrangements for licensing and monitoring computer systems would be disproportionate and bureaucratic to govern systems that already exist, and to which existing legal safeguards apply. I also say that policing the operation of computer systems is not an appropriate function for the Children's Commissioner.
Our proposal set out in some detail how a database will operate. That detail will come before Parliament for decision. The system will be transparent. Public accountability is set up around how the databases are operated. The amendment appears to suggest private arrangements between the Secretary of State and the various bodies which would leave Parliament out of the process. We could not agree to that. It would impose an information regime that would be restrictive and bureaucratic rather than facilitate the sharing of information. I hope that on that basis that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness BarkerMy Lords, at this time of night I have no intention of doing anything other than withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123A to 125A not moved.]
602
Clause 23 [Information databases: Wales]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 126:
Page 16, line 22, at end insert—
"(2A) A database under this section may only include information falling within subsection (2B) in relation to a person to whom arrangements specified in subsection (1) relate.
(2B) The information referred to in subsection (2A) is information of the following descriptions in relation to a person—

his name, address and date of birth;

(b) a number identifying him;

(c) the name and contact details of any person with parental responsibility for him (within the meaning of section 3 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) or who has care of him at any time;

(d) details of any education being received by him (including the name and contact details of any educational institution attended by him);

(e) the name and contact details of any person providing primary medical services in relation to him under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49);

(f) the name and contact details of any person providing to him services of such description as the Assembly may by regulations specify;

(g) information as to the existence of any cause for concern in relation to him;

(h) information of such other description as the Assembly may by regulations specify."

[Amendment No. 127, as an amendment to Amendment No. 126, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 128 to 130:
Page 16, line 27, at end insert "(subject to subsection (2A))".
Page 16 , line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

"(aa) requiring a person or body specified in subsection (4A) to disclose information for inclusion in the database;

(ab) permitting a person or body specified in subsection (4B) to disclose information for inclusion in the database;"

Page 16, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) as to the conditions on which such access must or may be given;".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 134:
Page 16, line 36, at end insert—
"(4A) The persons and bodies referred to in subsection (4)(aa) are—

(a) the persons and bodies specified in section 22(1);

(b) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales;

(c) the governing body of a maintained school in Wales (within the meaning of section 175 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32));

(d) the governing body of an institution in Wales within the further education sector (within the meaning of that section);

(e) the proprietor of an independent school in Wales (within the meaning of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56));

(f) a person or body of such other description as the Assembly may by regulations specify.

603
(4B) The persons and bodies referred to in subsection (4)(ab) are—

a person registered in Wales for child minding or the provision of day care under Part 10A of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41);

(b) a voluntary organisation exercising functions or engaged in activities in relation to persons to whom arrangements specified in subsection (1) relate;

(c) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

(d) a registered social landlord;

(e) a person or body of such other description as the Assembly may by regulations specify.

(4C ) The Assembly and the Secretary of State may provide information for inclusion in a database under this section.

[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136, as amendments to Amendment No. 134, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 137 to 142:
Page 16, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
Page 16, line 44, leave out "(4)(b) to (d)" and insert "(4)(d)""
Page 17, line 1, leave out from "which" to second "may" in line 2 and insert "may be done under regulations under subsection (4)(ab), (c) or (d) or (4C)".
Page 17, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 17, line 12, leave out "any such database" and insert "a database under this section".
Page 17, line 15, leave out from "transfer" to end of line 16 and insert "and comparison of information between databases under this section"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 142A and 143 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]

Civil Contingencies Bill
8.31 p.m.
Lord GrocottMy Lords, with the leave of the House I shall comment on the timing of this debate. On behalf of everyone involved I apologise to the House that we are starting at this time. That is due to us underestimating the length of time that the Children Bill would take, which was longer than many of us anticipated. This is not a timed debate, so I cannot issue anything other than advice to the House. That advice is as follows: not counting the Front Bench contributions, if the Back Bench contributions were to last about six minutes this debate would last for three hours; if the contributions were about eight minutes the debate would take three hours and 20 minutes; and if the contributions lasted about 10 minutes the debate would last about four hours. That is the arithmetic that the House should consider.
Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I do not believe that it is normally acceptable to start the Second Reading of a Bill at this stage in the day. However, as the Chief Whip said, at the time that we agreed to the scheduling that has led to this situation none of us
604
appreciated how many Peers would wish to speak on this Second Reading, as the list was considerably shorter then, or the amount of public attention—and, hence, the amount of attention from your Lordships—that the first amendment today would receive. Along with the Chief Whip, I apologise to the House and in future we shall be more careful to avoid this type of timing happening. It is unfortunate, but we considered an hour or two ago whether we should move the Bill to another day. That would have led to inconvenience for your Lordships who had prepared themselves for today—particularly the maiden speakers. We decided not to do that, but the matter was close run.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The aim of the Bill and accompanying non-legislative measures is to deliver a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom, providing a framework to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The current framework for civil emergency planning was not designed with the needs of the modern world in mind. Indeed, the Acts which the Bill seeks to replace date from the first half of the last century.
The basis for local civil protection work dates back to the Civil Defence Act of 1948. That Act was originally intended to organise the local elements of national civil defence efforts in readiness for a possible attack from the Soviet Union and is now one of the few remaining vestiges of the Cold War.
The emergency powers framework pre-dates even that. The Emergency Powers Act was enacted in 1920, following the lapse of emergency wartime legislation at the end of the First World War, and with the 1919 police strike still fresh in the minds of the Government and Parliament.
Yet the underlying rationale for both of those Acts remains. Planning for emergencies must be properly organised at the local level, and the range of organisations with a role in civil protection should be properly co-ordinated. Every comparable nation-state has provision for Government to take emergency powers in a crisis, to assist in managing national emergencies and ensure a speedy return to normality.
The problem with the existing Acts is that they were drafted for a different time and different circumstances, and they do not take account of the significant cultural, technological and constitutional changes which took place in the second half of the last century.
It is important, however, to consider why the Government believe the modernisation is necessary now. This Bill is not driven by short-term concerns—it is intended to be a framework that endures—but it is right that we reflect on the current context as a useful illustration of why civil contingency legislation should be kept up to date.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the range of emergencies stemming from climate change. Just as the climate is changing, so is economy and society. We have to cope with the demands of modern networked

605
society, in which disruptions can grow quickly and in unprecedented directions. Our country is also used to the changing nature of the terrorist threat.
None of these risks is a specific justification for this Bill, which is about generic capacity rather than any urgent operational need. But they do demonstrate the importance of proper frameworks for preparing for and dealing with disruptive challenges, and the need to keep them fit for purpose.
I turn now to the process by which we developed the Bill now before us. It would be wrong to characterise the Bill before the House today as a response to September 11, important though those tragic events have proved in informing our work. In fact, the start of this process was a commitment to a review of emergency planning made by the Deputy Prime Minister in November 2000, following the serious flooding of that year.
That review was strongly focused on local emergency planning arrangements, and confirmed the overwhelming demand from civil protection professionals for this new legislation. Since that point we have been working hard with the fullest range of organisations to construct the right legislation, including the Emergency Planning Society, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers, as well as Liberty and Justice.
This open and consultative approach has been a consistent theme. When the Government had their proposals ready, we published them first in the form of a draft Bill in June of last year. We carried out a successful public consultation, and we submitted the draft legislation to the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government invited a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the draft Bill and work with us to refine it. The committee's report was very constructive, and I am very grateful for the time and effort contributed by the members of the committee to the work. I very much hope they will be able to bring this experience to bear on our debates.
Taken together, the public consultation and the pre-legislative scrutiny have made a real difference to the Bill. The Government have listened, and made many adjustments before introduction.
We made significant changes in response to the Joint Committee's report, accepting 38 of its 50 recommendations, including: removing political, administrative and economic stability from the definition of emergency; strengthening the triple lock, the key safeguard against the misuse of emergency powers; and removing the clause which would allow emergency regulations to enjoy the same status as primary legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act.
What is now before the House is a Bill which has benefited from further consultation and discussion, and commands the wide support of practitioners.
I will turn now, if I may, to the detail of the Bill itself. The starting point is a clear definition of "emergency". We considered this issue carefully. We looked at the
606
definitions of emergency in the legislation we seek to replace, but we ruled them out as poorly focused and out of date.
We looked at international examples, many of which were too imprecise or reflected the unique demography and geography of the country in question. We also took the views of practitioners on the appropriate definition of "emergency". And we received powerful representations arguing against elements of the draft definition from the pre-legislative scrutiny process, with civil liberties groups also voicing concern at the breadth of the definition.
The definition in the Bill has therefore been weighed carefully and its scope narrowed so far as is prudent. On the Joint Committee's advice, we removed the words "political, administrative and economic stability" from the definition. We have met the concerns of local responders, many of whom asked for the definition in Part 1 to be caveated by reference to the definition of "emergency" in the Government's Dealing with Disaster guidance— that an emergency is a situation which requires special procedures or arrangements to be put in place.
We now have a definition which we believe to be right. The Bill defines an emergency as an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or national security. That definition follows the same form in both substantive parts of the Bill, and it is to those that I shall now turn.
The purpose of Part 1 of the Bill is to establish clear roles and responsibilities at the local level for bodies engaged in local civil protection. We start from a strong base. Within the United Kingdom, there is substantial experience of major emergencies and we have highly professional and dedicated emergency services. However, it is also important now, more than ever, to ensure that coherent strategies and systems for the harmonisation of contingency plans and procedures are in place.
The Bill identifies the range of bodies at the local level which have an interest in local civil protection. The Bill describes them as "local responders". Irrespective of the particular responsibilities of organisations and agencies which may be involved with the emergency response, they all work to common objectives at the local level, including saving and protecting life and property, maintaining critical services, safeguarding the environment and restoring normality as soon as possible.
But it is clearly important that the duties imposed should be proportionate to the role that organisations play in civil protection. That is why the Government are proposing a differential duty. Essentially, we propose to split local responders into two categories. Category 1 responders are the "core" organisations which are more likely to be closely involved in preparing for most incidents. They include the emergency services, local NHS bodies and the Health Protection Agency, local authorities, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Environment Agency. They can be characterised by their central role in the co-ordination of response and the delivery of its main elements.

607
Category 1 organisations are subject to more significant duties than those in category 2. They include risk assessment, business continuity planning, emergency planning, including training and exercising, and putting in place arrangements for warning and informing the public in the event of an emergency in so far as that helps to prevent, reduce, control or mitigate its effects. Responders will also be obliged to co-operate with each other through local resilience forums. That will bring the existing network of multi-agency groups on to a sounder footing, delivering improved co-ordination and communication.
Category 2 responders are "co-operating bodies". They are less likely to be involved in the heart of planning work but will be heavily involved in incidents which affect their sector. They include utilities such as water, gas, electricity and telecommunications, transport companies and infrastructure providers, and the Health and Safety Executive.
Category 2 responders will take on two activities—co-operation and information-sharing—which mirror the same obligations as those on category 1 bodies. However, it is important to note that Part 1 relies heavily on delegated powers, and that is obviously a matter that the House will want to consider. That is consistent with existing legislation and it reflects the technical and unpredictable nature of emergency planning and response. The Government have published the regulations for Part 1 of the Bill in draft. Before the regulations and guidance are published, we shall consult publicly again on their content.
Therefore, taking Part 1 as a whole, the Bill sets out a new framework for local civil protection which builds on many years of good practice and experience. It contains duties which reflect the wishes of practitioners and it sets in place structures to ensure that standards of performance are maintained.
Part 2 of the Bill essentially updates the Emergency Powers Act 1920. In the United Kingdom, emergency powers for more than 80 years have meant urgent, specific new legislation in place temporarily to deal with the most serious emergencies. The Government hold to that approach and the Bill reflects that. It is a special legislative mechanism for abnormal situations. There is still a need for a latent capacity to make new, temporary statutory provision rapidly where this is the most effective way of enabling the resolution of an emergency.
The ability to make emergency regulations is the central element of Part 2. But it departs from the existing model by improving the process by which regulations are made and by enhancing the safeguards.
As with the 1920 Act, the Bill places the Queen at the centre of the process for making temporary special legislation, but with a simpler process which removes the need for a separate royal proclamation. This is an improvement, agreed with the Palace, which reflects the need for practicable arrangements. In discharging this responsibility, the Queen would be acting on the
608
advice of her Ministers—principally the Home Secretary as member of the Cabinet with responsibility for domestic security and resilience.
Under the provisions of the Bill it will be possible for the first time to use emergency powers on a regional or devolved administration basis—a common feature internationally. This will ensure any special temporary legislation will apply only in the part of the United Kingdom affected by the emergency, leaving those elsewhere unaffected. Regional response will be supported by the new role of the regional nominated co-ordinator.
The Government recognise that these are significant powers, and that they should not operate in an unfettered way. That is why the Bill contains a much more coherent, transparent and comprehensive package of safeguards than can be found in the 1920 Act. The centrepiece of this is the "triple lock", which ensures that emergency powers will be available only if three conditions are satisfied. First, it must be the case that an emergency which threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur—that is to say serious and requiring immediate action. Secondly, it must be necessary to make provision urgently in order to resolve the emergency as existing powers are insufficient and it is not possible to bring forward a Bill in the usual way because of the need to act urgently. Thirdly, emergency regulations must be in due proportion to the aspect or effect of the emergency they are directed at.
The Bill also replicates and enhances the express limitations from the 1920 Act. For example, the emergency powers cannot prohibit industrial action, nor can they instigate any form of military conscription. They cannot alter any aspects of criminal procedures or create any new offence other than breach of the regulations themselves.
It is also important to be clear that Part 2 of the Bill has been drawn up to operate within the current constitutional settlement on human rights. The response to any emergency is a balance between the needs of the wider community and the rights of individuals. Given that the Bill gives the Government considerable power to take action in the interests of the wider community, it has to be tempered by proper protection for individual rights. This will doubtless be a subject which we return to in the debates to come, but it is important to emphasise a number of key points. The Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and Ministers have made statements to that effect. Emergency regulations allowed under the Bill must be compatible with the Human Rights Act, and we amended the Bill in the other place to require a statement to that effect to be made any time emergency powers are used.
If emergency regulations were made which did not comply with the ECHR, the maker of the regulations would be committing an unlawful act. The regulations and action taken under them could be challenged by the courts.

609
Emergency powers could not suspend the Human Rights Act, and we removed a draft clause that provided that emergency regulations be given the same protections as primary legislation in relation to the Human Rights Act following the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. I realise that this will be a topic of some interest to noble Lords, but it is our view that emergency regulations cannot substantively amend the Human Rights Act.
The Bill also preserves the important principle of parliamentary approval of emergency regulations. The Bill sets out that emergency regulations, once made, must be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. Parliament will then have seven days to approve them, with or without amendment, or they will fall.
This amounts to a much more comprehensive and coherent set of safeguards than exists under the current Act, and it better reflects important elements of the current constitutional settlement including devolution and the Human Rights Act. The Government believe that the balance we propose is the right one.
The Bill is necessary. I believe that we can all agree that a legislative framework for dealing with emergencies is a vital component of the statute book. In the light of recent events, it is clear that this modernisation is also timely.
The Government have worked towards the Bill in a considered way. We have pursued an open and consultative policy development process, and we have worked hard to carry parliamentary colleagues, practitioners, national representative bodies and a range of other organisations with us. This House will have a vital role to play in helping to refine our proposals further, bringing its considerable experience and knowledge to bear to ensure that the consensus we are building strikes the right balance between protecting us all from the effects of emergencies and not distorting the way in which we go about our lives.
We are in a position now to deliver the single legislative framework for a coherent response to the disruptive challenges of the future—that is our aim. I look forward to working with noble Lords to deliver the protections in every sense which the people of the United Kingdom deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
8.52 p.m.
Lord McNallyMy Lords, as ever, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining the Bill in her usual lucid fashion. I shall not dwell on the matter too long, but I thought that the two Chief Whips revealed a naivety that I do not usually associate with them when they believed that they could pack two such matters into a day's business as they have done today. It is a little unfortunate that the Second Reading of so serious a Bill starts at this time. My sympathies go to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, who in the future may well remember their maiden speeches by the fact that they went home to the dawn chorus.
610
I shall press on. The late George Woodcock, when general secretary of the TUC, used to pose to his members the question: why are we here? When Members of the House of Lords are faced with a similar question, they need look no further than legislation such as this Bill before us. Yet again, a piece of legislation reaches this House amidst complaints from the other place that there has been insufficient time to consider the Bill. Mr Richard Shepherd, for example, said during Third Reading:
"The fact is that we have not had a proper discussion of the most important part of the Bill, which affects our civil and political liberties".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/04; col. 1406.]
He was, of course, referring to Part 2.
Those concerns were expressed by other honourable Members. It is not for me to advise the other place on how to conduct its business, but yet again the onus is placed on this House to give a piece of legislation the kind of in-depth and detailed scrutiny of which the other place appears incapable. With the legislation before us there is the added imperative voiced by my colleague Richard Allan, MP, who said:
"Our concern is the risk of abuse of these sweeping powers by a future Government, which should concern all of us as constitutional democratic politicians".
He went on to say:
"I am sure that more concerns will be raised in the House of Lords, particularly on issues to do with human rights law. There are far more expert voices than mine there. I know that many of my colleagues will want to engage with that issue and I trust that they will do an excellent job".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/04; cols. 1404–05.]
We will do our best from these Benches to live up to that confidence. I know that other noble Lords will do so as well.
Because we intend to scrutinise with vigour does not mean that we do not appreciate the nature of the threat, or the need to bring up to date the rather elderly laws in this area to which the Minister referred. It is remarkable that we are legislating to replace both the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the even older Emergency Powers Act 1920. Both belong to a different age in terms of technology and the potential threats we face. It is also true that the laws underpinning our fundamental freedoms have stood the test of time not just for decades, but for centuries. It is very important that they are defended and preserved.
In saying so, I do not wish to imply that the Government or individual Ministers have any intention of undermining those basic human rights and civil liberties which we have, over the centuries, written into our law. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the Home Secretary, in particular, shows an impatience with the protection—as he sees it—that our laws give, and which prevents him from—how shall I put it? —"nailing" wrongdoers. So, even at the risk that some Ministers will go to some by-election and claim that we are soft on terrorism, we will do our job and stimulate debate in areas left undebated in the other place, and suggest improvements and amendments to the Bill where necessary.

611
Let me start by acknowledging that the Bill has been through a most welcome process of pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. The Government, as the Minister has indicated, have made changes during that process. It also received cross-party support in the other place, albeit with qualifications and continuing concerns. There have been criticisms and concerns expressed by almost every parliamentary committee which has examined the legislation, as well as by a range of external bodies, from Liberty and the Law Society to the British Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and the St John Ambulance.
Not all external lobbying speaks with one voice. For example, we have to balance the desire of the voluntary bodies to be involved in contingency planning with the concerns of local government about writing such consultation into statute, with its incumbent cost to local authorities. We will also wish to tease out the lines of responsibility under devolution, and the relative powers of local, regional and central government. We will have to test the concerns expressed by Dr Lewis Moonie, the chairman of the Joint Committee on this Bill, that it is a "one-size-fits-all" Bill for every possible scenario. Dr Moonie made those remarks with particular reference to what we mean by "emergency powers" and, as the Minister anticipated, I think we can see a very full debate in Committee on that matter.
There will be a very thorough probing of the whole of Part 2 of the Bill. A number of Members in another place—and in all parties—expressed concern about civil liberties and the human rights aspects of the Bill. As my honourable friend Richard Allan pointed out, this House is rich in expertise in this area, and we will certainly be putting down amendments in Committee to allow the fullest possible debate on Part 2.
I have already mentioned the need to debate how best to use the expertise of the voluntary organisations with local government. We will be probing the whole basis of funding these measures. It would not be the first time that central government have willed the ends to local government without providing the means. I know that my noble friends Lord Garden and Lady Hamwee will have more to say on this aspect, as, I suspect, will the noble Baroness, Lady Thorton.
As well as funding, we also want a clear understanding of how quality control will be implemented, so that citizens—wherever they live—can be assured of a consistently high standard of preparedness. Ministers need have no fear that this Bill, in its intentions, will lack support on these Benches. Indeed, we share with the Conservatives a mild surprise at its leisurely amble towards the statute book, given that work on updating the existing legislation started as long ago as 2000, as the Minister acknowledged.
To answer George Woodcock's question, the House of Lords is here to revise and advise. It has a particular responsibility when legislation calls into question fundamental human rights and longstanding civil liberties. Along with our legal and human rights
612
expertise, we have those who know and understand the practicalities of making legislation work at the sharp end, in local government and in policing.
We also have noble Lords with a deep understanding of the capacity and commitment of our voluntary organisations. All this expertise and experience will be deployed to make this a better Bill when it leaves this place. By better I mean in giving the British people the best and most effective protection that good planning, proper resources and effective communication can provide in the face of any threat, outrage or attack.
But we will do so mindful of the warning put in the mouth of Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons. When More is urged to ignore the law in favour of expediency, he points out:
"This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast and if you cut them down d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that blow then?".
This is why the debates in this House on Part 2 of the Bill will be so important. We have to provide a law which is not only effective in meeting a particular crisis or threat, but which is good for all seasons in safeguarding the civil liberties and human rights which make our liberal democracy worth defending.
9.1 p.m.
Lord JoplingMy Lords, I want to begin by ranting, following from the speech of my noble friend Lord McNally.
I resent very much the time we are starting on this Bill. I resent very much the incompetence of the Government's business managers in allowing such an important Bill as this to come on at this time of night. I regard it as a gross discourtesy to those of our colleagues who are going to make their maiden speeches this evening.
For all of us who have had the privilege of being able to make maiden speeches in your Lordships' House—and those of us who have had the double privilege of making one in another place as well—these are days that we remember and shall remember for all of our lives. And to invite those of our colleagues to make maiden speeches at this time of night is the most disgraceful discourtesy.
The Chief Whip told us a few moments ago that we might speak for six, seven or eight minutes. I am not a bit interested in that. This is a Second Reading. Speeches can last as long as the speaker wishes. I do not intend to have any interest in an artificial time limit, which is totally against our rules.
The Government cannot come here talking about the "ten o'clock rule", trying to get the business over by ten o'clock, when they themselves have so blatantly cheated over us coming back in September and, in return, for us getting up in the middle of July. They have sold their integrity on this matter this year by having us getting up on 22 July and stealing a week from us. I have talked about that before. I have had my rant.

613
I believe that the Bill does not address the real problems which confront us. In saying this, I shall refer only to the possibilities of major terrorist attacks in this country.
The threat of a terrorist attack here in Britain is a real one. As many people have said, it is not a case of "if", it is a case of "when". I can only quote the remarks of Elizabeth Manningham-Buller in the speech she made last year to the Royal United Services Institute. Referring to attacks, she said:
"That could include a Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear attack. Sadly, given the widespread proliferation of the technical knowledge to construct these weapons, it will only be a matter of time before a crude version of a CBRN attack is launched at a major Western city".
Clause 21 defines an emergency as a situation that,
"has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur".
To put that in modern English, it gives the Government powers when we arrive at panic stations. That is what the Bill is about—the powers that we give the Government when we get to panic stations.
I am not against these powers, although I know that some people are. I simply believe that when there is a major terrorist attack, if we are going to be sensible, civil rights and human rights will not be our primary concern when thousands, tens of thousands, and maybe hundreds of thousands of our citizens are either dying or threatened with death. I am bothered not by what is in the Bill; I am bothered by what, in my view, ought to be in the Bill. My concerns are about what should be done between now and a major terrorist attack, and what powers the Government ought to have between now and then, when the Bill clicks in, in order to deal with the situation by trying to look ahead.
Modern science makes it possible for terrorists to get their hands on the most horrific weaponry which, quite frankly, could make 9/11 look like just a skirmish. The horrors of CBRN devices are too terrible to contemplate, so many say, but, as parliamentarians and, indeed, as Government, we must contemplate them. I believe that the United Kingdom is woefully unprepared to deal with these attacks between now and that moment which we all hope will not come but which may come. As things stand, if something catastrophic occurred, I believe that the Government's unpreparedness would be shown to be wickedly negligent. I have said this in private to Ministers, but I believe that it is true, and that the Government would be rightly pilloried and never forgiven for their lack of preparedness at this time.
Let me give your Lordships an example of what I am talking about, such as a major biological attack. Take smallpox—my generation has been vaccinated many times. When I was a baby, it was a routine treatment. Since smallpox stopped being a clinical situation, however, my four, five or six smallpox vaccinations have little or no remaining potential.
614
Smallpox, mercifully, no longer occurs clinically, but a good many live cultures exist in the manufacture of vaccines and in stockpiles which are kept in very many countries around the world. Indeed, smallpox appears in all the civil defence manuals as a possible form of terrorist attack. The Government hold large stocks of vaccines. A year or so ago I suggested to my family that it would be a good idea if my grandchildren were vaccinated for smallpox, but it is not available—one cannot do it. I frankly cannot see why anybody, whether an adult or a child, should not be able to be vaccinated for smallpox on a voluntary basis.
The situation is much worse than that, however. I was in the United States a few weeks ago, with a NATO group on which I have the honour of representing your Lordships' House, with one of our colleagues.
I was at a science laboratory in southern California. I was expressing to an American scientist my concern about the very small number of doctors, nurses and ambulance workers in Britain who had been vaccinated for smallpox in the event of an attack of smallpox. He said to me, "Yes, you're quite right. I'm very worried about this too. In the United States, we have only 40,000 doctors, nurses, ambulance and emergency workers who have been vaccinated in preparation for an attack of this sort". I said to him, "You're very lucky". That is because when I asked a Question in our Parliament at the beginning of April about the number of doctors, nurses and other support workers who had been vaccinated to deal with an outbreak of smallpox in Britain, I was told there were 283. That outbreak could come without any warning at all. Noble Lords should not forget that there is a four to 17-day incubation period before anybody can know whether it has been addressed. That Answer stated that the vaccination of ambulance workers is likely to start shortly. That is complacency gone mad.
I am told that some people in our emergency services are reluctant to be vaccinated because of the side-effects and that is why only 283 people have been vaccinated for that kind of situation. Years ago, when I was first vaccinated, there was no particular concern about side-effects. It did not stop it being a routine procedure when I was born. Nothing less than complacency and inertia have allowed us to be so unprepared as in the example which I have given to your Lordships' House.
I am told that the Government are anxious not to scare or cause panic to the public. I do not remember that happening in 1938 and 1939, when, before the Second World War, my generation was fitted with gas masks. That was a pretty extreme measure at that time, but I do not recall any panic. The side-effects argument is totally spurious.
The Bill should be amended to include powers to require emergency workers to be vaccinated against the possibility of biological attack. I am not too concerned about the human rights implications of the Bill. That is one way in which I hope that we can amend it in the future.

615
I turn to a different issue. In the event of a CBRN attack, it is vital, early on, to discover exactly what it is. There must be a definitive discovery of whether a chemical attack has been made as soon as possible. It must be precisely established what it is and what its implications are. We had a classic case of that in this building just a few weeks ago. Somebody threw some blue flour on to the Prime Minister in the most disgraceful way. Equipment exists to detect almost all of those potential weapons, whether they are biological or chemical.
Recently when I visited southern California with the NATO group I went to visit the Science Applications International Corporation—SAIC—in San Diego. I saw its monitoring equipment, which is called VACIS, which seemed to us a magical piece of monitoring equipment for the contents of vehicles, including large lorries. That equipment is extremely useful, both for seeing whether there are illegal immigrants in lorries but also whether there are sealed lead or tungsten vessels in those lorries that might contain nuclear equipment, substances or material being brought illegally into the country.
SAIC is involved in an associated project called Cyclamen, which can identify radioactive material at ports and airports. I am told that in this country we have both VACIS and Cyclamen, but only tiny numbers, perhaps as much as we could count on two fingers. That is inadequate: there is a need for a great deal more urgency. The Bill should contain powers to force airport and port authorities, where they are reluctant—I am told that in some cases they are—to install such equipment.
Equipment exists to identify quickly biological or chemical material or if necessary to give the all-clear when a suspected substance is not present. That happened in the attack in the House of Commons a few weeks ago. We are lucky in this country to have a world leader in Smiths Detection, a UK company based in Watford. The military already has a great deal of its equipment. Only a token number of such detection instruments are around the country available to the civilian authorities. That is inadequate and needs to be addressed urgently.
The Commons Science and Technology Committee reported a few months ago. I want to use extracts from its report to demonstrate why I feel that we are so utterly unprepared. The committee recommended that it should become,
"a medium term aim to provide the ambulance service with a basic level of detector technology for CBRN incidents in high risk areas".
Regarding the police, it said,
"In a House of Lords Written Answer Baroness Scotland of Asthal said that 3,700 officers would be trained to deal with a CBRN incident by July 2003 and this would rise to 6000 next year".
That is all very well, but the report continues,
"This is a facility we would have wished to have examined. Unfortunately, the Home Office refused our request for a witness to appear, even in private".
616
What are the Government doing? All that endorses my view that the Government's approach to such terrorist attacks in the future is shrouded in complacency. With regard to the fire service, the report states,
"The Fire Service says it does not have the skills to work with biohazard detection equipment yet the other emergency services are relying on its expertise. If this arrangement is to remain in place then the Government must move rapidly to provide the Fire Service with effective detection and identification technology and the skills to use it".

This all demonstrates the Government's utter complacency with regard to preparations for a terrorist attack. It makes me quite exasperated when I read the Government's totally lame response to the Commons Select Committee report. They refer in paragraph 2—and if ever there was a bland statement it is this—to,
"the Government's commitment to harness the best science and technology available".
All that I can say, in the face of all this, is, "You could have fooled me".
The Government's whole attitude to the Bill is a matter of complacency. The Bill was introduced in January, after which it sat for 15 weeks between Committee and Report stages in another place. It is all summed up by the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on 17 May, to my noble friend Lady Buscombe. He said:
"The Bill is not driven by urgent operational need; rather it is a timely modernisation of existing legislation".
Not driven by urgent operational need! All I say to the Government is, "Come on! Wake up! The enemy could be at the gate, but whenever he is at the gate we need to find out he is there before he strikes!".
9.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of CoventryMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already drawn attention to the role played by the voluntary agencies in relation to this Bill. We have all received a briefing paper produced jointly by the British Red Cross, the WRVS, the Salvation Army and St John Ambulance. These are, of course, highly respectable voluntary organisations, which have contributed very significantly to the welfare of this nation, in times both of war and of peace. I find myself very much in sympathy with their request that the voluntary organisations should be included in the Bill and involved at the earliest stages of planning for civil contingencies.
The voluntary sector, by its very nature, encompasses a diverse range of people and skills, which are not only useful but vital at times of emergency. It is of course correct that the emergency services, such as the police, fire and ambulance services, play a primary role in emergency planning—but the voluntary sector is a wonderful resource which should be fully utilised in planning for an emergency.
There are different facets to an emergency situation which are best dealt with by different groups. Of course, the statutory services should play the lead role in ensuring that life and property are protected and

617
saved during and following a disaster. Time after time the country has been wonderfully served by our emergency services, and I pay tribute to them. Many people are alive today because of their bravery and professionalism. However, behind the immediate impact of a disaster—be that an accident or terrorist incident—lies a problem that is more diffuse but very challenging. That problem is the emotional and psychological distress that many people involved in emergency situations, and their families, go through both during and after the event.
There are of course many caring and sensitive people in the emergency services, but their priority in an emergency situation must be the physical well-being and safety of individuals. It is the voluntary sector that can take pressure off the emergency services by caring for the emotional needs of survivors and families. The UK is blessed with a voluntary sector that carries out tasks in a professional way but, at the same time, we must be careful not to underplay the so-called "soft" elements of care that are so important, such as refreshments for the emergency services, a cup of tea or coffee, a caring word or a listening ear. These are not additional extras, but provide vital respite for people undergoing incredibly stressful situations.
One must not forget, either, the spiritual role that some of the voluntary organisations play. Many people caught up in an emergency will have spiritual needs that one would not expect the statutory services to meet. There are excellent examples of good practice in this area already. For example, in the London emergency plan, the Salvation Army is the co-ordinator of clergy of all faiths. So, in an emergency, clergy report to the Salvation Army rather than attempting to relate to the controller of the emergency response. This enables co-ordination of response, it streamlines the process and ensures that people's emotional and spiritual needs are met as well as they can be in very difficult circumstances.
There are many examples of clergy talking or praying with survivors or, more harrowingly, those who are not going to survive. It is absolutely vital that robust processes are put in place to ensure a co-ordinated response from those who could help to meet the emotional and spiritual needs of those caught up in disasters. It is exactly this kind of holistic care that is so necessary in a traumatic situation and which can only really be provided by the voluntary sector.
But the voluntary sector's contribution to an emergency can be of the highest order only if it is involved in planning for that emergency. Where that happens already, such as in London and other places, the benefits are clear. But just because it already is happening in some places should not be an argument for not putting it in the Bill. If involving the voluntary sector in emergency planning is best practice, which I believe it is, then it should be a requirement that all category 1 responders consult with voluntary organisations. It would be completely unacceptable if people in one part of the country were offered inadequate emotional and spiritual support because
618
that area chose not to consult with voluntary organisations. We can ensure best practice by placing conditions to consult on category 1 responders.
From the representations that I have received it seems obvious that the voluntary organisations all realise that they play a secondary role in an emergency. It is not about grandstanding or self-aggrandisement on their part. The voluntary sector is simply desperate to provide the public with the best possible service and they see that being part of the planning process is crucial to that.
Like many others, I have welcomed the Government's commitment to the voluntary sector. For example, the Chancellor has made very positive and encouraging remarks to the voluntary sector about partnership and the importance of that sector in the deliverance of statutory services. The Homelessness Act 2002 includes a duty on local authorities to include voluntary organisations in reviewing and formulating their strategies on homelessness. That is to be welcomed. But I believe that what we have in the Bill is a situation where the voluntary sector wants to be involved, but is potentially stymied by the Government. Surely the Government ought to be sending out a very clear message that the contribution of that sector is to be welcomed.
Finally, to summarise, as key providers of emotional and practical support to victims and their families, the voluntary sector is united in calling for formal explicit recognition of their contribution to emergency planning and response. This recognition needs to form part of the Civil Contingencies Bill. A duty should be placed upon statutory authorities to involve the voluntary sector fully in emergency planning and response. Without this acknowledgement, the response to the human dimension in an emergency could well be less effective. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to this modest, but significant, proposal.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Archer of SandwellMy Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, particularly since I enthusiastically endorse every word he said. I will return a little later, if I may, to the voluntary bodies and no doubt we will discuss it together in Committee.
Time is against us. I understand why this situation has arisen. If the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will forgive me—we have travelled many a yellow brick road together—I thought that some of his comments were a little intemperate. However, I hope that those outside this House who will read this debate will appreciate why some of us appear to have overlooked so many important matters.
The concept of an emergency is not new. Ours is not the first generation to encounter a major disaster. History has endowed us with examples enough from Nineveh and Pompeii to the Black Death and the Fire of London. People have recognised that there is a scale which transforms a misfortune into a visitation. Two things are new in our generation. First, the technological capability that empowers us to impact

619
disastrously on the environment and so to create a disaster has also given us the technological power to avert, or at least to reduce, its impact. Secondly, partly in consequence of faster communications, partly of more effective machinery of government, we can concentrate and co-ordinate the resources to respond. One consequence is that while in previous generations people viewed disasters with a submissive fatalism, we now expect government at all levels to deal with them. Indeed, when there is a disaster, the first question is: who is to blame? Whose head is to roll? The media move into top gear to identify a scapegoat. Like Ma when Little Albert was eaten by a lion, the first reaction is:
"Someone's got to be summonsed".
So we begin with a consensus that the Government ought to put in place arrangements to forestall disasters, or at least to minimise them. That entails delivering to government the powers which they will require for that purpose. We are prepared to cash in some of our liberties in exchange for the right to survival, though I do not draw quite the same conclusions as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and our differences, if they are not apparent already, will appear later. However, there is a trade off.
The Government are to be congratulated on publishing a draft Bill and inviting prelegislative scrutiny. I was privileged to serve on the prelegislation committee which was fortunate to be chaired by my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie. The Government are to be doubly congratulated first on setting up the committee and, secondly, as my noble friend Lady Scotland pointed out, on responding positively to so many of its recommendations. Can it be made clear to certain sections of the media that when the Government respond to criticism in Parliament in an appropriate case, that is not a climb down? It is the purpose of Parliament to scrutinise proposed legislation, and the mark of a rational and open-minded government when they respond. Having, I hope, won the approval of my noble friends on the Front Bench for those comments, it may encourage them to forgive me for what I may say a little later if time permits.
Part 1 of the Bill is concerned largely with imposing on appropriate bodies an obligation to plan for and deal with emergencies. Its function is to make things happen. It is the engine room of the scheme so it requires scrutiny to ensure that action is targeted and limited to where it is needed, not primarily to safeguard civil liberties. There is a trade off between protection from undue intervention and protection from disaster. The principal purpose of scrutinising Part 1 is to ensure that we do not over extend the statutory services so that resources are dissipated and are not where they are needed. C S Lewis observed in a rather different context that the strategy of the devil is to have everyone running around with fire extinguishers when there is a flood.
One way to avoid that situation, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is to consider how fully we can utilise the voluntary services. In the Government's original paper, Dealing with Disaster,
620
they merited some discussion. In the consultation paper of June 2003, they did not rate a mention, and in the Bill they fared no better. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. In this country we are fortunate to have a whole range of voluntary services enjoying the dedication of people who, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, donate their time, often without remuneration, simply to serve the community, and who have undergone extensive training. At managerial level, some possess skills and experience greater than those available to the statutory bodies. They are, of course, virtually unparalleled in coping with emotional needs.
In response to the Joint Committee, the Government said they would encourage Part 1 providers to consult with voluntary bodies. It would be a welcome recognition of the work and the potential of those bodies, as well as a timely reminder to the providers, to include in the Bill a duty to consult.
There is much more to be said about Part 1 but, in view of the constraints on time, I must reserve it to enliven our Committee stage. Part 2 is the more controversial part of the Bill, where the trade-off between liberty and survival becomes more acute. The concept of the "triple lock" is a useful analytical tool, but it merits careful scrutiny. The expression first occurred in paragraph 19 of chapter 5 of the June 2003 consultation document, but does not appear in the Bill. The Government say, "No, we have not used those words. There is no one place in the Bill where you will find them". However, the elements are all there, and all you need to do is dig them out and nail them together". The Government have responded commendably to some of the Joint Committee's recommendations about that part of the Bill, but in the light of the discussion that the concept has generated, and the weight rested on it by the Government, it would have been simpler and safer to have included it expressly, not necessarily under that name, in one place, as the Joint Committee recommended. Perhaps, when my noble friend replies, he can offer us some good news.
I had a number of rather more burning issues to ventilate on Part 2. Those, too, I shall reserve for Committee, although no doubt my noble friends could have an informed guess as to what some of them will be. We do not want to handicap the Government in so important a task, but we need the Government to be less mealy-mouthed as to the powers that they are really seeking in Part 2. I think we can promise my noble friends an interesting Committee stage.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of CalowMy Lords, I shall be brief, partly because I want to leave adequate time for the noble Lords to make their maiden speeches, to which we are all greatly looking forward, but also because the right reverend Prelate has said most of what I wanted to say, only much more eloquently.

621
I shall make two additional points. I had a wry smile, as the only reference I could find to the general public in the Bill was in Clause 4(1), where there is to be,
"assistance to the public in connection with the making of arrangements for the continuance of commercial activities".
Community activity, however, is also exceedingly important, particularly when there is threat and danger and anxiety. I echo all that the right reverend Prelate said about the involvement of voluntary bodies and community leaders. I would tentatively suggest that this might be added to the Bill at Clause 24(3), which states that the regional coordinator shall,
"facilitate coordination of activities".
That might be a useful place to include a reference to community leaders.
I want to highlight again the role of the community leaders of faith communities. I was present last week at a meeting between the leaders of the Christian and Muslim communities, where we were working on a joint statement to be issued in case there was a terrorist attack. We have worked hard to have good relationships between religious communities. Those could easily be threatened if an attack were to take place in this country. If reference could be made, either in requirement or permission, to include those of good faith and good practice who are working so hard to be together, that would assist in the requirements of the Bill as well as in the public's recognition of the work that these faith leaders are doing.
9.39 p.m.
Lord RosserMy Lords, the next few minutes promise to be both an ordeal for me and, I fear, for your Lordships. On Friday I listened to the fine maiden speeches from my noble friends Lord Truscott and Lord Snape. Unlike my two noble friends I do not have the experience or the confidence that must come from having been a Member of the European Parliament or a Member of the other place. For that reason I have been particularly appreciative of the help and kindness shown to me by the staff of your Lordships' House at all levels. Help, kindness and courtesy were shown, despite what must be the considerable extra pressures arising from the sudden influx of, I believe, over 40 new Members of your Lordships' House after three years of relative drought in that regard.
I recognise that I stand here as a complete unknown to the vast majority. That was a point brought home to me by an article that appeared in the Guardian five days before the initial announcement on 1 May. It claimed, in respect of the new Labour Peers, that the Prime Minister had been anxious to avoid appointing those who would be labelled "cronies", "rebels" or "luvvies", before asserting that I would be appointed as "a lower profile union official".
Leaving aside the fact that, for some of us, being described as "lower profile" might actually mark a step up the profile ladder, I was advised by one of my friends—or, at least, I thought that he was one of my
622
friends—that in my case the reference to a "lower profile figure" was Guardian-speak for, "nobody has ever heard of you". And the reference to not being a crony, rebel or luvvie, was Guardian-speak for, "and what's more the Prime Minister has never heard of you, either".
However, I admit that it is with some surprise, but with the utmost pleasure, pride and sense of privilege, despite my nerves, that I find myself where I am, doing what I am, at this precise moment. I believe that I may not be the first Member of your Lordships' House to be expressing that feeling of surprise, as I am sure some of your Lordships will know.
A previous Duke of Devonshire—I am not sure which one—is alleged to have said that one night he was dreaming that he was addressing your Lordships' House. "Then," he continued, "I woke up and, by golly, I was". Any feeling of self-importance that I might have had after the announcement on 1 May was somewhat deflated by an article in a national newspaper three days later, which started:
"The usual crop of tame union bosses was among those rewarded with membership of London's best club at the weekend".
The article then referred to three of my noble friends, or shortly to be noble friends, with a trade union background without further adverse comment, before announcing that mine was,
"the most surprising name",
as I was,
"a lifer at the TSSA, the low-key white collar transport union".
I have to say that the nearest that I have come to being a lifer was one night spent in Winson Green prison in Birmingham. I am aware that I am not unique in being a Member of your Lordships' House who has spent a night in prison, but in my defence I can only say that I was there in my capacity as a member of a national board covering the prison and probation services. Fortunately, the understanding of the prison officers about when I should be let out tallied with mine.
The newspaper article also referred to "a Labour insider" saying that I worked my socks off and that,
"he makes Jeeves look like a slacker".
If that is why I was appointed, I may be the first Member of your Lordships' House to be here under false pretences, but fortunately I believe that it is now too late for anything to be done about it.
My background is a transport and trade union one, and I will be forever grateful for the opportunities in my life given to me by the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association in particular, and the trade union movement and transport industry in general.
I am here, though, as a Member of your Lordships' House who has accepted the Labour Whip. Like, I assume, all other Members of your Lordships' House, I do not regard myself as being here as a representative of, or mouthpiece for, any outside organisation. However, my personal views, my particular interests

623
and my outlook have inevitably, as with everyone else, been conditioned and influenced by my life experiences.
The transport industry, in which I have been involved for over 40 years, is one which functions very much in the public eye, where a service not run or provided when scheduled or needed cannot be made up by increasing the number of services at another time. A former chairman of British Rail once said, "For us, every day is an open day".
The Bill we are debating tonight includes major transport organisations as category two responders. I want to make a few brief and I sincerely hope not too controversial points, as this is my maiden speech.
First, the Bill does not bury its head in the sands. By inference it recognises that emergencies will occur whether as a result of human or technical mistakes or failures, acts of God or, in today's climate, acts of terrorism or sabotage. To imagine that emergencies will become a thing of the past would be an unrealistic objective, and a dangerously unrealistic one at that. The need is to take steps to reduce to a minimum the likelihood of those emergencies, and to reduce their impact when they do occur.
Secondly, as the Bill seeks to do, there is a need to ensure that risk assessments and co-ordinated responses to minimise those risks, reducing their impact where they do occur, are thorough and involve all relevant bodies.
Thirdly, much of the debate on this Bill will relate to the potential legal implications and meaning of the powers provided in this Bill, which I do not deny are important and key issues. But if—or rather, when—an emergency occurs, it will not be a desire for a legal résumé and analysis of the content of this Bill which will be immediately uppermost in the minds of those at risk or facing risk. Rather it will be the effectiveness of the relevant authorities and organisations in acting speedily, decisively, intelligently and collectively to an agreed plan with an agreed purpose—with the left hand knowing what the right is doing, and why.
We must surely ensure that important though they are, the precision and detail of the statutory powers, requirements and safeguards finally laid down in the Bill are not such as to preclude the relevant authorities and bodies from acting decisively and quickly in the interests of those at risk at a time of crisis. It seems to me that if we cannot have some degree of trust in government, of whatever political colour, not to misuse or seek to misuse powers given under the Bill, then the prospects of all pulling together to address an emergency that might arise must be reduced.
Fourthly, there must also be effective action to ensure that not only are structures, including communications, right; but also that those involved—whether directly or indirectly—have been given the skills, resources, training and information to carry out the roles and responsibilities required of them at a time of potentially considerable pressure and stress.
624
Finally, we might remember in considering the Bill that planning and preparation by all concerned to minimise and reduce the impact of an emergency is not something new. After all, Noah built the ark before it started raining.
I thank noble Lords for their kindness and courtesy in listening to me.
9.49 p.m.
Lord CondonMy Lords, it is my privilege, on behalf of the whole House, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his maiden speech. He brought humour, interest and relevant comment to our debate this evening. As noble Lords heard, he also comes to your Lordships' House with a very distinguished and honourable background of service and experience in the trade union movement as general-secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association; he has been a magistrate for many years; and he serves as a member of the Correctional Services Board, covering prisons and probation. What we have heard from the noble Lord this evening augers well for his and our future, and we look forward to the many contributions that he will make to your Lordships' House.
I support the Bill and, in doing so, I declare my membership of the Joint Committee on the Draft Civil Contingencies Bill. This was the first time that I had been involved in the committee process of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I was very impressed with the thoroughness of the process, the quality of the evidence that we received, and the diligence and hard work of our support staff. I was also very pleased that the Government responded so positively to so many of the 50 recommendations made by the committee.
The Bill before your Lordships' House is now in much better shape than the original. There is greater concern for human rights and, most importantly, the potentially unfettered powers for the government of the day in the draft Bill are now set in a more acceptable, if not perfect, framework of checks and balances. No doubt we shall return to that issue at later stages.
However, I still have some reservations, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage those concerns in his response. In view of the advisory time constraints, I shall be very selective in my comments.
First, I am disappointed that the Government did not respond positively to Recommendations 25 and 26 of the Joint Committee report in which we recommended that a statutory duty be placed on category 1 responders to consult with, and involve, the voluntary organisations. Noble Lords have heard this evening from other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate, of their support for this issue. It would not be an onerous duty on category 1 planners or, indeed, on the relevant voluntary organisation but, in my view, it would have enormous symbolic value in recognising the importance of the voluntary sector and in encouraging volunteering.
Our Recommendation 26, if implemented, would give category 1 responders the flexibility to consult only with the most relevant voluntary organisations in

625
their area. That would overcome the Government's fears that not all voluntary organisations would be in a position to respond. As a former Commissioner of Police, I know from hands-on experience of dealing with major incidents that the voluntary organisations are absolutely invaluable. Their importance should be recognised on the face of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will reconsider this issue.
My principal concern relates to the inter-connected issues of resource implications and audit and management. Many witnesses who submitted evidence or appeared before the Joint Committee raised concerns about the resource implications that are likely to arise from the new civil contingency provisions. Similarly, they raised concerns that, without a more vigorous inspection and audit regime, they could not guarantee a step-change approach to our preparedness to deal with emergencies. The Government's current response is, with respect, in danger of being complacent and over-reliant on the status quo. The Joint Committee made nine specific recommendations about resources, audit, management and implementation.
I believe that the Bill should ensure that we make a step-change improvement in our planning and response to major emergencies. The Government's response to the Joint Committee's recommendations on resourcing, audit and management are, in my view, incomplete and unsatisfactory. They seem to encourage an unnecessarily stark choice between relying on the status quo provisions with a little tweaking or moving to an American-style Department of Homeland Security. That was never the intention of the Joint Committee, and there need not be such a stark choice.
I believe that there is scope to enhance significantly the provision of resources and the certainty of better planning and implementation, without the need to create a massive homeland security department. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that a step-change improvement in our preparedness to deal with the challenges will be achieved through the Bill. I invite him to reconsider whether the existing plans for audit and inspection are up to the task, particularly as there is so much uncertainty about the future regime of inspectorates that operate in this area.
Despite the reservations that I have raised, this is a necessary and fundamentally good Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships' House as a coherent attempt to modernise the law.
9.55 p.m.
Lord TunnicliffeMy Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, I would like to express my gratitude for the warm and friendly welcome I have received from Members on all sides of the House. I would also like to thank the staff at every level. They are helpful, polite and friendly. They radiate enthusiasm for their work and the institution they serve. In my 30 years in customer-facing businesses I have never seen a better standard.
626
I express some slight surprise at the warm and friendly welcome because my previous experience of Parliament was as a witness in front of select committees of the other place. There the atmosphere was more full, free and frank than warm and friendly. It was in my role as managing director of London Underground Limited for 10 years and its chairman for two years that I appeared in front of them. We discussed over the years a variety of issues, but they were particularly enthusiastic about helping me to build the Jubilee Line extension and particularly Westminster Station. I hope that noble Lords will agree that together in Westminster station we created a splendid back door for this magnificent Palace.
It is from my experience in London Underground and more recently as chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority that I would like to comment on the Bill. During the 1990s, London Underground faced a continuous threat from the IRA. Working with the security services, the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police, we created contingency plans effectively to mitigate this threat. We also planned responses to a wide range of even more frightening scenarios. In the nuclear industry contingency planning was always at the top of our concerns.
The House will no doubt want to concentrate on Part 2 of the Bill. Its efforts to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the wider community will properly receive detailed attention. However, I would like to comment briefly on Part 1, particularly the duty to assess, plan and advise.
Dealing with an emergency is like a battle, or even a war. The powers are but the weapons. They are useless without a plan. A plan must address any scenario that may occur. It is the plan that will guide emergency leaders to bring resources to bear quickly as the catastrophe develops. Further, it is in the process of developing the plan that opportunities for prior mitigation emerge, either through hard engineering, procedures or training.
To achieve plans, one needs adequate resources, good people, wide involvement from all parties and good morale and esteem in the planning team. We are assured by the Government that the financial impacts are negligible. I hope that this means that the present resources are sufficient and will be maintained. Further, it is essential that government and local authorities devote some of their best people to the planning task.
The Bill lists and defines two categories of responders. It reads, to my untrained eye, as if category 1 responders do and category 2 responders react and inform. The modern world is more complex than that. A modern emergency may well involve catastrophic disruption to the utilities and transport. Only those industries understand their own businesses well enough to plan the appropriate response. It is essential that planning is an inclusive process, bringing together the expertise from all responders in any particular scenario.

627
Finally, creating contingency plans is a lonely and unsung profession. No member of the public ever knows what one does. Everybody, including the planners themselves, hope that their plans are never used. It is essential, therefore, that national and local leaders go out of their way to recognise the work of the contingency planners so as to raise their morale and esteem.
This is a good and necessary Bill. I am sure that when it has received your Lordships' attention, it will be an even better Bill. However, it will be of use as an Act only if it is backed by contingency plans of the highest possible standard. One day, the future of the nation may depend upon them.
10.1 p.m.
Lord LucasMy Lords, it is a very great privilege to have been asked to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on his maiden speech. On discovering my name under his on the speakers' list, I had a brief look to find out about his history. I discovered with delight that he had been a pilot for BOAC. I am proud to say that we have one of those. I do not know whether the noble Lord compares himself favourably to any member of the ferret family, but perhaps we shall find out later.
As the noble Lord said, he had a torrid time as MD and chairman of London Underground. He has learnt, in a way that few Members of this House have learnt, how to deal with antagonistic press and Commons committees. In this place we are much nicer, as the noble Lord will doubtless find out when he sits on committees. I suspect that none of us will have the chance to be sacked by Ken Livingstone—except possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if he gets around to it.
As the noble Lord quite rightly said, he will be remembered for the Jubilee Line, which for any of us who use it is a pleasure and a glory. If it were not for the fact that we sometimes remember why it was built, it would be an unalloyed pleasure.
I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord's speech. I agreed with every word of it. I hope that that will be true of his future speeches. I very much hope that he will find the time to take a full part in the Committee and later stages of this Bill. We shall benefit enormously from his expertise.
As the Chief Whip is in his place, I hope that he will allow the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House. I really believe that this Bill will not benefit from being tucked away in Grand Committee. The issues are too wide and of too much interest to too many people.
I shall want to say a great deal in Committee, but today I want to raise two points. First, if Part 1 is to work, we all need to know what to do when an emergency strikes. That applies, first, to the people who are to be involved in managing an emergency, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said so cogently. In the way in which the Bill is structured, there is a real problem in that, as central government have written themselves out of the process. They do not appear to
628
want to be involved at all in the practising, rehearsing and thinking that will take place. They appear to want a role of issuing diktats and supervising what goes on and when the emergency occurs, departments will get together and spend a day or two deciding which of them will be in charge of a particular emergency before they get around to doing anything.
In case that is not confusing enough, there will be a system of regional supremos who also will not be involved in practising and who will be identified only when an emergency occurs. "This is a kind of medical emergency so we'll pick Dr Thistledown from Manchester to deal with this one", when no one has ever dealt with him before and he has not been involved in the rehearsals that have taken place to produce an effective response.
It is absolutely crucial that the whole government machine is involved in practising, that the government response is co-ordinated, and that—whatever happens and whenever it happens—everybody in the central government, local government and other responders' machinery knows who is in charge, where they turn to for their instructions and what they are supposed to do if communications are down. Making sure that the mechanisms and structure are right, so that that happens, will be one of the crucial tasks I shall address.
What the rest of us know is important too. How many of us know what we do if there is some disaster which makes central London untenable? I do. I just learnt it by chance: you are supposed to walk to the local railway station and take a train from there, getting out of the way. We hear in the press that there is a procedure for convening Parliament elsewhere. But how are we supposed to get to know of it after the disaster has struck? Nobody has told us, and every single member of this country is in the same position.
I suppose we can allow for some gentle confusion about what to do in the case of something relatively benign, such as London flooding because the Thames Barrier breaks down. But what if something serious is involved, such as the smallpox attack of my noble friend Lord Jopling? We are going to be in real trouble if such a thing happens here, because the first reaction of every other country in the world is going to be to seal us off. They will not want it. We are going to be faced not just with dealing with this infectious disease but with how to survive for a month or two with no food or fuel imports.
What does one do under those circumstances? Either one has immediate faith in a national plan, because you know it exists: it starts talking to you immediately, you know where to turn to, you know everything will be fairly treated; or you grab a baseball bat, head off down to Tesco and make sure that you are going to be all right. That is what will happen, very quickly, if we do not all know what to do, or where to take our information from. It is crucial that we form a public-facing civil contingency system in this Bill. We do not need to know the details, but we need to know enough to form part of a co-ordinated civil response, rather than having to look after number one.

629
What concerns me in Part 2 of the Bill is what happens in an extreme case. Are we opening up our system to the equivalent of what happened in Germany in 1933, where it became possible for an extreme party legitimately to hijack a democracy and turn it into something totalitarian? It is not that difficult to imagine what happens. Perhaps next election we will have a hung Parliament. The Liberals will join Labour and their price will be proportional representation. In the Parliament after that, a chance for PR: you vote for who you want to make a difference. The UKIP and the BNP get significant representation in Parliament. The Conservative Party, pretty desperate for power, then allies itself with the UKIP and has a stand-off pact with the British National Party. The consequence of that, perhaps, is that we have an ex-Labour MP—a demagogue, shall we say?—who becomes a senior member of the government, perhaps Home Secretary, and that is the price for co-operation.
This scenario does not last for very long. There are too many tensions in it, and they can never really agree on what to do about Europe. Six months later, the Labour Party, sensing a real division, organises a vote of no confidence in the Commons. The UKIP and the BNP are very unsure about what they will do. They disappear into a conclave of their own, which continues to last as the debate goes on. Just as the Prime Minister rises to speak, a small tactical nuclear weapon explodes on a barge outside the Houses of Parliament. The only surviving Secretary of State is the member of the UKIP, and it rapidly becomes clear that the BNP are in with him. He creates an emergency. That is pretty easy to do under the circumstances: all you do is allege that that was done by A1' Qaeda, that it has a number of other bombs planted around the United Kingdom and that it is essential to track them down and discover them straight away.
We can run on from there and ask at what point we recover our democracy. We have created a Bill under which the first thing you do is, by order, amend the Bill, removing the safeguards in it using the powers in the Bill. You censor the press and suspend the courts. Faced with that sort of behaviour, what are the only real powers that remain in the land to do? What will the police and the Army do? Will they be able to read from the Bill the subtleties of constitutional interpretation in which the Government indulge in their response to the committee of which I was a member? Is it really right to expect a general to understand how that whole thing works, or do we need to write our protections for the preservation of our democracy much more clearly, in plain English, in the Bill, so that it is quite clear to everyone when lines have been overstepped?
We are not that far from giving a presently obscure, extremist party a chance at power. It requires only PR and a bit of clever manipulation and someone will have a chance. We must ensure that, even if such a person gets that chance, it does not last. That is a hard thing to do. Again, it relies very much on the public understanding of what the Bill can do and that what is
630
happening is illegitimate—and, therefore, the willingness of those who have the power to overturn such a development to act. That is something that we must include in the Bill, or we are signing our death warrant as a democracy.
10.12 p.m.
Lord GardenMy Lords, I welcome this long-awaited Bill. Sir David Omand, the Cabinet Office co-ordinator for these issues, spoke last week at the Royal United Services Institute. He said that, although we cannot eliminate the threat of terrorism in the immediate future, there is an achievable strategic aim for the next five years, which is to deny terrorists the ability to disrupt our way of life, our prosperity and our confidence in our societies and culture. The Bill fits well with that strategic aim.
However, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, concern about complacency on the Government's part. We have moved incredibly slowly. The work started before the attacks on Washington and New York. We have had three years since then. There have been subsequent attacks. Yet we still receive reports from the Defence Select Committee in the other place calling for action. In July 2002, one called for urgent action to get on with the Bill. Another report in July 2003 regretted continued delays and called for a greater sense of urgency.
I fear that I share with the committee a sense of bewilderment at the slow progress of this enabling Bill. I am very pleased that your Lordships have decided to get on with it tonight, because imposing further delay because of problems with business timetabling seems exactly the wrong thing to be doing at the moment. Through what is perhaps a combination of good luck and hard work by our intelligence and police services, we have not suffered an attack like the one suffered by Madrid in March. I wonder whether, if we had had to cope with a similar scale of attack, we would have wished that we had made more progress with the Bill and the tasking arrangements that would come with it.
Due to the time, I shall concentrate my remarks on aspects of Part 1, because I know that there will be a great deal of subsequent debate on Part 2. During the Cold War, we invested considerable resources in all aspects of civil defence. Rightly, those were scaled down, but we now find that we have to re-create the expertise and capability to cope with short notice, high impact events. That is different from the ordinary emergencies with which we must already cope. A rapid response to such events can reduce casualties significantly. To achieve that rapid response, those tasked need effective planning, regular training and the right equipment.
In placing a duty of contingency planning on local authorities and emergency services, the Bill requires them to conduct a whole range of activities such as emergency planning, risk assessment, business continuity planning and communications with the public and businesses. If these plans are to work on the day, they will require significant training and exercises.

631
Local authorities already carry out some emergency simulations. For example, in 2003 Derbyshire County Council Emergency Planning Team carried out 25 exercises. Four of those were practical exercises while the rest were "table top" scenarios. The exercises included people from the health services, emergency services, local authority staff, the voluntary sector, the utilities and local media. However, to date no exercises on responses to terrorism have been carried out. The public have not been involved in the exercises other than when leaflet drops have taken place.
I worry that we are going to put these extra tasks onto the authorities without funding the necessary resources for them. Unlike the emergency services, local authorities have received no extra funding to undertake additional anti-terrorism work expected of them by the Government. Furthermore, the emergency planning service is already severely underfunded. It is not good enough for the Government to put new tasks without accompanying resources. It is not a question of the funding being done through the normal process—we are talking about what is known in military-speak as "urgent operational need". We need to make sure that they have the equipment to do the job. This is not an area where we can afford to take risks through under-funding.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the important role that the voluntary organisations can play in this and I agree with what has been said about giving a formal tasking to coordinate with them.
I wish to raise one other aspect of our preparations which is of concern to me. In their reports on the Bill, both the Joint Committee and the Defence Committee expressed concern that the responsibilities of the Government were not covered by the Bill. The Government answered these concerns in January 2004 in Cm 6078 by explaining that Ministers are directly accountable to Parliament. This does not seem to me to be a good enough excuse in these very special circumstances.
I am particularly concerned about the role of the Ministry of Defence in preparing for its part in coping with terrorist attacks. So far what has taken place has not been encouraging. The 2003 Defence White Paper gives a list of the measures taken. The major innovation of the Civil Contingency Reaction Force was reported then as being at only 75 per cent of planned strength with uneven geographical distribution. I should be grateful if the Minister could provide the latest update. But perhaps more importantly, what number of CCRF personnel are expected to be available within four hours of any major emergency? These are reservists.
The Armed Forces have shown that they provide an essential capability for civil contingencies. When there is reasonable notice—such as during the fire officers strike—then large numbers can be brought in. When administrative chaos ensues, as we had with the foot and mouth problem, the Army can bring structure and order. When floods threaten, specialist military equipment saves lives. Yet all of these events have time for the normal military aid to the civil power
632
arrangements to click in. With our forces over-tasked and deployed globally, we may be less fortunate following a CBRN terror attack.
The Defence Committee reported last week that the Ministry of Defence presumption is that homeland security will be undertaken by whatever is not being used for other tasks. They concluded:
"We are not convinced that an essentially reactive approach to the defence of the UK homeland is satisfactory given the nature of the threat to the UK."
I agree with that.
If we could afford the panoply of quick reaction forces and civil defence which were available to defend the United Kingdom during the Cold War, and we are under threat again, then we need to task the Ministry of Defence to assist the hard-pressed local authorities who are being tasked in the Bill. Without a clear statement of what is available from the Government, we are likely to see sub-optimal planning, exercises and procurement by those we are tasking.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of ChestertonMy Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe on their maiden speeches.
I welcome the Bill, with the increased focus that it gives the Government in dealing with emergencies, following natural disasters and man-made emergencies. We have had Chernobyl in 1986, the floods in the UK in 1998 and thereafter, foot and mouth and the terrible events in New York. The Minister is correct that the natural and social context of emergencies is changing. Last year, 15,000 people died in France in exceptional heat. A Minister, we recall, resigned. That is an example of how unexpected emergencies can arise.
I declare my interests as a member of the advisory committee on natural disaster reduction, a voluntary body that provides an input at the pre-legislative stage. I am chairman of an NGO that deals with marine issues, and director of a company that provides advice to the Government on some of these issues. I am also involved in the insurance industry advisory group.
I should like to make three technical points that are not clear in the Bill at present. The definition of "emergency" in Clause 1 is broad. I welcome that, and the Minister's remarks were appropriate. It includes welfare, property, environment and the marine environment. This is reflected in the schedule covering responsible bodies.However, there are questions about which agencies are included. I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Garden, in this context. The Environment Agency is mentioned, quite rightly, but it is surprising that the Meteorological Office, which is part of the Ministry of Defence, the Food Standards Agency and several other operational agencies are not included.
Other noble Lords have commented on the way in which the Government will operate during an emergency. Japan is a world leader in natural disaster reduction and has also had experience of other kinds of emergencies, as we saw on the Tokyo underground.

633
It has a single major operational centre, where all the information prediction facilities, media coverage, and so on, can be focused. The arrangements for operational centres are not explained in the Bill. As I understand it, there are many ad hoc arrangements, with the lead role being taken by different government departments, depending on the emergency. For example, if nuclear radiation comes into the country or goes out of the country, different departments are involved.
The guiding role of the Cabinet Office is not explained in the Bill, nor how it will co-ordinate between departments, agencies, county councils, the police and private sector organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also made this point very thoroughly. I was head of the Met Office and saw that, despite this apparent British informality, there is an effective way in which different branches of government work in emergency planning. So while I do not share all the concerns expressed by other noble Lords, I believe that there are real problems which must be overcome. The Bill, suitably strengthened, is necessary.
My second point is that Clause 2 empowers the Government to plan for and mitigate the worst effects of emergencies. I understand that the Bill includes measures to be taken before an emergency occurs, as well as during an emergency. The wording is not exactly clear, but I believe that to be the import of the Bill.
The importance of this has been emphasised by previous speakers. The question is whether the Bill should include measures to ensure that the full scientific and technological capabilities of the UK are developed and utilised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the level of research and development is inadequate. It should be the responsibility of the Government to keep R&D under review. That could well be a provision in the Bill. There are excellent groups in the UK, but the research councils are not adequately involved, nor explicitly mentioned.
Collaboration between the Government and scientific bodies could greatly be improved. Scientific bodies are another part of the NGO world that must be consulted. No budget is indicated for serious expansion of R&D to provide improved systems. My impression is that there is a lack of urgency to mount a serious R&D campaign or even comprehensively to use the technologies that are currently available in government agencies and the private sector.
That brings me to my third point. The private sector has a strong role to play, as do the commercial instincts of individuals and householders. Those are complementary to the role of communities, which other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry emphasised. In other words, the provision of guidance and information has an important part to play in preventing damage in emergencies. That is mentioned in Clauses 4 and 12 of the Bill.
However, in this new Labour world, the Government should also provide incentives. The insurance industry has an essential role to play in
634
encouraging preventive measures and in post-emergency recovery. Its role is not as interventionist as it might be, but it can encourage organisations and householders to prepare against floods and wind storms. For example, I always put battens down on the roof of my little cottage in Devon and the tiles never blow away, but I receive no benefit from the insurance companies from that.
It therefore seems surprising that although large private sector organisations are mentioned in the Bill, and are to be consulted, the insurance industry is not included. It has been mentioned as being important in other fora and it should have a vital role. That connects strongly with the R&D necessities as well.
10.26 p.m.
Baroness Masham of IltonMy Lords, I congratulate the two maiden speakers. They showed no lack of confidence and their speeches were most interesting.
The Bill provides for what was in the Civil Defence Act 1948, but also for other events which pose threats to security in the United Kingdom, such as terrorism, and events which threaten serious damage to human welfare. The duties it imposes include the duty to assess the risk of an emergency occurring and to maintain plans for the purposes of responding to an emergency.
For years, I have been a member of the British Red Cross. I took my exams when I was 18 and I have been president of the North Yorkshire branch for many years. We face modern challenges such as acts of terrorism around the world and the emergence of new health dangers, such as the SARS virus, which alerted many people to what could easily become a world epidemic with horrific results. But far worse could be a terrorist smallpox outbreak, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. We must be prepared.
The British Red Cross, the WRVS, the Salvation Army and St John Ambulance have a wealth of experience in dealing with emergencies and disasters and should be included in the Bill. We should surely be grateful for voluntary bodies which fill the gaps and give their services freely. Voluntary organisations which are going to help in disasters should be involved at the planning stage and volunteers have to be organised, with structures in place. Like anyone else, volunteers have to be recruited and trained. In all kinds of emergency situations, volunteers are providing humanitarian, skilled, emotional and practical support to victims, their families and friends.
Volunteers of the British Red Cross and Salvation Army worked at the reception centre for more than three days following the explosion at the plastics factory in Glasgow in May. In February, British Red Cross volunteers were present to comfort the survivors of the cockle-pickers tragedy in Morecambe Bay. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, St John Ambulance volunteers gave assistance for seven days and its ambulances transported many victims to hospital. In Yorkshire, at the time of the terrible floods in 2002 the British Red Cross gave assistance.

635
Yet there is no formal recognition for engaging the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response. The Civil Contingencies Bill presented an ideal opportunity to formalise arrangements by including the voluntary sector in the legislation. However, the Government rejected the Joint Committee's recommendations on the Bill that a statutory duty be placed on category 1 responders to consult and involve relevant voluntary organisations in civil contingency planning and that category 1 responders be given flexibility to identify and consult with the most relevant voluntary organisations in their area.
The voluntary bodies involved are puzzled and disappointed that their contribution in that key area should remain unrecognised, particularly as the Government have included the voluntary sector in recent legislation. The Homelessness Act 2002 includes a duty on local authorities to include voluntary organisations in reviewing and formulating their homelessness strategies. During Third Reading in another place, Members of Parliament gave encouraging support to the voluntary sector's plea to involve it in the planning and delivery of services in times of emergency.
The tragic events in Spain in March illustrate the vital role that the voluntary sector could play. Within minutes of the bomb explosions of the terrible morning of 11 March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond, 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support and handled inquiries from the public. Fifty-two ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services.
Volunteers supported many bereaved families as they went to identify the bodies of their loved ones. Sixty-one requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross message and tracing service. The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to the tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civic protection framework.
The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information, communication and emotional support. It brought a video in English to another place a few weeks ago. The representatives wanted to show us how important their work was so that we could do the same in an emergency. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment which will be tabled in Committee to include the voluntary sector.
10.33 p.m.
Lord KimballMy Lords, the Bill gives Ministers more power to do whatever they want to do by declaring a state of emergency. They can suspend the normal workings of Government and act without parliamentary approval. I hope that during passage of
636
the Bill through this House a limit will be placed on the use and extent of these powers and the length of time for which they can be used.
As my noble friend Lord Lucas requested, can we have an absolute assurance that the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House so that those of us unskilled in matters of law will be able to benefit from those who have held high judicial office? We cannot allow this Bill to be used to restrict the right of people to a decent and proper protest. I am concerned that this Bill, which deals with terrorism, contains a mysterious clause about using emergency powers to prevent the destruction of plant and animal life. That is a threat to rural activities and part of a very draconian measure. I shall move that that part of the Bill cannot stand.
I have searched the whole of the Bill and, like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I cannot find a single reference to the use of the Army or the Territorial Army. I have searched the whole Bill to find the part that should be played by the Territorial Army—a chance for it to revert to its traditional role of looking after homeland security. As it is set up at the moment, we have 10 brigade groups, each commanded by a brigadier, covering the whole of the United Kingdom. Under their command, they have up to 500 people who can be mobilised at short notice. That is something that the soldiers know, which must be shared with their employers. Each year, some will fall by the wayside and others will take their places; but it should be known in each unit who has been chosen so that they can train to succeed them when they fall by the wayside.
This is a new role, with a short-term mobilisation plan, probably only for about a week. In particular, the territorial units with their communication skills can provide a major part in assessing the range of any chemical or biological attack. That does not affect the part that the TA plays in support of the regular Army in Afghanistan and Iraq on a nine-month engagement.
The Government seem to be afraid of involving more people in the Bill, as my noble friend has just said. They seem to have a prejudice against voluntary service on a county basis. They should realise that knowledge dispels fear and brings to an untrained and inexperienced population a better designed campaign for public information.
10.38 p.m.
Baroness EmertonMy Lords, I rise to speak with regard to the Government's rejection of the Joint Committee's recommendation in relation to voluntary organisations, on which many noble Lords have spoken tonight. But I should first like to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, on their very interesting maiden speeches.
I declare an interest in that I have served St John Ambulance for 56 years and have had first-hand experience in emergency planning at local, county and national level. I am also a board member of the Order of St John and the British Red Cross Defence Medical Welfare Service. I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House to reflect briefly on the history of the

637
voluntary aid societies—the British Red Cross, the Order of St John and St Andrew's Ambulance Association.
I know that this time of night is not the time for history, but it is very interesting that the first Geneva Convention for the protection of war victims provided that personnel of national Red Cross societies and that of other voluntary aid societies, duly recognised and authorised by their governments, have special protection of medical personnel and chaplains attached to the armed forces, conferred by Article 24. The last confirmation for England by the Government was in January 2002 for the British Red Cross, St John Ambulance and St Andrew's as voluntary aid societies.
The statutes of the Order of St John state that first aid is rendered,
"to the sick, wounded, disabled or suffering and the promotion of such permanent organisation during times of civil emergencies or war, including the training and provision of technical reserves for the medical services of the Armed forces or any Civil Defence Organisations".
The Bill before the House is timely for many reasons that have been mentioned this evening, not least the range of emergencies that can and could occur. They have increased in number and the level of danger has increased. It is therefore imperative that adequate arrangements are in place to deal with a national emergency.
At the same time, volunteering has changed in many ways due to the Charities Act and the consequential governance arrangements. There is also the recent work led by the Government on Compact and Concordat, encouraging partnership working of voluntary organisations, in which I am privileged to have taken part. The spirit of volunteering is still alive and thriving in a vast number of voluntary organisations, many working in partnership arrangements and under service contracts with statutory agencies.
However, from my long involvement with the Voluntary Aid Societies, the key is to provide support to the statutory agencies as has been the experience in the Paddington train crash, the King's Cross fire and the Soho bomb, where St John has been called upon to use its modern fleet of ambulances to provide the day-to-day cover and cover 999 emergency calls, while the statutory ambulance service provides frontline cover. In addition, St John members are called upon to set up first aid posts to render first aid to rescuers and sometimes victims sent by the statutory services for treatment. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, they often stay on site for a long time. In the case of Paddington, they stayed for seven days.
Likewise, during the Gulf War, St John was involved in Operation Granby alongside the Red Cross. Members of St John Ambulance are trained to a high standard of first aid care and transport. However, it cannot be expected that the volunteers are trained to the level of the professionals in chemical and biological contamination. Therefore it is important
638
that the Voluntary Aid Societies are trained within agreed protocols for the levels of support that they can render in the case of an emergency.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the inclusion of the Voluntary Aid Societies in the civil contingency planning as a statutory requirement and that flexibility be given to identify and consult the most relevant voluntary organisations in this area.
10.43 p.m.
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, I thank the Minister, who no doubt will rush in in a moment or two, for her very clear introduction to the Bill. She—but more particularly the Bill—should have had prime time.
It is daunting for a political hack—which is how I count myself—to attempt a winding-up speech following so much expertise. I do not suppose that the maiden and near-maiden speakers—if there can be such a thing—expected to overawe us, not just with their speeches but with the content and background, but they did.
It also seemed to me that it was likely that by this stage much that could be said on the Bill itself, as distinct from its context and implementation, would have been said. But I thought that it would be a safe bet that no speaker would have taken refuge in Shakespeare, though I was not prepared for my noble friend's quotation from Robert Bolt. It is not just as a plug for the splendid production of Hamlet at the Old Vic, though I say to those in the public galleries that it is probably a better performance than here—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness HamweeThe poetry is better! But I say with Hamlet himself:
"If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all".
I am happy to part company with Hamlet on his conclusion:
"since no man owes of aught he leaves, what is't to leave betimes?".
But the readiness, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, is all.
I personalise this because I want to make the point that however good the plans are, the performance and the common sense of the individual are critical. The role of planning is to reduce the risks inherent in this. When the power supply in London went down last year shortly after many public figures had said on the media that the eastern seaboard of North America is one thing but it could never happen here, it seems that, had someone thought to pick up the phone and say that it was not a terrorist attack, London Underground would not have started the evacuation or detraining, the power on the Tube would have been switched back on after a few minutes and literally everything would have been back on track without huge disruption. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, could add many examples of that kind of event.

639
I suspect, too, that the drive of individuals is significant. I am happy to pass on the comment from someone much involved in London Resilience matters regarding how effective and determined a role Nick Raynsford has played in that regard.
It is arguable that next week's announcement of the spending review 2004 will be at least as significant to contingency planning as this Bill. Much reference has been made to resources but no one has yet, in this House at any rate, mentioned the position as explained to us by the Local Government Association. It estimates that if the grant of £19 million a year, which is now available to local government for these purposes, had not been reduced in the 1990s—in 1991 it was £24.5 million—and allowing for inflation increases since, the total expenditure on the emergency planning service would have reached not £19 million but £36 million, which is the actual cost of the current service. The LGA makes the point that, unlike the emergency services, local authorities have received no extra funding to undertake additional anti-terrorism work which the Government, understandably, expect.
The Explanatory Memorandum seems to me to be disingenuous in referring to, "negligible expenditure impact" and,
"negligible impact on public sector manpower".
Many of the criticisms made of the Bill concern resources and their application; in other words, implementation rather than the Bill itself. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, were particularly telling.
The Local Government Association's briefing to your Lordships listed seven new duties on local authorities. That must mean new financial burdens in addition to the deficit—if I can use that term as shorthand—to which I have just referred. I hope that in responding the Minister can say rather more than the response that was given by the Government to the Joint Committee in which they said:
"We are committed to maintaining the right level of spending on local civil protection".
These matters are not easily the subject of amendment but clearly they are of huge concern to your Lordships.
Local authorities are used to working in partnership, as the Bill in effect requires, but their partners have traditionally included the third sector—voluntary organisations, not least because of increasing reliance on them to perform so many functions. I take the point that the Government make in their response that different voluntary organisations have different resources but I hope that we can find the right balance between ensuring their involvement not just as a piece of cosmetics but because of their very real expertise, and inappropriate reliance on them. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, dealt thoroughly with these points, as did others. I had already sensed a cross-party amendment coming on, and when the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, started to speak, I wondered whether we really should not be saying to the Government, "Save time by conceding the point now".
640
The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, mentioned the lack of reference to "community". I was struck in reading for today that the first time I saw the term "humanitarian" was in the briefing from the four major voluntary organisations that have been referred to. One such organisation on which there is particular reliance, but to which I have not seen any reference in this context, is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I wonder whether anything might be said about its role. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, has given me a good deal of material for thought as to who the various respondents should be.
There is another balance to be struck, and that is between openness, transparency and accountability, and causing alarm. It is not just a matter for legislation. There has been reference to "scenario testing" and the awareness of the public, if they are aware at all. My noble friend Lord Garden referred to the lack of public involvement, and I take the point that that is quite separate from awareness. It is not clear to me how the Government would respond, and I hope we can hear it tonight, to the thoughtful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. On Part 1 and the issues of transparency and accountability therein, I am really not clear. Maybe we can flush that out, and flesh it out, in Committee. Regulations can be made that will override, for instance, the normal provisions of data protection or freedom of information.
We will certainly spend time in Committee on the extent of the powers of the Secretary of State. I understand that draft guidance is on the way, along with regulations. There seem to be a lot of assumptions as to what will be in that guidance, even to the extent of references in Government publications to the "local resilience forums", which I do not think are referred to by that name in the Bill, but have already achieved the status of an acronym.
Outside London, resilience teams will not include a political element, so there will be issues there of reconciling the powers of the coordinators with those of local government. Such issues will be before us in spades on Part 2 of the Bill. I said it was daunting to follow the experts today, but it is also daunting to have one's colleagues in the House of Commons refer to the human rights expertise in this House. They are quite correct, but thank you, Richard Allan, for putting my noble friend and me on the spot. We will scrutinise those aspects of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, wants the input of the Law Lords. Quite so, but let us not deprecate the importance of the non-lawyers' instincts and concerns.
How appropriate is it to give such discretion to the Government? Will the role of Parliament provided by the Bill be adequate? The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, almost at the start of the debate, that civil and human rights will not be our concern at times of extreme emergency. To me, the issue is not about ignoring them—it is largely the definition of "emergency", and whether the Government can use their powers at a time for something that is less than a catastrophe. I guess, without having heard all the comments I wish he had found the time to make, that I would find myself much closer to the noble and

641
learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on that issue. The balance between security and accountability has to be struck here.
It is clear that the House should be grateful to members of the Joint Committee for their scrutiny of the draft Bill, and to the stakeholders, although I hate the term, who have contributed. The Minister said that the consultation was wide and that one could not expect every response to be reflected, but I note that Liberty nevertheless felt the need to send your Lordships an eight-page briefing, despite the consultation. No doubt lessons about the process that go much wider than the Bill will be learnt, but pre-legislative scrutiny should be pursued.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as a Member of the London Assembly, sackable—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—only by the electorate, although we have little direct role in these matters. However, from time to time we are briefed on London's resilience. On the last, occasion everyone present was impressed by the speed of reaction of those who gave the briefing—when there was a 61-gun salute in honour of something or other at the Tower of London, opposite City Hall, they were the quickest to dive under the table.
We face a challenge in scrutinising and amending the Bill.
10.55 p.m.
Baroness BuscombeMy Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Jopling in saying that it is ludicrous that we are here at this late hour, responding to the Second Reading of this crucially important Bill. Indeed, it is disgraceful. On a more positive note, I congratulate the two maiden speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe. All noble Lords look forward to hearing much more from them.
The need to revise current civil contingencies legislation cannot be disputed. The existing statutory basis is ill-equipped to deal with the requirements of a modern social emergency. That said, many issues raised by the Bill will require substantive consideration during its passage through your Lordships' House. A draft Bill was published in June 2003. The Bill was subsequently allocated no more than the "standard minimum period of consultation" for scrutiny by the Defence Select Committee. While the core principles contained in this legislation were broadly welcomed by the committee, the Government faced considerable criticism on a number of issues, including the largely enabling nature of the draft Bill and its reliance on secondary legislation for implementation.
An additional and important concern expressed by the committee was the length of time taken by the Government to bring forward new emergency powers legislation. The emergency planning review was completed in February 2002, yet the legislation was not actually brought forward until a year and four months later. I echo those concerns. The Bill has been repeatedly delayed prior to reaching your Lordships' House. On 19 January the Bill received its Second
642
Reading in another place, completing its passage through Standing Committee by 10 February, while Report stage was delayed until 24 May. Could the Minister explain why, during the passage of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the usual parliamentary timings were suspended to allow the expedient progress of that Bill through Parliament, yet the progress of this Bill has been impeded repeatedly?
Moreover, the period of time allocated for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill has been entirely inadequate considering its constitutionally significant provisions. To date, the Government have failed to consider six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments. Why do the Government continue to treat the Bill as such a low priority? Here we are, debating the Bill at eleven o'clock.
The Bill is divided into two substantive parts. Part 1 contains the local arrangements for civil protection and identifies the persons and bodies that will be subject to any relevant duty imposed by virtue of Schedule 1. Most notably, Clause 1 defines what is meant by "emergency" for local purposes and it is broadly defined. I shall return to that issue shortly. The bodies classified as "Category 1 Responders" are identified by Schedule 1 and include local authorities and emergency services. The Bill also includes a mechanism to impose duties on other local bodies to assist category 1 responders in the event of an emergency.
I believe that the failure to include the voluntary sector on the face of the Bill is a particularly significant omission—almost all noble Lords have made a similar point. The contribution of the Red Cross, the WRVS, the Salvation Army and the St John Ambulance in the event of an emergency cannot be overlooked or underestimated.
The Joint Committee report on the draft Bill recommended that,
"a statutory duty be placed on Category 1 Responders to consult with and involve relevant voluntary organisations in civil contingency planning",
and that,
"Category 1 Responders be given flexibility to identify and consult with the most relevant [voluntary] organisations in their area".
The Government will no doubt tell us that the involvement of the voluntary sector will be dealt with in guidance notes. That simply is not good enough. We are talking of an amazingly powerful force for good; many thousands of highly skilled, experienced and dedicated men and women ready for large-scale emergencies who should, we believe, be recognised on the face of the Bill. Indeed at present there are approximately 40,000 Red Cross volunteers in the UK; 23,000 St. John Ambulance in England alone; and a further 12,000 WRVS dedicated to emergency response, with a further 95,000 who can be called upon to assist in major incidents. Without the voluntary sector the Bill has no chance of working. It is a non-starter.
Fortunately there is already precedent, to which noble Lords have referred this evening, in the Homelessness Act for voluntary organisations to be

643
identified in primary legislation, so we shall seek to amend the Bill in a similar way. I also believe the Government should heed the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry that voluntary organisations carry out services in a very professional way, but that they go further in responding to the emotional and spiritual needs of those caught up in disasters. That was a truly important point to make.
I now return to the main provisions of the Bill. Part 2 repeals the existing emergency powers legislation and confers a new power to make regulations in the case of an emergency or an impending emergency. Part 2 contains the so-called "triple-lock" mechanism to safeguard the exercise of emergency powers by the Government. But I do not believe that this measure alone will provide the necessary safeguards to balance the vaguely defined and inconsistent term "emergency".
The definition offered in Part 2 is expansive and includes,
"an event or situation which threatens serious damage to … human welfare in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region… [or to] the environment…or… security of the United Kingdom or a Part or region".
Although the Government's move to define the term "emergency" more narrowly should be welcomed, there is still reason for concern. It appears that the emergency could be activated in relatively innocuous circumstances, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Kimball. I agree with Liberty on this point: the serious damage need only be threatened for the definition of an emergency to be satisfied. Thus the decision will be a subjective rather than evidence-based one.
This policy of subjectivity is again illustrated by the terminology in Clause 7, where the provision will apply only where the Minister "thinks" there is an urgent need to make a provision, or "thinks" that there is insufficient time for the regulations or an order to be made. This criterion of subjectivity is inappropriate, and we believe that an objective threshold is necessary.
Due to the immediate nature of powers conferred by the Bill, little time will be available for parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations or orders made. The powers employed by the Queen or a Minister in an emergency are extensive and must be more clearly defined. This is noticeably illustrated by the scope of the emergency regulation provisions defined in Clause 22. As currently drafted, the Government have asked for more power from Parliament than any other government in modern history. It cannot be denied that the Government consider these powers to be necessary. However, we on these Benches are also aware that in giving the Government such draconian powers, the rights of the individual may be considerably compromised, in which case we believe it is important to amend the Bill to allow any such decisions to be judicially reviewable.
I am not sure how the Government will respond to such an amendment. given their capricious treatment of the judicial review provisions in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. Moreover, the fourth report in this Session of the Joint
644
Committee on Human Rights recommended that express protection be afforded to Acts of Parliament containing substantive human rights and constitutional provisions. Clause 22(3)(j) permits the disapplication or modification of,
"an enactment…or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment".
The enactment of such a provision has serious legal implications.
The Government have conceded that the Civil Contingencies Bill will not be subject to the disapplication provision and that it would be inappropriate for the Bill to be amended by regulations. But I question the failure of the Government to extend this prohibition to the Human Rights Act, and I urge the Minister to reconsider its application. Indeed, Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows a nation to derogate from particular convention obligations where a state of war or public emergency threatening the life of a nation has been declared. Therefore. I urge the Government to include the Human Rights Act in this prohibition, and we shall table amendments in Committee to address that omission.
We shall also seek to amend the provision that states that emergency regulations may not prohibit or enable the prohibition of participation in any activity in connection with a strike or industrial action. I find it extraordinary that this legislation effectively allows the government of the day significantly to compromise the rights of an individual but not those of a trade union.
Let us take last Wednesday as an example. The streets of London were in chaos as a result of strike action by the RMT. If there had been a terrorist attack and this legislation had been implemented, members of the RMT could have sat on their hands and continued with their industrial action. How can that be right? The recent events of 21 June provide a further example. The London Fire Brigades Union chose to hold industrial action on grounds of "health and safety". The resultant consequence was that only two out of 10 of the immediate response units remained active. Why, therefore, does the Bill protect the right to industrial action but not an individual's basic liberties?
Our aim throughout the Bill is to focus on not only the theoretical but also the practical effect that the Bill will have. It must be workable in practice and provide an effective framework for response in a civil emergency. To illustrate the case in point, I telephoned the Civil Contingencies Secretariat on 24 June to obtain information on emergency procedures. I called three different people, from two of whom there was no reply and the third response was a voice-mail informing me that they were out of the office. Is that really an effective response to our need for a cohesive emergency reaction strategy?
That said, initiatives such as Project Unicorn should be welcomed. The remit of Project Unicorn—a privately funded, independent research project funded by donations from the business community—was to assess the effectiveness of communication between the

645
police and the public sector in the event of a terrorist attack. The report, delivered in December 2003, has been well received and has, to date, been part-implemented. An example is the private security briefings that the police now regularly undertake. Although not a formal training exercise, officers are engaged to address private security firms on aspects of terrorism awareness. Recent events clearly demonstrate the need for an effective public information and training campaign. It is crucial that the public know how they should react in the event of an emergency—a point made very eloquently by my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Garden.
Members of the House of Commons recently illustrated how dangerous having little or no knowledge can be in an emergency. Members of Parliament are in an extremely privileged position, surrounded by the machinery of government to provide information when needed. Yet they were still unsure how best to react when the powder was thrown from the Gallery. Indeed, I think that they all got it wrong. Moreover, they reacted in a way that was detrimental to both their own safety and that of everyone in both Houses of Parliament. That really is unacceptable and proof that no one seems to know how to react.
An additional area of ambiguity is the role of the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force. At present, approximately 30 per cent of the total force is stationed elsewhere in the world. Surely the force's function is to protect Birmingham and Blackpool and not Basra and Baghdad. I also hope that the Government will respond to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Kimball with regard to the part that the Territorial Army should play in response to a disaster.
I turn to the local government provisions. It is clear that with this Bill the Government are imposing statutory obligations, particularly on local authorities and emergency services, while being unwilling to see any imposed on themselves. The Government stance on this omission is that:
"No reference to the role of central government is needed within the Bill for the government to engage in the full range of civil protection duties".
It is however noteworthy that the revised communication and liaison methods introduced following the fuel crisis have never been tested by exercises and only very recently has Defra engaged with local government in discussion of revised arrangements for handling a recurrence of foot and mouth. Yet on closer examination of the Bill, it appears that the Government are guilty of contradicting their own stated position. Paragraph 12 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 gives category 1 duties to
"The Secretary of State, in so far as his functions include responding to maritime and coastal emergencies".
Further on, paragraph 28 in Part 3 of Schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State category 2 duties
"in so far as his functions relate to matters for which he is responsible by virtue of section 1 of the Highways Act 1980".
646
If the Secretary of State, and by inference his department, can have duties imposed in these specific areas, then why not in general?
To compound this weakness, there are a number of striking omissions from the Bill. These include broadcasters and bus and coach companies—a vital component of most evacuation plans. Neither the food distribution and sales industry nor the petrol and diesel distribution industry are included. The national chemical and radiological hazard identification and response schemes are missing.
In addition, in any specific locality there are likely to be particular organisations whose co-operation may be vital to comprehensive planning, such as the operators of major shopping, leisure and sporting complexes—again, these are missing. I cannot help but feel that it would have been better to have built upon the existing community safety legislation, which enables the local authority to require the co-operation of any organisation which it considers has a role to play. The Government's objection to such a solution is that it seeks uniformity. However, this does not stand up in the face of the flexibility that they appear to be extending in respect of other aspects of the Bill and their insistence, for example, that risk assessments are performed locally to suit local conditions.
Even with this Bill it is still not clear that the Government's response to a disaster would not be as confused and unco-ordinated as it was during the flooding and fuel crisis of 2000 and the foot and mouth crisis of 2001. Any Government contribution to the response to an emergency must be well co-ordinated with clear leadership and well tested plans.
Although the Bill would go some way to clarify what responders are required to do, the UK's resilience will still be highly dependent on the co-operation, determination and flexibility of all agencies to work together, using the resources they have for their day-to-day tasks. These agencies are already working at full capacity, and barely have enough resources to do these tasks. Indeed, unlike the Civil Defence Act 1948, neither the Bill nor the draft regulations make any explicit commitment to the funding of these new functions within local authorities.
Funding is a key issue, a point raised by almost all noble Lords. Without adequate funding the intent and duties of the Bill will become meaningless. A survey conducted by the Local Government Association of its members in 2003 established that the emergency planning service was already severely underfunded. The Government's current funding level, ring-fenced through the civil defence grant and totalling just over£19 million per annum, is woefully inadequate to meet existing responsibilities. The grant to the emergency services for emergency planning has been cut completely and in real terms the grant to local authorities has been cut by 50 per cent in real terms since 1983.
It is estimated that an additional £92 million—the source is the LGA£would be required to meet the additional duties contained in the Bill. With little investment from the Government it is difficult to see

647
how significant improvements can be made. Unlike the emergency services, local authorities have received no extra funding to undertake additional antiterrorism work expected of them by Government as a result of 9/11.
Furthermore, it is crucial that a robust mechanism is put in place to ensure that funding made available is actually spent on the function and is not diverted to other services. Can the Minister, therefore, give a firm pledge tonight that the costs of the new responsibilities contained within the Bill will be fully met?
I would also like to touch on the very real concern within local government about the ongoing introduction of a regional tier of emergency planning without a proper statutory basis. The lack of clarity regarding respective roles and responsibilities between the regional and local levels creates the possibility of an increase in centralisation and direction, moving responsibility towards the Government Offices for the Regions and away from local responders. I must report that there are already examples of unwarranted interference by the regional tier in dealing with emergencies that should be dealt with at the local level.
It is also clear that the appointment of regional nominated co-ordinators risks repeating the problems caused by the adoption of lead government departments. What assurance can the Minister provide that the creation of what many professionals who are experienced in emergency planning believe will simply be an unwelcome regional bureaucratic tier?
The Bill will place on all category 1 responders a duty to warn and to inform the public. However, the National Council for Civil Protection, alongside the entire professional emergency planning community are clear that the primary responsibility for providing a clear programme of education, consistent across the nation, on what the general public can expect during an emergency and what is expected of them, rests with central government.
As the NCCP has suggested that central government should implement a 21st century warning system to alert the general public to actual emergencies, I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on this important issue.
In conclusion, the hour is very late, but I urge Ministers to consider and to heed the words particularly of my noble friends Lord Jopling, Lord Lucas and Lord Kimball and to consider what would happen in the event of an emergency. What would this Bill allow and enable all those outside who are able to take part to do? We can all look forward to some very lively debate in the remaining stages of the Bill.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the hour is late. I have a vast sheath of notes and responses with which I could regale your Lordships' House at some length. If I responded only to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady
648
Buscombe, I would well exceed the time that she spent in setting out the Opposition party's approach to the Bill.
Before I begin my response, I congratulate all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, because it has been wide-ranging and intense in its concentration on a range of issues. I also want to add my general congratulations to the noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe. In the comments of my noble friend Lord Rosser, I felt an echo of something that was said about me. He reported that he had been described as a lower profile figure in one national newspaper. When I was made a Peer, one local newspaper described me as a sub-regional minor celebrity. At the time I was flattered—I thought it was rather good.
Of course, the House will greatly benefit not only from the contributions of my noble friend Lord Rosser but also from those of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who has practical experience in dealing with major emergencies during his time in charge of London Underground and in some of his other interesting roles and capacities before joining your Lordships' House.
I said that the debate had been wide-ranging in its intent. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, told us that we were dealing with a rather elderly law, which was a very true comment. There was a general welcome, along with many points of criticism, for the modernising effect of this piece of legislation. I cannot subscribe to the doomsday diction that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, visited upon us, during his very powerful contribution on the issues in the Bill. However, I certainly recognise the strength of view he has on this set of issues, and I have no doubt that strength of view will be echoed throughout what promise to be very interesting Committee, Report and Third Reading stages.
I did not recognise in the legislation the sort of excuse that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, regaled us with in his democratic doomsday scenario and its widespread threat to civil liberties, which he said the Bill anticipated. No doubt, however, we will have some very thoughtful debates on the issues the noble Lord touched upon in his interesting contribution.
I hope that, in the time I have, I can touch on some of the issues raised, because there are clearly some very important points that emerged during the debate. I will not be able to answer all the points: I can respond to some of them through correspondence, and no doubt we will touch on many of the other issues in Committee; that is probably best way to leave it.
This evening's debate and the passage of the Bill in another place have demonstrated that this is, in the end, not a party political issue. We are all very determined to try to get to grips with the fundamentals of modernising this elderly legislation. Whichever party was in power—or on watch, as it were—would have to bring forward a similar package of measures. I fully accept, in saying that, that the package would not be exactly the same, because I am sure there would be a different emphasis.

649
I am aware that the Bill has elicited a very strong response from all sides of the Chamber. But where there are differences between the Government and noble Lords, these have tended to be on matters of details rather than the principles underpinning the Bill. This Bill is, in my view, an excellent opportunity to build on the effectiveness of civil protection arrangements in the United Kingdom, and it is therefore crucial that we get the provisions of the Bill right. I was much encouraged by contributions from all sides of the Chamber that were determined to achieve that objective. I have enjoyed the dialogue that has begun this evening, and am looking forward to what should be a very constructive challenge during the later stages of the Bill process.
The UK's resilience to disruptive challenges is already high. There is a strong tradition of effective planning and response at a local level, and many of your Lordships made reference to that during the debate. After all, there are some 30 years of Northern Irish terrorism, and the effect of that has been to establish within government a capability, and awareness amongst businesses and the public, which puts the United Kingdom in a comparatively strong position.
I challenge the accusation that has been made: this Government are not complacent, and I rather resent the suggestion that we have been. Flooding, the fuel crisis in 2000 and the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 exposed weaknesses in our system. We think we have learned the lessons of these challenges, and there is good evidence to suggest that we have. The Bill is, after all, only one aspect of the Government's wider efforts to improve the United Kingdom's resilience to disruptive challenges. We have made massive and considered investment in civil protection and counterterrorism over the last few years. We will continue to take steps to build the capabilities that we need. The Bill is a crucial aspect of this wider programme of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made the strongest attack on the range of preparations. I would argue that the whole of Part 1 of the Bill is about preparation, and we have been making very substantial progress through our capabilities programme to build the resilience that all Members of the House see as being essential. Our whole counter-terrorism strategy is designed, after all, to protect, pursue, prevent and prepare for emergency challenges.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said that we were not ready for a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident. The emergency services have been training, and are equipped, to enable them to respond effectively to such incidents. In any incident of that sort, the emergency services would be on the scene in minutes. They would give instructions and advice, explain the situation to the public and carry out the necessary decontamination programmes, using mobile units if required. The Bill places the police at the core of response to emergencies by designating them as a
650
category 1 responder. This is entirely consistent with their current role in emergencies and provides a strong basis for their emergency planning work.
Responses to incidents including terrorism are well practiced and well rehearsed through regular programmes of exercises. During the debate this evening much has been made of our spending in dealing with the sorts of incidents that noble Lords have mentioned.
The Government believe that the expenditure on this should be as transparent as possible. We will continue to announce counter-terrorism allocations subject to security considerations, as we did when the Chancellor allocated an additional £330 million of dedicated funding to counter-terrorism in the 2003 Budget.
Headline spending figures specifically for CBRN incidents are difficult to distinguish in a standard budgeting process. For example, medical countermeasures purchased by the Department of Health are not specifically for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents in the same way that gas-tight suits for the fire service are not purchased only to be used in a chemical incident.
I would like to give some examples of investment because much has been made of this. As I have said, in the 2003 Budget we awarded £330 million over three years to counter-terrorism projects. There was £;85 million allocated in 2002–03 to the NHS for medical countermeasures and equipment, including personal protective equipment and £56 million to the fire service for the mass decontamination phase of the new dimension programme. Those are examples of where we have been putting our investment as part of our measures to build up resilience over the past few years. I could go through where that money has been spent, but my time will be better spent if I go through some of the other issues that were raised during the discussion.
We have learned the lessons of previous emergencies, including the fuel crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak. The review that we launched following these crises reinforced the Government's conclusion that existing legislation no longer provided an adequate framework for modern civil protection efforts and that new legislation was needed. That is an opinion that is widely shared in your Lordships' House.
Disruptive challenges exist along a spectrum of severity from localised flooding to a massive terrorist attack. While the threat of terrorism remains real, we should not lose sight of the smaller-scale emergencies that can and do have an equally devastating impact on local communities—for example, flooding or industrial accidents. The challenge is to ensure that arrangements are robust and flexible enough to manage all of those risks.
The Government have also strived to strike the right balance between safeguarding security and the welfare of the community and protecting the rights of individuals. We heard wide-ranging views on that subject during the debate this evening. They were expressed very robustly by the noble Lord, Lord

651
Jopling, regarding the need to protect civil liberties—or, as he was arguing, to set them to one side; whereas the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a strong plea for civil liberties to be protected even in legislation such as this which deals with emergencies and very challenging circumstances for the Government.
The Government must be ready and able to protect citizens from the effects of a catastrophic incident, but without unnecessarily threatening civil liberties. We have worked with the fullest range of organisations to construct the right legislation, and the quality of the legislation that we have delivered is due in large part to the willingness of stakeholder groups to contribute to it. These have been as diverse as those involved in emergency planning at a local level through to national organisations like Liberty.
The public consultation and beneficial pre-legislative scrutiny have made a real difference to the Bill. We will continue to work closely with practitioners to ensure that the regulations under Part 1 of the Bill pitch the duties at the right level, and that we make available helpful, practical guidance.
We have established a series of practitioner-led working groups to help us achieve this. We will also issue a public consultation on the regulations shortly after Royal Assent. Getting the balance right in this field of consultation is difficult. We have been criticised for slowness in taking the legislation through the parliamentary process and getting it here. We have also been criticised in the past for failing to listen. I think we have the mix about as right as one can get it.
Local responders are the building blocks of our ability to deal with emergencies. Our fire, police and ambulance services are among the best in the world, and they have unquestionable expertise in emergency planning and response. The Government recognise the long-standing demand for legislation in this area, and practitioners have in general welcomed the proposals we have brought forward. For the first time, this legislation identifies the roles and responsibilities of responder bodies at the local level, establishing clearly what the Government expect of them.
The Bill will make the United Kingdom more resilient by ensuring greater consistency of civil protection activity across the country, delivering improvements in the performance of individual bodies and improvements in communication between them. This clear and consistent framework of roles and responsibilities will also facilitate better performance management of multi-agency arrangements, allowing more effective benchmarking and best practice sharing.
The lead government department principle places clear responsibilities on all departments. This is reinforced by the key capabilities programme, which establishes clear ownership for developing the capabilities that underpin the response to emergencies. The structures are to be reinforced by a new standards and audit regime. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, made particular reference to the need for resource management and effective audit, and we agree with that. This will be overseen by the Cabinet Office as part
652
of its co-ordination responsibilities. It will make sure that departments are planning properly and can respond effectively in emergencies. Details of the regime were published earlier this year.
We also recognise the need to modernise the tools available to the Government to deal with the most serious emergencies. Some disruptive challenges are of such a scale or nature that they may require extraordinary measures which would not be appropriate in normal circumstances. Temporary changes to legislation may be required in order to deliver an effective response.
Emergency powers are a necessary safety net to ensure that we can deal with even the most serious and unpredictable situations. Such potentially wide-ranging powers must be accompanied by robust safeguards to ensure that they are not abused. Many contributors to the debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to their concerns for the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. We share that concern, which is why we have worked very closely with stakeholders to ensure that the legislation reflects that. I think we will be able to argue during the course of the Bill that the safeguards are a huge improvement on those contained in the existing legislation. We could make out a case that those safeguards are not properly there. We recognise the importance of that issue, and I will pay particular and close attention to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We will no doubt come back to those during our debates on the Bill.
Lord Archer of SandwellMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am sorry to spring this question on him so suddenly, and I will fully understand if he prefers to answer it at a subsequent stage. Clause 22, which provides the power to make the regulations, states:

"Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations thinks is for the purpose of"
various activities, which are then set out. Surely the person making the regulations must know for what purpose he is making them. If my noble friend cannot answer that now, I will be perfectly happy to have my puzzlement resolved later.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I think that I will take the easy way out; I will advise my noble and learned friend later and ensure that his puzzlement is put to rest. I think that we can probably deal with that point during later debates.
As I indicated at the beginning, I have a sheaf of responses to the very proper points that were raised this evening. I wanted particularly to pick up on the role of the voluntary sector, because so many speakers raised it in their contributions.
We of course recognise the important role that the voluntary sector already plays in local civil protection arrangements, particularly in the field of humanitarian support. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry referred to

653
the value of the comforting role that volunteers and those involved in religious organisations play in this field. We fully recognise that and lay great stress on it.
We acknowledge the role of the voluntary sector in dealing with disaster. The Government's key guidance to local responders recommends joint planning with voluntary groups. The setting-up of voluntary sector co-ordinating groups at a local level is very important. As many noble Lords have said very clearly, voluntary organisations will be involved in local multi-agency planning and response. They will not have any legal duties under the Bill, but they will remain free to continue in that existing and important set of relationships with organisations that are covered by the Bill and play an important and appropriate role in civil protection efforts.
It is worth putting on record that the Bill team has worked closely with practitioners and voluntary sector representatives to ensure that the contribution of voluntary organisations and their role can be captured fully in the guidance which will support the Bill. I know that there is an argument about whether it is best to spell out the role of the voluntary sector in the Bill or to leave it to guidance. We take the view that the latter approach is the most valuable, because it provides flexibility. That is not to say that we do not value the work of the voluntary sector. We will continue in our efforts to ensure that it plays a full role, which is fully respected and understood at a local level.
Because of the range of points that were made, it is probably better to deal with them as we work through the Bill in Committee. If specific questions have been asked this evening, which I know I have not covered because of the breadth of them, I shall be more than happy to respond to them in correspondence. As there were so many questions, I would not be doing justice at this late hour to the individual issues that were raised. I have already spoken for 20 minutes. If there were time, I would like to spend more time on those points.
654
I shall re-emphasise to the House a number of the key points which the Minister of State underlined earlier. First, the Bill is a necessary addition to the statute book. I am sure that we can all agree that a robust framework for civil protection is vital for managing the threats that we face in the 21st century. Secondly, I think that we can all agree that the Bill is timely. As many noble Lords have observed, existing legislation in this area was designed for a different era and modernisation of the measures for dealing with civil protection is long overdue. Thirdly, although there will be powerful differences between us during the passage of the Bill, we have already built up a strong consensus behind the proposals that are in the legislation. We have also listened carefully to the needs of stakeholders and secured a degree of support from a wide range of groups. There is now a strong expectation that the Government should deliver.
In conclusion, this package of measures is necessary; it is timely; and it has the support of a wide range of practitioners. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, pointed out, it is a coherent and well thought out Bill, which will be fit for purpose for many years to come. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
Baroness BuscombeMy Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he reassure me that, if he is unable to do so tonight, he will write to me as soon as possible to answer the point that I raised about trade unions? Why does Clause 23 allow the rights of individuals to be so compromised, but not those of trade unions? That point deserves a considerable response.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, as I said earlier, I am happy to respond to the individual points that were raised during the debate. In fairness to your Lordships, there were so many that it would not do them justice if I went through each of them or provided a hierarchy. Of course, we will respond to the noble Baroness's point in correspondence and share it with all those who have participated in the debate.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
  (Second Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux)I will not remind noble Lords of the procedure; the normal procedure applies. There are no Divisions in Grand Committee but, as far as I know, there will be at least two Divisions in the Chamber. Any noble Lord who is speaking at that time should please stop and we will adjourn for 10 minutes.
  Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 22:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  "WIDOWS' PENSIONS FOR LIFE
  From 6th April 2005, widows and widowers currently in receipt of an unattributable forces family pension shall retain that pension for life."
  The noble Lord saidMy Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 22, which stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Luke, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, had hoped to be here this afternoon to speak to this amendment but has to attend a family funeral.
  New Clause 4 deals with service widows who have unattributable pensions; that is, those whose husbands died from natural causes rather than as a result of service. Under the current scheme, certain widows and widowers retain their pensions for life, even if they remarry or cohabit, while others do not. A distinction is made according to whether the spouse's death was attributable to service or not. The proposals in the Bill mean that in future all service widows and the survivors of unmarried partners will receive that pension for life regardless of whether the death of the beneficiary was deemed to be attributable to service.
  The Bill will create a small group of disadvantaged widows, those existing non-attributable widows whose husbands died of natural causes. They will still lose their pensions should they remarry or cohabit. This is the cause of bitter resentment among the victims. For that reason, it is the Forces Pension Society's top priority for change. In most cases, service widows had to travel with their husbands and were often unable to pursue a career and earn an occupational pension. The husband's career often depended on his wife's involvement. Today, the Government pay for welfare officers to do jobs that wives did when I served.
  GC 60
  A change could be incorporated in the Bill if the Government are prepared to grant a low-cost concession on this issue. They have already conceded the principle that widow's pensions for life are appropriate. In legislation introduced in 2000, existing widows whose spouses' deaths were deemed to be attributable retained that pension for life even if they subsequently elected to remarry or cohabit.
  This amendment does not seek retrospective action. It merely says that from the date of the introduction of the new scheme, existing non attributable widows should retain their pensions for life in exactly the same way that all other widows and unmarried partners will in future. I am sure that the Minister will say that the cost of this amendment is too high, but there is no upfront cost. These widows are already in receipt of a pension. It is merely an undefined saving forgone at some point in the future in respect of a very small proportion of widows who remarry or cohabit.
  Successive governments have consistently recognised the unique debt we owe to our armed services. Indeed, the change for attributable widows in 2000 was ring-fenced for just that reason. What is the difference for the non-attributable widow? Currently, she is still faced with an agonising choice of whether to remarry for her future happiness or not to do so for reasons of financial security. I cannot believe that this is a policy that any government could condone in the 21st century. It is an issue on which the Government could easily concede. I beg to move.
  Lord RedesdaleI support this very worthy amendment. It seems that the Ministry of Defence will make a small saving, but can the Minister give an indication of the cost of that saving? Is it worth the difficulty that it presents to the small number of war widows who want to have a second relationship, which would be a legal relationship, who are penalised if they want to remarry? Nowadays many people do not consider a second marriage a necessary requirement, but for those who think that it is important, it is very unfair that there is this impediment.
  Lord Craig of RadleyI, too, support the amendment. It attempts to achieve in another way what I strongly think should be achieved. I have had a very large mailbag from people who are affected. It is about time that we adopt a comparable treatment of all widows. I strongly support the amendment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)I know that this amendment is moved with seriousness by the noble Lord and is supported sincerely by those who have spoken to it. I know that there is a great deal of feeling about it. But, in October 2000, when the Government conceded that attributable widows could keep their pensions for life, even if they remarried or began to cohabit after that date, we were told that there was a strong and important difference as regards attributable widows.
  The new schemes that we are hoping to introduce provide pensions for life for attributable and non-attributable widows, widowers and unmarried

  GC 61
  partners. Of course, that improvement has been paid for by changes to benefits elsewhere. There is not scope to fund this improvement in the same way from the current scheme.
  To make this change would not involve a small cost: it would be extremely costly as there is no case for treating Armed Forces non-attributable widows differently from other public service widows; for example, the widows of those who worked in the police and fire services or in other public services. Those who die for reasons unrelated to service—that is, accidents at home, congenital conditions and old age—are no different from
  others across the public service who die for reasons not connected with their paid occupation. For the Armed Forces pension scheme, the past-service cost of that change would be about £500 million. The future service cost would be around £14 million per year.
  Lord RedesdaleIs that half a billion pounds for the whole of the public services or just for the Armed Forces?
  Lord BachIt is for the past-service Armed Forces pension scheme. The proposed—
  Lord Craig of RadleyCan we clarify that it is half a billion pounds that is being referred to? In the letter written to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, a one-off cost for past-service of some £500 million was mentioned. This amendment is talking about future payments rather than past payments. I am not sure why we are introducing the concept of the £500 million one-off payment. I may have got this wrong but it seems to me that if we are going to pay for future pensions, the half a billion pounds has no part to play.
  Lord BachI mentioned the £500 million figure because I am advised that that would be the figure that would count—past service would count—if the amendment is carried. As I said, the figure for future service costs would be around £14 million per year.
  Lord RedesdaleThis is an issue that will touch many people. We have been told in response to other amendments that if they were carried, difficulties would arise as regards retrospection. However, if this amendment was accepted, could it not be given a start date? I ask that as a point of clarification and probing at this stage. As we did with the 1978 and 1984 cut-off dates, could we not set a 2004 cut-off date from this point onwards?
  Lord BachI think that I can anticipate what would happen in years to come, rather as I can anticipate what will happen in this Grand Committee in a few minutes' time. Some Members will argue that such a course is grossly unfair on those who are not covered by the date in question. That is why we have to consider what may follow were we to accept this amendment.
  The proposed scheme includes provisions for non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions to be paid for life. The crucial point here is that existing members can transfer to the new scheme if they wish to
  GC 62
  benefit from this provision. The new clause being proposed here covers current widows and widowers from April 2005 who are not provided for in the new scheme.
  For the majority of public service schemes, non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions still cease on remarriage, but as with the current scheme in the Armed Forces, these pensions can be reinstated on second widowhood or divorce if the individual is otherwise financially worse off than when first in receipt of his or her Armed Forces pension. While we are able to make changes for the future under the new AFPS, paid for by adjusting benefits elsewhere, change here would carry with it no offsetting saving.
  It may be said that the AFPS is already paying pensions to these widows. While it is true that if a widow were not to remarry we would continue to pay for life, the assessed costs of the scheme, on the basis on which the MoD pays a charge, take into account the expectation that a certain proportion of non-attributable widows will remarry and thus lose their benefits. Speaking frankly to the Grand Committee, a change to this policy would have a long-term impact on the costs of the scheme.
  Moreover, as I said only a few minutes ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange—who I know cannot be in her place today because she has a medical appointment in Scotland that must be kept—argued strongly in 2000 during debates on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill that attributable widows were different. The Government agreed and made an exceptional change to the regulations to allow such widows to remarry or cohabit and keep their attributable widows' pensions. However. we do not believe that any such special case can be argued for extending this benefit to current AFPS members and those already bereaved. There is no difference between a non-attributable death affecting a service person and that of a policeman, a fireman or a doctor.
  For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord who moved the amendment to withdraw it.
  Lord Astor of HeverMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I too have been bombarded with correspondence on this issue because people are very worried about it. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is not with us and I am sure that I speak for the whole Grand Committee in wishing her well.
  I was disappointed with the reply from the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the cost of the saving and the Minister explained in response that it would be extremely costly. The Forces Pension Society would probably dispute those figures and I should like to consult with the society before deciding what to do next. But I was disappointed that the Minister could not accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, of a cut-off date.
  In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Lukemoved Amendment No. 23:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  "MEDICAL EXPENSES
  Any necessary expenses in respect of the medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment of a member of the Armed Forces and of appropriate aids and adaptations for disabled living may, in so far as not provided under legislation of the United Kingdom, be defrayed by the Secretary of State for Defence under such conditions and up to such amounts as he may determine."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. It is in effect a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some welcome news concerning the ongoing negotiations between officials of the MoD and Combat Stress, to which I am grateful for its briefing.
  Under current provisions, qualifying war pensioners requiring medical support not available through the NHS—such as remedial treatment, convalescence or medical equipment—may, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, have their requirements met by other service providers and funded by the MoD. Those funding arrangements allow, for example, Combat Stress to provide significant support to service veterans suffering combat-related psychological injury. If some such arrangement does not continue, it will put intolerable financial burdens on voluntary charitable organisations that supply quality services that are unavailable elsewhere. I beg to move.
  Lord RedesdaleI support this worthy amendment. I have a couple of questions. To what extent is the Minister looking at whether, if treatment is not available through a local NHS authority for certain medicines, the Ministry of Defence will make it available? At present, if it is not available through someone's local NHS trust, that is unfortunate for them and no special provision is made. That postcode lottery is a worry for those who suffer many conditions.
  Without future funding for Combat Stress, what provision would be made for the specialised treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder? Combat Stress obviously has a great deal of specialised knowledge of that, but it is a service provider. If another service provider were available at a cheaper price, that would threaten the very future of Combat Stress, which would be much to the detriment of servicemen.
  Baroness CrawleyBy the end of my speech, I hope to have answers for the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on those questions. I propose to resist the amendment. It seeks to introduce into primary legislation an equivalent of Article 26 of the service pensions order, the law governing war pensions. The proposed text is based on an outdated version of that order. The current version requires that the expenses must arise from disablement due to service. As with much of the legislation governing war pensions, which remains largely as it was during the 1940s, Article 26 is a product of its time. It predates the universal systems of support provided by the welfare state, including the National Health Service. It is therefore a generally outdated provision.
  GC 64
  Since 1948, Ministers in successive governments have maintained that the National Health Service should be the principal route for treatment of accepted disablements. War pensioners receive priority in the NHS for treatment of their disablement caused by service, and we are seeking to secure the same approach from the Department of Health for beneficiaries under the new Armed Forces compensation scheme. I hope that to some extent answers the question about what happens if there is not treatment available under the NHS. We are seeking to have war pensioners made a priority under the NHS, and therefore there will be pressure on the NHS to come up with the best possible treatment.
  The cross-departmental veterans initiative confirms our commitment to ex-service people. It is addressing improved delivery of services for veterans, working with other government departments and service charities, and it is dedicated to providing excellent service to veterans. Under the new scheme, there will be no statutory underpinning of charity arrangements. There is no reason why such arrangements should be provided for in primary legislation, which would limit our ability to amend them as our understanding of the care of conditions evolved.
  We understand that there are issues in relation to ex-service organisations such as Combat Stress. We recognise entirely the value of its work, and the department is in discussions with that group and others to develop the most appropriate option for the future that recognises a modern consensus of the best approach to care in these areas. I assure noble Lords that we see a continued major role for Combat Stress in the future. I hope that that will give some heart to the noble Lord, who was looking for some optimism in my answer, but we need to establish a way forward that makes the best use of its valuable capabilities. That is why at present we are in discussion with Combat Stress at ministerial and official levels about how to take the work forward.
  In answer to the specific question, the NHS can provide a full range of acute treatments for PTSD. Combat Stress does not provide that; it is not about acute treatment, as noble Lords will know. It provides respite care and periodic care to prevent deterioration, and there is no plan that Combat Stress should not provide treatment for mentally ill veterans. The only question is whether what it provides now is the best approach, reflecting advances in medical understanding in this area.
  Lord RedesdaleThe Minister gave a helpful answer, particularly about Combat Stress. I will push her a little bit on the original answer about the NHS. It is good to hear that servicemen will be treated as a priority. One concern that has been expressed—it is a problem—is that certain NHS trusts provide certain drugs and certain trusts do not. If an ex-serviceman wishes for a certain treatment to treat a condition, and it is not on the list of prescribed drugs available under that NHS trust, there seems to be no way that he could get those treatments if the NHS trust that provides for

  GC 65
  his area does not supply them. Pushing the NHS as a whole might yield results, but what provision will be made in that situation?
  Baroness Crawley:It is for each individual NHS trust to decide on the most appropriate treatment to offer in individual cases. If I have anything to add, I will write to the noble Lord.
  Lord LukeI thank the noble Baroness for that answer, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his contribution. I am not altogether happy with what she has said. We are making some progress, but it is a difficult area. I would like to have heard a little more about the conversations with Combat Stress. I am sad that we do not seem to have made that much progress in those conversations; or was it simply the normal progress of negotiations, with something to emerge shortly?
  Baroness CrawleyActive negotiations are taking place with Combat Stress, but I do not feel at this point that it would be useful for either party to make those discussions public.
  Lord LukeI thank the Minister for that. We may come back to this issue at a later stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 24:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  "MEDICAL RECORDS

  Each of the services shall maintain complete and accurate medical records in respect of service personnel throughout an individual's service.

  (2) These records shall be retained until any question arising from them has been resolved.

  (3) Any claimant to compensation arising from injury or illness attributable to military service shall have full and complete access through a qualified adviser to his medical records."

  The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward probing amendment which the Royal British Legion has asked us to table. We will be happy if the Minister can give the Grand Committee an assurance that medical records will not be destroyed until any possible question arising from them has been resolved.
  It is clear from the Government's proposals that the burden of proof will rest with the individual serviceman or woman, whose medical records must support his or her case. That will mean that current and former service personnel will require full access to complete medical records covering their period in service. However, they do not hold these records; they are held by their employer, against whom the claim is being made.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, rightly pointed out last week, the MoD's history of medical record-keeping is less than perfect. Although we are reassured that there have been improvements, the Royal British Legion tells me that service personnel are still reporting gaps in their service medical histories, especially when medical events
  GC 66
  occur while they are away from their parent unit. We therefore also seek an assurance that medical records will at all times be kept in good order, updated and accurate, and that a qualified adviser can have full and complete access to them. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley AbbottsI support my noble friend's amendment. As the Minister and the noble Baroness will know, I have been considering read-across from the private sector. To be frank, I am absolutely astonished that what my noble friend is seeking is not standard practice. If in the private sector someone allowed the records of one of their pensioners to be lost, falsified or destroyed, it would be an extremely serious matter indeed.
  My noble friend asked the Minister to reassure the Grand Committee that an individual could have access to his or her records in connection with a claim. It is amazing that it is not axiomatic that he or she can have such access. In the private sector, withholding records from a member of a pension scheme would be considered to be quite extraordinary. I hope the Minister can reassure my noble friend and accept the points that he has made.
  Baroness CrawleyI hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Astor. The MoD already retains medical records for 100 years, which is well above the standard Cabinet Office guideline of 72 years. We recognise the importance of making such information available to potential claimants under current and future compensation arrangements. We have taken on board the lessons learnt from the first Gulf War and are confident that operational medical records covering medical treatment, ill health and vaccines are now properly maintained.
  From December 2005, a new computerised system of medical record-keeping will be progressively introduced. This will greatly facilitate record-keeping for a mobile population and will be a valuable tool in supporting claims under the new Armed Forces compensation scheme.
  As regards access to medical records, individual service personnel already have a right of access to their complete medical records. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was saying, it is axiomatic that they come under the Data Protection Act 1998.
  We would therefore say that the proposed new clause is not necessary. Should an individual wish to provide their medical records to a qualified adviser such as a doctor they would be at liberty to do so. A claimant might give authority to have their medical records disclosed to a third party should they so wish. We are saying that as the ability and right already exist, there is no need for additional legislation to achieve that.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Astor of HeverI thank the Minister for that response. I also thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson. In the MoD's defence, there may be an element of

  GC 67
  disorganisation in its records. I was not at all suggesting that there was any falsification of its records.
  I welcome the Minister's comments on the new computerised record-keeping. However, computers are not always accurate; one need only look at how my name comes out of different computers. I received a letter this morning addressed to "Lord Astor of Heaven".
  Lord BachA promotion.
  Lord Astor of HeverI can offer the Committee many other interesting variations.
  I also welcome the noble Baroness's comments on access. I was reassured by her response and I will discuss it with the Royal British Legion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fyldemoved Amendment No. 25:
  After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
  "REVIEWS

  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body shall conduct, at their determination, periodic reviews to validate the provisions of the armed forces pension and compensation schemes.

  (2) The Armed Forces Pay Review Body shall use whatever methods and whatever consultation they deem necessary to carry out the validation exercise.

  (3) The Armed Forces Pay Review Body shall publish the outcome of their periodic validation of the armed forces pension and compensation scheme, in the same manner as they publish their annual report on pay, allowances and charges."

  The noble Baroness said: This probing amendment will not meet the requirements of all Members of the Committee but its purpose is to draw out the Government's thinking on the issue. The amendment was tabled because there is usually external support or advice for pension funds in the form of trustees or trade union representation. This pension fund is for those who are serving on behalf of the country. We are not dealing with a static workforce, but with people who are working in far-flung places around the globe. As such they cannot be contacted in order to take their opinion.
  When I was the chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body the pensions issue was rising up the agenda. There was an amazing lack of knowledge about how the pension scheme worked. That is not unique to the Armed Forces but is true of many people. What is unique to the Armed Forces is that, because of their postings, they cannot easily go into the office to make inquiries.
  At this stage this is a probing amendment. However, I would certainly like to see a provision guaranteeing the Armed Forces that there will be an independent assessment. I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the Written Statement from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement confirmed that such an assessment,
  "would be done in the context of … quinquennial valuation",
  GC 68
  of the pension fund by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and that,
  "more frequent examinations of the … provisions could be undertaken if wider developments justified this".
  I think that we have to understand who will decide whether wider ramifications justify such examinations. I would argue that the pay review body itself should decide that. I am not aware of any pension scheme that is subject to review every five years; three years is normal, and it is only two for the better schemes. So the time period is not terribly acceptable. The Statement continues:
  "The Review Body's observations would … be made public in a supplement to the following annual report and the Government would make public their response to these observations".— [Official Report, Commons, 30/4/04; col. 65WS.]
  As things stand, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body decides the abatement; it takes evidence and requires consultants to give a report. There is also the Armed Forces pension fund association, which lobbies on behalf of Armed Forces personnel. However, with respect to both bodies, we do not have a proper structure that assesses how the pension fund meets the general responsibilities of those covered by it.
  The pension fund is not given gratis; there is an abatement on pay to it. In the Armed Forces as much as in the private sector, the pension fund is probably the second-biggest investment anyone makes in their life; their home would be their first. In the case of many Armed Forces personnel who do not have a home, the pension fund is probably their single biggest investment.
  I hope that the Minister will consider what is really looking at it again—a very meagre amendment. Perhaps we will have to come back on Report with something which is much more robust. That is brought home to me by Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28. They have been grouped with my amendment and I have no problem with any of them. We may well be able to bring them all together and have one amendment on the face of the Bill. The Minister may resist such an amendment, but we have only one go at the Bill. We will not discuss Armed Forces pensions for many a year to come, and we have to get them right for the personnel and for the country; it will be very difficult to recruit people to the Armed Forces in future unless they have a good overall compensation package, with pensions at its heart.
  I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend says in reply to this probing amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Astor of HeverI shall speak to our Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. Like Amendment No. 25, our amendments are probing at this stage, but we may return to the issue on Report. We agree with the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord that the involvement of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, reviews and some benchmarks should be mentioned in the Bill. That should give assurance that schemes will not become

  GC 69
  outmoded and outdated, as in the past. We would like greater monitoring by the pay review body, as detailed in Amendment No. 26.
  We welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government listened to our concerns in the other place by giving the AFPRB a role in externally validating provisions of the Bill. It has an excellent record and is well placed to do so. We wish its members well with its enhanced remit. However, that applies to only the new scheme. Until 2045, the latest date on which a serviceman could still be a beneficiary of the old scheme, there will be servicemen whose pension interests are protected—those on the new scheme—and others whose interests are not. That is manifest nonsense. It will clearly be divisive and bad for morale and retention. The Government's concessions should apply to all servicemen equally—hence Amendment No. 26 covers the old as well as the new schemes.
  Amendment No. 27 is stronger; it would not come under the heading of "meagre". It is for an independent body, rather than being covered by the AFPRB. Its purpose is to get into the Bill an effective mechanism for keeping a steady and well informed eye on the working of the schemes from the point of view of their members and future beneficiaries. It does so by forming a standing oversight commission for the schemes to be established by the Bill.
  The commission will thus perform some but not all the roles of trustees and representative negotiating bodies, such as trade unions, that are in place for all other pension schemes, as the noble Baroness mentioned. It will help to meet a considerable number of points raised in briefings that we have had from the Royal British Legion, the Forces Pension Society and the War Widows Association, to mention only a few. Those points have also come up in debate on the Bill in both Houses.
  In particular, it is directed towards finding a compromise between the resistance invariably expressed by Ministers at the Dispatch Box to proposals for the scrutiny of schemes and consultation about changes to them, and the wish, eloquently expressed by Members on all sides of both Houses, that there should be on the face of the Bill sufficient provision for well-informed and ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. The commission is proposed as a standing body; that is, its oversight of the schemes and of the way they work, both in principle and in detail, will be continuous rather than intermittent. Whereas the AFPRB will, under Amendment No. 26, undertake quinquennial reviews, the standing oversight commission would report at least annually to the Secretary of State.
  The oversight commission would be responsible for watching and evaluating the way that schemes are run, but not for the running of them. It would be responsive and would look into matters brought to its attention either by the MoD, by members of the Armed Forces, by concerned groups such as the Royal British Legion or the Forces Pension Society or, indeed, by Members of either House of Parliament. It will also be proactive when necessary if its members decide that something needs to be looked at.
  GC 70
  In recommending this amendment to the Grand Committee and, I hope, to the Minister, I should say that this is the fifth occasion on which a proposal to this effect has appeared in Marshalled Lists. So far the Government have consistently resisted it, often with a number of reasoned objections, mitigated by their suggestion of bringing in the AFPRB on an occasional basis. Successive texts have been amended to meet those reasoned objections. We have removed the words "representative trustees"—we accept the argument advanced by the Government that you can have trustees only if they hold the fund, which does not exist here—and replaced it with "commission", while the word "management" has been replaced by "oversight".
  Members of both Houses are unhappy about the inadequacy of orders, and the provision for a written statement is calculated to mitigate this. All recognise the impracticability of bringing details into the Bill but nonetheless have made it clear that they expect Parliament to be fully informed of future changes. Subsection (14), building on the earlier provisions set out in the new clause, will provide a convenient and effective way of doing precisely that: allowing informed consultation with those who know and care without the bureaucratic rigmarole of formal consultation exercises trawling those who do not know and do not particularly care.
  We have proposed an à-la-carte menu for two different options and I look forward to learning which one the Minister chooses.
  Lord Craig of RadleyI rise to speak to this group of amendments, in particular the one standing in my name, Amendment No. 28. I should start by making it clear, as I did at Second Reading, that I welcome the Government's intention to invite the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to play a part in reviewing the new scheme. It was not clear whether that body would be confined to reviewing only the new schemes, both pensions and compensation, or just pensions. I raised other points at that time about whether the body would also look after the interests of officers of the rank of two stars and above.
  However, I do not want to be dragged into the detail. What is very important is that whichever scheme is put in place to keep under review the new pension and compensation arrangements, that scheme should appear on the face of the Bill. It is that which appeals to me, whether it is in the words proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who is very experienced in this area, or the new arrangement proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. We need to give some further thought to this. It is the concept of adding something on the face of the Bill which says, "This is the way in which these schemes are going to be reviewed, and kept under review, in the future". That is what I am looking for.
  I draw particular attention to the few words at the end of my amendment requiring the schemes to follow best practice elsewhere in the economy. That, too, is very important. Whichever schemes we end up with for

  GC 71
  the Armed Forces, they should not be seen to fall below the best available in both the public and private sectors.
  4.15 p.m.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, has many attractions. It seeks to set up something unique to the Armed Forces which would be very helpful in reassuring servicemen and servicewomen that the pensions and compensation they are receiving have been kept under regular review by a specially dedicated group of individuals with the right kinds of expertise in this area. It will ensure that the schemes are up and running and, at any stage, as good as anything elsewhere in society. I support the amendment and the general thrust that we must have some form of review on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Astor of HeverIs the noble and gallant Lord supporting Amendment No. 26 or Amendment No. 27?
  Lord Craig of RadleyIf I remember rightly, Amendment No. 26 refers to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I certainly support that amendment. But I was interested in the concept outlined in Amendment No. 27 and, as I have already said, I give it my support.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley AbbottsI, too, support the broad thrust of this group of amendments. They go with the grain of the White Paper, Security, Simplicity and Choice. I have quoted from that document often enough and I shall not do so again today. I shall not try the Minister's patience, but I invite him and his officials to look through the White Paper to see how many of its pages are devoted to the role of individual trustees and the need for them to be properly trained and to provide independent advice. The amendments in this group have an important point behind them.
  I am particularly attracted by Amendment No. 27, which refers to the "Standing Oversight Commission". It seems to move us towards the role of independent trustees, meshing with the pensions regulator and the plans for the private sector. I am pleased to note that under subsection (3) of the new clause my noble friend proposes that the representatives should include people who have served or are serving in the Armed Forces in certain ranks.
  Wearing my hat as a trustee of pension funds in the private sector, the role of the pensioner members of a scheme is extraordinarily valuable. They will often give insights into the way in which a scheme operates that you would not have been able to see on your own.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, made a particularly important point when she referred to the dispersed and changing nature of the Armed Forces and the fact that, obviously, there are three services. An advantage in the private sector is that your workforce tends to be static and therefore people can reach you, the trustee of a pension scheme, and talk to you—or send representatives to talk to you—in a way
  GC 72
  that must be quite impossible when people are being shuffled off around the world, as inevitably is the case with members of the Armed Forces.
  In subsection (10) of the proposed new clause, we are not just talking about quantum and terms; that is, the amount of pension and the terms under which it is granted. The standing oversight commission would have the vitally important duty of ensuring that members of the Armed Forces are provided with proper information and advice. That is not just documentary advice, but access to independent financial advice. The Minister will tell me that the Ministry of Defence cannot provide such advice; I understand that, but it should provide a means for independent financial advice to reach the far-flung members of our Armed Forces so that they know what is best for them.
  I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Lord about the importance of following best practice in the private sector. I will go into this again only briefly. The reality is that if you do not put on the pay slip that there is a deduction for pensions, people will think that it is free. It is not free. I have enormous sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, but even she fell into the trap of the weasel word "abatement". It is not an abatement; it is a reduction. "Abatement" is a much nicer word to use, but it is in fact a reduction.
  The commission would be charged with ensuring that the practice is right and the wording is right so that serving men and women understand exactly what they have by way of pension entitlement. They would have proper independent advice to ensure that they get it. I understand that these are probing amendments, but if the response is not good enough I hope that the movers of the amendments will consider something a bit more substantive in their approach.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-FyldeI cannot resist the challenge about abatement and reduction. The interpretation might be that it is a reduction, but in fact the remit to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is that of abatement. That is what it declares upon; it is called an abatement, not a reduction. That is the correct term.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley AbbottsI accept absolutely that it is called an abatement, but the effect is to reduce the gross pay of a serving man or woman by a certain amount, which is the amount contributed to their pension. In the private sector it would be called a pension contribution. The pension would be paid on gross pay, not net pay, whether it is reduced or abated.
  Lord BachI thank all noble Lords who have moved their amendments or spoken to the amendments. This is an important short debate. If she will forgive me, I will first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Dean. She speaks with as great knowledge as anyone, if not more, about the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, of which until recently she was such a distinguished chairman. We are lucky indeed to have her taking part in our discussions. Whether that tribute is enough to assuage her feelings about these matters I somehow

  GC 73
  doubt, knowing her as well as I do. The tribute is meant none the less, and
  I know that all Members of the Committee share it.
  These four amendments seek to establish a wider role for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body than that announced on 30 April by my colleague the honourable Ivor Caplin in another place. It was an important concession, and I pay a compliment to those who pressed the point. It was a sensible concession; it was not held up for some other purpose, but announced in the House of Commons at the time. So, when we started our discussions, we knew where we started from. Working along its current remit, the AFPRB has agreed— and we are grateful—to undertake regular reviews of Armed Forces pension arrangements to provide genuinely independent validation.
  The body will compare the pension scheme arrangements with practice elsewhere in the economy and consider the extent to which they meet the recruitment and retention needs of the Armed Forces. It will publish its observations in an annual report and the Government will respond publicly. I make it clear that we do not intend to dictate to the review body any particular approach to consultation, nor would we envisage the resulting pension reports being dealt with any differently from the current review body reports on pay. In other words, they would be published, allowing full visibility, and the Government would be expected to explain our response to particular observations.
  My noble friend Lady Dean asked why the reviews could not be more frequent than every five years. They could be, by agreement between the department and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, if the pace of intended changes justified it. That would be decided by the two bodies in discussion.
  The external validation is for the new pension scheme, not the compensation scheme; I shall come back to that. It addresses directly concerns expressed in the Standing Committee in another place about the lack of independent oversight of the arrangements provided for the Armed Forces. It is our intention that the remit be focused on the new pension and early departure schemes. We have recognised that the current pension scheme is not in line with wider best practice. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked why the old scheme was not included in the oversight as well. Oversight of the old scheme, except perhaps for compliance with changes in pension law, would not be appropriate. We know that the terms are not in line with modern best practice; that is why we are doing our best to replace the scheme. Independent review would just point that out.
  We have introduced the new scheme to address all these points, and all those currently serving will, of course, be able to transfer to it. Anyone who wishes to stay in the current scheme can do so, but they will do so because they have decided that the package is the one for them, notwithstanding its shortcomings. We do not plan, therefore, to change the current scheme other than to keep it in line with wider pension law.
  GC 74
  Nor would the AFPRB have a remit for the pension terms of those who had already retired; it is longstanding policy, upheld by successive governments, that retrospective change is not a practicable option. If I were to ask the spokesmen for the other parties that hope to make up the government in due course, they would not want to change the rule about retrospection, I am sure. I therefore cannot see the policy altering in the foreseeable future.
  Amendment No. 27 seeks to establish a commission with a parallel role in independent validation of Armed Forces pension arrangements, but extended to the new compensation scheme. That is the … la carte choice that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was kind enough to offer, but it is unnecessary. He will forgive me, I am sure, for not accepting either offer on the … la carte menu; I choose another meal altogether. The AFPRB has served the Armed Forces very well since its formation in 1971 and has exactly the right experience to undertake the review role so far as pensions are concerned. It comprises human resources specialists, economists, trade union and ex-military representatives, and so has wide expertise. It makes perfect sense to use the skills of those already considering pay in the context of the manning and recruiting needs of the forces to consider also the appropriateness of pension arrangements to those needs.
  The established focus of the body has been remuneration and the way in which that supports the manning needs of the forces. The compensation scheme has a very different place, which does not fall sensibly into the AFPRB remit. I regard the compensation scheme as a matter of good employer provision and am happy that the current arrangements will protect the interests of the Armed Forces in that respect. I shall put it another way: it is to the AFPRB that we look to advise and guide us so far as remuneration for the Armed Forces is concerned. It is an extra validation. In our view, that is what its interest should be so far as the pension scheme is concerned.
  Noble Lords have asked why this is not on the face of the Bill. This argument arose in Committee last week. It is important to remember that the AFPRB is not a statutory body. It was created by a letter from the Prime Minister. For a long time, successive governments have accepted that this is the appropriate approach to such matters. If the remit were in primary legislation it would be not be flexible enough to amend. The current remit can be altered from time to time; legislative remit would not allow that. This is the approach used by other schemes in the public sector. That is why we object to the proposition that the important role to be played by the AFPRB should be written into the Bill.
  We do not have a pension fund and, for that reason, we argue that trustees are not required to oversee the proper management of a fund. Indeed, it is because of that fact, and the nature of this pension scheme, that we think that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is an independent body, is appropriate.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley AbbottsCan the Minister confirm that the Civil Service pension fund, which is similarly structured, does have trustees?
  Lord BachI hesitate to say this, but I do not think that the noble Lord is right. If I am wrong, he knows that I shall be the first to tell him. I am advised that the Civil Service pension fund does not have trustees. We will leave that on the table for the moment and see what the position is.
  Service pensioners get a guarantee of defined benefits. They do not depend on the performance of a fund for those benefits. The benefits are underwritten by government. Service pay is set to reflect the accruing cost of the pension less the employer contribution paid by the Ministry of Defence.
  I do not know whether this debate has satisfied my noble friend, who wanted a debate on these issues. It is my view that this is an important debate, but it should not be forgotten that the Government have agreed to work with the AFPRB to make sure that the new pension scheme is working satisfactorily and fairly for members of our Armed Forces. That is an important provision and we should keep hold of it.
  Lord Astor of HeverBefore the noble Baroness rises to speak, I welcome what the Minister said about the strong possibility of more frequent reviews. That was good news. The noble Lord rubbished our call to look at the old scheme. Does Minister's department have any figures for the percentage of members anticipated to remain in the old scheme and those expected to go to the new scheme?
  Lord BachWe do not have the figures and it would be very dangerous to guess. I think I made it clear by implication that we hope that those serving in the Armed Forces will move to the new scheme because we think it is a better scheme. We expect that that is what will happen.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-FyldeI shall have to wait and see what happens. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the compliments that I certainly do not deserve. It was an honour to be chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I have heard the debate and, although the Minister valiantly attempted to answer the points I raised and those raised by other noble Lords, I do not think that he gave the confidence that we are looking for to underpin the Bill.
  He is absolutely correct that the pay review body is not a statutory body. Indeed, its remit and terms have been changed from time to time. Although that might be a blessing, I do not think that it is in this case. I would be concerned if the remit of the review body is open to amendment without any reference to Parliament. All too often, we see how the budgets of the MoD are Boxed and Coxed, sometimes not for the best purposes of Armed Forces personnel. I did not
  GC 76
  intend to push this amendment today, but I think we need to come back to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Craig of RadleyI thank the Minister for his reply, and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken. I remain very concerned that there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that there will be a regular formal review. I take the point that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is not a statutory body and that there could be some difficulty about that. It seems to me that just as the Ministry of Defence has decided to put the Armed Forces Pay Review Body into play now, in another year or two it could be taken out. There is no assurance that it will continue. I am concerned that we do not have something that gives that assurance. I shall not move my amendment, but we need to come back to this point and see what form of support we can get into the Bill to reassure servicemen and servicewomen that there will be regular reviews.
  The Minister also mentioned that the AFPRB concentrates purely on pensions, and that compensation is a matter for the Ministry of Defence as the employer. I am not sure that one can put these two matters into totally separate boxes. It might be that that is not an entirely satisfactory way to keep the two schemes under regular review.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Amendments to Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943]:
  Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 7, line 46, at end insert—
  "6CA COST OF APPEALS

  A party to an appeal under section 6A or 6C, or a party to a re-determination under section 6B, shall be entitled to be paid the costs of bringing or opposing such appeal or, in the case of a redetermination under section 6B(3), the costs of such application.

  (2) An application for costs payable to a person under this section shall be made in writing to the President of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal within six weeks after the determination of the appeal or subsequent appeal, whichever is the later.

  (3) In determining the amount of such costs, the President shall assess those on the basis that would be applied to an assessment of costs of High Court proceedings."

  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 29 is to ensure that every claimant has proper representation to ensure a level playing field.
  The Government are relying on the generosity of the voluntary sector, particularly the Royal British Legion, to support claimants in their detailed cases against the Government. The proposed changes, including the introduction of another tier of appeal, will impose substantially increased burdens on the Royal British Legion. Although we accept that there is a case for the social security commissioners having a role, the Royal British Legion tells us that it will increase its workload. It has a relatively small and stretched staff. I am very grateful to it for all the help it has given me and my colleagues on the amendments on which we have worked together.

  GC 77
  Under the existing scheme, the expenses of representing a claimant on appeal on a point of law are paid from funds controlled by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. No provision is made in the Bill for claimants to be paid the expenses that they incur in an appeal by them or by the Secretary of State against the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is no longer able to take part in an appeal on a point of law on a level playing field.
  If the Government take away an individual's entitlement to be paid the costs of prosecuting or defending an appeal, how do the Government propose that individuals can be represented on a level playing field? The Leggatt review of the tribunal system overlooks the fact that the present system allows for paid representation. The review did not recommend taking away that right. Instead, it recommended the grant of funds to the Royal British Legion for this purpose. Will the Government adopt that recommendation, and how much will be paid?
  We do not want a situation where any appeal, whatever its merits, can receive finance. That caused some concern in the other place. Therefore, the amendment provides that application must be made to the president of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I am aware of the Government's positive amendment in the other place that refers to travelling expenses and other allowances. However, we, and the Royal British Legion, do not think this goes far enough as it gives the Lord Chancellor discretion and refers only to travelling expenses and other allowances. I beg to move.
  Lord RedesdaleThis amendment is also tabled in my name, and I support it as I have a particular concern. As I understand it, at the moment the Royal British Legion receives no funds from the Government. If it were to receive funds from the Government for this purpose, that might compromise its position. It would be better for the Government to accept the spirit of the amendment and bring back at a later date an amendment to cover the problem of the costs of appeals for the defendant. Otherwise, we end up in the situation that was raised in the debate on the amendment on the burden of proof, which is that we are introducing a system that will either deplete the resources of the Royal British Legion or will be a means test for those who can afford to take the matter forward in law.
  Lord BachI am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Redesdale, for speaking to the amendment. I propose to resist this amendment. I shall deal in turn with the three situations to which this amendment about the cost of appeals would apply. Noble Lords will know that we intend to change the system so that instead of appeals against Pensions Appeal Tribunal decisions on points of law going to the High Court, they will go to social security commissioners, who are likely to be known as pensions appeals commissioners. If appropriate, appeals on a point of law from there will go to the Court of Appeal.
  GC 78
  The first of the three situations concerns appeals from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to the social security commissioners. A party appealing a decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal under the new Section 6A of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal Act will now go to the social security commissioners. I should first note that the vast majority of appeals before the commissioners will be dealt with on paper, without an oral hearing. When a hearing is required, the Office of Social Security and Child Support commissioners will provide for the costs of those attending a hearing, such as travel and accommodation costs.
  It is not intended that there will generally be representation on either side but with regard to legal costs, the Legal Services Commission provides a range of services to help claimants to prepare an appeal to the commissioners. For example, the Legal Help scheme can provide advice from a solicitor worth up to £500. Various advice agencies that we all know, which have very good reputations, such as Citizens' Advice Bureaux, can provide advice for free.
  On the question of costs for legal representation, outside of exceptional circumstances, legal aid is not available for legal representation in any sort of tribunal hearing. This is because tribunal hearings are very different from a court. They are intended to operate without legal counsel. This applies equally to the department, which would not generally expect to have legal representation.
  4.45 p.m.
  The tribunal system is intended to be accessible and user-friendly. It is intended that people can bring their cases before a tribunal without the delay, cost and formality of court proceedings. The commissioners are well used to unrepresented appellants and run hearings by asking questions of the parties and any attendant experts. The process is not adversarial, as it is in our courts, but inquisitorial. It removes, we believe, the need for counsel that you would have in the High Court.
  It is for this reason that full legal aid, which would fund legal representation in a hearing, is not available for hearings before the commissioners. However, the Lord Chancellor has the authority to approve exceptional funding if necessary. To qualify, the applicant would need to fulfil the normal financial conditions for Community Legal Service funding and at least one of three additional factors: first, that it is in the public interest for the user to be represented; secondly, that the case is of overwhelming importance to the user; and, thirdly, that a lack of representation would lead to obvious unfairness in proceedings and that it would be practically impossible for the user to bring or defend the proceedings. Such exceptional funding would allow legal counsel to assist in an appeal to the commissioners. So that is the first situation with which I am dealing.
  The second situation relates to appeals from the social security commissioners to the higher courts. I can reassure the Grand Committee that appeals to the Court of Appeal in England, Wales and Northern

  GC 79
  Ireland, or its equivalent in Scotland, the Court of Session, will fall under their existing cost and legal aid regimes. Our legal aid system recognises that appeals to a court require representation, and a person before a court may qualify for full legal aid, subject to means and merit testing. This enables legal representation for persons unable to fund it for themselves. Noble Lords will know that courts have the power to award costs as they see fit. As the existing system already provides for full legal aid and award of costs where appropriate, I do not see the need for any change.
  The third situation relates to appeals by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I am not sure why the amendment applies to the redetermination of appeals under proposed new Section 6B(3) of the PAT Act. This section will allow a differently constituted tribunal to redetermine the case when both parties are in agreement that there was an error in the initial decision. It is a sensible provision because it avoids the time and expense of sending a flawed decision to the next tier of appeal. Such redeterminations fall under the existing procedure for cases before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; they are not an appeal. There are no specific or extra costs attached to this process, so I am unsure what problem this particular part of the amendment is intended to remedy. In any case, as with appeals to the social security commissioners, parties in a PAT hearing will receive reimbursement for costs incurred in the hearing, such as travel and accommodation.
  The Bill modernises the appeal process to make it faster, cheaper and more accessible for claimants. Our justice system already provides for the reasonable costs of claimants, and legal representation is not necessary before a tribunal. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Astor of HeverI thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his support. I detected an enthusiastic nod of support from over my shoulder to his suggestion of the Government coming back with their own amendment. Clearly, we are going to be disappointed on that.
  I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I will discuss with the Royal British Legion the question that he asked about redetermination. I will consider what he said, read Hansard carefully, and maybe we will come back on Report with a different wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 29A:
  Page 8, leave out lines 7 to 14.
  The noble Lord said: Amendment N o. 29A is purely a probing amendment, designed to pick up a point made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Its report suggested that it might be wise to query one of the powers contained in Schedule 1. The passage in the Select Committee's report is detailed, so it might help the House if I read out the comments related to this part of Schedule 1. The report stated:
  GC 80
  "7. The powers in Schedule 1 are based on those in the Social Security Act 1998 … They include a new Section 6D(2) of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals 1943 (inserted by paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the bill) which is not specifically addressed in the MoD's memorandum.
  "8. The Lord Chancellor is enabled by new section 6D(2) to make regulations (subject to negative procedure) providing for authorised officers to make determinations which otherwise would be made by the Social Security Commissioners. This power is the same as that in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act. (A similar power in the 1998 Act relating to social security tribunals is, in accordance with a recommendation of the Committee, subject to affirmative procedure, but the tribunals differ from Commissioners in a number of respects, including their composition and the number of cases they are likely to handle). The Government explained in 1998 that the purpose of the power then being taken was to enable nominated officers to handle cases such as those".
  In view of the recommendations by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we have tabled this amendment to allow the Minister to give us a little more explanation about the power to delegate that this paragraph of Schedule 1 allows. I beg to move.
  Lord BachI am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue. Indeed, it was the one issue raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which otherwise gave this Bill a clean bill of health. I am in the process of writing a short letter to clarify the points raised by that distinguished committee.
  The probing amendment would remove subsection (2) of Section 6D to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act. This subsection will enable delegation of some functions from the social security commissioners to authorised members of staff. This is a well established arrangement in the social security commissioners' office, under which the commissioners are relieved of more minor and routine judicial and quasi-judicial functions, so that the commissioners can concentrate on substantive decisions. It is anticipated that regulations drafted under this subsection will mirror those in Regulation 7 of the Social Security Commissioners Procedure Regulations 1999. Types of functions that may be delegated include postponing hearings, extending time for proceedings, or giving directions about the production of evidence. Importantly, and this is stated in the letter to the committee that I will be signing, all decisions by a nominated officer can be appealed to a commissioner. There is no intention to supplant the role of commissioners in deciding substantive matters on appeal. I hope that that answer satisfies the noble Lord.
  Lord Astor of HeverI thank the Minister for that reply. He mentioned that he is in the process of responding to the committee. It would be helpful if those of us who attend this Committee could have copies of that letter.
  Lord BachAs soon as I have signed the letter, I will make sure that all noble Lords attending the Committee have a copy.
  Lord Astor of HeverIn the light of that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

  GC 81
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 [Amendments to Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943]:
  On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Astor of HeverThe Bill has a provision in Schedule 1 which would have the effect of altering the appeals procedure that has been in place for more than 60 years, has stood the test of time, and provides an efficient, accessible and cheap method for determining fairly appeals on points of law.
  As things presently stand, an appellant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary of State has the right to appeal to an independently constituted Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Thereafter, on a very limited number of occasions each year, an appeal from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal can lie to a single judge of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of hearing such appeals. My understanding is that such appeals are relatively infrequent and probably number about a dozen each year.
  The appeal is heard by a single judge who, in the past, has been a judge with service experience and, by hearing a number of appeals, has familiarity with the subject. The clear advantage of such a system is that it is a streamlined, single appeal on a point of law which is disposed of quickly and efficiently by the High Court judge.
  What is now proposed is to introduce a two-tier system of appeals on a point of law from the decision of a tribunal. The first stage involves an appeal proceeding to the social security commissioner. That commissioner is to determine the point of law. Thereafter, there is a limited further right of appeal to a single High Court judge.
  There are a number of obvious disadvantages in introducing an additional layer of appeal. First, for an appeal to proceed from the tribunal, leave will have been given by the highly experienced president of the tribunal who himself is a qualified lawyer. The appeal will go to the social security commissioner, who is not necessarily a lawyer by training and, despite whatever might be said, will not appear to the ordinary claimant to be an independent person, if for no other reason than the title and nature of the appointment.
  But the real mischief lies in how it is proposed an individual would be represented in front of a commissioner and thereafter in front of a single judge. Before explaining this point, I should reiterate that current appeals on points of law fall into three particular categories. The first is the appeal by the individual appellant. The second is an appeal by the Secretary of State for one of two reasons: he is either dissatisfied with a particular decision, or concerned to establish a point of law of wider and more general application to the whole body of potential claimants. The third category are those cases where the president
  GC 82
  of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal himself has identified the need for a particularly difficult point to be decided judicially.
  As things stand at the moment, where leave to appeal has been granted, the individual concerned is fully entitled to legal representation and the costs of that representation are paid irrespective of the outcome. The individual is treated fairly, receives proper representation and has equality of arms when faced with the Secretary of State, the resources of the Government, Treasury Counsel and the Treasury Solicitor. This is important because the individual may well face an appeal from the Secretary of State, or initiated by the president.
  By introducing a two-tier system, the individual will now no longer receive the automatic right of representation, with the costs being met, so that a speedy decision on a point of law can be made by a High Court judge. Instead, the proposed system introduces an additional tier and more complexity in the appeals procedure. The individual is unlikely to be represented in front of the commissioner, will not automatically have a right of access to legal advice and may well be left thinking that the appeal has not been dealt with by a wholly independent person of judicial standing. The social security commission will therefore be the graveyard of appeals, decided on an unequal basis.
  The Government have suggested that the introduction of the additional layout of appeal is a more modern approach. I would suggest that the modern attitude is to ensure the speedy and cheap disposal of the very limited number of appeals on points of law, by ensuring that they proceed immediately to a single judge on the issue which the highly experienced president of the tribunal or the judge himself has identified as being the important point for determination. In so doing, the individual should continue to be afforded equality of arms through meeting the reasonable legal costs incurred. We see no reason for change.
  I apologise to the Committee for a rather long speech. However, I hope the Minister will be able to put to rest my own and the Royal British Legion's concerns.
  5 p.m.
  Viscount SlimI have been listening to noble Lords' comments on the appeal procedure and trying to understand it. Perhaps I can come down to earth on a couple of points. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, has just explained, the present system seemed to be pretty good. According to the Government, however, the procedure is now being improved by adding layers on to it.
  The Minister knows that I speak daily with veterans and with serving soldiers. The proposals need selling because they will not be the most popular piece of the pension plan. Most soldiers, sailors and airmen will look at proposals such as these and say, "The whole thing is drawn out. Whatever they say about quick

  GC 83
  results, it is going to be a lengthy procedure. You can appeal here and appeal there, but you will have to fight for money to help you if you want legal advice".
  One sees the bumf—the paperwork and red tape—increasing. The soldier on the ground who is about to enter this appeal procedure will have two comments to make. The first is, "As usual, the Ministry of Defence has made everything much more difficult. I can hardly understand it. Where do I go to get a thorough explanation of my rights? Does the officer above me know that this is something that I can understand, and will he explain it to me? Where do I go?" He will then say, "They are doing this to cut costs". I hope that the Minister can explain whether this is a matter either of saving money or of spending more.
  The soldier will then say, "This lengthy procedure is going on so long. None of us can understand it. I am getting a bit old. I really do not think that it is worth my while because I do not understand it". If the Minister is making a case that this is a better and more favourable procedure—and here we come on to the burden of proof, which we will discuss in a moment—then the claimant, he or she, must be able to believe that this is a better system.
  I therefore say to the Minister that, somewhere down the line, someone— perhaps one of those among the happy haggle of advisers behind him—who is familiar with the issue can produce a pamphlet or something that soldiers, sailors and airmen—men and women—can understand. It can be a slightly "selling" document but it must not spin. If people see it as spin they will simply chuck it in the bucket and say, "What the hell".
  The Minister said that at their most recent meeting the Chief of the General Staff and all the red tabs agreed to this and like it. I am a little suspicious that they agreed to it. However, at some point the new system must be sold. And you must be fair to the soldier, sailor and airman and ensure that he fully understands it.
  Lord BachI am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for what he said and, in particular, to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. He tried to bring us down to earth about the practicalities of what this will mean in the very small number of cases that there will be each year, but which will not be small to the people who are involved. I appreciate that. Perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord as I make my remarks.
  Schedule 1 is a key part of the Bill. Appeal rights are fundamental and are a fundamental principle of our administrative justice system. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said a few minutes ago, under the new Armed Forces compensation scheme, claimants must have confidence that the final determination of their rights lies with an independent and specialist body.
  Schedule 1 introduces the Pensions Appeal Tribunal as an independent appeal tribunal to consider decisions of the Secretary of State under the new compensation scheme. The PAT works well as part of the current arrangements. From what Members of the Committee have said today and in last week's debates,
  GC 84
  it is clear that they have no difficulty with this aspect of the proposed arrangements, but that the objections to Schedule 1 really relate to changes in the onward path of appeal.
  Noble Lords will be aware that the Department for Constitutional Affairs is working to modernise our administrative justice system. Modern policy on tribunals holds that in most cases there should be a second-tier tribunal to hear appeals on points of law before a matter arrives in the courts. But I want to reassure the noble Viscount that that is not an added part of the process. At the moment, the process goes from the PAT to the High Court to—in a very few cases—the Court of Appeal. The High Court will disappear and the commissioners will take its place. Instead of a process of tribunal, High Court, Court of Appeal, there will be a process of tribunal, commissioner, court of appeal. There is no added layer. The commissioners will replace the High Court.
  There are a small number of exceptions to the rule that I have just stated, such as for asylum seekers. For war pension cases, the social security commissioners will be introduced as the second tier of public tribunal which, as I have just said, replaces the High Court. We believe that having two levels of tribunal provides a much quicker, more user-friendly, more cost-effective system for the parties involved. Tribunals specialise in different areas of administrative law. They have arisen over time in recognition of the fact that some disputes are better settled by specialist tribunals rather than through the more formal, legalistic, expensive and—dare I say—longer court system. Tribunals provide a number of strengths in the consideration of administrative disputes. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I try to set them out.
  First, as regards participation and funding, a common aim of current tribunals is that users should be able to prepare and present their own cases effectively with the help of good information, procedural help from tribunal staff and substantive assistance from advice services. Members of the Committee should note that most appeals to the commissioners would be decided, as I have said already today, on papers, without an oral hearing. In cases where there is a hearing, there have been concerns expressed about inequality of arms.
  I want to assure noble Lords that the system is designed to avoid such a situation. In a hearing, the presiding commissioners will investigate the issues in an inquisitorial manner rather than relying on the arguments of opposing counsels. Nor would the department generally expect to have legal representation at tribunal hearings.
  The current system of appeals going directly to the High Court creates high, disproportionate legal costs. The Government are required to fund legal counsel for both parties to the appeal. The situation is not compatible with modern legal aid policy, which uses means and merit testing to focus limited resources where most are needed.
  As I said in an earlier debate concerning legal representation, there are a number of ways in which a person might receive legal assistance in preparing his

  GC 85
  or her case or in responding to an appeal from the Secretary of State. As I said last week, the Department for Constitutional Affairs is willing to facilitate discussions between the ex-service organisations and the Legal Services Commission to outline the range of services available. I very much hope that those bodies will take up that offer so that discussions can take place to see if we can find a satisfactory solution to their concerns.
  Secondly, the tribunal system has special expertise. The social security commissioners are judges, all of whom are lawyers. They can qualify only if they have at least 10 years' experience and specialise in hearing complex appeals on points of law. They are appointed by Her Majesty, and they will offer considerable expertise in resolving appeals from the PAT. A number of those commissioners have previous experience in the PAT jurisdiction. Initially, they will be assigned to hear appeals from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. In order to recognise the special status of Armed Forces veterans, those commissioners will sit as pensions appeal commissioners when hearing appeals from the PAT. That would distinguish the appeals from other general matters of social security.
  The third area of strength is accessibility. A citizen seeking relief on a matter of administrative justice will find the tribunal more accessible than the courts. Appeals to tribunals do not carry the same costs as appeals to the courts. A self-representing tribunal removes the need for legal representation. Of course, expenses for travel and accommodation are paid. Tribunals often hear claims from vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society. Formal and expensive court processes are often unsuitable for such people. Tribunals offer a more hospitable, specialised service that caters to their needs, which we hope will provide assistance when required.
  I turn now to a point made by the noble Viscount. The social security commissioners will determine cases far quicker than the High Court. Currently, cases are being disposed of in 18 to 19 weeks on average. It is for those reasons that we believe that the changes made by Schedule 1 are a key part of the Bill. It is imperative that we establish appeal rights for new compensation schemes. The final determination of claimants' rights will lie with an independent and specialist body.
  Perhaps noble Lords will allow me one moment to seek advice: I have inadvertently misled the Committee, which I want to put right before I sit down. The noble Viscount asked whether this would be an extra layer to the appeal system. It is not because it will take the place of the High Court. In the present system, the process ends at the High Court; there is no ability to go beyond the High Court. I am sorry that I mistakenly said that there was. Now, there will be the ability to go from the commissioners to the Court of Appeal on a point of law if the Court of Appeal agrees to hear it.
  The noble Viscount also referred to the need to communicate those rather arcane changes to those who potentially might be involved in them. We recognise the importance of explaining how the new
  GC 86
  compensation scheme will apply to service personnel. Booklets will be produced to explain how to claim and how to appeal against decisions. We have experience of writing such booklets in clear language. In this case, that is vital so that personnel in the Armed Forces know their rights. We believe that Schedule 1 is important and should stay in the Bill. I have tried to explain why that is so.
  5.15 p.m.
  Viscount SlimI thank the noble Lord for that clear and detailed explanation. I thought that he was selling quite well, too.
  Lord BachBut not spinning, I hope.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fyldemoved Amendment No. 31:
  Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
  "PRE-1973 WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS ON REMARRIAGE

  Article 42 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/883) is amended as follows.

  (2) After Article (1A) there is inserted—

  "Article 42(1) does not apply to a widow or widower of a member of the armed forces whose service terminated before 31st March 1973, and any pension or allowance paid to such a widow or widower (including a pension or supplementary pension paid under Article 29) shall continue whether or not the widow or widower marries or lives with another person as the spouse of that person.""
  The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I regret that it is not possible for the noble Baroness, Lady Strange—who has been in the vanguard on this issue for many years—to be here today. She asked me if I could speak for both of us, and I am delighted to do so.
  I can remember discussing this issue 10 years ago; it has been debated time upon time. However, the logic and strength of the argument has not been lost. I do not believe that this area is caught by the Treasury requirement in the new pensions Bill for the Armed Forces to be cost neutral. As an aside, I have never known a pension scheme to be introduced with a cost neutral requirement. It is extremely difficult of the Treasury to expect that. Certainly I do not think that this area is a victim of that requirement; it is not covered in the Bill.
  The more one considers this system and discusses it, the more het up one gets about how unfair it is. What kind of standards are we passing? The majority of these widows cannot be under 60; many of them are over 80. We are saying to them, "If you find someone with whom you want to spend the rest of your life, do not marry them; just kid the system". It is almost reminiscent of the old welfare system in regard to cohabiting. If you were caught co-habiting, you lost your benefit. In a way, we are treating these people far worse than that.

  GC 87
  The amendment would mean that anyone in this small group of people—I say "small group" because I do not think anyone on the Committee has the numbers; I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has—should they have the opportunity to spend their declining years in companionship with someone, and marry them or live with them as a spouse, will not lose the money we are paying them now. It will not cost any extra money. It is a simple amendment.
  I do not know whether my noble friend has a simple answer but, nevertheless, it is an issue that many feel strongly about. I do not think that a lot of money is involved, but it means an awful lot to the individuals concerned.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said that she was not going to make a Second Reading speech, but one could be tempted. One could go on about how a person of 70, who was receiving a pension, could meet someone and be faced with a choice. If they get married and lose their pension, there is an assumption that their partner will make up the loss—but that is not always the case. Furthermore, the pension they are receiving has nothing to do with their second partner; it relates to a period when their first husband or wife was a member of the Armed Forces. Looking at the date—pre-1973—it is quite clear that we are not talking about many widowers; we are talking mainly about widows.
  I hope that the Minister will agree to consider the amendment. I know that the situation I have described is not, strictly speaking, covered by the Bill because it is a new pensions Bill. However, it provides an opportunity to rectify something which this Government and the previous government should be ashamed of not having rectified. It does not involve a huge amount of money. We are simply asking the state to forgo the money it believes it is entitled to but which most of us feel that it is not. I hope the Minister will give me more than a nod and a wink of sympathy. I beg to move.
  Lord Astor of HeverOn these Benches, we support the amendment. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, moved the amendment very eloquently and persuasively.
  This is a matter that is very close to my heart. I was very happy to have my name on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, four years ago. Once again, I thank Jenny Green and the War Widows Association for their briefing on this subject.
  I hope that the Government will do something for those war widows, many of whom have had no chance to have children or grandchildren to help them in their old age. No new money needs to be found; the pensions are already being paid. The only saving is the minuscule amount saved by the very small number of people who remarry. This will cost the Government almost nothing, but will demonstrate to our war widows that they are not forgotten.
  Lord Morris of ManchesterI join my noble friend Lady Dean in her warm tribute to the noble Baroness,
  GC 88
  Lady Strange, as president of the War Widows Association. Both here at Westminster and as vice-president of the association, I see time and again the quite remarkable range of work undertaken by the noble Baroness in this deeply important policy area.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, my noble friend Lady Dean made a compelling case for the amendment. Her speech alone deserves to carry this proposed change to the Bill. My noble friend talked of costs. The provisions of the Bill were referred to on Second Reading as a package, one that is cost-neutral. Of course, the issues of cost and affordability have also been raised from one amendment to another in our proceedings in Committee. Is there anywhere a summary of the anticipated, as it were, gainers and losers? I ask that question because it is the package as a whole that was referred to as cost neutral and not its parts; and it is difficult from time to time to check the overall intention of cost neutrality against the estimates and guesstimates made about the cost of individual amendments to the Bill.
  It really would be extremely helpful to us, before we conclude the debate on this amendment, if we could look at the intention of cost neutrality in terms of the parts of the Bill and not merely of the Bill as a whole.
  Lord RedesdaleI, too, support the amendment. I believe that no records have been kept on this issue, but I ask why none are being kept? If this is to be a cost-neutral provision, the Government must be taking into account a degree of saving, or a lack of degree of saving. If there is a lack of saving, then there would be no change if the amendment were accepted. However, if a degree of saving has been taken into account, it seems a rather cynical move by the Government to deny elderly people the right to dignity in their old age if they wish to remarry.
  Lord Craig of RadleyThis Bill, as we have all realised, is fairly unique. It is only very rarely that Parliament is able to review Armed Forces pensions at all. However, this legislation has come and the opportunity should be taken to put right particular legacy issues, of which this is a very important one. I very strongly support the amendment. The arguments have been very well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and others. It would be a great pity if this unique opportunity to correct some of these legacy issues was not taken. The House would be failing in its duty to Parliament if it did not give serious consideration to correcting these small but extremely distressing issues, which are unwarranted in this day and age; the more so when we see what the new schemes will do, not only for widows, but also for partners and even for partners of the same gender.
  This is very welcome but it only adds to the importance of correcting some of these legacy issues in relation to the widows of people who have given a great deal to this country and who are viewed, quite rightly, as very special and very important. I support the amendment.
  Viscount SlimAt the previous meeting of the Grand Committee I tried to highlight, with others, the

  GC 89
  situation of widows who receive only one-third of their husband's final pension. I said how iniquitous it was in this day and age, particularly when down the Corridor in another place, and elsewhere, widows do very much better in the pension game. I do not blame only this Government; the previous government was also culpable, except for the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on one occasion.
  I do not know why governments have it in for widows of the military; I simply do not understand it. As I have explained, they are women who have suffered considerably in many ways—much more than the wives of the average civilian or Member of Parliament. Rather like the way in which the Prime Minister took a grip of the campaign for an extra payment to prisoners of war of the Japanese, I would ask the Minister to take much higher the issue of military widows always being set upon, and resolve it. It is not right that in this day and age a widow should be persecuted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said. It is quite wrong that widows should receive only one-third of a pension, and a pretty miserable pension too.
  This constant political excuse of not being able to do anything retrospectively to put matters right smacks of weak government, weak decision-making and certainly weak management.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness CrawleyI am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this serious debate. I agree that we have missed the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, today, but the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has done sterling work in moving the amendment.
  I propose to resist the amendment, which seeks to insert a new clause to amend war pensions legislation to allow war widows' pensions to be paid for life to one specific group of widows and widowers. Article 42 of the Service Pensions Order, which contains the rules of the war pensions scheme, provides that payment of war widows' pensions ceases on remarriage or cohabitation. This rule applies equally to all war widows and widowers.
  War widows' pensions are paid at a preferential rate compared with the Department for Work and Pensions widows' pensions because of the special circumstances of their widowhood. The standard war widow's pension is paid at about 20 per cent higher than national insurance widows' pensions, with no time limits for claiming. It is tax free and not income related. So I would gently disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in his complaint, expressed quite bitterly, about this Government's view of war widows.
  There are two arguments against the change proposed. First, the proposed amendment to the war pensions legislation is divisive and will create inequity in the scheme. Under the proposal, widows and widowers of service personnel who died or left the service before 31 March 1973 would be able to retain their war pension on remarriage or cohabitation, but all other war widows and widowers would not. This
  GC 90
  would create a single group of war widows and widowers who are treated more favourably than others in a similar situation.
  The second argument against the proposed change is that it is likely that the change would involve retrospection to benefit those who have already remarried or cohabited. This would be difficult to reconcile with the policy of successive governments and could set a difficult precedent for other campaigns for similar retrospective change. A departure from the policy of no retrospection carries very substantial cost implications.
  I was asked about the issue of cost neutrality. The Bill does not cover provisions for new, extended benefits under the war pensions scheme. Cost neutrality has been applied only to the new pension and compensation arrangements. We know that the current proposals are cost neutral, and this amendment would represent an additional cost. We do not have a figure, but the numbers are not trivial, nor would be the cost.
  I was also asked whether the current scheme would cover cohabitation. As I said, the current scheme covers cohabitation as well as remarriage. We do not have the number of widows who would be aided by this amendment but, as I have said, our records of the trade-off between different parts of the package allow it to be cost neutral. While I cannot give noble Lords an overall figure, records are kept of the different parts of the package that are traded off in order to allow the scheme as a whole to be cost neutral.
  Lord Morris of ManchesterI am most grateful to my noble friend for her care in addressing the points raised by noble Lords with whom clearly she does not agree. She referred again to cost neutrality. In doing so she said that it was not in reference to the past, but to the present and the future. But what figures are available for the pre-1973 benefit entitlements? One of the centrally important factors here is that the number of older war widows is declining year by year. The attrition of age-related illnesses and disabilities reduces the population of older war widows year by year. That is why I have argued, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and my noble friend Lady Dean, and others, that this is a moment for generosity.
  The cost cannot be prohibitive in conceding this amendment. I really do think that it would be to the honour of the present Government and much to their benefit if they could at least agree this afternoon to reconsider their position on this very important amendment.
  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-FyldeI thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I think that there is some confusion about the figures because pre-1973 war widows, should they remarry or live with someone as a spouse, lose the whole of their pension, whereas post-1973 widows—as a result of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, among others—retain their attributable pension as a widow.

  GC 91
  One can always find a reason for not doing something. However, this amendment addresses a specific group in specific circumstances—a group which is declining in number. It will not increase or make further claims; rather it is now claiming what I would call an occupational pension for the Armed Forces. This is a group of people not covered by those arrangements and which form a special case. While I am always loath to argue special cases, this really is one with which I feel comfortable.
  I must confess that the longer this goes on and the more one thinks about it, the more angry and hot under the collar one gets. We seek for something to be maintained, not introduced, and I do not think that it would create a precedent on such a scale that the Government would be faced with having to pay out inordinate sums of money. We are saying simply that these people should be treated decently by today's standards.
  We must always remember that we are talking about a group of people who have no power. It is within the gift of the Government to say no, as did the previous government. That group can do nothing about it. While the group has the support of the War Widows' Association, which does marvellous work, the power and leverage must come from Members of this House during their discussion in Committee and at other stages of the Bill. Although this issue is not specifically covered by the legislation, it is important that we deal with it.
  I am not convinced that it would be expensive and I am not convinced that the figures show that increasing numbers would be involved. Rather, the numbers will diminish. We are talking about a time in the lives of these people when they are at their most vulnerable. They do not have any leverage or power. At this stage I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would certainly welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with Ministers outside the Grand Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 32:
  After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
  "POST-RETIREMENT MARRIAGES

  As of 6th April 2005 widows, widowers and surviving registered unmarried partners of all service personnel shall receive a full widows' forces family pension based on their spouses' or partners' length of service and final salary regardless of the date of marriage or registration.

  (2) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) shall be amended as follows.

  (3) After section 35A there is inserted—

  "35B POST-RETIREMENT MARRIAGES
  As of 6th April 2005 nothing in this Act shall prevent the payment of a forces family pension to a widow or widower that is married to a member of the scheme after the member has completed their service in the armed forces."
  GC 92

  (4) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5) shall be amended as follows.

  (5) After section 188 there is inserted—

  "188A POST-RETIREMENT MARRIAGES
  As of 6th April 2005 nothing in this Act shall prevent the payment of a forces family pension to a widow or widower that is married to a member of the scheme after the member has completed their service in the armed forces.""
  The noble Lord said: This issue follows in the same vein as the last argument about appealing to the Government to change a situation that is slightly unjust. Judging by the arguments that we have already had, we are not going to get very far on this. However, the amendment deals with the 1978 cut-off.
  I thank the members of No Pension 4 U who have written to me on this issue. A large number of people have contacted me about this. It is extremely unfortunate that so many people are put at such a disadvantage over this issue. Even if the Government do resist, I know that they understand the plight in which many people find themselves. As with the last issue, it is impossible to say how many people are affected by this post-retirement marriage Catch-22 because no records are kept. I know that because it was raised at an earlier stage in another place. However, the people that we are dealing with are a diminishing group, the majority of whom are in their 70s to early 90s.
  It particularly concerns me that this should be an issue of best practice. Many pension schemes in the private sector have looked at retrospection; British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways pension schemes are all former state pension schemes that have changed. It would be helpful if the Government could say again why the Armed Forces pension scheme should be different. It was also noted in another place that MPs' pensions are not covered by the issue of marriage or non-marriage. It is the marriage at time of pension that is important.
  The noble Baroness raised the issue of retrospection. Although this is a great bat and ball to be used on many occasions across the Floor of the House, and I have been involved in a number of the arguments, it should be noted that it is not a hard and fast rule. It can be changed on certain occasions, although those cases are rare. This is a worthy case that should be looked at. It should not be forgotten that Armed Forces' pay is kept at a lower level because of the generous pension provision. That has been set out in many of the benefits that we are seeing in this Bill. Many of the letters that I have received state that many of those serving did not realise that they were going to be caught by this provision in the Act. It seems unfortunate therefore that some of those who served our country so valiantly, and believed that they had provided pensions for their wives who they married after retirement, would not be provided for in this case.
  This issue has been debated before. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that we debated this issue in 1995. Before the Minister goes down the usual route of resistance and retrospection, it was supported by the Labour Opposition at the time. I remember voting on the issue, and it was one of the

  GC 93
  first votes in which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, took part. He was being grasped by all sides as the totem of a person who could make this happen. He did valiantly at the time, and we only lost by 14 votes. It would be remarkable if the Government could take a positive step forward and change this provision because they argued so well and so forcefully at that time for it to be changed. I beg to move.
  Lord FreybergThis amendment is also tabled in my name. In speaking to it, I will add further arguments to those of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in support of pensions for widows of pre-1978, post-retirement Armed Forces marriages. I stress the special factors affecting the marriages of the armed services in this whole debate. In the context of the rest of the public services, these have led to considerable discrimination, as I will explain.
  5.45 p.m.
  First, and most importantly, there is the very young age at which the majority of the Armed Forces is forced to retire. An astonishing 70 per cent of all the services retire at or around 40 years old, and only approximately 5 per cent carry on even to 55. This increases the likelihood of marrying subsequently far more than in any other profession. Thus it can be seen that talking about a read-across with other public services, which is supposed to be the case as things stand, is completely misleading. The age for retirement in the Civil Service has traditionally been 60 for men and 60 for women. The "early" retirement age in the police force and fire brigade is actually 55, an age which is achieved by approximately 5 per cent of the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces have therefore been heavily and uniquely penalised by the pre-1978 PRM pensions rule.
  In addition, unlike any other public service, the Armed Forces are stationed abroad for long periods at a time, often in dangerous situations. Single people are thus prevented from meeting likely spouses and the strains on existing marriages are exacerbated, leading to a higher divorce rate than in the civil population and thus an increased likelihood of a post-retirement marriage. It might also be worth mentioning that another factor governing late marriages is that, for officers, early marriage was formally discouraged until 1973 by withholding the payment of marriage allowance—a significant proportion of their total salary.
  The result of these factors is that a higher proportion of the Armed Forces has always married after leaving the services than in other professions, including other public services. What we are trying to do in this amendment is to put the Armed Forces on the same footing in this respect as the rest of the public services.
  One of the major reasons cited against not introducing pensions for pre-1978 post-retirement marriages is that such a move would be retrospective and with an expensive read-across. But the current
  GC 94
  read-across is already extremely punitive to the Armed Forces. It is this injustice that needs to be addressed very belatedly and not retrospectively.
  Ironically, it has been suggested to me that there is one course of action currently available to couples of post-retirement marriages which would enable a service widow or widower to receive a pension after their spouse's death. Under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, the courts have the power to share an individual's occupational pension as part of a divorce settlement. Such an option would not be available if they were to remain married until death. In a recent case, one spouse was entitled to her husband's entire Armed Forces pension as part of their divorce settlement. I cannot imagine that the Government would advocate mass divorce for elderly service people of post-retirement marriages.
  Then there is the issue of recall liability. Currently, officers and other ranks can be called up for service after retirement until the age of 60. That means that the Armed Forces contract does not end at the moment of leaving the active list but only terminates when the recall liability has been fully discharged. Until 1973, those who retired and chose not to obey a recall could face severe consequences. The MoD had the power to suspend or withdraw the retired pay of any individual who failed to keep part of the contract.
  The other area that needs to be clarified is that of cost. It has been stated this year that it would cost £50 million to introduce pensions for post-retirement marriages in the Armed Forces and between £300 million and £500 million to extend the concession to survivors of members of all public service occupational schemes. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, the Government have always stated that they have no records of the numbers of PRMs.
  Furthermore, on 15 September 1997, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr John Reid, said in a letter to Miss Valerie Davey MP:
  "We have, however, made a rough estimate of the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of retrospectively recognising all post-retirement marriages contracted before 6 April 1978 on the assumption that the incidence of marriage in later life in the services is the same as that found in the general population. On this basis, we would estimate that the immediate effect of full retrospection would be to add about £16 million per year to the cost of Forces Family Widows Pensions".
  The Government should know that the cost of providing very limited pensions to post-retirement marriage widows is both enclosed and diminishing. Their numbers are dwindling and there will be no one in the Armed Forces with pre-1978 service in 12 years' time. In the mean time, however, widows and widowers of those who paid into the equivalent of a pension scheme are being denied its benefits.
  For individuals, the sums involved are not large, but they make an enormous difference as well as fulfilling the criteria of justice—receiving a widow's pension as a reward for many years of service. For example, a sergeant who retired in 1982, after 22 years of service, would receive an annual pension of £6,927, and his widow's pension would be just £3,463.50 per annum. That is a tiny sum in itself, yet if he had married after

  GC 95
  retirement, his widow would receive just £629.72 a year, for the four years after 1978. Where is the justice in that? I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  Lord Astor of HeverWe on these Benches support the amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Freyberg, both covered very ably the points that I wanted to make. I will not weary the Committee by repeating them.
  Lord Morris of ManchesterThis is an evocative moment for me, as it must be also for my friend Valerian—the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg—who again this afternoon spoke with such utter commitment and sincerity. It is not the first time that we have joined in supporting legislative change. We did so many years ago in working together in the service of war widows, but at that time he was in one House and I was in the other. Indeed, his maiden speech was linked to propositions I had made in another place. Now we are in the same House, and I am delighted to be following him in support of the amendment now before the Committee. It is one that, by any test, we can well afford, and, as I said at Second Reading, the claims of older war widows are deserving of the highest priority. We all owe them an immense debt of honour. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for having tabled the amendment. Here again, he has done a very important service to the ex-service community.
  Lord Craig of RadleyI support the amendment. Like other noble Lords, I have had considerable mail from individuals whose letters are very poignant and sincere. They feel extremely hard done by, and I think with every justification, as they look around and see how modern practice is to give a very good arrangement which I think we have all supported. They are left out on a limb and that just does not seem to be reasonable or fair. I cannot possibly try to defend it. I do not think that the Government should try to defend it. I think a way should be found to sort this out. The Bill provides a unique opportunity to do that. I hope very sincerely that the Government will take this away and consider what can best be done. It is not satisfactory, and I think we will be failing if we do not attempt to persuade the Government to accept that these post-retirement marriages should be dealt with in a way that ensures that there is no longer a feeling that it is a legacy issue.
  Lord BachWe have heard very powerful, passionate and witty speeches in favour of the amendment. I commend all those who have spoken to the Committee. I know that this is a matter that is deeply felt by all the speakers.
  As I understand it, before the passing of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, in order for a widow to qualify for a pension she and her husband had to have been married at the time her husband was serving. If they married only after he had completed service, at whatever age that might have been, she was not entitled to a pension. The 1975 legislation introduced post-retirement widows' pensions across government. Provision was
  GC 96
  made in the Armed Forces pension scheme for the payment of pensions to widows of service pensioners who married or remarried after retirement, but this change benefited only the widows of those giving service on or after 6 April 1978—and then, importantly, only on that part of their service that followed on from 6 April 1978. In other words, the service for these purposes was deemed to start on 6 April 1978. Subsequently and importantly, Government policy changes to provide widowers with the same post-retirement provision were introduced later, but that change only benefited the widowers of those giving service on or after 1 October 1987.
  That is the background. Let me say a word about the cost. The Government Actuary has estimated that it would cost in the order of £50 million to extend post-retirement widow and widower pensions to all current and deferred Armed Forces pension scheme pensioners. This does not take into account those who had no post-1978 service, who receive no widow's pension. That would cost an unknown amount because we have no idea how many of these people there are.
  Lord RedesdaleWe have heard the cost of £50 million before. For the benefit of the Committee, can the Minister give a breakdown of that £50 million? Is it a one-off cost or a capital cost?
  Lord BachI understand that it is a capital cost of £50 million to extend pensions to all those who receive some pension now, or those who are qualified to some extent because of their service on 6 April 1978. It does not take into account those who have no post-1978 service. We do not know how much that would cost.
  Lord FreybergI am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. Is that a year-on-year cost or is it a one-off capital cost?
  Lord BachI am sorry to keep the Committee waiting but I think it is important to get the answer right. As I understand it, the one-off cost would be around £50 million and the annual cost would be about £16 million per year. After the Committee finishes, I shall make sure those figures are right and I will write to noble Lords on the position.
  But that does not take into account those who had no post-1978 service and who of course received no pension at all, so we do not know who they are or where they are. Nor, of course, does that include the cost if unmarried partners were to be included. But the cost is difficult to establish given the limited information on the number of partners who might be eligible.
  This is not just about the cost. No distinction is made between service personnel and public sector employees with regard to the fact that post-retirement widow and widower pensions are available only to the spouses of those with service on or after a specific date. It is also common practice for those who are eligible to have their pensions calculated only on the post 1978–87 service.
  Frankly, it has been a longstanding policy of successive governments that changes to improve the benefits of public service pension schemes should be

  GC 97
  implemented from a current date for future service only. To extend the post-retirement marriage concession to the survivors of service pensioners would put pressure on all public service occupational schemes to do precisely the same. We calculate, although I stress that it is a rough calculation, that extending the provision to all public service occupational schemes would cost between £300 million and £500 million. That is a great deal of money and stops governments of whatever colour from doing what has been put forward so clearly in this particular area.
  6 p.m.
  Lord FreybergAs currently worded, this amendment is based on the length of service and final salary of spouses and partners regardless of the date of marriage or registration. If that was changed to 60 years of age—the date of retirement for the majority of those in the public sector; there would be no read-across because it would be the same as that in other public sector services—would the Government look at this in a positive light?
  Lord BachI am not in a position to be able to answer that one way or another. What the noble Lord has asked me will appear in Hansard and we shall consider it along with all the comments made by noble Lords in this debate.
  Lord FreybergWill the noble Lord write to me?
  Lord BachOf course I shall write. It will be part of the letter that I mentioned a few minutes ago.
  However, I have to take exception with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about one thing in what I hope is a friendly way; that is, about the contention that somehow those in the Armed Forces marry late. There is no hard evidence in either direction, neither for his proposition nor for the one that I may make inadvertently in the course of my remarks over the next few minutes.
  It may well be true that for some officers, late marriage was more the norm than the exception, although not in every case.
  Lord Astor of HeverWhen I was in the Army, early marriage was positively discouraged.
  Lord BachI am sure that it was positively discouraged for officers; there is no doubt about that. However, so far as I can tell, I have to say that many soldiers marry and have families when they are extremely young. We can swap anecdotes until the cows come home, and it is good fun to do so, but some hard facts would be helpful. But I do not think that there is anything to suggest, taking the Armed Forces as a whole, that they are a species that marry late.
  Lord Craig of RadleyWe must remember that we are not talking about the Armed Forces of today, but the Armed Forces of a generation or even two generations ago. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, is quite right. We were certainly financially
  GC 98
  discouraged from getting married before the age of 25 in the case of officers. Moreover, many of us were posted overseas with limited opportunities to meet our future loved ones. So I do not think that it necessarily follows that today's position is anything like what it was at the time about which we are talking, which concerns the widows of personnel who served many years ago.
  Lord BachIf I have both the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, against me, perhaps there is something in the point. However, it would be nice to have some evidence. If there are any data, I invite the noble Lord and those advising him to let me know. I take the point that we are talking largely about a generation or two generations ago rather than today.
  I am not clear what the references to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Administration Act 1992 contained in subsections (2) and (4) of the amendment are designed to achieve. They are not relevant to service pensions but more to social security benefits.
  I was gently chided by the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, about the fact that while in opposition my party took one view and takes another view now. He was too generous, perhaps, to the party that was in power before, which then clearly took one view and takes another now. There may be an explanation for this to be found in the ugly word "retrospection". In other words, once you walk through the portals of government, it is pointed out to you how dangerous it is to allow one's heart to rule one's head in terms of allowing retrospective changes to the law. Once you start doing so, there will be 1,000 good claims for it.
  Ministers have to steel themselves in order to combat the natural tendency to be sympathetic to cases put so well. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—whose party has not enjoyed government for a few years now—that that is probably the reason for the shift of emphasis. It is mainly for that reason that we find it impossible to accept the amendment, which, as I said, has been so well moved.
  Lord RedesdaleI thank the Minister for his reply. We on these Benches are obviously preparing for government—a phrase used by a former party leader which is prophetic in its nature. I also thank him for what he said in regard to the issue of drafting. Obviously this is Grand Committee and this is a probing amendment; I shall want to take on board what has been said before I come back with a redraft.
  However, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. There is a great deal of support for the amendment. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, is based on the benefit that would accrue to so many people who perhaps should have been dealt with at an earlier stage. I agree that the hurdle for retrospection should be extremely high; however, I very much hope that this issue will be able to leap over that hurdle.
  It has just occurred to me that the two youngest people in this House in 1995 were me and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It seems slightly ironic that we

  GC 99
  are discussing the same issue nine years later in Committee. I very much hope that we can take the matter forward at another stage, with perhaps a more optimistic response from the Government. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Amendments and repeals]:
  Baroness Crawleymoved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
  "( ) In regulation 2 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Late Appeals) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1032) (interpretation), the words "to which section 8(1) of the Act applies" in the definition of "appeal" are omitted.
  This amendment is deemed always to have had effect."
  The noble Baroness said: I recommend the amendment to the Committee. It is uncontroversial. I have already written to explain the purpose behind it to the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
  When the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Late Appeals) Regulations 2001 were introduced, it had been intended that the right of a late appeal against an interim assessment should exist. It had been thought that those regulations provided for that, but recently it has become apparent that that is not the case, and that there is no legal basis on which to hear such appeals late. Therefore, there is a need to make the amendment.
  The amendment would be beneficial to the ex-service community, and end the inconsistency and unfairness in the way such appeals are dealt with by the three Pensions Appeal Tribunal jurisdictions since the omission in the legislation became known. Currently, the England and Wales PATs continue to allow such appeals to be heard, in the main, whereas those in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not, on the basis that they have no authority to do so. The amendment would clarify the position for all those involved in the appeals process.
  The proposed new subsection to Clause 7 would broaden the definition of "appeal" in the late appeals regulations of 2001 to include late interim assessment appeals. That would allow those decisions which have already been processed to be validated, and provide
  GC 100
  the PAT with the authority to hear pending and fresh appeals. That will validate those late appeals on interim assessments which have already been processed, and provide the PAT with the authority to hear fresh appeals.
  I hope that Members of the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Astor of HeverI thank the Minister for the letter. The matter is uncontroversial, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Commencement]:
  [Amendment No. 33A not moved.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Orders]:
  [Amendments Nos. 33B and 33C not moved.]
  Baroness Crawleymoved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 4, line 8, after "Act" insert "(other than an order under section 8)"
  The noble Baroness said: The commencement order under Clause 8 is the only order under the Bill that will not require parliamentary scrutiny. As the Committee will know, commencement powers are not usually subject to any parliamentary procedure. The inclusion of the amendment removes the requirement for the commencement order to be subject to that process. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 37 had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 29A.]
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Child Death Review
  Baroness Blood
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the regional child death review arrangement in Northern Ireland has been completed; and on what date it is expected to be implemented. [HL2881]

  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is currently considering a draft of the child death review protocol produced by a group established under the auspices of the Southern Area Health and Social Services Board, Area Child Protection Committee. Departmental officials will shortly meet with stakeholders to decide the way forward.

  North/South Ministerial Council: Official Languages Act 2003
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  On what date the North/South Ministerial Secretariat became aware of the involvement of Cross-Border Implementation Bodies in the Republic of Ireland's Official Languages Act 2003; what action the secretariat took; and when; and [HL2947]

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 17 May (WA 53) concerning the Republic of Ireland's Official Languages Act 2003, whether there was any discussion between the North/South Ministerial Secretariat and the appropriate government departments and the Eire Government on the Act; if so, when such discussions took place; and what was their nature. [HL2948]

  Baroness Amos:
  The North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat became aware of the involvement of the North/South Implementation Bodies in the Official Languages Act 2003 on 29 May 2003.

  Following subsequent discussions between relevant officials, north and south, on a number of occasions, the secretariat facilitated a formal discussion on 19 March 2004 when it was agreed that a code of practice reflecting the legal and policy frameworks established in both jurisdictions on the use of Irish language and Ulster Scots would be prepared.

  I have nothing further to add to the Answer given on 6 May 2004 (WA 125) regarding discussions on the Official Languages Act 2003.

  Tourism Ireland
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What new initiatives Tourism Ireland has introduced since 19 November 2002. [HL3024]
  WA58
  Baroness Amos:
  None. Details of Tourism Ireland Ltd's planned activities for 2003 and 2004 appear in the company's published operating plans. The plans were approved by the North/South Ministerial Council and copies of these are available in the Library.

  Northern Ireland Tourism Awards
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How much the 2004 Northern Ireland Tourist Board awards cost to run; whether income was generated from these awards; and if there was a shortfall, how it was funded. [HL3268]

  Baroness Amos:
  The 2004 Northern Ireland Tourism Awards event was self-financing, with no shortfall in funding. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board incurred event management services fees of £9,870 plus VAT.

  Northern Ireland: Employer's Liability
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the 1972 Northern Ireland Order on Compensation (963 (NI 6)) applies to employees of Northern Ireland companies working outside Northern Ireland; and, if not, in what way those employees can be compensated for accidents if the relevant insurance company goes out of business. [HL3403)

  Baroness Amos:
  It is assumed that the question relates to the Employers Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (NI) Order 1972 published by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland. Guidance relating to that order states:
  "You do not need employer's liability insurance under Northern Ireland law to cover any of your employees who are based abroad (eg if they are on secondment). However, you should check whether the law in the country where they are based requires you to take out insurance or take any other measures to protect your employees.If any of your employees are normally based abroad but spend more than 14 days continuously in Northern Ireland, or more than seven days on an offshore installation, you will need employer's liability insurance under Northern Ireland law."
  An employee with a workplace-related claim under their employer's compulsory liability insurance or other insurance may be entitled to compensation under the financial services compensation scheme if their employer's insurer goes out of business.

  Northern Ireland: Education
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether in pursuance of the objectives of the Costello report on post-primary education in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office has

  WA59
  undertaken any infrastructural audit of current educational facilities outside the Greater Belfast area; if so, what that audit has indicated are:

  the estimated average hours per week that pupils and teachers will spend travelling between schools; and

  the estimated costs per annum of providing transport and supervisory support over the first 10 years of education; and when the audit will be made public. [HL3424]

  Baroness Amos:
  No such audit has taken place. Proposals for new post-primary arrangements, including arrangements for co-operation and collaboration among schools, will be developed locally and organised to minimise disruption to the school day, for example by use of e-learning and distance learning.

  European Union: Association Agreements
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether any record is made of the human rights matters discussed at meetings of association councils held pursuant to European Union association agreements; and how the Government decide whether breaches of human rights in the states concerned are sufficiently grave to justify invoking the penalties specified in the agreements. [HL3307]

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):
  Association councils comprise (i) a plenary session and (ii) a political dialogue between Ministers. Human rights issues are typically covered in the latter. The council secretariat produces a restricted note of these discussions.

  All association agreements contain a human right clause. This allows the European Union (EU) to take "appropriate measures", including suspendinq provisions in the agreement, if it considers that the third country is failing to meet its obligations under the agreement, including respect for fundamental rights. To date these clauses have not been invoked. However human rights are a core agenda item at many of the association councils. Equivalent articles in the Cotonou agreement have been invoked on a number of occasions.

  If the Government had concerns about the situation in a particular country, they would initiate discussion with partners in the relevant EU working group. These groups regularly consider the human rights records of third countries in relation to the human rights clause of association agreements. As a new initiative, human rights sub-committees are being established in relation to some third countries.

  Afghanistan: Electoral Registration
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What information the provisional reconstruction team in Afghanistan have about the number of citizens who have registered to vote in each of the provinces; and whether the registration process can be speeded up. [HL3311]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  The UK and other provincial reconstruction teams do not have any electoral responsibilities other than assisting in ensuring a secure environment in their area of operations. But according to the Afghanistan Joint Electoral Monitoring Body, as of 17 June, over 4 million Afghans had been registered to vote, of whom 35 per cent are women.

  The following is a regional breakdown for 14 June (we do not have precise information for 17 June):

  Central 1,155,982

  East 521,394

  North East 559,387

  South East 210,155

  Central Highlands 246,486

  North 398,848

  South 309,466

  West 537,317

  Phase I of voter registration, in Kabul and regional centres, has been completed and Phase II, designed to reach more rural areas, was launched on 1 May. The pace of registration is speeding up.

  The UK is committed to supporting the electoral process. Last year we contributed £10.55 million to support election registration. We have pledged a further £0.5 million for voter education and £2.77 million to support preparations for elections themselves.

  Mr Kenny Richey
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will submit an amicus curiae brief to the United States Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the application by Mr Kenny Richey, a British Citizen, on the lawfulness of his conviction and sentence for aggravated felony murder in 1987; and what other measures they will take to prevent Mr Richey being executed. [HL3338]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  We are following developments in Mr Richey's case closely and shall do all we properly can to try to prevent his execution. The Consul General in Chicago recently raised our interest in and concern about Mr Richey's case with the Governor of Ohio, Bob Taft. We shall continue to lobby the relevant US authorities, as and when appropriate.
  WA61
  Any request to submit an amicus brief in a particular case is very carefully considered. We are urgently exploring the most appropriate way to register HMG's concern about Mr Richey's case with the US authorities, and the possibility of filing an amicus curiae brief is being examined in this context.

  Dreams + Teams Programme
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether during 2003 and 2004 meetings have been initiated between the British Council, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Skills and UK Sport about the operation of the "Dreams + Teams" programme; and what is the status of the programme. [HL3352]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  Meetings have been held in both years between the British Council, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Skills and UK Sport, to share information on the international programme of each organisation. Dreams + Teams is active in over 30 countries, with involvement from governmental and non-governmental partners in those countries. The programme is a British Council programme which focuses on promoting education and school links through sport.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the budget for the British Council's "Dreams + Teams" programme; and what is the proposed level of funding for each of the partners. [HL3353]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  The British Council has a budget of approximately £300,000 for Dreams + Teams activities in over 30 countries. This is supplemented by contributions from both governmental and non-governmental partners in those countries.

  The British Council and the Youth Sport Trust jointly fund a post to co-ordinate the UK schools links element of the programme. The British Council pays Dreams + Teams tutor trainers via the Youth Sport Trust. In the past financial year, this amounted to some £35,000.

  There are no plans to increase the level of funding for any partners by the British Council. So far as we are aware, there are no plans for partners to increase their funding either.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many of the former residents of the Chagos Archipelago have resettled in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the United Kingdom respectively; and how many of each group have indicated that they would like to return to their original homes if they were allowed to do so. [HL3371]
  WA62
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  It is now more than 30 years since the last of the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago left the islands. There are no reliable figures for the numbers of them who are now living in Mauritius, Seychelles or the UK. However, there is a substantial community of persons in Mauritius who are either former residents of the Chagos islands or the descendants of such residents; and there are smaller such communities in Seychelles and the UK. There are no figures available for those members of these communities who have indicated that they would move to the Chagos Islands if they were allowed to do so.

  United States: Detainees
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 21 June (WA 98), what information they have received from the United States Government in the course of their regular exchanges concerning the numbers and locations of persons held outside the United States, given that such prisoners may lack protection from United States law and international humanitarian instruments. [HL3381]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  The Government do not disclose the details of their confidential exchanges with other governments.

  Brazil, Honduras and Guatemala: Children
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What action they have taken to urge the Governments of Brazil, Honduras and Guatemala to prosecute those responsible for the murder of street children: and [HL3389]

  What action they have taken to raise concerns with the Government of Brazil regarding the commercial sexual exploitation of children in that country; and [HL3390]

  What action they have taken to urge the Governments of Brazil and Honduras to make significant improvements in the living conditions of juvenile detainees. [HL3391]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  We have made clear to the Governments of Brazil, Honduras and Guatemala, bilaterally and with our European Union (EU) partners, the importance we attach to respect for human rights, including those of children. We closely monitor the progress being made by the authorities in these countries on this issue and, in particular, on bringing those responsible for the murders of street children to justice.
  WA63
  The chronic and well documented situation faced by street children in Brazil is a matter for concern and forms a regular part of our human rights dialogue with the Brazilian Government. The UK supports a number of practical projects in Brazil including human rights training for the Brazilian police and prison services; a small arms project in the slum areas of Rio de Janeiro, and work in Rio on giving people alternatives to involvement in violent and organised crime. While not exclusively focused on street children, these projects are relevant to many of the problems they face.

  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell) raised the plight of street children, and more generally the importance of protecting human rights, with the new Guatemalan Government during his visit there in January and with the Honduran Security Minister Oscar Alvarez during his visit to the UK in March. The UK and EU partners recently issued a statement at the consultative group meeting for Honduras in Tegucigalpa, which among other things, encouraged the Honduran Government to continue the progress made on improving human rights, making reference to the rights of children.

  The UK has also supported projects in Guatemala and Honduras to improve the conditions of and protect vulnerable children.

  European Union: Free Trade Agreements
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  With which non-European Union countries the European Union has free trade agreements; and, in each case, when the agreement entered into force. [HL3440]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  The European Union has an extensive network of free trade agreements (FTAs).

  The EU's longest-standing FTAs are those with the countries of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). The FTA with Switzerland dates back to 1972, and came into force on 1 January 1973. FTAs in goods with Norway and Iceland entered into force in 1973, 1 July and 1 April respectively. These last two countries, along with Liechtenstein, are now covered by the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which entered into force on 1 January 1974.

  As regards the EU's candidate countries, the customs union between the EU and Turkey came into effect on 1 January 1996. The pre-accession Europe agreements with Romania and Bulgaria came into force in February 1995, and liberalise over 95 per cent of each country's trade with the EU.

  A stabilisation and association agreement. including an FTA, with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia entered into force on 1 May 2004; the FTA element of the SAA with Croatia came into force provisionally on 1 January 2002 pending the
  WA64
  ratification of the full agreement. These render reciprocal the trade concessions granted to these three countries, as well as to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, by the autonomous trade concessions agreement of 2000.

  The EU also has association agreements, again including FTAs, with several Mediterranean countries, as part of its goal (through the Barcelona, or EuroMed, process) of the creation by 2010 of a free trade area covering the EU and Mediterranean partners. Such agreements have entered into force with Jordan (1 May 2002), Morocco (1 March 2000), Tunisia (1 March 1998), Israel (1 June 2000) and Egypt (1 June 2004). Interim FTAs with the PLO (for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority) came into force on 1 July 1997, and with Lebanon on 1 March 2003.

  In Latin America, an association agreement with Chile came into force on 1 February 2003 (on a provisional basis). The FTAs in goods and services established under the EU-Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Co-ordination and Cooperation Agreement came into force on 1 July 2000 and on 1 March 2001 respectively. A trade, development and co-operation agreement, also including an FTA, with South Africa entered into force provisionally on 1 January 2000.

  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  With which non-European Union countries the European Union is currently negotiating free trade agreements. [HL3441]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
  The European Union is currently in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA) with the Gulf Co-operation Council (comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). Association agreements, which include FTAs, are being negotiated with Syria and with Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay). A stablisation and association agreement, also including an FTA, is under negotiation with Albania.

  Economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries will replace the 2000 Cotonou agreement and institute FTAs with six sub-groupings. Negotiations have begun on EPAs with west Africa (the ECOWAS states—Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo—plus Mauretania), central Africa (the CEMAC states—Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon—plus Sao Tomé e Principe), eastern and southern Africa (the COMESA states—Angola, Burundi, Comoros, DR Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), and the Caribbean (the CARICOM countries—Antigua & Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St

  WA65
  Vincent & the Grenadines. Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago—plus the Dominican Republic). Negotiations with the SADC states and with the Pacific sub-group are due to begin later this year.

  Iraq: Human Rights
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether any legal or disciplinary measures have been taken against any members of the Armed Forces or other United Kingdom personnel or persons employed by contractors in Iraq for breaches of international human rights law or international humanitarian law; and, if so, whether they will publish the details of the measures taken. [HL2752]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach):
  No legal or disciplinary measures have been taken against any members of the United Kingdom Armed Forces in Iraq for breaches of international human rights law or international humanitarian law. UK Armed Forces personnel are subject to English criminal law wherever in the world they are deployed. Service personnel suspected of breaking the law are subject to Military Police investigation and due judicial process. We are not aware of any incidents in which UK MoD personnel or persons employed by firms contracted to the UK Government have allegedly committed a breach of human rights.

  Iraq: Interrogation Techniques
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the statement by the Lord Bach on 12 May (HL Deb, col. 377) that hooding has not been used in interrogation in Iraq, whether that statement is compatible with the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross of February 2004, and with the explanation of the hooding practice given by the Secretary of State for Transport on 14 May. [HL2870]

  Lord Bach:
  The Secretary of State for Transport was correct in saying that direction had been given in September 2003 that United Kingdom forces should cease hooding prisoners, despite this being legitimate in certain specific operational circumstances. The International Committee of the Red Cross report of February 2004 did not allege that UK interrogators had hooded prisoners during interrogations. My statement on 12 May was and remains correct. We are not aware of any incidents in which UK interrogators are alleged to have used hooding as an interrogation technique.

  Elections in London: Ballot Papers
  Lord Harris of Haringey
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What measures were taken by London Elects to pilot the ballot papers used in the recent London elections; and whether they are satisfied with the design of the ballot papers adopted. [HL3425]

  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker):
  London Elects did not pilot the ballot papers used. However, prior to the 2004 London elections, London Elects held extensive discussions on ballot paper design and how to provide voters with the information they needed to cast a valid vote. The groups consulted include the Electoral Reform Society, the Electoral Commission, Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) and representatives from the main political parties. The Greater London returning officer also took account of findings of the reviews of the 2000 Greater London Authority elections.

  Local Authority Building Control Departments
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are satisfied that local authority building control departments are complying with the statutory requirements to do no more than break even on the delivery of these services. [H L3426]

  Lord Rooker:
  No. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly Government carry out an annual monitoring exercise which has indicated that some local authority building control departments in England and Wales have been accruing what could be considered to be significant surpluses.

  Planning Guidance: Places of Worship
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will amend planning guidance to create a presumption in favour of the building of places of worship. [HL3468]

  Lord Rooker:
  Local planning authorities consider planning applications on their individual merits, on a case by case basis, and decide them in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning Policy Guidance Note 12, Development Plans, already advises that plans should make provision for places of worship.

  Northern Ireland: Senior Judiciary Selection Criteria
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Filkin on 15 June (WA 63) whether the criteria for the appointment of the senior judiciary in Northern

  WA67
  Ireland are the same as those in the rest of the United Kingdom; for how long the criteria have been applied in the different jurisdictions. [HL3436]

  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, (Lord Filkin):
  The criteria for appointment to the senior judiciary in Northern Ireland are the same as those used in England and Wales and have applied in both jurisdictions for a number of years.

  Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Filkin on 15 June (WA 63) whether he lay, judicial and legal professional members of the community in the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission will be reflective of the community in Northern Ireland by each category as well as a whole; and how the Lord Chancellor will achieve this for the commission as a whole when he has no control over the nomination of the judicial and legal professional members. [HL3437]

  Lord Filkin:
  I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave on 17 June 2004, (Official Report, col. WA 86).

  The statutory duty under Section 3(8) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 as amended is placed on all those making nominations and appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission.

  Elections: All-postal Ballots
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will consider allowing people in all-postal voting elections who so wish to cast their ballots at a polling station. [HL3467]

  Lord Filkin:
  Places at which people may complete their vote in private and deposit it in a ballot box are already a feature of all-postal ballots. The all-postal pilots which took place in June required at least one assistance and delivery point (ADP) to be set up in each local authority area, with additional points to be used where circumstances required it.

  The Government have confirmed that arrangements will be in place to ensure the provision of ADPs for the forthcoming referendums on regional government, also due to be run on an all-postal basis.

  Ofsted
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether all schools and further education colleges are inspected by Ofsted in respect of sexual health and education. [HL3509]
  WA68
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):
  This is a matter for Ofsted. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to my noble friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  Internet Access: Rural Areas
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How they propose to arrange for all rural dwellers to have manageable and affordable access to the Internet so that they can access the employment rights advice provided by the Department of Trade and Industry. [HL3475]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville):
  Internet access is available to all those who have a telephone line irrespective of location. An Ofcom survey at the end of 2003 showed that UK Internet prices are cheaper than all other countries for peak narrowband metered and unmetered services. For off-peak services UK prices are below average for both metered and unmetered services.

  However, some people cannot afford the cost of a computer to connect to the Internet and others actively choose not to invest in that equipment. Currently take-up of the Internet stands at 53 per cent of households. The option exists to visit one of the many People's Network Internet terminals in public library branches throughout the UK. The latest survey by Museums, Libraries and Archives shows the People's Network in England made 44 million Internet hours available last year, and 11.7 million user sessions were recorded.

  Endangered Species: Imports
  Lord Rotherwick
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many seizures of imports there have been under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Regulations in 2003; and how many of those seizures have resulted in prosecutions. [HL3415]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty):
  There were 411 seizures at import for the period in question.

  2003

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Weight of items seized (kg)

  Live animals and birds

  99

  2,925

  Parts and derivatives of endangered species

  144

  2,143

  Ivory

  33

  145

  Plants

  15

  2,044

  Other CITES listed species

  53

  18,972

  29

  73.5

  WA69

  2003

  Number of seizures

  Number of items seized

  Weight of items seized (kg)

  Preparations of oriental medicines that include parts of derivatives of endangered species

  20

  5,042,728

  18

  469.3

  None of the cases resulted in a prosecution.

  Common Land
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty' Government:

  Further to the announcement in July 2002 setting out proposals for future legislation on common land, when they plan to bring forward measures for removing wrongly registered land from local authority registers. [HL3471]

  Lord Whitty:
  The Government remain committed to bringing forward legislation on common land including measures to enable the deregistration o wrongly registered common land. We plan to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, but at this stage it is not possible to be more specific about the exact timing.

  Fuel Efficiency
  Lord Taylor of Warwick
  asked Her Majesty' Government:

  What assessment they have made of the fuel efficiency per passenger of:

  road transport;

  rail transport;

  air transport; and

  water transport. [HL3423]

  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  The fuel efficiency of alternative modes of transport is presented in tabular form below. The data come from the 2002 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI). Two data types are provided for ease of comparison, CO2 per passenger kilometre and kilo joules (kJ) per passenger kilometre, and are expressed using assumed load factors, not per seat.
  WA70

  Transport mode

  Load factor passengers/vehicle

  CO2 grams of CO2/passenger km

  Energy consumption kJ/passenger km

  Mopeds

  1.08

  75

  1,133

  Motorcycle

  94

  1,407

  Petrol cars

  1.56

  110

  1.653

  Diesel cars

  106

  1,535

  All cars average

  109

  1,634

  Buses (national)

  9

  76

  1,106

  Passenger rail (diesel)

  90

  41

  589

  Passenger rail (electric)

  56

  465

  Passenger rail (average UK electric and diesel)

  49

  524

  Air long haul

  approx. 300

  110

  1,614

  Air short haul

  approx. 100

  180

  2,640

  grams CO2/ship km

  kJ/ship km

  Marine—roll on roll off ferry

  See note

  83,000

  1,155,786

  The road transport factors are based on National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) estimates of CO2 emissions by vehicle type in 2002 and combined with road passenger kilometres taken from the 2002 Transport Statistics for Great Britain.

  Rail factors are also based on NAEI factors for diesel trains and power station emissions. These data were combined with Department of Trade and Industry data on electricity used for electric rail traction and the Department for Transport's statistics on rail passenger kilometres. AEA Technology provided estimates on the split between diesel and electric train kilometres.

  Air factors are taken from DETR's Company GHG Reporting Manual 1999. Please note that long-haul journeys refer to average journeys of 6,500 km and short-haul refers to journeys of around 500 km.

  There is no agreed methodology for allocating energy consumed between passengers and freight carried on water transport. The figures for water transport are for a roll-on-roll-off ferry expressed in grams CO2 and kJ per ship km, since many passenger ships carry both passengers and freight.

  Railways
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether privately owned train operating companies have a principal part to play in the future of United Kingdom railways. [HL3466]

  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  I refer the noble Lord to the Statement I repeated in the House on 19 January 2004 [Official Report, col. 858] which stated that the principle of public and private partnership is right for the railways and it will continue.

  BBC Online: Graf Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey):
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have today placed the independent review of BBC Online by Philip Graf in the Libraries of both Houses, together with a copy of the letter I have written to the chairman of the governors. The report is also available electronically on the department's website www.culture.gov.uk.

  In response to the review, I have asked the BBC to consider all of Philip Graf's recommendations, and to respond fully by the end of October 2004. I have asked that the governors' response include a redrafted version of BBC Online's remit and a statement of how the corporation intends to involve the independent sector along the lines set out by the report. I have not, at this stage, imposed any further conditions on BBC Online.

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
  I have made a statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1988 that, in my view, the provisions of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill are compatible with the convention rights. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Shatt Al Arab Incident
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach):
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 21 June a Royal Navy training team consisting of eight personnel and three small boats was detained by the Iranian authorities on the Shatt al Arab waterway near the southern extremity of the Al Faw peninsula. The team was conducting a routine boat movement from Umm Qasr to Basra. The initial assessment, reflected in statements by a British Army spokesman in Basra and the British Ambassador in Tehran, was that these Service personnel could have strayed into Iranian waters by mistake.

  Our first priority was for the safe return of the personnel. Discussions with the Iranian authorities secured the release of the eight on 25 June. They
  WS24
  were immediately returned to the Multi-National Division South-East, where they underwent a medical assessment and debriefing to establish their perspective of the incident. Since then, two of the team have returned home because their tour of duty has come to an end; another returned home today for medical reasons associated with the incident. The remainder of the team continues to work in Iraq.

  We are continuing with negotiations for the return of the boats and equipment. The deadline set for their return passed yesterday. The equipment consists of personal weapons, ammunition, radios and navigation equipment including echo sounders (to measure the depth of the water), global positioning systems (to identify exact position) and up-to-date maritime charts.

  I would like to reassure the House that British personnel are trained to observe the normal rules of maritime navigation and are issued with modern charts and equipment. This should be sufficient to prevent inadvertent digressions across the border and we are not aware of any previous allegations that the border has been violated.

  In recent more detailed debriefing the crews have said that they were operating inside the Iraqi border and were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters. Our assessment continues, and will be greatly assisted by the retrieval of navigational information in the global positioning system equipment carried by the crews. We are very concerned about the blindfolding of the men and have made representations about this to the Government of Iran. We have also made it clear that we do not expect a recurrence of this type of incident.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency: Key Targets 2004-05
  Lord Bach:
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The chief executive of DARA has been set the following key targets for financial year 2004–05.

  Key Target

  Details

  Target

  KT 1—Quality

  The measurement of

  Achieve fewer than

  attributable major

  15 attributable major

  customer concerns

  customer concerns

  received from

  annually, on average

  DARA's customers

  financial years

  2004–05 to 2006–07.

  KT2—Business

  The measurement of

  Achieve an annual

  Performance and

  DARA's return on

  return on capital

  Efficiency

  capital

  employed of at least

  employed(RoCE)

  3.5 per cent.

  KT3—Business

  The measurement of

  Achieve a closing

  Sustainability

  DARA's order book

  order book of at least

  cover:

  ꀃ200 million at the

  end of financial year

  2004–05, which

  includes at least

  ꀃ100 million to be

  deliverable.

  WS25

  KT4— Wider

  The measurement of

  Present a business

  Markets

  DARA's progress

  case to the

  towards wider

  Ministerial Advisory

  markets penetration.

  Board (MAB) for

  DARA's potential in

  the civil aerospace

  market, by end July

  2004. Then, by the

  end of financial year

  2004–05, to present a

  long-term business

  plan for significant

  growth in the

  proportion of

  revenue from non-

  MOD customers.

  KT5—Cost

  The measurement of

  To reduce total

  Reduction.

  DARA's reduction in

  DARA costs by at

  costs.

  least 5 per cent in

  real terms by the end

  of 2004–05.

  Defence Communications Services Agency: Key Targets 2004-05
  Lord Bach:
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the DCSA for financial year 2004–05 as follows:

  Title

  Details

  Target

  KT 1—Service

  The measurement of

  To meet an average

  Assurance

  the quantity and

  of 98 per cent for

  quality of the

  measured services

  agency's services

  against the

  delivered.

  performance targets

  agreed in agency

  CSAs.

  KT 2—Service

  The measurement of

  To commission an

  Fulfilment

  the delivery of all

  average of 96 per

  newly commissioned/

  cent of new service

  changes to agency

  requests on or before

  services.

  the dates agreed by

  customers with the

  DCSA.

  KT 3—Service

  The measurement of

  To achieve an

  Availability

  the availability of all

  average service

  operational services.

  availability of 98 per

  cent for all

  operational services.

  KT 4—Service

  The measurement of

  To achieve an

  Support

  the quality of the

  average 95 per cent

  agency/customer

  success rate against

  interface.

  agreed standards in

  response to demands

  on DCSA operator

  assistance centres

  (OACs) and helpdesk

  facilities.

  KT 5—Customer

  The measurement of

  To achieve a

  Satisfaction

  customer satisfaction

  customer confidence

  with customer

  index of 54.

  interface, delivery

  and support.

  WS26

  KT 6—Efficiency

  The measurement of

  To achieve an

  Measurement

  the reduction in the

  improvement in

  average unit cost of

  efficiency by

  output.

  reducing the average

  unit cost of output

  by 4 per cent.

  KT7—Project

  The measurement of

  To deliver new

  Management

  the agency's

  projects to time, cost

  effectiveness in

  and performance as

  managing major

  expressed at the

  complex projects.

  90 per cent

  confidence level to a

  tolerance of 9 per

  cent.

  Disposal Services Agency: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach:
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The agency was originally launched as the Disposal Sales Agency in October 1994 and was relaunched in November 2000 as the Disposal Services Agency. DSA provides a total disposal solution by acting as a broker and adding value through expert advice across the public sector. The agency operates very much in line with the Government's aim of more joined-up delivery. The chief executive of the agency has been set the following key targets for the financial year 2004–05:

  To achieve a disposal sales gross cash receipt of £20 million from sales of surplus government-owned equipment and stores. This figure reflects the planned surplus equipment disposal programme.

  To meet the key performance indicators agreed in the customer supplier agreement (CSA) with the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO).

  To ensure that the agency is at the standard or above the standard of the public sector benchmarking report for overall customer satisfaction.

  To secure £365,000 sales per person employed for commercial sales activities.

  To ensure that the e-Trade Exchange is operational in 2004–05 and that 30 per cent of eligible agency contractors use it.

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency: Key Targets 2004-05
  Lord Bach:
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Subsequent to a proposal by the agency's owner, the Second Sea Lord and Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command, I have today set the 2004–05 key targets for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency, as follows:

  To deliver RN personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations), to the required quality standard, within 5 per cent variance from the tasked requirement.

  WS27

  To deliver RM recruits to within 2 per cent variance from the tasked requirement.

  To maintain success rates of 95 per cent in career training (including targeted employment modules) and 97 per cent in examined pre-joining training.

  To maintain the trained strength of the Royal Naval Reserve at 2,120, pending review of the trained strength requirement.

  WS28

  To reduce the cost of the NRTA HQ overhead compared with the 2003–04 baseline figure.

  To achieve net benefits of £15.3 million in financial year 2004–05 from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Limited.

  To maintain performance in phase 2 and phase 3 training delivered to Army and Royal Air Force personnel, following establishment of the Defence College of Electro-Mechanical Engineering.