asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they are under an obligation by European law or European directives to grant European Union nationals access to posts in the United Kingdom Civil Service; and whether they have any plans to do so.

My Lords, the EC treaty guarantees to workers from each member state the right freely to reside and take up employment in other member states. In the United Kingdom, the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 and the European Economic Area Act 1993 had the effect of opening up Crown employment to nationals of the European economic area with the exception of those posts requiring special allegiance to the state, which are reserved for UK nationals.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Northern Ireland Office claims that EU legislation requires it to open up the latter posts, requiring special allegiance, to Irish nationals, as agreed at the recent meeting at St Andrews. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is small, with little interchange with the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has nevertheless maintained its ethos and integrity during difficult times. As it now faces a unique challenge in its future political masters, this is not the time for competition from a larger body which does not share the same ethos, particularly on political independence. Nor would such a change be consistent with the Good Friday agreement. Does the Minister not agree that the parachuting-in of Ministers with no organic connection with Northern Ireland society should not now be replaced by parachuting in similarly handicapped Permanent Secretaries with potentially conflicting interests?

My Lords, the Permanent Secretary, for one, would be a reserved post, so there would be no question of “parachuting in”. I recognise the implications for Northern Ireland. What is at stake for the British Civil Service, however, is the ability to tap into the pool of talent represented by those from other countries who have the right to live and work here, and increasing the availability of such people for posts in the Civil Service while recognising that certain posts and functions, such as the Security Service, will necessarily be reserved for British nationals.

My Lords, would it not be a serious mistake to isolate Northern Ireland from Civil Service developments elsewhere? I have always had my doubts about the advantages of the 1922 restrictions limiting access to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The people of Northern Ireland deserve, and are able to get, the best people for the best job, wherever they come from in the UK and the European Union.

My Lords, my noble friend is knowledgeable about Northern Ireland. He will recognise that that kind of thinking led the Prime Minister to say in October that he thought it timely that we regularised the rules on aliens seeking opportunities in the Civil Service, both in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That is why an Order in Council is being proposed, which will be subject to parliamentary consideration, to give effect to this.

My Lords, I recognise that there is broader issue for the British Civil Service as a whole, but does the Minister accept that we on these Benches welcome the open attitude of Her Majesty’s Government to recruiting to major Whitehall departments nationals from other EU member states, some of whom rise to quite senior positions? There is no question of mixed loyalties. Could not the same open principle be progressively applied to Northern Ireland? It is not just a question of southern Irish nationals, but others from elsewhere in the European Union. We read in the newspapers, for example, that some of the Catholics joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland are Polish.

My Lords, the Order in Council will apply to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. Individuals will be chosen on their merits and will be selected in accordance with the Civil Service rules on selection. We are conscious that 79,000 posts in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs out of 97,000 public service posts in the Civil Service are reserved. That does not make a great deal of sense when we need to fill the posts with people with the requisite talent and ability; and that is why the order is being introduced.

My Lords, the Minister has not said what examination successes those who are given these posts have to achieve prior to their engagement. I invite him to do so now.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that a massive number of skills are necessary across the Civil Service. At the highest level, the Civil Service examinations are regarded as among the most testing in the country, but at lower levels, different tests are applied. I assure the House that anyone who applies for a Civil Service post will be treated fairly, but he or she will get the post only if they merit it.

My Lords, should we not pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, for his enormous contribution to trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland? Is it not a great shame that he was not there to see his efforts come to full fruition? While we are doing that, can we not find it within our hearts to praise the Prime Minister for keeping at this most difficult of tasks?

My Lords, I shall resist the second invitation, but the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, stands on the record.

My Lords, do Her Majesty’s Government think that the British people would have voted in 1975 to remain in what they were assured was a common market if they had known that they were voting for this sort of arrangement?

My Lords, this sort of arrangement obtains in France. Does the noble Lord think that the French are any less jealous of their position or any less nationalistic than the British?

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What view they are taking in the Council of Ministers concerning the proposal by Commissioner Reding to reduce the costs of mobile phone calls across European borders.

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have supported the European Commission’s objective of reducing the cost of international mobile roaming phone calls for consumers in Europe. In order to ensure that this objective is achieved, we have worked closely with the European Commission, other member states and the European Parliament. Our aim is to achieve a solution that is beneficial for consumers, will maintain competition and innovation in this important sector, and is practical to implement. We have received considerable support and co-operation from other member states in working towards this goal and look forward to that continuing. We think that an agreement on the regulation is possible before the summer.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he will be well aware, a handful of operators have great power in the European mobile telephone market. Like many other noble Lords who have made calls abroad or called home from abroad, I have been astounded by some of the extortionate charges that appeared on my bill the next month. Do the Government really intend to back this legislative instrument laid down by the Commission, or is the intention to dilute its present form?

My Lords, we support the development of this regulation and hope, as I said, to have agreement by June. The proposals, which we support, are anticipated to cut the cost of mobile roaming calls by about 40 to 60 per cent. We are proposing a package that includes a wholesale cap on prices, a consumer protection tariff and an average retail target.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the rapid expansion of low-cost Voice over Internet Protocol services will automatically force phone companies to reduce costs because they are provided free over the internet using both computers and, increasingly, mobile phones? Without any interference from the EU, that will happen.

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Those sorts of competitive pressures will bring down prices in this market, and telephony technology is developing very rapidly.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House has just begun an inquiry into mobile phone international charges and hopes to report before Easter? Will he therefore talk to the business managers and seek to ensure that there is a debate in this House before the European Parliament votes? That is not normally the situation with debates on Select Committee reports, which normally occur after the horse has bolted.

My Lords, I believe that this is an issue for the usual channels. I will certainly bear in mind the noble Lord’s suggestion.

My Lords, I declare an interest in the same inquiry and the same sub-committee. Will the Minister renew the Government’s congratulations to the European Commission? After it announced this investigation into roaming charges, three companies are abolishing the charges and two more are substantially reducing them. The Commission has now announced a drive against excessive bank charges on cards and accounts and to ordinary customers. Will the Government act in the same way with the Commission on the bank inquiry as well?

My Lords, we welcome the action which the Commission is taking to bring down prices for consumers in all fields.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a 40 to 60 per cent reduction in charges is much too little? My last bill was £7.50 for downloading just 1 megabyte, which is nothing these days. Surely the Government need to do much more to get charges down to a competitive rate.

My Lords, that is what we are currently discussing in negotiating the reductions. We need to ensure that the industry remains competitive, and there is a wide range of tariffs to give consumers a choice, but of course we want to achieve the best result we can.

My Lords, on a day on which Mr Sarkozy is campaigning for the French elections among 300,000 French citizens and voters in London, and when we already have perhaps the same number of British citizens living or owning homes in France, is it not time to pay much more attention to reducing the cost of all these types of cross-border transactions?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. That is why we are supporting this regulation and negotiating to achieve a good result for consumers not only in the UK but across the European Union.

My Lords, my GP recently gave me her private telephone number and I rang it to ask for some sleeping pills. Her reply was, “I am in Cairo”. Who will pay for that call?

My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Baroness that you both will.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they have made a recent assessment of the implementation of Section 295 and Schedule 23 (“Road user charging”) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

My Lords, implementation of the central London congestion charging scheme, including any extension to the scheme, and associated monitoring are matters for Transport for London and the mayor. The department continues to monitor with interest the impact of the scheme and its development.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree—following the departmental scrutiny to which he referred, I hope that he does—that one aspect of the congestion charge remains unjust? That is the arrangement by which those of us who pay in advance and then for perfectly good reasons sometimes do not enter the congestion charge area have no means of getting a refund or even of transferring the payment to another day. Some people, especially those who pay weekly in advance, suffer seriously from that difficulty. Will the Minister draw that matter to the attention of the mayor?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that it is the mayor's responsibility. Of course I undertake to draw his comments to the attention of the mayor's office.

My Lords, has any progress been made in recovering payment from the embassies in London that have so far declined to pay, in particular the United States?

My Lords, the noble Lord anticipates my answer. It is, rightly, a matter for the mayor, but I shall make certain inquiries.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Transport for London has already said that congestion will increase with the increase in the zone and that there will not be adequate recompense from the extension to the congestion zone? In view of that, what is the Minister's view of road pricing in general and specifically in central London?

My Lords, I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness's comments on the impact of the western extension. The data presented to us suggest that congestion in the area will fall by about 15 to 20 per cent and that traffic will be reduced by about 13 to 17 per cent, so there will be the beneficial impact of reduced CO₂ emissions, particulate emissions and nitrous oxide emissions. On those grounds, the scheme is clearly beneficial. I do not accept at all the noble Baroness's presumptions.

My Lords, what progress are the Government making generally on road pricing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred, and, in particular, lorry use charging, especially for foreign lorries, which pay nothing to use our roads? The state of repair of those lorries is awful. The latest VOSA report shows that 42.7 per cent of lorries with trailers stopped by VOSA were unroadworthy. That scandal should be tackled.

My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Lord’s concern; the department is giving it close attention. The noble Lord followed up what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said about national road pricing schemes. We continue to monitor how congestion charging is working. We believe that a national road pricing scheme would be a very significant move forward, but we gain valuable practical experience from local schemes and want to continue monitoring those before we make any further policy developments in that area.

My Lords, as Mr Livingstone has ignored the representations made by Wandsworth Borough Council about the added congestion, the great inconvenience and serious environmental damage that will be caused as traffic from the west is forced to travel several extra miles to cross the river at Chelsea Bridge, have the Government any powers to intervene to prevent that and many other wholly avoidable consequences of an ill thought-out scheme?

My Lords, I know that the party opposite takes exception to the development of congestion charging. It made lots of allegations about the potential impact when the scheme was introduced back in 2003. Many of those attacks have not been found to be absolutely accurate. We think that the scheme is working extremely well and look forward to watching carefully how the extension works.

My Lords, one of the benefits of the congestion charge has been a massive increase in the number of cyclists on the road, which has major environmental benefits. The Department for Transport seems lacking in its promotion of things to do with bicycles, although Transport for London has done a great deal of work. What are the Government doing to educate the Department for Transport in the benefits of bicycling?

My Lords, I thought it was now a given that people were very keen to get on their bike and travel in central London. The Leader of the Opposition is very keen on cycling, as are we. I like cycling; lots of people cycle in Brighton. So, yes, we are very enthusiastic about cycling; we are pleased to see that it is more widespread.

My Lords, did the Minister see the No. 10 website this morning and the number of people who have signed the petition against road pricing, which now stands at 610,000? Will the Government take some notice of that petition, and if not, why not?

My Lords, I look at the No. 10 website from time to time. I always find it an instructive, learning experience. I am aware of the petition to which the noble Lord has referred, but I think we have to look at the bigger picture. Clearly there have been many benefits, not least the increased use of public transport and a reduction in pollution in central London as a result of congestion charging. As I said, we shall continue to monitor and support the scheme as it is.

My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the point made by my noble friend Lady Hanham. The Government announced earlier that they would introduce an enabling Bill on road charging, which somehow seems to have got lost. The Minister might like to comment on that. Surely if they did have such a Bill, it might be better to abandon congestion charging in London and go ahead with road charging, which would levy variable charges in various parts. As the Government are so keen on those charges for London, it would be better to have variable charging according to congestion in that area. Perhaps the Minister could comment properly rather than give an evasive answer.

My Lords, I have not been evasive; I have tried to provide as much policy information as possible. Clearly we have a policy disagreement here. The noble Lord and his party dislike the congestion charge. We think it is working well, and we continue to support the mayor and his efforts.

My Lords, when my noble friend is next in conversation with the Mayor of London, which clearly he needs to be as a result of this exchange, could he ask him how many people will become exempt from paying the congestion charge as a result of the extension of the congestion charge area? It would also be very interesting to know, although I doubt the information is available, how many of those people drive the so-called Chelsea tractors.

My Lords, I should be very happy to make those inquiries.

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, could we have more cycle lanes and better policing of cyclists who break the law and behave anti-socially?

My Lords, this is an important issue. I support cycle lanes, as do the Government, and the noble Lord is right to draw attention to enforcement issues.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is the legal basis on which increased rates of air passenger duty will apply from 1 February 2007.

My Lords, the rate changes will be enacted in the Finance Bill in the normal way and will have the full force of the law. The way in which the Government have announced and implemented the change is in line with parliamentary conventions.

My Lords, we have counsel’s opinion that, unless and until Parliament actually approves the air passenger duty increases retrospectively, there is no obligation on the airlines to pay. It is therefore unsurprising that passengers are confused about whether they will have to pay the extra tax if the airlines ask for it. Will the Minister give clear advice from the Government to airline passengers when they turn up to fly from Thursday morning onwards? Should they pay the tax or not?

My Lords, it is the airlines which will pay the tax. They must decide whether to absorb the tax or to charge passengers. Is the requirement legal? Of course it is. Anti-avoidance measures that deal with illegality generally follow this form—namely, there is an announcement with immediate effect—otherwise they would not be effective. Other measures similar to the airline passenger duty have also been announced. Last year, the oil companies were subject to an additional tax in exactly the measure applied to the airlines.

My Lords, is it the Government’s intention that the tax should raise revenue or reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of flights, and which does my noble friend expect to be more successful?

My Lords, my noble friend is well versed on taxation and will recognise that it can produce a dual benefit. It can increase resources for deployment on public transport and other environmentally worthy measures. It can also reduce demand because of the price increase. We estimate that by 2010, 0.75 million tonnes of carbon per year will have been reduced through the air passenger duty.

My Lords, to what will the revenues be devoted? Will all the money collected from the airlines go into the Treasury’s exchequer for general use or will it have a definite environmental purpose?

My Lords, this Government intend, as one of their crucial strategies for dealing with climate change, to increase the use of public transport. We will invest the resources available from APD in environmental measures and in increasing public transport. In the three years since 2004, we have increased in real terms expenditure on public transport by 4.5 per cent.

My Lords, is not the test of the worth of the opinion referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, really whether an airline is prepared to push the matter in the courts?

My Lords, as I indicated, it is the airlines which are legally obliged to pay the tax. We are aware that the airlines have been concerned about how the tax has been imposed, but I have not yet heard any airline suggest that it would test the matter in court. If any did, there are precedents against it.

My Lords, the Minister has just stated that this tax will reduce the amount of carbon emitted by airlines, but this is on the same day that the second runway has been announced at Stansted. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy seems to be to raise revenue for this, but at the same time to increase the number of flights over British airspace?

My Lords, of course we have to strike a balance between our environmental objectives.

Oh!

My Lords, we have to strike a balance. I hear the Liberal Democrats laughing, but do they take seriously this proposition? We have to strike a balance between the necessary growth of the economy and the wishes of the people regarding aviation. There must be a balance between that and pursuing measures which guarantee that Britain fulfils its role in reducing areas of climate change and carbon emissions. The Government are on a strategy to do that. We can certainly see an increase in aviation, which, the noble Lord will understand, makes a very small contribution to emissions: 2.5 per cent of our total emissions. I would expect the Liberal Democrats to recognise that that is relatively small compared with other aspects that we have to tackle. We have to strike a balance between that and the needs of the economy.

My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to almost answer my question. Instead of making the airlines a whipping boy, would it not be more sensible to tackle the real causes of CO₂, which are carbon fuels, and to try increasingly to make this, like France, an all-electric country? We could have electric trains, and electric heating and lighting, for which we have the technology already. If we were to go nuclear we could reduce CO₂ emissions by so much that we would not have to restrict the cheapest and best form of travel of the 21st century by overregulation. There are better ways of tackling climate change than just fiddling on the periphery.

My Lords, tackling aviation is not fiddling on the periphery because aviation emissions are set to increase unless the expansion of air travel is moderated. Of course, air passenger duty will play a small part in that. I agree with the noble Lord that there are other areas vastly more important than aviation, which is why the Government are committed to pursuing strategies that deal with the big sources of emission.

My Lords, I do not disagree with the principle of increasing air passenger duty as a contribution to controlling climate change, but has my noble friend any comment to offer about the letter a number of Members of the House have received from the Association of Independent Tour Operators pointing out that, while the airlines are able to impose a surcharge to meet the increased duty, tour operators are bound by the European Union package travel directive and effectively prevented from doing so? As a result, they are being discriminated against. I declare an interest as the chairman of a consultancy that advises the travel industry.

My Lords, we recognise that there are some difficulties for the tourist industry as a consequence of the tax. British Airways, for example, is absorbing the tax and thus putting itself in the same position as tour operators. For most travel within Europe, which constitutes the vast bulk of travel affected by the tax, the sums involved will not be massive. However, my noble friend has articulated the need to deal with climate change and will recognise that, while the tax is marginal to that, it is nevertheless a contributory factor and sends a signal to people.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, a Statement will be repeated later today. My noble friend Lord Davies will be on his feet again to repeat a Statement on the Casino Advisory Panel report. The Statement will be taken at a convenient time after 5 pm.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for at least listening to the arguments that my noble friend Lord O’Neill and I put forward in Grand Committee. I am advised that the amendments go at least three-quarters of the way towards what the Welsh Consumer Council wanted. I am informed by my noble friend Lord O’Neill that the Scots take the same view.

I have a slight problem with the proposed new subsection (3A) in Amendment No. 1. This allows the national council to impose restrictions or conditions on the exercise of a function by a territorial committee by virtue of subsection (3A). In other words, the national council can at any time more or less pull the plug. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when he winds up, will explore with us exactly what that means.

My Lords, I was not able to take part in the proceedings so far on the Bill but I have read them with interest. The Minister has virtually rewritten this part of the Bill. Why on earth did the Government pay so little attention to the requirements of devolution that they did not do a lot of this in the first place? It seems to be an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time. Nevertheless, it is excellent that he has listened to the arguments and I am sure that everyone will be grateful for it.

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, in line with the noble Baroness’s comments, there is more joy in this House for one sinner that repenteth. I was worried initially about the clauses on devolution but the discussions the department has had with Welsh and Scottish interests in the mean time have led to a very good solution which largely reflects the practice that has been conducted, informally and without statutory basis, by the National Consumer Council and its Welsh and Scottish counterparts over the past few years. In that sense, the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Williams may be slightly exaggerated. In practice, this reflects how the Welsh council operates now and how an expanded body would operate in the future. It is a very successful conclusion of this part of the Bill.

My Lords, the correspondence I have had with the Scottish Consumer Council representatives “as is” tends to suggest that they are very happy with the outcome of these discussions. It is to the Minister’s credit that he took on board the anxieties of a number of us and the consumer councils in Scotland and Wales. They will now be able to operate effectively with the devolved Assembly and Parliament. How successful these things are will depend on experience, but the constructive approach adopted by the Minister is certainly giving the proposal a fair wind. My colleagues in Scotland are sympathetic to his intentions and objectives.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord O’Neill for their kind words and to my noble friend Lord Williams for his conditional kind words, saying that we have gone a long way to meeting the points he raised in Committee.

New subsection (3A), which my noble friend Lord Williams mentioned, is about co-ordinating issues and consumer representation that transcend national boundaries. There is no attempt to rule from the centre, as it were. Individual councils will have the full role that is intended in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the department has been in contact with the consumer councils in Scotland and Wales, and they have supported these amendments fully.

To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, we have moved on these points, but then that just shows that Members of the Grand Committee were doing their job. They made their points; we took them on board and brought forward these amendments as a result.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:

moved Amendment No. 4:

My Lords, I question the usefulness and desirability of the amendment. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Opposition have brought it forward again on Report in more or less the same form as it was in Grand Committee. When the amendment was moved in Grand Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, she said, as did the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, today, that it was intended to ensure that sole traders and small businesses are considered consumers for the purposes of the National Consumer Council. However, even at a glance, it can be seen that the amendment is not confined to sole traders and small businesses; it is wide enough to cover the largest of corporations, whether they are ICI or Tesco, buying things for their own business.

I am surprised that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, which today includes the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is a distinguished former chairman of the NCC, consider that the National Consumer Council should spend any of its time looking after the interests of our major corporations, which are surely well capable of looking after themselves through their adequate legal staff and so on. I wonder whether their intention to assist small businesses and sole traders is helpfully improved by the broad wording of the amendment.

Clause 2 defines “consumer” as,

“a person who purchases, uses or receives, in Great Britain, goods or services”.

We all know that in law a “person” includes bodies corporate or corporate persons so, whether a small business is a partnership or incorporated as a company, it is a consumer when it purchases goods. The disadvantage of the amendment is that including especially words to demonstrate that businesses are consumers as well would encourage the National Consumer Council to consider their needs in buying goods and services as at least equal to those of the man or woman in the street purchasing goods in all the manifold ways available to us. That is not an appropriate function for the NCC.

Many small businesses, although they are far less able to help themselves than a major corporation, belong to trade associations. One very often hears them talking on the radio and elsewhere on the interests of small businesses, whereas the ordinary man or woman in the street does not have, as an ordinary consumer, any such trade association except for any voluntary bodies that they may join, such as Which?, the Consumers’ Association or the National Consumer Council.

This is an unnecessary and undesirable amendment, and I hope that it is not pursued to a Division.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a sole trader and member of the Federation of Small Businesses. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for raising this point, although we have not added our names to the amendment, for some of the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, such as reservations about the size of the business and so on.

Between Committee and Report a problem I have had as a sole trader has arisen—quite fortuitously, in the light of this debate, as it has put into sharp focus the sort of problems that occur. Over a year ago I started my small business, and it took a year for the electricity supplier to resolve who was the electricity supplier, because although we had applied very clearly to a supplier, the bill had not been switched to our account. When we finally got a bill after 14 months, it was large enough to put a business under.

The Federation of Small Businesses is very helpful in such situations in giving advice across the board, but how the NCC will work with such organisations is crucial. Very small businesses are as vulnerable as individual consumers. Very often, a sole person working in a business is pushed for time to sort out such thorny problems. The noble Lord has raised an important issue, and it would be useful if the Minister could explain how he envisages the provisions working for smaller businesses.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for affording us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for his expert analysis. I shall refer later to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I am mindful of the significant expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in this field, as a former chair of the National Consumer Council, and I shall try to address the issues that she raised, to which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley referred.

The amendment affords me the opening to explain the scope of the role of the new council in representing consumers’ interests. There will be no inherent constraints on the consumers which the new council may represent. I believe that it is essential that the council should have the opportunity to prioritise its work according to consumer detriment, while taking into account the important functions which we have set out in the Bill, for example on vulnerable consumers. The council will need to consider carefully where it can best utilise its resources in aid of the consumer and how its expertise can be deployed in their best interests.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support. She makes precisely the point that we are concerned about. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his intervention. Interestingly, he seemed to say, on the one hand, that “person” included bodies corporate, but on the other hand, that they should not have as much entitlement to the services of the NCC as individuals. I found that confusing. As he will be well aware—I specifically asked about this—we are trying to encourage the Government to clarify that, unlike in other legislation, sole traders and small businesses are covered.

The amendment is not perfect. Defining small businesses is not straightforward. We shall take it away and consider it in the light of the Minister’s response, which was delivered at some speed. We need to absorb that and consider whether we want to bring the amendment back in some form at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [“Designated consumers”]:

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for tabling the amendment and enabling us to discuss this issue once again. Clause 3 defines “designated consumers” as consumers of mains electricity and mains gas and postal services, and provides for the future addition of water consumers in England and Wales to that category of consumers. The clause also provides powers for the Secretary of State to remove classes of consumers from the “designated consumers” category.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order designating water consumers as designated consumers from the beginning, although we have said that we will consult in 2008 on whether to extend the Bill’s provisions to water. The second effect of the amendment would appear to be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to remove some designated consumers from the list in subsection (1), but the amendment does not say in which way and when that duty must be exercised. It is difficult to discern the intention behind the effect of the amendment on subsection (2)(b), despite the points made by the noble Baroness.

The powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 3 permit the possibility of incorporating the water sector in England and Wales in these new arrangements at some point in the future. We wish to retain that flexibility, although I accept that some noble Lords have expressed firm views that the water sector ought to be included from the beginning. The decision to consult in 2008 on whether to include water was taken following the public consultation. The circumstances under which consumers would cease to be designated depend entirely on the market. It would need to be clear that designation was no longer required, after consultation with the council, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and others.

My Lords, what did the Minister mean by “depends on the market”? I do not understand that; perhaps I might do so if he repeated it.

My Lords, the question was: under what circumstances would consumers cease to be designated? The response was that that would depend entirely on the market. It would need to be clear that designation was no longer required, and after consultation with the council, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and others my understanding is that particular groups of consumers are designated as such because of the incorporation of, for example, Energywatch and Postwatch. Were the situation to change, if other groups came in or left, the group of consumers designated by the Bill would, by its nature, change.

My Lords, I remain completely dense about all of this. Does the use of “market” mean a group of designated consumers, or is it the marketplace?

My Lords, I am referring to consumers not suffering particular problems. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, on the issue. If I may continue to clarify that point, the concept of “designated consumers” permits the new council to undertake specific functions in respect of consumers of regulated utilities covered by the Bill and to provide continuity from the current sectoral arrangements for representation.

My Lords, my amendment was merely a means of exploring the problem further. I am glad that I tabled it, because the issue needs to be addressed. I am not sure that I am happy with the clarity of the Minister’s reply, because the three sectors concerned here—energy, postal services and water—are among the most volatile issues for consumers. The situation, certainly regarding energy and water, is unlikely to get any calmer in the foreseeable future. There would be very great concerns about water.

The Minister could perhaps bring back something more definite at Third Reading regarding the Government’s proposals for when the Secretary of State might remove the designation. If the Minister chose not to do that, I would flag it up for colleagues in another place to explore in much greater depth, because the Bill is asking people to give up their representative bodies on the basis that they will be better represented by this new overarching body, without knowing exactly what that means for designation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Forward work programmes]:

moved Amendment No. 6:

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord does not wish to push this issue to a vote. I see the force of his arguments, but I disagree with them. The financial planning afforded by three years is sensible but, when we are dealing with consumer matters, long-term issues can easily be incorporated in an annual forecast of activities. Therefore, I do not think that only if you have a three-year plan will you be able to look beyond the horizon.

Let us take two of the areas for which the National Consumer Council will be responsible under the Bill: energy and postal services. It would have been most unhelpful if, over the past two and half years, a consumer council for energy had not had to indicate what it wanted to do for the 12 months ahead, given that we had energy prices of such volatility and given the difficulties that confronted the regulator, the consumer and, indeed, Parliament. Where you have rapid change, as we have had of late in the energy markets, it would be foolhardy not to do that. People would ask, “Why should the consumer council be looking into this? After all, it wasn’t in the three-year plan”.

This is not an area of disagreement. We assume that, when the Bill is enacted, one of the major responsibilities of the National Consumer Council will be the protection of the postal consumer at a time when the market is opening. We know from the 1990s, when gas and electricity markets were liberalised, that problems arose that we had not anticipated. If, in those days, the old consumer councils had said, “We’d like to look at that, but we’ve committed resource to other worthy causes”, there would have been a lack of flexibility. This is about the actions of the council and its freedom to operate. I think that, as the Bill stands, there is plenty of scope for longer-term planning within the documents and that the amendment would unduly tie the council’s hands.

One thing that has not been taken account of and which we have to recognise is that, after the Bill is enacted, the National Consumer Council will, I imagine, be of far more interest to whatever committee is responsible for it in the House of Commons. As someone who chaired the Trade and Industry Committee for a number of years, I have to say that we perhaps did not pay as much attention to the National Consumer Council as we might have done, although we paid plenty of attention to Energywatch and Postwatch. It would be of great assistance to our colleagues elsewhere—where a Select Committee looks at this area of operation, affording a degree of parliamentary accountability—to be able to meet the council annually to discuss the work programme. That would allow the council to accommodate the views of the other House. I think that, although the amendment is well intentioned, it is fundamentally flawed, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not push it to a vote. I am in favour of three-year financing but I am not necessarily in favour of over-prescriptive three-year plans, which could well be inflexible.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, on this but not because I think that my noble friend is wrong. The turgid language in the Bill is not clear. I think—I should like the Minister to confirm or deny this—that what is envisaged is a three, four or five-year plan and, within that, a financial report on where the council expects to be each year. It will say at the end of each year how it is moving towards ensuring that the plan ultimately works out.

As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, pointed out, things can change drastically in a market. If the council cannot react because the sums are not there, surely, under the terms of best business practice, it should say that the three-year plan has been put off course due to whatever reason and that therefore, for this year, it needs to do this and, for next year, it needs to do that.

The wording in the Bill makes the reporting process appear highly complicated. I hope that my noble friend does not feel that I have taken his amendment in the wrong way, but I think that the Bill is probably set out as it is—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—to ensure that a big hole does not appear in year one of a three-year plan without anyone knowing about it and without it being addressed until the three-year plan is reported on. I think that the provision is probably common sense.

My Lords, I largely agree with my noble friend Lord O’Neill and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, but there is another dimension to this. I do not think that the new NCC, any more than its three predecessor organisations, would have any difficulty in preparing annual work plans. Those organisations do them now and they have a corporate plan along the lines set out just now by the noble Baroness. So I do not think that planning is the issue, but the finances could be.

In particular, we have to bear in mind that this is not simply a question of a grant in aid from the DTI in the normal sense of general taxation, but of levies on designated consumers, which a large part of Clause 4 deals with. It is important not only that the new NCC knows what it has more than a year ahead, barring accidents, but also that the regulated industries know what they are expected to pay for those three years ahead. So it is sensible to deal with the finances on a three-year basis from that point of view, as well as from the point of view of general security of outlook. But, so far as concerns the planning, the wording of the Bill is perfectly okay.

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords. With regard to annual reports and forward work programmes, the idea is that the plan might be done for three years but it is a rolling programme. I think that that meets the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain.

The amendment would require the new council to publish a forward work programme only once every three years. We believe that the publication of an annual forward work programme strikes a good balance with the requirement to prepare an annual report in line with financial years, as I mentioned. That is the basis of the provisions as drafted. This requirement replicates the current requirement on both Energywatch and Postwatch to produce a forward work programme annually. It is also consistent with the requirement to produce an annual forward work programme on the sectoral regulators, Ofgem and Postcomm, respectively.

The publication of an annual forward work programme, on which the council must consult, ensures that the proposed activities of the council are transparent and that it can be held to account for those activities. That is particularly important given that some of the new council’s funding will come from industry. Additionally, the consultation allows it to obtain the views of key stakeholders in determining its priorities and the activities it undertakes to achieve them.

I recognise that an organisation has to spend time and effort on preparing a forward work programme, but it is time and effort well spent. The forward work programme is the means by which the new council can set out a programme for consumer advocacy, set out its aims and priorities, and—because this is also important—set out its funding requirement. The Bill requires the forward work programme to cover the year ahead, but in many cases organisations are understandably keen to set out a programme covering a longer period, perhaps three or more years ahead. That enables the organisation to take a longer-term view, and by updating and renewing that vision each year, new and urgent priorities can be taken into account. Those points were made by my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan.

The forward work programme is in many ways the showcase for an organisation. It is a statement of intent, certainly, but, more than that, it is a demonstration of ambition to make a difference and a statement of willingness to be held accountable for that ambition.

My Lords, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain and the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan and Lord Whitty, for their contributions. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity of this debate; it has been useful and flushed out some helpful information, especially on budgeting. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 [General provision about functions]:

My Lords, if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 8.

moved Amendment No. 7:

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for moving somewhat on my Amendment No. 8. We have tabled an amendment of our own to highlight that the Government could move further. I doubt that the NCC feels that the government amendment gives enough emphasis to the extreme importance of the sustainability duties.

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present on the second day of Committee stage. I hoped that we would reach my amendment, Amendment No. 100, on the first day, but that was not possible, and on the second day I was speaking at a conference in Nottingham.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly raised the issue of sustainability. As the Minister knows, Natural England was recently set up. For me, there is a question about where the responsibilities will lie. The new National Consumer Council will deal with complaints, but how much additional responsibility might it have for looking at sustainability? Will it make any judgments on sustainability, or will it look to Natural England to develop those policies and then react? While the NCC is being set up now, Natural England was launched only last October, so it is still in the early stages of its remit. On a later amendment I shall take up, in particular, the position of the Commission for Rural Communities and how it has not responded on behalf of post offices. Where does responsibility for sustainability lie? What interplay will there be between the organisations? Will one body deal just with complaints while the other deals with issues on a daily basis and looks at long-term sustainability?

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, when speaking to the two amendments, asked what was the Government’s intention. Amendment No. 7, in my name, would ensure that the council exercised its functions, including the core functions in Clauses 7 to 9, in a manner that it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. We think that our amendment strengthens the clause. The term “functions” is used, as it is consistent with the drafting in the rest of the Bill and covers powers and duties.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the functions of the NCC. The council is subject to challenge if its functions are not carried out. My advice is that the council is also accountable through its annual report. I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify the point further.

On Question, amendment, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Annual report]:

moved Amendment No. 9:

My Lords, Amendment No. 9 would add to the obligations on the council in respect of the annual report by requiring it to include details of the most frequent complaints from consumers about post and energy for the year. It would also require the new NCC to include in the report any recommendations to regulated energy and post companies to change their practices.

I certainly agree with the objective of the amendment. I share the ambition of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that the council should be vigilant and active in the pursuit of opportunities to increase the transparency of the relevant markets by drawing attention to the sort of problems encountered by consumers. I am also very supportive of the ambition that the council should be a positive force for change and should be able to make recommendations to companies that would improve their performance to the benefit of consumers—that is also a clear benefit to the companies. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has previously made the powerful and compelling observation that complaints are important to companies because they help them to improve their performance and develop their businesses. I support that view wholeheartedly.

Clause 9 provides the council with a general information function, which allows it to facilitate information provision to consumers, and Clause 44 obligates the council to publish information on the levels of compliance by an energy or postal services company with any complaint-handling standards set by a regulator.

I hope that there is general agreement that the new statutory functions conferred by the Bill will provide the council with every opportunity to pursue the objectives set out in the amendment. As I said, I endorse the objectives of the amendment. However, although the council may very well include such information in its annual report if it considers that appropriate, it should not be obliged to do so, because that might not be the most appropriate way to provide consumers with information on complaints or on its recommendations to regulated post and energy companies on their practices.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that, on balance, we should leave it to the council to decide how best to bring such information to the attention of consumers.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and his supportive words agreeing with the objective of the amendment. I am not entirely sure that I agree with him but, having every confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [The representative function]:

moved Amendment No. 10:

My Lords, I understand clearly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the council should be required to fulfil its functions as provided by the Bill. There is no real difference between us on that point, but the amendment would remove the council’s discretion in exercising its key functions. The council would be required to make representations to government and others, to undertake research, to facilitate the provision of information and advice to consumers, and to use its general powers of investigation. The council already has the flexibility to do all or any of these things, but it is not possible under the Bill to require it to do any particular thing without defining precisely what must be done and when. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.

I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge that the Bill’s key purpose is to provide better and even more effective consumer representation to create a new body with important functions that go beyond those undertaken by the current National Consumer Council. The question is not whether the functions of the new council should be outlined in the Bill, or even whether the council should be sure to undertake the powers and duties represented by these functions; rather, it is a question of whether we should attempt to require the council to undertake all the functions at the same time in perpetuity, or whether we should set out the main functions of the council and leave it to determine how and when these functions should be exercised, according to the priority need and in accordance with its forward work programme. That is the position that the Government have taken.

The council will need to consult on its forward work programme, which will provide all interested parties with the opportunity to submit ideas for action and views on how the council should undertake its functions for the period ahead. In its annual report, the council will need to report on progress on any projects described in that forward work programme, which is a good example of transparency.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I suppose we will see whether this works only when the council in its new guise comes into being. This will be an interesting debate for the other place too. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [The research function]:

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Clause 9 [The information function]:

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Clause 10 [General powers of investigation]:

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Clause 11 [Investigation of complaints made by vulnerable designated consumers]:

moved Amendment No. 14:

My Lords, Amendment No. 14 would extend the category of vulnerable consumers who can be aided by the council in the investigation of their complaints to “otherwise disadvantaged consumers”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising this issue. Again, I do not think that there is any real difference between us on the question of who should be aided by the council in the investigation of their complaints. It is important that those who are most in need of assistance should be able to turn to the council for support and guidance.

For that reason we have deliberately not sought to categorise those who constitute vulnerable consumers in the Bill. Our understanding of what makes for vulnerability develops and changes over time and we should be careful not to preclude any particular group of consumers from the possibility of assistance now or in the future. The Bill leaves it to the council to consider who should be regarded as vulnerable. Clause 11(2) states that,

“a person is ‘vulnerable’ if the Council is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect that person to pursue the complaint on that person’s own behalf”.

The addition of the words “otherwise disadvantaged” does not add materially to the consideration. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the best way forward to meet possible future needs.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would require the council to investigate complaints by vulnerable designated consumers and to provide advice or to make representations on behalf of the consumer. I would suggest to noble Lords that the interests of the most vulnerable consumers will be best served by permitting the council to exercise discretion as to which complaints by consumers need to be supported and, where the council sees a need to provide support, which means of support would be best in the circumstances.

The council should be able to use its judgment to define the groups of consumers who need help and to develop and refine that view to meet new or emerging circumstances. The council should have the discretion to decide how best to provide support for vulnerable consumers. It is important that the council should be able to determine how and when its important functions in respect of vulnerable consumers should be exercised according to the need and best use of its resources.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that the council will have a definition of those people it regards as vulnerable and will keep a very careful record both of those it has chosen to treat as vulnerable and those it has not chosen; it should then review both categories from time to time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]

Clause 12 [Investigation of complaints relating to disconnection of gas or electricity]:

moved Amendment No. 17:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments, which meet many of our concerns in this area.

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking my noble friend. I agree that the Government have co-operated on this issue. A number of organisations had approached noble Lords and I think they will take considerable consolation from the comprehensive character of the amendments that have been tabled in so far as they have met almost all of the concerns we expressed. I hope, therefore, that this important gesture, which may be more than a gesture, will go a long way to speeding the passage of the legislation.

My Lords, I support the amendments. They make it clear that all issues concerning cut-off of supply, whether through a threat of disconnection or a failure somewhere else in the system, will be treated in this way. I simply make the point that I might have made on the previous group of amendments that these are the kind of complaints that would fall to the new National Consumer Council. I know that Energywatch takes the view that there is a wider set of priority complaints over and above those dealing with disconnection or failure of supply. At some point it will need to be made clear what boundaries will be considered by the National Consumer Council, by the normal information function of Consumer Direct or by the companies themselves in the first instance, and, if they fail, by the ombudsman system.

It would be helpful if such clarity were placed on the Postwatch side of the equation so that the new structures and consumers can be clear where each form of complaint will fall.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 24:

moved Amendment No. 25:

My Lords, because the amendment obviously seeks transparency, one feels very much in favour of it in principle. However, one should put the amendment into context. The National Consumer Council is required by other provisions in the Bill to publish its annual reports and its forward work programmes. The noble Baroness did not refer to Clause 16, which immediately precedes the clause with which we are now dealing, under which the council may prepare a report on any matter within its function and may publish the report. Some of the noble Baroness’s remarks would be applicable to Clause 16 because it provides that the National Consumer Council may publish reports of its own volition on matters it has itself chosen to consider. The logic of her argument suggests that if that report is of interest to consumers nationally it ought to be published.

Leaving that aside, the noble Baroness has alerted us to Clause 17, under which the NCC is required to report on “any matter” that the Secretary of State specifies, and the Secretary of State may publish any report under that clause. The noble Baroness seeks to have the word “may” altered to “must”. Surely the NCC itself is free to publish a report on any matter it considers, whether it considers it of its own volition or at the request of the Secretary of State. Perhaps I am making a legalistic point to the Minister. I hope I am right about it and that the power of the council to publish any report under Clause 16 is not confined to that clause but that the council could publish a report as it wishes if that has been requested by the Secretary of State under Clause 17. I hope I am correct that the NCC is entitled to publish any report on anything it studies, whether at the request of the Secretary of State or not.

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would be unduly burdensome by requiring the Government, at the taxpayer’s expense, to publish a report that neither the Government nor the National Consumer Council thought was of sufficient interest to justify publication. There must be some situations where a report is not worthy of publication simply because the work that has been done demonstrates that there is no problem where previously it was thought that there was.

I fear that the amendment might inhibit the use by the Government of the power to seek the help of the NCC on matters relating to consumer interests. Surely the last thing we want is for the Government to feel inhibited or that they had better not risk asking the NCC for a report because of some compulsory obligation to publish that report in any circumstances and at whatever cost. I doubt the value of this amendment.

My Lords, Amendment No. 25 relates to Clause 17 and to the actions that fall to the Secretary of State in this respect. I was grateful for the opportunity to debate this amendment in Committee. From that debate, it is clear that the intention behind the amendment is essentially the need for transparency in the Government’s dealings with the new council and the importance of the new council maintaining its independence. I confirm our wholehearted support for those intentions.

As I explained in Committee, Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to require the council to prepare and submit reports on any matter, permitting the Secretary of State to call on the expertise of the council to prepare and submit a report on issues that are judged important enough to the consumer interest to warrant further attention. Such a report would be for the purpose of reaching a decision on what further action, if any, was needed on the issue. We envisage that such a need could arise where the issues in question have not been identified in the council’s consultation on its forward work programme.

The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish all the reports submitted by the council under this clause irrespective of whether or not they are of wider interest or relevance, a point rightly made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Having requested a report from the council, the Secretary of State would take into account any recommendations made on how best to progress the particular issue and would work closely with the council and others in coming to decisions about what would be appropriate in each circumstance. The current drafting allows for the discretion needed for that to happen.

On the issue of the independence of the new council, particularly in response to my noble friend Lord Borrie, I confirm that Clause 16 enables the council to prepare and publish reports on any matter within the scope of its functions, while Clause 18(2) enables it to publish advice and information about consumer issues if it thinks publication will promote the interests of consumers. Those powers allow the council to take separate action in the interests of the consumer, or indeed in the interests of transparency, should it consider that appropriate. While I am sympathetic to the amendment, I believe we meet all the substantive points raised.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, whether the Minister has answered his question. I listened to him carefully. He said that the council can do what it likes under Clauses 16 and 18, but I did not hear him mention Clause 17.

Order

My Lords, I am told that because we are on Report, I may be breaking a rule. In that case I shall use the record instead.

I was chilled by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I thought, “What am I listening to? I’m listening to the National Consumer Council being changed from the body it is: brave and strong and able to publish its reports as it has done all these 25 to 30 years, not hindered by the Government in any way, fully funded by government but free to choose its work and to report as it wished”. Then I heard it said that the Secretary of State and the NCC will between them decide when things are published. All of this shows how important the amendment is. We should use the word “must”. The National Consumer Council is being tied up in these words. I worry when I hear “appropriate”, “discretion”, “drafting”. I worry that the National Consumer Council is being subsumed by a great, big body on which lies the Secretary of State’s hand, stopping it doing what it wishes to do. The provision does not sound clear or transparent. It does not sound like what we want the National Consumer Council to be.

I am sure that the Minister has thought carefully and been well advised by his civil servants on how he should respond to me at this stage. I do not wish to divide the House on this point but I am disappointed by the answers. I was particularly disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords—

Order!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 [Voluntary activities]:

moved Amendment No. 26:

moved Amendment No. 27:

moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 39:

moved Amendment No. 40:

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for tabling this amendment. I again apologise to your Lordships’ House that I was not able to speak to it at an earlier stage as I was speaking at a conference in Nottingham.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will well know that for six years after 2000, when he was a Minister responsible for rural matters, I expressed my concerns about the future of post offices. I share the concerns that have been expressed on that issue. Part of the Bill is concerned with redress. Consumers want things to go right. Today, through no fault of the railway company concerned, I had the most horrendous journey getting here. A fire on a freight train outside Berwick totally blocked the line and it will be blocked for 24 hours due to the nature of the cargo on that train. I should say in fairness to the railway company that it was very good and made arrangements for some passengers to be transported via the west coast line. In that context it is important that we do not water down the Bill’s new provisions. I am particularly concerned about the part that concerns the postal services. I have made various rail journeys back and forth to Scotland. I had a difficult journey going up on Sunday as I was delayed three times, which was the railway company’s fault. However, the second occasion on which I experienced difficulty was certainly not its fault.

The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made various points on post offices, but I want to comment on the situation from a slightly broader perspective. As the practice on Report is to examine Ministers’ responses, I want to highlight the Minister’s response and to explore whether we are happy with it and therefore confident about where it will take us. As the Minister indicated clearly in Grand Committee:

“Postal services consumers will also benefit from the introduction of redress schemes”.

But we want to ensure that we enhance, and certainly do not detract from, the service that is offered by the new consumer council.

The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, touched on the number of post offices that are likely to close. I share his concern. The Minister also stated in Grand Committee that,

“99 per cent of the population will be within three miles of an outlet”.—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. GC 60.];

that is, a post office outlet. However, in order to achieve that percentage, are not some of the most rural and remote post office outlets more likely to be closed in the future cuts so that the Government can achieve their target of having 99 per cent of people living within three miles of an outlet? Having travelled down through the country today, I am aware that some very remote areas will be in great jeopardy of losing their outlets. Will the Minister clarify the response that he gave in Committee as I do not think that he responded to that point?

My next point was raised by colleagues. How will the Government ensure that the most vulnerable people in the remotest areas who have the greatest difficulty accessing these outlets will continue to be able to do so? I take up the point made about the squeeze on the Post Office bank card, which, as we have heard, has been overturned temporarily, but who will fight that corner in the longer term? I understand that the National Consumer Council will deal only with complaints; it will not set strategy. Perhaps the Minister can answer my earlier question in that regard. I refer him to the setting up of the Commission for Rural Communities. When that announcement was made I assumed that the Commission for Rural Communities would be the watchdog that would ensure that the rural voice and people’s concerns about the closure of post offices were heard. I was desperately disappointed that that was not heard in the national press.

I am trying to get the Minister to respond to some of the comments he made in Committee. I ask him to clarify whether the council is going to deal just with an individual complaint or whether it will be able to look over the longer term at the repercussions of government decisions and the Royal Mail’s decisions on squeezing post offices. Having read carefully through the Committee stage, I find that not at all clear. I seek clarification from the Minister on those points which were debated in Committee but not clarified to my satisfaction. I am sorry that I was not here to raise the matter at the time.

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, but I draw exactly the opposite conclusion on what should appear in the Bill. It seems to me that the problems of the Post Office have not been resolved by dealing with them in isolation from everything else that happens to rural areas. The whole rationale of the Bill is to create a trans-sectoral organisation which is able to bring expertise from other markets into markets such as the post office and the energy market, and to use the expertise in those markets to create more generic solutions to consumer problems. The longer you delay the establishment of those arrangements—and we are already putting water back until after the initial establishment of the arrangements—the longer it will take for that new organisation, the new consumer council, to achieve that level of strength and influence in general decision-making.

On rural post offices, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I have been very much concerned with services for rural areas. So has the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who is just about to contribute to the debate. Post offices have been dealt with in a silo, entirely separately from the concerns of Defra and of the rural community more widely. Post offices are but one of the losses of services, both public and private, in rural areas. The losses have taken place partly as a result of market changes and demography and partly as a result of government decisions over recent years. It is much better that the issue is placed in that wider context, with an influential body that can influence government policy in a wide range of areas, rather than in the narrow area of departmental Post Office sponsorship by the DTI. That is what I see the new National Consumer Council doing.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I say that the new National Consumer Council is primarily about strategy and issues of broad concern to consumers and not so much about individual complaints. In this wider context, the strategy on the Post Office network can best be dealt with by a larger, more all-embracing body. If we put back the Post Office consideration until 2010, as is suggested by the amendment, we will fall short of achieving the Bill’s objectives in a relatively short timetable. On the immediate issue of the current review of rural post offices, Postwatch is already setting up the way in which that will be conducted. It needs to get expertise from the National Consumer Council and the Commission for Rural Communities to broaden the base of that review. It can go on; it will have started by the time the new organisation reaches its vesting date, and it will continue thereafter. It is a ring-fenced process that is dealt with somewhat separately from the rest of Postwatch’s activities. Therefore, it will not be jeopardised by creating the new organisation. Clause 15 specifically requires the new council to conduct an assessment of the network of rural post offices, in the same way as Postwatch currently has this obligation.

That responsibility is preserved. The influence on future post offices will be stronger, and the context in which such rural services are delivered will be broadened in a way that, as a whole, ought to benefit the rural consumer and not simply be seen in one dimension depending on the Government’s attitude to the Post Office in general. Rural consumers and indeed urban consumers who have lost their post offices in recent years will be better protected under this system. The sooner we introduce it, the better it will be.

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Razzall. It does not state that the merger shall never take place; it accepts that, in time, that may be the best thing, and the Government have put a strong case for it. I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that that should happen now. Without in any way doubting his competence to manage the whole process, it is over-optimistic of the Government to expect that to happen at a time of enormous upset in the post office service and at a time when a consultation on the closure programme is under way. Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says that that process is ring-fenced, however much that is the case, you cannot stop disheartened staff leaving because they do not see a future for them within a new organisation. You cannot stop the expertise leaking out.

All we are suggesting is a delay until 2010 and that Parliament will have another look at the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who spoke on this issue at Second Reading—I fully understand why she could not be present in Committee—was quite right to say that the Commission for Rural Communities had been pretty silent on this. As she will know, I opposed the setting up of that quango, which can be no more than a voice. However, it is supposed to have direct access to the Prime Minister through its rural advocate and I wonder what he has been saying recently on this issue to the Prime Minister and if it has had any effect at all.

The amendment will provide a chance for the Post Office reorganisation, as the Government might euphemistically call it, to take place under detailed scrutiny from Postwatch, which it is best placed to deliver because it has been working on this issue for several years. No one can take its place in that regard. Our amendment offers a middle way. We are not saying that the reorganisation should never happen but simply that it should not happen at this time of enormous turbulence for the Post Office, which provides a crucial service for people in rural areas and is equally important for people in suburban and urban areas.

Finally, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised the issue of the business sector. The business sector has asked me to express its disappointment at the Minister’s response on this issue. In particular, a letter stated that,

“no detailed responses were made about the need to preserve sector-specific expertise and the representation of business interests in the postal sector”.

In rural areas, nothing is more important for small businesses than the postal sector, and that applies equally to the business sector throughout the UK.

My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an order to abolish Postwatch and to make that order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Furthermore, the Secretary of State would not be permitted to make the order before 2010.

I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that one of the main objectives of the Bill is the creation of a cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body that is stronger than the sum of its parts in addressing consumer issues that frequently exist across sectors of the economy. The new body must have the critical mass to engage effectively with government, regulators and industry sectors on the basis of expert and informed analysis and have the benefit of being able to draw on experience and expertise from a number of sectors. We recognise that maintaining the existing sectoral expertise in the postal services sector is vital to the success of the new body. We also recognise the importance of this in a sector that has only recently been opened up to competition.

We had a lively and informative debate in Committee on the principle of merging Postwatch with Energywatch and the National Consumer Council, and, given the extensive prior consultation on this issue, I am not convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to subject the proposal to incorporate Postwatch into the new council to the affirmative resolution procedure at a later date.

On timing, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords that the postal services sector needs a strong advocacy body in order effectively to represent consumer interests in the post office network restructuring programme. In recognition of the importance of this issue to consumers, the new council will, under Clause 15, maintain the current function assigned to Postwatch of investigating any matter relating to the number and location of public post offices. Having a strong consumer advocate in the postal services sector and maintaining the sectoral expertise that Postwatch has built up and which the new council will inherit are vital to the Government’s proposals for a sustainable post office network.

We believe that delaying the inclusion of Postwatch in the new arrangements for consumer advocacy would merely prolong the uncertainty for existing staff and consumers and would increase the likelihood of staff retention problems and departures precisely at the point when Postwatch needs its staff most to feed into the post office network restructuring programme. The amendment would exacerbate the problem and be counterproductive, as it would extend that period of uncertainty, with consequent damage to morale and staff retention.

After careful consideration, therefore, I am not convinced that a delay in the creation of the new National Consumer Council and the associated abolition of Postwatch would benefit consumers of postal services, who would be faced with a delay in the creation of a stronger consumer advocate, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Whitty, to represent their interests, and redress schemes to provide them with complaints resolution and redress as appropriate. Indeed, a delay might actually be harmful, creating a longer period of uncertainty for the existing staff of Postwatch, which I do not think was the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. We debated this extensively in Committee. I suppose that the best argument against the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend is that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is responsible for proving us wrong. However, I am afraid that I am not persuaded, for two reasons.

First, I would be better persuaded if the world of this integrated authority to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers was that which is actually going to be put in place. We already know that the Department of Trade and Industry lost the internal turf wars and failed in its attempt to have a number of other councils, in particular the transport one, merged into the empire of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

Secondly, the Government have already conceded that water will not come in until 2010. I am not sure why the arguments that apply to water do not apply in spades to the Post Office and the Royal Mail, for all the reasons that I set out. I do not want to repeat those arguments, as we know what they are, but on this occasion I should like to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the recommendations of the independent Casino Advisory Panel. The panel has today published its report, and I should like to thank Professor Crow and his colleagues for their work.

“Before I turn to the recommendations, I should like to remind the House of the context in which we are allowing new types of casino. Gambling is on the increase. People want to gamble, and technology allows many new forms of gambling. Existing regulation is inadequate and leaves people exposed. So, through the Gambling Act 2005, we have placed the protection of children and other vulnerable people at the heart of gambling regulation for the first time.

“Yet if I believed everything I read in the papers about the Gambling Act, I would never have introduced it. So let me make it very clear: Las Vegas is not coming to Great Britain. British casinos will be subject to new controls, the strictest in the world.

“For example, Las Vegas-style tricks of the trade will not be allowed. There will be no free alcohol to induce more gambling, and there will be no pumped oxygen to keep players awake. It will be a criminal offence to permit a child to enter the casino or the gambling area of the regional casino. All casinos will require staff trained to spot the signs of problem gambling and intervene where necessary. If they do not, they risk losing their licence.

“It was safe in the knowledge of these protections that we took the decision, in response to demand from local authorities, to allow a limited number of new casinos. Sixty-eight local authorities, representing all the main political parties, subsequently made applications to the panel. The Act allows 17 in total: one regional, eight large and eight small. Because the new casinos will be different from those we have seen before, and because we have listened carefully to the concerns of Members and their constituents, we thought it was right to be cautious.

“Now I can say this in 50 different languages, but the message would be the same: we cannot allow and will not even consider allowing any further casinos until a proper evaluation over time has been made of the effect of these 17 casinos on problem gambling, and such a decision would require a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament in any case.

“We have commissioned a group of academics led by Lancaster University to advise on the methodology for that assessment. The baseline study will be undertaken later this year, once Parliament has approved the new areas. The assessment process will be in place in good time for the opening of the first new casino. The assessment will not be completed until at least three years after the award of the first licence. The work is in addition to the prevalence studies of patterns of gambling, which we are undertaking every three years from 2007. The benchmark prevalence study is currently under way, and the findings will be published this autumn, when the Gambling Act takes effect. The findings of the next prevalence study will not be published until autumn 2010. I therefore wish to make it crystal clear to the House that these safeguards preclude any consideration of further casinos for the lifetime of this Parliament.

“I am required by the Act to make an order identifying the local authorities where the 17 new casinos should go. So, in October 2005, I established the Casino Advisory Panel, under Professor Stephen Crow. The primary consideration for the panel throughout has been to ensure that the areas facilitate the best possible test of social impact. Subject to that consideration, I also asked the panel to include areas in need of regeneration that would benefit in employment terms from a new casino and to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino. The panel has been operating entirely independently of the Government, and I should like to place on record my appreciation for the rigour and professionalism that Professor Crow and his colleagues have brought to the process.

“This has been an open and transparent process throughout, and the views of local people have been taken into account at every stage. The panel asked local authorities to include evidence of local consultation. Local people were invited to participate in the examinations in public that were held in the seven short listed areas. A number of areas, including Brent, Canterbury, Dartford, Thurrock and Woking, withdrew their applications to the panel in response to local opinion. A number of local authorities, such as Hackney, St Albans and Slough, have also taken advantage of new powers in the Gambling Act to resolve not to license any casinos in their area.

“After 16 months’ consultation, and having considered all the evidence available, the panel has today recommended that the following authorities should be entitled to issue a small casino premises licence: Bath and North East Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Luton, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay, and Wolverhampton.

“The following local authorities should be entitled to issue a large casino premises licence: Great Yarmouth, Kingston-upon-Hull, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Newham, Solihull and Southampton. And that Manchester should be entitled to issue the one regional casino premises licence permitted by the Act.

“I congratulate Manchester and the other recommended towns and cities on their success and I acknowledge the disappointment of those towns and cities that have not been recommended.

“I received a copy of the panel’s report just this morning. Because I am also conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of the independent process that we have established, it is only fair to all the applicants that I should take the time to consider its contents carefully. I am also required by the Gambling Act to consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers.

“I am therefore announcing today that, following this consultation with the devolved Administrations, I am minded to return to this House at the earliest opportunity with an order which will enable Parliament to consider the panel’s recommendations and vote on the order. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the debate will be held on the Floor of the House. This means that Parliament will rightly determine the outcome of this process.

“Gambling will always be a sensitive issue, and I understand the reservations that some Members and others have about casinos. However, I have always sought to ensure that the Government proceed cautiously, with the strongest possible safeguards and on the basis of the best evidence of public protection in the face of rising public demand. That is what we have done.

“Once again, I thank Professor Crow and his panel for the thoroughness of their work and I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in another place. I am sure that the choice of Manchester is a good one, but I find it difficult to join in the general congratulations when the whole concept of dramatically expanding the gambling industry in this country is so flawed. I find it even more difficult to understand why Her Majesty's Government should be so keen on this course of action when organisations such as the police and the British Medical Association have come out so strongly against the expansion of gambling because of the problems associated with it

For those who wish to gamble there already exists a plethora of ways of so doing, from the internet to the racecourse and plenty of stops in between. Casinos such as are proposed will only introduce new punters who might otherwise never have gambled. A proportion of those will become addicts, resulting most probably in the destruction of their and their families’ lives.

I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will treat this properly as a pilot scheme to thoroughly assess the impact of these casinos, rather than just looking on the pilots as a method of introducing massive expansion of gambling through the back door, in the way that the 1968 Act has been used to give initial approval to 90 casinos.

Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to a proper evaluation of the effect of the 17 casinos on problem gambling is welcomed. A rigorous set of criteria for evaluating the success or failure of the pilot scheme will do much to restore faith that Her Majesty’s Government have a desire to learn from what happens and to act accordingly.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how Manchester came to be chosen when it was ranked only sixth in the original shortlist and whether the preferred bidder will be Kerzner International.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and join in thanking Professor Crow and his team for their work. We welcome the fact that there will be the opportunity to debate the affirmative order. There is clearly some surprise—indeed, shock—in Blackpool and Greenwich at the outcome—

And in Manchester.

And in Manchester, my Lords, as my noble friends point out.

No doubt the report will repay further reading in the run-up to that debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the timing of the debate, so that we will really have the opportunity to examine the grounds on which the decision was made, which has obviously been such a disappointment to many in those two areas.

This House, like the other place, will be surprised by the Secretary of State's statement:

“We thought it was right to be cautious”.

Just before the general election, it was the opposition parties who were urging caution on the Government about the spread of casinos, especially the regional casino concept, not the Government. The Government were very gung-ho for the concept of eight super-casinos.

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said today about not expanding the number of casinos beyond 17 until their ability to aid regeneration while not increasing problem gambling has been thoroughly tested. I hope that the Minister can confirm that we will be able to debate the methodology to be suggested by the University of Lancaster: how it is judged whether regeneration can take place without increasing problem gambling.

Today's announcement of 17 new casinos has hit the headlines, but the Minister may cast his mind back to a programme just this weekend that revealed that 68 new licences have been approved by the Gambling Commission in the past two years. Although some have had premises licences refused, that could lead to another 40 or 50 casinos on top of today's 17. There are even more applications in the offing. How does that square with the statement by the Secretary of State that the Government will not even consider allowing any further casinos until proper evaluation has been made of the 17 announced today?

Why did Mr Richard Caborn say two years ago that,

“we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos. There could be fewer”?—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 11/1/05; col. 718.]

Was that not a complete misstatement? Doesn’t it look as though there will be more than that? What will be the final total of new casinos? I also wonder whether the Secretary of State regrets saying about three years ago:

“If this legislation”—

the Gambling Bill—

“gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation”.

She said in a recent “Any Questions” broadcast that,

“every single bit of change in legislation, if it proves to give a rise to harm, will be rescinded”.

Can the Minister confirm that that is indeed government policy?

Then we have the issue of expenditure on problem gambling. Given that we spend £270 million on treating alcohol addiction, should not the gambling industry be paying much more than the current £2.5 million to the main body that helps deal with gambling addiction? Will the Government ensure that the new casinos make a proper contribution to help fund solutions to gambling addiction?

At least in the Statement, the Minister committed to no further growth in gambling opportunities until we test out what we already have and are likely to have following today's announcement. I very much hope that he will confirm that that is rock-solid government policy. We look forward to the debate on the affirmative resolution.

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for their comments on the Statement. I must emphasise again in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that this is to be a pilot scheme. He expressed anxiety on that score. We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of introducing further legislation that might increase the number of casinos—if it is ever mooted—in this Parliament because we will take time to evaluate the impact of the casinos on their localities. I emphasise that one key feature that came through from Professor Crow's report, which the House will have the opportunity to deliberate more intensively as time goes on, is that he is concerned about the areas in which casinos are located. The impact of the regional casino should be measurable.

I do not want to go into the relative merits of the claims in great detail at this stage, but one relevant factor that Professor Crow considered with regard to Blackpool—I can see one or two noble Lords itching to rise to advance the cause of Blackpool, which we all recognised had some strength—was that quite a large transient population would be participating in casino activities, whereas with the city of Manchester the advantage is that it will be much more locally oriented and therefore give us a chance to examine fully in the pilot scheme the impact of the casino on the locality.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, was somewhat unfair in his reference to Kerzner and its association with the Manchester bid. Associated with a number of the major bids were some big gaming interests and organisations. That is how those bids could be rendered credible. But that was about constructing the nature of the bid. Manchester and the other authorities now have to engage in a full competitive process and the large companies that have been associated with particular bids have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. They start in a fully competitive position as far as the local authority is concerned. I understand the anxieties expressed, but decisions on applications are made by the local authority. The panel made absolutely clear that they needed local backing, and the strength of local consultation was that it helped to establish that fact.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that the announcement has shocked. I am sorry if he is shocked by the outcome. If by that he means that he had already made up his mind where the casino was going, that merely reflects a prejudgment—dare I say, even an element of prejudice—when the panel was going about its job in a dispassionate, evaluative way. It reached its conclusions, which the Secretary of State will put before Parliament in due course after having consulted the Welsh and Scottish devolved authorities. She will put before both Houses the recommendations of the panel, which will be subject to an affirmative resolution and debated.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also said that we did not know the final number of casinos. Of course we do not because, believe it or not, the Government do not dictate the final number. We provided in legislation for the “one plus eight plus eight” formula for this group of casinos, but there are local decisions under the 1968 Gaming Act on which local authorities are deliberating. That is the right of local authorities. Several of them have given permission for casinos to be developed in a much more limited way than the ones described in the Act, which is the issue that we are considering today. Of course we cannot say how many local authorities will agree that a casino is of value to their neighbourhood. That is for them to judge, and it is not fair to criticise the Secretary of State.

I hear what the noble Lord says about the gambling industry making its proper contribution to GamCare and to tackling problem gambling. We will scrutinise that most closely. Sufficient resources are being devoted to GamCare and to other bodies that tackle problem gambling. We have reserve powers to insist that a contribution is made, but we expect the gambling industry to show the right level of responsibility.

My Lords, what possible justification can there be for the Government to produce legislation to increase opportunities for gambling at a time when individuals throughout society are plunged into record levels of debt? What moral or social justification is there for that? Can we at least draw some comfort from being spared the ultimate degradation of a casino at the unfortunate, disastrous Dome?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he has probably not cast his mind back to one significant increase in debt in this country, when the Conservative Government decided that they would turn regular weekly rent payers into mortgage holders with accumulated debt. That was a decision of the Conservative Government at that time. Mortgages are a significant part of household debt, but we also recognise that the British people can manage their debt effectively because they understand the true costs of that debt and the fact that we can sustain low interest rates and low inflation. Consequently, the debt is manageable.

I did not mention the Dome. I am sorry if the noble Lord is disappointed that the Dome does not feature significantly in this Statement, but it does not.

My Lords, the Millennium Dome is in my diocese, and I am anxious that a good long-term use be found for that remarkable building. Nevertheless, I am relieved to hear that the first super-casino in Britain is to be in Manchester, as such a casino will inevitably bring new problems of gambling and I am pleased that those problems will be tackled in Manchester rather than in south London. However, the people of Manchester have my sympathy. I hesitate to say that these problems will be faced first in Manchester, as media reports suggest that the Government are planning to accelerate the number of super-casinos to be authorised.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I was relieved to hear him give such a clear assurance that the rumour has no foundation and that the lessons to be learnt from the pilot super-casino will be carefully pondered and examined before future super-casinos are planned. We on these Benches will certainly be looking to see that promise fulfilled.

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, although he re-introduces the issue of the Dome, on which I was slightly dismissive in my response to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, for which I apologise. The right reverend Prelate will take some joy from the fact that one of the features of the Greenwich application, on which the panel commented, is that there is a great deal of redevelopment in the Greenwich area at the moment, to the great benefit of the locality. The panel sees that position being enhanced. The casino would not have added sufficient value to that development. As he will know, there are several proposals for the development of the Dome within that framework, many of which have exciting aspects. A great many of London’s facilities will be enhanced in preparation for the Olympic Games in 2012, and we anticipate that the Dome will be utilised then.

The right reverend Prelate says that he feels slightly sorry for the city of Manchester, which will be subject to the pilot study. That is not the view of Manchester or its people, who are delighted with the outcome of today’s deliberations.

My Lords, there will clearly be some enthusiasm for this announcement, no doubt not least from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—quite apart from Manchester and the other local authorities, as we have heard from the Minister. No doubt they will have negotiated other benefits for their area in addition to extra jobs. However, as noble Lords have already heard, there is considerable concern among Members on these Benches and people throughout the country. In a YouGov poll, 56 per cent of citizens were worried that this would lead to more addiction and more social problems. Of course we are glad to hear that the Government are committed to monitoring seriously the likely effect of these casinos. With that in mind, however, can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government made, before embarking on this rash of casinos, of the cost of supporting—and, one hopes, reforming—each additional addict and their family, including the vulnerable children who will be affected, and the local community, which, as we have heard, is likely to be subjected to extra crime? Will the Minister also assure this House that at least this cost will be the first charge on the profits of every casino company involved?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. This gives me the opportunity to correct a slight slip that I made a moment ago. Local authorities organise the bids for super-casinos in their areas, but the decisions to create casinos under the 1968 Act are taken by local licensing magistrates, not by local authorities, and I apologise for that slip.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Gambling Act 2005. The motivation behind that Act was not to create casinos—the casinos are a by-product of that Act—but the fact that our gambling laws dated from 1968 and were woefully misplaced to deal with modern gambling, not least the development of online gambling, which presents a real challenge for regulating authorities. The development of new forms of gambling meant that we had to address the fact that the 1968 Act was out of date. That was the principle behind the Gambling Act, which was also the background to decisions about the casinos, as the noble Baroness rightly recognised. Concern was expressed throughout our consideration of that Act that the nation should balance the obvious increase in the participation in gambling of our fellow citizens who, with increased disposable income, are both entitled and in many cases expected to use that income for gambling, from which they derive a great deal of innocent and proper pleasure, against the necessity of dealing with problem gambling and addiction, in particular the impact on children. The Gambling Act sets out to reach that balance. It was the result of very considerable deliberations in the other place and this House. We think that we have reached the right balance.

My Lords, it is very nice to hear people congratulating Professor Crow and his committee. However, I do not congratulate him on the regional casino: it should not be in Manchester. I spent a very long time on the pre-legislative Select Committee looking at different areas and all the things that I assumed Professor Crow was looking at. Blackpool would be a resort casino; the Dome would be a destination casino; and Manchester would be a city casino. The Select Committee said that the casino should not be in a city. I went to Australia and saw the damage caused by having a casino in a city.

The Minister mentioned regeneration around the Dome. What regeneration has there been in Blackpool? The answer is none. What has there been in Manchester? There has been a lot. Blackpool needed this: it was waiting for it and will need it still. Why do we hand over to an academic committee something that should be decided by this House and the elected Members in another place? Can the Minister answer that?

My Lords, as I have indicated, the final decision will rest with the other place and this House. When the order is considered, I have no doubt that very similar speeches to that which my noble friend has hinted at today will be made here and in the other place. Indeed, she may be a participant in that debate. Therefore, all these issues will be aired. The House will have the opportunity to look carefully at Professor Crow’s report. I can merely report that the judgment that my noble friend reached is different from that reached by the professor and his panel.

My Lords, I assure the Minister that I have never been prouder that I took the title Lord McNally of Blackpool, especially with the town’s dignified and resilient response to today’s news. The Minister mentioned Professor Crow’s report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, has just indicated, the report dismisses with almost cavalier economic illiteracy the Blackpool economic case. I sometimes think that if Blackpool was a steel, coal or cotton town, the impact of declining tourism would be greater appreciated.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, also pointed out, the Minister gives a smooth government decision-making process. I wonder what the royal commission set up to look into this matter thinks about this or what the Joint Committee thinks. The wheel has turned many times and it is unfortunate that this one has turned against Blackpool when the strongest arguments were in Blackpool’s favour.

Two points really worry me. We have suddenly found that this inner-city casino has the merit of being able to test social gambling—quite so. Every study at home and abroad has warned against “door-step gambling”—gambling on the door step. Professor Crow says that,

“most of the social effects”,

as would affect Blackpool,

“would be exported”.

He means that people would go to places like Blackpool for two weeks for holiday enjoyment of gambling. At a door-step casino like Manchester, they will stay with the problem and will create the problem. In many ways, it is the most perverse decision that could be made and is against all the warnings of research.

There is another extraordinary thing in the report. It states that,

“Manchester … is one of England’s eight ‘Core Cities’”,

which drives,

“national and regional economic growth”.

When and where from did the committee get this information and why were the other applicants not told that this special privilege would be given to core cities as against places like Blackpool?

I should like to make one further comment to opponents of casinos. We have all watched James Bond and George Raft films and the problem with casinos is that they are a nice, emotive issue. In fact, while opponents are obsessing about casinos, the real problem gambling will go on tonight on ITV when people can spend 75p a minute on television quizzes from their beds or make bets from their telephones. The most regulated and most easily controlled problem gambling is at a destination casino. The worst kind of casino is in an inner city where problems are waiting for it and where those problems will fester.

My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who deserves a response to his powerful contribution. He has been unwavering in his advocacy of Blackpool as the location and will get the opportunity for further debate on whether this recommendation should come into effect across the country. He will have the chance to make that advocacy. The noble Lord has presented the great strengths of the Blackpool case. There were great strengths among all bidders in the final group which were considered for the super-casino. Earlier, I reflected in the briefest way possible with regard to the report some factors which were considered by the casino panel.

Of course, there will be disagreement with its conclusions. By definition, there would always be more disappointed towns and bidders than successful ones, which is in the nature of this kind of exercise. However, in one respect, the panel was absolutely clear: a crucial aspect of the Manchester bid was that it gave the best possible circumstances for considering problem gambling in the pilot location. That is the basis of its recommendation. We will in the future have the chance to deliberate on those points.

My Lords, I declare an interest. When the Gambling Bill last came before the House, I was the non-executive chairman of Stanley Leisure. Since then, it has been sold as the result of a takeover and I am now life president. Stanley Leisure had 45 casinos, including three in Manchester, so I, living in Manchester, welcome the casino being situated there.

The decision was difficult and, as a result, I hope that there will not be a series of judicial reviews which will halt the process even further. Some of the more hysterical newspaper reports say that the whole thing is a disaster. I put it to the Minister that Great Britain has the lowest rate of problem gambling in the world. I am proud to be a founder member of GamCare, an organisation that helps to look after problem gamblers. To my knowledge, casinos here keep a tighter control on problem gambling than those in other countries. I commend that and long may it continue. I hope that the comments about crime, prostitution and money laundering are all basically figments of journalistic licence. We have never had a case of problem gambling. We have never had a case involving crime or prostitution. I hope that the Minister will continue that record.

However, I have a few questions—

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. This is a Statement and it is not intended that speeches should be made.

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I have the following questions for the Minister. Will he give an undertaking that the current opening hours for casinos will remain the same? Will he give an undertaking that advertising will not be broadcast on television or radio before 9 pm? Will the Minister also try to deal with online gambling, which is becoming an extremely difficult problem? I hope, with my years of experience, that I have been of some help to the Minister.

My Lords, the one point on which the noble Lord and I agree strongly is that this was a very difficult decision. Everyone recognises that the bids put in had enormous strengths, and of course several noble Lords have sought to identify the strength of certain cases.

We have the best regulated gambling industry in the world. We have the lowest rate of problem gambling, as the noble Lord indicated, and we intend to keep it that way. However, we cannot avoid the fact that there are now many new activities which involve gambling or something very close to it. Even the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to that when he commented on the development of quiz games on television, which are now causing concern in terms of the nature of gambling. It is because of that that we needed the Gambling Act 2005. It will stand us in good stead to guarantee that we keep a high level of regulation. I want merely to emphasise that within that level of regulation, the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg—there are far too many for me to respond to at the end of our debate on a Statement—are covered.

moved Amendment No. 41:

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Razzall, and I certainly could not improve on his ability to introduce the amendment. I should apologise to the House because I was delayed briefly in the Minute Room. Following our earlier discussion, I realise that the Government are intransigent on this matter. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight water issues. I do not want to repeat my previous comments because the Report stage should not be used for repetition. However, since we considered these issues in Committee some more material has become available about the link between the price review and the timing of river basin management plans for the water framework directive.

The regulator operates on a five-year cycle for the water price review and is therefore out of sync with the six-year cycle governing river basin management plans. The consumer is caught between those two processes, which is an uncomfortable place to be. This issue, which is a complicated one if you are not part of the water process, is as imperative for customers as the Post Office. It is vulnerable to the fluctuations that will take place as the Consumer Council for Water, which was created only very recently, is subsumed into the NCC. The Government have recognised some of the issues here because they have built a delay into the Bill. I therefore suggest to the Minister that there would be advantages in putting back this merger at least until after the next price review and the river basin management plan are put into effect. By then we will have one river basin management plan under the belt, so to speak, making it a much more auspicious moment to bring this provision forward.

My Lords, Amendment No. 41 seeks to delay the consultation on the merger of the Consumer Council for Water into the new council until 2011. We had a thoughtful debate on this issue in Committee and perhaps I may reiterate some of the key points that were made. One of the fundamental objectives of the Bill is to create a stronger cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body while making consumer representation and redress simpler and more effective. Key to the success of the new body is the retention of sectoral expertise, and this will be equally as important in the water sector as it is for the energy and postal services sectors. The new council will also benefit from the ability to share best practice from different sectors. So, for example, if the Consumer Council for Water is merged with the new council after the consultation in 2008, the council will have the benefit of not only the existing sectoral expertise in the water sector but also experience from other sectors of representing the consumer interest in a price review.

The public consultation held by my department this time last year sought views on the best time to consider the question of the inclusion of the water sector in the new arrangements. Some respondents suggested that the consultation should be later than the proposed date of 2008. However, as I said in Committee, many other respondents believed that the water sector should be included from the outset. We considered carefully the representations made to us and took the view at the end of the consultation that we would consult on the inclusion of the water sector in 2008, recognising that the Consumer Council for Water needs time to establish itself and to start tackling the important objectives it has been given before assessing whether these arrangements are the most effective for consumers. I repeat, though, that the commitment is that we would consult on the inclusion of the water sector in 2008.

I recognise that there are many important forthcoming issues in the water sector, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. There is a price review in 2009 and the ongoing work on the water framework directive will require a strong consumer advocate to represent the consumer interest. It is important that we hold the consultation on the merger of the Consumer Council for Water with the new council earlier than 2011 to ensure that the most effective arrangements are in place to represent the consumer interest.

I also acknowledge the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raised in Committee about the important environmental role assigned to the Consumer Council for Water and her belief that that role should not be lost. I believe that our earlier discussion on the new council’s sustainable development objective will have demonstrated to it the importance of that role. I can assure noble Lords that if the Consumer Council for Water is merged with the new council after consultation, we will seek to ensure that the crucial and very best elements of the current body are retained in the new council.

I am therefore still not convinced that the amendment represents the best way forward for consumers in the water sector at this time.

My Lords, I thank the Minister on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Razzall for giving the most cheering reply we have had all day to any of the amendments. His reply has significantly recognised the issue, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 [Removal of the Council's functions in relation to Northern Ireland]:

moved Amendment No. 42:

moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46:

moved Amendment No. 47:

moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 53:

moved Amendment No. 54:

moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:

moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59:

moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 64:

moved Amendment No. 64A:

My Lords, Clause 46 allows the Secretary of State to make orders requiring regulated service providers to belong to a redress scheme. It specifies that such a scheme must be approved by the relevant regulator or be administered by the Secretary of State or a person appointed for this purpose, and designated as an appropriate redress scheme. Before an order can be made under the clause, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant regulator and others with an interest in the matter.

A redress scheme is defined as a scheme under which consumers’ complaints may be made to, and investigated and determined by, an independent person. The independent person must be independent of the service provider against whom the complaint is made and the relevant regulator in relation to that service provider. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is at least one redress scheme in existence that service providers who are required by any order to belong to a redress scheme are able to join before making such an order. In the event that there is no scheme established by industry, this clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to establish one.

Subsection (5) requires that the Secretary of State seeks the consent of Welsh Ministers before making an order that relates to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker for an area that is wholly or fully in Wales.

I recognise the concerns that have been expressed on this point and in Committee, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I understand that some noble Lords would prefer that the Bill provided for only one redress scheme to be established in each sector. As drafted, the Bill leaves open the possibility of a sectoral regulator approving just one scheme for its sector. That is indeed our policy preference; I make that clear to noble Lords. However, we do not feel that it is appropriate to prescribe that as a requirement on the face of the Bill, as it may not be appropriate in all sectors or in all circumstances. We believe that the sectoral regulators are best placed to decide the appropriate number of schemes to be approved within each sector.

In approving a redress scheme, the provisions in the Bill place a requirement on a regulator to have regard to the total number of qualifying redress schemes available to the relevant service providers. That is intended to avoid any undue proliferation of schemes in a sector. A regulator could indeed decide that the interests of consumers would not be served by multiple schemes, and so might only approve one scheme. I consider that that would provide the greatest degree of clarity and efficiency for consumers and service providers alike. I am happy to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Bill does not require there to be more than one scheme in each sector.

We should recognise that the market sectors as they are today will inevitably change over time. What is appropriate today may well be unduly prescriptive and damaging in the future. A redress scheme set up by the current market incumbents may prove to be entirely unsuitable for new entrants in the years ahead, and could well represent a barrier to entry into developing markets—a barrier that is avoidable today.

This clause introduces a statutory requirement for service providers in the energy and postal sectors to belong to a redress scheme, and will give consumers in those sectors greater assurance of achieving certainty of resolution of complaints.

My Lords, the Minister has probably spotted by now that I am not a natural born troublemaker, so I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on this matter. I draw some encouragement from what he said. I cannot say that I found it wholly persuasive, when certain arguments that could have been adduced in other fields have certainly not been in the way that I touched on in my earlier remarks.

I take some comfort from the Minister’s remarks. In planning what I might say in gracefully withdrawing, more or less regardless of whatever he said, I intended to say that I took some comfort from the fact that the Bill did not make a multiple-ombudsman situation compulsory. I harbour a good deal of hope that common sense will prevail with the suppliers, the regulator or both. Indeed, I have been encouraged by the Minister’s speech to think that what I regard as common sense has spread to some degree to the Department of Trade and Industry, if it is the department’s declared policy preference that there should be only one ombudsman. I hope that the department may use whatever influence it has on the outcome to achieve a situation in which, whatever the legal provision, the consumer ends up with a single high-quality scheme.

I thank the Minister for that small bit of encouragement and for the trouble he has taken over his reply. I gracefully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 [Membership of redress schemes: supplementary]:

moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 67:

moved Amendment No. 68:

moved Amendment No. 69:

moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 73:

moved Amendment No. 74:

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on how she introduced the amendment. We agree with the amendment and have added our name to it as an indication of that. I shall not go over the points she made—they were all good ones—save to say that I, too, was very impressed with the information provided by Energywatch, backing up the need for this amendment.

My Lords, I support the general approach. It is very important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, that the total strategy is taken into account. This Bill will not work unless effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that the companies meet the requirement to handle complaints far more effectively than, frankly, either the post or energy sector does at present.

My only query about the amendment is whether it is in the right place; it might be made to Clause 46, which sets out the requirements on the redress scheme and the regulator. I was also slightly surprised that the leverage in Clause 42 had not attracted any amendments from the Government or anyone else in which a requirement on the regulator to ensure better complaints handling would be necessary to ensure that the companies can absorb the kind of complaints which, at the moment, are dealt with only by Energywatch and, to some extent, Postwatch. If the Government suggested that the amendment should be to another part of the Bill, I would not object, but it seems a crucial part of the approach of the Bill that we have something like this amendment in the final version and that the Government recognise that they should use all leverage on the regulator, via the redress scheme, to ensure that companies comply with a high standard of complaints handling; otherwise, the whole strategy falls. I hope that the Government, if they cannot accept the amendment, come forward with one that achieves the equivalent objective.

My Lords, the amendment requires that the existence of a functioning and effective internal complaints-handing procedure in the case of each supplier and prospective member be made a prerequisite of the approval of these schemes. The current provisions take fully into account the importance of service providers establishing effective internal procedures for handling consumer complaints. The redress provisions are based on the premise that, except in exceptional circumstances in which immediate intervention is warranted, service providers will have the opportunity to resolve disputes first hand.

Although we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we feel that the approach we have chosen is in line with better regulation principles, a point to which I shall return. We are giving regulators the power to make regulations to prescribe complaint-handling standards that would be binding on suppliers. Information about suppliers’ levels of compliance with any prescribed standards would be placed in the public domain. This is a fundamental aspect of the new model for consumer redress being introduced by these measures. We consider that, between this requirement and the requirement to belong to a redress scheme which industry must fund, suppliers will face strong incentives to introduce effective internal procedures for handling complaints.

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, thought it right to put her name to this amendment, and I thank her very much. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stood up and said it all as chairman of the NCC.

I got very worried during the Minister’s response that he was going to say that he would not take the issue away and look at it, but I think that that is what he said. If he does not come back with an amendment to this part of the Bill perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested, there may be a better place for an amendment to be made. In the belief that he will come back, having looked at this matter, I shall wait for Third Reading and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 87:

moved Amendment No. 88: