asked Her Majesty’s Government:

How they will monitor improvements in awareness and uptake of the new Healthcare Travel Costs Scheme, published on 25 March.

My Lords, it is important that patients and the public are able to access the financial help available to them. The revised Healthcare Travel Costs Scheme was launched on 1 April 2008 and we are developing a performance regime that will monitor the uptake of the scheme, while placing a minimal administrative burden on the NHS.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Although I appreciate that the local hospital has the prime responsibility for administration and publicity of the scheme, a recent survey by Macmillan Cancer Support claimed that only 19 per cent of patients were informed about the previous scheme. Considering the very large cost that is involved when NHS appointments are missed and the dramatic impact that travel-to-hospital expenses can have on patients’ finances, is the noble Baroness willing to review the Government’s position in, say, six months, so that we would have a real idea of how well the publicity is going?

My Lords, I am pleased to inform the noble Lord, who made a very sensible point indeed, that we will be conducting a review of the scheme to evaluate the effectiveness of the provisions during their first year. That is not quite the six months he asked for. He is quite right to say that the take-up of the old scheme was not as good as it should have been, which meant that people who needed and were entitled to help were not receiving it. The noble Lord is also right to say that the effectiveness of the new scheme depends almost completely on commitment and delivery at local level. Our review will be undertaken following the end of the financial year 2008-09 and will, indeed, focus on the impact of the revisions on the take-up of the scheme and the financial impact on NHS organisations.

My Lords, I am sure the Minister appreciates that many people will benefit from the scheme. What positive steps are being taken to promote it?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Part of the review and the launch of the new scheme was a commitment to enhance and promote awareness of the HTCS. It is the responsibility of NHS organisations to promote the scheme. However, to assist them to do that, the Prescription Pricing Authority provides leaflets and posters. A range of application forms and leaflets that deal with help for healthcare costs are available through a variety of different organisations—primary care trusts, hospital trusts, DWP, NACAB, universities, pharmacists, GPs and dental surgeries—to be distributed to patients. In addition, we are sending quarterly mailshots every three months to dispensing doctors, pharmacists and key contacts. We hope that that will enhance the take-up of the scheme over the year.

My Lords, I note the Minister’s reply to that supplementary question, but at this time last year the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in reply to a Question of mine, said that he would redouble the department’s efforts to improve benefit awareness and take-up among cancer patients. The noble Baroness adumbrated a number of steps, but who is taking responsibility at national level for improved take-up? What incentives are being built into the system?

My Lords, the HTCS is being promoted very strongly at a national level but, as the noble Lord will be aware, the actual take-up depends on the efficiency of hospital doctors, GPs and dentists in informing patients that this scheme is available. Guidance has been issued as a result of the relaunch. We have indeed redoubled our efforts to promote the scheme right across the piece and we are very optimistic that this will make an impact.

My Lords, addressing the House on 7 June last year, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—then a health Minister, aware of its importance to Macmillan Cancer Support—agreed to ask the Healthcare Commission if it could monitor benefit information given to patients through its annual health check. Can my noble friend Lady Thornton tell us what reply was received from the commission?

My Lords, that is an extremely reasonable question. I do not have the detailed answer here. We are aware that cancer patients face particular difficulty in paying the cost of their travel to treatment, but the principle of the scheme is that those on low incomes are eligible. That does not necessarily address the issues that cancer patients face. I undertake to find out what answer was given to my noble friend at the time and to let the noble Lord and the House know.

My Lords, the Minister will know that for many people who travel a lot to hospital for cancer treatment, the cost of doing so can amount to several hundred pounds out of their pocket if they are not part of the scheme. For those people, one can view the scheme as not so much nice to have but a vital part of their care and treatment. In that context, is there some way in which from the outset commissioning processes could be used to boost and promote the scheme to patients?

My Lords, that is an extremely sensible suggestion, which I undertake to look into.

My Lords, as the scheme is supposed to be targeted at people on low incomes, can the Minister confirm that the review to which she alluded earlier will analyse which people benefit from the scheme in terms of their age and language ability?

My Lords, I do not have the detail of what the questionnaire will look like, but I undertake to try to feed that in at this stage, so that we can ask those questions.

My Lords, is there a website on the topic; is it a national website; and are there references to websites about local arrangements available for people who need to take advantage of that facility? Is it possible to apply for assistance online? That is the kind of benefit that people would like to see from a government online system.

My Lords, the information to which my noble friend refers is indeed available online through both NHS sites and local PCT and hospital websites. I am not absolutely certain whether you can apply online. Most people apply through the hospital to get the cash immediately. Some people apply by post. I will find out whether it is possible—I would be very surprised if it is not—to apply online.

asked the Chairman of Committees:

What is the cost of the structure in the Royal Gallery for the exhibition about the Life Peerages Act 1958; and what is the purpose of the exhibition.

My Lords, the exhibition, “A Changing House”, marks the 50th anniversary of the Life Peerages Act 1958. The exhibition examines the changes in the membership of both Houses since the 19th century and is one of a number of initiatives taking place in Parliament to mark the 1958 anniversary. The proposal to hold the exhibition was approved by the Information Committee. The exhibition cost £105,000.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that Answer. Does he agree that, whatever the merits of the exhibition, its structure does not sit comfortably in the splendour and graciousness of the Royal Gallery? Does he further agree that, although we are of course indebted to the life Peers, who have brought so much to this House—all sorts of things, including wisdom, ability, great competence and even, sometimes, charm—they have only been here for 50 years, whereas hereditary Peers have been here for 800 years? Will he consider having a conversation with the noble Baroness the Lord Speaker to see whether she would think of putting up another exhibition, in favour of the hereditary Peers, to show what they have done to make this House what it was, which life Peers have for so long, understandably, aspired to join? Should that not be done pro rata with the exhibition over there?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Question. As regards the structure of the exhibition, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It may not be to everybody’s taste, but some people probably think it is lovely. Hereditary Peers have been here much longer than 50 years. Without them, there would be have been nowhere for the life Peers to join.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the exhibition would attract more visitors if it had a better title than “A Changing House”, which does not do justice to its excellent contents or to some important innovations? The noble Earl mentioned hereditary Peers, but women Peers were allowed to sit here for the first time in the House’s history, to our great advantage.

My Lords, I note that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, are two of the six Members of this House who were here before the Life Peerages Act 1958 took effect. I am not sure that I can comment with any authority on the title of the exhibition. However, we expect many people to visit it, including members of the public on the Line of Route and on special tours, and Members and staff of both Houses. During the Summer Recess, the cash customers will also come through.

My Lords, if an exhibition is held along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, might it not be called the “End of the Peer” show?

My Lords, speaking as a rather common life Peer, perhaps I may ask why we do not have the use of the semi-circular space at the end of the corridor on the first floor. It seems to be used for House of Commons exhibitions all the time. Can we not share it? I very much resent that. I agree with the noble Earl, who is a hereditary Peer and, I hope, my friend: it is a desecration of the Royal Gallery to use it for these purposes. The space on the first floor should be as available to us as it is to the Commons.

My Lords, I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, as one of the most distinguished life Peers, and a female, to boot. There is a very nice photograph of her in the exhibition. I think the space she refers to is called the Upper Waiting Room. It is difficult to get any space at all from the House of Commons under any circumstances, but I can take this forward.

The Royal Gallery is now a serious working room for many noble Lords who have meetings there; therefore, one needs to be careful about the number of exhibitions held there. It should be used sparingly because it is a working room of the House.

My Lords, given that, until the mid-16th century, the Lords Spiritual formed a majority of the Members of this House, and given the durability of this Bench in any proposals for the reform of your Lordships’ House, might we also have a suitable exhibition on the contribution of the Lords Spiritual, housed in a suitably High Gothic pavilion?

My Lords, I am sure we all agree that the Lords Spiritual have made a great contribution to this House over the years. Personally, I hope they will continue to do so for many more to come.

My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree that a suitable way of celebrating the Life Peerages Act would be for this House to reclaim its rights to the Pugin Room?

My Lords, yes, I quite agree. We have tried, we have failed and I am sure that we will continue to fail.

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Works of Art Committee. We will continue to meet the expectations of Parliament to create or take part in the creation of exhibitions so that the public can learn more about the House of Lords; but, at the same time, will the Chairman of Committees take particular note of the point made by other Peers that, as we have learnt from earlier exhibitions, we cannot make plans when there is not enough space to mount exhibitions? We have confusion in the Royal Gallery and, to some extent, in the Robing Room. With all respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, even if we did not have to share the exhibition space she referred to, it would not be adequate for our plans.

My Lords, as I have said, there is difficulty about the available space for exhibitions. The desks in the Royal Gallery are much used by Peers for meetings. In Westminster Hall, the principal exhibition space, there is a completely different exhibition.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What is their response to the report Purity of Elections in the UK: Causes for Concern, published by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd.

My Lords, the report is being studied with interest. It finds that there is no hard evidence suggesting a significant increase in electoral malpractice since 2000. We continue to examine how the integrity of the electoral system can be strengthened.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am disappointed with his Answer. Do the Government accept that the legitimacy of election results largely depends on the integrity of the electoral register? Does the Minister accept that making voting more convenient, by postal voting on demand, weekend voting and so on, is much less important and should take second place to reducing fraud? Will he undertake to replace household registration with the much more accurate individual registration, which is supported by all official and independent authorities on this issue, in the forthcoming Constitutional Renewal Bill, which is due in the next Session? Does he recall the judgment in the Slough election court earlier this year? The commissioner concluded:

“There is no reason to suppose this is an isolated incident. Roll stuffing is childishly simple to commit and very difficult to detect. To ignore the probability that it is widespread, particularly in local elections, is a policy that even an ostrich would despise”.

My Lords, the noble Lord has completely ignored the 2006 Act, with the improvements to the system of administration and the introduction of personal identifiers, which the Electoral Commission has said work well. The Government agree with the principle of individual registration and are examining the practical consequences of moving to such a system. Overall, however, the system is one of great integrity and we should not—and the noble Lord should not—put doubt into the minds of anyone about that. Equally, it is right that we should do everything that we can to encourage people to vote, including encouraging more postal voting.

My Lords, given that the title of the report and its content are on the subject of the purity of elections, does my noble friend agree that the purest electoral system is that which provides for the closest possible contact and accountability between the electors and their elected representatives? Is it not obvious to most objective observers that the system that most provides for that is the time-honoured, tried, tested and proved system that we call the first past the post?

My Lords, there is much to commend in my noble friend’s extremely objective assessment of electoral voting systems. To those who are passionately interested in this matter I commend the document recently published by my department that looks at the pros and cons of different electoral systems and provides ammunition for anybody who has any view on these matters.

My Lords, in the past the noble Lord has justified the changes to postal voting and the increased ease with which people can post a vote on the grounds that it increases turnout and makes it easier for people to vote. What is the point of doing that if it increases the amount of fraud in the system?

My Lords, it is surely good to do everything that we can to encourage people in this country to vote. We also have to ensure that, when evidence of fraud is detected, it is dealt with. That is entirely what the Government did with the 2006 Act, which the Electoral Commission, in commenting on personal identifiers, has said works well.

My Lords, why should we go down the individual registration route when fraud is confined to a very few areas in the United Kingdom? Why do we not target those areas, as was proposed in my amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill in Committee? Why do we not just revisit that principle?

My Lords, there are some real advantages to individual voter registration, but there are also some practical consequences, which is why we are examining the matter. However, I agree with my noble friend that greater focus needs to be given to the question of specific areas with particular problems. The Rowntree report raises the issue of “clan politics”, to which I think my noble friend is referring. I agree that we need, with the Electoral Commission and the police, to consider the matter.

My Lords, during the debates on the 2006 Act, the Government said that they would consider what to do about individual registration. They are still considering what to do. Do they not realise that a very effective system has operated well in Northern Ireland and that it would be easy simply to import that system into the rest of the United Kingdom?

My Lords, I do not apologise for giving this careful consideration. We have said that we see the merits of individual voter registration. However, I point out to the noble Lord that, although he is right about Northern Ireland, one of the impacts there was a reduction in the level of registration when the system was introduced. That is one of the concerns that we need to address if we are going to move to individual voter registration. Surely we all want more people in this country to take part in the democratic process. Anything that we can do to encourage that has to be welcomed.

My Lords, would it not be even simpler not to import the idea into this country?

My Lords, the noble Earl presumably refers to individual voter registration in Northern Ireland. No, we should learn from the experience in Northern Ireland. The system has clearly worked well, but there is concern about the reduction in the number of people who have registered. We will obviously consider that carefully. However, I say to the noble Earl that the changes made as a result of the 2006 Act have already brought enhancements to the checks against fraud.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What discussions they are having with other members of the G8 on current levels of world fuel prices.

My Lords, the United Kingdom has been discussing high oil prices with the G8 in several international fora. The G8 energy ministers’ meeting in early June concluded that oil prices at current levels are against the interests of both producers and consumers; there is a need for increased investment in oil production to keep markets well supplied as demand rises; we need vigorously to pursue energy efficiency and diversify away from fossil fuels by increasing use of low-carbon energy. We will be raising the issue at July’s G8 summit in Japan.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. While we would probably think that an oil price of up to $100 a barrel might be healthy, I presume the Minister would agree that where the price is moving to at the moment means that we risk both inflation and recession in the global economy. Does he expect to get an agreed policy out of the meeting in Japan next month or does he agree with Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, that we should apply a blowtorch to OPEC?

My Lords, what we hope to get out of the G8 is very much what the Prime Minister, along with others, got out of the Jeddah meeting last weekend: a recognition that current oil prices and their volatility are detrimental to the global economy, in particular for developing countries; an agreement that higher levels of investment are required throughout the oil supply chain; and that producers and consumers should take forward a programme of work to improve the long-term functioning of the oil market.

My Lords, if the Prime Minister is concerned about fuel prices and their effect on consumers and the economy, instead of making a journey to Saudi Arabia or Japan, would it not be better to make a journey next door to No. 11 Downing Street and ask the Chancellor to cut the duty which he is taking on these inflated prices?

My Lords, of course the Government recognise the impact of oil prices on motorists at the moment, and the Chancellor will look closely at that and other factors when considering whether to go ahead with the planned 2p per litre fuel duty increase. But I should say, and I would be interested to know whether the opposition parties agree, that Government policy remains that fuel duty should continue to rise at least in line with inflation as the UK seeks to reduce polluting emissions from fossil fuels and to support public services.

My Lords, the noble Lord has just touched on the issue I want to raise. Is he aware that the Government are producing conflicting messages? On the one hand we are trying to get the price of oil reduced so that we can do more trade, while on the other hand people are being exhorted to use their vehicles less and thus use less oil. What is the message? Are we to use our vehicles less or is the world to reduce the price of oil so that we can use more of it?

My Lords, there is no conflict. Our position on international energy markets is not in conflict with our climate change goals. The transition to a low carbon economy needs to be managed, and economic slowdown will not help that. Current energy prices are a risk to the low carbon economy, not a spur, especially if they cause a global economic slowdown. I remind the House that the result of oil prices as high as they are at the moment affects developing countries much more than anyone else.

My Lords, with regard to the statement just made by my noble friend, is it not correct to say that there is a difficulty and that what the Government are trying to do is strike a balance between the economy and the environment?

My Lords, all governments have to balance various interests. However, I want to make it clear that there is nothing particularly green about the current high level of oil prices. It is not the way to make the world go green; that needs to be done in a much more managed way than is the case at present.

My Lords, to allay the confusion over the Government’s current policy, will the Minister confirm the statement made to the Financial Times by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, chairman of the Climate Change Committee to be established under the Climate Change Bill, that an integral part of their climate change policy is to have still higher carbon-based energy prices?

My Lords, I do not know the words quoted by the very distinguished noble Lord, Lord Lawson, although I know where he comes from on this issue. We think that the price of oil worldwide at the present time is much too high, and that is where we remain.

My Lords, when the Government get to the July G8 summit, will they consider a proposal to the other G8 states for a collective agreement on the reduction of oil consumption worldwide in line with the reductions in CO₂ that have already been agreed? If the markets believed we meant business on this, would not that have a marked effect on world prices?

My Lords, one of the effects of the very high oil price is that it encourages methods not to use oil to the same extent as it is being used now. One of the current effects is that people are being much more careful in the way in which they use fuel.

My Lords, what proportion of these extortionate oil prices does the Minister think is made up by speculation? Does he believe that there is an oil price bubble and will it burst?

My Lords, we do not believe that speculation is the most important driver of these increases. The most important drivers are changes in the underlying balance of the market. In other words, demand for oil is rising faster than supply and the market lacks spare capacity. The decline in the value of the dollar is another important factor in driving dollar-denominated prices. One should not forget geopolitical tensions in oil-producing countries either. We do not think speculation plays the most important part.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, we will have two Statements repeated this afternoon. In a moment, my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton will repeat a Statement entitled “HM Revenue and Customs”, and at a convenient point around 7 pm, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham will repeat the second Statement entitled “Pitt Report on Flooding”. The statutory instruments scheduled for the dinner break will follow straight on from the second Statement, and the Committee stage of the Education and Skills Bill will resume as soon as the debates on the instruments are finished.

If the House will indulge me further, I have been conscious of late of the commotion after Question Time which makes it very difficult for whoever is speaking to be heard. Therefore, I take this opportunity respectfully to remind noble Lords of Standing Order 20, which states that Members,

“are to keep dignity and order, and not to remove out of their places without just cause, to the hindrance of others that sit near them, and the disorder of the House”.

The Companion to the Standing Orders indicates that this rule applies to Members not moving about the Chamber while a Question is being put from the Woolsack and to leaving the Chamber quietly at the end of Question Time.

My Lords, I have a full House. With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place on the final report by Kieran Poynter, chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers, into the loss of child benefit records at HM Revenue and Customs last year. The Statement is as follows:

“I should tell the House that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which conducted its own investigation into the loss, is publishing its report today. The IPCC found no evidence of misconduct or criminality by any member of staff at HMRC. The Cabinet Secretary has also published today his wider cross-government work to improve data handling. The Poynter and IPCC reports are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to Kieran Poynter and his team and the IPCC for their extensive work. Both have provided a very full and detailed account of what happened.

“Improving information security is a challenge that every organisation is facing. In recent years, we have seen problems in both the public and private sectors as organisations struggle to keep pace with the development of technology in data storage and transfer. The public are entitled to expect government departments to ensure that their personal details are kept safe, and it is therefore essential that we do everything we can do to minimise the chances of this sort of loss happening again.

“I deliberately gave Mr Poynter wide-ranging terms of reference, not just because of the seriousness of this loss but also because, as I said in my Statement of 20 November, I was concerned about previous losses of data by HMRC. In my Statements to the House on 20 November and 17 December, I set out the circumstances surrounding the events that led to the loss of the child benefit data and the immediate action taken. My priorities then were to locate the missing disks and to ensure that adequate safeguards were in place to monitor bank and building society accounts of those who could have been affected.

“Despite extensive searches by HMRC and the police, the disks have not been found, but I can tell the House that I am advised that there is no evidence of any fraudulent activity as a result of the loss.

“HMRC took a series of immediate steps at that time, including a complete ban on the transfer of bulk data without adequate security protection, measures to prevent the downloading of data without the necessary safeguards, and the immediate disabling of the ability to download data from all desktop and laptop computers within the organisation.

“Mr Kieran Poynter’s report is in two parts. The first deals with the circumstances giving rise to the loss. The second part deals with his wider findings and recommendations. He examined in detail the circumstances surrounding the earlier transfer of data in March 2007, to which I referred in my Statements to the House. He found that in March, because the HMRC staff then involved were unaware of the relevant guidance, which in itself lacked clarity, they did not escalate the request to the appropriate level of seniority before releasing data to the NAO. As a result, no senior HMRC official was asked to permit the NAO to take the data off-site to conduct its analysis and no such official knew that this was envisaged.

“Mr Poynter has concluded that these events in March last year then created a precedent which allowed a similar transfer to take place in October without the appropriate level of authorisation or adequate consideration of the security risks of releasing such a large amount of personal information. He says that senior managers were unaware that the data had been moved from HMRC premises in March and October until the loss of data was subsequently reported to them.

“He concludes that the data loss incident arose following a sequence of communications failures between junior HMRC officials and between them and the National Audit Office. However, he finds that the loss was entirely avoidable and the fact that it could have happened points to serious institutional deficiencies at HMRC.

“First, information security simply was not the management priority it should have been. Secondly, management structures and governance were unnecessarily complex and did not establish clear lines of accountability. Moreover, he points to a lack of clarity in communications and the failure to involve senior HMRC staff as being contributing factors in both cases.

“Mr Poynter makes clear in his report that both these failings have now been addressed. He acknowledges the progress the department has made since last November. HMRC is a complex organisation, operating from some 900 sites and sending out more than 300 million items of mail a year.

“Against this background, Mr Poynter sets out the action that has been taken to make information security a priority. This includes the appointment of a chief risk officer, new, clearer security guidance and a wide-ranging programme of training to raise awareness of security issues among staff. He also sets out the action that has been taken to simplify management structures and governance. He acknowledges the new organisational structure as a positive step forward.

“Mr Poynter’s team has worked closely with HMRC and in particular those teams that process large volumes of personal data or provide corporate services such as IT. By providing detailed recommendations to the organisation as its work progressed, rather than leaving them to the final report, the review team has been able to support HMRC and help it make good progress in implementing its recommendations.

“However, Mr Poynter states that,

‘a great deal of work will be required to bring HMRC up to and to sustain the world-class standard for information security to which it now properly aspires’.

In all, he makes 45 recommendations, all of which have been accepted. HMRC has made good progress on 39 of the recommendations, including 13 which have been fully implemented. Work is continuing on the remaining recommendations.

“Mr Poynter also makes a number of recommendations in relation to the way in which HMRC operates and the fragmentation and complexity of its IT systems. The organisation is already addressing these issues and will be spending £155 million improving data security over the next three years. The 45 recommendations, when fully implemented, will reduce the risk of a serious breach in the future and make sure that HMRC achieves the highest standards of information security.

“Kieran Poynter states that the decision to merge the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise was the right one, but he says that the management structure subsequently adopted was not suitable—exactly the same failing identified in the capability review carried out by an independent panel, overseen by the Cabinet Secretary and published last December.

“In acknowledging the significant changes the organisation has undergone, Mr Poynter judges that,

‘these changes individually and collectively represent good decisions which have created the platform from which to build a high-quality, efficient administration’.

In order to build from this platform, the management needs to continue to address the issues highlighted by Mr Poynter in his wider review and the capability review. In particular, HMRC’s security procedures must be improved to ensure information security is a management priority and, importantly, the management must raise staff morale.

“Mr Poynter acknowledges the new organisational structure put in place earlier this year as a crucial step and makes recommendations to develop it further. He concludes that his findings represent an opportunity to modernise work practices and systems, which will make the organisation more efficient as well as rebuilding its reputation for data security.

“I am grateful to Dave Hartnett, the acting chairman, who has overseen these improvements and led the organisation through a difficult time. Yesterday Mike Clasper, who has considerable business experience, was appointed as the new chair of HMRC. He and Dave Hartnett have made it clear that the implementation of the Poynter recommendations and, crucially, the importance of information security will be priorities.

“The Information Commissioner, who has been kept informed since the outset, has indicated that this review has investigated all the facts and issues with which he needs to be concerned; he fully supports all of Kieran Poynter’s recommendations. The Information Commissioner proposes to serve the appropriate enforcement notice on HMRC under the Data Protection Act.

“It is quite clear that the loss was entirely avoidable and, again, I apologise unreservedly to anyone who has been affected. HMRC employs tens of thousands of people, who work hard and who are dedicated to providing an excellent service to the public. The staff are entitled to expect clarity as to how they discharge their duties. The public are entitled to expect that their privacy is respected and that security of highly personalised information is the highest priority. It is essential that we now implement his recommendations. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor in another place. We were beginning to think that the Government had forgotten about this. Last December, they assured us that Mr Poynter would issue his full report in the first half of this year. Well, he just about made it, with a couple of sitting days to spare.

Mr Poynter’s first review, published just before Christmas, was disappointing in its lack of hard facts, so we welcome this report. What is still a mystery is why it has taken so long. The Government want to introduce 42 days for the purposes of establishing evidence as to the facts in criminal cases, but they have allowed Mr Poynter to take eight months to establish the facts in this case. Doubtless that was convenient for a Government who hoped that this would disappear off the public radar screen.

Now that we have a definitive study on what happened in HMRC, we can address the critical issue of whether this failure was systemic, isolated or procedural. The distinction is important because Ministers take responsibility for systemic failures. The headings in Chapter IX of the Poynter review say it all: “Information security not a management priority”; “An unsuitable organisation design with muddled accountabilities”; “Fragmentation and complexity”; “Inadequate information security policies”; “Embracing the digital age”, which actually means not embracing it; and “Morale is low”.

This organisation has not had a long history contributing to a cumulative list of failings. It was created in 2005 by a decision of the current Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor. He chose to merge two adequate organisations and, in doing so, created one monster. He knew exactly what he was doing. He appointed a chairman from outside the public sector who spoke in management riddles and then set up an organisation that is described in the Poynter report as a,

“‘constructive friction’ matrix type organisation”.

Let no one believe that the Prime Minister just appointed an outside expert and left him to it. That is not the Prime Minister’s style. He would have known in detail what was being done to the organisation and approved of it. He might not have understood its disastrous consequences, but he must have known about it. Through a strategic job move, the Prime Minister may cleverly have escaped paying the price for the systemic failure that he helped to create and, certainly as Chancellor, oversaw. In another era, he would not have escaped. Ministers have resigned for much less in previous regimes.

The report makes distressing reading. The HMRC officials involved were spun as being junior officials but, in fact, they are the grades that form the backbone of the Civil Service. The report finds that they did not know, understand or follow laid-down procedures and did not prioritise data security. They were not trained and the policies were opaque.

Have any of the staff involved in the data loss been disciplined or dismissed? I note that several immunities were for some reason granted to some unspecified individuals. I am not asking for personal details; I am merely asking for the overall picture. If the report is right that those individuals were muddling through in an environment where doing the right thing happened more by luck than judgment, it might then be right that no action should be taken against the individuals.

The chairman of HMRC resigned last November, but he left on feather-bedded terms, so his departure does not really count. However, if no one else in HMRC has taken the blame and the Prime Minister has not accepted responsibility, absolutely no one is carrying the can. It simply cannot be right that the slate is wiped clean by this report.

We are being invited to accept that a contrite and reformed HRMC will not make the same mistakes again, but is the statutory framework robust enough? The Government fought off our amendments to the 2005 Act that created HMRC. Will they now undertake to review the statutory framework?

The problem is not confined to HMRC. Since the previous government Statement, we have had many more data losses, including secret terrorism papers left on a train. Even a Cabinet Minister cared so little for the rules that she took a laptop containing classified information to her constituency. The Government have forfeited the trust of the public in relation to data security.

Will the Government now call a halt to the identity card project? It should not proceed until there is complete assurance about citizens’ data. The national children’s database, which will contain sensitive information about some of the most vulnerable in our society, carries exactly the same dangers. So, too, does the NHS spine. If it eventually works, and if the Government compulsorily upload patient data from GPs, they will at a stroke expose the most intimate details about individuals to major security risks. All these projects should be put on hold until the public can be confident that they can be operated securely.

The Statement referred to something published today by the Cabinet Secretary on cross-government work to improve data handling. I checked the Cabinet Office website at lunchtime but could find no trace of this document. Since I have been unable to find out what the document says, will the Minister say whether that, too, contains further embarrassing confirmations that government departments cannot be trusted with citizens’ data?

I have one final question for the Minister. Appendix A of the report, which describes Mr Poynter’s terms of reference, states:

“I have agreed with HMRC and HMT that my review is focused on data loss and therefore excludes misuse of data—including any misuse of data held by HMRC by its staff”.

This extraordinary exclusion was not made plain when the terms of reference for the report were published last year and has not, I believe, been made plain in any other way. Can the Minister say why the Poynter review was constrained in this way? More important, who is looking at whether HMRC has misused data that it holds? Losing the data of 2.5 million people was bad enough, but the misuse of data belonging to a single individual would be even more reprehensible. Can the Minister assure us that this stone will not be left unturned?

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for bringing the Poynter review to the House. The report is the most extraordinarily damning indictment of the management of HMRC that one could wish to read. I will repeat just the three principal criticisms. The Statement says that,

“information security was simply not the management priority it should have been … management structures and governance were unnecessarily complex and did not establish clear lines of accountability”,

and there was,

“a lack of clarity in communications and the failure to involve senior HMRC staff as being contributing factors”,

in all the cases that were looked at. The incident that spurred this inquiry was simply an accident waiting to happen. It is not just a question of technical management issues. It goes to the whole ethos of the way in which this huge department works and its attitudes towards individuals’ personal data.

When we were considering the Bill that merged the two departments, we received an extraordinary letter from the late Lord Callaghan. He described how, as a young boy, he joined the Inland Revenue. On his first day, he appeared before a large man, with a large beard, who made him swear an oath that he would secure, to the best of his abilities, all personal data that came into his possession. He was made to swear that it would not get into the public domain or into anyone’s hands, as indeed it should not. Yet one of the many damning statements in this document is that there is no mandatory induction briefing on data management for people entering HMRC; at least I assume that that is the case, as the report urges that such mandatory briefings should be given.

There has been a long period during which data protection and data management have slipped down the agenda in the two departments. This may have been exacerbated by their merger but I do not think that it was caused by it. We cannot simply blame the staff; Ministers must also take some of the blame. I cannot see anything in the report to suggest, for example, that Ministers experienced or expressed any concern, at any point, about attitudes towards data security and the methods of storing data and communicating them within HMRC.

If what Mr Poynter calls the “transformation”—it is a wonderful word in respect of these matters—takes place, he claims that the following benefits will ensue: improved efficiency; improved tax yield; better customer service; and a higher level of staff satisfaction. If this is the case, as seems plausible, why did no Minister or senior member of staff at HMRC seem to have any awareness of these pretty substantial and obvious benefits of managing data differently? If they were aware of them, why did they not do anything about them?

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has anybody taken personal responsibility for any of this mess whatever? Has anybody resigned or been disciplined? Or was the malaise so widespread that everybody—Ministers and civil servants—was equally to blame?

An interesting side issue discussed in the report is the way in which HMRC communicates to taxpayers. The report deals with the problem that HMRC has not really come to grips with the digital age. It points out that the volume of paper issued by HMRC is almost unbelievably large. It says, for example, that each business gets on average 68 mailings per year—as a small businessman, I can assure noble Lords that it certainly feels like that. Nearly all these mailings could easily be dealt with in an e-mail rather than on paper. The fact that HMRC is still thinking in terms of paper for communicating with individual taxpayers and businesses shows a cast of mind that has not moved on to take account of modern circumstances.

The report says, in respect of this, that legislation may be needed to allow HMRC to specify how customers exchange data with it. Although the Government have apparently accepted all the recommendations, for some reason this is not a recommendation; it does not appear in the table at the end of the report. Can the Minister say whether the Government agree that there would be benefits if HMRC started communicating with taxpayers in a modern way? Do they think that legislation as Mr Poynter suggested might be needed to enable them to specify that it does that? If so, can they give us an indication of when such legislation might be forthcoming?

This report deals entirely with HMRC, as does the Minister’s Statement. When we discussed this previously, in the immediate aftermath of the data loss, there was much discussion of what was happening elsewhere in government. From the report and the Statement, we are completely unclear on how far the lessons that Mr Poynter has drawn have been accepted across government, as opposed to just within HMRC, and what is being done about them. As the noble Baroness said, recent examples suggest that the attitude towards data in HMRC, which has clearly been most careless, extends across government and certainly to Ministers and their private offices. What actions will flow to try to ensure that the slack ethos around data, which is clearly evidenced across government, not just in HMRC, will now be tackled?

Finally, to end where the noble Baroness ended, will the Government now accept that the country has no faith in them to introduce large-scale new systems that involve individual citizens having data kept and transferred electronically by a Government whose track record in this area is so absolutely woeful?

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I shall try to deal with each of the questions raised. The noble Baroness asked why it took so long for the report to be finalised. I think that she acknowledged that it was delivered within the timeframe within which it was promised. It seems important, given the issues at stake here, that we had a thorough report rather than a rushed report that did not deal fully with all the issues. We make no apologies for that.

I guess that we had the inevitable political point-scoring about why Ministers have not taken responsibility for all of this, a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, touched on as well. It is because HMRC is operationally independent of Ministers. It is established by statute and run by a chairman and commissioners, who are responsible for its operations but answerable to Parliament through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Moreover, somebody did resign over it—the previous chairman, Paul Gray, the man at the top of the organisation.

The noble Baroness referred to the merged organisation as a “monster”. I remind her that the Poynter report made it clear that the merger was not a contributory factor to this; indeed, with other developments, it was seen as a good platform from which to build an efficient and effective operation. I might also just remind her that in 2000, when the merger took place, the opposition parties—including the noble Baroness herself, I understand—did not oppose the merger.

My Lords, throughout the consideration of the Bill we warned of the dangers that would come from merging these organisations. The danger may have come from a source that we did not imagine, but we knew that the Government were doing a very dangerous thing. I will not accept that we simply agreed with the proposal.

My Lords, I accept that issues around data security in the legislation were dealt with by opposition parties, but, at the end of the day, the noble Baroness did not oppose the merger of these two organisations.

The noble Baroness asked about the wider capability review around government and the Cabinet Office data-handling review. This has looked across government and the review was published today. I shall ensure that she and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, get a copy. One is available in the Library. The review was commissioned by the Prime Minister and sets out the wide range of actions that have already been put in place to improve data security. It outlines what will be done to strengthen policies further by building on existing momentum. The changes announced fall into four groups: core measures around mandatory minimum measures being put in place; a culture change; all civil servants dealing with personal data undergoing mandatory annual training; and stronger accountability and increased scrutiny.

The noble Baroness predictably referred to ID cards. The national identity register will be protected to the same level as some military databases. Only a very small number of officials managing the register will have full access to it. There is a much longer answer to that point, but this report should not be used as an opportunity to seek to undermine ID cards. She asked about the misuse of data. As I understand it, Kieran Poynter chose to exclude data misuse, which was not the cause of the data loss. HMRC has strong safeguards against wrongful use of its data enshrined in law and treats any misuse as gross misconduct. Nevertheless, the safeguards recommended by Mr Poynter will also strengthen this aspect of the department’s procedures.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about HMRC letters and whether more should not be sent by e-mail. Open internet e-mail is less secure than post sent through the Royal Mail. E-mail is not a secure form of communication and therefore not particularly suitable for sensitive information. He referred to the remarks of Lord Callaghan when he joined the Inland Revenue. Section 3 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act requires a formal signed declaration from all people joining HMRC. This has been in place from day one of the creation of HMRC on 18 April 2005.

The noble Baroness asked whether major IT projects introduced new security risks. Uploading data to new IT systems can make them more secure. We are discussing the inappropriate downloading or transmission of data.

The Cabinet Office report was put on to the website at 12.30 today and, as I said, is available in the House Library. Ed Miliband issued a Written Statement earlier, which can be made available to noble Lords.

I believe that I have dealt with the points that were raised but I emphasise that this is a serious matter. The report is effective. I emphasise that the Government have accepted all its recommendations and have made good progress in implementing some of them. The noble Baroness asked whether there had been misuse of data and whether individuals are to be prosecuted. The IPCC report made it clear that no criminal activity or misconduct had been identified that would generate disciplinary action.

My Lords, my noble friend is right: it is indeed a serious matter. One of the more moderate points made in the report was that HMRC is a complex organisation. That is putting it mildly. It is equally disturbing to read that it is going to take a lot longer to build a high-quality department.

We are in a different era of data protection management from when our late noble friend Lord Callaghan joined the Inland Revenue. Data protection would have been a problem whether the department had been merged or not. The report said that the merger was right. If it was right, what did we gain from it apart from the appalling management that it has been under? What was the benefit? Were there major staff savings? Has the Minister got any figures for staff savings, which would have been a substantial benefit? I am not aware of any. My own experience was a long time ago, when I was responsible for the Revenue and for Customs for five years. In those days, data were at a very different level, and paper was still used. Now the department has merged, and we cannot go back and de-merge it, although I would have preferred the two separate departments. The only thing that they seem to have in common is that they both collect revenue. I cannot for the moment see why and how the merger was decided on. It is not my noble friend’s fault and I am not blaming him, but I would like to know if he has any information that might help us: are we eventually going to get a high-quality merged department and, if so, when?

My Lords, on the question of whether the merger was right, as I said earlier, the Kieran Poynter report indicates that, together with other changes, it provides a good platform for building an efficient and effective organisation. I do not have available all the detailed thinking behind that merger, but some of it must be self-evident, as the noble Lord himself identified. The two departments were dealing with the same customers to a certain extent. There are overlapping issues around enforcement that might be dealt with more efficiently. It seems to me an entirely reasonable proposition. The merger was not identified by Kieran Poynter as the cause of this lack of focus on data security, but he clearly indicated that the merged organisation had serious institutional deficiencies that had to be corrected and are being corrected. In terms of savings, there has been a head-count reduction, but the report indicates that the head-count reduction was not a cause of data loss, although it identifies concerns about cost that may have driven some of the behaviours.

My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that the Annunciator could scarcely have been less informative? It is not helpful to have a Statement simply entitled “HM Revenue and Customs”, when it covers an enormous range of subjects. If we are to have sensible reactions to Statements, we should have something a little more specific.

I do not think that any of us who have spoken to officials in the merged department could fail to understand the way in which morale has been adversely affected, when compared with the morale that existed in the two great departments of state with their historic traditions. My noble friend raised the question of who had been held accountable, and the noble Lord said that a senior official resigned. Was it clear at the time that the reason why he resigned was this sad series of events? Do we now have a new doctrine where the Minister concerned is accountable to the House but, if something goes wrong, he remains in office and the officials concerned resign? That seems different from the traditional way in which we have dealt with these matters.

It would seem from subsequent events that part of the problem is that officials and Ministers take home laptops and documents, and they are left around. Should there be a complete ban, except in the most rigorously controlled circumstances, on any such work being taken home?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point about how the Statement was described. I am not sure who undertakes the description, but it is a fair point.

The noble Lord touched on morale in the services. It is right that merging two big organisations that started off with distinct identities brings particular challenges that have not been met. The Poynter report makes that clear. That is one of the challenges in dealing with the recommendations. That touches on the same point as my noble friend made about the benefits of bringing all those departments together, which include efficiency in sharing back-office functions, effectiveness in joining up the collection of tax revenues and customer focus. We should not forget about the customers in all of this. There must be benefits from treating all customers’ tax affairs in one place.

The noble Lord asked about taking home laptops. This report was not occasioned by that point, but we need to make sure that people who have secure information on laptops and so on do not use them outside a secure area. That issue was picked up in the wider review undertaken by the Cabinet Office. I cannot do more than repeat what I said about responsibility: HMRC is operationally independent; it has a chair and the commissioners; and that is where responsibility properly lies.

My Lords, I had conduct of the merger of the two organisations in the other place. It was common ground between the two Opposition parties that we were extremely anxious that the Revenue culture should prevail, certainly on non-criminal matters. The Revenue culture was that security of personal information should have the highest priority. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what practical steps will be taken to restore that culture and ethos, which we all used to respect and have confidence in.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right in focusing on that point. As the report says, there were serious institutional deficiencies. A key one was that information security was not a management priority. There is the whole range of the report’s recommendations—45 in all—all of which the Government have accepted. That will enable us to address the issues, but that issue is fundamental. The report also makes the point that, even if information security had been a management priority, the management structure then in place would not have been particularly helpful in making sure that that policy was implemented. The whole range of measures that are detailed in the report—some of which are already under way—will enable the information security issue to be re-established, so that trust can be maintained and built in HMRC’s handling of personal and confidential data.

My Lords, may I crave the House’s indulgence in asking a question that may be blindingly naïve? I speak as one who is less than electronically literate. Is it possible that all or some of this information in this highly technological age could have been communicated electronically without the necessity of the physical conveyance over hundreds of miles of those lists?

My Lords, that is one of the points that the report draws out: downloading data, putting them on a disk and posting it carries risks. Being able to communicate electronically is part of increased data security.

My Lords, I declare a past interest: I was general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, which sadly is no more. I was there for about 35 years. I apologise to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches—I cannot recall his name—but I assure him that the old culture of the Revenue has gone and has been effectively destroyed over the past 20 years.

At the heart of the problem that these reports deal with are two matters. The first is in the Poynter report at page 63, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to it. I do not wish to put words in her mouth—if I do, I apologise—but there is no doubt that the present state of the Revenue is largely down to the significant importation of private sector culture. That has come in two ways: in the appointment of the chairman—I do not wish to be unkind to the new chairman, but his CV hardly bears up as a good example of what the report says should be done—and the appointment of board members of Revenue and Customs. The last time that I looked, only one or two of them actually had Revenue experience.

The second matter is mentioned on page 85 at recommendation 43:

“We recommend that HMRC, rather than being solely savings-driven in its business case, should also evaluate the opportunity to redeploy staff towards yield improving compliance activities—building the business case based on yield improvement rather than staff reduction”.

As all the recommendations of the report have been accepted, when and how will that be done? If my noble friend cannot answer that, will he keep the House informed of progress on this critical paragraph?

My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend any great detail on that. Each of the 45 recommendations is listed at the rear of the report, and we have ticked those that we have completed or are addressing and others where progress has been made. I am not sure where the recommendation he referred to sits in that configuration, but I will look at the matter in detail and report back to my noble friend and the House generally. Low morale is an important issue, and the Poynter report identified that as one of the contributory factors, as I said.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say something further about laptops, which a noble Lord asked about. One of the Cabinet Office recommendations is that all government laptops are to be encrypted if they handle sensitive personal data. Implementing that is well under way.

My Lords, the noble Lord said in the Statement that £155 million was to be spent over three years. Could he be more specific on how that money is to be spent?

My Lords, I will try. This comes from what the Poynter report describes as a three-stage process for change, based on 10 principles for information security. There are short-term changes to bring greater control through improving existing processes and investigating phasing out data transfer by physical media. In the medium term, there is consolidation through better processes and technology, including moving to e-mail for communications—a point made by a noble Lord earlier—and scanning post and records. The £155 million in the current spending round over three years is addressed largely to that. Kieran Poynter also recommends in the longer term transformation to a new IT-based operating model through a direction of travel that would involve an integrated data system for managing customer information and would place greater responsibility on the customer for maintaining their data. That part of it—the longer-term proposition—will need to be looked at in conjunction with the next comprehensive spending round. The £155 million is for spending over the next three years on the short- and medium-term recommendations made in the report.

I stress that, in the complexities of dealing with data—this issue arose within the department rather than from sharing data across departments—we should not lose the prize of improved public services and customer focus to be had from being able to share information effectively and securely across government. If we take our vision off that, we will not improve public services as we could. Although it is hugely important that we ensure that data security is at the heart of what we do, we should not let that stop us sharing information effectively across government the better to deliver public services.

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a young IT company dealing in digital information assurance.

As one of the few Ministers who had the privilege of simultaneously being responsible for Customs and the Revenue, I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Barnett. I was very unenthusiastic about the merger of those two bodies and am distressed to hear of the collapse of morale that has apparently taken place. When I was responsible for them in 1974-75, I thought that they were two of the finest departments with which I had the privilege to serve and that the officials with whom I worked were of the very highest calibre. It is overlooked that there is a basic conflict of interest between the two departments, particularly when it comes to handling intercompany pricing transactions, especially with respect to imports and exports.

Leaving that on one side, I have two questions for my noble friend. First, do the Government accept that their responsibilities relate not just to the custody of the data that they hold—making sure that it does not leak—but to the integrity of the data while it is in their custody, in other words, that it is not tampered with either maliciously or out of neglect? Secondly, can he assure us that he will come back to this House in no more than six months’ time to give us an update on the report?

My Lords, on the second question, I will certainly seek to do that. These matters are not wholly within my remit as a lowly DWP Minister—my noble friend will understand that. Data security is about not just custody but integrity and how the data can be effectively shared. My noble friend is absolutely right.

Although morale is an issue in HMRC—that was identified as key—we should not forget what real progress HMRC has made, the huge amount of talent in that department, the huge scale of its operations and the service that it provides to customers. Let us not forget that in all the challenges that the department faces.

My Lords, one fact in particular for me stands out from the Statement: the lost disks have yet to be located. None of us can know how much of a time bomb for the economy that may be, but does it not suggest that there is a strong case urgently to pursue the recommendation of the IPPC report? It states:

“Where breaches of security are discovered, HMRC should report these promptly so that any remedial or recovery action can be taken. This did not occur in this particular case”.

In other words, is there not now an extremely strong case for the Government to be subject to a breach notification order?

We have accepted all the IPCC recommendations. It is true that the less than timely reporting of that loss of data may not have helped. I stress that, despite the police investigation and extensive work by HMRC itself, that data has not been located. On the Data Protection Act and the data commission, we are expecting an enforcement notice to be placed on HMRC to require it to use its best endeavours to implement the full range of recommendations from the Poynter report.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now 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 Haskel) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Persons to whom Part 1 applies]:

moved Amendment No. 1:

I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned, these amendments take us straight to the issue of compulsion, which is the central feature of the Bill. The preference on these Benches is that, rather than compulsion, there should be an entitlement to two years’ further education and training. This will be spelt out at some length when my noble friend Lady Walmsley addresses the next group of amendments.

Nevertheless, at this point we should reflect on the extensive debate in the Commons on these issues. It is clear that, although we differ as to how this should be delivered, all parties agree, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, that it is in the country’s interests that young people aged 17 and 18 should participate in education and training. The question is: what is the best way of securing this? The lengthy debates in the Commons clearly indicated that the Government believe that by 2013—which is the year in which the first element of compulsion comes into force and young people will have to stay in education and training until they are 17—90 per cent of young people will be staying voluntarily in school or working in a job that provides them with the requisite training as a result of the reforms that are currently going through in the 14 to 19 curriculum and through the new initiatives on apprenticeships.

The key element to which this Bill is addressed is the 10 per cent, the NEET group who are not currently in education, employment or training. They are the hard core; many of these young people have dropped out of school long before the age of 16 and live in a shadow-world of odd jobs, drugs and petty crime. Many of them are illiterate or barely literate. They dropped out because they have not been able to keep up. Very frequently this is because they cannot read and write. Because they cannot read they do not understand properly and they find, particularly when they go into secondary school at the age of 11, that it is extremely difficult to cope with the curriculum.

It is generally agreed that one of the reasons why we have such a low participation rate in this country as compared to all other advanced, industrialised countries, is that our secondary school curriculum does not motivate 50 per cent of the pupils. We are well aware of the reforms that the Government are making to that curriculum. We hope that they will be successful and that we shall see this natural increase in participation. But it is questionable whether compulsion is the right way to encourage this hard core of young people, who very frequently have dropped out of school at the age of 14 or 15.

I turn to the group of amendments before us. There is an anomaly. Young people at 16 are now regarded as being old enough to go into the Army, pay taxes, get married, have sex and be parents. They are no longer tied to their parents’ apron strings. My party and, indeed, the Government are very keen that we should give these young people a chance to practise the citizenship lessons that they have been receiving at school and give them the right to vote. Is it right, therefore, that we do not give them a choice over what sort of education they have and when they take that education? Is the sledgehammer approach, as David Laws, our education spokesman in the other place, called it in his deliberations on the Bill, the correct one?

This set of amendments is exploring two things: first, the anomalies that arise and, secondly, the fourth option. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, picks up on some of these anomalies. It addresses those with full-time caring responsibilities, those who are parents of children under five, those who are engaged in full-time voluntary work—I will come back to that in a moment—and those with an illness requiring significant medical attention or a terminal illness, and so forth.

Amendment No. 3 concerns the issue of sport. Those who take their sport seriously are, by the age of 16, frequently spending more or less all their time in what might be called a sporting apprenticeship. If we are trying to train new champions for Wimbledon or to coach a generation who will bring us some gold medals in the Olympics, these super-athletes are going to have to spend a lot of time in sporting activities. Will they be excluded from the requirements of the Bill?

In Amendment No. 6, we have gone for a parent of a child under the age of one, rather than under the age of five, as the Conservatives have. We endorse the amendments tabled by the Conservatives in relation to both terminal illness and full-time caring arrangements.

Amendment No. 5 is concerned with what might be called the fourth option—voluntary activities. Some extremely interesting sessions were held at the beginning of the Committee stage in the other place when a large number of organisations presented evidence to the Members. Among those organisations were Barnardo’s, the Prince’s Trust and Fairbridge, which deals particularly with the 10 per cent of young people in the NEET group. At Second Reading I quoted some of the recommendations made by these bodies in those Committee sessions.

We have to accept that these voluntary bodies are much more successful than schools or colleges at helping young people get back into employment and education. They stressed what a long-term exercise it is. This is where Amendment No. 5 comes in. It provides that if young people are engaged in voluntary work for more than 20 hours a week, which might well be under the auspices of one of these organisations, they should not be involved in the compulsory element. Amendment No. 5 puts forward a fourth option: there is a way forward that does not have to be within the education sector or training for accredited qualifications, an issue we shall pick up later. These are important issues and broadly speaking we support the amendment introduced by the Opposition.

My name is attached to some of the amendments in this group. I wish to relate some personal experiences that underline the reasons for my support. Some years ago I was asked by a local education authority to run a course for young teenage mothers. In its wisdom, the authority provided a crèche for the children while the mothers attended the course. It did not lead to accredited qualifications of any kind, but I hope that it was helpful to them. Indeed, I have kept in touch with some of those delightful young women and they still say after so many years that they found coming together and talking through aspects of their situation enormously helpful.

I recall most vividly one young woman of only 17 who already had two children by different fathers. She lived in very unsatisfactory circumstances. Her mother had thrown her out and would have nothing more to do with her. She was grey-faced and looked about 90 rather than 17 when she said to me, “I’m not getting any sleep and I simply have no time to think. All I want is to look after my babies properly”. She was very tearful as she said that. To tell that young woman that she had to sign up for some form of accredited qualification because she would be criminalised if she did not would go way beyond any kind of sensible thought or reason. Young people who are already caring for small children need help and guidance. If they are lucky enough to have access to something like the provision made by the local education authority I mentioned a moment ago, then of course they should take up some form of supported educational help—but not, for goodness’ sake, studying for qualifications, writing examinations and taking practical tests. Those young women are vividly in my mind when I support strongly the concept that women with small children should not be forced into education leading to qualifications.

My second thought, when looking at the many good things here, concerns voluntary work. Last week a young man, now in his 20s, told me that at his parents’ insistence he stayed on at school for a term after he had finished his very mediocre GCSEs. He said to me, “I was in deep depression. I hated education, my school and my teachers. I knew that I was not academic and I did not want anything to do with it. So I begged my parents to let me drop out”. He did drop out of school. His parents had the good sense to send him along to the Community Service Volunteers. He signed up with them and worked for, I think, six months in a school for young deaf children. He was transformed. He loved the work and being with the young children. He showed me a collection of the cards they sent him when he was leaving, which said “We love you”, “Please come back” and so on. They are a treasured possession.

The point of the story is that voluntary work turned the young man around. If you had asked him to go back into formal education, he would have found it impossible and would have run away. The good end to the story is that, at the age of 24, having been very much helped and turned around by two long periods of voluntary work, one of them overseas, he decided to study for a degree.

A few categories of people should be allowed to leave education. They grow up at different rates and feel differently at different ages. Some 16 and 17 year-olds are simply not ready for formal education. They have other interests and concerns in life. If they can be helped through this period in ways not strictly leading to formal qualifications, it is my firm belief that the majority will come back later. I do not think we should be forcing such young people into an educational experience that to them is anathema.

I entirely support what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has just said. A number of these young people just need space. They have been in education from age five to 16. For one reason or another, they have had a hard time of it or it just has not suited them. They just need some room in their lives; they do not need to be beaten over the head for the next two years.

Instead of rigidity, we need flexibility. Later in the amendments, we will come to some ideas on how that might be achieved through local authorities. Personalised learning should be offered, suited to the needs of each young person. That may mean postponing things for a while or going out in the world to get some experience and coming back later. It is not about shrugging off the obligation but perhaps postponing it. That is proposed in one of the amendments in this group and seems a good idea. Above all, there must be something directed at the needs of the person.

To quote a fairly obvious example, the BBC website says that Sir Alan Sugar left school at 16 and started selling aerials from the back of a van. That would see him in jug if he tried that under this Bill, but it is what many people who are destined to be entrepreneurs need to do at that age. They need to get out. They have had enough; they need to use the talent that has been burning inside them, get out there and make something of themselves and of the world.

The situation is common all over the world. I remember talking to the Minister of Education in Singapore, who said that their schools focused on the bottom 20 per cent because it included half of the entrepreneurs who would really make it and who would make great businesses. We have to make sure that those people are looked after. To keep these people in school for another two years doing something that they find pointless will not give them a constructive future. The same applies to all sorts of young people who are just not right for education at a particular moment, as my noble friend Lady Perry said, and who need to do something else constructive.

I hope that when we come to the amendments about what responsibilities local authorities can have, the Government will become more flexible in their approach. I hope that they are prepared to trust local authorities to take decisions, particularly about young people, that can never be taken through a centralised, rigid system as set out in the Bill. I hope that we will be allowed to make that improvement to this Bill.

I support the intentions behind these amendments. It is quite clear that all of us have grave concern about what appears to be a compulsory system, possibly resulting in a criminal offence if there is failure to comply. Everything that noble Lords have said about the different stages, not ages, of development, including the very moving story of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is extremely relevant, as is the full horror and dislike of formal education felt by some students who have been failed. No doubt, to some extent they contributed to their failure, but with the handicap of having left primary school unable to read and then having failed for however long they stayed in secondary school, it is not surprising that they have no empathy with what was going on.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply and hope that he has recognised the concern apparent in the stories we have been told.

The intention of the Bill is absolutely right. However, Members of the Committee are equally right in arguing that it must not be a case of “one menu suits all” and people will obey.

The one thing I know about education is that one menu does not suit all, and we must have room for flexibility. I could tell the story of a young man of 16 who, on work experience, was the best the company had ever had. It wanted him to take an apprenticeship but, although he was absolutely fitted for it and would enjoy it, he would not take it because it meant compulsory attendance for half the time at an FE college, which he hated. We are therefore destroying an excellent opportunity.

Therefore, while I warmly support what is intended for the vast majority, I think that there must be room for flexibility in the treatment of people for whom it is not at all right.

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, for being absent from the Chamber when she introduced this important group of amendments. I heard only the last part of her introduction and I look forward to reading the rest tomorrow.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Dearing that the principle of a firm approach to ensure that young people are in constructive activity as far as possible, to keep them out of trouble and to enable them to achieve their potential, is right; but there must be the flexibility that we are discussing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others spoke on the amendment concerned with teenage mothers having access to parenting programmes. It is so important not to inhibit these young women in their mothering. They may lack confidence when someone says, “We know what’s best for you. We’ll look after your children through one means or another, perhaps through childcare, while you go and study”. As far as possible, we should be encouraging them to engage with their children and to enjoy them. The child will then thrive and both mother and child will benefit from the positive relationship that they have with each other. That was a particularly important amendment to bring forward.

Perhaps I am jumping the gun a little, but can the Minister comment on one scenario I can envisage in, for instance, a children’s home? If a 16 or 17 year-old is saying, “I don’t want to do a course. I don’t want to spend two days a week in training”, it might strengthen the hand of residential childcare workers if they can say, “You’ll be acting against the law if you don’t go to college just for two days a week”. On the other hand, it may be that in the judgment of the residential childcare worker that young person is too depressed to benefit from such training, that they will seek to evade it in any way, or just simply that it is not right for them. Therefore, how much discretion will people such as residential childcare workers, social workers and perhaps foster carers be given? How much input will they have in the process of deciding whether a child is criminalised? I can see some benefit in strengthening a concerned carer’s hand in encouraging a young person to do what is good for them. On the other hand, carers also need to be able to decide whether the provisions should not apply to a particular child. I hope that that is clear, and look forward to the reply.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has raised the important question of discretion without addressing who should have it. He cited a case where there was an obvious person to have that discretion, but in the Bill we are dealing with the whole 10 per cent of the relevant group of society, and there will be many different cases. We had the grey-faced teenage mother from my noble friend Lady Perry; we had the volcanic Sir Alan Sugar from my noble friend Lord Lucas; now we have the young person whom the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, described.

It seems to me that there is no discretion in the Bill except to allow people to break the law—I am very, very glad to see the Minister shaking his head. I shall immediately sit down in anticipation of discovering where I am wrong.

I had not meant to bring the noble Lord’s remarks to such an abrupt close. It is kind of him to greet my remarks with such eager anticipation; they are not always so regarded.

I welcome the fact that, in all parts of the Committee, there has been general support for the measures in the Bill to promote higher participation among 16 to 18 year-olds. The issue before us now is whether whole groups should be exempted from a requirement to participate. Our argument here is simple. While we believe that there should be elements of flexibility—I will say more about those in a moment—we also believe that the expectation and opportunity to participate in education and training should, in principle, apply to all young people and that, far from being kind and considerate to whole groups of young people by seeking to exclude them, the amendments would be the opposite. They would deny opportunity and expectation to some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. In fact, irreparable harm would be done to those young people’s life skills and future social and economic success if we were to exclude them in the way proposed.

That is not simply the view of the Government; it is the view of many reputable organisations that have made representations. In its representations on the Bill, Barnardo’s says that it welcomes,

“the proposal to raise the age of participation in education or training to 18, which represents an important opportunity to improve provision for the many young people who leave school at 16 with few skills and poor long-term prospects. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are among the least likely to stay on, perpetuating the cycle of poverty from one generation to the next”.

On compulsion, Barnardo’s says that,

“if steps are taken to find the right course for a young person and to put in place the necessary support”—

the flexibility of provision to meet their needs is a vital requirement—

“then it is fair to expect them to participate—if necessary, through some system of enforcement, including powers for local authorities to prosecute as a last resort”.

The Special Education Consortium takes the same view, saying that it,

“welcomes the proposal to extend to the age of eighteen the requirement to stay in education or training. … The Consortium recognises that in order to draw disabled young people and young people with SEN into continuing education and training, compulsion may be needed”.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission says the same. It says that,

“the main focus and priority must be to ensure that there is flexible, varied and quality provision of education and training available and that young people, whatever their circumstances or situation, will receive the necessary support to enable them to participate”.

We, of course, endorse all that. However, it also states:

“The Commission recognises that a requirement to engage with additional education and training can only unlock potential if it adequately identifies and addresses the reasons for disengagement and underachievement. But we remain concerned that, without the principle of compulsion, the most disaffected young people will not engage and the success of the Bill will be limited”.

Yes, please.

The amendment seeks to probe what we mean by residence for the purposes of obligation under the Bill. We will make regulations under Clause 53(2) to clarify this further. For the purposes of this debate, our intention is that the duty to participate will apply to all young people resident in England. This does not include people who are here for a day or on holiday or, for example, people who live in Scotland but work in England, but it does include people who have moved here indefinitely from another country. So, it is a reasonable interpretation of the word “residence”.

Amendment No. 3, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would exempt individuals in full-time sports. We recognise the need for young athletes and sportspeople to be able to dedicate their time to their training. Therefore, where a young athlete or young sports man or woman is training full-time for a career in their sport, they will be treated like those who are employed full-time and they will have to participate only in part-time, not full-time, accredited education or training. However, we believe that they should be required to participate in this part-time education and training not least because for most young people engaged in sports training, including those aspiring to the highest levels of success, as the noble Baroness mentioned, sport alone is unlikely to give them the skills that they need for future employment—certainly, alas, not in the long term. We would like it to be the case that more are able to make a career out of it, but the number able to do so is very small.

However, the requirement has purposely been framed flexibly so that part-time education or training could easily be arranged around an athlete’s training programme and commitments. For example, it could be organised in blocks throughout the year to meet the hours requirement without it necessarily having to take the form of one precise day per week. In some cases, it may also be possible to accredit some elements of the training that a young person is undertaking towards a sports-related qualification. In the academic year 2006-07, 629 new students started on an advanced apprenticeship in sporting excellence. These advanced apprenticeships included places in athletics, cricket, golf, football, rugby, swimming and tennis. They are designed to enable young people to succeed both during and after their sporting careers.

I have two further questions about Clause 39. The noble Lord will know that my constant concern is about implementation rather than aspiration. Like the Government, I believe that children in the most difficult circumstances should have the best opportunities for education. In many cases, the provision that should be there now to give these young people support is simply not available. I hear the figures that the Minister gives in relation to funding. I have heard funding figures before, but on the ground local authorities are not always able to provide the services.

Therefore, I ask two questions. First, in order to ensure that the local authority takes reasonable steps to make the supportive provision outlined in the Bill, what kind of inspection and follow-up will there be? Secondly, how will that information be monitored at a central level and how will comparisons be made so that young people can see what they should be getting? Will there be any way in which they can appeal if they feel that they are being forced into compulsory education in difficult circumstances where the support services do not appear to be provided? I apologise for waiting until the end. I was not supporting the amendments but I am keen to see how this will be implemented.

I will take the points made by the noble Baroness in turn. There is an elaborate appeal process set out in the Bill, which we will discuss later. All children’s services departments are inspected by Ofsted and its reports are published. They will be inspected against their duties once the Bill is enacted. They are monitored centrally by my department. An aspect that we shall monitor particularly closely is their preparedness for making provision in a whole range of areas, not just direct provision in the commissioning of courses but the provision of information, advice and guidance, which is a crucial area for which they will take responsibility under the Bill once it is enacted.

Clause 39 requires that enforcement action is taken against young people only if they are failing without reasonable excuse to fulfil their duty to participate. Jim Knight’s letter to David Laws highlights a particular instance that he believes constitutes a reasonable excuse. The letter states:

“If a particular learning difficulty has been identified and the right support to address it not yet secured or in place, it would be reasonable to expect that the young person could not begin their learning programme until that support was in place”.

I hope that that reinforces the point that I have sought to make throughout this debate, which is that, in extremis or where the local authority is itself negligent in its duties and is not making the necessary provision to ensure that a young person’s needs can be met, that would constitute a reasonable excuse not to participate under Clause 39.

I wish to put two further questions to the Minister. I regret that we on these Benches have not had the benefit of seeing the letter to Mr David Laws. Clearly, communication between one end of Parliament and the other is not what it should be. The question of what constitutes a reasonable excuse is very important. First, will the Government issue guidance to local authorities, which will not have had the benefit of seeing Jim Knight’s letter to Mr Laws? Given the discretion that will be put into the hands of officials, it would be helpful if guidance were issued.

Secondly, on a number of occasions, the noble Lord has been asked whether such activities as volunteering or parenting courses would fulfil the requirement. He has said that those activities could be counted as part of the education element of the requirement as long as the young people involved participated in some form of education within them, but that the courses would need to be accredited. In the case of these somewhat out-of-the-ordinary courses which are not part of the accredited education system—for example, parenting classes—who will carry out the accreditation?

The letter, which the noble Baroness has not yet had the opportunity to read, deals with the first issue. I shall quote its comments on guidance. There is almost nothing which my department expects local authorities to do on which it does not issue elaborate guidance, and we do not intend this matter to be an exception. The letter states:

“We will issue detailed guidance to local authorities on how to interpret the concept, and on how to exercise appropriately their duties in relation to appropriate support and powers in relation to enforcement action. The guidance will reflect the interpretation of reasonable excuse set out in this letter. We are keen to work with local authorities, voluntary sector organisations, Targeted Support services and other interested parties in developing that guidance. An element of local discretion will remain extremely important however, since ultimately the interpretation of what a reasonable excuse is depends on what would be reasonable in the circumstances”.

I hope that that deals with the noble Baroness’s first question.

The issue of accreditation and what constitutes appropriate courses will be subject to the normal accreditation procedures. Rather than seek to set those out exhaustively now, I shall write to the noble Baroness because the same process does not apply in each area. For example, I have no doubt that somewhat different arrangements may apply to sport from those in other areas. However, there is great flexibility here. Just in this debate we have referred to courses with a sporting content which could count and to family learning and parenting courses. There is a great desire to ensure that appropriate learning relevant to the individual in question is encompassed within the duty under the Bill. However, there needs to be a minimum time and a minimum accreditation requirement; otherwise, anything could count and, in many cases, nothing will happen.

I hope that the Minister will copy me in on that letter. Accreditation is not a simple affair, as I am sure he knows, and is further complicated because whereas the Open College Network may accredit particular programmes, the Learning and Skills Council will then refuse to recognise that accreditation. It is key, particularly when one is looking at the funding streams that will be available to institutions offering that education, to know what accredited means and that it also carries the implied promise that such courses will be funded.

Perhaps the Minister can indicate how many parenting courses are currently accredited in the way that is necessary and give some indication of who in the local authority will make that decision. Is it expected to be a teacher or a social worker and what sort of response time will there be? Will it be a bureaucratic procedure involving having to go to the top of the local authority before being able to make a decision?

I am most grateful as always to the Minister for answering our concerns with his customary care and great detail. I apologise for not speaking to Amendment No. 2 or on gap years. As the Minister rightly said, they were probing amendments. Something is always missed out when we are juggling with groupings in Bills in Committee. This has been a good debate. I am sorry that I omitted to support the Liberal Democrats’ amendment on sport. As a sporting fanatic who believes passionately in the importance of sport in the acquisition of lifelong skills, I wholeheartedly support their amendment and I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister.

It goes to the heart of volunteering as well. It is not enough to say, “We value this, but it is not enough”. I look forward to receiving that letter. My noble friend Lady Perry’s moving account of a young mother of 17 with two children having to comply with the duty in the Bill is, as she says, beyond any kind of reason or sense. The NEET category is not a static one: young people move in and out of it. As my noble friends Lady Perry, Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, many of those people need a space: they need to get away from something that has formality and often they will return to it, sometimes within a few months; sometimes within a few years.

My noble friend Lord Lucas’s story of Singapore reminds me of a question that was once asked of a former abbot of Ampleforth. He was asked what happened to his boys who failed. He answered, “They employ my scholars”. There is a great deal for people who eventually find their niche in life, but sometimes it takes them some time. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I was so engrossed in my notes that I had not noticed that he was not in his place at the beginning. When I looked up for reassurance on secure attachment, he was there as he always is. I was very interested in what he had to say and look forward to the Minister’s response on those areas of concern.

If this element of the Bill has to stay, I can draw some comfort from the Minister’s response on the flexibility of needs and his explanation of Clause 39. Given that the Government have chosen to go down the path of compulsion, it is not surprising that they say that that should in principle apply to all young people and there will not be opt-outs for certain groups of people.

The Minister prays in aid some august bodies. We have spoken to many of them in the past few weeks. The Government are kidding themselves if they believe that those organisations do not have serious concerns. As the Minister himself said, there are some big ifs in what will be there on offer. Given the long list of possible exemptions that was read out, I shall read carefully in Hansard what was said.

However, one question sprang to mind when the Minister talked about young mothers. Why are working mothers given a year off work by statute, while young girls are to be given only 18 weeks? That does not seem right; working mothers are given a year off because it is deemed to be important for them to be with their babies for that first year of life. I seriously hope that the Government will take this away and look at it again. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 4:

Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has dealt in these two amendments with the issue of compulsion, it would be discourteous of me to wait for the Minister to reply and go through the same arguments, in order for him to reply again. We thought that compulsion would be dealt with in the next group. With the leave of the Committee, I will speak to my amendments that start with Amendment No. 7. These all deal with the issue of compulsion. Amendment No. 7 would make it a condition that the young person must agree to Part 1 applying before it applies to him. We and the Liberal Democrats have also tabled amendments to remove the duty to participate from the person and, instead, to create an entitlement, which they may choose to take up.

With these amendments, we come to the crux of this Bill. It should come as no surprise that a number of overlapping amendments are tabled to deal with this issue. What they have in common—and what we have in common with the Liberal Democrats and concerned groups outside this House—is the feeling that the Government need to think carefully about the full ramifications of compulsion. It is incumbent on the Government to proceed with caution. We feel strongly that the Government have taken the wrong approach. We should not criminalise those young people who have dropped out of the education system. Instead, we should ask why they have dropped out. It is not simply to spite the authorities, or because there is not yet a law in place which forbids them from leaving. We have to look at young people’s reasons for dropping out of education. It is because they are disaffected with the system and do not see that it has anything further to offer them. It is a sad indictment of those precious years, which should be exciting and fulfilling. Until we can change that, the Bill is simply going to run into trouble.

What is to be gained by forcing teenagers to stay in a system that has already failed them by the time they are 16? In many other respects they are treated as autonomous adults; for example, in the Armed Forces and behind the wheel of a car. Some are married. Unless we sort out the underlying problems, these 16 and 17 year-olds will be sent back into education or training against their will. The Government’s own consultation of young people, Raising Expectations, the DCSF’s 2007 consultation report, says on page 4 that a plurality of young people—47 per cent—were against the duty. Thirty-six per cent were in agreement and 17 per cent were unsure. In many cases, that means that they will ignore the duty that has been imposed. Therefore, they will be liable to sanctions and could end up with a criminal record. Before long, this Bill, which we are responsible for scrutinising and revising, will be regarded less as an education and skills Bill and more as a criminal justice Bill.

The Government have told us that this is the option of last resort and that it will be seldom-used, but we feel that it will be used and will have a devastating effect on those for whom we ought to do most. A criminal record can be a career-wrecking step and that is not where any of us wants to head. We ought not to criminalise those who have been let down by the education system in their early years. Alison Wolf said in a recent paper that one of the best-established findings in educational research is that children who are doing poorly when they leave primary education almost never catch up.

The compulsion element focuses on the wrong place and that is our fundamental problem with it. The Bill, as it stands, would place the onus on the young person to participate. If he or she fails to do so, punishment will follow. The focus of our attention should be what the state and the education system are getting wrong in the years before young people reach the current school-leaving age. If 11 year-olds are leaving primary education with less than basic literacy and numeracy, and if they are failing to catch up by the ages of 14 or 16, why are we surprised that they no longer want to engage in education? Why persist with something they cannot do properly, do not enjoy and does not seem to lead them anywhere? At Second Reading I raised the point that if schools are having trouble keeping under-16s in regular attendance, then what are we to expect the results to be for older teenagers. It is all very well threatening to strong arm young people into participating, but is there really much point if mere participation does not achieve very much?

I support the spirit of the amendments. It is immensely important not to introduce the element of education as something which is almost a punishment; something which you have got to do whether you want to or not. Education for young people, as opposed to children, should be something that they do voluntarily with joy, pride and pleasure.

I have spent a great part of my life working with mature students, people who come into higher education at the age of anything from 23 or 24 to 50 or even more. Almost without exception, these people talk about the reasons why they ceased to engage in education at the end of compulsory schooling. They talk about being slow to grow up; about the allure and excitement of adventure; about wanting to go travelling; about falling in love and deciding that they would rather get married or live together, or whatever they decided to do. They talk about a host of reasons. They talk about wanting to earn some money, being independent and showing that they were grown up.

This underlines the point, which has been made several times already in our discussions on the Bill, that young people grow up at different ages. Some people are ready to go on the tramlines—they stay on in school until the age of 18 or 19, go straight to university and go on to take a PhD—and many thousands successfully do that. But many other thousands do not want to do that and, for them, carrots work better than sticks. I have commended the Government many times on the carrots that they have offered so far. Offering some finance to young people to stay on in education is a brilliant idea which has worked very well. Introducing alternative curricula through the diplomas is also a brilliant idea—I hope that it will work well and keep more young people in. However, I beg the Government to think twice about the element of compulsion when, for so many young people, not just a tiny minority, it is simply the wrong time, the wrong age and the wrong kind of opportunity.

I remind the Minister that we already have compulsion up to the age of 16 and that the Bill moves the compulsion from the parent to the child. Our compulsory system has produced a very large number of truants who have escaped the system. It has not worked—it has resulted in their coming out of education. These young people will compose a large proportion of the group to which this Bill is addressed. I am therefore not encouraged to think that compulsion will have more effect on those in the 16 to 18 age bracket than it has on the five to 16 age bracket.

In my experience of teaching in a variety of secondary schools, I have discovered that the offer of friendship and support works for children much more than the threat of punishment. A Bill that puts the authority delivering education into the position of someone with the power to punish immediately puts that person in the wrong relationship with the pupil. The Bill separates the employer and educator from the local authority, so it may be remediable, but I so sympathise with what my noble friend Lady Perry said about the age at which people mature. We have had examples already quoted of people who flee the system and then come back with enthusiasm when they have matured beyond the age of 18. The Bill does not seem to leave any scope for that rate of maturity. These may be very valuable members of society and great contributors to our economy. A system which does not allow postponement of either an entitlement or a duty—on whichever we come down—seems to be flawed in a very important respect.

I should like to make a brief contribution of two or three points to the debate. This is an excellent Bill in terms of its aspirations and the sort of society we could become. However, the noble Baroness was right in saying that the crux of the matter is whether there should be compulsion or entitlement. My noble friend the Minister is aware that I have some concerns that I should like to explore here and I look forward to hearing his response.

Placing in the Bill exemptions to compulsion is the wrong way to go. If we introduce a narrative which says that in certain circumstances you do not have to be educated, we are almost saying to teachers and educators that in certain circumstances you do not have to educate certain groups of children. Whether it is because they are in custody, are pregnant, or are carers, I do not like that list which exempts certain groups within a Bill making education compulsory. If education is going to be compulsory, we must have an education system which turns its mind to meeting the needs of every child and every young person, no matter what their circumstances.

My concerns are a little different. I have three points to put to my noble friend the Minister. Those of us who have been teachers for any length of time will know that the nature of educating 16 to 18 year-olds is different because it is optional. Talk to any teacher and he or she will say that the attraction of taking a sixth form class is, to put it bluntly, because the kids have chosen to be there. One of the great changes in further education came about when the old YOP kids were brought in and it became compulsory. I should like the Minister to reflect on the nature of 16 to 18 education when it becomes compulsory. It is quite a significant point.

I want to relate one story about a sixth form teacher who said to me that the nature of teaching AS level today is different from what it used to be because more children feel that they have to be there. Schools, colleges and workplaces where attendance from 16 to 18 is compulsory takes away from what almost might be described as a young person’s university. If young people are there by choice, it invites a different teaching style from compulsory education. That has huge implications for the organisation of 16 to 18 education.

My second point is that the years from 16 to 18 form a bridge between childhood and adulthood. At 16 there are hardly any legal entitlements to adulthood, but by 18 you have them all. Between 16 and 18, those entitlements come along in dribs and drabs. The Bill causes me a bit of a problem in two respects: first, it makes the decision that the responsibility for education between 16 and 18 lies with the young person. The responsibility to be educated moves from adults to young people aged 16. The Bill gives a clear message that at the age of 16 you take charge of your own education. You make the decisions, and if you make the wrong ones and go against the law, you carry the consequences. In terms of choosing whether to be educated, the Bill makes it clear that the move from childhood to adulthood takes place at 16, not at 17 or 18. The problem is that that rests uneasily with compulsory education. We do not have compulsory work, for heaven’s sake. There are implications if you do not go to work, and rightly so, but we do not impose compulsory activity in any sense. Can my noble friend explore further the fact that the decision about education moves to a child at the age of 16 but the state makes it compulsory to take on an activity?

Thirdly, my main objection and concern is this: I see the benefit of the Bill in making education from 16 to 18 compulsory only if it creates a commitment to a lifetime of learning and relearning, skilling and upskilling. I am not interested in compulsion from 16 to 18 if no one goes on learning afterwards. It has to keep people in the system. Does my noble friend not think there is a risk that compulsion at 16 to 18 could turn people off? I taught back in the 1970s when life was a lot different, but I see some elements of that system of education coming back, albeit in another form. My first headmaster was a wise person who would say, “What we should do is make them all leave school at 13 and get them back at 14. Those children would come back wholly committed to learning and we would do better with them”. He did not mean it as a serious suggestion, but there is a lot of truth in what he said. At some point in a young person’s life, a gap in education can commit them to a lifetime of learning. I worry that the compulsory element might mean a lifetime of never wanting to learn again.

As I said in my speech at Second Reading, I am waiting to be persuaded because in every other circumstance the work of the Government and that led by my noble friend is absolutely excellent and can get us to a wondrous place. I hope that in his response my noble friend can spend a few minutes exploring these issues.

The noble Baroness has said many of the things I wanted to, so I shall begin by explaining why I could not support the earlier amendments. I feel that large categories of young people are generalised although they are the individuals who need real opportunities. That was the point of my question after the Minister’s response. Many young people, when given the right support, like the young mother mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, might well benefit from education, but the support has to be carefully constructed and put in place at the right time.

From a long career of working with severely disaffected families, I know that a young person does not necessarily desire to be in the position they are in and that the whole family has led them to that point. I find it extremely difficult, therefore, that a 16 year-old who has been given very little opportunity fails to go further in education because of difficulties in their family. As I said at one of our consultations with officials, I feel that this is somehow a white middle-class issue. I say that because it is often young people from a steady background, from whatever culture, who have the opportunity to go into further education. That is why I am very keen to see support services developed before we introduce any compulsion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly told me that I was trapped. I am glad to be. I would like to distinguish my remarks on Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 from those on Amendment No. 10. On Amendments Nos. 4 and 7, which I had not expected to speak on, I am already parti pris in supporting the Bill, although I very much want us to avoid criminal sanctions. I wrote a long article, by my standards, back in November or December about the problems of motivating young people who, at 14, had had quite enough to carry on learning until 16. I took the perspective of the teacher and the head teacher. They have enough problems already, I thought. However, I was influenced by the fact that we are moving towards a radically different option at 14, which is fundamental to this issue: giving certain young people, as a matter of choice, an opportunity to engage in a different form of learning, such as the young apprenticeship, which has been extensively piloted from the age of 14 and had an excellent Ofsted report recently, and the vocational diplomas.

A lot of work needs to be done on the vocational diplomas. I suspect that those who composed the curriculum had in mind what today’s comprehensive schools and teachers could offer in practice rather than what was desirable. That led me to start proposing, as I have continued to do since, the option of going at 14 to a technical college that is especially equipped to offer a hands-on approach to learning by doing, rather than by sitting, reading and listening. I believe that this is fundamental.

When I was the chairman of the body concerned with the national curriculum, the greatest personal battle that I fought was to introduce the GNVQ as an option at 14. That was about learning in a group by finding out, rather than sitting and listening. Its motivational effect was profound. I regretted the fact that, to increase its standard, it was changed to become the applied GCSE. The academic community grabbed it and changed its character and the salt was lost. My willingness to support the Government's basic principle on compulsion, subject to Clause 39 being liberally interpreted, is congruent with a really radical option at 14 for a different experience of education and learning.

I come to the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I cannot do other than support Amendment No. 10. In doing so, I am not forgoing my right to speak on Amendment No. 210—just before we rise for the summer, no doubt. I think I see the logic behind what the noble Baroness was saying. It is irrational to say that you may have a level 3 learning experience up to 18 as a matter of right, but you may not have it the following week. Surely, if there is a right to have education up to level 3, you should have the right to take it when you judge that it is right for you. I cannot see the logic in denying it.

The alternative argument is the one I offered at Second Reading: it is not a right of the individual but a national imperative. We have all backed the realisation, so strongly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, that we need radically to increase the number of pupils achieving level 4. He said, and the Government agreed, that we should aim for at least 40 per cent at that level by 2020. I have said since that the Germans and the Americans are there already, and it is not enough: we should aim for 45 per cent. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, identified that even to achieve 40 per cent we need to engage in education again those who have already left. In Germany, where 70 per cent achieve level 3 by their early 30s, there is plenty of power to lift the figure of 40 per cent at level 4 to the kind of figure that I am talking about. I was arguing that if we are serious about the Leitch agenda, as the Government are, we need to recognise that it will be achieved only by investing in people who have left education. You cannot get high numbers at level 4 unless you have a base at level 3. Therefore, we must do all that we can to encourage people who have left education to complete level 3 and then move to level 4.

A further argument was adduced yesterday at a meeting at which Chris Humphrey spoke. Some of us may have been there. He pointed out that the demographics of the next decade, with declining numbers of young people, make it all the more important to invest in people who have left school. Only by investing in people’s education and skills capital can we increase productivity to the levels of our competitors, because we are lacking in that regard. For two reasons, then, I support the amendments from the noble Baroness, but I reserve my right to have another go on another day as the department, in our discussion this morning, undertook to give me guidance on the realities of what the noble Baroness and I would like to see.

I will be brief because I have also been caught in the trap, as it were. I am happy to support the amendment from the noble Baroness and have been absolutely fascinated by all the issues raised during this discussion. We all know that it is in the Government’s interest, in today’s world, to see that we upskill at any stage in our lives. Therefore, we really should be looking at every possible incentive for people to do that.

Further to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I left school after the school certificate and I suppose that I am an example of a mature student. I wished to earn some money—in fact, I needed to do so at that stage—and it was not until a lot later that I began to think of giving myself some advice, as the Equal Opportunities Commission was endlessly encouraging women who had not achieved to go back to school. It was keen on the Open University and the opportunities it created to take up those challenges. Yet I was equally fascinated by the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. There is a lot to be said for what her headmaster said to her. If you have decided what you want and need to do, if you have suddenly seen the light of how it benefits you—you are probably thinking more about yourself than the well being of the country—the motivation is very important.

I would probably go a little further than my noble friend Lord Dearing; I support quite a number of the other amendments spoken to. For me the whole attraction, which started some time before this Bill, is lifelong learning, which we should be encouraging all the way. I will pre-empt the last day of this debate: if it suited me and I had entitlement and no money, I would like to take a level 3 course in my full retirement. Frankly, that should be my right. I very much support the amendment.

Listening to the strong arguments deployed based on concerns about bringing more children into the criminal justice system, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. After all, we have more children in criminal custody than several of our European neighbours put together, and that is a great indictment of our provision and support for vulnerable families and children. I also see the other side: the Devil makes work for idle hands. Sixteen and 17 year-olds who are not in school or training are susceptible to joining gangs or getting involved in other activity. I remember that when Louise Casey was charged to reduce the number of rough sleepers on the streets, one strong component of her policy was to find them what she called “constructive activity”. She felt it imperative to get them to do something useful and constructive. It is, then, a difficult question.

I would like to know more about the enforcement officer who will decide who can be exempted. It seems an important role, and it should be carried out by someone with a deep understanding of child development. Because of how we train teachers, sadly not all of them have that understanding. A special person is needed. I hope that the Minister can give some detail. It should probably not be necessary to go right up the hierarchy of a local authority before a decision can be made. I imagine that those decisions need to be made promptly.

Many good points have been made, but I feel most strongly about two. First, on the point made by my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, there are many people for whom a year out—a year’s peace while not in education—is an immense motivation and opportunity to set themselves right. We should not deny young people that.

Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, drew attention to the consequences of giving a child a criminal record. We should not take these things lightly. I tried, once, to persuade the then DCSF to take on as an employee a young man who had a criminal conviction. It said yes, but when it was realised higher up in the hierarchy that the man had a criminal conviction, the department took a policy decision not to employ ex-offenders. The department really should understand that many employers react in that way, particularly those interested in educated people, and that to give someone a criminal record as part of their education is to deny the benefits of that education then and in the future. It is not the way to go.

Two dialogues are in fact going on, because the Bill does not come into effect until 2013. One, on these Benches but involving the Cross Benches, is: what will we do with the Bill after the next election, when, all being well, we find ourselves having more influence over things, one way or another? It has been very constructive and enjoyable to listen to these Benches in front of and beside me on how we would take it—and I hope that our decisions would please the Cross Benches. However, I urge the Minister to pay attention to the consequences of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. As it stands, the Bill will not affect the middle classes. If you are a kid with a bit of access to money and the world, you’ll play the system for six months until they get tired of you, at which point you will go abroad to work in the Alps or the Mediterranean for a year, and come back with six months to go. At that point, they will not be bothered with you anymore and you will have escaped the whole thing. This will bite only on those who do not have access to resources and who do not have the social experience that allows them that confidence. However, if one proceeds along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and make it an obligation not which comes to an end at 16 but which one has to work off at some stage in one’s career, that will no longer be the case: you cannot escape it by playing the system. If you play the fool for six months, you merely get six months more at the end of it. That is why I worked so hard at my chartered accountancy exams. Every time you failed a chartered accountancy exam, you had to spend six more months as a chartered accountant. I was determined to get through the first time and I did, and it was the first time in my life that I really worked hard. To make it a moving obligation greatly strengthens, rather than weakens, the Bill. You lose the motivation to escape something or to play the fool.

If it is a moving obligation, and is enforced, let us say, by making a note on someone’s national insurance records that it still exists, so that any employer knows about it and that if they take you on they are supposed to comply with the provisions of the Bill for time off for education, it becomes a real irritation to the young person concerned. Every time they apply for a job, will they want to be able to offer the employer only four days a week, with the fifth taken off? They will want quite quickly—certainly after a year or two—to get rid of that incubus and settle down and get the education that is required of them, freeing them up for an unencumbered life. Something which causes you continual irritation and difficulty, and makes postponing and avoidance something that you just do not want to do because it is getting in the way of your life, is ultimately a much more effective punishment than any form of criminal record. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in the direction that she is taking, and I hope that the Government might see it as a way forward for their proposals in the Bill, in terms of the direction that they have chosen rather than that which we might take in a couple of years.

I am distressed to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, does not have a level 3 qualification. I have a practical suggestion: we should accredit for level 3 attendance at your Lordships' House, which is one of the most demanding activities that you could possibly undertake in terms of education or training. She would have so many level 3 qualifications that she would not be able to count them. Having gone through the whole ladder of qualifications up to PhD, I engage in no activity more demanding than having to prepare for debates here, so I think that she would qualify.

I apologise for perhaps having misled the Minister. I had intended to say that I took my own advice, applied to the LSE and was allowed to do a level 3 degree.

The good judgment of the LSE shines through. I am always mindful when I listen to my noble friend Lady Morris, who rightly highlighted the importance of lifelong learning, of the words of my great hero, Mr Gladstone, who, on forming his fourth Administration at the age of 83, declared that he had been a learner all his life. There were some people who believed in lifelong learning in the 1890s; the rest of us have been catching up during the past century, which is absolutely right.

By instilling a greater culture of learning among teenagers, the Bill will transform our learning culture further up the age range. There is a great deal in it about entitlements to education and training beyond the age of 18, which will further instil a culture of lifelong learning in the nation.

I could not have agreed more with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, when she said that carrots work better than sticks. The problem is that when Parliament legislates for sticks it needs to do so in great detail. Therefore, large parts of the Bill are preoccupied with how the sticks work. That has to be the case, because if Parliament is putting in place penalties, it has to be very precise and set out in appropriate detail how enforcement regimes will work. However, the emphasis in all our policies is overwhelmingly on the carrots and the vast public expense at which we are providing them.

Perhaps I may run through some of those carrots that we are providing now and those that we will provide up to 2015 when the duty fully bites. We have introduced the education maintenance allowances: £500 million of public money per year will spent on giving direct public support to 16 to 18 year-olds from less affluent backgrounds so that they have the financial resources to be able to participate in education or training. Five hundred and twenty-eight thousand young people benefited from EMA payments in 2006-07. Around 45 per cent of learners in full-time education receive education maintenance allowances. Our evaluation of EMAs indicated that they have already led to increases in participation nationally of 3.8 per cent for 16 year-olds and 4.1 per cent for 17 year-olds. I could go through the associated statistics if noble Lords wished. I think that there is general agreement in all parts of the Committee that this is a big and worthwhile reform, whose effects will feed through more substantially in the coming years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to diplomas. Diplomas represent a revolution in the availability of appropriate qualifications, and are targeted particularly at those groups who have not been well served by the school system. My noble friend Lady Morris asked me to elucidate rather more our thinking on her first question, which was how we will affect the culture of learning in schools. If we were dragooning 16 to 18 year-olds to sit in the same classes, doing the same subjects as in the past, and if they had to sit unwillingly in AS-level and A-level classes in which they had neither the aptitude nor inclination to participate, I would agree that, culturally, it would be immensely ill-advised. However, that is not what we mean when we talk about the expansion of learning and training opportunities; we mean a much wider range of learning and training opportunities, including a big expansion in vocation-oriented courses—many of which simply do not exist—and in apprenticeship opportunities.

We are introducing diplomas this year. From September, diplomas will be available in construction and the built environment, creative and media, engineering, information technology, society, health and development. They are large areas of employment which desperately need well accredited vocational qualifications. From September 2009, diplomas will be available in business administration and finance, environmental and land-based studies, hair and beauty studies, hospitality, manufacturing and product design. From September 2010, they will be available in public services, retail business, sport and active leisure, and travel and tourism. And from September 2011, they will be available in humanities, languages and sciences. The diplomas will available at three levels—not merely at higher and advanced levels but, crucially, also at foundation level, which is equivalent to five GCSEs at grades D to G. They will be targeted particularly at those young people with whom—to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—the education system has not succeeded by the age of 16.

She will know that I agree with her entirely about the importance of literacy and numeracy in primary schools. We are straining every sinew to improve the quality of education, literacy and numeracy available at primary school. I join her in regarding it as a failure of the education system that there remains a large group of children which, despite the improvements in recent years, has not reached the standards that it needs to reach by age 11. However, we cannot give up on them. We need to continue to provide opportunities for them, including beyond the age of 16.

Apprenticeships have a vital role in providing fit-for-purpose opportunities for young people beyond the age of 16, particularly those who are not well suited to continuing full time in the classroom. By 2013, which is when the first of the continuing obligations to remain in education and training up to the age of 17 will apply, we will ensure that an apprenticeship place is available for all suitably qualified young people, with significant growth in apprenticeships for older learners as well. This will involve funding for apprenticeships increasing by almost a quarter between now and 2010-11 to over £1 billion a year. By 2020, we aim to deliver over 250,000 apprenticeship starts and 190,000 successful completions. That is based on significant increases in recent years in completion rates, thanks to the work of all those engaged in apprenticeships, including employers. In 2006-07, these rates reached an all-time high of 63 per cent, compared to 24 per cent in 2001-02. It is not simply that the volume of apprenticeships will increase dramatically, targeted particularly at the groups that we are talking about this afternoon; we are paying greater attention to the quality of apprenticeships being provided and to all the factors that are crucial to seeing that young people complete them.

I thank the Minister for his careful and lengthy response on this important area. Can he provide some details about the enforcement officer in the local authority, perhaps at a later date? I recognise that the Minister will not wish to be prescriptive, but it is an important role, and I would be interested in indications about his or her level of seniority, the sort of experience and professional background that would be expected and other similar questions. The Minister has probably already explained why there is a duty on the children rather than on the parents. Could he say—in correspondence, perhaps—whether, in the other countries that he mentioned, the duty is predominantly on the children, rather than the parents?

I will write to the noble Earl setting out in detail the response to all those points.

I am grateful to the Minister for answering the concerns in our amendments on criminality. He mentioned Canada and Australia as countries that had a form of criminal sanctions. How do the other countries manage to enforce their compulsory age? Perhaps he could write to us on that.

One of the most important points in the debate was that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about the difference when teaching those who want to be in a classroom. I trained as a teacher and did my teacher’s training in Salford, and one of the years I took was the final year for those about to leave at 16. They did not even take their coats off. They were ready to be out the door as soon as they could. A most articulate young lady from the youth council spoke at the All-Party Group on Children and asked about the disruption that some of those young people would cause just because they did not know what they wanted to do. I still do not know what I want to do, and I hope that I am not disruptive. Jim Knight, however, answered her in exactly the same way as the Minister has answered the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, saying that this is not all about being in classrooms or education, this is about training. Is it not true that an awful lot of the training will be classroom-based? That is a real turn-off to some young people.

Perhaps I may also press the Minister on the effects of the problem of having something on your record, a point that was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. All of us who took part in the Special Educational Needs (Information) Bill heard the moving story of the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, and how having something on his record—not, I hasten to add, anything criminal but something to do with his learning abilities—had blighted his earlier career opportunities. It is an important point, and I would like the Minister to address it.

A number of noble Lords have raised this point. It is a point of real concern. The rehabilitation period for a fine imposed by a criminal court on anyone under the age of 18 is two and a half years, at the end of which that record is spent and does not have to be disclosed. Those who are more than two and a half years on will not have to disclose it and will therefore not have the record, which I think is what concerns the noble Baroness.

Would it not turn up on an enhanced CRB check? I think that we have all been briefed that it would.

I believe the answer is no; it would not turn up on a CRB check. I will confirm that and write to the noble Baroness. I believe that it would not turn up.

When the Minister writes to my noble friend, will he let her and me know how many young people in each of these countries have received a criminal conviction as the ultimate sanction in making them stay at school to 18? Secondly—

I am sorry. I believe the answer is that it depends on whether the police judge the information relevant to the post being applied for. That is the answer on my notes in respect of a CRB check.

The problem is that the police are pressed to do all the CRB checks that they are doing at the moment. If they have to decide whether they should disclose it, they will simply pass on the information and let the relevant authority or organisation decide whether it is relevant. It is a really big concern.

Perhaps I may complete my question. I would be interested in an answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 4, which is where we started. What is the Government's reaction to the idea that the obligation to undertake two years’ education could by agreement, presumably with a local authority, be postponed?

That may not have been in my full briefing, but I will write to follow up on it. The position in this area is not entirely straightforward. The offence created in Clause 45 of failing to comply with an attendance notice is not punishable by imprisonment. It is therefore not a recordable offence, will not be automatically placed on the police national computer and will not be routinely disclosed in a CRB check. An enhanced disclosure, the highest level of check provided by the CRB, may include any information from local police records if considered relevant, which is the point that I was making earlier. The offence may therefore appear on an enhanced disclosure, but it depends whether the police consider it relevant. That is the answer to the point.

If the offence was not an imprisonable offence but a fine was imposed and the fine was not paid, one of the penalties—as with many offences on the statute book—may well be a period of imprisonment.

On a slightly different note, when the Minister described the OECD ratings of countries that had compulsion for 16 to 18 year-olds, I noticed that, although Belgium was first and does have compulsion, the other countries were fourth, seventh, fifteenth—I forget the exact numbers. However, it would be interesting to have some information about the countries that were second and third and perhaps fifth, six and seventh that do not have compulsion and to know how they succeed so well in keeping young people in education. They are clearly using carrots rather than sticks.

I did not hear an answer to Amendment No. 4. Are the Government prepared to allow the obligation to complete two years of education to be postponed?

No, we are not, for the reasons that I set out. We believe that it is important that young people are engaged in appropriate education or training between 16 and 18.

I rose briefly just then because I wanted to make a point that I thought might assist the Minister in answering that question. I would like to clarify. We have already indicated our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part. Our amendment to Clause 1 is therefore not intended to compel somebody to take what we call in our amendment an “entitlement”. It is an entitlement. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has misunderstood us. Our intention was not that they should be compelled at some time during their life to take up that entitlement. It should perhaps be seen alongside our intention regarding Clause 2, which is the compulsion bit. I hope that makes our intention clear.

I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate. Before I come to the Minister's response, I will say a few words about one or two of the contributions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, I am concerned that no young people are excluded. She mentioned that she did not like the idea of exemptions. If you have exemptions and at the same time an entitlement, as we do, there is no danger that it will be used as an excuse not to bother to provide for their education. I would have the same concerns as she has if there were not at the same time an entitlement, but, as I believe that there is an entitlement, it is not really a problem. I very much agree with her about the difference between sixth form and the rest of the school. That was also my experience when I was in teaching. Probably one of the most effective things in my attitude to the compulsion element is that experience—when choice is there, success comes.

We all want young people to have success in their education. It makes the most enormous difference when young people have chosen what they will do and when they will do it. The element of choice made all the difference, and they succeeded better for it. I want to take away the compulsion element so that there is no need for exemptions. The noble Baroness commented on the danger that compulsion on 16 to18 year-olds could turn people off learning for life, and I agree with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that lifelong learning is important.

On the list of exemptions, these were probing amendments. We were not saying that these are the categories for exemption; we were simply asking whether the Government realise that some young people may have difficulties fulfilling their obligation and what will happen in these cases.

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I do not believe that providing the right to postpone will exclude people, as long as the access, opportunities and support are in place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, about the need to re-engage adults in higher qualifications, not least because the world is changing and people need to be reskilled and upskilled. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made the telling point that compulsion has not worked for some young people up to the age of 16—the ones on which this Bill is focused—so why should it work after 16? The things that work are choice, support, assistance and encouragement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support on the seriousness of the criminal record issue; we have had a little debate on the effect of a criminal record on the person’s life chances in future.

I thank the Minister for his detailed response. He talked about carrots and sticks and gave us a long list of all the initiatives that the Government have brought forward to improve young people’s educational opportunities and qualifications. Why, then, does he not have confidence in all these carrots? As he said, the EMA has already had a beneficial effect. After a fairly short period, there has been an increase of 3.8 per cent for 16 year-olds and 4.1 per cent for 17 year-olds. Then there are the diplomas, which, despite our reservations, we all wish a fair wind. The Government are also vastly expanding opportunities for vocational training and, we hope, for apprenticeships. With the taking away of barriers to access and the learning support contracts, which we know the Government are interested in and which we will come to in later debates, all these initiatives should, if properly implemented—I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland—make it very rare for young people not to voluntarily take up the opportunity to extend their educational qualifications.

The Minister talked about other countries, mentioning Germany in particular. There is a totally different cultural attitude to education in Germany. From the beginning of education, children there have very high-quality nursery provision and they do not start formal learning until they are six. I know that because my own niece has done it. So the situation is very different. The noble Lord talked about how successful all the countries that have compulsion are in getting young people to participate. That is a no-brainer. Of course if there is compulsion they are going to participate, but does it do them any good?

The Minister said that I was suggesting that local government officials had unfettered discretion. I do not believe that I used the word “unfettered” but perhaps I will read Hansard in the morning and check. I am perfectly aware of all the conditions that exist. The point is that it is the local government officer who is making the decision, based on the Government’s guidelines perhaps, and not the young person.

I ask the noble Lord a fundamental question: what good is enforcement? As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, by the time the authorities discover that a 16 year-old is not participating, it is probably six months down the track. They chase them up and go through all the appeals—I accept that there must be an appeals process when you have some sort of criminal sanction—but all these things are going to take time and, by the end of it, the young person is nearly 18 and it is hardly worth bothering. The alternative is to look at the young person, see what the problems are and sort them out. We should not be waiting until they are 16 to do that. All these things need to be done many years before that because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it is those who truanted when they were 13 or 14 who are going to be reluctant to participate in some way after 16.

I do not think that any of us in the Committee have the wrong impression about what the participation duty means. We are all aware that it does not mean that the young person who has not enjoyed sitting in a classroom has to carry on sitting in a classroom. But it is authority and the idea of education that has already turned some of them off. We need the totally different approach of encouragement, carrots, personal mentoring and an understanding of what the problem was in the first place. Did the young person have a special educational need that was not addressed at the right time and which caused them to go out into a PRU because they were excluded from school, or simply to truant and not be provided for at all? What was the problem?

Much of the Government’s approach is right. This framework of support, if it really gets delivered, is absolutely right. But why not wait and see whether the young people find it attractive rather than saying that we have to have compulsion? The impact assessment underestimates the potential cost of setting up that negative framework. We would rather have something positive—carrots, not sticks. I am sure that we will come back to these issues.

I think that I am being encouraged to go on for two more minutes, in which case I most certainly will.

The Minister listed a lot of foreign countries; I mentioned Germany. There are many more differences than just the compulsion element, as has been said. Can we please look at the other differences between what those countries do and what we do now? What sort of early years provision is there? Is there early diagnosis of difficulties? When there has been diagnosis, is provision made? At what age do they start formal learning? Is their reading programme prescriptive? What sort of transition stages are there between the primary level of school and the secondary level? Do they have the same problem that we have where young people very often fall behind for a year or so when they first go to the secondary school? What range of curriculum are they offered in the secondary sector? Have those countries already followed the route down which we hope the Government are moving to give young people a much wider range of courses, rather than expecting them all to be academic? It is rather simplistic just to list all those countries’ percentages of participation and expect that to constitute a suitable argument. However, I think that I have made my argument. 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, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, Sir Michael Pitt has today published his final report on last summer’s flooding. I thank Sir Michael and his team for the professional way in which they have gone about their work of identifying the lessons to be learnt. I also welcome the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee report to which the Government are responding today.

“This month marks the first anniversary of the start of the floods. The lives of many people and businesses were turned upside down and the costs, human and financial, were considerable. Our thoughts will, above all, be with the families of those who lost loved ones, as well as with communities still trying to recover. I am sure that the House will wish to thank all those who have worked so hard to help those affected over the past 12 months and I pay tribute to the contribution of my honourable friend the Floods Recovery Minister.

“As Sir Michael says, ‘Last summer’s flooding was exceptional’. While we recognise both the huge emergency effort at the time and the investment over many years in flood defences, without which the effects would have been much worse, I said to the House last year that we would learn the lessons.

“Sir Michael’s report sets out more than 90 recommendations, including: establishing the right legislative framework to tackle flooding; clarifying who is responsible for what; ensuring that the public have all the information and guidance that they need; working with essential services to assess risk and protect critical infrastructure; and having a clear recovery plan right from the start of any major emergency.

“I welcome Sir Michael’s report and the direction that it sets. We will prepare a detailed response, with a prioritised action plan, in the autumn. We have already taken a number of steps that respond to Sir Michael’s findings and I wish to report these to the House.

“The Government have made available up to £88 million, with a further £31 million to come, to help local authorities to assist those in greatest need, as well as to repair infrastructure and to help schools and businesses to get going again. A lot has been achieved—most of those affected are now back in their homes—and we will continue to work with local authorities and the insurance industry to help the rest to return as soon as possible.

“Flood warnings save lives. Since last June, over 73,000 more people have registered with the Environment Agency flood warning system, and the agency will now automatically register properties to receive flood warnings where telephone numbers are publicly available. The agency has also improved its advice to the public and run flood awareness campaigns and it is working with the Met Office to improve the quality of flood warnings. The agency has spent £5 million on repairing defences damaged last summer. Current improvement schemes include a £5.9 million project refurbishing the Hull barrier and remedial works to culverts in Gloucester.

“As I informed the House last week, I have decided that the Environment Agency will now take on a new strategic overview role in England for managing flood risk, from whatever source, and that local authorities will take responsibility for surface water management, including surface water management plans, under the agency’s overview. We will now sort out the detailed arrangements for this, drawing on responses to the Future Water consultation and the results of the 15 pilot projects on urban drainage, the results of which we are publishing today.

“On critical infrastructure, electricity and water providers are responsible for ensuring continuity of supply. The electricity industry has identified just over 1,000 grid and primary sites that are in flood zones and is working with the Environment Agency to see which of these might need additional protection. Every water company is reviewing how its critical assets may be at risk from flooding in order to prioritise investment plans. This information will be used as the basis of a planned nationwide programme to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure, which the Government will produce later this year. Most local resilience forums have now been briefed on critical infrastructure in their area, and the remainder will be done by the end of August.

“On reservoir safety, we will now go ahead to prepare flood maps for reservoirs coming under the Reservoirs Act and ensure that, where they are not already available, they are provided to local emergency planners before the end of 2009. They will decide the best way to ensure that communities are informed. We will also modernise reservoir safety legislation.

“The Government will produce an outline for the national flood emergency framework by the end of July, with a draft for consultation by the end of the year. This will be part of a major programme to improve preparedness for severe flooding. We will bring forward a draft floods and water Bill in the next Session. This will enable us to respond to many of Sir Michael’s recommendations.

“The Government are increasing investment in flood risk management from £650 million this year to £800 million in 2010-11. The Environment Agency’s defences protected 100,000 properties from flooding last year and this new investment will protect a further 145,000 homes across the country. We are developing with the Environment Agency a long-term investment strategy for flood defence.

“We have set aside £34.5 million for priorities identified in Sir Michael’s report. We will, of course, need to consider the detailed recommendations and their funding with local authorities and other partners before making a final allocation but, in order to make progress, I am announcing today that at least £5 million will be made available to develop surface water management plans in the highest priority areas and at least £1 million to improve reservoir safety, specifically for inundation mapping. I have also set aside an initial £250,000 to plan a major national floods exercise to test the new structures and arrangements being put in place to ensure that we are better prepared in future.

“We must recognise that we can never eliminate the risk of flooding, particularly as climate change takes hold, but all of us—government, water and electricity providers, local communities and individuals—must take flood risk seriously and be as prepared as we can be to deal with it. Sir Michael’s report will help us all to do this. I know that he will be taking a close interest in its implementation and I will invite him to attend Cabinet committee discussions on progress. I will report further to the House in the autumn with a detailed action plan”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in another place. It rightly welcomes the report of Sir Michael Pitt and his team. The Opposition also praise the quality of the report they have produced.

Since December, we have had the benefit of Sir Michael’s interim report, on which this final report is based. We have in addition to this full report a useful executive summary, which, if not enabling noble Lords to be fully comprehensive of the final detail of the report, enables us to be informed of its principal recommendations.

The Minister will also remember the debates we had recently on the initiative of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, who is not in his place this evening. Since that time, I experienced, only a month ago, the flooding of my home in France. Eight inches of rain fell in four hours. There is nothing like direct experience in politics and it was frightening to see water cascading down the hill, through the garden, utility room and garage and out into the street. Fortunately, we were present and able to ensure that the damage was limited. Yet though the house is tiled throughout, even now it is still sweating out water. It is habitable, but neighbours were not so lucky.

I am therefore more aware than ever of the power of water and the way in which a scene of peace and calm can be turned into a scene of destruction, with landslips, mud, debris, fallen trees and collapsed walls. We were fortunate. However, the experience has made me more aware that many in this country suffering similar exceptional rainfall were not so lucky. It is right, when we consider the report, to remember the many families who still live with the consequences. Others will carry vivid and frightening memories. We can think of the families of those who lost their lives, those whose homes and businesses were wrecked and, as the Statement says, whose world was turned upside down. That will not be forgotten by them, nor should it be forgotten by us.

Some 12 months later, far too many people—11,000, in some 5,000 households—are still not back in their home. Some 2,500 are still living in caravans. I hope that the Minister agrees that insurance companies, local authorities and housing associations should prioritise getting people back into their home. It was the Prime Minister himself who promised to get people back on their feet as quickly as possible.

Many local authorities are still faced with the bill for the clear-up. Although the Government made funds available for this, not all affected authorities were fully compensated for the enormous sums involved. Do the Government have proposals for finding the £50 million by which local authorities find themselves out of pocket, or will the council tax payer pick up the bill?

Sir Michael Pitt made an interim report to enable the Government to act immediately on the 15 recommendations he made. How many of these have the Government implemented? Can the Minister tell us what they are? While we acknowledge that, thanks to the report, it is now clear what needs to be done, the Government need to appreciate the urgency of the situation. They need to demonstrate the determination to act decisively. They were all action when the spotlight was on the Prime Minister at the time, but since the fuss has died down, there has been the usual drag between intention and achievement. When he produced his report in April, Sir Michael was critical that insufficient action had been taken on raising public awareness. The Statement tells us that 73,000 more people have been registered with the Environment Agency’s flood warning scheme. How many does that make in total? How many people do the Government estimate are living in high-risk areas?

The Statement also refers to the £5 million spent by the Environment Agency in the last year in repairing damaged defences. Do the Government believe that that is an adequate response? Did not the Association of British Insurers estimate that the cost of the floods was £3 billion?

Early on, Sir Michael pointed out the confused nature of storm water management. The report makes clear the need for better maintenance of surface water drainage, particularly in urban areas. In some rural areas, highly competent internal drainage boards have maintained a high professionalism. I remind noble Lords of my interests and my dependency on my local IDB for keeping our family home, farm and business dry—no mean task when it all lies at 3 metres, more or less, above mean sea level. However, in many cases, where the need for taking these things seriously is not so self-evident, there has been a long-standing failure to maintain rainwater drainage in a proper fashion. All too often, building and development has been bolted on to an old, already inadequate and poorly maintained system, without sufficient consideration of the consequences.

We look forward to the draft floods and water Bill, but note that it is only a draft Bill. We in the Opposition approve of the opportunity for scrutiny which this provides, but do the Government feel that they can afford the time to wait for this Bill which, in the words of the Statement, will enable us to,

“respond to many of Sir Michael’s recommendations”?

Have they the time to wait for the Bill? Which of the report’s recommendations do the Government believe need urgent action? Are there some that the Government have identified as needing immediate implementation? What, then, is the timetable for action on those recommendations that will be acted upon now, without delay, 12 months on?

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Although we tried very hard, we were totally unprepared for what happened, and we are informed by the Government and government-backed scientists that this is liable to happen again. It is good to hear the Government say that they are learning from what happened, although there is then the caveat of “exceptional circumstances”. I think the general consensus is that such exceptional circumstances are likely to occur again within the next decade, if the scientists have got it right.

Can the Government give us some more assurances? I go slightly further than the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in asking whether a timeframe will be printed for the things that require immediate action? What should be happening locally over the years? Such actions will have to be locally adjusted, but can we have an idea of when these arrangements should be in place?

What is the idea and the structure behind planning regulations for new homes? Flood plains tend to be terribly attractive places for developers, who choose to ignore the fact that water can arrive there periodically. What will we do about ensuring that any new homes reach high standards in terms of both construction and support services? One of the most important things about the Statement was the idea that drainage and power supplies should be able to survive a certain level of inundation.

Do the Government have any idea when they will be able to rehouse all the 5,000 people still living away from their home? That would be a reassuring statistic because it would give us an idea of how seriously the Government take this planning. Can they assure us that it is not a question of just one department’s funding stream being involved and that there will be an effort across government? If any one department is responsible for this level of investment, it could be tempting to take lumps out of it for other projects.

My Lords—

My Lords, if I may, I should like to reply to the two noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful for their broad welcome for the report and the Government’s response to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, indicated, these are very serious issues. The whole House will be sorry to hear of his recent direct experience of how serious this can be. I take only the smallest amount of solace from the fact that it occurred in another country and not the United Kingdom. As he rightly says, it gives one graphic experience of the costs of flooding and the cost in terms of time—people are affected for such a long time before they can go home again.

We have made significant efforts to ensure that as many householders as possible are back in their home. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed—the insurance companies, local authorities and other agencies which have responded intelligently and urgently. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, rightly identified, some people are not back in their home yet, and that represents an anxiety for us all.

The noble Lord will appreciate the figures in the Statement on immediate action taken by the Government in response to this obvious need and the promise of more to come. The additional expenditure that is scheduled for three years’ time is a very significant increase over the present figure. An increase from £650 million to £800 million is not to be disregarded—it is an indication of the extent to which the Government are concerned about flood risk.

The issue that was so painfully obvious from last year’s floods is surface water, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, identified, raises significant issues about necessary controls over the drainage system, which is meant to cope but at the time did not. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded the House, we are to expect that the somewhat extreme conditions last year that caused such dreadful problems on Humberside and in Gloucestershire and the west country may recur. What used to be regarded as exceptional in the face of what we can all recognise as aspects of climate change may necessitate a greater action on behalf of us all.

I want to emphasise in response to the noble Lord that the Government presented early funding on the issue. They gained the promise of substantial extra resources to be available to the local authorities and the Environment Agency. It is an important point that we have made it clear that the Environment Agency has to take the lead role on the issue and ensure that local authorities respond to the very real points made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the importance of the local authorities’ responsibility with regard to surface water. We must ensure that the Environment Agency looks with greater care to our reservoirs and their safety. That work is a major priority over the summer.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether only one department was going to carry the strain. The Department for the Environment will be in the lead. It is through that department that resources will be channelled. I want to give him the reassurance that he will already have recognised—this was made clear last year by the Prime Minister’s response—that this is a matter for the whole Government. I understand his point that it needs co-operation beyond one department, because there are a number of agencies that are obviously concerned. Other departments also have to increase the priority that they attach to the issues.

I am grateful to both noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to a constructive debate that we had recently on the issue, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. I do not have the slightest doubt that the House will make sure that the issue remains at the forefront over the next few months and years.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It has been enlightening. He will understand from my rising to my feet too soon my enthusiasm for his proposals. The one thing that worries me—I asked Questions for Written Answer on the matter some months ago—is that despite the Government’s good intentions and the constructiveness of that report we will find that there is a bureaucratic logjam when it comes to the sort of spending that the Minister has talked about and we will find that there is a conflict of interest.

I should like the Minister’s reassurance. I recall that one of the Written Answers I received indicated that local authorities had a statutory requirement to consult the Environment Agency. Will the Minister tell us what that means? Does consultation mean that they have to accept the guidance? We know the conflict and the pressures that occur at the moment in terms of the downturn in the economy. There is also pressure on developers to keep going. There is pressure on local authorities to accommodate developers. The one thing that struck me was that when I asked about whether redress was available to persons who purchased new homes following planning approval by local authorities and if there was flooding, who was responsible, I received a clear indication that the person who buys and lives in the house is the person responsible.

I ask the Minister to clarify that point. Where there is pressure from developers and where the local authority consorts with the Environment Agency, will reasonable attention be paid to a constructive and commonsense approach so that at the end of the day the householder, who is the person about whom we are speaking, has an assurance that the measures being proposed will be effective?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions and points. I can give him some reassurance. Of course decisions taken at local level will go through the usual channels and of course he may complain that that may lead to bureaucratic delay, but it is in the interests of local authorities to ensure that their neighbourhoods are safe. Let me say that they will be under a fairly clear obligation with regard to the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is now a statutory consultee on planning developments, so the question of the permission that local authorities give to planning applications is a matter in which the Environment Agency will take an interest if the issue of flooding might be a real factor. That means that Ministers can call in major planning applications for consideration if they are advised by the Environment Agency that the risks being entailed may be too great.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I have just managed to obtain a copy from my noble friend on the Front Bench. As the Minister said, the Environment Agency will have a lead role. It has a flood warning system, it is working with the Met Office, and it is repairing defences. It is involved with the electricity industry. It also has to protect the flood defences for another 145,000 homes. Will the Minister enlarge on the role of the Environment Agency in the overall planning of housing? He has just stated that there is a statutory requirement for the Environment Agency to look at plans for housing, but is it true that that is not a statutory requirement for the eco-towns that are going to be built? That is one of the big problems that is causing concern, certainly in parts of the country. For example, in Sussex an eco-town is planned. I declare an interest in that I live not too far away from it. It will not affect me but everyone else is concerned about it. Only last month, when there were flash floods and unusual weather conditions, there was 18 inches of water on the road that will be in the middle of that eco-town. It is close to the coast and there is a real problem.

I have three further questions. First, will the Environment Agency have any say in those sorts of developments, because it would be a case of closing one door and opening another to the floods? Secondly, will the Environment Agency, in playing this leading role, get greater resources in terms of management and taking on the role of other organisations? My recollection is that 12,000 people work for the agency at the moment. Will the situation get out of hand because it is too big to manage? Thirdly, where does the Environment Agency sit with regard to joined-up government in this country?

My Lords, I must generalise about the issue as I am not in a position to identify the particular area to which the noble Baroness referred. The Environment Agency will be a statutory consultee and will follow planning guidance for all new build. I do not know how far plans for the eco-town she mentioned have reached, but I certainly give an assurance that the Environment Agency will play the role I mentioned. That is critical. On the more general points she made, the agency will inevitably need additional resources. That is why the Government are committed to providing them, because the agency is charged with a significant role.

As I indicated in the Statement, the Government have already pledged a programme of increased resources during the next three years, some of which will be for the Environment Agency. I agree with the noble Baroness that one cannot place obligations on any institution without giving it the means of fulfilling them. The Environment Agency has an excellent record and the Government will ensure that that record continues.

My Lords, in the Statement the noble Lord repeated the point that the Government have made available up to £88 million, with a further £31 million to come, to help local authorities and assist those in greatest need. The noble Lord may recall that a few weeks ago he answered my Written Questions on this point. I asked in particular about the money promised from the European Union Solidarity Fund that would be used to defray costs from central government. That amounts to £110 million, compared to the £88 million that the Government have made available so far. Can the Minister provide some explanation of how the money from the Solidarity Fund, which is to be used to defray costs, is related to the budget and the £88 million that is to be expended, as well as to the £31 million to come? At the moment those sums seem to be entirely reliant on the EU Solidarity Fund. I am sure that that cannot be the case. No doubt the Minister will explain that.

My Lords, the Minister would very much like to, but the response to the noble Lord’s Question was fairly detailed and technical. I can say to the House only that that Written Answer is in Hansard. I do not have its details here. It was a very precise Question, but all noble Lords who are interested in it will have seen the reply. I want to assure the noble Lord that when these resources are made available, the obligation on the Government is to ensure that they are spent on the purposes for which they are duly allocated. Therefore, I do not have the slightest doubt that I can offer the noble Lord reassurance on that.

On the main elements of the restoration fund, I have a figure of £30.6 million that has come from HM Treasury. We have been able to release that through a successful European Union Solidarity Fund bid. So we are making progress. It is not the end game yet as the noble Lord will readily appreciate, but I assure him that the Government are all too well aware of the resources that can be obtained, quite properly, from the European Union with regard to issues of this kind. We intend to ensure that we get our full share of that necessary resource.

My Lords, I declare an interest. I am the chairman of an insurance broking organisation and I have been a director of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. I took part in the debate on flooding and I reinforce the points made by my noble friend Lord Taylor. The insurance industry has acted very quickly; indeed, we have settled claims as quickly as we can. Our difficulty sometimes is that a lot of properties are not insured, and this is where there is perhaps difficulty in obtaining reinstatement. Indeed, the experiences of our clients demonstrate that people suffer from a great deal of anguish. Does the Minister agree that there must be better co-ordination between the Environment Agency and local authorities, because one criticism is that there is not a great deal of that? Can he assure us that there will be a timetable for implementing what has been suggested?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I was for his contribution to the debate. The insurance industry responded well to the situation last year. That does not alter the fact that some households are uninsured and there are those who are bound to feel that the loss that they sustained has still not been fully made up. We are all too well aware of the difficulties that people face when their homes undergo flooding. I reiterate the points I made in response to a noble Lord earlier; the Environment Agency has a clear role to play in relation to local authorities. Everyone is crucially aware of the significance of having necessary flood defences and the action that needs to be taken by local authorities. The Environment Agency is in the best possible position to identify those issues and it will be its job to ensure that local authorities comply.

On the insurance issue, we will produce an action plan in the autumn with a timetable on how these matters can be dealt with. I assure the House that although the final report has just been published, the Government had preliminary sight of the position that Mr Pitt was taking, and therefore we have made preparations for full development in the autumn.

My Lords, Sir Michael Pitt should be congratulated on this report. Obviously, none of us has had time to read it all, or even the executive summary, but the list of recommendations seems to cover a lot of areas and there is a lot of common sense in them. I hope that the Government will take them up. The report has 462 pages plus a 43-page executive summary—a total of more than 500 pages. Any unsold copies might come in useful as flood defences in some areas. We are used to getting lots of paper in this place, walking away to our offices with piles of thick documents and having good intentions of spending a lot of time looking at them. I will take this document away to read when I am on holiday this summer, because it is full of extremely interesting and useful stuff. I have dipped into it and it seems to be more readable and interesting than quite a lot of the turgid stuff that we are invited to take away from the Printed Paper Office.

I have just a couple of points to make. First, I welcome what appears to be a theme throughout of partnership between the Environment Agency taking a strategic role at the national and regional level and the vital importance of local authorities, which have the local knowledge and accountability in their areas. From what I have read so far, it does not read as if the Environment Agency is there to ensure that local authorities do this, that or the other; it means that they will work together. Does the Minister agree that that is essential, because local authorities have the local knowledge? To make a detailed point that I made in the debate sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, there is evidence that the Environment Agency is taking responsibility for small streams for too small watercourses. There is evidence of watercourses being blocked and other such problems. Those problems need to be sorted out locally but local authorities cannot do that because they have been declared to be major rivers. Clearly, they are not; they are just becks.

My second point concerns insurance and the importance of the Government and the insurance industry getting as many people as possible insured. We will be looking at that very carefully, especially in relation to social housing. Social housing landlords have to take much greater responsibility for trying to get people insured. The Minister in the Commons said that he would report further to the House in the autumn. Will the Minister confirm that we will get that report here too?

My Lords, on the last point, a report is somewhat different from a Statement. If it is made as a Statement, I have no doubt that it will be repeated here. If it is a report to the House, it will be for this House to judge how it wants to handle the issue. I have every confidence in the House airing the issues, given the widespread concern about and interest in them. I have no doubt that the Pitt report and subsequent developments will feature in our debates in future.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about insurance, the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has already emphasised the crucial role of the insurance industry. That is why we intend to make progress on that in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is absolutely right to say that insurance is crucial. Far too many people have underestimated the necessity for it.

I was questioned by two noble Lords earlier; I want to emphasise the significance of the Environment Agency on planning decisions by local authorities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—in every other respect, the Environment Agency’s relationship with local authorities is one of a partnership. It will need to work with the grain of local authorities. As he said, in so many areas, local people know best about local problems and have crucial intelligence for the Environment Agency. Often, the local authority is the agent of necessary change. I assure him that the Environment Agency has an enhanced role, but that is not at the cost of local authorities. Most of its relationship with local authorities will be one of partnership.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14 May be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move the first order in my name on the Order Paper and speak to the second. The regulations set out the procedures for registering voters in Northern Ireland and cover some technical administrative aspects of the conduct of parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.

The regulations consolidate and replace the existing Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, which have already been amended several times. Although this is a consolidation exercise, which means that the regulations before us are rather lengthy, bringing the regulations together in a single text will simplify the legislation and make it easier to use for all those involved in the application and interpretation of electoral law in Northern Ireland.

Most of the regulations simply replicate the substance of the 2001 regulations. However, there are some changes. The regulations contain new provisions necessary to implement the changes to electoral administration contained in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006. The regulations also introduce new provisions requested by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, which are intended to help him to fulfil his registration objectives and further to improve the management of elections in Northern Ireland.

I will now highlight the key changes that the regulations will make. Noble Lords may be aware that Northern Ireland’s registration procedures differ from those operating in the rest of the UK, as a result of the anti-fraud measures operating there. As in the rest of the UK, under the late registration scheme, eligible individuals will be able to register to vote up to 11 days before polling day. However, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act provides that those applying to register late in Northern Ireland will be required to provide additional supporting material alongside their application. That is because, at that stage in the electoral cycle, the chief electoral officer would simply not have the time to make the necessary checks on applications made under the normal application process.

Regulation 25 lists the type of supporting material that may be required when applying for late registration. That material will enable the chief electoral officer to verify the applicant’s date of birth, nationality, address, and the fact that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for three months prior to the application date.

A further change relates to photographic identification. Unlike in Great Britain, voters in Northern Ireland are required to produce photographic ID when voting in person. At present, only a photographic driving licence, passport, Translink senior citizens travel pass or an electoral identity card, which is issued by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, may be accepted as proof of identity. Regulation 15 would extend the type of acceptable ID to include a blind person’s travel pass and a war disabled travel pass issued by Translink. Both of those documents meet the same fraud prevention requirements as the senior citizens’ travel pass.

Regulation 15 also removes the requirement for the ID to be “current” to be accepted at a polling station. Post-election reports indicate that a small number of otherwise eligible electors have been unable to vote because they have presented out-of-date photographic ID. A person should not be disfranchised simply because his or her ID is not current. In order to maximise voter participation, the regulations will allow electors to vote regardless of whether their ID is current, as long as the presiding officer is satisfied that the ID confirms the elector’s identity.

The regulations also contain provisions aimed at encouraging more young people to register to vote. Young people are at present especially underrepresented on the electoral register. For that reason, Regulation 42 contains changes that will allow the chief electoral officer to request information from secondary schools in Northern Ireland. That information would then be used to invite older pupils to register. That proposal builds on the chief electoral officer’s current powers to obtain information and offers an innovative solution to increasing the number of young people registered in Northern Ireland.

The Service Voters’ Registration Period (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 would simply extend the period for which members of the forces, or their partners who have made service declarations, may remain registered as electors before being required to make a further declaration. This period is currently set at one year in Northern Ireland. The order will extend that period to three years, bringing Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. The consolidation exercise means that the draft regulations before us are particularly lengthy. However, the changes made in them, and the process of consolidating the existing legislation, will benefit voters and help us to make the complex rules governing elections easier to follow for all concerned. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations, which are necessary to ensure the effective administration of elections in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14 May be approved. 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Tunnicliffe.)

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the government Dispatch Box on his first appearance for Northern Ireland. He joins a great team of players who have attempted to support Northern Ireland in one way or another and who have debated the issues long into the night on many occasions. Let us hope that we do not do that any more. The noble Lord is very welcome.

I also thank the Minister for the clear way in which he laid out the statutory instrument linked to the services. It certainly seems straightforward, now that he has told us about it. I definitely support all these changes. We have, in Northern Ireland, the best form of electoral management in these islands, and probably in many other places. We have argued and fought hard to get to where we are—that includes the Government, the joint opposition and those on the Cross Benches from Northern Ireland. We have a very satisfactory situation. This legislation would appear to improve it and sharpen it up.

There are one or two areas we need to be careful about, one of which is photographic identification being out of date. If I may say so with the government Chief Whip in her place, I worry that, particularly with women, disguise can very quickly take over. When they are young and beautiful, they have such pictures on their identification. As they age and become more mature, they could pass themselves off as all sorts of people by changing the colour of their hair, the weight that they carry and so on. I am a little nervous about that, and attention needs to be focused on how far we go. I would have liked to see a limit to the number of years that pass before a photograph is deemed out of date.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he extend his remarks to men, who would have the same sort of problems as those he depicts for women?

My Lords, the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I was referring to everybody, but I wanted to be particularly apologetic to the ladies who are with us. Men also suffer in that regard, and I do not think that we need to be felt sorry for. We are, I suspect, less adept at disguise. On a serious note, this point should be noted. I would like to see a time limit, whether it is 10 years, or whatever. People should not be able to present identification that has a name and number on it but whose photograph was clearly taken 25 years ago. It puts too much of a burden on those responsible at polling stations.

The provisions regarding young people are an excellent idea. I understand that some schools are reticent to conform with the idea of electoral officers going into schools to collect data from students who are about to join the electorate. That is understandable because over the years the Government have not made a great success of computerisation. We have seen a lot of nasty headlines about the loss of personal and private data. Some reassurance is needed because it is not that big a deal. The data banks on students and other people cannot be that big. We have had no unpleasant impact of this nature, other than through terrorist attacks, in Northern Ireland. I support the Government’s attempt to bring more young people on to the electoral roll.

I read the notes on the changes for the services and had the opportunity to speak to officials. I mentioned that I was anxious that the words “service personnel” should be clarified. It is probably clarified in the notes. In my day “service personnel” meant the police, firemen and sometimes nurses and ambulance staff. This, I assume, is aimed at the Armed Forces. There is a difference. The Armed Forces have always had separate electoral rolls, as I know having served for 13 years. What this order—which is almost a Bill—proposes is absolutely right and proper. I ask only that, for late registration, the Government insist and ensure that the 11-day extra requirements are adhered to. The order says that people can register 11 days before polling day provided that they produce extra identification at the time. I would hate to think that that was not going to be strictly adhered to. If I have taken too long, I apologise. I support the order.

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to the Northern Ireland government team. I support these two orders. I was going to raise the question about up-to-date photographs, but I hesitate to do so after the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. If he spent 13 years in the Armed Forces, I am pretty certain he blacked up for night manoeuvres and impersonated a tree. He would have made a very good tree. I do not believe that changing one’s personality is confined to the female gender.

We are pleased to see these changes in the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations to make it as convenient as possible for people in Northern Ireland to exercise their right to vote without undermining the security of the electoral processes there. We very much welcome the introduction of two additional forms of photographic ID to be used as identifiers for voting: the blind person’s smart pass and the war-disabled smart pass. We hope that this will go some way to ensuring that as many people are not turned away from polling stations for not having the right form of identification as we saw in the Assembly elections in March 2007.

We also support the provision that will allow the chief electoral officer to gather information from secondary schools in Northern Ireland, to help in encouraging young people to vote. As previous Ministers will be aware, it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to extend the right to vote to 16 year-olds. We hope this initiative will be useful in encouraging younger voters to participate in elections and the political process. It is also extremely useful to have previous regulations consolidated in this way, along with the new changes. We hope that this will be helpful to the chief electoral officer and to others involved in elections in Northern Ireland.

Finally, with regard to the second order, we are pleased that armed services personnel in Northern Ireland are now being brought into line with the rest of the UK. My noble friend the late Lord Garden pressed very heavily for this, and it is good to see his influence in its extension to Northern Ireland. We support the orders.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to his new position with regard to Northern Ireland affairs. I support what he has said and welcome these new regulations. As he said, they are a work of consolidation.

I have three observation-cum-questions for the Minister. First, has the decision to allow registration up to 11 days before an election emerged in part because of criticism from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in 2003 after the previous Assembly elections? It argued that the period was too long in Northern Ireland and that in a democratic society we should move closer to the figure that the noble Lord has thankfully given.

My second point relates to the issue of how many people who have not been able to vote will now be able to do so because of the changes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Smith, I welcome the changes to the blind person’s smart pass and the war disabled smart pass, although I suspect that the numbers involved there were fairly small. On the other hand, the Minister should be aware that the proposal that documents, passports and IDs no longer need to be absolutely up to date to be usable will have major implications. The chief electoral officer’s figures from the March 2007 Assembly elections show that about 3,500 people were turned away because of inadequate or no documents. Over half of those were people who had a passport or driving licence. In fact, on a certain definition of the figures, two-thirds of those people would now be able to vote. I welcome this, but we should be aware that we may be doing something quite radical by putting back on the register possibly 60 to 70 per cent of those who, at the previous Assembly elections, were refused the right to vote. I saw such cases in polling stations in Northern Ireland. It is probably the right thing to do but it is quite a radical step. Does the noble Lord agree that those numbers are roughly right? They are certainly more significant than the number who will be affected by the changes regarding the blind person’s smart pass and the war disabled smart pass?

My final observation is that in this consolidation of the regulations there are significant sections on registration, absent voting, postal voting and access to electoral registers and marked registers. Can the Minister confirm that some of the recommendations arise from lessons learnt from electoral fraud in the Birmingham area and are being wisely applied to the people of Northern Ireland?

I welcome the regulations, particularly the proposals to help to encourage young people to vote. The steps that are being taken to improve young people’s access to voting—it is a great problem in Northern Ireland—are very wise provisions and probably the most benign in the proposed regulations.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, not only on the way in which he presented the two instruments but on the fact that he has joined the Front-Bench team dealing with Northern Ireland; that will be of great benefit to us all. I offer him any advice, at any stage, that he may wish to seek.

The group to which I belong also supports the two instruments but with the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, about the age of photographs. It is not difficult to find examples of this problem. The Parliamentary Companion contains photographs of noble Lords, but someone looking at them would be forgiven for thinking that some photographs were of either their sons or grandsons; they do not have a tremendous relationship to the person whom you meet on a daily basis on these Benches. I accept that there will be out-of-date passes, but there must be a sensible cut-off date of 10 years or whatever. We cannot go on ad infinitum.

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that we now have one of the best regulated electoral systems in Europe. That is important. We in Northern Ireland are glad to get away from the days when you had the old jibe, “Vote early and vote often”. As people used to say to me, election day in Northern Ireland was like the day of resurrection, because everyone got out of the graveyards and went to vote. I am glad that those days have gone and that we have a sensible voting system. We feel strongly that it should be applied right across the board. That is what is happening and I commend the electoral officers in Northern Ireland. We support the instruments.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on taking on the role that he has. He and I have known each other in a previous capacity, largely in relation to the local Underground. That experience is not entirely irrelevant to Northern Ireland at some stages in its history.

I wish to raise three issues, one in relation to each of the instruments, and then to make a final wind-up comment about the first one. On the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, which the Minister correctly identified as consolidation, I and one or two other noble Lords present in the Chamber will remember consolidations carried through on terrorist legislation relating to Northern Ireland where it was discovered, 18 months after the consolidation had been taken through, that carelessness in the consolidation had led to certain potential crimes being eliminated as crimes for a period of about 18 months. Then someone suddenly spotted that the manner in which the consolidation had occurred had, in a sense, instead of consolidating the legislation, removed it from the balance. I hope that someone, somewhere, has gone through this consolidation to make sure that it is copper-bottomed. It will be extremely embarrassing for the Government if it ever turns out not to be. It will also be inconvenient for both Houses of Parliament, because we will suddenly be asked to carry through legislation in 24 hours in order to cover the gap. Is the Minister confident that the legislation is copper-bottomed?

On the service voters order, the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Having consulted with the Electoral Commission and other interested stakeholders the Government decided to exercise its delegated powers and extend the registration period based on such service qualifications to three years. The 2006 Order made this change for Great Britain. This Order will now bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK”.

My question is simply whether there is any particular reason why it has taken two years to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. On the political parties order—

My Lords, I have not yet moved the political parties order. I can only just cope with this one at the moment.

My Lords, I read from the Order Paper that we were going to take them all together. If I was mistaken in that regard, I apologise.

My Lords, whatever the Order Paper may have stated, I moved the first instrument and said that I would speak to the second one. I am sure that noble Lords will wish to say much more than they have said so far on the third one, which I shall move in a moment.

My Lords, if I am being told that we are not taking all three together, I am happy not to take them together, but I am not quite sure why the Order Paper suggests something to the contrary.

My Lords, the Order Paper says:

“The following two motions are expected to be debated together”.

Those are the two that I have moved: the regulations on representation of the people and the service voters order.

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right; I should have noticed that it said the following two motions and not the third. I will withdraw my question in relation to the third until later.

However, I should like to come back to the general point I wanted to make. In an order that we took fairly recently, which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was in the Chamber at the time—I referred to the remarkable achievement of the late, great Lord Williams of Mostyn. At the time of the Second Reading debate on the legislation at the beginning of this millennium, which had come to us without having been amended in any way in the Commons, Mr Desmond Browne, now Secretary of State for Defence, was the Parliamentary Secretary handling it in the Commons. It is fair to say that he did not have the weight at that point to be able to tell the Northern Ireland Office what to do about the points that were being raised. I can remember specifically during the Second Reading debate referring to recent cases in Fermanagh and Tyrone, the counties singled out by Winston Churchill in a famous statement just after the First World War—not much changes in the history of the Province. However, Lord Williams of Mostyn went back to the Northern Ireland Office and turned the Bill upside down between Second Reading and Third Reading in this House. My noble friend Lord Glentoran was right to pay tribute to the present legislation as being, historically, the most copper-bottomed in the whole of the United Kingdom in this regard.

When we had the Statement on the elections and funding the other day, I allowed myself the observation that the Government’s attitude to voting seemed in recent years to have been Panglossian. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Government Front Bench said I was being a little hard on the Government. However, the fact remains that when the postal arrangements have been criticised, the Government have either wrung their hands and said that there was no time to legislate before the next election or, if in the middle of an election, they would assure us when ugly reports surfaced about these matters that everything would be all right on the night—a confidence later disproved by events.

I agree that postal fraud in the United Kingdom is apparently limited to certain parts of the country, but anywhere is too much. The barrister who investigated the Birmingham cases some years back said, as I recall, that the rules and practices were worthy of a banana republic. That embarrasses us all; democracy is too precious to be left open to fraud and raising the turnout is not, in itself, a sufficient justification. However, Northern Ireland owes a very great deal to the late, great Lord Williams of Mostyn for the legislation that he put on the statute book.

My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for the warm greetings I have received. They will forgive me if I feel very slightly apprehensive. I am very pleased that everybody has welcomed these two instruments. Having studied the instruments intensely over the past few days, we clearly have in Northern Ireland an excellent system on which these instruments seek to consolidate and build.

The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Smith, Lord Bew and Lord Laird, all touched on the issue of photo ID being out of date. The concept in the regulations is that the presiding officer should decide on the fitness for purpose of what is presented. The cards that have been selected as photo ID have sufficient security in them for the presiding officer to know that their original issue was to a standard acceptable for purpose, the out-of-datedness, or not, and whether, be they male or female, the individuals do not look like their photograph. If they do not bear a likeness to their photograph, it will not be fit for purpose and the presiding officer will, quite properly, turn them away.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps we could take a step forward here. We are really only splitting hairs. As I understand it, this out-of-date photo ID is to cover people who, like myself, heading for France one day, arrive at Stansted to find that their passport is four weeks out of date and are not allowed to go. I totally agree with the Government’s thoughts on this; one should not be stopped from voting for that reason. However, I believe it could save a lot of problems and administrative difficulties if the noble Lord would undertake to go away and consider putting in a fixed date for out-of-date photos. If your photo is five years out of date, that is inexcusable because that covers the course of two elections, in normal circumstances.

My Lords, this point has been discussed in the other place and I am not able to offer any encouragement. One situation I know of concerns my mother-in-law, for instance, who does not choose to keep a valid passport. However, because a passport is such a useful identification document, she uses that as a source of identification. I do not think that it is an unreasonable burden on a presiding officer to be presented with a validly issued document and take the judgment, “Does this person look like their photo?” It is very clear that, should the presiding officer take the view that they do not look like the photo, he is to deny them a vote.

We do not want to encourage the use of out-of-date ID. However, removing the requirement makes practical sense. If electors can be satisfactorily identified from the ID they present, we do not believe that they should be disenfranchised. We believe that presiding officers will have sufficient time and capacity to make that decision. I am afraid that I cannot offer any warmth on the possibility of a time limit.

I move on now to the issue of young people. There are some concerns about the process. As I understand it, the chief electoral officer will be able to ask schools about children coming within the bound. He will then dispatch people to schools with the key data already on appropriate forms in order to allow the young people, in a very straightforward way, to provide the information to allow them to get on to the register.

The chief electoral officer gathers information only for the purposes of voter registration and maintaining the integrity of the electoral register. Details of names and addresses are, of course, included on the full electoral register. National insurance numbers, which will be collected, are used only to verify an individual’s identity and are kept confidential. The chief electoral officer is required to abide by data protection legislation and comprehensive data handling protocols. It is clearly an offence for the chief electoral officer or any of his staff to disclose improperly that information.

I thank the noble Lord for bringing up the point of service personnel. It is clear that it concerns Armed Forces only as, apparently, defined in Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, asked a number of questions, including where the 11 days have come from. Frankly, that just brings it into line with the UK. I do not know whether other criticisms may have influenced officials in that, but our principal motivation was to bring it into line with the UK. I do not believe that there is a Birmingham input to this, but if there is I shall write to the noble Lord. Essentially, it has been explained to me that there was a morass of good legislation already sitting there, and the only significant differences from simply drawing it together have been outlined in my speech.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laird, for his welcome and I will of course seek his advice from time to time. I hope that I have successfully covered the issue of age of photographs and have gone as far as the Government feel able to go on the matter. I agree with him, not having a wide knowledge but having gone through the details, that Northern Ireland has the best quality voter registration system in Europe.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned that we have known each other for some time. He pointed out the mistakes made in the past during previous consolidations and sought an absolute assurance that we have made no mistakes this time. My Chief Whip whispered an aside that I should give the noble Lord that assurance. The trouble is that, being a realistic sort of person, I know that it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. I have every reason to believe that officials have taken great pains to ensure that there are no careless errors. He asked me why it has taken so long to get from 2006 to 2008. All I can say is that the history of this material suggests that it grinds wondrous fine. To be fair, we are seeing the fruits tonight, but these things do seem to take a long time in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord also commented on the quality of information. Again, I do not believe that there is a Birmingham dimension to it, but I shall not comment on Great Britain voting crimes. It is right that the parties have worked together to produce a high-quality system. I commend the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 May be approved. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Tunnicliffe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 May be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (Regulation of Loans etc.: Northern Ireland) Order 2008 was the subject of a debate in this House on 12 May and has since been made. That order sets out the legislative framework for the regulation and verification of loans to political parties in Northern Ireland by the Electoral Commission and, among other things, provides for Irish citizens and bodies to make loans to Northern Ireland political parties. The order before us sets out the detail of those arrangements, including the conditions that Irish citizens and bodies must meet in order to make loans to Northern Ireland political parties and the steps to be taken by the Electoral Commission to verify such loans.

As my noble friend Lord Rooker explained during the debate in May, we consulted the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments when drafting these orders and concluded that two separate orders would be required to legislate for the regulation of loans in Northern Ireland, and that these orders must be made in sequence. That is why we are discussing the regulation of loans again today. It is our intention that the controls on loans will mirror the scheme regulating political donations in Northern Ireland that began operating in November 2007 and which has been working effectively since then. Neither the Electoral Commission nor the Northern Ireland political parties have advised us of the existence of any significant difficulties with the donations regime. The order before us therefore mirrors the provisions regulating donations to Northern Ireland political parties contained in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2007.

Part 2 of the order sets out the conditions that an Irish citizen must meet in order to enter into a loan agreement with a Northern Ireland political party; namely, eligibility to obtain specified documents evidencing their nationality. It also specifies those Irish bodies which may enter into a loan agreement with a Northern Ireland political party. Schedule 1 specifies the information that must be provided to the Electoral Commission in transaction reports relating to Irish lenders. Part 3 sets out the steps that the Electoral Commission must take to verify the information contained in the reports on loans that it receives. The order requires the commission to verify 50 per cent of the reported loans made by individuals and 100 per cent of the reported loans made by bodies. Information provided may be verified by, for example, contacting the bodies listed in Article 11 of the order. During the confidential reporting period, the commission is placed under a duty not to disclose information contained in transaction reports received from Northern Ireland participants during the confidential reporting period. However, under Article 7 the commission is required to publish certain information if it believes on reasonable grounds that a lender was an unauthorised participant. Again, this simply mirrors the provision for donations.

During the debate in May, concerns were expressed in relation to the position of British citizens living in Ireland who may wish to enter into regulated transactions with Northern Ireland political parties. I believe that my noble friend Lord Rooker promised to write to noble Lords, but it appears that the letter has not got through, so I will try to touch on the questions that were raised. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked about those who live in the border areas and consider themselves to be British and not Irish. I would not wish to presume to know the status or nationality of the individuals to whom he refers. Nevertheless, the legislation is clear: they can donate and take part in regulated transactions, which include loans, to a Northern Ireland political party if they are on a UK electoral register or if they are Irish citizens and can satisfy the conditions relating to verification. I reiterate that British citizens, whether they live in Ireland or elsewhere in the world, must be registered on a UK electoral register in order to enter into a regulated transaction with a political party in the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. Broadly speaking, it is possible for those living abroad to register as an overseas elector for up to 15 years while living outside the UK. If registered as such, they can donate, enter into loans and vote as an overseas elector.

The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised a similar point in relation to organisations based in Ireland. Again, I would not wish to presume on the status of these organisations, but would draw his attention to paragraph 4 of the order which, among other things, refers to an “authorised participant” as being a body,

“which keeps an office in Ireland or Northern Ireland, being an office from which the carrying on of one or more of its principal activities is directed”,

and is,

“any unincorporated association of two or more persons which does not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs, but which carries on business or other activities wholly or mainly in Ireland”.

That seems to be a fairly broad definition that it will be possible for the organisations to which he referred to fall under.

The broad principles regulating loans to Northern Ireland political parties were approved by the House last month. This order simply sets out the practical details required to give full effect to those principles, and as I mentioned earlier, the provisions contained in the order simply mirror those already in place for regulating donations to Northern Ireland political parties. This order will ensure the successful extension of the political donations scheme to cover loans, and in so doing, represents an important step forward in increasing accountability in the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 May be approved. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Tunnicliffe.)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord once again for bringing forward the order in a clear way, and in particular for paying attention to the loose ends, if I can put it like that, left over from our debate in May which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has not had time to answer in detail. I am sure that he would have done so tonight had he been here. We had a lengthy debate in May and a number of serious queries were raised, not because of the proposals but to make sure that the detail and the control mechanisms were in place.

I am by no means an expert in detailed administration, but having looked through the order before us, it is clear that the Government and the department have taken a lot of trouble to try to cover every possibility. It is one thing in England, Wales and Scotland to make this work, but when you have two countries with a border between them, something the other three countries of the United Kingdom do not have, it becomes more difficult. I am sure that, in principle, this will work. It will be positive in funding parties and getting them adequate access to each other across the border, which I believe is right. I hope that one day we will have an Irish party, Fianna Fáil perhaps, organised in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party is already there. One day, perhaps even the Labour Party will venture its toe into the water of Northern Ireland. If that is going to happen, I believe that we have here as near to a fair playing field as one gets in legislation and I support the order.

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the order and think it is absolutely right that loans be subject to the same protocols as donations.

My Lords, I rise now to ask the question which, carelessly and prematurely, I was on the point of asking a little while ago. The first line on page 3 of the order refers to bodies,

“(ii) incorporated within Ireland or another member State”.

I am a bear of very little brain, but I do not know what “or another member State” means.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his warm welcome of this order. We have worked very hard at getting the right balance here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his support. “Another member State” is a member of the EEA, which is the European Union plus Switzerland and one other Scandinavian state. The crucial drafting, which is to stop brass-plate type institutions evading all these regulations, is the second part of Article 4, which refers to bodies,

“which keep an office in Ireland or Northern Ireland being an office from which the carrying on of one or more of its principal activities is directed”.

The prescribed bodies are, among others:

“A company—

appearing on the Register of Companies of Ireland; and

incorporated within Ireland or another member State”.

The order envisages a company that is properly registered in Northern Ireland. However, whatever the other subtleties of incorporation can mean within the EU situation, both conditions must be met, not one or the other. I withdraw my previous statement: “another member State” refers to members of the European Union, not the EEA. I hope that that covers the point.

My Lords, the momentary hesitation on the government Front Bench as to whether the phrase “or another member State” refers to the EU or the EU plus the EEA causes me to question again whether those words are by themselves enough. Unless it is a term of art, familiar to all constitutional lawyers, it seems curious that what “another” alludes to has not been described in the text.

My Lords, I am in between recovering from three years on the Merits Committee and trying to learn in two days about Northern Ireland. I apologise for my hesitancy. It is apparently defined in the Interpretation Act 1978. It is regularly used in statutory instruments. Its definition is crystal clear. I apologise for getting it slightly wrong.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 14:

I endorse everything that my noble friend said. We also have amendments in this group: Amendment No. 29 is a probing amendment on the issue of full-time occupation. The clause defines full-time occupation as “at least 20 hours” a week. On what basis was that figure derived? The Government’s consultation paper states that no specific questions were designed to consult on whether 20 hours per week should constitute full-time employment, nor was there even a general question seeking views on where the threshold should lie. The consultation sheet simply asked whether those who are not in employment for a significant part of the week should participate in full-time education. It would be helpful to know why there was no consultation on the number of hours constituting full-time work for the purposes of the legislation. Why could it not, for example, be 16 or 35 hours?

There was specific consultation on whether full-time education should be set at 16 hours per week. Why, then, should 16 hours constitute full-time education when 19 hours per week would not be regarded as full-time employment? Why consult specifically on defining full-time education but not full-time employment? It seems that while those in full-time education are able to undertake appropriate learning opportunities that do not necessarily lead to a qualification, those in a full-time occupation must undergo relevant training or education—in other words, leading to a relevant qualification or course of study that is of use to the employer but not necessarily of interest to the young person.

We wish to make it possible for people to choose what training or education to take; after all, they may well have an eye on their prospects, not just their current employment. I am sure that all of the Committee can agree that that sentiment sits well with the aims of the Bill. The use of “relevant” means that the study must lead to accredited qualifications. The Government seem to have a prejudice against non-accredited learning, as demonstrated by the cuts in adult and community learning over the past few years. Different people have different needs, and the best route toward employability may not necessarily be an accredited course.

My parents had a small cake shop in Farnworth, in the north-west. The young people they employed received first-class training, but it was not accredited. When my parents could, they allowed the young people to go off on day release; when they came back they spent a great deal of time trying to put right the college learning which had no practical application when they were working. Our amendments, therefore, are designed to assist the Government by improving the Bill to take account of in-house training.

We have some sympathy with these amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 34 and 113. We share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for more clarification on what constitutes full-time and part-time—for example, why the figure is 20 hours—and that sort of thing. The CBI and the Institute of Directors made it quite clear, in the briefing that we received from them, that in-house training does not necessarily have to lead to accredited qualifications but often involves much learning of skills. They are somewhat wary of all learning having to be accredited. We are getting into a culture of accreditation. As the Minister may know, there is quite a lot of criticism of Train to Gain, where, in many cases, the problem is that employers are doing no more then they did before but are bringing in the assessors so that they can accredit their people with an NVQ level 1 or 2 and claim money from Train to Gain.

In Alison Wolf’s essay on this issue she emphasises the fact that these days many 16 and 17 year-olds—the top 10 per cent of the 25 per cent who are not participating in education post-16—may not receive formal training but are learning many useful skills. Her great fear is that the duties imposed on employers under the Bill will cause them to shy away from employing young people of 16 and 17, so that these young people will no longer acquire the “learning by doing” skills that they had gained from such jobs.

Having talked with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who is not in his place at the moment, I think that the really important route to try to develop is apprenticeship—we are probably all agreed on that. Yet if apprenticeships are not available, the danger is that those young people who do not go into jobs will be on what are termed programme apprenticeships in colleges. Those are fine: you train off the job and, if you are lucky, you get a little work experience. However, the employers do not find programme apprenticeships at all satisfactory, and we know that very well from all the information received from them. Alison Wolf is really worried that the young people who had been getting quite useful “learning by doing” training will now get a really unsatisfactory second best.

It is an odd grouping of amendments which brings together the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas about how many hours constitute part-time or full-time and the issue of accreditation. It is worrying that accreditation is being used as a blanket and that all education and training has to be accredited to have any valency in the context of the Bill.

I chair the quality and standards committee for the City and Guilds of London Institute. We were recently shown statistics for failure rates in different qualifications. The figure for the plumbing qualifications was particularly interesting. There is quite a high failure rate. We asked for more detail on why there was such a high failure rate and were shown a spread of the different items of the course and what was failed. While the plumbers were doing wonderfully on their practical plumbing and could fix your boiler, put in a central system or fix your leaking tap, they could not write essays. Because the course is accredited and leads to a qualification, the excellent academic standards that come into play as soon as one starts accrediting require that they have to be able to write. I think that most noble Lords in this Committee would agree that, when you call for a plumber when your heating is not working, you do not mind whether he can write an essay about your plumbing; you would quite like him just to fix your boiler.

I am glad to have the opportunity to spell out more fully our position on accreditation, because, as ever, it is too complex to be reduced to a few sentences, as I was trying to do in our earlier debates. I shall then deal with the threshold between part-time and full-time.

All part-time education and training needs to be accredited to qualify under the Bill, because it is important that young people gain qualifications to help them progress in their career. It is important, too, as a guarantor of quality, because employers could otherwise offer any education and training regardless of the quality, and it would count without there being any external check on the process. However, full-time education and training under Clause 4 does not have to lead towards an accredited qualification, because we wish to allow for other categories of education that might be provided, including home education, independent school education—as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, keeps reminding me, they do not have to offer just accredited qualifications—and non-formal education. In practice, the Learning and Skills Council funds mainly accredited learning, but other forms of learning may be publicly funded through other local authority funding streams. That may include, for example, the parenting classes about which we spoke earlier. It is possible for parenting classes funded by local authorities not to be accredited but still to attract local authority funding. Developments such as the foundation learning tier and entry to learning will make it easier to get good, non-formal learning programmes recognised and publicly funded. I hope that that clarifies more fully the position on accreditation.

Why have we set the bar at 20 hours? More than 90 per cent of young people who say that they work full time as their main activity work for more than 20 hours. Some 93 per cent of those who say that they work part time while studying full time work for 20 hours or fewer. Taking those two factors into account, 20 hours seemed to us the right threshold. By contrast, if we had drawn the line for full-time work at 16 hours, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, it would catch around 15 per cent of those who study full time and work part time. So it was on the basis of what we regarded as a reasonable assessment of the impact of existing patterns of working and studying that we introduced the threshold that we did. I should mention that, with one day a week in training, work plus training would occupy most of a young person’s week—around four days—at the 20-hour threshold. If the threshold was much lower than this, the young person would not be occupied for most of their time and it would reduce the potential benefits. We have taken all those factors into account when deciding that the 20 hours was an appropriate threshold.

I am grateful to the Minister for that elucidation. He is allowing himself to pursue a structure that is too rigid and will not really adapt itself to what individuals need. But that is part of a larger problem. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 15:

Perhaps I had better explain. I cannot do better than to refer to the last speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when he described how accreditation would work. He said that the LSC would fund the courses that it approved of but, if it was appropriate for someone to have a parenting course, that money would have to come out of other funds that the local authority had available to it. That is exactly the problem with accreditation as it runs now.

There is presumably, when the Minister puts the LSC's budget together, the thought that it will be providing education for all these 16 to 18 year-olds and that is how that budget is calculated. So there is, at least notionally, a pot of money available there for every 16 to 18 year-old. But, if that 16 to 18 year-old ought not to be following one of the courses that the LSC chooses to fund, it has to persuade somebody else, out of some other hard-pressed budget, to spare the money necessary to fund that course, while the money that is in the LSC budget gets used for other purposes. That seems entirely inappropriate. If you have a system that is carefully determining what is right for a particular young person and you have a pot of money that is available to fund whatever is right for that particular young person, the two should coincide. It is therefore important that the local authority, as the body making the decision at the end of the day on what it is prepared to sign up to as being right for the young person, should be able to use the money which has in effect been allocated to that young person by central government for the purposes that are right for the young person and not be bound by whatever prejudices and fashions sway the Learning and Skills Council at that particular moment.

We support the Liberal Democrats on the new clause on learning and support contracts, as we did in another place, and my name is attached to the amendment. I also listened to my noble friend Lord Lucas, who seems to make a great deal of sense.

The learning and support contracts will be used where the young person concerned is failing to fulfil the duty imposed by Clause 2. We believe that a learning and support contract should always be considered before an attendance notice is issued. By providing a mechanism earlier, before and ideally instead of the enforcement process, our desire is to minimise the chance of enforcement proceedings taking place, because of the damaging effect that they can have on a young person’s prospects.

Time and again in the evidence sessions in another place we were told that young people could be criminalised by the Bill. That is a great concern not only for the young people, but for many of the organisations that work with the most disadvantaged members of our society. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have spoken to many such people in recent weeks who are greatly concerned that if those young people were stigmatised or criminalised, they could become entirely disengaged and impossible to re-engage. We are far more likely to achieve increased participation by inspiring and encouraging than by coercion and compulsion. These new contracts would provide a framework for a local authority to agree with a young person and their parent or carer how that young person was to fulfil their duty to participate and how that arrangement was to be supported. By intervening early, we hope to stave off the worst possible outcomes. For that reason I give my wholehearted support to this new clause.

I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 50. This seems to me to be a constructive and positive approach to intervening with a young person who is showing all the signs of not complying with the provisions of Clause 2. It gives him or her some standing to have a contract. He or she has never had one before. Parents will take an interest in something like that and if, as I would hope, young people who are clearly heading into difficulty have a mentor to help them, this is the kind of document that would give a basis of reference for discussions and encouragement and going to the local authority and saying, “You are not doing your part adequately”. If there is to be an element of compulsion, I welcome this as an important step to try and avoid the need for it.