asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether, in view of the federal Government of Switzerland’s calculation that Swiss membership of the European Union would be nine times more expensive than Switzerland’s current bilateral arrangements with the European Union, a similar position applies to the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

My Lords, the House would not expect me to comment on the Swiss Government’s assessment of their situation, but this Government believe that UK membership of the European Union is central to the pursuit of stability, growth and employment, and provides significant benefits for UK business and employment. It is firmly in our national interest, both economically and in a wider political context.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I suppose shows that it is not always wise to share one’s brief with the Foreign Office. First, given that the Swiss and British economies are broadly similar, does the noble Lord agree that, if we take the Swiss Government’s calculations and apply them to our own economy, we would be at least £10 billion per annum better off? Secondly, does he accept that some 70 per cent of Swiss foreign trade is with the single market compared with only 40 per cent for the United Kingdom? Does not that suggest that being out of the European Union is no disadvantage to trade with the single market?

My Lords, the House is likely to be astonished at the suggestion that the Swiss economy is comparable to the fourth largest economy in the world. I have had sight of the report—it is 164 pages long and written in French, so I asked for a synopsis in English. It is not a cost-benefit analysis; it is an analysis of a narrow range of benefits and costs with regard to certain budgetary aspects, but not of the overall issues of membership of the Community. The Government’s position is based on the wider perspective.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, shows that, while he might know something about the cost of Swiss bilateral agreements, he knows precious little about the value to the United Kingdom of our membership of the European Union? Would it not be an act of monumental folly and a total betrayal of our national self-interest to believe that the Swiss bilateral arrangements would be adequate to enable this country to play a full part in formulating legislation to the benefit of this country?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I emphasise the obvious fact that the Government are able to establish the benefits of Europe on a much wider basis than through the comparison suggested by the noble Lord with this very limited cost-benefit exercise by the Swiss. I imagine that this will probably be one of the few occasions when the British economy is compared with that of Switzerland on such a significant matter.

My Lords, is not the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, really like looking at one side of a balance sheet and blinding oneself to the other? It is not a cost-benefit analysis that he is talking about; it is looking at the costs while not looking at the benefits at all. That is a fundamentally misleading way of approaching this whole issue.

My Lords, I am beginning to develop some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He is being attacked on all sides. I emphasise once again that I agree with those remarks. The Swiss perspective of the position is too limited both in its analysis and given the significance of the Swiss economy to make a comparison with the role of the United Kingdom in Europe.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the rather high Swiss figure cited by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is the astronomical level of agricultural prices in Switzerland, which would have to be abandoned if it joined the European Union? Is the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, suggesting that we would be better off if we had the Swiss level of agricultural prices?

My Lords, I am not sure that that question is addressed to me. I agree with the noble Lord that agricultural prices are a very important part of the European Community. We are continuing to bear down as best we can on what is still an inflated budget spent on agriculture.

My Lords, apart from UKIP MEPs’ expenses claims in Strasbourg, does the Minister agree that this has nothing to do with money? The reality is that most people in the EU do not want Switzerland to become a member and most Swiss people do not want to join the EU. Why should anybody disturb this very genial symmetry?

My Lords, the Swiss Government must take some responsibility, because they carried out this analysis, which has given the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the opportunity to air significant issues today.

My Lords, my erstwhile noble friend’s Question is about the economic costs of EU membership, but we have heard so far only of the unsubstantiated, unquantified benefits. What is the harm in quantifying the cost of EU membership so that we can have a rational debate on the benefits to set against it?

My Lords, the Treasury keeps under the closest review all attempts at drawing up cost-benefit analyses of European membership, which all have flaws and are all too limited. But I agree that we should be open and transparent about our proceedings. One dimension of that is, first, that we produce an annual report on our expenditure with regard to Europe—a report was published this very week in those terms—and, secondly, that we intend to extend that by producing an analysis of how EU money is spent in Britain and accounting for it.

My Lords, can my noble friend indicate the cost of putting down useless Questions in this period?

My Lords, that is a question for the House authorities, not for me.

My Lords, in response to the first Question, the Minister spoke of the great economic and political benefits. Would it be useful for us all to know what the great political benefits are so that we can be great supporters of the European Union as well?

My Lords, let me give one illustration. Last year, we were in very severe difficulty with regard to energy supplies; we had a problem with the bottleneck in Brussels and we needed leverage on the Russian Federation. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that that had to be done by action from the European Commission. Action has been taken that has liberalised the market to a certain extent, although not enough, improving our position as far as supplies from the Soviet Union are concerned.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

When the conclusions of the internal Department for Constitutional Affairs examination of different electoral systems in the United Kingdom will be published.

My Lords, the review is currently under way in the Ministry of Justice. It will include information on the recent elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly in March 2007 and the recent May elections to the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. A publication date has not yet been established.

My Lords, when will the Government honour their manifesto promise to put to the people in a referendum the issue of elections to the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister designate regard this issue as a vital ingredient in his campaign to reconnect citizens with their Parliament? I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that the report will take into account recent elections, but will she take this opportunity to reiterate and emphasise that the 141,891 spoilt ballot papers in Scotland were on the first-past-the-post and top-up ballot paper and not on the proportional representation STV ballot paper for local councils? Clearly the citizens understand how well the system can work; can she confirm that the ministry does as well?

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a number of questions. It is important to make sure that anything we put to the country has been debated in Parliament. One purpose of the review is to look at the implications of different voting systems across the UK. Given what happened in Scotland and the implications for the voting in London where we were concerned that the elderly might not have been able to understand the voting systems so well, we considered this carefully. I hope that the results will be available very soon.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that however undemocratic the first-past-the-post system may sometimes seem, if we look at what is happening in Scottish local elections, we see how undemocratic PR can be. Small minorities are beginning to rule the roost and the larger parties are not being given the power they should be in the local authorities. Is my noble friend aware that before 1914, when the Liberal Party was last in power, it was opposed to PR and the Labour Party, which was then a small minority, was in favour of it?

How times change, my Lords. The important thing is to look at our voting systems in the context of what we are seeking to achieve. There is no doubt that the first-past-the-post system has given clarity in terms of election; the single-member constituency has been very valuable in the relationship between MPs and their constituents. Moving to other systems takes us away from that to other aspects of obtaining government which noble Lords may prefer, but which we have to debate fully before we can move anywhere in that direction.

My Lords, will the review take into account the consequences for forming an Administration, bearing in mind that as a result of our electoral systems, we now have a minority Administration in Scotland, a coalition in Northern Ireland and a similar situation in Wales? Will the review also take into account the consequences for the governance of this country if, as a regular event after elections, Governments could not be formed with an overall majority?

My Lords, the terms of reference for this internal review are much tighter than those which the noble Lord has suggested. It is looking at the systems used for the Greater London Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament; it is also considering the findings of the Jenkins report, the Independent Commission on Proportional Representation, the Richard commission and the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems. What the noble Lord describes in terms of the outcome is a broader political question that is worthy of debate in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is my noble friend aware of what exactly is happening in Wales at the moment? The Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Welsh nationalists are meeting to form a Government when the major party in Wales is the Labour Party. Do we want that sort of system in our country?

My Lords, the people of Wales will see what happens and I am sure will wish to re-elect a Labour Government in Wales as soon as possible.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I put down a Question for Written Answer about the Electoral Commission’s report on the Scottish elections with a request that the report be supplied to your Lordships' House before we rise in two months’ time? Her department has ignored that and said that it is entirely up to the Electoral Commission. Is it not vital that we have that report before 26 July?

My Lords, I will look into the noble Lord’s request, but it is right that the Electoral Commission determines that report. I understand the wish to make sure that the House has access to the report as soon as possible. I will write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the possibility of revoking the alternative voting system in Wales and Scotland?

My Lords, that is a rather broader question than I can deal with today.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the review will consider that the elections in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are much more likely to deliver to people the outcome they desired when they cast their votes than the Westminster first-past-the-post system did two years ago, when one party obtained a mere 35 per cent of the vote and won 55 per cent of the seats?

My Lords, I had a personal bet about when the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would mention 35 per cent—I knew that he would not miss the opportunity to do so and I can now pay myself a great deal of money. The purpose of the internal review is to see how these systems are working. As it is an internal review, I would not want to give it responsibility for much broader questions which should be for your Lordships' House and another place to debate.

My Lords, the Minister is doubtless aware of the dangers of trading statistics in these matters, but is she aware of one in particular: in the recent Scottish elections, one minority party, the Greens, lost 70 per cent of its seats, five, but now has more influence than it has ever had in the history of the Parliament, at a time when energy and nuclear energy will be debated very seriously?

My Lords, if we were having a wider debate about voting systems and their consequences, we could see examples across the world of very small parties carrying huge influence. The noble Lord makes a good argument for considering these issues further, but it is not for the internal review to do that.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the impact of climate change on the United Kingdom’s tourism industry.

My Lords, the Government recognise the important impact of climate change on the United Kingdom’s tourism industry in all its myriad activities and locations. Government at both national and regional level agree that sustainability must be fully integrated and built into all tourism policy and practices. That has been our approach and that of our partners in developing the 2012 tourism strategy. Much has already been achieved to meet environmental challenges head-on.

My Lords, first, I acknowledge the Minister’s Answer and declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, whose 40 members receive more than 1 million visitors a year. The broad view of the tourism industry is that although climate change will be beneficial, particularly, for example, for our traditional seaside resorts, there are a number of negatives, such as erosion to our built heritage, storm-related pollution and fires on moorland and in forests. Given these challenges, does the industry not need, and is it not entitled to, more support and acknowledgement from the Government than it presently receives? We are in a situation where the DCMS does not have tourism in its name, where a likely-to-depart Secretary of State has taken very little interest in the industry, where a departing Prime Minister cannot wait to holiday abroad, and where an incoming Prime Minister does not seem to take any holidays at all.

My Lords, on the more substantive points, we agree with the noble Lord that certain aspects of climate change might benefit certain parts of the tourist economy. However, tourism is a very important part of our economy and it is not fair of the noble Lord to suggest that we do not pay enough attention to it. We are concerned to give the necessary support to the various tourist boards, particularly VisitBritain, of which he is chair. As he will also recognise, our whole strategy for the 2012 Olympics acknowledges that not only the sporting dimension but the cultural and tourism aspects need a great deal of attention, which they will receive. We all stand to benefit from that.

My Lords, will the Minister explain why daylight saving has not been incorporated into the forthcoming climate change legislation, the 342-page energy White Paper or the forthcoming ministerial Statement after Question Time? Will he therefore say why the Government think that lighter winter evenings will not assist sport, tourism or the hotel industry? Will he also explain why the Government think that daylight saving cannot save up to 1 per cent of electricity generation and subsequent carbon emissions? Finally—

Oh!

Listen to this, my Lords, because I never get a proper answer here.

Finally, will the Minister say why the Government consider that the switch to daylight saving by harmonising our timescale with Europe will not benefit the environment, the tourism and travel industries and all businesses that trade with the continent of Europe?

My Lords, I hate to disillusion the noble Lord, but a long question is no guarantee that the answer will be any more precise. I assure him that we recognise the case which he advocates for daylight saving. I know that he has strong links with Scotland. As he will know, support for daylight saving is not universal in Scotland. He will also know that there have been changes in Scottish politics in the past month or so which mean that the Government ought perhaps to adopt a consultative stance on this issue rather make a dramatic intervention at this point.

My Lords, following the recent helpful reply from the Government to my four Written Questions about the involvement of the hotel industry in saving energy, and particularly turning off lights and heating at high noon in high summer in hotel corridors, will my noble friend redouble the Government’s efforts to enter into a dialogue with the hotel and leisure industries on the many ways in which they can reduce energy wastage?

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that that dialogue is going on. As the wider public become more and more aware of the necessity for all of us to contribute our part in combating climate change, they will expect hotels and other purveyors of tourist facilities to be able to demonstrate that they are playing their part in those terms. The Government are working alongside the tourist industry to equip it so to do.

My Lords, in the long term, climate change is likely to make parts of northern England very attractive for people from Europe to come to on holiday. Have the Government yet begun to give any long-term thinking to the kind of infrastructure required to enable that to benefit the north of England? And has the Minister noted the report in the newspapers today that the Lonely Planet guide has said that, in the event of London becoming too hot and uncomfortable to be in, Manchester is already available and appropriate to be the capital of this country?

My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I am always astonished that Europe has not discovered the delights of northern England already. Let me confirm to the House that Manchester is a very important tourism destination and, as he indicates, its future looks bright against the changes that he has identified.

My Lords, can the Minister think of any reason other than extreme Euro-fanaticism for giving up Greenwich Mean Time and adopting Berlin Mean Time? Is it not rather absurd to suggest that noon in England is when the sun is on the meridian of Berlin?

My Lords, I think that the case is argued less in terms of pro-European fanaticism and more in terms of extending or, more accurately, changing the daylight hours in Britain, which is regarded as an advantage by its advocates. However, I am with the noble Lord on this matter. I am not convinced of that case as yet.

My Lords, notwithstanding the potential benefits that climate change might bring to the UK tourism industry, is the Minister aware that more than twice as many people are leaving this country to go on holiday as are coming here on holiday from overseas and that that is largely to do with the increasing and unfettered development of the low-cost aviation industry? Does he not agree that the time is coming—indeed, has already come—when some brake should be put on that development?

My Lords, I hope that we do not need a brake on that development but that we encourage British people to recognise the advantages of their own country for excellent holiday facilities. That means that we must certainly improve quality in certain areas; but, against a background of summers being more benign in future than we have known them to be in the past, there is no reason at all why we should not see a shift in demand.

My Lords, is the Minister aware—

My Lords, we are well into the 24th minute, and we must move on.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the outcome of the European Union-Russia summit held in Samara on 18 May.

My Lords, the EU-Russia summit was held on 17 and 18 May as planned and covered a broad agenda, including international relations, energy, climate change and trade. The EU raised human rights. The summits are important, as they allow both sides to engage on issues that are important to them, including areas of disagreement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he welcome as I do the achievement of a common position in relation to Russia by the EU on this occasion in a period when it is clear that the Russian Government and major Russian state companies are trying to pick off European states one by one? I note in today’s Financial Times, for example, that Alexander Medvedev, the international director of Gazprom, says:

“I don't want to interfere in the practice of the European community and its policy co-ordination … but”—

and he then goes on to praise Austria for considering a bilateral deal. Is it not clearly in Britain’s national interests, given our gas interests, the Litvinenko case and others, to pursue a common position towards an increasingly difficult Russia?

My Lords, it is fair to say that in the recent past the Russians have been successful in dividing the European Union and picking which nations they wanted to deal with more sympathetically than others. On this occasion they did not have that luxury; the European Union was completely united on all the fundamental issues. It is likely that President Putin understands that the days of division among us have probably come to an end.

My Lords, earlier the noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about the great benefits of working with our EU partners on foreign policy. Given that the EU-Russia summit appeared to end in complete acrimony—that was the report in most newspapers—did we have any level of Foreign and Commonwealth Office representation at that unfortunate meeting? While I think we all recognise that at the moment the Russians are very tricky to deal with on a number of fronts, ought we not in this case—whatever the benefits of the EU foreign policy may be elsewhere—to develop more effectively our own links, including relying less on Gazprom, which is a surrogate of the Russian Government, and more on our Norwegian friends and other suppliers of LNG, which would give us a much safer energy future than that into which some of our neighbours in the European Union seem to be heading?

My Lords, we were fully involved in the summit and the discussions. I repeat the point about the benefits of the EU in this political circumstance as it might not have come through in the rather frisky earlier Question that the House so much enjoyed. The EU stayed together and made an important impact on Russia’s thinking. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord about diversity of energy supply. That point is made in the White Paper. The reality is that we plainly cannot allow ourselves to be put in a position where our energy supplies are wholly or substantially dependent on one supplier who is proving difficult in commercial arrangements.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those who say that this was an unfortunate meeting between the EU and Russia and that we could do a lot better on our own make a false antithesis? There may have to be hard talking between the EU and Russia but that is no bad thing. At some point the Russian people may want to become more like people in the rest of Europe. Culturally, they are very much a European people. In Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee—the sub-committee is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Roper—we are endeavouring to study EU-Russia relations.

My Lords, like everybody else in the House, I look forward to hearing the result of those deliberations. We approach relations with Russia pragmatically. We try to advance the interests of our country and to make clear that our values are fundamental to the work we do. Those values do not go in a pragmatic relationship, nor should they. It is helpful when the European Union is pulling in the same direction around the same values and on this occasion it has been more effective in doing so. I hope that in due course the people of Russia may look at these values and consider that they might be better ones with which to live.

My Lords, will the Government and their European partners continue to resist undue and disproportionate Russian interference in the affairs of its immediate neighbours?

My Lords, as regards the most recent examples of that intervention in the relocation of war memorials in Estonia and the food situation in Poland, we have indicated our complete and unequivocal support for both those nations. I am sure that the war memorials issue can be dealt with properly and sensitively. I have absolutely no doubt that the arrangements for the export and import of food can be achieved through proper commercially binding agreements.

My Lords, do the Government support the statement put out by the German presidency in the wake of the Samara conference, from which I quote:

“In the energy sector … both sides are keen to co-operate more closely in the future”?

How on Earth does that square with what the noble Lord has been telling us this afternoon, or with what the Prime Minster has written in the Times today, that,

“we are now faced with countries such as Russia, who are prepared to use their energy resources as an instrument of policy”?

Surely to goodness there must be some consistency in the statements that are made about these conferences.

My Lords, I reject completely the idea that this is not consistent, and if it is unclear I will make it clearer. The reality is that there should be a commercial relationship in which there is a supplier prepared to sell in a proper market and consumers prepared to purchase in a proper market. That is how it should be looked at, and that is what we urge on the Russians. If they choose to use energy as a power implement in other ways, that is unacceptable. Both wings of that argument are wholly consistent.

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 Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:

“I should like to make a Statement on the energy White Paper and the consultation on the future of nuclear power, which I am publishing today. Copies of these, together with a number of other accompanying papers, are in the Vote Office.

“Mr Speaker, as I said last year, we face two big challenges: first, the need, with other countries, to tackle climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and, secondly to ensure that we have secure and affordable energy supplies. Both are vital for our future prosperity. Both are global issues, calling for action internationally as well as action here at home.

“The evidence supporting the need for urgent action on climate change continues to mount. Sir Nicholas Stern’s report last autumn underlined the importance of acting now and together with other countries. If not tackled, climate change poses catastrophic humanitarian consequences and economic costs. Meanwhile, world energy demand continues to grow. It is expected to be 50 per cent higher by 2030 than it is today, and it is likely to be met largely by fossil fuels for some time to come. That means rising greenhouse gas emissions and greater competition for energy resources, which have massive implications for both climate change and security of supply.

“Here in the UK, our reserves of oil and gas are declining. While significant amounts still remain in the North Sea, production has hit its peak and is now falling. As we make clear, we will make the most of the reserves that we have, but as our economy grows we will become increasingly dependent on imports in a world where supplies are concentrated often in less stable regions. We need to take action to manage the risks that this brings. Over the next few years, energy companies will also need to replace ageing power stations and other infrastructure. So we need to create the right conditions for this investment to get timely and increasingly low-carbon energy supplies.

“The White Paper sets out a long-term framework for action to address these challenges at home and abroad. It sets out our international strategy, which recognises that we need to tackle climate change and energy security together. Influenced by the UK, the European Council has agreed to a new strategy, including commitments to competitive markets, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, more renewable energy and a central role for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as the potential basis for a global carbon market. We also need to influence the wider international community, notably in getting a consensus on the post-2012 Kyoto framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The White Paper also sets out the measures that we are taking here at home. We have already published a draft Climate Change Bill, which for the first time would impose a legally binding duty on the Government to reduce the amount of carbon that is produced, as we work towards our target of achieving at least a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; we are the first country in the world to do so.

“Faced with these challenges, more is needed. The first priority must be to save energy, so the White Paper sets out a range of measures to help us to become more energy efficient and to cut energy use.

“Consumers need better information as to how they can save energy. Next year and the year after, any householder who asks for them can get free, visual real-time displays of how much electricity they are using. In parallel, we will work with the industry to ensure that consumers have visual displays, together with smart meters, in 10 years. In addition, better and clearer energy bills will help.

“It is estimated that leaving electric appliances on standby uses about 7 per cent of all electricity used in UK homes. That is equivalent to the electricity generated from two 600-megawatt gas-fired power stations or more than 1,500 2-megawatt wind turbines. So we will work with industry and others to improve the efficiency of domestic appliances, to phase out inefficient goods and to limit the amount of standby energy wasted.

“If we are to make a real difference in reducing energy demand, we need a stronger obligation on energy companies to provide their residential customers with energy-saving measures. So the White Paper proposes that from next year they double their current efforts and, from 2012, we aim to transform the way in which they see their relationship with their customers, shifting the focus to the provision of energy services, increasing energy efficiency and saving carbon in the home, rather than simply selling them gas and electricity. We will also require big organisations such as supermarkets, banks or hotel chains and large public sector organisations to limit their emissions and to set tougher standards for the homes that we build and the products that we buy.

“We need more low-carbon generation of electricity and heat. We want to encourage the enthusiasm of individuals and communities to generate their own energy locally, such as in homes or schools, through solar panels and wind turbines. We are therefore bringing forward a range of measures to support this approach. As part of this, we will be removing barriers and simplifying licensing, so that more communities can follow the example of Woking, including, for example, by developing combined heat and power schemes.

“However, we still need large-scale energy investment. Over the next 20 to 30 years, we will need new generating capacity equivalent to over a third of our existing capacity. Our aim must be to ensure that companies have a wide range of options available, so that we can retain a diverse energy mix, which is good for our security of supply and will help us to move to an increasingly low-carbon economy.

“Renewables are of crucial importance. So we are strengthening support for renewable electricity. The reform to the renewables obligation is essential and will mean, we expect, that by 2015 around 15 per cent of our electricity supplies will come from renewables—triple the amount that we have today, achieved in just eight years.

“In transport, the road transport fuel obligation will save a million tonnes of carbon a year. We want to double it, only if we can be satisfied that it is sustainable to do so.

“New technologies will also help. We want British-based business to be at the forefront of new green technology. That is why we set up the Energy Technologies Institute, which brings public and private investment together, and now has a minimum budget of £600 million. We are launching a competition for the demonstration of carbon capture and storage, which has the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel power stations by as much as 90 per cent, which is important, as we will rely on gas and coal power, including coal mined in the UK, for some time to come. Details are set out in the White Paper.

“We want to save energy. We want low-carbon sources of energy. That is why we will do everything that we can to encourage renewables such as wind, wave and tidal power. But that alone will not be enough if we are to minimise our costs and risks.

“Alongside this White Paper, we are publishing a consultation document on nuclear power, so that we can take a decision on whether companies should have this option when making their investment decisions. We have reached the preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power. But before we make our decision, we are consulting further.

“The White Paper makes clear the complexities of the challenges that we face in terms of climate change and energy security. There is no single answer to these challenges. We believe that there needs to be as wide a choice of low-carbon options as possible, so that we do not become over-reliant on any one form of electricity generation. Nuclear is an important part of our energy mix at the moment. We currently get about 18 per cent of our electricity from nuclear power stations—a low-carbon form of generating electricity. It provides a regular and steady supply of electricity, whereas electricity generated from most renewables is, by its very nature, intermittent. Every year a modern nuclear reactor saves about 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere compared with an equivalent gas-fired station.

“Most nuclear power stations are set to close over the next 10 to 20 years at a time when we know that demand for electricity is going up because of economic growth. Quite simply, in the public interest we need to make a decision this year on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear, because new stations take a long time to build.

“If nuclear is excluded, there is every chance that its place will be taken by gas or coal generation, which of course emits carbon. Yes, carbon capture and storage, if it can be developed, would help, but at this stage we cannot be certain of that. There is no commercial-scale operation of carbon capture and storage on power generation anywhere in the world. And, although we want to get more renewable energy as part of the mix, it, too, is controversial. There are over 170 applications in the planning process at the moment.

“It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs. There are important issues to consider, including the question of waste. They are considered in the consultation, which will run until October.

“Our measures, including those in the White Paper, put us on track to make savings of carbon emissions of between 23 million and 33 million tonnes by 2020. Put another way, if we met the upper end of this range, it would be the equivalent of removing all the emissions that we get from every car, van and lorry on Britain’s roads today.

“By saving energy, encouraging new timely investment in gas import and storage infrastructure and maximising recovery of UK reserves of oil, gas and coal, our measures will also help security of supply. We cannot become a low-carbon economy in a single step. Further measures will be needed if we are to achieve our long-term goals and in the light of further international agreements in Europe and more widely.

“The White Paper sets out a framework for action to enable us to make real progress now towards tackling climate change and ensuring secure and affordable energy supplies. I commend the Statement to the House”.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the Statement. The White Paper and the Statement accompanying it are characterised by one thing: confusion. The Government say that certain things must be done but their policy, at best, says only that they might be done. The current Prime Minister says that the replacement of nuclear power stations is back on the agenda with a vengeance. The future Prime Minister says that a new generation of nuclear power stations will be built across the country. Yet the most that the Minister has promised today is that nuclear plants could be part of the future energy mix and that it is for the private sector to take decisions over new power stations.

However it is dressed up, nothing in the White Paper guarantees that a single nuclear power station will ever be built. Where has the Prime Minister’s “back with a vengeance” gone in relation to nuclear power? It is certainly not here. Are the Government saying that the nuclear new build will definitely happen or not? How many new nuclear power stations will definitely be built as a result of this White Paper? Does the Minister have a plan B if Scotland rejects nuclear power and, if not, how does he expect the Government to deliver a UK-wide energy policy? If the SNP has rejected both nuclear in principle and wind in practice, can the Government acknowledge that the policy is anything other than lunacy?

Business will of course invest in nuclear power only if it knows what it costs. Without certainty about carbon, decommissioning and waste, it is almost impossible for businesses to take a realistic interest. The Government have given absolutely no greater clarity on those issues today, so what happens if no one comes forward to invest?

Over a year ago, the Prime Minister said of new nuclear build:

“If we don’t take these long-term decisions now, we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty”.

Today in the Times, he just says that we must “consider” it. But can the Minister tell noble Lords exactly what decisions have been taken today to address this dereliction?

Last July, we in the Conservative Party set out our objectives. We called for a cap and trade scheme for C0₂ based on auctioned rights, for site and type licensing and for reform of the renewables obligation and climate change levy. In addition, we said that there must be long-term certainty for investors. As we, as a party, have said again and again on environmental issues, if that could lead to broad agreement between us and the Government, that would be very good for Britain. Today’s announcement contained detailed proposals for banding the renewables obligation, but those will not overcome its central flaws. On what basis, therefore, has the Minister assessed and chosen to reject the considered alternative put forward by Ofgem?

Hidden in this Statement is bad news about carbon capture. Will the Minister confirm that the failure of this Government to agree a pilot project for it means that any prospect of its happening has already been seriously delayed—or should I say postponed? Is not the real truth that, far from being on the edge of happening, carbon capture is about to be deferred and endangered? I wonder how on Earth CCS will ever get off the ground if it is still constrained by the climate change levy. When will the Government remove the perversity of keeping a dirty tax on a clean process?

On strategic infrastructure projects, we welcome site and type licensing and the streamlining of the planning process. However, I have grave concerns about entrusting that to an unaccountable quango.

The Conservative Party policy statement last July called for greater use of carbon trading. A broad and rational regime for carbon trading is, in our view, crucial for incentivising low-carbon technologies. The Government’s announcement that they will broaden the scope of carbon trading to cover a greater number of businesses is, therefore, welcome. It is our view that permits should be auctioned. Will the Secretary of State tell us how and when they will be?

Climate change is the greatest threat that we face. That is why the Government had the support of the Conservative Party in signing up to tough EU targets on emissions and renewables in March. At present, we get just 2 per cent of our total energy from renewables. Raising that to 20 per cent was always going to be challenging. Is it not true to say that today’s plans will at best get us only about half way to that target? Is it not also the case that, despite the clear wish expressed in the White Paper to encourage local and decentralised energy, there is almost nothing that amounts to a robust policy that will really make it happen?

Again and again, this White Paper wills the ends but not the means. In households, smart metering could greatly increase energy efficiency and help customers to export electricity back to the grid. But the Government are putting their support behind the limited clip-on visual electricity displays. Does that intervention not pull the rug from under the real smart meter market? Why are the Government going for the most basic option, when real smart meters would help to stimulate the microgeneration industry?

Today’s announcement has already been twice delayed. It is Labour’s third White Paper, following dozens of consultations, and the product of its third energy review, under its ninth energy Minister. It is yet another symptom of a wasted 10 years—10 years that have rendered the next 10 years a Herculean challenge for whoever has to take it on.

The White Paper offers nothing definite on nuclear or anything else. It heralds the collapse of carbon capture, while continuing an irrational regime for carbon penalties and incentives. It provides little or no prospect of hitting renewables targets and it does not offer the security that the country so urgently needs. The Government have had 10 years to think about their energy policy, and 10 months since the energy review to get it right, but what we are left with is not a carbon-free future, but a content-free promise.

My Lords, this White Paper is about the nuclear issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has pointed out. I thank the Government. The White Paper seems to follow our questions and concerns about nuclear. If I were someone who was going to develop a nuclear power station, I would not take a great deal of comfort from the White Paper. As the policy of these Benches is against nuclear, I think that that is a step forward.

As the noble Baroness also pointed out, the Scottish National Party has said that it will not build nuclear power stations in Scotland. Do the Government see nuclear power as a local or devolved issue?

The raising of the nuclear issue is not greatly surprising because the White Paper pointed out that the Government will be changing the planning requirements for nuclear power stations. But will the issue of rising sea levels be taken into account in these great consultation documents? If the scientists’ predictions on climate change are correct and sea levels rise on the magnitude discussed, we will not be building nuclear power stations; we will be building nuclear submarines.

I was disappointed by way in which the White Paper deals with carbon storage and capture. As I have read the document only today, on its publication, I shall pick out only one point, on page 175, at paragraph 5.4.18. It states that the UK’s first commercial-scale demonstration of carbon storage and capture will be online in the next decade. That is the demonstrator model. If we are relying on carbon storage and capture to make a significant impact on the 80 per cent of our electricity projected to be produced from gas and coal, should the Government not be putting much more effort not only into a demonstrator model but into retrofitting already operating power stations with that technology over the next 10 to 15 years?

The White Paper gives the impression that we need to build these power stations because there will be exponential growth in the amount of energy used. However, it also refers to getting rid of stand-by, which would reduce the amount of energy we need by 10 per cent. That shows the importance of education and working with industry to reduce the amount of energy used. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say how unfortunate it is that HIPs were delayed yesterday because of the energy performance certificates. On the DCLG’s own figures, the delay will result in the release of about 250,000 extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The White Paper mentions renewables. I hope that the Government will look again at renewables. A pitiful sum has been spent on developing wave and tidal technology, technology which is far more reliable in producing a constant flow of electricity. The amount spent on that, compared with the amount spent on nuclear decommissioning, is laughable. I hope that the Government will also start looking at new technologies such as energy storage, which the department has frequently overlooked.

The White Paper also raises the issue of smart metering. I very much hope that the Government will bring forward a debate, in their own time, to talk about which type of smart metering we are considering. We could end up with a basic smart meter that provides very little information, or with smart meters that could be fitted in every house and provide massive amounts of information on electricity prices and when to use electricity and on the environmental benefits of using it at different times. Progress on that depends on the Government setting out clear guidelines to the industry.

I have one question but could not find the answer to it in the document because I am not a speed reader. It is about the renewables obligation. Of course we support renewal. However, do the Government intend to add nuclear power to the obligation? Defining nuclear power as a renewable power source would be an interesting step.

It will be very difficult for any power company to take a great deal of solace from the White Paper on how to go about building a new power station, be it nuclear or any other type. Our position is that nuclear power stations would be a mistake, but I welcome the White Paper.

My Lords, I do not recognise the confusion which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, describes in the White Paper. I think that our position is absolutely clear. She also made some points on the consultation process for new nuclear build. The consultation on new nuclear build will be full and run over 20 weeks. Afterwards the Government will have a period of reflection and then take our final decision. As noble Lords said, we published our energy review last July and said that nuclear should form part of the future low-carbon energy mix. That is still our view.

The exact number of nuclear stations has not been decided. However, if we take no action, our nuclear capacity will decline over the next few years from about 18 per cent to 6 to 7 per cent. That would have a big impact on our emissions as that capacity would have to be replaced by gas or other forms of generation which are not as low-carbon. Security of supply issues would also arise.

The UK’s policy on renewables is clearly laid out in the White Paper: our strategy is to triple the amount of electricity generated from renewables between now and 2015.

The noble Baroness also mentioned investment in nuclear and asked why energy companies should invest in it. Energy companies have shown a lot of interest in investing in new nuclear in the UK. EDF has said that, providing that the Government make a decision relatively swiftly, it could have a new nuclear power station up and running by 2017. On subsidy, E.ON has said that it would require no subsidy whatever to build a nuclear power station in the UK. I do not see an issue there.

Our view on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is that it should be strengthened. We want to ensure that there is a robust price for carbon. The EU ETS was particularly weak in its first phase but has strengthened somewhat in its second phase. We want to strengthen it further in its third phase.

The renewables obligation will be worth £1 billion annually to the renewable sector by 2010. We are consulting on the banding of the renewables obligation specifically to ensure that there is more support for the renewable technologies that are currently not viable. We are therefore looking at offshore wind, tidal and marine technologies and ensuring that we give more support to them than to others such as onshore wind and biomass.

We looked at the previous Government’s feed-in tariffs but felt that they were not effective in boosting renewables. Under the renewables obligation this Government have doubled the amount of renewable energy, with considerable increases in, for example, wind generation. It took 14 years to develop the first gigawatt of wind energy in the UK, and 20 months to develop the second. Only eight countries in the world, including the UK, have reached that level of wind generation.

I do not see the problem that the noble Baroness outlined on carbon capture and storage, which is going ahead. We are having a competition and expect to have the details in place by November 2007, and we are working closely with energy companies to take it further. We intend to proceed as the first country in the world to have a demonstration project for carbon capture and storage. As noble Lords will know, although CCS exists in a number of forms, no one has yet succeeded in putting the technology together on a commercial scale.

I acknowledged what the noble Baroness said. I mentioned the carbon reduction commitment and the benefits that it would have. I agree with that. We are currently on target to achieve a 60 per cent reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050. The White Paper outlines how we will achieve that.

On smart metering, the benefits of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I agree. If I may say so, the noble Baroness seemed to be misinformed about our proposals for smart metering. We are not abandoning it in favour of visual display units; we propose that it be introduced for all businesses within five years, apart from the smallest businesses, and within 10 years for domestic users. We are also offering the opportunity of visual display units free of charge for consumers during the next couple of years.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned Scotland. Of course we do not intend to change the devolution settlement. The Scottish Executive have certain powers on planning matters and those will remain the same. We have undertaken some contingency work dependent on the final outcome of the consultation, but we are looking at strategic siting assessments for new nuclear power stations, which will obviously take into account the issues that he mentioned concerning rising sea levels.

On carbon capture and storage, the noble Lord pointed to page 175, paragraph 5.4.18 of the White Paper. The intention is that the first commercial-scale demonstration of CCS will be brought on stream between 2011 and 2014. That will be part of the bid criteria; proposals will have to take that into account. Companies will have to promise that they will deliver in that timeframe a UK CCS programme. These things take time, but if we do not take the decisions now, we will not have a CCS demonstrator in that timescale. Time is pressing, we are aware of that. That is why we are proceeding with all speed on the matter.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that energy saving is very important for both businesses and individuals. We have ensured that there will be a successor to the carbon emission reduction target which will double the obligation of suppliers to introduce energy-saving measures. The Government’s plans to introduce zero-carbon homes by 2016 will also reduce CO₂ emissions and make individuals think more about their carbon footprint. That is very important.

On the renewables obligation, which I mentioned briefly, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. As I said, it will be worth £1 billion a year to the sector by 2010. We have the marine renewables development fund, which contains £50 million to support tidal power. We are establishing the Energy Technologies Institute, which will have a budget of £600 million over 10 years to support a range of new renewable technologies. We have invested about £500 million in development grants for renewables. As I mentioned, we are looking at a renewable banding to give more support to wind and tidal power, among others.

Will nuclear power be included in the renewables obligation? No.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help me. Surely hydrogen cars—I believe that some cities in the United States have buses that run on hydrogen, consequently emitting no carbon dioxide exhausts—building regulations that would make all new houses contribute either by solar panels or heat exchangers plus or minus to the national grid, and the growing of agricultural crops for fuel are much better things to encourage than windmills, which cannot be relied on when the wind is blowing too strongly or when it is not blowing at all. Can the noble Lord help me on those matters? As always, I am seeking information and enlightenment.

My Lords, on hydrogen cars, we are looking at fuel cells and developing the technology on that level. As I mentioned, we will have the Energy Technologies Institute, which will support research in those areas. On vehicle emissions and the efficiency of cars, we are working with the European Union to increase the amount of biofuels used in vehicles from the 5 per cent that we have established under our proposals to the 10 per cent that the EU has outlined. We are saying that it is important that biofuels are developed in a sustainable way and that we have a second generation of biofuels that can be used in vehicles with a greater blending of fuels and all the rest. On agricultural crops, the argument is similar; we must be aware of sustainability when it comes to biofuels and the development of energy crops in this country for co-firing. We need to keep apprised of that. Again on transport, we are developing a low-carbon transport innovation strategy that will consider a number of issues and how we can improve the low-carbon element of our transport in the UK. We also support the Commission’s proposal that aviation should be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and are looking at surface transport. The noble Earl asked another question that I did not catch.

My Lords, I asked whether the Government would consider making the building regulations such that new houses always had heat exchangers or roof panels, so that they would be in and out of the national grid.

Yes, my Lords, we are looking at the building regulations. The Government have outlined the decent homes standard, which will ensure that homes have appropriate levels of insulation, and we have expressed the aspiration that all new homes should be zero-carbon by 2016. We are also looking at making government buildings and properties in the government estate zero-carbon. We are extending our carbon reduction programme to large-scale energy-intensive users such as hotels, supermarkets and local authorities, which will have to bear the programme in mind and make their buildings more efficient. We are also looking at the building regulations to see how we can reduce the number of barriers to technology such as CHP and ensure that many new housing developments and other buildings are supported by local energy generation, distributed energy and low-carbon energy. On microgeneration, we have the low-carbon building programme of £86 million, and we will introduce new planning regulations in the autumn to ensure that it is a lot easier for people to install wind turbines, solar panels and the rest on their homes without having to go through the whole planning process.

My Lords, surely someone on these Benches must be allowed to speak at some time.

My Lords, we have waited a long time to get a White Paper on this subject. I instigated a debate on this subject in 1978. The science has not changed, and the situation has not changed, so why has it taken so long to get to the point where there is a plethora of White Papers on the problem of carbon? Is it because of the division among scientists that carbon may not be the main cause of the problem? Indeed, the ice cores that have been collected and analysed in the intervening 29 years have indicated that global warming occurs before an increase in atmospheric carbon just as one cannot have smoke without fire—one has to have fire first. Secondly, there has been no mention of methane. The latest papers written by Kepler and Röckmann and published in Scientific American earlier this year indicate that growing crops, especially crops to produce biodiesel, may greatly increase atmospheric methane. Why has there been no discussion about this? Before we enter into a whole mass of legislation and new taxes, the science should be looked at again. The latest report from Russia is that the planet Mars has increased in temperature over the past 25 years by exactly the same proportion as the Earth has increased in temperature. Therefore, is solar radiation perhaps the cause of our problem?

My Lords, the noble Lord says that the situation has not changed since 1978. Although I have not been in your Lordships’ House for that length of time, I can certainly say that from my standpoint things have changed since the publication of the previous energy White Paper in 2003. That is for two main reasons. First, the science on climate change widely accepts that it is manmade and is accelerating. I do not need to go into the details of the IPCC report and Sir Nicholas Stern’s report. It is now broadly accepted across the world, including in the United States and China, that there is a problem with climate change, that it is accelerating and that we need to tackle it.

The second reason, security of supply, did not exist in the same way even back in 2003. The relative price of energy and fossil fuel has increased quite dramatically since then. Increasingly, we are becoming more dependent on less stable parts of the world for our energy. We are witnessing a faster decline in our North Sea resources than we envisaged, which increases our energy dependence. By 2020 something like 80 per cent of our gas will be imported. While we currently import about 30 per cent from Norway, it is a fact that we will have to look further afield for our gas to countries such as Qatar, Algeria and Trinidad and to parts of Africa and central Asia—leaving Russia apart. Therefore, we need to increase the diversity of our supply. All those points, particularly tackling climate change and ensuring our security of supply, have changed the argument on nuclear from where I stand.

On methane, the noble Lord mentioned energy crops and the importance of sustainability, with which I would agree. On deforestation, we should ensure that the actions we take in the UK and Europe do not have detrimental effects on developing parts of the world. We ought to be very aware of that.

My Lords, my noble friend will have seen an interesting article by the Prime Minister in today’s Times in which he mentioned, among other things, renewables and so on. He set a target about which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was quite rightly sceptical. The Prime Minister referred to wave power and other things, but he did not refer to tidal energy, although my noble friend mentioned it a moment ago. Can he confirm that it is time to take a very close and earnest look at the Severn barrage, which would provide something like 4 per cent of our electricity and take us a long way towards that target, whether it is achievable or not? I would like to have that confirmation.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. It is clear that we have a stretching renewable target, which we should tackle. The Commission has to bring forward detailed proposals on how that will be allocated to individual member states, depending on their starting points. Obviously, we will do a lot of work on that.

From where we stand, the most important issue is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is our overarching target in terms of reducing them by 60 per cent by 2050. There must be a central role for the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and we must have a robust price for carbon. Within that overall framework, we have a major role for renewables as well.

My noble friend is right that the Severn barrage is mentioned in the White Paper. In terms of electricity generation, it would provide something like 5 per cent of the electricity needed for this country should we develop it. There are arguments for and against. In generation and renewable terms it would clearly be significant. We need to look at environmental issues closely, including EU regulations, the habitats directive and the impact on wildlife. The Sustainable Development Commission is undertaking a study on tidal and wave power. As part of that, it will look at the Severn barrage. It will report in September and we will take careful note of its report.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many ways to harness the power of the River Severn that do not include the barrage? It is not a question of either/or; the generation of 5 per cent of our electricity could be achieved by accessing the tidal stream on the Severn in a variety of ways. Can he comment on power loss during transmission through the national grid? Are the Government considering the development of more localised, regional grids?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that we can look at other options in the context of the river Severn; the barrage is just one of those. It would be a large, extremely expensive and complicated project, but it would have real potential benefits in terms of renewable generation. However, as I say, we can look at other options. We are looking closely at the distribution of energy through the national grid so that the barriers to distribution are reduced to make the grid work more effectively, and ensure that we bring on the localised use of energy, in particular from renewable sources.

My Lords, I want to ask about two related areas in the White Paper. The graph on page 109 is alarming. It shows that by 2030 it is likely that we will be producing only about 10 per cent of the gas we produced in 2000. Even on the best case scenario for indigenous gas supplies, we will be importing the vast majority of our gas in the foreseeable future. Does that not cause a question to be raised about the dash for gas, as well as whether burning most of it in our power stations and thereby producing energy for essentially just one generation will be seen by future generations as rather short-sighted? Linked to that is the issue of carbon capture. Coal is out of fashion because of the absence of economic carbon capture technology. Can the Minister tell us a little more about where the problem lies? Is it in the separation of carbon dioxide from other flue gases, the transmission of carbon dioxide to a storage site, or the costs of actual storage itself? For all that it says, the White Paper does not come clean on where the problem is in this matter.

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. On the question of the dash for gas, I agree with him that we need a diverse energy mix and that we should not be over-reliant on any one particular form of supply. Gas currently generates approximately a third of our electricity, as does coal, but this can vary. When we encountered tightness in energy supplies a couple of winters ago, the amount of electricity generated by coal rose by 50 per cent, but as a result we found that CO₂ emissions went up. We have to have a diverse energy mix both to ensure security of supply and to reduce CO₂ emissions. One of the ways of doing that is to develop carbon capture and storage. However, a number of issues arise with CCS. Several countries are already using parts of the available CCS technology. The Norwegians, for example, already store gas offshore, and the energy sector has often used the injection of gas to enhance the exploitation of oil and gas fields. There are regulatory issues in this area, such as the London and OSPAR conventions, which need to be amended to ensure that we can store gas under the North Sea. While the London agreement has been amended, the OSPAR agreement has not, so there are legal issues to consider. But the main point is that no one in the world has put all the different elements of the technology together and shown that they can work on a commercial scale, and that is really the task of this programme.

My Lords, I have been studying the consultative document on the future of nuclear power issued alongside the White Paper. In particular, I have been looking at Chapter 13, which sets out the proposals for the Government’s facilitative action that they would undertake if, after consultation, they conclude that energy companies should be allowed to invest in new nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. Bearing in mind the long lead-in period before a nuclear power station becomes operational and the long decommissioning period at the end, have the Government made a real study of the likely cost of the electricity produced, particularly in so far as the consumer is concerned? How can they be so sure, when they talk about facilitative action, that some government financial assistance will not be necessary?

My Lords, the Government have carried out extensive modelling on this issue and some of the costs were outlined in the energy review last year. One of the reasons we are putting forward the nuclear consultation at this point is that the cost picture has changed compared to the position in 2003 when the previous energy White Paper was published. It was the Government’s assessment in 2003 that nuclear was not viable. Since then, bearing in mind the increase in oil and gas prices and the likelihood that they will remain relatively high for the medium to long term, that cost picture has changed. The Government’s assessment now is that, given the energy mix and the likely change in prices in the future, nuclear will be competitive compared to other forms of energy generation. We believe—and some energy suppliers say this themselves—that that can be done without subsidy. However, we need to create the right framework in the development of nuclear if we go down that path. We have overhauled the planning system and we are looking at the strategic assessment processes mentioned in the chapter. We also want to ensure that there is a real and robust price for the cost of carbon because that will be a key to the development of low-carbon energy in the future.

My Lords, building on that last interchange, will my noble friend take the opportunity to knock on the head the contention that the White Paper gives special privileges to nuclear? Is it not the case, leaving aside the fact that the underlying price of gas and oil is rather higher than it was a few years ago, that not only has nuclear hitherto not had privileges but the tax treatment of nuclear can, in some respects, be considered less privileged than other renewables? We are looking for a level playing field, which is exactly the basis of the economics of the White Paper.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we are aiming for a level playing field.

My Lords, the Government have had 10 years in which to make a decision on how they are going to prevent the lights going out in this country. It would appear from the White Paper and all I have heard from the Minister today that no decisions have yet been made. The Government are right up against the backboard. Will they, in a very short space of time, come back to the House and tell us that they have made a decision and have a clear strategy on how they are going to stop the lights in the United Kingdom going out in the not-too-distant future?

My Lords, yes, yes and yes.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]

Clause 3 [Power to make arrangements for the provision of probation services]:

moved Amendment No. 38:

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for raising this important point. We on these Benches certainly share his high regard for the work of NGOs in many fields. I listened with great interest to the definition of “negotiated partnership” that was presented. While partnership between probation providers of all sectors is greatly to be encouraged in principle, the best way of achieving this is through contestability—I acknowledge the noble Lord’s concern about the less worthy applicants. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lady Anelay will speak at much greater length on the role of charities. In responding to the noble Lord’s amendment, I note that improvements are clearly due in the way in which contracts with charities are made and implemented, including the arrangements for, and consistency of, funding. It is important to get these matters right in the context of making contractual arrangements through contestability, but I suspect that the noble Lord’s amendment, in widening the way in which agreements are made to extend to negotiated partnerships, would drive a coach and horses through contestability.

We on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. It opens up the question of the future relationship between commissioners of probation services and the various bodies from which they commission, be they private, for-profit providers or non-governmental organisations. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked, the not-for-profit sector—the charitable bodies—has divided views on this.

I recognise in the language of the Bill all the terminology of new public management, which the Minister, too, uses with relish. There are contractual relations between the principal and the agent. The agent who provides the services is in a purely executive, thus subordinate, role. The principal sets the terms of the contract in targets, performance measures and other metrics. There are bonuses for good performance and penalties for bad performance. One has to ask whether, in relations between commissioners of probation services and charitable bodies, that is the correct relationship. We are talking about local provision of services for offenders, so we are at the heart of what probation is about.

For the private sector, this is entirely correct, but the problem that we need to address is whether one should treat the private and charitable sectors in exactly the same way and thus risk reducing the charitable sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, to being merely a provider of services in an executive capacity to commissioners who entirely set the agenda.

I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his amendment. As the Minister knows, we are all with her in the ambition of what she seeks to achieve, but the question is the method. We have frequently drawn attention to the need to listen to the voice in the field. My contribution is based on six short statements made on 2 May in a keynote speech to the Probation Centenary conference by Ellie Roy, the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, entitled “Commissioning—the Youth Justice Experience”. My concern, in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, is that a great deal of this Bill flies in the face of the practical experience of the Criminal Justice Board. I want to read the statements made in the speech, because I think that they explain why. Ellie Roy said that,

“you need as a commissioner to be able to work with your providers to look at how you want to change things, what is actually going to be achievable and you … need to listen to the real operational concerns and operational issues which your providers tell you about and you need to give them discretion in how they actually deliver a lot of the services”.

The risk is that,

“you can set out on a process which initiates some huge upheaval in the services that you’re responsible for or that you’re trying to change and you may do that against very weak data and a weak evidence base and you may then not be in a position to make a sound judgement on the results”.

She remarked that,

“one of the things that as a commissioner you’ve got to remember is that you do have providers in the field who know their business and know it well, who have experience and expertise and you need to work with the grain of that rather than coming in and thinking that you can tell people exactly what to do and what changes need to be put in place”.

She also said:

“As a commissioner you should be able to use contestability to select the best provider who will provide best service for the lowest cost. But again, it’s not as straightforward as it seems. Some of the constraints that we face are, first of all, lack of new money to invest in any transformational change. Everybody knows how constrained the public purse is at the moment and we have to make the money that we’ve got work to change and that gives us some real problems because if we wanted to rebalance the costs across the three sectors”—

that is, the public, the private and the voluntary—

“there are some real issues around that, particularly in terms of the expertise and experience”,

that some have,

“and the fact that they deal with the most vulnerable populations … so we have to think very long and hard about that”.

She also pointed out:

“It’s very difficult as a commissioner, to judge the ability of competing providers to deliver a quality service. What looks good on paper in a bid is not always deliverable and it is difficult to judge whether too many corners have been cut and some of the bids that come forward … are actually as robust as they seem in the reality. For us, we are actually dependent on monopoly suppliers whether we like it or not and there are some real risks in moving beyond those suppliers”.

She sums up:

“The conclusion that we’ve come to”—

that is, the Youth Justice Board, over time—

“is that we really do need to work in partnership with the providers that we’ve got … They … have the experience and we need to work with them, and … build a confident relationship, and … trust between us, if we are going to see the change that we all want”.

I do not think that you could put it more clearly or succinctly than that. If we think that we can push change in a different way, we are deluding ourselves.

I share all the concerns that lie behind this group of amendments. However, I want to raise a slightly different point. Commissioning of probation and similar services outside the Probation Service will not occur until 2010, but it is very important for us to be clear in our minds now how it will work. The length of contracts will be very important, whether for privately supplied services or for work done by voluntary organisations. Such bodies will have to recruit and train staff and will then have to do the necessary work and provide the necessary services for the prevention of offending. Even when that work is completed, it seems to me that another two years will be required before it can be seen whether the treatment, supervision or support has been effective in reducing reoffending.

In this connection, it seems to me that an expensive course may be worth while if it is very effective whereas a cheap course may constitute money badly spent, and possibly wasted, if its results are negligible. Therefore, anything that the Government can say about the length of contracts that they envisage will be very helpful. I reinforce the points already made by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham.

I support these amendments. I wish to comment particularly on Amendments Nos. 38 and 40, which concern negotiated partnerships. There are enormous difficulties involved in contracting out human services that are intended to deliver care of other human beings. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will agree with me that the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Human Rights into the care of elderly people has highlighted the great difficulty that local authorities have in contracting for the care of elderly people and building values and flexibility into contracts. It is easy to state in a contract, “The floors must be very clean and so they must be swept every day, preferably between nine and 10”. It is more difficult to state, “Sweep the floors between nine and 10 but if an old lady is crying and is deeply upset stop sweeping the floors, put your broom away and care for the old lady”. It appears that we are not yet very good at drafting contracts that lead to such outcomes.

The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, produced an interesting report on Doncaster prison, I think; I hope that I shall be forgiven if that is not correct. It was pointed out that various matters that were not in the contract were not being dealt with. The contract did not state that lavatories had to have seats, so they were not replaced. It did not state that beds had to have pillows, so they were not replaced. That highlights another difficulty: how long should a contract be and what should it specify in order to achieve the outcomes that I am sure we all want?

The Committee will know that we on these Benches do not normally have two Front-Benchers coming in on one amendment; it is not a practice that we like to pursue. With the indulgence of the Committee, I rise only to ask a specific question that has nothing to do with the way in which my noble friend responded to the amendments. I want to ask for clarification on a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. When he spoke, I understood him to say that he appreciated that probation services would not be put out for contestability in 2010. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is helpfully nodding his agreement. It was my understanding that the Government’s commitment to delay putting out services to contestability until 2010 related only to those core services given protection in Clause 4, and that the Government had not bound themselves with regard to other services that might be opened up to contestability before 2010. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

If it is any help, page 3 of the Home Office NOMS May 2007 reducing reoffending strategy says that it will be 2010.

I appreciate that. I am relying on the text of the Bill and the commitment given by the Home Secretary in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has made an important reference, and it is right that we should have a clarification at the Dispatch Box.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for asking for clarification. I will try to deal with that matter during my response.

I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for tabling the amendments and pay tribute to him for the incredible work he does in the voluntary sector and for the powerful insights that he brings to our debates. Too often, we lose that and fail to understand the wealth of experience of noble Lords who speak on this subject. As I waited while noble Lords made their points, I reflected that this House benefits greatly from that experience. We should look at some of these issues in that spirit of informed criticism and engagement, because they are important and I understand that people who work in the different services are nervous as we as a government continue to encourage the commissioning role and other forms of contestability. I understand the sensitivity of these issues and their importance to how the services will develop.

We have discussed this matter in the past and there is not actually a great deal of difference between most of the contributors to this debate. We are all trying to get to the bottom of these issues. As I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he quoted Ellie Roy of the Youth Justice Board, I did not think that we were in great disagreement. We obviously need to address the issues raised in those comments, and we feel that we are doing so and that there is no difference between us. Our experience of the contestability process over the years and the way that the Youth Justice Board has worked have served us well in informing our approach to probation services and how they develop.

Clause 2 gives to the Secretary of State responsibility for ensuring sufficient provision for probation services, and Clause 3 sets out how he may go about that task. It enables the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any person for the making of probation provision. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 propose that these arrangements should be on the basis of “contractual negotiated partnership”. In effect, this is the model that we intend to follow, whereby both regional and local commissioners will encourage joint bidding. The legislation already allows for this and we intend to take that forward through the commissioning and procurement processes. It is already very much part of our thinking. We are there. There is no disagreement between us and there is a comity of view. It is not really a matter for legislation, because we want to build on the basis of valuable and valued experience.

Amendment No. 39 relates to Clause 3(2), which enables the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the delivery of probation services. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Judd that the definition of “person” in this subsection includes institutions or organisations. Those reassurances should perhaps satisfy my noble friend’s concerns.

Today, my noble friend Lady Scotland and I visited drugs projects in my home city of Brighton. Much of that drugs-related work is commissioned and relies on contractual arrangements with NGOs—voluntary organisations. A wealth of experience is already out there in the drugs field, and that is where the flexibility and initiative required for tackling these profound problems rests. We rely on that sort of experience in taking forward this new approach to the development of probation services. We are not afraid to engage with that because we think that we can always learn lessons from it.

The process enables us to focus much more strongly on outcomes and, picking up some of the terminology in the debate, it is about cost-effectiveness and not just cost-efficiency. The service will benefit greatly from this new approach. We can rely on the experience that has already developed in other sectors within the criminal justice system and we are learning all the time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a specific question about contracts, and I understand his point. As part of my learning this morning, I asked the group of drug service-related contractors whether they felt bound by the length of their contracts. Their response was interesting. They said, “Of course we’d like a longer contract because that would create greater certainty, but we think that the length of contract that we have now is one that we can work with, and it has benefits because it enables us to focus on performance over that period and it enables those who commission to hold us properly to account”. That is what we are attempting to achieve here.

With regard to the length of contracts, we are committed to replacing annual funding regimes associated with grants, which I am sure we all appreciate can at times have a stultifying effect, and we are committed to replacing them with multi-year contract terms to help to develop and maintain longer-term capacity. This is not a guarantee for all cases; in other words, it will need to be supported by evidence of what works and future demand data. However, the need for more sustainable funding terms is widely recognised by providers from all sectors.

That approach is very much in line with the 2004 spending review, which announced the introduction of full three-year settlements for local authorities. They now have the opportunity to cascade down this stability, where it represents good value for money to do so, through third-sector organisations. That is our general approach on length of contracts and funding arrangements.

The other question, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, drew attention, was also important and I shall try to provide some clarity on it. We have said that we will not contract for offender management outside the public sector before 2010. The Clause 4 concession relates only to court work. It is not time-limited and it can be lifted only by order. I hope that that clarifies the noble Baroness’s point. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, twitching; I think that he wants to ask a question.

Can the noble Lord define in the context of the Bill how the Government assess the difference between cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness? That drives to the heart of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Cost-efficiency can be measured; cost-effectiveness, particularly when dealing with individual relations with offenders, is much more difficult to measure. How do the Government intend to ensure that cost-effectiveness is more than just cost-efficiency?

That is a fair point and I thought that I touched on it earlier. I said that it would be outcome-focused, because we would then be able to see what was happening with a particular service—the way in which it was developed and delivered and the changes that it made. This issue is about quality as well as cost, and that needs to be factored into our considerations.

I hope that I have answered the general points built around the useful amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Judd, which has triggered some interesting thinking. I hope that I have also responded in sufficient depth to some of the other points that were raised and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

What the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said about when contestability can take place is important. He will appreciate that the commitments given by the Home Secretary in another place at Third Reading were not as clear as the statement he has just made. For example, on 28 February, the Home Secretary said that,

“the core offender management tasks of the probation service—for example, offender report writing, offender supervision and breach proceedings—will remain in the public sector for the next three years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 1023.]

He went on to talk about the statutory instrument in Clause 12 being some time in the future. That has led to a great deal of confusion about when contestability will take place and what it will cover. I understood from the Minister that the Government’s intention now is that no contestability can take place until after 2010 in any format whatever—perhaps, at the Dispatch Box, he would now confirm that none can take place—and that the core services that are protected in Clause 4, however they are defined, do not have a time limit on them. In other words, if this Government are still in power in three years’ time, at the end of those three years, they would feel that they could seek, by statutory instrument, to withdraw that protection. If those two assurances are given, that may assist us in later deliberations on the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to provide further clarification. The work that the Probation Service currently does with offenders can be broken down into two broad categories: offender management and intervention. Offender management refers to the management of individual cases; it is the process of assessment and sentence planning, implementation, review and evaluation, which of course runs from the beginning to the end of an offender's sentence. Interventions are structured or planned pieces of work are identified in the sentence plan. Their purpose may be punishment, rehabilitation or public protection. Examples of that might include accredited offending behaviour programmes—such as sex offender and domestic violence programmes—curfews with electronic monitoring and unpaid work. We are committed to keeping the core offender management work within the public sector until at least 2010.

I think the Minister continues to say that contestability can happen from the moment the Bill is passed. That is not what was understood by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, from his reading of the document to which he referred. I actually understood the position to be exactly as the Minister says, which is that contestability can happen from the moment that the Bill hits the statute book and becomes an Act, except with regard to the protected matters in Clause 4. We will come to the definition of those later.

I shall try to boil this down. There will be offender management from 2010 and interventions straightaway. That may help the noble Baroness and probably hits the nail on the head.

The recently resigned chair of the Youth Justice Board, Professor Rod Morgan, has said many times that the success of what he has described as the Youth Justice Board’s mixed economy results from its burgeoning up from below. When looking at the Bill, we could be forgiven for assuming that the Government intend to impose their style of economy from above. The Minister implied that there was no difference between us, but there is, because I support what Rod Morgan has said rather than what I assume to be the intention of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could explain which is the Government’s intention.

I hesitate to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is confusing some of the issues. This is not a matter of which side of the argument one agrees with or disagrees with. From the exposition that he gave earlier and from the comments of the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, I had understood that we were at one with those comments and with the description of the process. I am not going to take sides in an argument over observations made by Rod Morgan because that would be quite wrong of me and would not help us to focus on the development of a new process of commissioning and on developing new services in a sensible, flexible, imaginative, intuitive way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, comes with us on that journey. This is not about top down, but about making sure that the service is appropriate to what it is charged to tackle.

I do not think anyone offers any difficulty about going on the journey with the Minister, but my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked a pointed question about the difference between care and something that can be measured, a point that was clearly demonstrated by the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. The Minister said that he has dealt with this matter, but I did not quite understand him, so I shall ask again: how can one have a satisfactory contractual arrangement if it cannot be measured?

These things can be measured. The noble Lord must know of the work of his colleagues in local government who have extensive experience in this sector. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, were here this afternoon because I am sure that she could give much better chapter and verse than I can as I am now a little more distant from these things. How many times someone comes round and cleans can be measured, but the other element is the quality of the cleaning. Service care contracts are about that; they are about quality. Quality can be seen and felt, and that is what we will achieve through this process. I do not see the problem here. If the noble Lord reflects on his NGO and voluntary sector charitable background and work, he will see how these things can be measured in that context. I do not see that it is any different here.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. Some extremely interesting and important points have been made that underline the importance of the issue. I hope that the Government will think a bit more about what has been said and why it has been said before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.

I appreciate the considerate way that my noble friend replied, and I am sure that he sincerely meant all that he said about the spirit in which the words should be interpreted. However, I have been around in politics a good deal, and if something is not spelt out clearly in the Bill, what may be the spirit now may evaporate in different circumstances. I hope my noble friend will forgive me for putting it this way, but he cannot have it both ways. If he really agrees with the significance of the points that have been made—and he suggested that he did—it behoves the Government to try to find some way of being more explicit in the Bill about what is intended. A Bill is about legislation, not spirit, but the words can set the tone and the context. At the moment, it is cold and precise in traditional language, and we are embarking on a new, exciting adventure—that is the message that we have heard from the Government all the time—in which everything will be improved because of this new approach and there will be partnership between the formal governmental machinery, government agencies and other organisations. That is a tremendously exciting concept and I believe it can bring tremendous qualitative improvements in the future. However, if it is going to happen, it has to be spelt out clearly that this is not just a matter of getting agencies to deliver what the Government have decided but defining together what really needs to be done and then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and others have said, in the context of experience being able to make adjustments as the partnership goes along, rather than persevering with something which has clearly not become as tenable as everybody thought originally it would be.

Given what the Minister said and the generous way in which he said it, it is terribly important that the Government should go away and think very seriously about the observations of the past 45 minutes. They should not just say, by way of a formality, “Yes, we have listened and we sympathise”. They must recognise that, whatever their intention, the experience of the people in the front line has not been of the kind envisaged; it has been far more rigid and unimaginative, with leagues, scoring, points and all the rest. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage on the understanding that the Government were not just—I hate to say this, because I know very well that my noble friend would not want to do this—palming us off with smooth talk. We want the Government to go away, do some more work and see how they can come back with more imaginative wording that meets the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 41:

Amendment No. 41A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. The issue was brought to our attention by Unison and Napo, which both have members working in the area. The amendment has been introduced in an effort to ensure that the specific gender and disability duties should apply to all providers of probation services from day one of any contract. The general duty may well apply, and that is fine, but the specific duties carry clear responsibilities to act under the gender equality duty and the disability duty schemes.

As the Government have recognised in the past, diversity must be at the heart of all employment practices, as well as all public service decision-making and public service provision. As things stand, lists of provider organisations subject to the specific duties are updated annually. Therefore, there could be time lags between the point at which a contract is awarded and the application of the gender equality and disability equality duties.

The specific disability duty in the amendment will ensure that all providers publish a disability equality action plan and involve disabled people in its production; that will be implemented within three years and reviewed every three years. There will also be a duty to report on progress annually. Such a duty will ensure that disabled staff are protected and that all reasonable adjustments to practices, policies and properties are made. The amendment would also require probation service providers to implement the specific gender equality duty, which would again ensure that schemes were prepared, published and implemented within three years, reviewed every three years and reported on annually. I hope that my noble friend will view the amendment favourably.

I have put my name to Amendment No. 41A and I support Amendment No. 41. The duty involved in the amendment goes far beyond the simple hope of eliminating discrimination. It forces employers to act positively in all policies and practices, both new and old, and to address all gender issues in action plans. In the Probation Service, that would include ensuring that women offenders had the opportunity to meet women staff and be supervised by women staff, that the victims of domestic violence were offered services and that offender groups and unpaid work were also gender specific.

The amendments would impose on providers of probation services a duty to collect information that allows them to understand the impact of their work on black and ethnic minority people, disabled people, women and men. Providers would have to undertake to put their efforts and resources where those would have the most impact on race, disability and gender equality, and they would have to recognise that they must achieve outcomes in equality areas. They would have to consult relevant people both inside and outside the organisation, including voluntary and community organisations with specialist knowledge of race, disability and gender equality, to seek transparency of operation and to publish race, disability and gender schemes and associated action plans, consultations and the results of consultations. They would also have to monitor the results and impact assessments of current and proposed procedures. In other words, the amendments propose a positive programme for all these areas and I hope that the Government will be prepared to support them.

I support the amendments. It is absolutely crucial that all these elements are taken fully into account. No doubt the Minister will reassure us on this point when she replies. Let us consider the differences, particularly sex equality differences. So much interesting work is being done in women’s prisons that would be very relevant if suitably adapted right across the prison sector, and indeed beyond. We need to be reassured that this is all very much part of the thinking behind the modern approach to the end-to-end management of offenders.

I, too, support the amendments. I shall speak particularly to Amendment No. 41A. Everyone is aware of the historical disadvantage experienced by women and disabled people, extending at times in the latter case almost to invisibility. The moral case for purposeful action to address continuing problems is thus clear. However, I wish to make the practical case, particularly for the disability provisions in proposed new paragraph (d), although my remarks apply equally, mutatis mutandis, to the gender provisions in proposed new paragraph (e).

An article was recently published on the BBC news website about the need for speech and language therapy in young offender institutions. A quarter of inmates in one institution had clinical communication difficulties. Research suggests that providing such therapy leads to a 50 per cent drop in reoffending. The more we get equality right, the better the outcomes, which is surely the object of the Bill. End-to-end offender management must include end-to-end provision for ameliorating disabilities. Amendment No. 41A relates to probation, but I hope that the Committee will entertain a parallel amendment on prisons when we come to that part of the Bill.

This is an area in which partnership working is essential. Every organisation must be equally committed, which is what the amendment would require. These equality duties would cover not only offenders but staff and volunteers, who would also be protected. This is important. A recent Disability Rights Commission report considered the disclosure of disability by public sector workers. The researchers found that many people would avoid disclosing a condition, particularly in mental health settings, because of the stigma of disability and the risk that they felt disclosure involved. This is bad for staff and bad for the organisation. Sadly, there is evidence that the importance of specific duties bearing on public authorities is not sufficiently grasped in the penal system.

A Home Office spokesperson, in a response to the article about speech therapy, complacently observed that people were usually incarcerated for too short a time to do anything useful and that in any case education was usually sufficient. Such attitudes need to be challenged and the amendments would challenge them. There tends to be equality only when there are specific requirements and transparency; hence the provisions about preparing and publishing disability equality schemes and action plans, about reviewing and revising the schemes at least every three years and about reporting on progress annually.

The Minister may feel that there is no need to include these provisions in the Bill because they exist by virtue of disability and discrimination legislation anyway. But, as I have just illustrated by reference to the Home Office reaction, that is clearly not enough. Many duties arise as a result of the general law. It is all too easy for individual duties to get overlooked. In the case of disability, which it would not be unfair to describe as a Cinderella among the areas where equality needs to be promoted, it is all too easy for the duty to become invisible, which is why it would be particularly helpful to have this amendment in this legislation.

I hope that this is uncontentious. I do not think that we have agreed any changes to the Bill as yet. This simple and straightforward amendment might give the Minister an opportunity to show how much she is listening to noble Lords and I hope that she accepts the amendment.

I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. It has given the Government an opportunity to introduce Amendment No. 131. Having dealt with the Minister on equality matters ever since I came here, I have never doubted her commitment to racial equality. We are very grateful to her. I think that she will see why certain pointed questions are being asked. Equally, I have no doubt whatever that once the government amendment is included, the Commission for Racial Equality will be breathing down the Minister’s neck to see that every aspect of what has been asked for—for which the Government will be accountable—is implemented.

It is important to have this debate because the Government’s actions in recent times have caused me some concern. For example, in an immigration case recently, the judge and the courts ruled that the Government had failed to work out the racial equality impact on that immigration matter. I know that that is not relevant here, but, somehow, we seem to miss out. As with the proof that is required for our legislation in terms of human rights, there is a need to prove our legislation in terms of race equality, which is an essential part of our diverse society.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister about the UK Borders Bill. I am grateful for her assurance that an assessment will be made in due course to ensure that the provisions will apply appropriately to all citizens. However, before the legislation comes before this House, I am expecting some work to be undertaken on this implication.

I am also delighted with the amendment proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and Lady Turner. I know both their records on equality matters and I am pleased that those issues have been highlighted, although I shall not refer to them.

No one in their right mind could ever object to these amendments, because Parliament has rightly established the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to co-ordinate this strategy on discrimination on any of the grounds that we are talking about. We need a categorical assurance from the Minister that, when functions are subcontracted to bodies such as private companies or charities, those bodies will be subject to the same duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It will not only be the contractors that will be the subject of this matter, but also the subcontractors in many instances.

Like many other noble Lords, I believe that black groups are massively over-represented in our criminal justice system. A quarter of the male and female prison population is from black and ethnic minority communities, against a representation of about 7 per cent in the general community. To an extent we have created this anomaly. Almost all the sentencing research that I have looked at points to the disadvantages that these communities face in the criminal justice process. That applies equally to pre-sentence reports, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was good enough to mention. During my work, I have from time to time seen racial stereotyping within such reports, which could do a tremendous amount of damage particularly when sentencing methods are being considered.

There is still no clear strategy in the Probation Service for working with racially motivated offenders. What do we do about those people? That was observed by HM Inspector of Probation. These amendments would help to rectify the situation. More important, agencies would be required to pool clients to demonstrate that they understand equality before the law, because equality before the law is an essential part of our democratic institution.

I agree with everyone. Diversity is of great concern within the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, knows that I share with him an anxiety about the way in which matters have developed and an absolute commitment to bring about creative and effective change in that area. Clearly there is room for improvement, but I know that the issue is taken extremely seriously by the Probation Service and that there has been concern that the progress and achievements of recent years should not be lost under the new arrangements. I can assure your Lordships that I am absolutely determined that they should not be.

I believe that the new arrangements will assist us in this regard. The benefits of commissioning include, for example, a clearer focus on the offending-related needs of the offender, an innovative tailored service provision and the delivery of more relevant and equal services to offenders, irrespective of their race, gender or other characteristics, to achieve greater parity of outcomes. Today I attended a meeting of the national independent advisory group which was looking at guns and gangs and I had a clear conversation with Dr Derek Campbell. He made the point that organisations, particularly not-for-profit organisations, which specialise in dealing with black and ethnic minority people and those with disabilities want an equal opportunity to engage in work with such offenders. They have demonstrated the benefit of specific assistance: it improves outcomes. We are returning to an outcome focus. I assure Members of the Committee that we see that as critical.

Commissioners will set out diversity expectations in the service delivery and the way in which those should be monitored. The commissioning framework to which regional commissioners and providers are currently working sets four priority areas, of which diversity is one. I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the assurances she seeks. We looked at what was requested by the CRE and decided that it was necessary to go further because we understood the import of what it wanted to achieve. The aim is to deliver greater equality of access to services provided for offenders in prison, or supervised in the community, irrespective of their race, gender or other characteristics; to achieve greater parity of outcomes where that is not the case; and to promote greater confidence in the criminal justice system among those groups where that is lacking or is weak.

I turn to the specific amendments, beginning with that tabled in my name. Section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 requires a list of bodies specified in Schedule 1(a) to the Act to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. Probation boards are currently listed in the schedule. The purpose of our amendment is to require probation trusts and other probation providers other than the Secretary of State or a probation trust to adhere to the duty in Section 71(1), so there is no “get out of jail” clause so far as that is concerned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, have tabled an amendment along similar lines. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for doing so because it enables me to give her the affirmation she seeks and for us to have a useful debate. However, I hope that the Committee will accept that the government amendment is more robust and goes a bit further. Amendment No. 41 would simply enable the Secretary of State to use the contractual or other arrangements under Clause 3 to authorise or require a provider to adhere to the race equality duty. The government amendment, on the other hand, places the duty directly on the probation trust and any other provider other than the Secretary of State carrying out functions under contractual or other arrangements made under Clause 3(2). It offers greater clarity and more certainty about what is expected.

I turn now with pleasure to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Turner. The amendment seeks to apply the disability and equality duties to probation under the new arrangements. It is of course our intention that probation providers should adhere to the gender and disability equality duties under the new arrangements. This is one of a range of consequential amendments to secondary legislation—I should remind the Committee that this is currently in secondary legislation—which we will bring forward at the appropriate time prior to implementation using the power in Clause 35. We have chosen to deal with the race amendment on the face of the Bill because of the significant interest shown in this issue during its passage to date through both Houses so that Parliament can be reassured about the way in which we propose to handle the other consequentials. We envisage dealing with the gender and disability duties in a similar way.

Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Low, that this is not the only opportunity I have had to listen and accept amendments. As we go through the Bill we will bring forward a number of other amendments which give voice to the concerns that have been raised in Committee and, indeed, when we went through the earlier stages of other Bills. This is a valuable opportunity and we believe that we have taken a sensible approach to this matter, one that demonstrates the unity of the Houses in their commitment to equality in matters of gender, disability and race. I strongly commend our amendment to the Committee. In so doing, I hope that I have given satisfaction, if not pleasure.

I welcome that positive response, as I am sure do all other noble Lords. Perhaps I may clarify one point. Do I understand from the noble Baroness’s response that she proposes to deal with race equality on the face of the Bill, but gender and disability issues in secondary legislation? If I have it wrong, I apologise; but if I have picked it up correctly, why is the Minister differentiating between the three duties in this way?

The issue of race has been a matter of particular and acute concern in the criminal justice system for quite some time. There is an acknowledged disproportionality in the representation of those from the black and ethnic minority communities in the criminal justice system. No such clear disproportionality exists in relation to either gender or disability. These matters are properly dealt with in secondary legislation, and there will be other equality issues as a result of the duties laid upon all the agencies. Further consequential amendments will flow, and we think it would be better to brigade them all together in one place and deal with them when we address the power which we hope will be given to us in Clause 35. That is the most effective way of dealing with this. I hope that the Committee will accept our total commitment to ensuring that the full import of both gender and disability duties will bear on this Bill.

I yield to no one in supporting measures taken to address issues of adversity in relation to race but the Minister will have appreciated my point about disability often appearing as a Cinderella. Disabled people often feel that their particular concerns are overlooked. Will the Minister take the opportunity between now and our later debates to reflect on that and consider whether disability and, I doubt not, gender could be dealt with on the same basis as race?

I will be brief because we have all been on the same side. I recognise the superiority of the Minister’s amendment. When I introduced my amendment I explained to the Committee that I had withdrawn several other amendments in order to give the Minister the lead. I have now been able to secure the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—who made no difficulty in the matter; I was just unable to contact him—on ensuring that our joint Amendment No. 54 will also not be moved so that the Government may have the lead on that group too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I thank my noble friend for accepting my amendment in the way that she has.

[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 42:

moved Amendment No. 44:

My Lords, I may be one of those voices raised in the desire to have some reference made to prisons and prison staff as crucial and central to the business of end-to-end offender management. I agree that that amendment is extremely sensible.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 48:

It is hardly necessary to add to what has been said by my noble friend, who has set out the position very clearly. There will be the opportunity for conflicts of interest to arise under the new system and precautions must be taken against that happening; otherwise there may well be challenges in the court.

My noble friend is entirely right: a company running prisons or an electronic tagging scheme might also be commissioned to write court reports. A recommendation that somebody should be tagged could, if implemented, result in money going into the pocket of the provider which could, in turn, lead to challenges in court as to the fairness of the trial. I invite the Minister to recognise that there is a problem here; if we are to avoid court challenges, something should be added to the Bill to make it plain that these conflicts of interest should not be allowed to arise.

I support this important amendment which seeks to address the conflicts of interest which may arise from introducing contestability into the process of providing probation services. Specifically, if the providers come from the private sector, their services will be related to the profitability of the organisation and their need to justify their effectiveness and financial management to their shareholders. As professional providers of a service, it is fundamental that the advice they give should be absolutely impartial and disinterested. There should not be the faintest suggestion or implication that such advice is driven primarily or in part by any financial interest to them.

Profitability is clearly a key driver in the management and administration of any private company. The integrity of the organisation must be beyond question and at all times their services must have the best interest of the client groups as the central focus. Their profitability should not be seen to be at the expense of professional standards and best practice. We have just heard about the risk of a potential conflict of interest that exists if advice is given to a court by a private provider whose business will benefit if it is taken, or if a probation trust signs a contract with a private company for its services and has a judge or a magistrate as a member. Will the Minister clarify this issue?

Where contestability is part of a bidding process for the provision of services, the providers will seek to demonstrate that they can provide better services at a better rate and represent better value for money than other bidders. To many people, this bidding process does not lie easily with putting the needs of beneficiaries of a service first, be they victims, offenders or the community. Clearly, there has to be some guarantee of high standards where best practice can be demonstrated first. There is a delicate and often difficult balance to be struck here, and it is uncharted territory where criminal justice issues are concerned. In their document Reducing Crime, Changing Lives, the Government stated that their interest in the process of contestability lay in getting,

“the most cost-effective custodial and community sentences, no matter who delivers them”.

This process has been in operation in the private prison sector, where four different companies run nine prisons. The process has been perceived to have had the effect of forcing the public sector prisons to raise their game, reduce their costs and win contracts from their private sector competitors. While this was seen to be true in the early days, some private prisons have in the recent past received seriously critical inspection reports. Indeed, one of them was the subject of a truly shocking television programme. It has been stated that contestability has reduced costs in prisons by worsening terms and conditions for staff and increasing workloads and hours worked. Those which were performing badly were found by Her Majesty’s inspectors to have dangerously low staffing levels. It is axiomatic that best practice requires that staff work on a one-to-one basis to achieve the best outcomes. To cut down staff will inevitably lead to poorer outcomes. As we now know, salaries are generally lower, the level of training poorer and the changeover of staff higher than in the public sector. I would therefore suggest that they are no longer necessarily the best comparators.

The Government’s contestability prospectus cited six different types of contestability programmes which could be used: contests held to commission alternative provision if existing providers fail to provide or deliver a satisfactory improvement plan; market testing; extension of partnership working and sub-contracting; competitions to run new businesses; pathfinder projects to find new solutions; and new competitions for previously competed services.

Historically, the Probation Service has always worked in partnership with the voluntary sector and the private sector. The target set by the Home Secretary for contracted-out services to increase to 10 per cent will only take us back to the situation that prevailed before 2001. It is not seen as a problem; nor do we on these Benches have a problem with the idea that we should tap into as wide a range of probation providers as possible, including the voluntary and private sectors, to enhance and develop standards and the ways in which we can reduce reoffending and make our society safer. More effective case management and better-targeted interventions should be a constant goal for providers. However, as we have argued elsewhere, this is not a conventional market as it is understood by the private sector. Evidence—we have been talking a lot about evidence today—that contestability achieves the desired results is thin on the ground to say the least.

We therefore have strong reservations about the idea that contestability and the sometimes crude battles of the market place are an entirely appropriate means of meeting the needs of often very vulnerable people.

We entirely accept that it is essential that all players in the field are encouraged to raise their game and the standards of practice as well as principle, which is why we have consistently argued for the development of partnerships in the provision of probation services. I have cited how the Scottish model has worked and argued for the duty to co-operate between agencies in England and Wales. We have heard how such an ethos exists in children’s services and issues of racial equality. It applies in youth offending teams and MAPPA. It is an approach that sits more comfortably with the nature of the work in which all these agencies are engaged. A client needs best practice in achieving the highest standards, which are not necessarily achieved by pitting organisations against each other—especially when a multiplicity of bodies is engaged in the process. We cannot risk losing all that we think is best or, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I entirely support all that has been said in this debate so far. However, rather than simply trying to legislate against conflicts of interest, which does not entirely remove the conflict of interest, there are some aspects of the Probation Service that it is simply not appropriate to put into private hands. The writing of pre-sentence reports may well be one of those aspects. I would go a little further even than the amendment and ask whether allowing all the different functions to be discharged privately is not perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Should certain things not be done by the justice system in the public sphere?

I, too, support the amendment. The Bill envisages far greater involvement of the private sector in providing a probationary service. In these circumstances, it is essential that the Government should ensure that there is no conflict of interest. The amendment, as a number of speakers have indicated, would eliminate the risk of a conflict of interest should any area of probation work be contracted out to a company with a financial interest in the outcome. It would be wise to have an amendment with wording of this kind in the Bill to make it absolutely clear that the Government have taken all the steps that they possibly can to avoid any conflict of interest in this new arrangement.

I support the amendment, but before speaking to it I must apologise to the Committee for some wrong information that I gave on Monday, which the Minister with her habitual acuity—to use one of her favourite words—picked up. I said that the London Probation Service had issued warnings to 60 per cent of its staff. In fact, I should have said 60 personnel. I misread my notes, and I apologise for that. The worry, though, is that those 60 personnel include some very senior members of staff, which is the onus of my concern.

Previously, one strength of the Probation Service was that it was responsible for both offender management and interventions. The introduction of NOMS has separated the two. Whereas the tasks connected with offender management appear to be left more to the public sector, the intervention tasks seem more often to go out to contracting. I wonder if that is not a difficulty that might not be revisited. As the right reverend Prelate said, a clearer statement of which probation services should remain—not just for three years but for ever—might remove this problem.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his apology in relation to what he said on two or three occasions last time the Committee met. It is clear that 60 per cent differs very greatly from what is less than 2 per cent of the London probation staff, and no reference is made to front-line staff. Indeed, front-line staff will not be affected by any redundancies. The posts are being considered for redundancy from within senior management but will not necessarily amount to 61. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for apologising for misleading the Committee.

They are indeed important issues which need to be addressed. The right reverend Prelate properly pointed out that there are concerns about the core issues and their protection. The Minister directed him to Clause 4, but his point is still relevant to my amendment. I say to the right reverend Prelate that my amendment seeks to address the Bill as it is now. That is why I have pressed ahead with the amendment. That is relevant to the Minister’s argument. She says that I do not need to trouble myself about this matter now because the non-public sector is not yet giving advice to the courts, although it may happen in the future. She recognises that a conflict of interest may need to be addressed later. However, I am looking at the Bill as it stands. This is the only opportunity I may have to address good practice in the Bill.

The Government have given an assurance that they will not seek to bring a statutory instrument before the House for three years, but after that it becomes open season, irrespective of the rigour with which the House may scrutinise an affirmative instrument. We would be entering uncharted waters with regard to contestability. I am very grateful to Members of the Committee for their support and for the caution that they exercised in what they said about contestability. The Minister says that in the future the process will be more transparent. However, the Government themselves argue that, given the necessity for commercial confidentiality with some of the contracts, they will not open up that process to parliamentary scrutiny and so there will be difficulties.

I accept that one cannot, by any legislation, legislate away conflicts of interest. I also argue that one cannot by legislation move out of public life everything that is wrong in the world; but we all have a go at it. Otherwise, we would not be sitting here debating what is the more than 60th piece of Home Office legislation since 1997. We keep trying. In my fairly brief amendment, I am seeking to put some clarity in the Bill about a duty to avoid a conflict of interest. It is important and, on this occasion, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 49:

Although I shall be brief, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will not underestimate my admiration for him for bringing forward this amendment. It has performed a valuable exercise in drawing our attention to the importance of charities and the work that they do. He will know from our debate so far that all sides of the House stand in admiration of that work. But we all still have ringing in our ears the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on an earlier amendment. I shall certainly wish to revisit the speech that he made in withdrawing his amendment, in which he urged caution in relation to the future role of charities.

It is clear that there are concerns about the lack of a guaranteed funding stream, which is currently made available to charities. Sometimes they receive pump-priming, they just get going and then, without completing their task, they find that the pump-priming is removed, often for very good reasons. It is given to them in the first place only on the basis of their finding replacement funding to continue the work, so there is no sleight of hand in this; the Government make it clear from the beginning that that will be the case.

Concerns have also been expressed that, when charities work in partnership with the Home Office, they are not always paid the full amount of the money promised to them at the beginning. That is carefully reflected in subsection (3) of the amendment, so I think that the amendment has some advantages. My concern is one that I know the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will understand; that is, as soon as one tries to put a budgetary percentage into statute, suddenly it becomes the ceiling. Therefore, 7 per cent would become the maximum, although I know that that is not what the noble Lord wishes. I am sure that he would want some flexibility, with the voluntary sector getting more than 7 per cent if appropriate. I am sure that, at this stage, this is a probing amendment and it gives us an opportunity to debate the matter but, if the amendment were accepted, it might well constrain and not expand the role of the voluntary sector.

The amendment is a very useful way of taking us forward. We will have to address in more detail at later stages what impact contestability will have on charities and on the deliverability of services.

I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just said. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has raised the issue of charities. Like the noble Baroness, I commend him for almost everything in the amendment, except that, again like the noble Baroness, I stick over the inclusion of the figure of 7 per cent. I do not like ceilings in these matters. Of course, charities will be part of the partnership and one would encourage that, but things may be changed in annual plans and there may be different opportunities in different places. I quoted the experience of the Youth Justice Board. You have to be certain that the providers will be there when you try to find them, and they may not be.

I am particularly glad that subsection (3) was mentioned. Although I am sure that the noble Baroness has seen it, I draw to her attention a report by the Charity Commission entitled Stand and Deliver, which was published in February 2007. It contains some very disturbing information from the charity sector about how few charities—only 12 per cent—are paid in full in government and public sector contracts. The commission goes on to speculate that this is bound to affect the willingness of charities to become involved in this sort of work in case they are not paid, because they simply cannot afford to go on in that way.

The Charity Commission also issues a caution. It says that charities must bear in mind that the mission which allows them to have charitable status must not be strayed from. If they enter into contracts with commissioners in the public sector, there is a danger that the requirements of the commissioners will affect that mission. If that happens, their charitable status will be at risk and the trustees will be liable.

Attention to all this has been carefully drawn together in a splendid report by Clinks, a hugely reputable and successful organisation which welds together voluntary sector support. Of course, the bigger charities are more able than the smaller ones to withstand this sort of commercial pressure, but it is the small, local charities all over the country that deliver a very large amount of the valuable work which I suspect probation supervisors, in particular, will need in supervising the low-level offenders for whom they will be responsible.

As I said, I am enormously glad that the amendment has been put forward but I have concerns about specifying a figure of 7 per cent.

I am amazed by what I have heard. I do not fully understand what is meant by “contestability”. I should have thought that, if the service provided by the voluntary organisation was better, it would be in a position to negotiate a better deal. Furthermore, I am not entirely clear what “commissioning” means. I should have thought that it meant entering into a contract with the sub-contractor to do the job. It would be very careless of the charities if they did not ensure that the contract provided for the period of funding and the terms of withdrawal and so on.

Like many other noble Lords who have served on charities, I am afraid that it is all too easy to recognise the scenario of waiting to see whether your contract will be renewed, knowing that the money paid will not exactly match the full cost of what you are providing. So I have a great deal of sympathy in that regard.

I, too, share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham about some aspects of what is proposed. I point out that the low percentage of contracts with charities, which was perfectly fair in the early part of this century, was certainly not a desirable aspect of the relationships that the Probation Service had with those charities. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the figure is going up. All the signs in the documents that we have seen are that the charities also wish to embrace the partnership approach.

There is a danger in setting specific targets. As has been acknowledged, many targets may not have been kept to when they were set in the past. It may be better not to push the matter to a vote at this stage but to take very careful note of what has been said.

I totally support what my noble friend Lord Dholakia said about charities, although I noted the sensible cautionary tone in what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about the risk of quoting a figure and it becoming a ceiling. But the principle, which I think is the key, is to ensure that there is a duty on the probation services to include a proportion of the voluntary sector organisations and charities, however that is worded in the Bill. Without that, there will be a risk of slippage. As we debated earlier, co-operation between agencies is also a very real duty. If it slips off the face of the Bill, it will slip off people’s consciousness and affect the way that things are organised. After all, legislation is important in enunciating certain principles. If they are stated clearly in the Bill, they will be followed.

In general, I welcome this amendment. I want to refer only to subsection (4). I question whether absolute equality in matters of religious belief is wise. If a voluntary organisation sets out to benefit only the members of a particular religious belief, why should it not do so by working exclusively with offenders from that religious background? It may be able to work very effectively within its own faith community, so why should it be forced to offer its services to everyone indiscriminately?

I sense that this is the last of this afternoon’s debates on this Bill. I shall not detain the Committee too long, but important points have been made to which I need to respond. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for putting the amendment before us, because it provides us with a very welcome opportunity to debate the process by which contracts should be let under the new arrangements that the Bill envisages for delivering probation services.

I start with a slight tease. In the past, I have listened to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches berating the Government for setting too many targets, yet here we have a Liberal Democrat amendment setting a target. That is a novel experience; culturally, it is rather hard to adjust to.

I remind the Minister that I am using the Government’s target. If he looks at what they have done, he will see that that is what I am trying to achieve.

I know that, and the noble Lord is right to point it out. However, I am slightly amused that he has tabled an amendment to follow the point through. We are making progress.

As with many of the amendments that we have discussed in Committee, there is much with which we agree. As my ministerial colleagues and I have made clear from the outset, we are absolutely committed to greater involvement by the voluntary and charitable sector in the delivery of probation services; that is the key motivation for this legislation. We believe that those organisations have much to offer in the fight against reoffending, and we have been hugely heartened by the support that many organisations have shown towards the proposals in the Bill; that support has been reflected in the content of the debates so far, not least on this amendment.

However, we differ from the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who contributed from the Liberal Democrat Benches on some points of principle and, in particular, on this. We do not believe that it is appropriate to set targets for the amount of work that should be delivered by any particular type of provider. We share some of the concerns that have been raised from the Cross Benches on that issue. We think that the guiding principle should be which provider is the best able to deliver the service in question. Our commitment is to a mixed-economy provision: what is best for the service and not from which sector they come.

As the noble Lord reminded the Committee, we have targets in place to encourage probation boards to make greater use of alternative providers in the delivery of services where that is more effective. We are doing that in response to the concern that the service is currently doing far too much in-house, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made clear in his comments. That is not a long-term solution, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made very clear in another place when he said:

“In future, we shall abolish the existing targets and replace them with an entirely different type of aspiration. In future, the aspirations—the targets—will not be based on the a priori assumption that there is a level of non-public sector work that must be carried out, whether or not it gives best value or is from the best provider. That would be a dogmatic approach that could unjustifiably force work out of the public sector. No a priori assumptions will be made under our approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 1019.]

It is hard to argue with that, and I am more convinced of that argument the more I have listened to the debate.

While the noble Lord decides whether to withdraw his amendment, I shall make one point. It seems to me that part of the problem is that we have a negotiation between a very powerful partner and perhaps a voluntary organisation that is an extremely weak partner in the negotiation. I wonder whether the department might be prepared to consider having a small department to advise voluntary organisations in their negotiations so that they get a fair deal.

I thought that I covered this in my contribution, but I may not have made the point. It is our intention to encourage and provide support, which is why there will be a national network and support at the centre to underpin the commissioning and contracting process. Experience demonstrates that when that is there, it can work very well. It will bring on the strengths of those smaller providers, such as flexibility and imagination in provision.

I thank the Minister. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right that this is a probing amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and a number of other noble Lords expressed concern about the 7 per cent ceiling, but even when the Government had a 7 per cent ceiling we never reached it and it was reduced to as low as 2.5 per cent. An example of the impact of what the Government did is Nacro, which at one time employed hundreds of resettlement officers. It reached a position where it had to issue redundancy notices to people who provided resettlement services. Is it any wonder that we have 80,000 people in prison today?

Now that I know where the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, stand on this, I intend to get together with them to come up with the appropriate wording for voluntary organisations and charities. I will have discussions with the Minister in the mean time to see how we can move forward on this matter, but I may come back on Report. I am grateful for the excellent comments that colleagues have made, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 28 [National Statistician: advisory functions]:

moved Amendment No. 147:

We support the amendment and are happy to echo the noble Lord’s reasons for it. This Committee has already heard my noble friend Lady Noakes explain the necessity for a clear and strong role for the National Statistician and his or her office. Where departments not under the remit of the Statistics Board produce statistics, if trust is to be maintained it should be clear that the ultimate government authority is independent and impartial. The amendment ensures that the Prime Minister is advised by the person most qualified to give advice and makes clear that the National Statistician is the person to give it.

I put my name down in support of this amendment for the obvious reason that others mentioned: it is crucial that the National Statistician is publicly and officially regarded as the ultimate authority for all official statistics. Clauses 28 and 29 cover that ground. Clause 28 covers the advisory role of the National Statistician and Clause 29 covers the executive role. The amendment is important because it must be clear beyond any shadow of doubt that, when there is a problem anywhere in the statistical system, the Government look to the National Statistician as the final arbiter, adviser and authority.

In my experience it was always beyond doubt that, although I was director of the CSO, I was also head of the Government Statistical Service, so if there was a problem with, let us say, health or education statistics, although those departments were expected to deal with it, if it remained in any way or form the Prime Minister would look to me as the ultimate authority. That is why it is very important that the Bill provides that the ultimate authority and responsibility for all statistics, national or non-national—if that remains a distinction, which I am very much against—in every department should remain the National Statistician.

There is another subtle point. One tends to think of the National Statistician and his or her colleagues as simply responsible for standards, methodology and quality in general, but the responsibility is much bigger. He or she is also responsible for planning, by looking ahead, the entire statistical system. That is an advisory role. He or she may decide that in the years or months to come it might become very important to improve migration statistics—we all know that it is—or some other field of statistics. It is a planning operation. The National Statistician may decide that that requires the co-operation of all the departments because it is a co-ordinating job. In that way also he or she is the ultimate authority. For those reasons, the amendment is important.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, very kindly opened by saying that he was stating the blindingly obvious. It is also obvious to the Government. We accept the noble Lord’s argument, as the same concept underlies our position on the Bill.

The National Statistician’s role as chief adviser is already established in the Bill, although it is not explicitly stated in the amendment. I shall indicate why I cannot accept the amendment in a moment. The National Statistician is the board’s chief professional adviser. It must take account of his or her advice on all statistical matters, and the board has to publish a report for Parliament if on any occasion it overrules the National Statistician on professional or technical matters, including the reasons why.

Under the duties and powers established in the Bill, the board, in turn, has the responsibility to advise government departments on statistical issues, including technical issues such as methodologies, definitions and classifications, as well as on standards for official statistics. Therefore, it will be seen that the Government understand, and have legislated in the Bill for, the National Statistician to be the Government’s chief adviser on statistical matters. We intend the National Statistician to be the head of the Government’s statistical service, providing professional leadership to those working on statistics in government, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Moser, indicated the role has been performed in the past.

However, it will be recognised why I have difficulty with the amendment. We have chosen to retain the decentralised statistical system. That decision has been widely supported. I do not think that it has been challenged in our debate. The Treasury Select Committee endorsed the concept. A decentralised system inevitably means that statisticians remain working within government departments. It is not appropriate to legislate within the Civil Service structure for lines of accountability between staff working in departments and the National Statistician working in another department. That would be to bring into legislation that which, in a decentralised system, should be kept out of legislation, but it in no way, shape or form undermines the arguments about the responsibilities of the National Statistician and his relationship to statisticians in departments.

We are not changing that basic relationship. What is being changed—this is the theme of the Bill—is the creation of a board on which the National Statistician is chief executive, with the powers vested in that board rather than where they lie at present. There is nothing between us on where we want the National Statistician to be. I cannot accept the amendment because it would mean that we would be legislating about the structure of the Civil Service, which seems not to make any sense.

I am fascinated by the Minister’s response. I am very pleased that he agrees with the substance of the amendment but I do not follow his logic as to why, if he agrees with it, he cannot just accept it. This is not a formal, structural amendment; it makes a general point about the role of the National Statistician as providing professional leadership. If we were saying that each head of statistics in each department should report to the National Statistician in various ways or that they should have different grades or anything, I would have some sympathy with the Minister, but the amendment points out a general, important principle.

I do not intend to press the amendment tonight, but I will definitely give further thought to what the Minister has said and may come back to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [National Statistician: executive functions]:

[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 151:

I point out that if the amendment is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 152, by reason of pre-emption.

This may be a convenient moment to speak to my amendment, which is in the group, although the subject is somewhat different.

In speaking to the amendment to leave out Clause 29(4), I draw attention to the increasingly confused and, as I see it, misunderstood governance proposals. On Second Reading, we started with a red herring—the assertion that the chosen governance model would meet the approval of the Financial Services Authority. If the Minister still thinks that that model will gain approval, he can ask the FSA whether it agrees. It would no doubt answer that since it does not regulate any body remotely like the proposed Statistics Board, it has no comment to make. Will the Minister test that proposition?

However, since introducing red herrings is the classic way of diverting attention from what is really going on, we will do well to concentrate on whether the Government’s proposals will work, regardless of where they come from. It is clear both from Committee proceedings to date and from information on the search for the chair that the Treasury considers that being the Statistics Board’s adviser will be the National Statistician’s real role. The promised position of chief executive is an add-on.

The chair, although described as non-executive in the Bill, is to be executive, I believe. The advertised salary of £150,000, presumably pensionable, must give rise to a remuneration package for three days a week way beyond any existing package for non-executive chairs. If it does not, may we be given the relevant precedents? The chair’s rate of pay is considerably higher than that enjoyed by the National Statistician—always a good test of who is in charge. The Minister circulated a letter on the subject, but may we also have copies of the search consultants’ information pack?

It is clear that the chair is to be top dog—a concept described by the Minister as crude, as indeed it is, given the drafting of the Bill. Given those developments, Clause 29(4) becomes even more unacceptable because it hammers home the reduction in the National Statistician’s position to that of any executive who accepts that she must do or not do whatever the chair tells her, in the way in which he tells her to do it. Yet she is head of her profession.

What about the impact on independence and the building of trust—the twin objectives of the Bill? I wonder how those arrangements are to be built into the contracts of employment for the chair and the National Statistician. We need to understand those arrangements because if, on the one hand, the chair is to be deeply involved in operations and, on the other, the National Statistician is to have no public profile, I for one have been misled. The clause should be dropped.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments. I shall discuss the amendments separately because the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raises some fundamental points that I need to address separately, although I recognise that they are contiguous with the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As she said, we discussed at length in our first Committee sitting the question of the governance model set out in the Bill. The Government are committed to that model. We believe that we have adopted the right approach for the National Statistician’s relationship with the board and to the role of the executive office that the National Statistician is to establish.

As I said in my response to the previous amendment, our approach recognises the professional pre-eminence of the National Statistician. I listened to the arguments of the Opposition, but I shall not yield to them on their argument that we have any objective other than recognising the professional pre-eminence of the National Statistician. We establish that in Clause 29(2), where the National Statistician is assumed to be able to exercise the functions of the board directly, without the intervening express authority of the board, except in respect of specific functions. One is assessment, which we all recognise to be a separate concept; another is the final sign-off of the code of practice. The National Statistician will not exercise all those functions herself or himself, so the Bill enables the National Statistician to delegate functions to the staff of the executive office for which he or she is responsible.

The necessary quid pro quo of allowing the National Statistician directly to exercise those functions is that, to maintain accountability, the board must be able, as necessary, to condition how the executive staff are to function and reserve the right to exercise certain functions itself—the two functions that I identified earlier.

We see no case for changing that approach. I hear what the noble Baroness says, but I hope that she will recognise that there is coherence to the Government’s position, which is based on a model that certainly preserves the role of the National Statistician but also guarantees that the board can meet its obligations in being accountable to Parliament.

The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is defining a different kind of board, one in which there is an executive chairman. That is why he raises the issue of the salary. Why should the salary issue affect the relationship between the chair and the National Statistician if not the chair but the National Statistician is exercising executive authority?

Although the National Statistician can exercise any of the board's functions, except for the final code sign-off and assessment decisions, which we recognise to be separate, the reason why those functions need to be reserved is that the board will be charged under the Bill as ultimately accountable for those functions. It is therefore bound to have some power to direct the National Statistician on the discharge of those functions. The board could not be accountable if it had no control at all over the manner in which the functions are exercised. I shall consider the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the search consultants’ reference pack. I cannot give a categorical answer at this stage. I will do my best to provide that information, but I am slightly hesitant about doing so. It will be recognised that this relates to a public appointment, and I am not quite sure just how much we are free to disclose. I will certainly write to him with as much information as I can.

The noble Viscount’s amendment relates to a different kind of board from the one in the Bill—which we hope to convince the Chamber has merits. The board is accountable to Parliament and has the National Statistician as its chief executive. It has two functions in particular. We all recognise the one that relates to assessment and that is separate from the National Statistician, which is why it has its powers. It is also accountable to Parliament for the overall position, but the National Statistician is the executive officer. He will set up the executive operation of statistics from the board, and will set the standards for all statisticians who produce government statistics.

There has been a considerable overlap of issues in both the debates that we have had so far. I hope that I have established for the Committee the fact that the Government are clear in the Bill about the nature of the board, and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. She said that it was probing. I hope that I have at least given her food for thought.

The trouble with this topic is that the amendments touch on what we came to call the muddle of the whole structure of the relationship between the National Statistician and the board, which the Minister will come back to at a later stage. It is therefore difficult to discuss them totally separately. On the whole, I support the amendments, but I want to talk about a particular problem, which may be the product of my suspicious mind. From the very beginning, when we first set out on this route after the Chancellor had made his proposal, I had the feeling that the Treasury, where this all came from, was rather in favour of a somewhat executive board. Gradually, that was watered down and became more non-executive, which we have discussed at some length.

My worries have returned because of the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the announcement last week of the appointment of a non-executive chairman. It was not so much the salary that worried me; I cannot comment on that because everyone gets such high salaries these days that I can only congratulate whoever gets this job. I am much more worried about the three days a week. In my time as National Statistician and in that of National Statisticians after me, it was very nice to have Ministers in charge. They may occasionally have gone slightly too far into the political arena, but they basically left one alone. They certainly did not spend three days a week in charge of us. I worry about the concept of a non-executive chairman spending three days a week “managing” the National Statistician, as one document put it.

I thank both noble Lords for taking part in this short debate. There is an incredible fog in this Bill about the board and the National Statistician. At times, the Minister wishes to build up the National Statistician at the Dispatch Box; at others, he resists any amendments to the Bill to enhance that. There is a complete lack of clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, put his finger on the question teased out by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Eccles: what will this chairman do for three days a week? We understand that there can be different kinds of boards and different kinds of separation of roles between executives and non-executives, but we find it increasingly difficult to align what the Minister is saying about what the National Statistician will do and what the board will do by itself, with what the Government are saying are the role of the chairman and the terms of his appointment in advertisements in the national newspapers. The Minister rightly noted that I said that my amendments were probing; I always stand by my word on such things. He will know that we need to return to this in much more detail on Report. I would not like him to think in any way that his arguments have left the Committee satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 152 to 157 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 158:

Amendment No. 158 stipulates that the executive office of the board should be known as the Office for National Statistics. Our view is that including in the legislation the prescription of what the executive office is to be called—namely, the Office for National Statistics—is unnecessarily inflexible. The executive office may well be called the Office for National Statistics, although those involved, such as the chairman, the board and the National Statistician, may decide that a different name would be more appropriate. It is difficult for us to see what interest is to be served by prescribing this in the Bill.

When the staff of the Office for National Statistics read Hansard, they will note that the Minister did not respond to my invitation to recognise the value and strength of the ONS, and they will regret that. I can see that if the Government do not want to put the name in the Bill, they are entitled not to, but the signal that the Government send is a pity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 159 to 161 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 162:

I support this amendment. It seems such an obvious duty for the National Statistician, supported by the board. There is no other statistical office in the world that I know of—and I used to be in charge of United Nations statistics—that does not have this kind of responsibility, if only to make sure that forward planning of not only statistics but of resources needed by the statistical service are in good shape. This seems to be an obvious duty to incorporate in the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, we have had quite a discussion about this matter. I hope that there will be clarity in what I say which will satisfy the noble Lord. The board’s objective is to promote and safeguard the quality and comprehensiveness of official statistics that meet the public good. The board has a range of duties and powers to help deliver on that. We want to let the independent board statistician and chairman determine the appropriate planning mechanism and not at this stage be over-prescriptive. Ultimately, the board is the legal entity responsible for exercising the functions in the Bill. Therefore, we do not believe that there should be a legal requirement on the National Statistician to produce a business plan.

Already the board, under its obligation to produce an annual report under Clause 25, is to report on,

“what it intends to do during the next financial year”,

and to lay this report before the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. The board’s powers under the clause also allow it to publish at any time additional reports relating to any of its functions. How frequently such reports are published, and what specific issues will be covered, will ultimately, and in our view quite rightly, be for the board, with the National Statistician as the executive figure, to determine.

We would also expect that in addition to the information included in the board’s annual report, it will produce periodic, more strategic, business planning documents. Our assumption is that a competent board, with the National Statistician in the chief executive’s role and a non-executive chairman, will do everything that the noble Lord requires. That is the way things happen with an efficient, well run board and a super chief executive. There is a worry in the noble Lord’s mind, but it is difficult to see why he is concerned.

I hope that I may intervene. Both roles were spelt out in 2000 in the framework and were assigned to the National Statistician and to the commission. However, they do not appear in this Bill—they have gone. The Minister’s argument is that it will all happen as though they were in the Bill. I find that very difficult to accept.

That is not my argument. Here we are setting up a board which has objectives. Of course it is in everyone’s interests that an effective National Statistician and executive chair are in place. We will expect the board to do everything the noble Lord says. However, the fact that the requirement does not appear in the Bill is not relevant because, obviously, the board will want to be highly effective.

I find that reply deeply unsatisfactory and I will want to study what the Minister has said. He does not appear in any way to have addressed the argument put to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who said that this requirement is made by every other statistical office. I feel that the Government are leaving too much to the discretion of the board and the National Statistician. Surely, planning must be a central function and I cannot understand why it should not be specified in the Bill.

However, the Minister has said that the Government will not give way on this tonight. We shall need to return to the matter at some stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 163:

The Committee will be pleased to hear that I agree with every sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness about the objective of keeping assessment separate from the production of statistics. That is our intent, too, and I emphasise that we do not think the amendments are necessary to achieve our shared goal—a goal shared by all those concerned with the effective operation of the board. Clauses 29 and 31 make clear that the head of assessment is not to be part of the National Statistician’s executive office, as the noble Baroness recognised, nor is the head of assessment to take part in statistical production.

As the staff working on assessment will report to the head of assessment, it follows that these staff are not part of the executive office, nor will they work on statistical production. We do not need to state this again in the Bill because it is clear that we have identified the need to separate the head of assessment from the production of statistics. However, I ask the Committee to consider whether there is a real difficulty with the fact that they are on the same board.

Let me take an area in which inspection plays its part in a product that we all hold very dear to our hearts; education. It is possible for the inspectorate to be part of the board and represented on it. The inspectorate has an entirely different job and a different responsibility—it is the inspectorate of what the board is responsible for producing. There is no suggestion that because the chief executive is concerned with the promotion of educational standards, the inspectorate is somehow compromised because the inspector serves on the same board. However, it must be clear that their functions are defined as separate and that the board is there to guarantee that separation. That is exactly what is being proposed in this model.

In Amendment No. 166 the noble Baroness has alighted upon the phrase, “so far as practicable”. I recognise why she should: because there is a danger that this provision is a get-out from the position that those concerned with the production of statistics should not be involved in assessment. In the normal course of events, we expect that the board will ensure that staff do not engage in the production and simultaneously the assessment of statistics. We have kept this phrase simply because it is possible that a member of staff might move from a post in the production of statistics to one on the assessment side and a small overlap in their work might result. That is not in any way, shape or form to compromise the principle on which the board will operate—to keep assessment separate from production—but working situations of that kind might arise. We simply did not want a position where a low-level overlap for a short period would cause a member of staff and the board employing him or her to fall foul of the legislation. That would render movement between the two functions very difficult indeed. But in career terms, a member of staff may well be involved at one stage in the production of national statistics and then pursue a career move on the assessment side.

The provision is included for that purpose only, and the safeguard is that the board is charged with these two separate functions. That is set out clearly in the Bill and the board’s working practices will embody them. I have illustrated the point with an example from the field of education. The noble Baroness has indicated that her amendments are probing in nature, and I certainly hope that on this occasion I have satisfied her that the Government have thought this issue through.

I will have to disappoint the Minister again by saying that I am not wholly satisfied with his response. He gave an example in education where an inspector sat on a board. In fact, the Bill does not have the head of assessment sitting on the board. Some may think that he should be on the board, but that is not what this legislation seeks to achieve. My amendment does not address that issue because I can see quite easily how two people might function at a senior level within the organisation. My point concerned the staff.

Can the Minister explain why the Bill sets up an arrangement for the National Statistician to head an executive office with a full staff but is completely silent on any issues relating to staff for the head of assessment? Nothing in the Bill refers to the resources that would need to go to the head of assessment. The Minister says that the Government have thought this through clearly, but I cannot see that in the Bill.

We do not put staff numbers and remuneration in legislation; we are merely making it absolutely clear that the staff working for the head of assessment have nothing to do with the production of statistics, nor do they work in the executive office under the National Statistician. It could not be clearer than that.

The Minister is clear on it, but the Bill is not. It does not state that staff working on the assessment side should not be in the executive office. Indeed, a casual reading implies quite the reverse. I fear that the Minister has also not explained how the National Statistician can be the chief executive of the board when there are supposed to be two sets of staff and the National Statistician is the chief executive of only one set. This takes us back to an aspect of the confusion lying at the heart of the Bill.

I said when I introduced these amendments that they are probing in nature, and therefore I shall take them no further today. I do not believe that the Minister has adequately explained how these two streams of activity are to exist within the new Statistics Board, and I hope that he will choose to reflect on that before we come to the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Head of Assessment]:

On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?

I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered by my noble friend Lady Noakes, so I will be brief. However, I should like to suggest to the Minister at least one reason why the arrangements in Clause 30 are unsatisfactory. It is not the habit of chief executives to be told that they may not have anything to do with part of the organisation for which they are executively responsible. Chief executives reckon that the buck stops on their desk. If, for example, when I was chairman of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, I had told the incoming director that there was a large chunk of the gardens’ operations for which he would have no responsibility, I would have had trouble concluding a contract with him.

While I can see that if the three-day chairman is to be the public face of the Statistics Board—to guard the code, to be responsible for the board’s detailed relationships with the Government and the person who deals with the media—he or she will need advice. However, the presence of a second executive member with the title of “Head of Assessment” alongside the National Statistician, who is to be the chief executive and yet is to have no working relationship with the head of assessment, is a recipe for trouble. Any highly qualified chair would be able to deal with these matters without the intervention of such a prescriptive clause, put in the Bill no doubt in pursuit of continued Treasury control. I suspect, from the discussion so far, that if the clause were not there and an amendment was put forward to include it, we would be told that it was too prescriptive and not needed.

I thank the noble Viscount for presenting his opposition to the clause in such a constructive way, although obviously we regard this provision as important. I am afraid that I am obliged to reiterate the role of the head of assessment in the way I did when responding to the previous amendment. The head of assessment is not a competing voice to the board’s chief adviser—the chief executive in the form of the National Statistician. While the National Statistician will advise the board on its wide range of statistical functions, the role of the head of assessment will be strongly focused on supporting the board in one, and only one, of its key functions, that of assessment.

I recognise from the response of the noble Baroness to my explanation on the previous amendments that I have not as yet won the argument and achieved total conviction. We have further stages where these issues may be pursued. I shall study what has been said this evening in criticism of the government model in Hansard carefully, and I hope that the replies from this Box will also be studied with care. We believe that the Bill gives a clear prescription of the role of the National Statistician and the enhancement of that position as the chief executive of the board and head of national statistics, and of the assessment function with which the board is properly charged which is separate from that. I hope that if we return to this subject on another occasion, noble Lords will have looked at these arguments as carefully as I intend to.

I shall certainly look with great care at what the Minister said, as is only right and proper. I do not think that there is any disagreement about the dual role of production and quality control—as I prefer to call it as opposed to assessment. The point of disagreement is why it is not right and proper to leave this matter to the Statistics Board and its chief executive, the National Statistician, who would be uniquely well placed to carry out the function of quality control.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Separation of Functions]:

[Amendment No. 165 to 168 not moved.]

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Committees]:

[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Confidentiality of personal information]:

[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 171:

My Amendment No. 180 in this group is different from the Liberal Democrat amendment but addresses some of the same issues. Amendment No. 171 would restrict the board in the use of personal information to the board’s or National Statistician’s functions. Amendment No. 180 seeks to delete Clause 36(4)(c) and would not allow the disclosure of information which is,

“necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to exercise any of its functions”.

My purpose in tabling Amendment No. 180 is to probe why the board should ever need to disclose information for the purposes of its functions.

I can see why the board might need to use personal information and I can see how it might feel that it could disclose in some of the circumstances set out in subsection (4), but I cannot understand the circumstances in which the board would need to disclose information for the purposes of its functions as set out in the Bill, such as reporting official statistics, defining official statistics, producing statistics, compiling the retail prices index and providing statistical services. It also has a function in research, but that is specifically covered in subsection (4)(i), and paragraph (c) is clearly not about that.

So we are left with one area, the census, which is the only area given in the Explanatory Notes as the reason for the board needing to disclose information for the purposes of its functions. If that is the only reason, we believe that a much more targeted reference to the disclosure of information for that purpose should be included in the Bill, rather than the extremely broad permission given in subsection (4)(c) to disclose anything in relation to the board’s functions. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 180 as it is a specific amendment and then deal with the rather more general issues that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, introduced with his amendment.

There may be limited occasions when the board may need to disclose in pursuit of its functions, one of which is given, for example, in Section 5 of the Census Act 1920. That function is transferred to the board from the Registrar General under Schedule 1 to the Bill and allows the board to develop statistics on the population for periods between one census and another, and otherwise to supply and further provide for the better co-ordination of such information. In performing this function the board may need to disclose information; for example, to allow statisticians in the Department for Work and Pensions to use that information, with administrative data, to aid in the development of better-quality population statistics. The prevention of such sharing, which would be for the purpose of a function of the board, could cause a real deterioration in the standard of government statistics.

I want to reassure the noble Baroness and the Committee that, as all the board’s functions are considered to be statistical, there could be no possibility of this exception allowing disclosure for non-statistical purposes. Nothing in the exception overrides existing restrictions on disclosure in, for example, other legislation. The board will be able to make a disclosure only where it is lawful to do so. The confidentiality protection in Clause 36 will still apply even if the board has passed the data on to others under this exception. It will mean that if anyone who received the data under this exception disclosed it unlawfully, they would be subject to criminal sanction. Nothing in Clause 36 overrides the protections given in the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. I hope that the noble Baroness recognises why there needs to be an exception.

Is there an example other than the census? That is the question which I posed in my opening remarks.

I gave the clearest illustration that I could. I will write to the noble Baroness if there are other illustrations, but this is the key one in respect of the necessity for having exception.

On the more general issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we believe that there are adequate and proper safeguards in place for personal information. They are vital, as the noble Lord emphasised. That is why the Bill ensures the strongest possible protections for confidentiality of personal information consistent with the public interest in allowing the existing flows of data to and from the board to continue and allowing the possibility of increasing the sharing of data for, I emphasise, statistical purposes only.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Bill did not raise sufficiently significant human rights issues for the committee to examine it further. A committee that, as we know, examines Bills with the greatest care thought that this Bill had a clean bill of health as it stands. As I said on Second Reading, overall the Information Commissioner welcomes the fact that the Bill recognises the importance of ensuring personal information is used only where necessary and confidentiality is respected. The Information Commissioner welcomed the creation of a criminal offence for the illegal disclosure of personal information in Clause 36, which he believes should act as a significant deterrent to those working for the board and to anyone else in receipt of the information who needs to act on it for statistical purposes only.

The Government’s approach to the data-sharing and confidentiality clauses is clear. We intend to ensure that the existing flows of data to and from the ONS are replicated in the new system. We do not want to damage the flows of information on which the ONS has been dependent in the past. We want to allow for the possibility of increased sharing of data to and from the board and other public authorities where that sharing is for the purpose of statistical production and analysis and anywhere that it is judged to be in the public interest and approved by Parliament through secondary legislation. We have introduced strong confidentiality safeguards to ensure that people have confidence that their data will be held securely. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, gave voice to obvious anxieties on that score, which need to be allayed.

These are the principles on which we are working. We are building on the long history of the ONS, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, or the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, was an excellent brand name. I see that the noble Baroness takes responsibility for that phrase, and I congratulate her. We do not want in any way, shape or form to do anything other than enhance that. The ONS has had a long history of properly protecting data. We are taking this opportunity to increase the confidentiality safeguards on personal information, introducing into the Bill a criminal sanction for wrongful disclosure.

I emphasise that we fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns. Others have looked at the Bill carefully and have given a favourable response to the issues of confidentiality. I hope that he will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 172 to 175 not moved.]

If Amendment No. 176 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 177 because of pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 176:

Amendment No. 176 would remove the exception to the confidentiality obligation in Clause 36(4)(a) that allows the board to share personal information when another enactment requires or permits this sharing. Clause 36(4)(a) is there to take into account existing information gateways agreed by Parliament. We would not want to remove this exception or limit it to allowing disclosure only for statistical purposes. This may prevent existing data-sharing practices occurring in those specific cases that Parliament has previously debated and decided are in the public interest. Schedule 2 gives the examples of other Acts, such as the Finance Act 1969.

Another example of where sharing between the ONS and other departments is allowed by existing legislation is the Inter Departmental Business Register. The IDBR is a list of UK businesses maintained by the ONS, collected under legislation such as the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. These data are used by various government departments, such as the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or by the devolved Administrations, for selecting samples for surveys of businesses to produce, for example, analyses of business activity. It is vital for statistics around government to ensure that these existing flows of data from the IDBR are allowed to continue. Amendment No. 176 would stop this by preventing the board from sharing data when other enactments allowed it. The noble Baroness asked for a comprehensive list. We hope to provide that to her before the next stage of the Bill. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment in the light of what I have said.

I thank the Minister for offering to provide that list. I was merely seeking clarity, rather than leaving an undefined ability in the Bill. When the Minister produces the list, perhaps he will explain the relationship between it and Schedule 2, to which he referred me and which provides for continuity with a number of specific Acts. Is Schedule 2 a comprehensive statement? I am happy for the Minister to write to me on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 179: