My Lords, it is with great regret that I have to inform the House of the death of Lord Ewing of Kirkford on 9 June. On behalf of the whole House, I extend our condolences to his family and friends.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their final disposal decision concerning the hull of the MSC “Napoli” and how that decision was reached.

My Lords, no final decision has been taken on the disposal of the wreck of the MSC “Napoli”. Any disposal plan will need to include detailed plans for the clean-up and safe disposal of any remaining contaminates in, or as part of, the vessel. The Government’s primary concern will be to ensure minimal impact on the marine environment following a very successful salvage operation to date.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the system of SOSREP, the Secretary of State’s representative, proposed by the late Lord Donaldson and implemented successfully by this Government, has worked well in this incident and many others? Will she take steps to ensure that the role of the SOSREP is not downgraded? What progress has been made in recruiting Mr Middleton’s successor?

Yes, my Lords, the SOSREP has been a highly successful appointment. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will know, that post will not become vacant until the autumn. The Government are seeking a suitable candidate with the necessary skills and experience to fulfil this role. It is a very important role, because the SOSREP makes decisions at the scene of the accident with the full powers of the Secretary of State. The salary has been a matter of some contention and is under review. No appointment will be made until the right individual is identified.

My Lords, whose responsibility is it to decide where the ship ends up? Will it end up in the ship-breaker’s yard on the River Tees instead of some of those dodgy American nuclear submarines that most of us hope will never get across the Atlantic?

My Lords, the ship’s owners will have ultimate responsibility for deciding where it is finally disposed of, but always in consultation with the Secretary of State’s representative and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. That disposal must, of course, be within the law.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there was confusion concerning the law relating to property washed up onshore that led directly to some of the more unfortunate scenes that we all saw on Branscombe beach? What steps are being taken to clarify and, if necessary, update the law to prevent a similar situation in the future?

Yes, my Lords, we all remember unruly scenes on Branscombe beach. The law states that anyone finding or taking possession of wreck material, regardless of its size or value, must report that to the Receiver of Wreck. Failure to report is a criminal offence. Two reviews are taking place, one into the accident itself and the other into the aspects of the accident that the noble Baroness raised. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is actively reviewing its procedures and the effectiveness of existing legislation. Is the legislation adequate given the quick information routes of the 21st century—including mobile phones, the internet and so on—and as regards the powers of the police and other bodies?

My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what was said about the success of SOSREP, and in particular about the present incumbent, whose excellence in this case has been openly acknowledged by the Dutch salvage contractors. Regarding the removal of the wreck, does the Minister agree that everything very much depends on the weather? The ship is severely cracked and she may well break in two when they try to refloat her, which may necessitate dismantling the aftersection and towing away the forward section, perhaps for further use.

My Lords, these are all great concerns; that is why officials from the Department for Transport, Defra, the Environment Agency, the Marine and Fisheries Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency met on Friday, 8 June for an initial discussion on the possible options for the disposal of the “Napoli”. Following that meeting, there need to be further discussions with its owners and with officials before any decision is taken. I anticipate that decisions will be taken sooner rather than later.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that, if you took something from the site, you had to report it, but what happens after that? Do you have the right to retain the article or does someone else have property rights over it? I would appreciate clarification.

My Lords, if you pick up or recover a piece of wreck, you can hold it for 30 days but you must then ensure that the Receiver of Wreck knows that you have that piece of cargo. The Receiver of Wreck will then act as the go-between between the person who possesses the cargo and its owners. If the cargo’s owners do not wish to retrieve that cargo after 30 days, the person who picked it up—salvaged it, scavenged it, or whatever word you want to use—may keep it.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What plans they have for the operational implementation of the battlefield identification system following its prototype test in 2001.

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Rodney Wilson, who was killed on operations in Iraq last Thursday, and of Lance Corporal Paul Sandford and Guardsman Neil Downes, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan last Wednesday and Saturday respectively.

Following the US decision last year to proceed with the NATO standard STANAG 4579 on battlefield target identification devices, the UK battlefield target identification system is progressing to field a compatible system at the same time as the United States.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure that he will agree with me that this has been a very long and draining resource on our forces for many years. In the present hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have so far lost, as a result of what I think is now called brotherly fire, eight dead and 30 seriously injured out of a total of 151 deaths. In Afghanistan, there is one suspected death in that way. In the first Gulf War, we lost nine out of a total of 16 deaths in the whole war as a result of friendly fire. Incidentally, at the same time, the USA lost 35 out of 148, so it was not showing favouritism to us. In the Falklands, we lost eight out of 22, due entirely to ourselves. As we are now apparently looking towards Raytheon and Thales for alternative methods of dealing with this problem, is there a serious lack of confidence in the Bowman system, on which we have already spent so much money?

My Lords, there is a misunderstanding of the difference between situational awareness and battlefield target identification. The Bowman system is intended to give situational awareness of our forces on operations. It does not tell our forces whether they are friends or foe, as an IFF system would with an aircraft. Therefore, it is not the Bowman system but the fielding of the battlefield target identification system—a different system—that is key here. With regard to the statistics that the noble Lord quoted, again, I believe that he is confusing cases of fratricide, in which there is a failure to identify the enemy properly, and deaths caused by soldiers moving into the line of fire or a ricochet. No cases of fratricide—wrong targeting—have been suffered or perpetrated by United Kingdom forces since March 2003.

My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Answer that the Minister gave at the beginning of this Question, when he mentioned that the United States has now agreed to the NATO specification. Is it not the case that there was a six-year delay before that position was reached? That being the case, does he not accept that, although the MoD has appointed an individual who is responsible for championing the combat identification programme in the department, it is rather a hollow exercise when that individual has no budgetary control, no line-management powers and no direct authority at all? What action are the Government taking to address what appears to be a shortfall in leadership and oversight within the MoD to tackle these unacceptable delays, which apparently have been going on for six years?

My Lords, I am quite happy to address delays caused by poor management of a project in the Ministry of Defence but I do not think that that is the case here. There is a difference between identifying as friend or foe a civilian, a military aircraft or a ship at sea and identifying a friend or foe on land. As the House will recognise, the land is a cluttered environment with very many more targets and there are often obstructions with ground being hidden. Putting an IFF system into a land environment is a major technological challenge and there have therefore been delays in reaching international agreement on the standards. However, such a system will work only if all coalition partners buy into a common standard. The noble Lord is correct: it took a considerable time for the United States to make a decision. It decided last year to adopt the NATO standard, and we now have a programme that can exploit that agreement. I do not believe that the SRO lacks the necessary controls or influence over the project. He has the necessary controls. I discussed a project with him this morning and he feels that he has everything that he needs to manage this project effectively.

My Lords, from these Benches we join the Minister in sending condolences to the families of the two corporals and the guardsman whom he mentioned. In the light of the Minister’s last response and the criticism from the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, will the Government consider an interim programme for the battlefield target identification system?

No, my Lords. We often operate in coalition with the United States and, on such operations, the US provides more than 90 per cent of the air cover to forces on the ground. The system would be useless without the inclusion of the US. Therefore, a system developed uniquely for UK forces would have no real utility and would be a waste of money.

My Lords, is it proposed that the future system will be fitted to all our land platforms, or just selected ones, such as headquarters vehicles?

My Lords, all of them.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

When they next plan to meet the Government of France to discuss European Union issues of mutual interest.

My Lords, United Kingdom Ministers and officials are in close contact with their French counterparts on a range of issues. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has met President Sarkozy on two occasions since his election. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have met their counterparts. The Minister of State for Immigration and Asylum and I will go to Paris on 18 June to meet, among others, the French Minister for Immigration, Integration and National Identity, Brice Hortefeux. The Prime Minister will see President Sarkozy again at the European Council on 21 to 22 June.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In the press interviews that President Sarkozy gave recently, he expressed the hope that the incoming British Prime Minister would be a very good European and strong and positive on leading European issues. Will the Minister confirm that the new Premier Gordon Brown will be constructive and bold on European issues? In the context of boldness, what would the Minister outline as the leading salient issues where, when he gets the opportunity after the summit at the end of June, Gordon Brown could be constructive and bold, such as QMV, for example?

My Lords, I do not have the smallest doubt that the incoming Prime Minister will be constructive on this as on every issue. I know that in President Sarkozy he has an opposite number who respects him; indeed, when they served as finance Minsters together, he expressed that sentiment. The entire range of issues are bound to be discussed, but I know that enlargement, trade and the common agricultural policy will be among them.

My Lords, there have been one or two minor disagreements with our French partners over the past centuries, but does the Minister agree that, with the election of a pragmatic new French President, the stage is set for enhanced bilateral co-operation on matters such as immigration and military procurement? This can be enhanced, in the European Union context also, with benefit to third areas such as Africa, where because of our mutual colonial experience both France and the UK have much to contribute to the improvement of development.

My Lords, I was trying to think of an occasion when we did not agree with the French in the past 100 years. It is hard to recall, but we disagreed with them rather more in previous centuries.

There is no doubt that we are improving our work on Africa now, and it will continue to improve. We are seeing much more openness in discussions on Somalia, Darfur and other very troubled regions. That will be one of the purposes that I shall pursue in Paris on 18 June.

My Lords, perhaps I may give the Minister an opportunity to answer a question which he did not get round to answering in our debate last Friday. Given that the whole ill fated project of the European Union is largely inspired by France’s deep psychotic need to bite the hand that freed her in two world wars, what is France’s current attitude to collaboration with our greatest ally, the United States of America, and indeed with NATO?

My Lords, when he was an election candidate, President Sarkozy was very clear about wanting to see a significant development in France’s relationship with the United States. Describing a nation that we fought alongside during the Second World War and which suffered terribly in that period as “psychotic” does nothing for the dignity of this House.

My Lords, as a Francophile, may I ruefully remind my noble friend that the Duke of Wellington once said that,

“we always have been, and I trust we always shall be, detested in France”.

One can understand occasionally why the French might have been irritated by us. Will the Minister use all his splendid powers of diplomacy to establish that that is no longer the position, if it ever were, of Her Majesty’s Government, and develop the entente as we would all wish it to be?

My Lords, we most certainly will do that. There are so many areas where co-operation would be of vast benefit to this country that it would be foolish to do otherwise. In the early discussions with Bernard Kouchner and others, we are seeing a much more open and fruitful approach to questions that were a little difficult in the last of the Chirac years.

My Lords, do the Government have any plans to explain in more detail to the British people the depth of the military co-operation between Britain and France that we have achieved in recent years?

My Lords, I am sure that as the arrangements get deeper and improve we will do that. I hope that over the next months, let alone years, we can make progress, particularly on some of the tricky issues around trade and the common agricultural policy, difficult as I know that will be for the French. If I am candid about it, I think we will have much greater difficulty in the discussion on at least some parts of enlargement, but in all of this, there has to be a dialogue that the people of this country are party to.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned enlargement. Can he say what the attitude is towards Turkey joining the European Union? Mr Sarkozy is on record as being doubtful about the wisdom of supporting Turkey, and we differ somewhat in that view.

My Lords, President Sarkozy is clear that he is not in favour of that enlargement, but we are a long way from the point at which any decisions have to be taken. He has made it clear that his views will not stop the chapter discussions that are taking place in many of the key areas. We should all regard ourselves as having a desirable goal but playing it long.

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would the Minister care to enlighten the House about the attitude in Washington to our increasing involvement with the European Union in defence matters, particularly in procurement, and our involvement with the French in that area?

My Lords, I do not think there is any hostility to the collaboration. From the example of the aircraft carriers, there is no doubt whatever that people are looking on it favourably.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How much financial aid has been given in the past 12 months to refugees caused by the Iraqi conflict.

My Lords, we are concerned about the increasing number of people displaced by the Iraq conflict. The Department for International Development has provided £10 million to assist internally and externally displaced Iraqis and other vulnerable groups in 2007. That includes a contribution of £1.5 million to the appeal by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to address the influx of displaced Iraqis into neighbouring countries.

My Lords, I welcome that contribution, but is it not a fact that around 4 million Iraqis have been displaced by the conflict there, including 2 million who are refugees in neighbouring countries such as Syria and Jordan? Given the scale of this human crisis and given that since the beginning of the conflict spending by Britain on military operations has been over £5 billion, does the Minister believe that we are doing enough to help those who have been made refugees?

My Lords, the noble Lord’s figures are entirely accurate. He will know that part of the issue with respect to NGOs and others operating in Iraq is security. We have contributed generously to UN and other appeals, and we will continue to keep that under review.

My Lords, if the total amount we gave in the past year was £10 million and we are talking about 4 million refugees, internal and external, that is £2.50 each. Can we look to the Government to be a little more generous in the next year?

My Lords, we have contributed some £744 million since the conflict started in 2003, but I was asked a specific question with respect to the past year. The UN and other appeals to which we have contributed all look not just to the UK but to other countries to make a contribution. Part of the amount that those organisations are able to spend on the ground also depends on the security situation there. The House also needs to appreciate that the Iraqi Government themselves are now putting resources into developing basic services in Iraq.

My Lords, should not the UK, with the United States, take far greater responsibility for the refugees now desperately trying to flee Iraq—those who can get out? Does the Minister think that the amount that she mentioned, which is one-60th of what the UNHCR is asking for, is likely in any way to prevent instability in the region? Why have the 100 or so Iraqis who have left that country and fled to Syria and Jordan who fear for their lives because they helped the British forces not been given asylum?

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me about three different things. I understand that the UNHCR appeal is now fully funded. If that is not the case, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, but that was an appeal for about £60 million.

The issue of refugees displaced in other countries, some of whom worked for the United Kingdom Government, was the subject of an earlier Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I made clear to the House then that we look at all these issues on a case-by-case basis. Given the strength of feeling in the House on that occasion, I went back to the Home Office to get further information. Data are not centrally collated with respect to the origin of the asylum claims. The majority of asylum claims from Iraq come from Iraqis within the United Kingdom, rather than outside, but I have been assured that, were people to present having worked for the United Kingdom and were the other circumstances to mean that they would qualify for refugee status in the United Kingdom, of course that would apply.

In giving such a long second answer, I fear that I have forgotten the third question that the noble Baroness asked me.

My Lords, should we not be concentrating more of our resource on funding the International Committee of the Red Cross, because it has more credibility, having partners within Iraq, than many of the UN agencies, which have simply been discredited following the Oil for Food programme scandal?

My Lords, we contributed about £7 million to the ICRC. It appealed for $75.5 million to provide emergency assistance to vulnerable people, including internally displaced people. I understand that the appeal has so far raised $21 million.

My Lords, Kuwait has refused to accept any refugees from Iraq since the invasion of that country in 2003. What discussions are the Government having with Kuwait to encourage it to do more to help the international effort to help displaced Iraqis?

My Lords, there are a number of issues between Iraq and neighbouring countries. We have talked not only to Kuwait but to other countries in the region, because it is extremely important for the neighbouring countries to do all that they can to support the fledgling Iraqi Government. I must also say to the House that those displaced persons are putting a huge burden on already fragile communities in some of those countries.

My Lords, is it not the case that neither Syria nor Jordan are members of the UN Convention on Refugees? Does that not place greater responsibilities on outside states, especially the United States? Will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind what we owe to Iraqi refugees who have previously helped British forces?

My Lords, outside states do of course have a responsibility but, as we have seen in other parts of the world where there is conflict, refugees tend to flee to neighbouring countries first rather than to countries further afield. My understanding is that the United States is looking at accepting about 7,000 Iraqis under its longer term programme. If that figure is incorrect, I will write to noble Lords and put a copy of the letter into the Library of the House.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Jordan is not only one of our closest allies in the Middle East but that its stability is crucial to middle-eastern strategy? Will she therefore consider the possibility of a discussion between the United Kingdom Government and Jordan, which have been very close allies for a long time, on the best way in which we can help Jordan to deal with its huge inflow of refugees? Secondly, on her very helpful answer to my noble friend Lady Northover, will she agree to keep a very close eye on the bureaucratic systems of the Home Office, which, to be frank, can stand in the way of people with a genuine need to come to this country because they have helped the British Government during the Iraq war, to enable them to be sure that they can look for safety in this country if they are already in danger?

My Lords, one of our responsibilities towards neighbouring countries is to try to lessen the tension that has been building up in them as a result of refugees fleeing into them. Jordan remains very important in that regard, and we will continue to talk to it, to Kuwait and to other countries in the region. The Home Office must try to get the balance right between having a system that is robust but that can take on board the many different circumstances that exist in different parts of the world. That is why it works with up-to-date, country-specific data, to enable it to take the right decisions in these cases.

My Lords, with permission, a Statement on the G8 summit will be repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House at a convenient time after 3.30 pm today.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, 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 (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]

moved Amendment No. 99:

I understand that Napo supports this amendment. As has been said, Clause 4 exempts court work from the threat of contracting out. Napo fully supports this clause and believes that there would be a conflict of interest should the private sector be involved in giving information to the court. Currently, the Probation Service provides nearly 200,000 reports for the courts, including pre-sentencing reports and fast-track reports, which are normally provided on the day. It seems essential that the Government should ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

The super-affirmative resolution would provide a number of safeguards to ensure that the exclusion of court work could not be reversed merely by statutory instrument. The main safeguards would be that a draft of the order would have to be laid before each House and a report containing the proposal would be published. The Secretary of State would have to give reasons for the proposal and the report would have to be approved by each House. I support the amendment.

As has been stated on many occasions during our debates in Committee, the restriction of court work to the Probation Service is important and necessary. Among other matters, there is a potential conflict of interest. Just to rehearse that argument, should a person be giving information or advice to the court on, say, tagging when he works for a company involved in the provision of electronic tagging equipment, there would be a clear conflict of interest, which would be challengeable under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Since the Probation Service currently provides nearly 200,000 reports annually for the courts, it is clearly essential that the Government should ensure that there is no such conflict.

Given the importance that we have attached, in all our discussions on the Bill, to the restriction of this area of work to the Probation Service, Clause 4 should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, be able to be repealed by the Secretary of State without that first being given the fullest consideration and debate in both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, it is no wonder that there has been so much concern about the way in which the Bill and its provisions are presented out there in the community at large when the powers of the Secretary of State are such that he can give with one hand and take away with the other by statutory instrument under one of the shortest clauses of the Bill.

We therefore particularly support the introduction of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, with its safeguards, to ensure that the exclusion of court work is not reversed merely by statutory instrument. The safeguards are that a draft order would have to be laid before each House, the report containing the proposals would have to be published, the Secretary of State would have to give reasons for the proposal, and the report would have to be approved by each House. Anything less would simply not be acceptable.

I, too, support the amendment, partly on the grounds that have been advanced—the potential conflict of interest. Also, I suspect that, despite the advantages that may flow from the introduction of other agencies in probation work, certain features of the justice system belong to the state; that is, they should be part of the public activity of the state. Sentencing in particular is the passing of judgment in the name of the state on right and wrong. The aspect that concerns me in this is pre-sentencing reports. We may move away from the notion that sentencing is a judgment on right and wrong pronounced in the name of the whole of society to its being influenced by private interests. It is important to keep certain aspects of the system strictly part of the public exercise of justice. That would be my anxiety if Clause 4 was to be repealed, so the careful safeguards being proposed against its repeal should be supported.

I, too, support the amendment for the reasons that have been given. I am particularly glad that the right reverend Prelate has just spoken in those terms because, as a part of the criminal justice system, the work of the Probation Service is carried out within the community and this sort of safeguard needs to be attached to the tasks that are peculiarly its own and that it carries out on behalf of the state. I am also glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has laid out this amendment with her traditional clarity. It enables me easily to withdraw my suggestion that Clause 12 should not stand part, which is a blunt instrument. This proposal is entirely positive and sets out all the arguments with admirable clarity.

In Clause 4, it is proposed that Parliament should lay a restriction on the way in which the provisions of the Bill are applied and, in Clause 12, it is proposed that the Secretary of State should be allowed, on his own initiative, to dispose of that restriction. My noble friend and her supporters are proposing only that he should not be allowed to do that on his own motion, but that Parliament should retain the discretion to dispose of Clause 4 on his recommendation if he thinks fit. The amendment would ratchet up the control that Parliament has on the Executive rather than letting too much of it go free. I am wholly in favour of the amendment.

I, too, am in favour of the amendment. The conflict of interest argument is a powerful one, and I genuinely believe that there is a need for this amendment, with its safeguards, in the Bill.

I strongly support the amendment. Clause 4 was added to the Bill because of the pressure that the Government were under at the time. It is doubly important that, if and when Clause 4 is removed by Clause 12, everyone should be satisfied that it is the right time for contestability to come on to the scene.

I do not want to add to the arguments that have been advanced. However, can the Minister confirm whether the judiciary and the legal professions have been consulted about this matter and whether they indicated any potential conflict of interest? Is there likely to be any problem in terms of membership of the judiciary on a probation board or probation trust?

We have had a number of discussions on and around this issue over the past few weeks as we have worked our way through the Bill in Committee. For many noble Lords, this is understandably a core issue, which is fundamental to their appreciation and understanding of the direction of travel that this piece of legislation represents. It is an interesting discussion and debate for all that, because, when it comes down to it, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has put on the record quite clearly that she has no,

“philosophical or political objection to probation services being provided from outside the existing public provision”.—[Official Report, 21/5/07; col. 552.]

However, she has said that she has some serious doubts about the process. In essence, that is what we have come down to—some doubts about the process. Both major parties represented in your Lordships’ House are at one on the importance of contestability, but my noble friend Lady Scotland and I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about some aspects of the process. It is in that area that I would like to offer some reassurance in the next few minutes.

Last week, when we considered Clause 4 and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, put forward his amendments, we had a constructive discussion about this issue. We have moved forward and there is now a broader understanding in the Committee about how the contestability process will work. However, we now have an opportunity to pull the various strands of that debate together.

Before I focus on the amendment, it may help if I remind the Committee of the history of Clauses 4 and 12 and how they came to be in the Bill in its current form. When the Bill was first introduced, it did not distinguish between different aspects of Probation Service provision in terms of what could and could not be delivered by non-public sector organisations. That is because we do not think that there are fundamental reasons of principle why any aspect of probation provision could not in theory be delivered outside what we strictly understand as being the public sector. As I have rehearsed, that is a view shared by the Benches opposite. However, the Bill sets out a framework for the longer term, and we have always said that we will move forward cautiously and at a sensible pace. I think that noble Lords have accepted that argument. We understand the risks and sensitivities involved, particularly those that have been raised by noble friends behind me.

As noble Lords will know, the work that probation does with offenders can be divided into two broad categories: offender management and interventions. To remind ourselves further, “offender management” refers to the management of individual cases. It is the process of assessment and sentence planning, implementation, review and evaluation that runs from the beginning to the end of an offender’s sentence. Interventions are structured or planned pieces of work identified in the sentence plan. Their purpose may be punishment, rehabilitation or public protection. Examples include accredited offending behaviour programmes such as those for sex offenders and domestic violence offenders, or curfews with electronic monitoring and unpaid work.

It is in the field of interventions where alternative providers have achieved the greatest level of involvement, and there has been much support for that. We want to build on that and increase their involvement, working alongside the public sector, to develop expertise and strengthen partnerships so that a more diverse range of provision is available in due course. In respect of the core offender management work, however, we have always said that we want to proceed much more cautiously because we do not think that alternative providers yet have the necessary expertise or experience to undertake that work. We subsequently firmed up that reassurance into a commitment given in the other place that we would not contract with a non-public sector provider for that area of work until 2010 at the earliest.

As the Bill approached Report and Third Reading in the other place, it was apparent that particular concerns remained in respect of one aspect of offender management; namely, the work that probation does in relation to courts. We responded to those concerns by tabling an amendment to the Bill that enables the Secretary of State to contract only with a public sector provider for the work that probation does in relation to courts. That amendment was passed unopposed and now forms Clause 4 of the Bill. It was coupled with what is now Clause 12 of the Bill, which enables the restriction to be lifted by means of an order subject to affirmative resolution.

Why do we think that such a power is needed? As I have made clear, we see no reason of principle why this or any other aspect of probation work should be reserved for the public sector alone. But the fact that we do not think it appropriate to open up this area to other providers now does not mean that we should rule out the possibility for all time. If we reach a stage where alternative providers have gained greater expertise and experience, where courts have full confidence in their abilities and where concerns about conflicts of interest have been addressed, the Government of the day may well wish to open up this area of work to competition to see whether it can be delivered more effectively by a non-public sector provider. We should have the flexibility to respond to those changed circumstances without having to wait for a suitable slot in primary legislation.

In that context, it is worth highlighting the fact that the court restriction is cast widely and covers much more than the specialist area of court reports and advice on sentencing. It also covers, for example, the provision of general advice and bail information. It may very well make sense for some of those less sensitive aspects of delivery to be opened up to other providers more quickly, which is why Clause 12(2) allows for Clause 4 to be repealed partially as well as in its entirety. We should not deny this or a future Government such flexibility, but we should attach to it an important safeguard in the form of the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that the Government could not lift the restriction without a vote to that effect in each House.

For a sensitive measure such as this, that is setting the bar high. The Government would need to present a convincing and effective case, backed with evidence, if they were to secure the support of both Houses, particularly this one. The Government currently have no majority here and the House can effectively operate a veto. That is a robust safeguard, and I believe that it is the right approach for an order of this importance.

I was glad that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agreed that this procedure was appropriate. The noble Lady, Baroness Anelay, however, does not agree with either the Government or the Delegated Powers Committee—an unusual point, as it says.

I think it appropriate that I intervene, although it is somewhat unusual. I have not said that I disagree with the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—indeed, I have quoted it. It was careful to point out that this was a matter of policy on something that was fundamental to the Bill. In other words, the committee left it to noble Lords to make up their minds about taking other processes with regard to this particular process of affirmative SI. As ever, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee does not pass comment on policy, as that is not its role. As politicians, we should.

I understand how the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee works. My point is simply this: that committee agreed with the Government’s interpretation of what was required in terms of process and procedure. It did not suggest that the super-affirmative process was appropriate for dealing with this issue.

In that context, the amendment goes much further than the normal tried-and-tested procedures and seeks to apply a super-affirmative procedure. It seeks, in so doing, to impose an unnecessary delay by specifying that a draft order must be laid for at least 60 days before both Houses may debate the order. Further, it seeks to impose on both Houses by requiring them to approve a report that sets out what will be in the draft order. Both Houses would then be required to approve the same proposals, in the same Session, as set out in the order.

As the noble Baroness has conceded, the amendment was inspired, perhaps in her mind, by the super-affirmative resolution procedure set out in Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which is in many respects similar to the power proposed here. But the circumstances for which the super-affirmative power in the 2006 Act was designed bear no resemblance to the circumstances that we are dealing with here.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which I had the privilege of taking through your Lordships’ House, enables the Government to use secondary legislation to amend retrospectively primary legislation that made no provision for such amendment when it was passed by Parliament in the first place. It was designed for a different purpose altogether.

To reflect the wide-ranging nature of this power and to provide appropriate safeguards, the Act therefore followed the super-affirmative procedure first developed under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, repealed by the later Act, which operates along the sort of lines set out in the amendment. Our situation is entirely different. Whereas the 2006 Act introduced powers to amend primary legislation for purposes that were not envisaged at the time that that legislation was passed, our intentions are open and clear. Indeed, this is the very purpose of Clause 12: to provide an order-making power to enable the subsequent repeal, in whole or in part, of Clause 4. So a super-affirmative procedure is quite inappropriate here. Indeed, it is ironic that a procedure that was intended to facilitate deregulation and the lifting of burdens should here be used with the aim of maintaining them.

I ask the Committee to think carefully about the implications of applying this procedure in circumstances that are so different from the ones that it was originally designed for. Quite aside from its impact on the probation provisions, it could set a most unhelpful precedent more widely and risk undermining the clear and well understood parliamentary procedures that have stood the test of time. Before noble Lords consider this further, I ask them to reflect carefully.

Under the normal affirmative procedure, the order will be laid in draft before both Houses, and the Government will be required to make their case to both Houses before the order can be made. When Ministers come to do so, they will need to fulfil the commitments that have been made during this Bill’s passage through both Houses: to demonstrate that the appropriate safeguards are in place to alleviate the concerns expressed during that passage; and to present evidence as to how the new arrangements are working in practice. In fact, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave just such an undertaking during the Third Reading debate in another place.

Whether a formal report is the best vehicle for doing so is a judgment that will need to be taken at that time, taking into account the specific circumstances under which the draft order has been laid before both Houses. It cannot be rigidly codified in advance, in ignorance of those circumstances or, indeed, of what exactly the Government propose in the order. The bottom line is that, if either House is not satisfied with the case that the Government bring to the House at that time, it will not support the order and the restriction will not be lifted.

This has been a valuable debate and has provided an opportunity to pull together a number of important issues, in particular the issue of conflict of interest. We do not believe that there is an intrinsic conflict of interest for private companies in writing pre-sentence reports, which is undoubtedly one of the issues that troubles noble Lords. The writing of reports will be done under the very strict guidelines already in place to prevent any similar potential conflicts of interest under current arrangements, when the local board is in the position of both advising on and implementing the sentences of the court. However, we recognise that we have to get the system right before opening up this sensitive area of work to other sectors. That is why we have added this clause to the Bill. In any case, the awarding of a sentence—that being an issue raised in this context—will remain entirely at the discretion of the sentencer.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked whether there had been consultation with the judiciary. There has been very wide consultation on the probation proposals. It is partly in recognition of the concerns about conflicts of interest that Clause 4 was inserted in the first instance.

We are clear on this. We believe that we have a robust procedure that is tried and tested. It will inevitably mean that we must bring forward and carefully explain to both Houses the basis of our decision to move forward in the contestability field. The noble Baroness has drawn together in essence a procedure designed for an entirely different purpose, under legislation intended broadly speaking to deregulate rather than over-regulate. I invite the Committee to consider its position carefully before it decides to agree or take on board the proposal made in the amendment. I hope that, having heard what I have said, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I asked the Minister a specific question and the Minister replied that there had been wide consultation. Were the judiciary and legal profession involved in this consultation?

Yes, I understand that they were both involved in the consultation, which was extremely wide.

I begin by knocking on the head the allegation that the Minister makes that somehow I am abusing a parliamentary process. That is what he is suggesting, in very fancy words.

The Government have chosen to cite one Act —the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006—but they have themselves adapted the super-affirmative procedure to suit their own ends in other legislation, including the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the ID Cards Bill, in which an amendment was included to that effect until they decided to accede to the request of noble Lords that, instead of any kind of affirmative instrument, there shouldbe primary legislation. So we should not let the Government hide behind an allegation that the Committee will be veering off in a new direction. Parliamentary procedure should be flexible enough to meet the needs of democracy and the way in which the legislature works; it should not just be flexible for the Government to have the power to exercise their own authority.

In this case the issue is simple and I am grateful indeed to all noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendment. The way in which Clause 4 should be removed is fundamental to the Bill, because the provision gives core protection to the core management work. The Minister says that over the past couple of weeks we have got a greater understanding of how contestability will work. No, we have not; much still remains hidden and uncertain. He is right to say that I have no objection in principle to contestability. My problem is with process, and it comes to a head with putting forward this amendment as a way of trying to resolve the problem that I have with process. He says that the affirmative procedure, by which we can merely reject or accept, sets the bar high enough. It is not high enough for something that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, is a matter of judgment on right and wrong. On this matter, I wish to test of the opinion of the Committee.

I beg to move that the House be resumed.

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

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the G8 Summit, which took place between 6 and 8 June in Heiligendamm, in Germany. I pay tribute to Chancellor Merkel’s outstanding chairmanship.

“The purpose of the summit was to take forward the agenda first established at the Gleneagles Summit of 2005 on climate change and Africa.

“On climate change, the scale of the challenge, environmentally and politically, has been becoming clearer month by month. There is now a scientific consensus that the planet is warming dangerously. If we do not halt and then reverse the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, we face a potential catastrophe. Sir Nicholas Stern’s report has shown that early action will save money; late action will cost it. So, for the environment, this is urgent.

“Politically, the problem has been clear but daunting. The United States was not part of the Kyoto treaty. The major emitters in the years to come will include China, India and developing nations. They want to grow their economies. They fear that action on climate change will limit their growth and hence keep their people—hundreds of millions of them—poor.

“Added to all this, Kyoto barely stabilises emissions—it is now obvious that we need substantially to cut them—and it expires in 2012.

“At Gleneagles, we set up the G8 plus 5 dialogue, the first time the US and China sat round the same table debating how to put a new deal together.

“There is still a long way to go, but for the first time an outline agreement can be seen that meets the environmental test of cutting substantially the harmful emissions and the political test of bringing developed and developing nations, notably America and China, together.

“We agreed at the G8, for the first time, that a new global climate change agreement should succeed the current Kyoto treaty.

“We agreed, for the first time, that at the heart of that agreement should be a substantial cut in global emissions. And the summit sent an important signal that the global target should be of the order of a cut of at least 50 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the target set by the EU, Japan and Canada.

“We agreed at the G8, for the first time, the process for such a new agreement. We agreed that the UN is the only body able to finalise a global deal on climate change and that a comprehensive agreement should be reached in 2009. We called on all countries to see the UN climate change meeting in December as a first step to achieving a comprehensive climate change agreement.

“The most important change was the position of the United States of America. Again, for the first time, President Bush signalled that he wanted the US to be part of the new global agreement and would lead the attempt to get consensus among all the main countries, including China and India, so that that consensus could shape the final global deal.

“This is crucial. There will be no effective climate change accord without the US. The US will not agree without China being part of it. Now we have an agreement in principle, a goal and a process to achieve it. Much remains to be done; but on any basis, this is a substantial step forward.

“We agreed that tackling climate change and addressing energy security are complementary goals. We highlighted the importance of tackling energy efficiency, addressing emissions caused by deforestation and helping developing countries, which are likely to be worst hit by climate change, to adapt to its impacts. We agreed on a renewed effort to develop and deploy new low-carbon technologies, and we have sent a strong message that emissions trading schemes, within and between countries, will play a key role in giving incentives to business to invest in low-carbon technologies.

“Heiligendamm was never going to be about finalising a deal; it was about sending a clear signal on the shape of the post-2012 climate change framework. That is exactly what it did. The UK will work hard in the G8, UN and elsewhere to deliver this objective of such fundamental importance to the future of the world.

“Two years ago, the Gleneagles G8 agreed a global increase in aid and debt relief of $50 billion by 2010, with $25 billion extra for Africa. It also agreed universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010, to tackling other killer diseases, a commitment to funding primary education, to supporting an African peacekeeping force and to a big debt write-off.

“Britain is already meeting its commitment to increase aid to Africa. We have trebled it. Before the summit, Germany announced an extra €3 billion over four years, and America an extra $15 billion, for treating HIV/AIDS, over five years. Overall aid has risen. We should not ignore what already has been done or the almost $40 billion additional debt relief for Africa since 2005. But we will need to do substantially more to ensure that the Gleneagles provisions are kept.

“However, on HIV/AIDS, the G8 reiterated its commitment to delivering universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010. Since Gleneagles, around 1 million people in Africa have been receiving the anti-retroviral drugs that they need; the G8 has now agreed to fund a total of 5 million. This is more than the G8 share of this commitment as predictions currently stand. But we can do more in years to come to fulfil the 2010 goal if the need arises. It committed to providing $60 billion over the next few years in Africa to help to achieve this. It committed to filling the estimated $6 billion to $8 billion shortfall in funding for the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, and, reflecting UK policy, committed to providing the long-term predictable funding necessary to achieve the fund’s goals.

“The G8 also committed to taking specific steps to tackle the alarming feminisation of the AIDS epidemic whereby in sub-Saharan Africa 60 per cent of adults living with HIV/AIDS are women and three out of four young people living with HIV are women and girls. So the G8 committed to scaling up its efforts to deliver universal access to services to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from mothers to their children, to paediatric services and to maternal and child health services, at a total cost of nearly $5 billion.

“On education, the G8 committed to working to meet the immediate $500 million financing gap for the education fast-track initiative. Again in line with broader UK policy, the G8 committed to help to provide long-term predictable funding to ensure that every child gets to school, and reiterated its commitment to ensure that no country that is seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in achieving its goal by a lack of resources. This will help to meet the millennium development goal of universal primary education by 2015.

“The G8 also committed to identifying, agreeing and supporting lasting solutions to the financing of peacekeeping missions in Africa—essential if key missions, such as the African Union mission in Darfur, are not to limp on hand-to-mouth, month after month.

“We agreed a strong statement on the crisis in Darfur. The truth is that President Bashir of Sudan has consistently refused to admit a hybrid UN-AU force and that he has consistently moved only under the threat of pressure from outside. Unless he now agrees to the G8 and UN demands, we are now committed to a new and tougher package of sanctions through the Security Council to force him to do so.

“Our last session was dominated by discussion of the World Trade talks. The gap has now narrowed. There is the real possibility of agreeing an outline deal by the end of June. The outstanding elements amount to only a few percentage points either way. We are therefore closer to the headline numbers than ever before. But we have to move from wanting to do the deal to doing it. The meeting of the G4 between 19 and 23 June will be absolutely crucial. Britain will continue to do all we can—and we have done much over these past months—to bridge the gap. The benefits of an agreement for the wealthy nations, as well as the developing ones, are enormous. It would be good for business and jobs, good for the multilateral system and good for the world's poorest. I urge the US, the EU and the G20 to get this done. It will be great to succeed, a profound shame to fail.

“As is usual at G8 summits, I also had bilateral meetings with a number of leaders and in particular a long and frank meeting with President Putin covering the range of issues presently under discussion: the Litvinenko case, Kosovo, ballistic missile defence and energy policy. I set out our view that people were becoming worried and fearful about the implications of present Russian policy. The president set out with equal frankness his views.

“It was right to have such an exchange. The issues were aired with complete openness on both sides. I said to him that we wanted a good relationship with Russia. He affirmed his desire to see Russia/UK relations strong. But the truth is that these issues remain unresolved.

“So this was a summit that made a real breakthrough on climate change and some more progress on Africa, and it showed once again the value to Britain of its transatlantic and European alliances. I commend the outcome to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. The summit opened, again, with scenes of organised violence and disruption, which is much to be regretted. Again, the active anti-global elements were extremely well organised.

As for the main issues under discussion at the summit, significant process on climate change has been claimed. It is interesting that the G8 appeared to look beyond the Kyoto treaty, which until now has been seen as the litmus test for commitment on this front. That must be a stimulus to renewed progress, not stagnation. It is worrying that no firm agreements were reached. However, did the noble Baroness note a reduction in CO₂ emissions reported by the United States last year and the positive commitment made by the US Administration at this summit? A positive attitude is to be encouraged. Does she share my belief that this may well have resulted from the relationship between the Prime Minister and President Bush and that the Prime Minister should be congratulated? Clearly, the involvement of India and China is vital, but does she agree that the goal must now be a full successor to the Kyoto treaty, involving not only the US but also India and China and other future super-economies, with binding targets and real progress being made at the UN’s December conference in Indonesia?

I welcome another aspect of the communiqué; namely, that we must treat causes as well as symptoms and that much more needs to be done to develop energy-efficient technologies. I wonder how much the UK Government are investing here.

Furthermore, destruction of the world’s forests is responsible for a fifth of carbon emissions—even more than transport. Does the noble Baroness therefore share my disappointment that more was not achieved on that?

On AIDS and the fight against disease, is the noble Baroness surprised by the somewhat negative reaction to progress in an area where the Prime Minister has striven so hard? Is Oxfam right to estimate that the total annual increase in spending amounts to just $3 billion? If so, and if this is a largely recycled announcement, that might go some way to explain that reaction.

Britain has made substantial progress on overseas aid. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness on this. My right honourable friend David Cameron has today reiterated my party’s intention to increase spending on international development to 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2013, but can the noble Baroness say what was done at the summit to ensure that all countries deliver what they pledge? There is a fear that, while all countries nod sagely at these summits, too many file the action points in the “pending” tray. Darfur is a tragic example. It is one of Africa’s two most pressing humanitarian crises. The G8 statement on Darfur covers important issues, such as an international force and the need for aid to get through. But what is this Government’s action programme to ensure that this really will lead to an end of the paralysis that we have seen so far, when the Khartoum Government seem utterly unwilling to co-operate with the international community in putting an end to the killing?

Africa’s other humanitarian tragedy is in Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be far more familiar with the voluminous communiqués than I am, but can she explain why, yet again, there is no mention of the atrocious activities of the Mugabe regime in the progress report on the G8-Africa partnership or in the extensive summit declaration of growth and responsibility in Africa? In her speech on 24 May to the Bundestag, Chancellor Merkel had said that Zimbabwe would be dealt with but, in the end, there was nothing.

The Prime Minister has two more weeks in office. Later this week, he and Mr Brown will discuss the next EU summit, so will the noble Baroness dictate an urgent minute to those two men saying that this House demands an end to the international conspiracy of silence on Zimbabwe? Did the G8 discuss the scandal of one of Mugabe’s henchmen being awarded a major United Nations development post? The noble Baroness’s international credentials are well known but is she not ashamed of the lack of progress in the face of Mugabe’s intransigence?

On security, the situation in the Middle East remains chaotic and troubling. I sensed no new initiative emerging from this summit, but no doubt the noble Baroness can enlighten me if there was. Beyond the Middle East, we welcome measures on nuclear security and counter-terrorism and the strong language on Iran. Was Russia’s stance unequivocal on preventing Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb? Did the Prime Minister make any initiative on the question of the planned missile shield, which has caused tension between Russia and her G8 partners?

Before the summit there was a lot of grandstanding about tough talk with President Putin. While I agree that some of Russia’s recent actions are self-defeating and deserve a frank and robust response, does not the history of international relations suggest that public rhetoric followed by practical inaction is usually counter-productive? Can the Minister tell us one concession that Mr Putin made in the face of the Prime Minister’s public finger-wagging? The communiqué showed a sharp division on Kosovo. Where next? Is it the Government’s policy to push for early independence for Kosovo, or what?

The next G8 meets next July in Hokkaido under the flight path of North Korean ballistic missiles. Can the noble Baroness say what actions the British Government will be taking before then to help contain the nuclear ambitions of North Korea?

This summit was something of a swan-song for the Prime Minister. I am sure that the other G8 leaders will be sad to see him go—maybe they even had a whip-round for him. No one ever span a summit better than this Prime Minister; no one more readily confused rhetoric with achievement; but it would be churlish to let him depart without recognising the Prime Minister’s genuine concern in the fields covered by this summit, of global warming, AIDS and Africa, not least. It would be good to think that the outcomes were always as good as he and the noble Baroness tell us, but if progress was made, then in that the Prime Minister played a commendable part.

My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Statement. There is a vast collection of documents from the presidency and we could spend three days raising questions, but I promise the Minister that I will not do so. We welcome the now clear establishment of the fact that we are talking about G8 plus five—in particular, the engagement of China as an increasingly important actor in the international economy; it is also becoming an important actor in the world political system. My heart sank when I saw the sheer width of the section on growth and responsibility on the world economy. Some of it is remarkably thin despite the words in it. Since the origin of the G8 was very much to do with managing global financial flows and retaining stability in the international economy, can the Minister tell us what is happening with the Financial Stability Forum and its concerns with the sheer scale of financial flows that carry trade, the role of hedge funds, and so on, which is one of the biggest sources of instability in the global economy that we now have?

We on these Benches particularly welcome the progress on climate change, although we now recognise that the President of the United States is clearly behind opinion in the United States in his resistance to moving forward rapidly to deal with this immense problem. We are very happy that the European Union countries continue to provide a lead in this sector, and we trust that under the next Prime Minister, as well as under our present one, that collective lead will be sustained. We were disappointed that there was not more outcome on Doha and more pressure to make progress towards a successful completion of the Doha development round, but there was a great deal else on Africa, some of which is clearly a good step forward, but trade is a very important issue as well as aid.

I will leave Darfur and other questions for others on my Benches, who I hope will be able to add their comments. I want to ask in more detail about the robust exchanges with Russia, which we welcome. The Russians in the Kremlin are now particularly fond of talking robustly and sharply to their neighbours around the world, and it is quite correct that we should reply in the same terms. On Kosovo, we need to move towards a resolution of the situation that is not going to be its remaining part of Serbia. There seems to be some merit in President Sarkozy’s suggestion that we should delay this for a further six months—although it would have been helpful if he had informed his co-participants in advance, in accordance with France’s deep commitment to common foreign policy within the European Union.

The British Government have clearly been engaged in conversation with the Americans on missile defence for a considerable period. I was asking Questions in this House about the updating of Fylingdales radar in 2000 and 2001, so the British Government must be extremely well informed about what is behind American policy. Does the Minister think that the proposals by the Russians on this slightly artificial issue—the missiles are not yet ready or tested—represent some way forward without having an unnecessary confrontation on yet another issue between Russia and the West?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his positive comments about the role that the Prime Minister played at the summit. On his point about the lack of firm agreements, particularly with respect to climate change, it was not the place for that kind of firm agreement because the serious negotiations will start in December under the UN umbrella in Bali. We all hope that those negotiations will be concluded some time in 2009 and that the ratification processes can go through the various countries, so that something is in place when Kyoto ends in 2012. The noble Lord is right about the importance of having China, in particular, around the table when we are talking about climate change.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned deforestation. He will know that the World Bank has a forest carbon partnership, and I am happy to write with more details about that. In the United Kingdom, we have an environment transformation fund that includes some elements that will be spent on the issue of deforestation. Again, I am very happy to write on that.

On HIV/AIDS, it is important that noble Lords remember that the commitment made at Gleneagles two years ago was for universal access to treatment by 2010, so this is work in progress. What was particularly important about this year’s summit was that it focused on implementation. I am very proud that the United Kingdom Government are meeting all our commitments, but we have to do more to put pressure on other G8 Governments who signed up to these commitments in 2005 and reiterated them in 2007. A process is now in place for annual reporting to G8 leaders that will help them to assess the progress being made against the commitments for 2010 and 2015.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right that we need to do more on Darfur. It is an issue for the global community, which is why the UN Security Council is engaged. A strong statement came out in which the G8 condemned the Government of Sudan’s bombings and rebel attacks in Darfur. It called on all sides to implement an immediate ceasefire and called for humanitarian access, commitment to a renewed political process in Darfur and a rapid transition to the AU/UN force. The statement said that if the Government of Sudan and the rebels continue to fail to meet those obligations, they will face action in the UN Security Council. Given that other members of the Security Council were around that table, that was particularly helpful. Noble Lords will know that not all permanent members of the Security Council are in the same place with respect to imposing sanctions.

Although Zimbabwe was not discussed at the G8 Summit itself, it was discussed by G8 Foreign Ministers at their meeting on 30 May. The chairman's summary of that meeting expresses G8 concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe and called for a constructive dialogue with the participation of all political forces to create the basis for reform and reconciliation.

The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked me about defence and, in particular, ballistic missiles and the offer from Russia. President Putin's offer to include the radar in Azerbaijan in the developing ballistic missile system is an interesting and constructive proposal and one that should be considered further. Noble Lords will know that in a Statement on 7 June, the United States said:

“At this time, we are only discussing the hosting of missile defence assets in the Czech Republic and Poland”.

As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the Statement, he had a long and frank discussion with President Putin but the whole series of issues that they discussed remain unresolved.

The issue of North Korea needs to continue to be dealt with under the aegis of the international community.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also asked me about Kosovo. There was a useful discussion among G8 heads, but there was no breakthrough. The intensive work by the UK and our partners continues, including in New York, on a draft resolution based on the Ahtisari proposals. On the proposal made by President Sarkozy, our priority is to bring the process through to successful completion and his proposals are a useful contribution to achieving that, but we have to consider that in much more detail. We will continue to work with our international partners to reach an acceptable solution to Kosovo’s final status.

I forgot to mention climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made a statement about the United States population being ahead of its President on that issue. We have seen the impact that the British population's interest in debt relief and aid to Africa has had in helping to keep the Government on track on our commitments. I very much hope that the fact that President Bush has made commitments to engage in the process between now and the end of Kyoto and the fact that the population of the United States takes the issue of climate change so seriously will mean that the United States can engage in a constructive way in those negotiations.

On the Financial Stability Forum, the noble Lord will know that those issues are discussed at the G8 Finance Ministers’ meeting, but if I can cast any further light on that, I am happy to write to him. I must confess that I have not read the vast collection of documents that came out of the G8 and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for having managed to read at least some of them.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the substantial progress now being attempted in HIV/AIDS, but I seek further clarity on what the noble Baroness said and what has been agreed. The pledge at Gleneagles was that the G8 nations would come,

“as close as possible to providing universal access to treatment for all who need it by 2010”.

But, in the communiqué issued at the end of the summit, paragraph 58 stated that G8 countries will,

“support life-saving anti-retroviral treatment for approximately five million people in Africa”.

Does that not mean in practice that the pledge has been watered down, and that by 2010 several people will be left without treatment?

My Lords, that is not my understanding. I understand that the commitment is that, by 2010, no one will lack access to treatment because of lack of funding. The G8 Governments have said that they will meet any shortfall in funding, such as that to the global fund on HIV/AIDS, to ensure that that commitment is met. There has been a tenfold increase in the number of people on anti-retrovirals in sub-Saharan Africa. The total number is now more than 1 million; that is, 23 per cent of those who need treatment. We have also invested in trying to find an AIDS vaccine. There are a number of different parts to the commitment; the commitment to universal access has not been watered down.

My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, surely the commitment has been halved. Examination of the details shows that universal access by 2010 would have included 10 million to 16 million people. The communiqué talks about 5 million. Even then, it has no concrete timetables, proposals or commitments to get to that point. Surely, therefore, the noble Lord is right that there has been a serious falling-away from what was promised at Gleneagles, rather than a further commitment to it.

My Lords, there is confusion about WHO figures and UNAIDS figures. The WHO says that 7 million people will need treatment by 2010. Based on that assessment, the G8’s share of the funding would be given to ensuring that 5 million people had access to that treatment. That is how it works. Other countries make commitments that are not part of the G8. Just before the G8 summit, UNAIDS announced that the number may increase because of changes to the protocols used for HIV/AIDS, but that has not yet been firmed up. The commitments were made on the basis of the WHO figures in all good faith. If those figures change, the G8 commitment will need to change.

My Lords, am I right that the German Chancellor said that the conference between the African Union and the European Union will go ahead as planned in December even if Mugabe attends? That would be entirely opposed to the policy stated by Portugal, which will chair that conference. The German Chancellor also said:

“It cannot be the case that we do not work with a continent just because one country commits unspeakable acts”.

That seems to be a misunderstanding. The European Union is not working against Africa; it is doing an extremely commendable job in helping Africa. So far, the European Union has unanimously opposed Mugabe’s murderous elite. Chancellor Merkel’s policy, if it is her policy, is entirely contrary to what we have said in the past. Has it been agreed with the European Union? Has it been agreed with Her Majesty’s Government?

My Lords, I am not aware that EU policy on this issue has changed. UK policy on this issue has certainly not changed.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to commend Chancellor Merkel on the outcome of the summit, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right to commend the Prime Minister on his efforts over the past two years in helping to bring about the outcome at Gleneagles and Heiligendamm. I particularly welcome the progress on climate change, due partly to a move by the United States but also by the presence at Heiligendamm of the representatives of China and India. Can the Minister say whether, even if there is not to be a G13 in the future, it is inconceivable now that there could be a G8 summit dealing with the big global issues that does not include at least China and India?

I also welcome the progress on aid to Africa, but it is only a small step along a long road. Could the noble Baroness also confirm that the Government will continue to put strong pressure on other Governments to fulfil the aid commitments agreed at the Gleneagles summit?

My Lords, given what has happened at the last few G8 summits—initially the African leaders who had formed the NePAD initiative were included, and when the Prime Minister put climate change at the top of the Gleneagles agenda, China, India and others were invited, particularly in respect of climate change but also on trade—it is inconceivable that countries such as China and India will not have a role in future G8 summits.

Clearly we have a long way to go on aid to Africa, but we also have to recognise that aid is only a part of this. The key issue is to ensure that there is greater investment in African countries so that they can develop their economies and, through that process, put money into basic services such as health and education. I am pleased that the Japanese have already said that they will maintain the pressure to keep Africa on the agenda because this has to be a long-term commitment.

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the beginning of her Statement, but I have read it and hope that she will give me leave to ask a question. At the summit did the G8 Ministers have the chance to discuss whether China could be brought more into the question of Darfur, particularly in persuading the Sudanese Government that they must make greater effort to make peace in that troubled region? Does the Minister agree that, in order to demonstrate to the rebel groups in Darfur that peace is a serious option, it is incredibly important that we get on with the development in southern Sudan, which has recently made peace with the Government in Khartoum and where very slow progress is being made, so that people can see that peace works and military action does not?

My Lords, the noble Baroness may be aware that there are ongoing discussions with China on Darfur, partly under the UN Security Council umbrella, but also in other fora, including the G8. She is right; it is clear that we have to demonstrate that there is a peace dividend, which we are limping towards in southern Sudan. It has been much slower than I think we would all have wished, but we are beginning to see some little green shoots as a result of the deal a couple of years ago.

My Lords, the Minister referred to the intention now to proceed to strong sanctions on Darfur. Was any effort made by the Prime Minister and others to secure the support of President Putin for that, since we can be sure that so far China, Russia and, I am afraid, South Africa frequently have resisted any effort to do anything about the Sudan? Was any serious effort made this time to secure support before it goes to the United Nations again?

My Lords, I think that, given her background, the noble Baroness understands that there is always serious effort to secure support before issues are taken on the floor at the UN, particularly the Security Council. In answer to an earlier question, I made it absolutely clear that, around the UN table, the permanent members of the Security Council do not all necessarily share the same view on the use of sanctions, not just in relation to Sudan over Darfur but in other instances as well. This is a continuing issue that we need to discuss in all the fora available to us. We will continue to do that.

moved Amendment No. 100:

The differences between public sector and private prisons that both this clause and related Clause 13 regarding search powers are intended to resolve relate to practices that are both unnecessary and inefficient. They create different operating practices between the two sectors, which in our view are detrimental to operations and security. Clause 13 gives police custody officers equivalent searching powers to those of prison officers in the public sector because, as the noble Viscount will know, the trafficking of drugs and other contraband is an operational problem that simply does not recognise the difference between public and private prisons. If we are to give PCO staff equivalent powers to detect smuggling activity, we must also give them powers to detain those undertaking it. However, we have specifically acknowledged that, given that we are dealing with employees of private companies rather than the Crown, tight controls should be placed on their powers of detention. For that reason we have not provided PCOs with broad constabulary powers as enjoyed by their public sector counterparts. Further, in the clause we have expressly limited the circumstances in which the power can be used and the maximum period of detention.

Against that background, the amendment is in any event fundamentally flawed, as it seeks to limit the detention powers of a PCO to other employees of the prison and to exclude from them visitors, who are the major source of trafficked items. We need this power to apply to all persons who may be attempting to bring items into the prison, which is why the clause was drafted as it was. It is designed to cover everyone, including visitors and those working in a prison, except the prisoners themselves.

Accepting this amendment would, as I am sure the noble Viscount would acknowledge, send a message to those who seek to smuggle items such as drugs into private prisons that they may attempt to do so at no risk to themselves. If detected, they would simply be able to walk away, with staff powerless to do anything to deal with the problem. That cannot be right. Indeed, it is precisely that result that the clause was intended to prevent.

Finally, and importantly, the amendments would create a disparity between what could be done in the private and public sectors when a criminal offence was suspected, for which there is no sensible justification. In any event, the amendment is flawed not only in purposive terms but in the manner of its drafting. A close reading of the amendment reveals that it excludes from the power to detain many of those “in” a prison by inserting the word “employed” before it, but does not at all deal with those “seeking to enter” such a prison. The latter remain liable to be detained under this amendment. It seems unlikely that this was an intended consequence of the drafting, as it leads to an anomalous outcome.

We will require contractually that staff be trained in how to exercise these new powers. In addition, sensible safeguards will have been put in place with regard to both the period of detention and the circumstances in which the power can be used. The contracts covering private prisons will continue to specify procedures to be followed and will place penalties, including financial penalties, on non-compliance. We also have the controller to monitor the application of the power, and other changes that we are proposing are intended to free up more of the time to undertake such tasks.

The noble Viscount asked whether the power would capture those in the voluntary sector. The measure is aimed at providing a flexible power to ensure that anyone reasonably suspected of an offence under the Prison Act 1952 can be detained. It would be wrong to exclude those visiting on a professional basis, although I anticipate that the power will be used primarily for those making social visits. The power needs to be there in extremis to cover those cases, but its use would have to be proportionate in the circumstances. Having said that, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 101:

I support the amendment from my own experience of seeing the lack of training among both public and private sector custody officers, which has always caused me considerable concern. In the previous days in Committee, we discussed the training of probation officers and the need for a long—indeed, degree-based—course in their work.

To my mind, the custody officer, who has a very difficult task quite apart from the elements that are mentioned in the amendments, such as child safety, does not get good enough training to do their job, which is increasingly complex. It is small wonder that there are many problems connected with activities such as looking after young people, people with mental health problems or foreign nationals. Those run into problems because the staff are not trained to deal with them. Indeed, I always remember an inspection of a young offender establishment that we had criticised for the appalling way in which children were being mistreated. The staff appealed to me to inspect them because they had not been trained to look after those particular people, and therefore that activity was an unfair burden on them.

The Bill discusses the management of offenders. That management depends on the staff being able to carry out their tasks. If there is not a clear demand in the Bill that sets out the whole raison d’être of that management and reflects the amount of training necessary to qualify people to carry out the tasks on the public’s behalf in these places, the Bill is defective. We should seriously consider whether these amendments should go into it.

I support the amendments. In these clauses, the powers of search and detention are being extended to the contracted- out and privately run YOIs and the STCs, all of which are privately run. That means that custody officers could be in the position of searching a child visitor. The management and the handling of visitors in prison is an extremely sensitive areathat has to be properly and professionally managed. Although the notes to the Bill will be exercised in line with the relevant prison and YOI rules, there is no explicit reference to child safety, protection and welfare safeguards. This is a real and serious concern, so we support the amendments.

I support Amendments Nos. 101 and 103. It is of paramount importance that any custody officer is adequately trained to a high standard, especially when they are dealing with young people. I am sure that the Minister will tell the Committee that the Government support a high standard, and obviously I am pleased about that, but I hope that he will forgive me for being a little sceptical and for wanting to see this safely written into the Bill—if for no other reason than the fact that what happens today may not always happen tomorrow. The amendments would ensure that such standards did not slip and would remind those who run private prisons that some of the public, including politicians, will keep their eye on how they run those prisons, not only now but in the future.

I apologise that I was slightly late coming into the Chamber. I support the amendments, because I was a member of a board of visitors at a prison in the old days and have worked for the Police Complaints Authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, we expect custody officers to perform a very difficult task. The largest number of complaints that I used to receive at the PCA concerned custody officers. They have a very delicate task. It is not disputed that training and, to an extent, the method of recruitment of custody officers would help to resolve this problem, but we are trying, in the interests of children, to put into the Bill an amendment that would be a safeguard. I do not think that any person in their right mind could refuse to accept it. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously what he can come up with so that the interests of children are protected.

I, too, apologise for not being here at the outset; I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

This is not a theoretical issue. There has been all too much evidence in recent years of things going wrong with children in our custodial system. Therefore, it seems crucial not just to anguish about what has happened in the past but to put in the Bill measures to ensure that these things will not happen in the future. Whatever our feelings about wrongdoing and crime, the moment of initial custody may for many youngsters be the most traumatic moment of all. It therefore seems particularly important that the people handling that stage understand everything that is involved for the young person, psychologically as well as physically.

I, too, apologise for not being here when the amendment was moved. The noble Baroness may have referred to the five-day juvenile awareness staff programme introduced to prepare custody officers to work with children. It is a step forward—a very small one, given that the programme lasts only five days—but I would be grateful to hear how far it has been rolled out. Can we expect every custody officer working with children to have gone through the JASP course?

In Norway, prison officers have a two-year course of training. First, they simply have a responsibility as a turnkey and in their second year they go to correction college, or whatever it is called. They have access to a dummy prison and are encouraged to travel, perhaps coming to England to see what we do here. They are obliged to undertake a period of community service so that they learn about the sort of clients with whom they are dealing. I suggest that that is what we should aim for when we are talking about reform of these services for adults and especially children. It troubles me that we do not yet have really good supervision for custody officers, and I hope that that will improve. One hears on visits to these settings that the younger the offender, the more difficult they are to manage and the more expertise is required to do it well. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance. I strongly support the amendments.

I am sure that mine will be the last voice on this amendment. The amendment is crucial because so many children in custody suffered abuse in the past. Therefore, it is even more traumatic if they are tackled inappropriately.

I fully recognise that the basis of the amendments, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is a concern to ensure, quite properly, that staff are competent to do their jobs and that we have the right safeguards to ensure that security and decent treatment of prisoners are not compromised. I especially understand the concerns about those detained in youth custody and secure training centres. The Committee will not be surprised to know that I share many of those concerns and that the Government are utterly committed to the maintenance of high standards of service delivery because we recognise that that is the only way to achieve the results on which there is a comity of view.

Including this area in the Bill and specifying requirements on training was the subject of much attention in another place. My understanding is that similar amendments were moved there but rejected. It is still our view that including such a requirement is unnecessary in the light of safeguards in the clause and elsewhere. Differences between public and private sector prisons are unnecessary and inefficient, as well as detrimental to operations and security. We do, however, recognise the very genuine concerns raised by these two amendments and are completely committed to ensuring that the treatment of children and vulnerable adults is to a high standard. The changes we are making in Clause 14 mean that private prison staff—PCOs—are more likely to detect items being illicitly brought into private prisons. We therefore need to give them effective powers to detain suspected offenders until the police can arrive to arrest the individual in the same way as prison officers operate in the public sector, because they have constabulary powers.

We resist these amendments not because their objective is wrong but because the restrictions they would put in place duplicate existing practice. Additionally, any greater detail that might be thought necessary for the clarification of certain obligations can better be achieved through the contractual process. We must not forget that many safeguards already exist to ensure proper treatment of all visitors. First, PCO staff are required to be properly trained in all aspects of their job, and the quality of their training is open to inspection by the controller, who also approves the content of their training course—so there is already that independent view. The course includes sessions on correct searching techniques and child protection. Passing the course is a condition of employment as a PCO. Secondly, PCOs are subject to certification systems, to ensure they are competent and suitable, by the PCO Certification Unit, which is a public sector body. In addition, private providers are required to comply with the National Security Framework (NSF) covering both public and private prisons, which details the precise techniques that must be followed when searching children and vulnerable adults. We believe that these training measures will be sufficient, when they have been adapted to take account of the new power, to ensure that detention under the new power is carried out in an appropriate and lawful manner.

In our view, the above measures, which have been in place since PCOs first started to discharge their duties, achieve the aims of the amendments. Consequently, it is difficult to see what the amendments usefully add in the absence of any concern that current training levels are inadequate for their purpose.

In addition to the above, the controller plus Independent Monitoring Board members at the prison can witness at first hand that the correct techniques identified in the NSF are being rigorously applied. Failure to comply can be punished via existing contractual mechanisms, including the application of financial penalties on the company running the prison.

I am also concerned that the amendments would not apply equally to the public and private sectors. There is no similar requirement for prison officers to be trained in this way, yet they would be employing exactly the same techniques—and they operate around 85 per cent of the prisons in England and Wales. It is wrong to label private prison employees as in some way less competent than their public sector counterparts, when we know that there is good and poor practice in both sectors. Martin Narey has said that it would not have been possible to achieve the decency agenda in prisons had it not been for the involvement of the private sector.

To the extent that it might be said that private contractors need to be made more aware of the details of their obligations—for example, with regard to conducting searches of, and detaining, children—we believe that a fair solution, which achieves precisely the outcome sought in the amendment, is to commit to ensuring that appropriate training in all aspects of the work and compliance with the NSF remain contractual requirements. Failure to provide properly trained staff or to adhere to approved searching techniques will be punished via existing contractual mechanisms, which include financial penalties. The controller will be able to oversee compliance as necessary. This means we can ensure that private prison staff are operating to the same standards as those in the public sector and that children are protected as they need to be, but also allows us the flexibility to respond to changes in training needs in the future without having to have recourse to primary legislation, which in this instance would be a clumsy way of tackling something that we all agree is important.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked how far the five-day training had been rolled out. I would like to answer him today but cannot. However, I will endeavour to write to him on that important background information.

It is important that one essential matter is carefully considered in this debate: the clause itself deals with a very short period of detention on suspicion of crime. I understand the valid concerns raised today but they relate to those detained in custody. This clause, of course, deals with visitors, not prisoners.

I have a question of clarification. The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary because the private sector was trained to the same standard as the public sector, but before that he said that the public sector was not trained. Surely that is the purpose of the amendment.

I said that there was no similar requirement for prison officers to be trained in this way. I was not making the point, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, that there was no training for prison officers in the public sector. My concern is that there needs to be equal treatment across both sectors. The overriding desire, which we all have, is to raise standards and to ensure that the proper and appropriate training is in place so that standards across both the private sector and the public sector continue to rise. The noble Lord has previously made the point that some of the best practice from the private sector has had the beneficial effect of working to improve standards in the public sector. In some ways, that is the benefit that we are trying to achieve in part here. However, this amendment would be a rigid and constraining way of trying to achieve an objective that we all share: to raise standards across the public and private sectors.

Will the Minister confirm that staff in the private and public sectors receive the same level of training and that training outcomes are monitored for both sectors?

Our expectation is of course that the training will be the same. We are trying through these training programmes to ensure that standards rise. I was talking here about the requirements in the logistical framework.

I am still quite confused. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I thought my noble friend said that those who work in state prisons do not have to meet the requirements in the amendment, although we all want to raise the standard of training, and that the training for those working in state prisons is currently not really good enough. If that is not what he said, perhaps he will clarify it. I am sure that the amendment is trying to raise the standard in private prisons to the level in public prisons. If the standard in public prisons is not good enough, perhaps we should table an amendment on Report to bring it up to the level in private prisons. I am a little worried about the whole question of adequate training. If we put anyone in charge of anyone else, be it in the private or public sector, that person must have adequate training—the best training that we as a country can give them—not only for their own sake but for the sake of those whom they look after.

Before the Minister responds, I thank him for attending to my question and kindly offering to write to me. It may be helpful if I draw attention to an experience I had when visiting a prison for adults. I spoke with a senior wing manager who had a specialism in drugs training. He told me that, unfortunately, as he was working in a private prison he had not had time to train people in this specialism of drugs. There seems to be a widespread problem that it is harder to release custody officers in private prisons to get the training they need than it is to release officers in public sector prisons. One can understand the commercial reasons for that. I should say that some of the private prisons for children I have visited have put great emphasis on training. However, given the commercial pressures that the private sector is under there might be a danger that this sort of thing might slip.

Recently, I tabled a Written Question to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, about supervision for officers in an immigration detention centre. She answered that she could give no response to my particular question about supervision of custody officers in that centre because that was done within the setting and the Government only checked for the outcomes. In some ways that might seem satisfactory, but to my mind it is crucial when working with vulnerable children and families that officers have that supervision, so it is very disappointing to learn that it is not possible in that case. My worry is that this could slip by and vulnerable children could be put in an unacceptable position.

When visiting a prison with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I asked a quite senior prison officer what issue he would like me to go away regarding as the most important as far as he and his work were concerned. Without hesitation he said training. He was a very dedicated officer; that was clear. He was committed to success in the whole operation, not just being part of a warehousing system but achieving a positive outcome with prisoners. He recognised that training was indispensable to achieve that. If we take seriously positive outcomes from the prison experience, it is simply not acceptable at any point in the story to have crucial responsibility carried by people who are not properly qualified.

I say to my noble friend that I believe the Committee is seeking an assurance not only that in principle the Government agree about this, because it is clear that in principle they do, but that they will make it absolutely clear in the Bill that that must happen.

Perhaps I can also ask for a little clarity. As I understand it, these two amendments relate not only to children detained in custody but to children who visit prisons. This is relevant to the powers to detain and search visitors and their families. What is important about this is that it is a very sensitive area; it is also the point at which prison staff, be they in private or public sector prisons, interface with the public. How they manage their visitors is vital not only to public perceptions of the quality of the service but also to the nature of the visit itself, which is one of the most important parts of a prison day. We must be absolutely clear. The wider subject of the training of prison staff with children who are detained in custody—be it for a long or short time—is a much larger and more significant question; this one is fairly narrow.

The noble Baroness has helpfully brought us back to the point, and I am grateful to her for doing so. She is right that we are talking about a narrow focus. I want to clear up the issue of training, because I thought I had been clear—perhaps I was not—and I want to make sure that the record is clear. The training is the same, and it is adequate in both the private and public sectors. I was talking more generally about our shared desire in your Lordships’ House to see standards rise at all times. It would be unduly restrictive to apply a legislative safeguard in the private sector that does not apply in the public sector; we need to have a level playing field. Perhaps because of its narrow focus, the amendment would achieve undue rigidity.

We are at one in the Committee on the desire to raise standards and to ensure that safeguards are properly in place, whether a prison is operating in the public or private sector. I hope that with that clarification we can move on, because I have answered the core points. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn and that the noble Viscount will feel able to reflect on what others have said in this debate and on what I have said in setting out how we see this working.

I am most grateful to noble Lords for their support for the amendment. I am sorry that earlier I did not thank the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Judd, for their support. This is an unequivocal ideal for which we should aim, and it is much better put into the Bill than left to what the noble Lord called the contracting process. Nevertheless, it would help the Committee if he would write to us about the standards of training in place for prison officers and for those in the private sector.

I am more than happy to share that information with all sides of the Committee. It is a very sensible suggestion.

I am most grateful. We attach a great deal of importance to the subject, and we will read very carefully what the Minister said today and says in his written reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Powers of authorised persons to perform custodial duties and search prisoners]:

moved Amendment No. 104:

Although it was a long time ago, in 1990 I think we envisaged that, barring a disaster, confidence in private prisons would grow with the years and the restrictions on the activities that could be carried out by workers in private prisons without special authorisation would gradually disappear. This amendment is useful because it gives the Minister the opportunity to justify the plan to allow authorisation of activities that are at present restricted. My noble friend referred to the words of the Minister in the other place, who said:

“Although we accept that the current restrictions made sense when private prisons were first introduced, they appear to be increasingly unnecessary”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 1015.]

However, the Minister did not begin to explain why he thought that the restrictions were now unnecessary. Is it because private prisons are better run than they were 10 years ago? Is it because there is less indiscipline? That does not seem to square with the inspector’s report on Forest Bank. My noble friend quoted from that report and those on Rye Hill and Dovegate. We should be constructive and not just imagine difficulties to justify the maintenance of restrictions. I am certainly not here to make difficulties of that sort. We need some help from the Minister to be convinced that the time has come for a major step forward. There was not the beginning of an explanation in the other place so it would be appropriate if there was a full explanation now.

I am interested in this amendment; a later amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, which has now been withdrawn from the Marshalled List, was about the adjudications that are carried out by directors of private sector prisons. That matter causes considerable concern to the Prison Governors Association in particular. When the private sector prisons started, the post of controller was put there as well, as I understand it—the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will know better than me—to be the monitor of the contract. That is a very important role. One of the things that I found disturbing in the recent reports by the chief inspector was the suggestion that there are attempts to work around the contract and not to honour it in total. If there was not a contract monitor there to see it, there might be even more such attempts, which would reduce the effectiveness of the whole custodial operation.

As well as the suggestion that adjudications could now be carried out by the director on the grounds that directors have proved themselves just as capable of running an establishment as the governor of a private sector prison, I understand that it has been suggested that one of the two monitors or controllers could now be removed, which would be a cost-cutting exercise. That would be enormously unwise because the duties of monitoring a prison, particularly as they become more and more complex, with more and more contracts to be monitored, are more than a full-time occupation. I have talked to some of the contractors, who are deeply concerned about this. Looking at this amendment and the whole way in which the private sector prisons are conducted, it is important that the issue of monitoring the contract by people who are there is looked at very seriously so that we—the public—can be confident that those prisons are really being conducted in the way in which we would expect them to be. That is why we have our—the public’s—monitor there on our behalf.

I thank the Prison Officers Association for briefing me on the amendment. The Bill is silent about which restricted activities the Home Secretary plans to allow non-prison custody officers to perform. I understand that that will be revealed only when the Home Secretary publishes the order, which will be subject to negative procedure in relation to which restricted activities a worker may be authorised to carry out. Once the order has been passed, it will be for the director of the private prison to instruct non-prison custody officer staff to carry out some, if not most, of the currently restricted activities. Amendment No. 104 is, I believe, an attempt to clarify at least some of the restricted activity areas that may be the subject of any such authorisation and place them in the Bill. As such, I support it.

I know from experience in England and Northern Ireland that the way in which a prison handles its visitors is crucial to its reputation. Furthermore, the prison rules state very clearly that everything possible must be done to maintain the relationship between the prisoner and his immediate next of kin and family. On those grounds, I support Amendment No. 104 and shall also support Amendment No. 105 when we come to it.

I support the amendment and thank the Prison Governors Association for its briefing. I reiterate the point that I made on the previous occasion: many visitors will be the kith and kin of people who are inside prison. As such, they are likely to be fairly vulnerable and may react in inappropriate ways to certain methods of restraint.

Before I get into the body of Clause 15, it may be worth saying a few words on another matter. I think that, inadvertently, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, sowed seeds of potential confusion in addressing issues which would have been more properly bound up in a debate that we probably will not now have on Clause 16, which relates to the removal of controllers and adjudications and so on—at least, that was the perception. We should focus on that because it will help us in terms of the order of debate, although I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and shall say something about the work of the controller.

It is important to dispel the notion that we are somehow removing existing restrictions. In my view, we are simply removing a confusion that arises from the 1991 Act. This does not really have anything to do with the responsibility of controllers. As I said, Clause 16 deals with that, and, as we know, there are no amendments before us on that issue.

Before I get into the content of Clause 15 and the related amendments, I should also say something about recent reports on private prisons by HM Inspector of Prisons, because that was raised during this short debate. I cannot accept the assertion that somehow the private sector is going backwards. The perception is that private prisons have worked well and that there is improvement in that sector, as there is in public sector prisons. I do not pretend that there are no problems in either sector, as clearly reports indicate that from time to time there are, and those problems have to be properly dealt with. Here, we are seeking to address the difficulties of dealing with drugs, mobile phones and other illicit items that come into prisons. We must focus on adopting packages of measures to ensure continuous improvement across both sectors. However, I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments on those reports because they relate to important and significant issues.

Perhaps I may bring us back to Clause 15. The changes that we are making in relation to private prisons in general, and specifically in this clause to the range of tasks that can be undertaken by non-PCO grades, are intended to resolve what we see as unnecessary and inefficient differences between the public and private sectors. We are trying to create parity in terms of operational flexibility and staff deployment between equivalent staff grades in both sectors. Neither side will have greater power than the other. The way in which staff need to be deployed is constantly evolving in response to changing operational demands. Issues apply equally regardless of whether the prison is publicly or privately operated.

Can the Minister clarify paragraph 29 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which says in large print that,

“we consider that it would be desirable for the power to be explicitly limited in this way”?

Is that compatible with what the Minister has just said?

Yes, I believe that it is.

I am grateful if the amendment has had the unexpected effect of causing Clause 16 to be debated. We shall look carefully at the Minister’s reply to this very involved debate, and in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 105:

I shall not repeat what I said earlier, but it would perhaps have been better to have said it on this amendment, which I strongly support.

I recognise the background of and basis for this amendment tabled by the noble Lords opposite. I share their concerns to ensure that staff are competent to do their jobs. I reiterate that not only do I share those concerns but the Government are completely committed to the maintenance of the highest standards of delivery, because that is the only way in which we can achieve the outcome that we all wish.

Similar amendments were proposed in another place but were rejected, as it was accepted that placing training requirements in the Bill is unnecessary in the light of safeguards already contained within and outside the clause. It is important to remember that no such formal requirements on training apply to equivalent public sector staff performing the same duties, which is the issue that we rehearsed earlier, and that none of the powers proposed is different from those exercised by equivalent public sector staff. Even if we ignore those factors, we contend that the successful track record of private companies in delivering custodial services already offers assurance that they can be relied on to use competent and properly trained staff.

The private sector is no different from the public sector in seeking to ensure that it benefits from a trained and competent workforce. All private prison contractors require any newly appointed staff to undertake training prior to commencing their duties. That also applies in the public sector. Training may vary between contractors, but the goal is the same: a workforce with the necessary skills to deliver the contract. Before being able to do any of the tasks that Parliament will have had the opportunity to determine, a non-PCO grade would have to be authorised by the prison director to be a competent person to do so, and one of the key tests that a director would employ would be to satisfy himself that the person was suitably trained. In private prisons, unlike in the public sector, the contract enables financial penalties to be levied for operational failures, which is a powerful incentive for directors to use only staff with the necessary skills and training. It is also worth remembering that the controller can examine training packages, attend sessions and observe outcomes first hand.

The amendment is also vague because it gives no definition of what “appropriate” means in this context, nor does it make clear who would make that assessment. In reality, such considerations are clearly already being undertaken by the director as the clause is drafted.

I hope that, having heard my response, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

We are not entirely at one with the Minister on the approach to this subject, but I listened carefully to what he said. 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 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]

Schedule 6 [The Personal Accounts Delivery Authority]:

moved Amendment No. 89:

I thank the noble Baroness for her thoughtful and helpful contribution, which has allowed this short debate to take place. I hope that I can assure noble Lords that we consider the role of the chairman and non-executive members to be crucial to the effective operating of the authority. Not only will they bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the authority, but they will also, in carrying out the non-executive functions, provide an important independent role.

The Secretary of State will be looking for candidates of the highest calibre when making these public appointments. That will include ensuring that a non-executive does not have a conflict of interest that is,

“likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member of the Authority”.

That is made clear in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) define a conflict of interest and state the parameters that the Secretary of State must use in deciding on the suitability of non-executive members.

Amendment No. 89 proposes that the Secretary of State must consider a direct or indirect conflict of interest when appointing the chairman or another non-executive. The inclusion of “direct or indirect” in the criteria that the Secretary of State should consider does not add anything. As I have explained, the definition of conflict of interest is to be found at sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) and it includes direct and indirect conflicts of interest. Paragraph 2 already provides sufficient assurance that the non-executive members will be free from a conflict of interest. I therefore do not want to include that additional requirement.

Amendment No. 91 proposes that the delivery authority should notify the Secretary of State of any declaration made under paragraph 13. That paragraph relates to disqualification for acting in certain matters—in particular, at meetings of the authority, the chairman or other non-executives, or any committee or sub-committee.

Paragraph 13 already provides assurance that, in carrying out its work, the authority and any of its committees or sub-committees should follow appropriate procedures in terms of transparency and accountability. That measure is especially pertinent when considering the work of committees. As the Bill makes clear, the authority can invite people who are not members or employees to sit on a committee. It will be for the delegated authority to decide how it uses that ability and whom it might like to invite, but it is likely that persons may include, for example, individuals who work for organisations representative of consumers, employers or the pensions industry.

In the same way as noble Lords declare interests before speaking in the House, it is right that persons invited to sit on committees of the authority should also declare any direct or indirect interest in a matter that is being considered. Such a declaration by noble Lords does not devalue their contribution; so it will be in committees of the authority. It is of course right that any such declaration is recorded appropriately. The Bill makes provision for any declaration to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. To require the authority to inform the Secretary of State every time such a declaration is made seems an overly bureaucratic measure, although I understand why the noble Baroness raises the questions in debate here for clarification.

The provisions in the Bill enabling the Secretary of State to request necessary information from candidates or post-holders when assessing whether non-executives have a conflict of interest are an appropriate requirement that provides sufficient safeguards. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes regarding the difference between declaring an interest and there being a conflict of interest. I imagine that procedures would be routinely in hand to ensure that conflicts of interest are recorded and handled in a transparent and appropriate way. Having provided that information, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

I thank the Minister for her reply, although, I must say, it did not address the points that I made. She gave me a lesson in why we need declarations of interest. I never challenged that. That was not my point. I was merely saying that, if there were declarations of interest that related to the chairman and the non-executive directors, the Secretary of State should be informed.

The noble Baroness said that she imagined that they would be recorded and dealt with appropriately. My goodness me. If I was going to be satisfied, I should have expected a more definitive statement from the Minister about how she expects the procedures to operate in practice.

I come back to the main point behind my lead amendment. Under Amendment No. 89, I was talking about whether someone had a conflict of interest, which, in paragraph 6, means a financial or other interest likely to be prejudicial to the discharge of his functions. I was trying to make the point that the individual does not have an interest in the business of a spouse. He has an interest only in the relationship and, as it is only the business that can give rise to a conflict of interest, I was trying to suggest that the drafting does not meet what the Government are trying to do.

I should emphasise that the amendments were entirely intended to be helpful to the Government. I have not heard anything today that shows that the Government have understood what I was trying to do. I do not know whether the Minister can add to that or whether we should just leave this for another day

To reflect a moment on what the noble Baroness said, I did not say that I imagined that conflicts of interest would be recorded—if I did, that was not my intention.

The noble Baroness will find that she said “imagine”.

My intention was to be clear that conflicts of interest will be recorded. Where members of committees declare a conflict of interests, that will be recorded in the minutes of that committee. I am very happy to reflect on the comments of the noble Baroness. It is essential that issues of conflict of interest are discussed and made clear for the record and I am happy to think further and discuss the matter again with her if that is appropriate.

I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 90 to 93A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 94:

I hope that I can be equally brief. In all cases involved with public appointments, we or, later, the delivery authority will follow the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice. Although the code does not specify the length of individual terms, it clearly sets out that appointments will normally be restricted to two terms and that the total service on the same board should not exceed 10 years.

Our plans for the initial appointments to the delivery authority are for a three-year term, with the option to reappoint members at the end of that term, subject to satisfactory performance. It will be for the delivery authority, subject to Secretary of State approval, to determine the terms and conditions of subsequent non-executive appointments. If noble Lords have seen the recent advertisements for the initial appointments to the authority, they will have noted that they are subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Should the Bill not receive parliamentary approval, those appointments could and would be terminated.

To clarify, Clause 21 sets out in primary legislation the requirement that we must have regard to all guidance. The guidance that we shall follow in this respect is that of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice.

I am more than happy with that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 95:

I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. When I read the original wording and then the amendment, I warmed to “misconduct” rather than “misbehaviour”—in the drafting sense, I hasten to add. Being unfit for office by reason of misconduct is already covered in paragraph 3(5)(g), but I agree that the phrase,

“has been guilty of misbehaviour”,

is a little odd. An unnamed official did say that “misbehaviour” sounded rather good fun, or could encompass that. I will take this away and reconsider it.

I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 96:

Again, I thank the noble Baroness for making a series of intriguing points. As she may already be aware, the Cabinet Office guidance states that most public appointments are not pensionable. We therefore do not think that we have got this right, and will reconsider the wording. That will cover the other points that the noble Baroness has made. That is two in a row; I would not encourage her to think that this is a precedent.

I am on a roll. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 97 to 102 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 103:

The amendments focus on the authority’s ability to form committees and the important related issues of good governance and accountability. In making provision for the authority to set up committees, the authority will have the flexibility, where the board thinks it useful, not only to draw on the expertise and skills from within the authority but to harness external expertise. In the course of its business, the delivery authority is likely to want to bring in external expertise to examine proposals on a specific topic.

The Bill provides the authority with the ability to meet its challenges as it thinks best, including by setting up a committee that includes external members if that appears to be the most appropriate method. In these circumstances, it is right that the authority can use the committee structure to ensure accountability and control. However, to impose the requirement that the majority of committee members must be authority members or employees, as Amendment No. 103 would do, or to impose the same requirement when delegating to a committee, as Amendment No. 105 would do, could undermine the authority’s ability to conduct its business most efficiently and effectively. Although I fully accept the need for some delivery authority representation on any committee, the legislation already provides for at least one member of a committee to be either a member or an employee of the authority, or both. I hope noble Lords will agree that the Bill contains adequate checks and balances to ensure that decisions remain the responsibility of the authority, and that the authority remains fully accountable.

It is important to bear in mind that we are dealing with the delivery authority in its initial phase, the advisory phase. We will, as a matter of course, review the practical provisions in the Bill to ensure that they are fit for purpose for the next stage—delivery of the personal accounts. For those reasons, what the Bill proposes for the advisory phase is appropriate.

I accept that the question of the delivery authority may give rise to slightly different issues. Nevertheless, it will be preparing for implementation as well as simply giving advice, and it occurs to me that if any of its function of preparing for implementation were put to a committee, which it might be as relatively few of its members are members of the authority, it would not be right for the authority not to control it. I shall think further about what the Minister has said. We will clearly return to this issue when we consider the next Bill, if the drafting of this part about committees remains in the longer term, but before Report I shall think carefully about whether it is relevant for this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 104 to 105 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 106:

We on these Benches are sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s intention that there should be regular reports and, in particular, given the long and dishonourable history of failures of government or public sector IT contracts, an eye should be kept on how that is progressing. I am not sure I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether every six months is goinga bit over the top—slightly too much pulling upthe plant to see how it is growing. In general, on this amendment and a number of others about the operation of the personal accounts scheme, we should always bear in mind that the Association of British Insurers is not totally independent. Of course, it is a competitor to some extent of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority. While that does not mean that its points are not valid, we should just bear that in mind. So I am sympathetic on the principle, but I wonder whether the proposed reporting is slightly too frequent.

As explained, Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 would amend Schedule 6, requiring the delivery authority to provide certain detail in its annual financial statement. The new clause in Amendment No. 141 would require six-monthly reporting of public expenditure in connection with the personal accounts scheme.

Taking the amendments to Schedule 6 first gives me the opportunity to explain the existing reporting requirements set out in that schedule. The provisions require the authority to report annually on its performance and financial position, a requirement which applies equally to other NDPBs. Unlike every other NDPB, the authority will be required to provide this report to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination and approval. Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 would include in primary legislation a requirement to account separately for the implementation and advisory services of the delivery authority. It would also require details to be included of the authority’s expenditure which would be recovered from future income of the scheme derived from the public purse.

I do not think that I will respond to the latter point; it depends on how amenable the Minister is as we proceed through Committee and the later stages of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for his comments. Six months may be too frequent. I note that he has said that the ABI is an interested party. Frankly, so is practically every interest group which gives us detailed briefing, whether it is a consumer group, a trade union or whatever. I have no problem in representing the views of a significant part of our financial services sector which would be significantly affected by a government Bill.

The Minister says that the funding et cetera is not for this Bill but that we need to keep an eye on costs as they start to emerge, which they will during this preparatory stage. There is potentially a gap between what we are doing here, setting up accountability for what will happen in the personal accounts scheme when it is delivered, and what will happen once we get another Bill some time in the next Session. I am not entirely convinced that everything will roll over into the next Bill, although clearly we will look at these issues in at least as much detail. There is still the need to see the costs as they emerge. It could be quite some time. The next stage is to have another body on which to focus our attention. Having read Hansard, I will think about what the Minister has said, but for the time being I log the fact that I am not 100 per cent on the same page as the Minister because I think that he is not dealing with an information gap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Initial function of the Authority]:

[Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 111:

I have tabled an amendment in this group. We support the principle behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. Information of the nature indicated in the amendment is important and we too are concerned about the impact of means-testing on how personal accounts will develop in practice, and it is extremely important to ensure that the personal account scheme is designed as far as possible to avoid mis-selling, an issue to which I will return in later amendments. My Amendment No. 120 is grouped with Amendment No. 111 because it deals inter alia with financial advice, also covered in the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment No. 120 seeks to introduce a requirement for the delivery authority to ensure that it supports objectives for the scheme of access to information and financial advice. It is somewhat less ambitious than the Liberal Democrat proposal in relation to advice. I agree fully that there are great dangers of mis-selling involved in personal accounts, but I am not clear what the answer is on how financial advice should be delivered, and more importantly, who is to bear the cost. At Second Reading I said that I was sceptical about generic advice being an adequate solution, and I look forward to seeing the work being undertaken for the Treasury by Mr Thoresen, but I remain to be convinced that there is a satisfactory generic advice solution to this problem, one which relies so much on the circumstances of individuals. I am also concerned to ensure that no public subsidy is made available for advice on personal accounts because that would upset the level playing field with other savings products, which in effect have to bear the cost of advice. I am not sure that we sign up to the free element of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, unless he means free to the individual but borne as part of the overall costs of the personal account scheme. I can see that charging individuals would not work, but there would be a problem if we expect to see these costs being borne by the public purse. That would be unfair, but if they are loaded on to the costs of the scheme, what will they do to the overall economic returns available to it?

I shall mention briefly the other part of Amendment No. 120. It covers access by both individuals and employees to information on rights and responsibilities under the scheme. It is going to be hugely complicated for both employers and employees. So far as employers are concerned, those at the smaller end of the business scale, which in numerical terms comprise by far the largest group, will find this very difficult to apply. We must ensure that the scheme is designed so that proper information is available on websites and in written form; that is as important as ensuring that advice is available to those entering the scheme.

At Second Reading I drew attention to briefing I had received from, I think, Scottish Widows, which appeared to indicate that there would be an interaction between the entitlement under a personal account system and the entitlement to pension credit, which is means-tested. It could mean that individuals would feel that the contribution they had to make automatically as a result of being automatically enrolled amounted to little more than a cut in wages. If they do not get any return on it, it could not be regarded as being worth their while. That is important and links up with the submissions already made by noble Lords on the necessity for appropriate advice. Amendment No. 111 is an attempt to deal with the situation and I hope that it is given serious consideration by my Front Bench.

I support the issue raised by both these amendments on the advice scheme. It is a key part of the proposed scheme that advice is available to people at an affordable cost. In the past, the major impediment to selling pension schemes to much of the population has been the cost of advice relative to the amount to be invested. The scheme for extending pensions to more individuals seems to rest on the assumption that we can create a low-cost generic advice scheme. I, among others, have expressed scepticism about the extent to which the notion of generic advice is feasible. As soon as you get into an individual situation and deal with a range of circumstances, benefits and debts, it is questionable whether generic advice will be sustainable or whether you will get driven into providing individual advice that deals with those particular circumstances. As soon as you are driven into giving individual advice, you are bound to end up with a costly advice process.

Before we go much further in the next Bill into the development of the scheme, we should have an early discussion on practical proposals as to how the proposed generic advice scheme is going to work, and satisfy ourselves that it is plausible and that it is not going to disadvantage pension providers outside the state scheme, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment No. 111 because, as we all know, it will be at the poorer end of society that advice will be lacking. I am keen to see that organisations which are already well known to the public, to which people go for advice about a number of things, are used rather than setting up yet another organisation to give advice. Quite clearly the money to finance this must come out of the total cost of the scheme, and that should be taken into account by the Government. I very much support the idea that organisations such as the CABs should be given the responsibility for this.

I, too, also support the amendment. I declare an interest as president of the PPI and a trustee of the Resolution Foundation.

It is perfectly possible to give this kind of advice, but I dislike “generic” because I think that the word is misleading. It is advice which, in many ways, is cautionary and will stop people making mistakes. As has been mentioned, the Resolution Foundation proposal deals with people primarily who are in work but earn less than average earnings. These people are very vulnerable. In this country there is always a group just above benefits which suffers. It is inevitable with tapers and so on that you will get a group of people who have got a little too much to receive benefits of any kind. These people are very much in need of advice but tend not to go to IFAs. I agree with my noble friend Lady Howe; I hope that any scheme could work through organisations that have done a great job in giving people advice so far—of which there are many in this country, particularly the CAB—but we will have to wait for the outcomes of the review to know exactly how it would work. However, there is a very strong case for this kind of advice and the amendment would ease the way to ensure that it happens.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. It has given us the opportunity to discuss two issues: the return which individuals can expect from saving, and the provision of financial advice. I expect I shall disappoint noble Lords in not being able to provide some of the detail at this stage that people are seeking, but I hope I can satisfy them that work is in hand which is directed in the right way and will produce the kind of information they reasonably seek. I understand the concerns that have led to both amendments being tabled and I agree that the matters are important and appropriate subjects for public debate. However, I cannot agree that it is either necessary or effective to amend this legislation on the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority in order to achieve the desired outcome.

Amendment No. 111 proposes that the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority should be required by December 2007 to produce reports on the returns to savings for individuals and the provision of generic financial advice. Such activities are not appropriate for the authority in its initial phase. The Bill sets up the authority initially to act as an adviser to government, and this amendment would place an unnecessary extra pressure on the delivery authority in its initial phase by requiring it to carry out an extensive and complex analysis in a short space of time and to duplicate work already being undertaken in other areas.

The department has already published a detailed analysis on possible returns, particularly in Financial Incentives to Save, which was published alongside the Bill. This topic has also been the subject of some debate during the passage of the Bill. The analysis shows that the large majority of those eligible to be automatically enrolled can expect to benefit from saving in a personal account or exempt scheme. Many long-term savers, including many who may be entitled to some pension credit in retirement, could expect £2 plus inflation for every £1 they contribute. Of course, as with all investments, this will depend on stock market returns and other risks.

We are continuing to develop this analysis of incentives to save and how particular levels of payback could be expected by different groups. The Pensions Policy Institute independently conducts an analysis in this area, and it would place an unnecessary burden on the delivery authority in its very initial stage to require it to do the same.

Amendment No. 111 also refers to generic financial advice, an issue which is the focus of Amendment No. 120. Let me, therefore, turn to that matter. In our White Paper, Personal Accounts: A New Way to Save, we recognise that providing good-quality information will be critical to the success of personal accounts. Advice on saving for retirement is specific to individuals and is regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The personal account scheme, like many other schemes that operate automatic enrolment, is being designed so that regulated financial advice is not required, but that does not mean that people will not have the right information.

The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, is right: regulated financial advice is expensive and has deterred people from entering into fairly modest pension arrangements. It is a key part of the design of personal accounts to address that issue. We recognise that individuals will need information to enable them to make decisions regarding their participation in the scheme—for example, on deciding levels of contributions, fund choices and on whether they should opt out—but it will be for the delivery authority to determine the information strategy for personal accounts. It is recognised that individuals and employers should have information to enable them to understand their rights and responsibilities. In deciding how this information should be provided, the delivery authority will need to take account of the target group.

A number of noble Lords recognised that Otto Thoresen is conducting an independent review, and we should await its outcome before we discuss in more detail generic financial advice and how it will impact on personal accounts. It is a very important task he has under way.

In summary, I suggest that noble Lords can be assured that the matters with which the amendments are concerned will be properly dealt with, and that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to make them the subject of additional legal obligations on the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Further, in relation to the analysis of returns on savings and the effect that may have on different groups, we are continuing to develop our analysis of the size of the groups that might expect particular levels of payback. That is, as I think noble Lords will acknowledge, a complex area that requires information about individuals’ characteristics over 60 or 70 years. We are hoping to release the results in the autumn, so that is very much work in progress.

I hope that has assured noble Lords that we accept that the issues have been raised are relevant, important and serious, and that work is in hand to address them. It would be wrong, however, to deal with them in the way that the amendments suggest.

I thank the Minister for that thoughtful reply. As he stresses, this is work in progress. The issue for us to think about carefully as we get to Report, and we will discuss it with the Conservative Front Bench and other noble Lords, is whether the work in progress should be effectively entirely done by the DWP, which is what the Minister is asking us, or whether it would make sense for the authority to do it, as it will be delivering these products.

There is clearly an important and integral role for the delivery authority in developing the information strategy, and it will get involved in these issues. We are saying that it would not be appropriate to replicate some of the underlying analysis, because it is under way at the moment.

I hear what the Minister says. I was trying to give a reasonably balanced and constructive response, and was going to say that we do not want to replicate the work. The deadline in our amendment of 31 December 2007 may well be rather too soon, and I am happy to take that back and consider it. The Minister was stressing, however, that he did not think it was right for the delivery authority to do the analysis in its initial stages. If he meant that it was not right for the authority to do it at all, he should have said so, but we are talking about initial stages and I am responding in that spirit when I say that I think it would be right, but we should think about when and how, after the department has done the initial work, it is then appropriate to move on to an independent and more consumer-focused and consumer-related organisation. That is the point I am trying to make.

I thank noble Lords from all sides of the Committee who have spoken in support: the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, from the Conservative Benches and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in general terms, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, from the Labour Benches, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Greengross, with the latter’s great experience of these matters.

We do not want to be too purist on the question of public subsidy, bearing in mind that debt and pensions advice is to some extent integrated, that we subsidise the citizens advice bureaux and other similar organisations for perfectly good public reasons, and that part of the point of the whole exercise will be to help people save so that they avoid landing up on means-tested benefits in future. By all means let us look at how far advice can be paid for by the delivery authority, but if we are trying to get through to people in lower income groups, it is vital that it is free to the individual at the point of need or the point of sale, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said.

There are interesting issues here, and I am inclined to consider carefully what the Minister said. However, I hope that in consultation with the Conservative Front Bench we will be able to arrive at something for Report on which we will be able to press the Minister harder. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 112:

We strongly support the amendments, as does the Equal Opportunities Commission. I fear that I shall probably say exactly what everybody else has said for the past half-hour, but it is worth repeating.

On Amendment No. 112, the gender impact assessment published with the Bill is very welcome; it gives a good lead to other Whitehall departments that are involved in issues where the different needs of women and men need to be highlighted. As has been pointed out throughout the Committee stage and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, women’s working lives and earning patterns are very different from those of most men. It is vital that the design of personal accounts is flexible enough to take account of this, especially because, as my noble friend Lord Oakeshott said on the previous amendment, it is estimated that 43 per cent of all female employees are low to middle earners, earning between £5,000 and £15,000 a year. We need to know, for example, about those people who could lose out because of the interaction of means-tested benefits in retirement by saving in personal accounts. The amendment has a clear link to Amendment No. 115, which would require,

“a report on the information and advice needs of women and men in relation to”,

personal accounts.

The challenge has been well highlighted by the Resolution Foundation; it is to strike the right balance between presenting people with information and explaining their options, and encouraging them to remain opted in or suggesting that they opt out. It is clear that a good deal of work has been and is being done on this area, as the Minister said. I understand that we do not yet know how this advice will be delivered, as it is work in progress. The questions are clear. Should it be by telephone only? Should it be by letter? Should it be possible for people to have face-to-face interviews, as in a citizens advice bureau? I would like all these options to be available, but particularly for any advice to be written down in a clear format in easily understood English and—dare I say it?—written by a woman. As we have heard before, the whole pensions system is man-made rather than woman-made, and the balance needs to be redressed.

I was going to ask the Minister how the Government were going to take forward the whole question of information and advice, but we have already been told that. Are the Government in close contact with Citizens Advice, whose bureaux bear the brunt of most financial advice at present?

I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for not withdrawing the amendment before we had a chance to discuss it. It is worth while continuing the debate on women’s pensions at almost every appropriate moment. My noble friend rightly highlighted two important issues—the need to conduct a gender impact assessment of the personal accounts proposals and the provision of information and advice appropriate for both women and men.

When publishing our White Paper Personal Accounts: A New Way to Save, we recognised the importance of enabling both women and men to save for retirement. We also recognised that providing good-quality information would be critical to the success of personal accounts.

The EOC has rightly acknowledged that personal accounts have the potential to help to deliver a decent income in retirement for millions of people by enabling more women to save, and at a lower cost. In the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied our White Paper, we set out what I stress was a preliminary gender assessment, which included our estimates for eligibility for automatic enrolment. As we have just heard, these indicated that an estimated 43 per cent of those eligible would be women, which equates to between 2.2 million and 3.4 million female employees.

As my noble friend is well aware, our intention is to introduce a further Bill later this year, subject to the will of Parliament. I can reassure her that that Bill will be accompanied by a full gender impact assessment. This will include an assessment of the full proposals for personal accounts. In addition, legislation requires all public bodies to comply with a gender equality duty, and the authority will fall under that duty.

Amendment No. 115 would require the delivery authority to produce a report on the information and advice needs of women and men within the first year of establishment, long before personal accounts are launched. We recognise that individuals will need information to enable them to make decisions about whether to participate in occupational pension saving if automatically enrolled, and on levels of contributions and fund choices. Advice on saving for retirement is specific to individuals and is regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

The personal accounts scheme, like many others that operate automatic enrolment, is being designed so that regulated financial advice is not required, as we said when debating Amendment No. 120. But that does not mean that people will not have the right to information.

We also recognise that different parties, which is what this discussion is about, will require different information and that information needs for women and men vary, depending on their circumstances. I think that the phrase is “depending on their messy lives”, which has been coined during the passage of the Bill. Indeed, the DWP’s research paper The Gender Impact of Pension Reform indicated some evidence that women may lack confidence in their understanding and knowledge of pensions. This is a very important concern.

It will be for the delivery authority to determine the information strategy for personal accounts. In providing this information, the delivery authority will need to take account of target groups and their circumstances.

The authority will fall under the auspices of the gender equality duty, and a gender impact assessment will be carried out by the department. Noble Lords may be interested to know that that duty also requires the authority to produce the gender equality scheme, with the aim of that scheme being implemented in three years. Under the duty, there is a requirement for the authority to report annually on progress against that scheme, which I thought was an interesting point for this discussion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, talked about working with stakeholders, particularly citizens advice bureaux. The DWP is committed to working closely with stakeholders, particularly stakeholders with such significant expertise.

I hope with that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment.

I think that my noble friend would be slightly shocked if I were to try to push it further at this stage, but I thank her for the care with which she replied and the welcome and warm words of reassurance that she gave us. It is clear that we can continue to expect from the department gender impact studies, certainly next year, and we can seek to turn that into a rolling programme. As for the point about advice, all round the Chamber we have agreed that this is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed in the context of the Thoresen review. It may be that in the light of that review there will be a short debate in this Chamber between now and the next pensions Bill, or we may revisit this during the passage of that Bill. In the light of the warm support from my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 113:

I shall make a general point about this and subsequent amendments, following the noble Baroness. The situation is slightly unreal because we are waiting to hear what the Minister says. If we were in the Moses Room I would quite happily just wait to hear what he says then make my comments.

You can!

Yes, I can anyway. In general, I am quite sympathetic to what the Minister will say—as the noble Baroness forecast his remarks.

I am sympathetic to the aim of the amendment, which is to ensure that the concerns about levelling down are appropriately focused on in government. I am less convinced that it is necessarily a responsibility of the delivery authority itself.

We should keep the importance of preventing levelling down before us, but also in context. The fact is that 56 per cent of the private sector workforce have no provision other than that provided by the state, so we want to ensure a balance between bringing that 56 per cent up to some minimum level and the danger that there might be a levelling down of a subset of the 44 per cent towards the new standard level. It is important to realise that it is quite difficult, within the design of the national pensions saving system, to avoid that danger, which is not created by the specific administrative arrangements of the scheme—by whether it is organised, as the ABI wanted, through insurance companies, or, as the NAPF wanted, through competing trusts, or, as the commission proposed and the Government are taking forward, through an overall national agency. The danger is created not by those particular choices but by the actual declaration of what is an absolute minimum standard. The moment we say that the absolute minimum the employer must do is to put in its 3 per cent—if people accept automatic enrolment and pay their 5 per cent—in itself creates the danger of levelling down.

It is incredibly important to try to prevent that levelling down. The commission thought about the levers that might prevent that—first, in maintaining a significant element of tax relief incentive towards the provision of pensions beyond the minimum. That is a separate issue from the one which I knew the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, would mention if I did not—the allocation of tax relief between different people—but certainly the overall existence of tax relief is very important. Secondly, it is very important better to communicate to individuals and companies just how generous tax relief is, and that it applies not only to income tax but to the favoured treatment of employer's national insurance when you pay someone through an employer's pension contribution rather than through cash wages.

The levers which we could think of for ensuring that there was not levelling down were the preservation of the existing generosity of tax relief and of employer's national insurance relief together with a programme of communication to employers and employees to ensure that they are convinced that being paid in pension contributions rather than cash wages is a sensible thing to do. I think that those are very important objectives. I am just not totally convinced that they are objectives that would be pursued by the delivery authority of the national pension savings scheme itself rather than by other wings within government.

This is a very important amendment, but first I should remind the Committee of the interests that I declared on Second Reading. I pick up from where the noble Lord, Lord Turner, ended. It is important to lay down this type of amendment now so that the authority, in doing the preparatory work which we expect it to do over the next few years, is very clear about what the objectives will be by which its success or failure is judged. My fear is that, if we are not careful, we could have a pension authority that, a number of years hence, declares the great success of its scheme in terms of the number of people who have been involved in personal pension accounts but takes no notice and scores nowhere in its target the fact that a very large proportion of those—and in the worst case, all of those—have come about simply by switching people from better schemes into a less good one because of subsidies, the mechanism of advice or the cost structures that have been put around it.

Therefore, right from the beginning, we have to be very clear about the goalposts by which we want to measure the scheme’s success and which the preparatory work should be setting out to achieve. For that reason, it is important that this is built into the primary legislation.

This has been an interesting debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, anticipated what I was going to say at the start of my response, and it will run through the other amendments—that I do not think that particularising these objectives in this Bill is the right way to go. When we move on to the second Bill, it will be important that the objectives are set out. As for the parameters under which the advisory work of the delivery authority will be done, we have published our White Paper, which has been the subject of consultation, and our response to that consultation is to be published imminently. I think that that will clearly set out the Government's objectives for the delivery authority. But I emphasise that we see personal accounts as complementing and not competing with the rest of the market.

I thank the Minister for that reply and other noble Lords who participated in the debate. I think that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, who said he thought he knew what the Minister was going to say, and thought that he agreed with it. So perhaps I do not welcome what he contributed to the debate.

I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Turner, said—that it is difficult to see this as a responsibility of the delivery authority—but I think that the point was effectively met by my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who said that unless the delivery authority has these issues in mind, we will suddenly get a personal accounts system that will in effect not have paid enough attention to these issues. That may be more easily seen in some of my later amendments rather than this one, where the noble Lord, Lord Turner, is suggesting that it is really only the Government who can do anything about the issues.

The Minister said that the Government see personal accounts as complementary, not competing. I have to say to him that that is fundamentally naïve. This system will be in competition with the other forms of pension provision, like it or not. It may not be cut-throat, red-in-tooth-and-claw competition from day one, but over time it will become an alternative that makes itself more attractive to the various types of employers which I ran through when I introduced my remarks. Using the term “complementary” rather than “competitive” does not make it any less likely that levelling down will happen.

I listened to the noble Baroness’s remarks with interest and respect. Why does she think that that did not happen with stakeholders?

Because stakeholders simply did not happen.

The schemes were set up and employers, had they wished, could have used those schemes as an alternative to existing DC schemes. There is very little evidence that they closed the one and went for the other, which was of a less generous and more basic sort.

The noble Baroness, whom I am sure had great hopes for the stakeholder scheme, has to accept that it was an abject failure. Many empty stakeholder schemes were set up because employers had to have some form of provision available, but they did not have to try to enrol anybody into them. There was absolutely no encouragement to see stakeholders alongside existing provision. It was an entirely separate experiment which failed. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It was never conceived on the same scale as this. It was never marketed or developed to operate alongside. It simply never took off. The statistics are relatively clear. The sheer volume of saving in stakeholders is testimony to that.

I absolutely accept the noble Baroness’s figures—83 per cent of stakeholder schemes were shell schemes. The point I was making, which I do not think she addressed, was about the levelling down principle, which she mentioned, and the minimum standard becoming de facto the standard standard, if I may put it that way. We already have the experience of stakeholders in non-shell schemes. Employers could have used such schemes as an alternative to the more generous DC or DB schemes they had, but they did not. They did not level down for those schemes where they were making a contribution. I do not challenge the noble Baroness’s statements about shell schemes at all—I would be the first to agree about that precisely because they did not have an employer’s contribution—but we have a precedent which does not support what she is saying.

We are comparing chalk and cheese. The stakeholder schemes were simply not designed in the same way. There was no concept of auto-enrolment or minimum contribution levels. They were like an optional extra to ensure that every employer offered something. They were not designed for anything other than that so it is very unsurprising that they had little impact on pension provision. They did not achieve any additional pension provision and did not much change what was already there—that carried on much as it had. We have to regard stakeholders as a nice idea that failed.

To return to the amendment before us, the point that I want to make on all these amendments is that unless the delivery authority has these important issues fully in mind—as my noble friend Lord Blackwell said—against which the success or failure of the ultimate scheme will be judged, it is likely that it will give advice or prepare for implementation in a way which does not deliver the result that everybody wants to achieve.

Does the noble Baroness accept that irrespective of whether the amendment were written in the Bill in the way that she proposes, anybody involved in the delivery authority could not help but understand the parameters under which we want personal accounts to develop? I refer to the White Paper, the consultation, the response to it, a myriad of statements around the Bill and the discussions in another place and in this place. Somebody would have to be living on another planet not to understand the thrust of what we want to achieve with personal accounts.

We shall have to see whether the new chairman and members of the authority are martians or earthlings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe this is my chance to say something.

No, the amendment has been withdrawn.

I am sorry but I specifically asked whether I could say something when I had heard the Minister’s reply and I was told by the Front Bench that I could. Now they are telling me that I cannot.

I do not know whether the Government Whip, if I may address her as such on this occasion, would agree with me, but once an amendment has been withdrawn one goes on to the next one.

In that case, I shall make my points on the next amendment because they are fairly general. However, I find this situation unsatisfactory. I never had that problem in Grand Committee. I was always given the chance to speak before the relevant amendment was withdrawn.

I am sure that the Committee will agree that we have a number of amendments on a similar theme. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to make his comments as we go through those amendments.

moved Amendment No. 114:

I speak to these amendments and the series of amendments the noble Baroness is moving about the objectives of the delivery authority. These are probably unnecessarily detailed. I am not sure, operationally, what guidance in practice the delivery authority is meant to deduce from them. I am not sure how they are meant to work. It is not appropriate to include them in the Bill. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the main reason that stakeholders did not work and did not minimise burdens on employers was that they were much too costly. They were not an attractive option, which is why levelling down does not apply, as we discussed. In general, I do not consider that, operationally, these amendments take us much further forward. I should have thought that what the Minister said about the undertakings he is giving and the discussions in both this and the other place would be sufficient.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, pre-empted the thrust of my reply but I shall give it anyway. We are invited to consider two matters: first, the extent to which the delivery authority will liaise with established pensions and financial bodies; and, secondly, how we intend to ensure that the personal accounts scheme is designed in a way that minimises the burdens on employers.

As regards the first amendment, the Bill does not specify with whom the authority should consult. This is to allow the delivery authority to co-operate and consult with whomever it thinks appropriate. It is a matter for the authority’s discretion, based on the expertise and experience of its members. We drafted the Bill in this way intentionally to allow the members of the authority to consult with all interested parties. I would expect the delivery authority to build effective co-operation with a number of bodies which can advise on financial, commercial and operational consequences. It would be an integral part of the successful development of personal accounts. Therefore, it is hard to imagine that it would choose to operate without the benefit of a good working relationship with the Pensions Regulator, the Financial Services Authority and, of course, the Secretary of State. I am sure that the authority will need to consult a number of other organisations as well, including experts in the pensions and finance industry.