asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are contemplating amending, or otherwise altering, the criminal law of self-defence, and, if not, why not.

My Lords, it is well established in English law that a person may use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of his or her family or property. What is reasonable in a particular case is ultimately best left to a jury to decide in the light of the circumstances. We remain unconvinced that a change to the law on self-defence is required.

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not take time dissembling gratitude for a wholly unsatisfactory Answer. The Minister is no doubt aware of the decision of this House in the case of R v. Clegg, the soldier who shot dead the occupant of a motor car that went past a checkpoint in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister recall the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which was agreed to by all his fellow Law Lords, in which he said that the recommendations for a change in the law were all one way and entitled to great weight? The recommendation to which he referred was, principally, the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its 14th Report in 1980 in which it stated:

"Where a person kills in a situation in which it is reasonable for some force to be used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime but the defendant uses excessive force, he should be liable to be convicted of manslaughter not murder if, at the time of the act, he honestly believed that the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances".

That recommendation—

Too long!

My Lords, that recommendation was approved by your Lordships' Select Committee which considered murder and life imprisonment, of which I was a member, in 1989. How can the Government leave the position in the state it is now?

My Lords, I did not think, for a moment, that I would satisfy the noble and learned Lord with my response. I have listened carefully to what he said, but we remain of the view that what we have is about right. It has to be a judgment taken on what is reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. We think it is right that a jury should decide in the light of those circumstances. We believe that that is the best way to conduct such matters. That would also appear to have been the view of much of the judiciary, much of the police service and of many Members from the party opposite, both in government and in opposition.

We fully understand the case and circumstances which have given rise to this extensive debate. However, we believe that we need to stay where we are, and be reasonable, proportionate and sensible in the circumstances. I well understand the fears and concerns that lie behind the Question.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the recent publicity is not so much the matter of self-defence but the lack of what every citizen expects as of right; that is, proper police protection? That applies particularly to rural areas. It is quite clear that people who live in isolated communities are not given what is their civil right; namely, proper police protection. How do the Government intend to address that problem?

My Lords, I well understand the point made by the noble Lord. It is for that reason that in setting up the crime fighting fund we added an extra sparsity factor which will benefit the more rural areas. However, we are all subject to the problem of the time that it takes for the police to arrive at an incident. I well remember having exactly the same problem when I was burgled for the fourth and final time in an 18-month period some five or six years ago. I was obliged to apprehend the burglar myself—

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I am no "have-a-go hero", but I was somewhat enraged. He spent two years behind bars and had 60 other offences taken into consideration. I hope that lie is now recovering from his heroin addiction as a consequence.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House believe that the law on this should be reviewed?

My Lords, I am intrigued by that. The Leader of the Opposition may have been of that view, but it certainly does not appear to be shared by the Shadow Home Secretary, She made it plain on the "Today" programme that she believes that the law is entirely adequate.

My Lords, is this not another example of the desirability of getting rid of the mandatory life sentence for murder so that the sentence can be tied to the seriousness of the offence?

My Lords, I am aware that this runs as a debate, particularly in legal circles, and has done since the sentence of hanging was abolished in the mid-1960s. However, there is considerable discretion within the term "life" and in mandatory sentencing. I think it is best to leave things as they are. Successive generations of the judiciary have been happy with that. I believe that the system works well as it is.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is less burglary in rural New England than there is in rural England, and that that is mainly because in rural New England householders need have no inhibitions about defending themselves, their families and their property?

My Lords, that may well be the case. However, I believe that by and large we live in a civilised society. The murder rate in the United Kingdom is admirably low. I have little doubt that that has much to do with our very tight and restrictive laws on such things as guns. Not everyone shares that view, but I hold it firmly.

My Lords, can my noble friend explain why a mandatory life sentence is not mandatory?

My Lords, it is mandatory, but there is a tariff set. I think that that point is widely understood.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What United Kingdom involvement there is in the International Rice Genome Project; and when it will be completed.

My Lords, the John Innes Centre in Norwich has been involved in planning the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, through membership of the steering committee, since its inception in 1997. The centre, together with European Union colleagues, has undertaken preparatory work to sequence part of the rice genome.

Subject to funding, the international project is due to be completed by 2006. The bulk of the work is being carried out in Japan, although the USA, China and other countries are also contributing significantly. The John Innes Centre is co-ordinating a consortium of European laboratories to sequence a considerable part—10 to 15 per cent—of the genome.

My Lords, will the Government give every possible support to this vitally important project? It should lead to the development of improved rice with increased nutritional content and much less demand on scarce resources such as land and water. Does the Minister agree that an important breakthrough in the programme was the recent decoding of the genetic sequence? Incidentally, that was carried out by Monsanto—a company with which I have no connection—which is often reviled. Does the Minister also agree that on this occasion it should be congratulated on setting an example to other companies in making the benefits of the genome information freely available?

My Lords, we are giving every encouragement to that project and shall continue to do so. The noble Lord is quite right that Monsanto made available a working draft of its decoding of the genome. But that is only a working paper; there is still a great deal of work to be done. However, those who are taking part in the sequencing project appreciate Monsanto's gesture in making that information available free of any copyright or patent restriction.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology recently drew attention to the splendid speech made by a Brit—Professor Gordon Conway, currently president of the Rockefeller Foundation—which he addressed to the Monsanto board last July? At that time he pointed out that by genetic modification of rice, the yields were already rising dramatically (a 40 to 50 per cent increase) and the nutritional quality improved greatly. Is not the message that if real advantage can be seen, as the third world countries certainly do see, there is nothing to fear from this technology?

My Lords, the Government take the view that where it is appropriate and beneficial for this technology to be used in developing countries, all support should be given to that technology.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it may put a lot of people's minds at rest on this subject if we can be assured that a large bank of existing genetic material is kept of the plants that are being genetically modified? If something goes wrong, we shall then have something to fall back on.

My Lords, that is true of all modification, whether it is genetic modification brought about by modern techniques or by any form of breeding. It is desirable to be able to retrace one's steps if any change has been made, however beneficial.

My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a trustee of the John Innes Foundation. Does the Minister agree that enormous interest has been shown around the world in genome sequencing? Is it not desirable, if possible, for the intellectual property rights to remain within the scientific community, particularly at the national academies of those countries most likely to benefit?

My Lords, clearly the important issue of intellectual property rights arises.

The noble Earl is aware of the controversy in the United States in relation to the patent rights on part of the human genome project between the Sanger Centre and a private developer. Of course, no patent can be taken out on indigenous plants. It is only where there is a degree of invention that that is possible. But it is enormously important that it should not be possible to patent a scientific invention which should be generally available for the benefit of the world.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, despite the great benefits from genetic engineering, there may also be great drawbacks? As with nuclear power, from which many people benefit greatly, awful forces may be unleashed by such a development.

My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the scientific basis for the analogy which the noble Earl seeks to draw. The case for genetic modification has to stand on its own and not by analogy with nuclear power.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the arrangements for international monitoring of the elections in Zimbabwe are satisfactory.

My Lords, we are pleased that the Government of Zimbabwe have accepted international observers to observe the elections to be held in that country on 24th and 25th June. We are satisfied with the speedy response to send observers from the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community, the European Union, South Africa and the United States. The United Nations development programme is co-ordinating the arrangements for the various teams. The first observers arrived over the weekend of 3rd and 4th June and we understand that there will be around 300 observers in total.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the latest measure of intimidation devised by Mr Mugabe's so-called veterans is that, when they encounter a mother carrying a baby and she declines to attend one of Mr Mugabe's party meetings, they seize the baby, raise it in the air and drop it on the ground? As it is only a short time since Mr Mugabe lost the referendum, and the only important political development since that time has been his campaign of intimidation, is it not clear that if he wins the election, it will only be because of that campaign of intimidation? Who will brief the monitors?

My Lords, as my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Peter Hain, said on 5th June, neither Britain nor the international community can make this election fair; only Robert Mugabe can do that. We are well aware of the stories which the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, mentions. Intimidation is definitely taking place in Zimbabwe; of that there is no doubt. But we shall not pre-empt the observers' verdict or the verdict of the people of Zimbabwe.

It is important to make the point that the opposition parties in Zimbabwe have not walked away from the elections. As they have not walked away from them, then neither should we. But we deplore the pressure that they are put under. It is vital that they be allowed to campaign freely, and we hope that the observers will play their role in trying to make that happen.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in those circumstances, which are well known to the international community and everybody else, the only role that the observers can play is to legitimise the incoming government, which will undoubtedly be led by Mr Mugabe and be a totalitarian, vicious regime?

My Lords, the more than 300 observers who will be deployed to Zimbabwe will do a good job. They will consist of 160 from the European Union, led by Pierre Schori, an MEP who was a former minister in Sweden for international development. He is extremely experienced in the field of foreign politics. The Commonwealth is sending at least 45 observers and they will be led by General Abubakar, the former head of state of Nigeria. I shall not list the others. As everyone will understand, the figures are fluid.

Noble Lords must not pre-empt everything and say, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, implied, that nothing the observers report will be able to be taken seriously enough for people to judge whether or not the elections have been fair. I believe that the observers will do a good job. We shall study with great care the reports they give to the international community on what happened during the elections. That is all the international community can do at this time.

My Lords, can my noble friend indicate what arrangements have been made and assurances given for the personal safety of the many observers whom she mentioned will be there?

My Lords, the United Nations development programme is co-ordinating the teams of observers. The arrangements for each team will be the responsibility of the organisations, such as the European Union and the Commonwealth.

My Lords, first, is it correct that British citizens are being refused admission as observers to Zimbabwe? Secondly, is it not one of the most prominent features of this tragic situation that the Movement for Democratic Change and its leaders are showing such amazing courage in the face of these hideous threats; and, indeed, of actual deaths? Is not by far the most important thing now to ensure that the observers stay on for some weeks after the election, thereby indicating that the international community has some interest in protecting these brave people against the reprisals that will certainly come—not just those in the verbal sense but reprisals in terms of murder and mayhem?

My Lords, I certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the courage of the opposition in Zimbabwe. I believe that those people are showing remarkable courage in the face of unbelievably bad behaviour. We are well aware of President Mugabe's remarks about British observers. Of course, it is for the Commonwealth and the European Commission to make decisions on the composition of their observer team. But, at present, one Briton has been proposed as an observer with the Commonwealth team while the European team has three Britons. It will be up to the organisations, whose teams consist of many different nationalities, to look after that situation. We are not sending a British observers' team as such, but Britons are certainly part of the teams from the various organisations that are going to the country to observe the elections.

My Lords, has the noble Baroness observed the report in today's edition of the Harare Financial Gazette, which states that President Mugabe will issue a decree providing that observers will have to undergo a process of accreditation by the Registrar General, whose activities they are supposed to monitor? Does she not think that, under this system, those concerned will be able to refuse to allow particular observers into the country whose background, or origins, they do not like? Has the Minister also noted the claim that tens of thousands of voters are finding that their names have been left off the electoral role?

Yes, my Lords. I am aware of both those matters. I know that the accreditation situation is being negotiated right now, as we speak. The UNDP, which is co-ordinating the teams, will be involved in the process, as will the UN, the European Union and the Commonwealth Secretariat. The organisations that are sending the observers must be satisfied that their observers will be allowed to do the job that they have been assigned to do.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not possible to hold free and fair elections in a culture which has a climate that refuses to accept liberty of opinion and refuses to uphold the rule of law? In the absence of those things, not only can there not be free and fair elections, but also the people themselves are subject to the abuses of political power.

Yes, my Lords, I hear the wise words of the right reverend Prelate. Of course, Zimbabwe is not the only country in the world in which such remarks can be made. As an international community, we must do whatever we can to try to ensure fair and just elections. Given the timescale allowed, the international community has responded to the situation in Zimbabwe very speedily and in considerable numbers in order at least to try to ensure that there is a minimum of fairness. If these elections are judged not to be fair and just by the observers, that message will go out to the international community who will respond fittingly to Zimbabwe.

My Lords—

My Lords—

Order!

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross-Benches. There may, in any event, be time for the noble Duke.

My Lords, following on from what the Minister has just said, does she agree that the success of this election-monitoring process depends on the local trained monitors for 4,000 polling stations? Is there anything that this Government can do to support the Churches and civil society which are in the process of training these very important people?

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having raised that question. We are giving, and have given, aid to NGOs for the precise purpose of training people to try to carry out fair and just democratic elections.

Montrose!

My Lords—

No!

My Lords. I believe that the next Question has been called.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What action they propose to take in the light of the report by the Audit Commission Another Country—implementing dispersal under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

My Lords, we greatly welcome the report of the Audit Commission on the dispersal arrangements. The field work for the report was undertaken between October 1999 and March 2000, and draws its conclusions from the effectiveness of dispersal operations under the voluntary arrangements. Therefore, it does not properly reflect the changing nature of the asylum service and the ways in which we are driving new arrangements forward. It makes a useful contribution to the continuing development of our policy. Many of the conclusions and recommendations made in the report have been implemented, are being developed, or are under active consideration.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The new arrangements came into force on 3rd April. Can the noble Lord tell us why the Government have used only private sector operators since then at both national and local level in England, some of which—such as, Clearsprings (Management) Limited, Adelphi Hotels Limited and Cross Construction of Brierfield in Lancashire—appear to be less than suitable for the purpose? Is it not the case that the new arrangements are proving to be bad for the asylum seekers, bad for the local communities in which they are being settled, and bad for taxpayers who are being asked to fund what appears to be a considerable amount of profiteering by the private sector?

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord's conclusions. We believe that the scheme currently in operation is proving to be extremely effective. It is providing valuable accommodation. Not all of the accommodation is in the private sector. The arrangements that have been made are effective and are providing a satisfactory level and quality of accommodation. The National Asylum Support Service fully investigates any complaints made and works very closely on them.

Much attention has been paid to Landmark in Liverpool and its activities. The two tower blocks of self-contained flats were previously used by Liverpool City Council—a well-known Liberal Democrat council—prior to the Government making available useful access to them under the new national scheme.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the proceedings on the 1999 Act many. Members of your Lordships' House raised two specific concerns about the dispersal policy? The first was precisely that hard-to-let properties on sink estates might well be used by councils which might be keen to try to maximise revenue from asylum seekers. Secondly, can the noble Lord give some assurances to the House about the position of unaccompanied minors? Many people are worried that they are being dispersed rather than being placed into a suitable environment. After all, they are children and should have access to people of a similar cultural and linguistic background.

My Lords, we must obviously try to seek a balance in terms of the quality of accommodation. I do, indeed, recall our important debates on the matter during the passage of the legislation. We are giving most careful consideration to all the accommodation that is being used. We take great care in that respect. Inspections are made, and the services of the local authority involved are made use of, as well as those of the Health and Safety Executive.

As regards the noble Lord's second point, I can confirm that the treatment and care of minors is one of those matters to which we pay the highest regard. We gave assurances during the passage of the legislation and we shall continue to give such assurances. However, if the noble Lord has knowledge of cases and instances where he feels that the service is falling short of those very high standards, I should be most grateful to learn of them.

My Lords, is not the Audit Commission report a shocking indictment of Labour's record on asylum and, indeed, a personal embarrassment to the Home Secretary who claimed that his policy of forced dispersal was an answer to all the problems? Only half the original target has been met in terms of accommodation. Are not local authorities being asked to pick up the tab for this asylum folly? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the present shambles is unfair to everyone. It is unfair to local authorities, to taxpayers and to genuine refugees.

My Lords, I am intrigued by the noble Viscount's observations which verged on a political rant. However, he made serious points. We believe that our dispersal system is working well. It certainly works far better than the voluntary dispersal arrangements which we established with consortia prior to the introduction of the national scheme. We also believe that we are on track with policy. The number of asylum seekers is coming down. The number of applications being considered is increasing in terms of the volume of decisions taken—last month one of the highest-ever figures was recorded in that regard. We now believe that we have a firm grip on the policy. I greatly regret the way in which noble Lords opposite who are members of the Conservative Party have sought to use this issue in a totally shabby way, having left our Government with an absolute shambles of a system. We are now putting a sound system in place which is fair and proper. We are exercising that policy justly and fairly and in the interests of the British public.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister would wish to note—

Order!

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order paper. In so doing, as the order of consideration of clauses is somewhat unusual, I ought to say a few words about it. The reason for taking the clauses out of their numerical order in the Bill is because the Bill is largely a rewrite, with amendments, of large parts of the Gas Act and the Electricity Act. We believe that it is for the convenience of the House to be able to consider comparable topics at the same time rather than have to move around the Marshalled List, as it were. The proposal we are putting forward has been agreed through the usual channels. It is the same as the procedure adopted in another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Utilities Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

• Clause 1,
• Schedule 1,
• Clause 2,
• Schedule 2,
• Clauses 4 to 9,
• Clause 13,
• Clause 10,
• Clause 14,
• Clause 11,
• Clause 15,
• Clause 12,
• Clause 16,
• Clauses 17 to 28,
• Clause 74,
• Clause 85,
• Clauses 29 to 31,
• Clause 73,
• Clauses 32 to 39,
• Clauses 80 to 82,
• Clause 40,
• Clause 84,
• Clause 41,
• Clàuse 86,
• Clause 42,
• Clause 87,
• Clauses 43 to 50,
• Schedule 4,
• Clause 83,
• Clause 51,
• Schedule 5,
• Clause 52,
• Clause 88,
• Clause 53,
• Clause 89,
• Clause 54,
• Clause 90,
• Clause 55,
• Clause 91,
• Clause 56,
• Clause 92,
• Clause 57,
• Clause 93,
• Clause 58,
• Clause 94,
• Clause 59,
• Clause 95,
• Clause 60,
• Clause 96,
• Clauses 61 to 68,
• Clause 97,
• Clause 69,
• Clause 98,
• Clauses 70 to 72,
• Clause 101,
• Clauses 75 to 79,
• Clauses 99 and 100,
• Clause 102,
• Clause 3,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 103 to 105,
• Schedules 6 to 8,

Clauses 106 and 107.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the decisions of the usual channels have not always been fully approved by Members of your Lordships' House and that taking clauses out of their numerical order often causes confusion in the course of Committee or Report stages? Although on this occasion we shall consider carefully whether the considerable alteration is justified, the Government and the committee which considers these matters should be very reluctant indeed to change the numerical order.

My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the points that the noble Lord raises. I respect his judgment in this matter. The usual channels in this case are the relevant Front Benches who are responsible for the large majority of the amendments that are tabled. If we are wrong, the procedure will be seen to be wrong. However, it worked in another place. We believe that it will help the consideration of the Bill. I commend the Motion to the House.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

My Lords, before we proceed further I wish to ask the Minister a question of which I have given him notice.

I understand that yesterday the Prime Minister made a most interesting speech to the National Federation of Women's Institutes. I very much regret that I was not present to hear it as I might have joined in at some stage or t' other! However, he referred to his concern about sub-post offices—a matter with which I believe everyone in this House is concerned. He also said that the Government intended to make a statement about what they would do to help sub-post offices in the future. As we are about to embark on the first day of the Committee stage of the Postal Services Bill, will the Minister tell us when the statement will be made? Will it affect the Bill? Will it mean more government amendments? Will it make our amendments ineffective? Have we wasted much time trying to make everything right? I hope that the Minister, who smiled at me so nicely across the Dispatch Box, will give the House a satisfactory reply.

My Lords, I support my noble friend's comments, which are absolutely right. I have it on good authority that the Prime Minister said:

"You have a strong campaign on rural post offices. I want to preserve them too … Later this month we will publish plans that allow people to carry on taking out pensions and benefits in cash and that will protect rural post offices and offer them a new lease of life".

I am not entirely sure—my source did not tell me this—whether he said "We will publish plans" or "I will publish plans". However, it is not surprising that I have my suspicions about that. Nor did my source tell me whether the word "that" in the sentence,

"that will protect rural post offices and offer them a new lease of life",

referred to the taking out of pensions and benefits in cash or to something else. If it refers to something else, again my noble friend is quite right to say that that will affect proceedings on the Bill. It is bound to, at some stage. Have we already wasted much time? Are we about to waste much time second guessing what the Prime Minister or, indeed, the Secretary of State might say by tabling amendments, manuscript amendments and so on, in order to clarify the position? If the noble Lord will clarify the position now, we should all be extremely grateful. That would probably help him too.

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, the comments of my two noble friends raise the question: what did the Prime Minister say in his speech to the Women's Institute yesterday? Is the noble Lord aware that I have tried to obtain from No 10 Downing Street a transcript of the speech as delivered? I am informed that no such document exists. I already have in my possession the speech as it was intended to be delivered, which, in the way of the Government's presentation, had been issued in advance. Printed in large letters across the top are the words,

"Subject to check on delivery".

Now we are told that the Prime Minister dropped substantial parts from his prepared speech. Which bits stayed in and which were left out?

My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about time wasted in preparation. On Monday this week the Secretary of State attended the Communication Workers Union conference. He said that the report from the PIU is imminent. We heard at Second Reading that it hoped to report to the Prime Minister soon after Easter. Can we be told whether that report is imminent or whether it will be produced in some weeks' or months' time?

My Lords, before my ex-house companion at Eton replies, I hope I may say a few words.

Privilege!

The only two members of my house who were not thought fit for government office were the noble Lord and myself. They were right about myself but wrong about the noble Lord.

If the Prime Minister implied in his speech that he would change his policy, either the Bill ought to be taken away and redrafted or it is flannel. Which is it?

My Lords, again before the noble Lord responds, I agree with the points raised by my noble friends. Unlike, I suspect, other Members of the House, I have been dealing with this particular issue during the passage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. It has raised enormous problems because we have not been able to get any answers. I can tell noble Lords that, for good reasons, there was due to be a meeting this morning with Alan Johnson, where at least some light may have been thrown on the issue. That meeting had to be cancelled. If the Minister can respond to this matter it would be extremely helpful, not only to many of us working on this Bill but also to those of us who have been doing a large amount of work on the other Bill.

My Lords, before the Minister replies, if he is aware of what the Prime Minister said, perhaps he can tell your Lordships' House before more amendments are tabled and before any amendments are debated. If he does not know what the Prime Minister said—and, more importantly, if he does not know what the Prime Minister meant, which is more likely—there is no case for the Committee stage to proceed.

My Lords, it is very nice to see that the Women's Institute has in filtrated this House. I am sure that it will lead to good things.

If the members of the Women's Institute had listened to what the Prime Minister said yesterday, they would have a clearer picture. The position is very clear. The PIU report on post offices will be published shortly. This will, of course, be done with due respect for the parliamentary conventions. These issues do not impinge directly on the Bill before us, although the report may well help inform decisions on whether schemes under Clause 102, the subsidy clause, are needed.

My Lords, the Question is that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think that the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.

Division called.

Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.

If my Motion on the Marshalled List were to be taken at face value it would be a wrecking amendment. Such was never my intention. But recent Rules of the House—which I must confess I do not like one little bit—make it virtually obligatory to announce one's intention to ask general points on a clause or schedule by putting down a Motion that such be opposed. In the good old days, of course, one just stood up and spoke. Be that as it may, I was trying to be good.

I have, or rather had, two questions—both of which have been somewhat pre-empted by the Secretary of State's announcement today. I cannot believe that he was so frightened of what I might say—

It would be helpful to the speaker if those who are leaving the Chamber would do so silently.

I was saying that I have been pre-empted by an announcement today of the Secretary of State, Mr Byers. I cannot believe that he was so frightened of what the House might say or do, or indeed what I might say or do, that he decided to come clean. That said, it is annoying, to say the least, that not once but twice in the past 24 hours we have been pre-empted by announcements by two members of the Cabinet.

We have had already a short discussion of the Prime Minister's activities yesterday, but I venture to suggest that your Lordships as a whole will not know who the members of the postal services commission are to be. That is one thing that I sought to discover.

The other matter has also disappeared—namely, how can it be that paragraph 1 of the schedule states that,

"The Commission shall consist of…a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State",

and no fewer than three other people appointed by him after consultation with the chairman and the chief executive. However, paragraph 5 goes on to say that the commission shall appoint the chief executive. It looks to me as if the chief executive was to have had a hand in appointing himself—which, of course, is all wrong. At this point, perhaps I may say that I am delighted that, unlike in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, there was in the department every intention of having a chairman and a chief executive. On that Bill, I understand, the jury is still out.

I said that I have been pre-empted. Mr Byers announced today that he had appointed not three but five other persons to join with the chairman and chief executive designate. I understand that these are: Mr Robin Aaronson, who is a director of the London office of a firm of business consultants and a trained economist; Ms Julia Kaufmann, who is, of course, currently a director of the BBC's "Children in Need" appeal, but I understand that that is coming to an end; Ms Janet Lewis-Jones, who has a portfolio of appointments which includes the British Board of Film Classification, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and the British Waterways Board; and Mr Ken Olisa, who is chairman and chief executive of a company working with IT innovators and investors. He is also governor of the Peabody Trust and, I am sure, of many other organisations. Then, surprise, surprise, there is Mr Tony Cooper, who is a very senior trade unionist. He is general secretary and chief executive officer of the Engineers' & Managers' Association and a member of the TUC General Council.

I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some further information about the appointments. Are there to be any more appointments and has the chairman yet decided on a quorum to put to the first meeting? Will the meeting be during or after the Bill receives Royal Assent? Are we, in short, going to be pre-empted by further announcements on the Post Office during the course of the proceedings on the Bill? I, for one, believe that already the Government are, to say the least, in danger of being accused of contempt of the House, on which of course there are other grounds into which it would be inappropriate to go just now.

The position of the chief executive having a hand in appointing himself also applies to Schedule 2, which deals with the consumer council for postal services. I could have fired the same warning shot across the Minister's bows on that matter by giving notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill, but I did not think that that would be right. However, depending on the answer I receive from the Minister, I may have to do something similar by means of a more direct amendment on Report.

Perhaps I may say to the Minister that I am extremely flattered to be described as a member of the Women's Institute. I am not, but as he described us collectively as that, I might as well say that at all times I found members of the institute to be excellent. I consulted the institute on almost every consumer matter on which I had to have a common sense view. I spoke at two of its annual conferences and found that the Women's Institute was very good at listening.

My question about Schedule 1 concerns the terms of appointment. The schedule states that an appointment shall not exceed five years. However, paragraph 3(5) states:

"No person shall be prevented from being a member of the Commission … merely because he has previously been a member of the Commission".

That seems to be a little contradictory. Perhaps the Minister will explain.

I should hate it if my comments were thought to be in any way derogatory of the Women's Institute. I was in fact suggesting that it would be a good development for the House if such an infiltration took place.

I was asked about the appointments to the postal services commission. First, perhaps I may say that those appointed seem to be admirable people. I can assure the noble Lord that those are all the appointments to the postal services commission. I was asked about the five-year term. We believe that an appointment should not last longer than that, but there may well be circumstances in which a person does very well on the commission and the Government would wish to appoint him a second time. That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable position in these circumstances. The reason is that the person should come up for re-appointment. The appointment should not go on longer, but people should not be excluded from being re-appointed simply because they have already served one term.

This is Committee stage so I am allowed to speak again and cross-question the Minister. He did not refer to my point about the anomaly of a chief executive seeming to have a hand in the appointment of himself. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me on that point.

I am not certain that I understand the point that is being made. The commission appoints the chief executive. In that sense, it seems to me to be perfectly sensible that the commission should do that.

The chief executive is already a member of the commission. The whole thing seems rather odd.

This is not at all an unusual procedure. It is not unusual for a board to appoint a chief executive when that chief executive might well be a member of that board.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 77, line 5, leave out ("Minister for the Civil Service") and insert ("Secretary of State").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 2. The need for these amendments arises as a result of further advice from the Cabinet Office that as primary responsibility for approving the terms and conditions of employment of NDPB staff rests with the individual departmental sponsor Ministers, the Secretary of State and not the Minister for the Civil Service should be specified in these two subsections. I beg to move.

I think I am right in saying that "the Secretary of State", when referred to in legislation, means any Secretary of State. Therefore, although the Minister refers to the department in this instance—indeed, one can kick off with the department advising the current Secretary of State or any Secretary of State at the moment for the Department of Trade and Industry—in theory, anyway, any Minister so designated as a Secretary of State could conduct activities under the Bill. Is that not the case?

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may point out that all legislation is framed on precisely this basis.

My only comment on this matter would be—I would not question the advice that would come from the Cabinet Office, and I would accept obviously that that would be brought back here—that the Bill has been through the House of Commons. Why was it not felt necessary to deal with the matter then? Why has this come out as an afterthought, as it were?

Before the Minister responds, can he advise the Committee whether the other references in the Bill to the "Minister for the Civil Service" still stand and are still valid? Can the Minister explain to the Committee whether that is a known statutory position, unlike the term "Secretary of State" which is well understood in legislation? Have there been precedents where the office of Minister for the Civil Service has been referred to?

This schedule relates to the appointment of the members. Can the Minister say whether any current members of POUNC have been approached to see whether they are willing to be appointed? They have the background knowledge and they have been serving consumers extremely well. I do not think that anyone in either House has paid a tribute to them, so on this occasion I should like to do so. I should like to ask the Minister whether such an idea has been considered.

The matter came to the House because we had fresh advice. The Cabinet Office plays no role in agreeing terms and conditions for staff of individual NDPBs. That was the situation. Members of the commission were appointed according to the Nolan rules. As I said, I believe that suitable people have been approached. I add my tribute to those people who I think have done an extremely good job; no doubt they were considered in this context.

Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to address the specific points that I made about the position of the Minister for the Civil Service.

The noble Viscount asked whether it is usual to refer to the Minister for the Civil Service in these terms. As the provision has now been taken out of the Bill and replaced by the "Secretary of State", I think that the point no longer arises.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, there are other places in the Bill—for example, line 12 on page 77—where there is reference to the Minister for the Civil Service. I do not believe that that reference is covered by the amendment.

I can see no reason that he should not be referred to in legislation in the same way as there is reference to the Secretary of State.

With the greatest respect, there appears to be some confusion. The Minister has said that the references will be changed, but clearly there are some references that are not addressed by the amendment. Does the Minister consider that those references should be changed by further amendments, or does he believe that the references to the Minister for the Civil Service are now correct?

With this amendment we are changing the person who makes the decision. The references to the Minister for the Civil Service, as they apply to him, stand; but in this particular case the person who takes the decision has been changed.

I find the Minister's explanation somewhat confusing. I accept that the Minister may not be confused, but I am. I would be happy if he could clarify the matter for me. My noble friend pointed to the fact that on page 77, in lines 5 and 6, in the paragraph dealing with staff, the Cabinet Office has advised the Minister that the reference to the Minister for the Civil Service to be changed to the Secretary of State. However, only a few lines later it says that,

"The Council shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service".

So it appears that the Minister for the Civil Service is to be paid, but the Secretary of State will take the decisions. I wonder whether something has been left out of the amendment.

Is it possible that this is not a matter of "joined-up government"?

This is a simple matter. Previously, the subparagraph stated:

"The appointment shall be on such terms and conditions of service as the Minister for the Civil Service may approve".

but now it will state:

"the Secretary of State may approve".

That is because, under the procedures that now exist, the Secretary of State makes such decisions and not the Minister for the Civil Service.

There is no reason to change other references to the Minister for the Civil Service. In this amendment we are changing the person who will take the decisions. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if, as in this case, on the basis of fresh advice, it becomes clear that he is the person who decides. That is not an unreasonable position to take.

Can the Minister give us a commitment that references to the Minister for the Civil Service in the Bill will be looked at to ensure that the Bill is drafted as the Government intend?

I shall certainly do that. It was unfortunate that we did not get it right first time. We are now correcting the matter and I shall make certain that any other references are correct.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 77, line 6, leave out ("Minister for the Civil Service") and insert ("Secretary of State").

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 20, at end insert—

("() Where the Commission has imposed such a condition, it must include a condition that the designs and illustrations on adhesive postage stamps proving the payment of the public tariff (as mentioned in section 4(1)(b)) reflect the entire United Kingdom as well as its history and culture.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. In any revamping of the postal services we should ensure that items that are collected and in which people have an interest— namely stamps—should advertise the virtues of our country. They should reflect all sections of the United Kingdom, its culture and its history. It is extremely important that, whenever the commission licenses bodies that are likely to undertake those tasks, it ensures that the tasks are undertaken in a way that reminds everyone that it is the postal service of the United Kingdom.

Recently I was distressed—perhaps this is why I have tabled this amendment—to discover that the current postal service has decided not to celebrate the bicentenary of the creation of the United Kingdom in 2001, but instead it has decided to celebrate pond life. I am not against pond life—some of my best friends actually like pond life—but that will not capture the ethos of the United Kingdom in the year when we should be celebrating the bicentenary of the creation of the United Kingdom. I want to ensure that, in future, we do not become the laughing stock of postal services around the world, as we have over the issue of pond life.

I have enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Laird. Like him, I hope that every thing celebrates the United Kingdom. I feel strongly that we should always celebrate the United Kingdom. However, I have some concerns about this amendment because I fear that it may be too prescriptive and practically impossible to implement.

As far as the design of stamps is concerned, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have their own designs of definitive stamps. The noble Lord may be talking about sets of commemorative stamps that are produced from time to time showing pictures of birds or artists and so on. I believe that it may prove difficult to insist that such commemorative stamps, which may be only four in number, contain such matters. I totally agree about the United Kingdom, but I am concerned about how this measure would be implemented.

No matter from what part of the United Kingdom stamps originate, they all have on them the sovereign's head. That is a unifying factor. There have been rumours—maybe no more than suggestions—that the European Commission wants to produce a European stamp that would be used throughout the EC and may not allow individual nations to use their own stamps. Therefore, I believe that this amendment, or something like it, should be accepted.

On this amendment, I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. He has raised an extremely important point. This is the upper of the two Houses in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It seems extraordinary, according to answers elicited from Her Majesty's Government by the noble Lord!I follow his lead in this matter—that at present the Government have no intention of celebrating the anniversary of the creation of the United Kingdom in 2001. I cannot imagine another country in the world that would not celebrate such an event. The noble Lord has put his finger on the fact that the Post Office appears to have other priorities. I am the owner of a decent and deep pond in Somerset. I shall conduct a focus group among its inhabitants to see whether they would prefer to have their stamp, or whether they would consider that the history of the United Kingdom is more important.

Perhaps interest groups around the country could be consulted. I pick, entirely at random, the Women's Institute. As the Committee knows, I am not a boastful man, but it may be useful to put on the record that, like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, when I have spoken to that institute I have received a warm reception. I believe that it would consider it extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to promote next year's anniversary.

We do not want the Minister to find himself in difficulties, so if the amendment is imperfectly worded, perhaps he can give the Committee an undertaking to return to the matter on Report. I believe that characteristically the noble Lord has put his finger on the point. I am right behind him.

I believe that a nugget can be found here, but I see a slight problem. The noble Lord will be familiar with the hand of Ulster on stamps issued in the Province. No doubt he will also be aware of the reproduction of the Welsh leek and the Scottish thistle on stamps. I cannot see how one can get around the problem without doing away with those symbols.

None the less, I believe that it is absolutely right that the Post Office should consider a special issue to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be one of the first subjects to be debated by the new commission. Incidentally, I have not yet been told when the first meeting of that body is due to take place.

I know that the subject of stamps arouses keen interest among many people. However, their design and illustration is not a matter for primary legislation and the proposed amendment would be unnecessarily restrictive. Furthermore, it would be unworkable. I suspect that it would be difficult to reach a consensus on what reflects the entire United Kingdom.

The Government are content for the. Post Office company to choose the themes for its annual stamp programme, as it does at present. What is depicted on stamps is entirely a matter for the company to decide, in consultation with the Stamps Advisory Committee. I should point out that the Post Office undertakes a great deal of research on what people would like to see represented on stamps. For myself, I believe that that is probably a better way of discovering what people want rather than turning it into a political issue, which certain groups might seek to exploit.

The position taken by the Government as regards the Post Office is entirely in line with the established practice followed by successive governments since the establishment of the Post Office in 1969.

I am not aware of any proposals for uniform European stamps. Postage stamps are particular to postal operators and there are no plans to merge all the different EU postal groups. While I understand the interest of the noble Lord in these matters, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks and I take on board many of the points that he makes. However, we wish to see postal services in place that reflect accurately the country they serve. That is not unreasonable. I understand the point made by the Minister on market research, but I believe that no market research projects have been undertaken or focus groups set up—including those for children—recently in Northern Ireland. That is a shame when one considers that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom with its own stamp regime, a point made earlier by several noble Lords. Perhaps the Minister can write to me on the matter.

What we would like to see is a form of design that reflects the entire United Kingdom across the complete range of stamp values. It is a pity that we do not occasionally highlight points that are good about the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, sometimes stamps are produced that make me wonder why the sovereign's head is not depicted in red; she must be very embarrassed to have her head put on such stamps. We should select themes and issues that reflect the whole nation in all its diversity and we should emphasise its collective worth and strengths. Whatever postal authority is in place in the future, it should ensure that it looks after the nation as a whole.

I shall reserve the right to hold further consultations on this issue and I may refer to it again in the future. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 25, leave out ("one delivery of relevant postal packets is") and insert ("two deliveries of relevant postal packets are").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. I should tell the Minister that both are probing amendments.

The Government are providing for one delivery of mail every working day and one collection of mail every working day. That is what we already expect, although I believe that it cannot always be achieved. The Bill excuses all geographical considerations such as, for example, the remoter parts of the United Kingdom where such a rate of delivery and collection is simply not reasonable or practical. It also excuses "other circumstances".

Those other circumstances are not defined, but common sense suggests that they may include strikes, snowstorms and events of that nature. However, one objective of the Bill is to enable the Post Office to improve and expand its services. The Post Office is of course a labour-intensive industry and a major part of its costs is the wage bill. There is no doubt that postmen work very hard. A great deal of their work is, rather like an iceberg, hidden beneath the surface. It is not a matter only of someone slipping a letter through the letter box. The mail has to be sorted by the postman into the correct order in which he will deliver it from door to door. Nevertheless, especially since the advent of electronic sorting methods—pioneered by the British Post Office—there is now a considerable amount of slack time available to the staff.

Freed of the Treasury's insatiable demands for money, we hope that the Post Office will be able to improve its services. Were one to ask the public what improvements they most want to see, at the top of the list would be speedier and more frequent collections and deliveries; the one invariably follows from the other.

I am sufficiently old-fashioned to convert prices into pre-decimal money. However, I feel that I must stop saying that kind of thing when speaking from the Dispatch Box. I know that in the past I have said that I will not even use automatic machines. I should get myself modernised! Nevertheless, it is true that I do tend to think of such prices in pre-decimal money. As far as I am concerned, the cost of sending a letter by first-class mail is still five shillings and fourpence. Nowadays the Post Office has to compete with fax transfer, which is quicker, cheaper and much more reliable than the post. It also has to compete with e-mail, which is even faster and cheaper than the fax. The only way in which the Post Office will be able to meet such competition is by offering improved services.

We want the Post Office to be able to meet the new competition. I believe that that is the wish of every Member of the Committee. The current dictionary of buzz words includes the phrase, "value for money". I believe that the value for money to be found in my 5s.4d. is that someone at the Post Office should send my letter on its journey by, at the most, 12 hours after I have put it into the letter box and that letters arriving at my local sorting office should not lie in the pigeonhole for up to a whole day before someone delivers them.

I realise that that costs money, but the Post Office has the money and it could do no better than spend its resources on an improved service to customers. Nothing will be more valuable to customers and it will ensure that the Post Office survives well in the new climate. Furthermore, I think that the situation will certainly improve once the Post Office does not have to pay large dividends to the Treasury. I beg to move.

Almost every point made by the noble Baroness in moving the amendment is absolutely right. I am also sure that all postal workers, men and women, will be delighted by her comments on the efforts made by them in their day-to-day work. I offer my general support to the amendment and I welcome the fact that both Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 are probing amendments. That gives us a chance to get matters right because, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, it will not be practicable to deliver twice a day all over the United Kingdom. Reference has been made to pre-decimalisation. I can remember back to before the Post Office cuts. We used to undertake 18 deliveries a week and in certain areas of London we made six collections a day. That of course is no longer possible.

As regards the proposal for a second delivery, only yesterday I heard the regulator addressing a large audience. He stated that he was going to obey the law. Here we are discussing the law, not the wishes of a commission or the hopes of the Post Office management. The regulator referred to the law on service standards that will be laid down by Parliament. Some work needs to be done on this provision in order to ensure that two deliveries are practicable. A degree of flexibility will be required. That is for a good reason: a reserve must be provided for when the unexpected happens. A second delivery can ensure that first-class mail that should have caught the first delivery arrives. The first-class mail may not have arrived for the reasons already mentioned, or perhaps there has been an accident involving a vehicle. If we are to retain first and second-class services, the second delivery is another means of dealing with second-class mail. The second delivery makes it possible to deal with any overhang from the first delivery.

I also welcome the reference to "collections" in Amendment No. 7. It is not good enough merely to say that there should be one delivery a day. A good number of businesses depend on several collections a day. In my time we had to work collections in with other jobs to ensure a constant flow of mail throughout the day, not just during a specified time when the streets were full and sorting offices blocked up. Additional thought should be given to this part of the Bill. I suggest that the Minister takes this matter away and looks at it again.

I entirely support the principle of my noble friend's amendments. To talk about improving the service assumes that the service is at present acceptable. It is not. At this stage I do not refer to postal workers but to management. Consumers have little or no relevant access to any complaints procedure. I live in a block of flats in central London. On some days of the week that block of flats does not receive any postal delivery whatever, never mind two, and that may go on for two or three days. Therefore, first-class mail takes five days to arrive. A person who has purchased a first-class stamp is entitled to expect his mail to be delivered within that period.

I have more resources and background knowledge than the average consumer to deal with this problem. When it happens I ring up the customer services department of the Post Office and speak to some extremely polite people. They say that the situation is awful and that they will respond immediately. Two days go by but nothing happens. I then ask for the telephone number of the manager who is responsible for deliveries. Finally, I manage to contact that individual and tell him that the whole block of flats has not had a delivery for three days. I also explain that I have spoken to the customer services department, which produces a laugh. Having been asked exactly what the problem is, I tell him that we have not received any mail. His response is that he must ask the postman. I ask what is the point of that because I or anybody can ask the postman. He then asks what kind of investigation I want him to carry out. I point out that he has the means to investigate.

To cut a long story short, I received another telephone call three days later and an interim letter from the chairman of the Post Office to say that he was looking into the matter. That was two weeks ago. As I did not receive any mail this morning he may already have replied to me in time for this debate. However, I have not yet received it.

Late one evening I received a telephone call. A small, tired voice said that the Post Office was having trouble with its deliveries and did not know what to do about it. A package of mail for my block of flats had been found and it was intended to send it round by special van. However, he said that he did not know what was happening. He was so despairing that I felt sorry for him and, having thanked him, put down the telephone. However, that was not the end of the story. Three days later I received a call from the users' committee and was told that, following my inquiry of two weeks ago, the Post Office had been contacted and it had been discovered that there was a problem with Saturday deliveries. Why? The Post Office had decided to pay its postmen only half-wages for delivering on a Saturday. I expressed surprise that there were any deliveries at all on Saturday and said that if I was a postman I would not bother.

I seek to illustrate to the Committee the difficulties experienced by the average consumer who is faced with a faulty delivery service which does not keep to its contract and ignores its liabilities. For a number of people late mail means all kinds of financial consequences: cheques do not arrive and bills are not paid. Therefore, I heartily support my noble friend's amendments on the basis that they seek to ensure a better service. I hope that the whole of the Bill is aimed at giving consumers greater access and making the Post Office more accountable.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that in an ideal world there should be two deliveries a day. However, to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, it is no use having two, three or even four deliveries a day if the letters do not arrive on time. Is the Minister aware—of course he cannot be—that yesterday I received at my home in Kensington an official parliamentary communication with the facsimile signature of the Chief Whip in an A4 envelope post-marked 31st May? In other words, it had taken seven days for that communication to travel less than four miles as the crow flies. That is not by any means an isolated incident. The year before last I received in one batch on about 19th September 31 letters, most of which were first class, which had been forwarded from London just before August bank holiday. Therefore, they took 21 days to arrive. One hears of such incidents the whole time. Surely, although frequency of delivery is a good idea the need for punctuality is a priority.

Further to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, does the Minister believe it is appropriate that some definition of time performance should be included on the face of the Bill? Does he believe that guidance should be given to the commission on this matter? I agree with the point already made that merely to specify frequency of collection and delivery does not ensure a postal service. There are no defined targets in the Bill. Perhaps they are to be found in another part of the Bill, in which case I should be very interested to hear about them from the Minister. If not, does the noble Lord believe that average delivery time targets are appropriate for postal service performance?

Perhaps the Minister can enlarge on the expression "geographical conditions" in Clause 4(1)(a). I realise that someone who lives on the Isle of Sheppey or the Isle of Skye will probably receive only one delivery a day because of the very great distances. I live in the country about seven miles from the main sorting office and one and a half miles from the village post office—I am fortunate still to have one—that delivers my mail. First, what distance from the main sorting office is being considered? At the main sorting office the mail is sorted electronically if it bears the proper post code, which I know is of assistance. Secondly, what is meant in Clause 4(1)(a)(ii) by "from each access point"?

I should like to make one brief intervention which is not wholly relevant to the point but is not entirely irrelevant either. I quote the following poem written by my father for a pantomime some years ago:

"Do you remember in 1908.

Long, long ago, long ago,

When the posts were on time,

And the trains never late?

Long, long ago, long ago".

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has taken us back slightly further in her reminiscences than the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, did. I rather thought that noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was going to go the whole hog and tell us that she was dandled on Sir Rowland Hill's knee in the early 1840s and invited to lick a Penny Black stamp and place it on an envelope, but she disappointed me.

Will the noble Lord give way? He cannot be so ungallant as not to think that the noble Baroness is of tender years.

My problem is that I did not believe that she could remember before decimalisation of the currency.

The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to require, as a matter of law and in all but exceptional circumstances, that the universal service is only provided if there are at least two deliveries of relevant postal packets every working day. Amendment No. 7 makes the same requirement for at least two collections every day from each "access point"—which, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is, broadly speaking, a pillar box. As this is the first of a number of amendments dealing with Clause 4 and as the issues apply to amendments from Amendment No. 4 to Amendment No. 18, I think it necessary to comment generally on the status of Clause 4 and how the provision will work.

Before turning to the detail of the standards laid down in the clause, I should say that the Government are, and always have been, fully committed to a universal postal service and a uniform tariff. We were the first United Kingdom government to make this a statutory commitment. We did so through the postal services regulations in 1999. Before that, believe it or not, throughout the history of postal services in this country, there was no statutory backing at all for the quality of service provided by the Post Office. Our regulations last year transposed the European Union postal services directive into European law, and it is that directive which is reflected in Clause 4.

The meaning of "universal service" as set out in the Bill is in line with the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Union directive. There is no need for us to change the directive unilaterally. It represents the minimum service that customers in the United Kingdom can expect.

I say that it reflects the minimum level of service. It does not, of course, reflect the level of service which we expect from the Post Office company. Nothing in the Bill will undermine the current levels of service enjoyed by Post Office customers. I say that with due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who are clearly receiving a service that is well below the acceptable standard.

The European Union directive requires the Post Office company, through its licence, to agree and observe the quality of service standards. These will be published, and they will be monitored by the postal services commission and by the consumer council. The commission will have the power to take enforcement action, and to fine the Post Office or the other licence holder for having failed to meet its agreed service standards without reasonable excuse. That provision is new: it had never been the case until last year and the further provision in the Bill. There have never been sanctions against the universal service provider; there has never been any possibility of fines or penalties for failure to perform. That is a real advance and should be recognised as such.

We are setting up the postal services commission in order to establish the terms of the licence with the Post Office company, the universal service provider. I suggest that it is not for the Government to set the new service standards but for the independent regulator. It is certainly the Government's expectation that the standards set in the licence will be at least as demanding as the current quality service targets. I give way to the noble Baroness.

Will the noble Lord clarify one point. I understand that there will be sanctions and penalties. But how will individual consumers benefit—those who may have suffered losses through the Post Office not doing as the commission requires it to do—except perhaps through the future performance of the Post Office?

My Lords, the noble Baroness has had a distinguished governmental career in consumer protection. In the short debate on whether the House should dissolve itself into a Committee, she referred to the Post Office Users' National Council. The Bill sets out in some detail the procedures for consumer protection. When we come to that part of the Bill, we can certainly debate that. The whole object of having a consumer council is that individual consumers such as the noble Baroness will have an opportunity to protest and their protests will have to be listened to. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that that is a significant advance in consumer protection.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about "exceptional circumstances". One cannot provide for exceptional circumstances. Almost by definition, one cannot prescribe what they will be. They will have to be considered by the commission on a case-by-case basis. They are likely on the whole to be temporary. Where they can be identified in advance, as they might be in, say, remote islands of the west of Scotland, they must be notified by the operator, not only to the postal services commission, but also to the European Commission. So there is an extra level of protection in certain circumstances.

To return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, the Government are replacing the Post Office Users' National Council with a strong national body. I should have said that, until that body is established, complaints should be made to the existing Post Office Users' National Council, which is being reinvigorated with Peter Carr as its new chairman.

I gave a short and perhaps slightly flippant answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about what is an "access point" and what are "geographical positions". An access point is defined in Clause 4(6). The term "geographical conditions" has its natural meaning—that is, areas could prove inaccessible because they are very isolated, difficult to reach in bad weather, or otherwise difficult to get to. Examples would be properties at the top of a mountain, or islands where there is an infrequent ferry service. That applies both to deliveries and collections.

My remarks should be taken as applying to all amendments from Amendment No. 4 to Amendment No. 18. I hope it is clear that what we are talking about is minimum standards, not the standards that we actually accept. The Government cannot see any reason to put a gloss on the postal services directive. In particular, there is no justification for prescribing unnecessarily areas which should be operational matters and should be the subject of the licence between the commission and the licensees.

Beyond guaranteeing a single delivery and collection every working day, it is a commercial matter; it is for postal operators to decide how they organise their operations best to meet the needs of users, subject to regulatory scrutiny. If that means a minimum of two deliveries or collections, that is best dealt with not on the face of the Bill or by gold-plating the postal services directive, but by the regulator setting additional service standards in the licence. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will not press the amendments.

Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can help me. I listened yesterday to Martin Stanley's very clear address to the conference. He said that he will be responsible for service standards. However, he said:

"We do not report to the Minister. We do what the law tells us to do".

If the law refers to "at least one delivery or collection", and someone then makes a complaint that it is not sufficient, he will openly say, "I am obeying the law. That is what Parliament has asked me to provide—a minimum of one delivery". If that is the case, the provision needs to be re-examined.

I have not seen the text of the speech, but I suspect that Martin Stanley was being elliptical.

It was perfectly clear.

It is true that he does not report to the Minister. But when he says that he does what the law tells him to, the law not only sets out the minimum standards in Clause 4 but sets out the basis on which the postal services commission will license the operator to carry out the service. It is that law—namely, the licence contained within the law—to which I am sure Martin Stanley was referring.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that long answer. I should say at this stage that when he is talking about the universal service obligation we very much applaud the fact that the Government have decided to put that into law. I say that because I usually find every possible excuse to say why I do not agree with what the Government are doing. They cannot always be wrong. On that basis I feel it is right that I should give credit where credit is due.

I started my discussion on Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 by saying that they were probing amendments because I believe that it is all very well for the Minister to say all we can do is to put down the minimum standards that are necessary. The fact remains that part of the Bill is to deal with competition.

The postal services directives—the new European directives—certainly talk at great length about liberalising the market. If the Post Office that we all love so much and want to survive has to compete with various other bodies in a much more liberal market—a market in which the monopoly area is shrinking and where e-mail, fax and the other factors of human error and late delivery mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have to be considered—attention will have to be given to issues that the consumer finds extremely important, particularly the point that the noble Lord. Lord Clarke, made just now. I was not privy to what he heard, and certainly I have not seen it. As this is a probing amendment, I shall withdraw it.

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, does that—and I know that I am taking a lot of time on a single amendment but I think it is worth it because we are dealing with principles that apply throughout the amendments on Clause 4—she has just said some very remarkable things for a Conservative. She has said that she thinks there is a danger, with increased competition, that the universal service will be put at risk.

No. I shall read very carefully what I did say. That certainly is not what I meant. What I meant was that we welcome the universal service obligation, but the Post Office itself, the new plc, may be at risk if there is all this competition with everything else and if the Post Office does not put itself into a position where it becomes more valuable to the consumer, particularly with e-mail. I said it was a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister will take it away to consider. Therefore, we were hoping that there would be some further provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Post Office is able to compete in a way that will make it possible for people to continue to use it. That was the point I was making. I hope that the point is very clear in Hansard. I certainly do not say things that I think will be remarkable for a Conservative.

I accept that, of course. It may be that I was being elliptical. One has to take the Bill as a whole and take the balance between the service obligation and the reserved area provided in the European Union directive that allows member states to reserve part of the postal market in it as necessary to ensure and fund the provision of the universal postal service. That is the bargain that is struck, so to speak, in the European directive and in this legislation. It allows people acting in this area to cross-subsidise otherwise unprofitable aspects of the universal service such as long-distance deliveries at a uniform tariff. It is a requirement of the European Union postal services directive that the reserved area cannot be any greater than that needed to support the universal postal service. It is a matter, of course, for the regulator to advise the Secretary of State on the appropriate level of the reserved area, but it is clear that we shall be setting the level of the reserved area to ensure that the universal service provider is able to carry out its obligations.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No: 5:

Page 2, line 26, leave out ("working day") and insert ("day except Sundays or Bank Holidays").

The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee who were present on the occasion of Second Reading or who have read Hansard will recall the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, leaping, into the gap to praise the draftsman for Clause 117. I see that the Minister is smiling, so he clearly remembers the event. It is possibly Clause 118, but my memory does not stretch that far and I do not have Hansard with me. None the less, the reason for his praise was a list of definitions incorporated in one or two places in the Bill. One such definition is the phrase "working day" referred to in Clauses 4 (1)(a)(i) and (ii).

Perhaps I have been lax in not doing so earlier and declaring my interest in the use of postal services—I did on Second Reading, but I have not today—namely, as a director of a mail order business.

It is in the interest of everyone who uses postal services that the working day should include Saturday. In Clause 117—at page 69 line 37—that is included. We all rely on having as close as possible to a daily delivery of post, a matter referred to by many Members of the Committee. I believe that it is so important that the universal postal obligation is described in full at the front of the Bill that the words describing "working day" in Clause 117 should be promoted in the Bill to this particular place. I beg to move.

Perhaps I may be somewhat pedantic. If this amendment were carried, the Christmas pressure period in the Post Office would be thrown into chaos because in some years one Sunday has to be used and in some years two Sundays are used to clear the mail. I also declare an interest, and I apologise for not doing so earlier.

I see one other slight problem. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, uses the phrase "bank holiday" whereas the definition in Clause 117 uses "public holiday". Most public holidays are bank holidays but it is conceivable that a one-off occasion occurs where the Government may declare a public holiday in honour of some anniversary which is not a bank holiday. It would obviously be desirable, if this amendment goes any further, for the words "bank holiday" to be changed to "public holiday".

I am very much relieved by what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said because my brief tells me to say that his amendment is entirely unnecessary, a definition already being provided in Clause 117. I thought that he was under the illusion that his amendment would strengthen the provisions of the Bill, but since he recognises that it does not, it simply brings the amendment forward from Clause 117 to Clause 4. I think therefore that we are on all fours except as to where it is appropriate to have the full definition of a "working day."

I should have risen before the Minister.

Amendment No. 5 refers to page 2, line 26. Line 26 of the Bill states:

"at least one delivery of relevant postal packets is made every working day."

My noble friend referred to Clause 117 which states:

"'working day' means—

"(a) in relation to the collection and delivery of letters, any day which is not a Sunday or a public Holiday".

I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about a public holiday or bank holiday. Paragraph (b) states:

"in relation to the collection and delivery of postal packets other than letters, any day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday".

Amendment No. 4 refers to postal packets. Therefore the amendment is necessary because the provision is not in the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for anticipating what I shall say. As we are all agreed, the purpose underlying Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 is to require that deliveries and collections are made every day except Sundays and bank holidays for all postal packets whether parcels or letters; or, to be precise, whether or not they are letters.

In relation to letters, other than bringing forward the full definition, the amendment is unnecessary. The meaning of "working day" is defined in Clause 117. It provides that in relation to letters 'working day" means any day which is not a Sunday or a public holiday. That is unchanged.

In relation to parcels and packets, "working day" means any day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday. The universal service standard is to provide a five-day parcel service and a six-day letter service. The effect of the amendments would be to bring the requirement for deliveries and collections for parcels and packets into line with that for letters.

This is not in accordance with the European directive on postal services, which requires as a minimum one collection and one delivery every working day on no fewer than five days a week. The minim um standard is met in the requirements we impose for both letters and parcels. But for letters we have gone one step further. It is an element of gold-plating. We require a Saturday collection and delivery. Those requirements are in line with the current practice of the Post Office. The Post Office and other postal operators are free to deliver on other days if there is demand for it. As my noble friend Lord Clarke said, in the Christmas period one has to deliver on Sundays. I used to earn a little pocket money as a schoolboy doing that in the Christmas period.

I hope that a schoolboy was never employed by the Post Office. I hope that it was a student.

It was as a schoolboy—probably breaking the law. Do not tell the head postmaster in Beaconsfield!

The Post Office and other operators are free to deliver on other days if there is a demand. As I think will be well known, Parcelforce does not guarantee a Saturday delivery but it does deliver on a Saturday.

I turn to Amendment No. 6 which makes an additional requirement. I understand that it was not spoken to but it is grouped with Amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 5 but it has not been spoken to. There is, of course, nothing to stop the Minister speaking to it in advance of anything any other noble Lord may say.

I am in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, or the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to speak to it now and I can then respond.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that my speech will be brief.

I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 together. They modify the requirement for daily collections and deliveries, by providing that they should be before midday, especially for buiinesses depending on their mail. There is nothing more frustrating than to wait for the post to arrive. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Although the noble Baroness is not in her place at present, no doubt she will read Hansard tomorrow. She spoke of the frustration involved when domestic mail arrives the third, fourth or even fifth day after collection. In business that is more than frustrating. It is not only time consuming, it costs money. That is important because such post may be more critical than domestic post.

However, in common with a large part of the population, many Members of the Committee leave, as I do, before the domestic mail arrives. My office does not expect to receive the mail until about 11.30. That is late when people want to start work on it. That is why we have tabled Amendments Nos. 6 and 9.

Where I live in Scotland, post is not delivered until after 1 p.m. and often after 2 p.m. Under the Bill, will the operators be obliged to deliver at an earlier time? I do not know how they would manage to do so in a remote district such as Upperglen.

Also, there appears to be no reference to collections on Sunday. Will Sunday collections cease?

Let me make it clear, as I did in my response to Amendment No. 4, that there is no intention that there should be any deterioration in quality of service as a result of the Bill. In Clause 4 we are discussing the minimum obligation which is set down in the European Union postal services Directive. If in parts of Scotland that means that there is a single collection and single delivery—I understand that in any remote area that could be after midday—I think that that meets the minimum requirements. As to the actual service requirements which will be the subject of the licence, that is a matter for negotiation between the commission and the Post Office company. We shall have to see how successful they are in securing improvements in services which noble Lords around the Chamber have demanded so eloquently.

I have a slight nostalgia for the Financial Services and Markets Bill. At least no one understood that Bill so they could not intervene from personal knowledge. On this Bill it is clear that everyone has personal knowledge and hard luck stories and it is entirely proper that I should listen to them.

Perhaps I may respond to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. The effect would be that at least one delivery should be by midday and that, under Amendment No. 9, there should be at least one collection of postal packets each working day. The problem is that that is irrespective of what is best for customers. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I have exchanged experiences of small business operators on many occasions. In my experience the most important factor was to receive the first post early in the morning, by 8 a.m. or 8.30. Whether the subsequent post arrived at 11 a.m., 12 p.m. or 1 p.m. was a secondary consideration. There is no specific benefit on insisting on collections before midday. For some customers an evening collection might be more appropriate than a midday collection. Delivery by midday is no use to a business which needs its mail, as mine used to do, by not later than 8.30 in the morning.

In Clause 4 we have set out the minimum standards. The commission will work to secure higher standards. I suggest that the amendments which go beyond the European directive are inappropriate. I hope that noble Lords will not press them.

I, for one, am extremely flattered that the Minister prepared such a long answer to an amendment which both he and I admit is unnecessary. I thank him for that.

The Minister did not refer the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to Clause 4(1)(a) of the Bill which states that,

"except in such geographical conditions or other circumstances as the Commission considers to be exceptional"

—that presumably covers the example the noble Lady gave—the provisions will be the norm across the country. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, rather disturbed me. He referred to deliveries on Sundays during the Christmas period, which happen from time to time, and which we welcome. From a rapid glance at the Bill while he was speaking, it appears that they are not covered by the Bill. Will the Minister check that because that would be in all our interests? Unless the Minister wishes to respond now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

No, it does not appear in the minimum standards on the face of the Bill, but it is one of the issues which the postal services commission will be negotiating with the operators in the licence.

It is not that so much, but whether the Bill would allow it if the post office commission, as one would fully expect, continued to cause the Post Office to operate that particular system.

Yes.

In that case, for the second time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 2, line 34, after ("tariff") insert ("including first and second-class pricing").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the question of second-class post. The Bill provides for a uniform tariff country-wide. It is a basic requirement that it should cost no more to post a letter to an address in the next street than to the remotest part of the Western Isles. Londoners, for example, subsidise the cost of deliveries to the Hebrides: and so they should. It costs the same to send a parcel of the same weight to anywhere in the country: and so it should. But there is a service which enables the public and businesses to reduce the expense of posting their mail. It is called second-class mail. In return for agreeing to a less frequent service, with priority given to first-class mail, the cost of a letter can be reduced from 27p to 19p.

Many businesses especially use second-class mail to reduce the cost of sending out non-urgent mail such as circulars and so forth. Millions of letters are mailed at Christmas by second-class mail. Many people would have to reduce the number of Christmas cards they sent if it were not for the second-class facility.

The amendment, which is simple and does not need much explanation, is to ensure that the facility is not withdrawn by the new Post Office company in the interests of boosting its profits. There have been some articles in various newspapers that say the second-class mail might very well be at risk, and I very much hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case. I beg to move.

Perhaps I may add my support to the points made by my noble friend Lady Miller. Clearly, the guarantee of two standards of postal services and two tariffs is extremely helpful both to businesses and private individuals. Does the Minister feel that the wording of Clause 4(1)(b) is conducive towards permitting this? The Bill states:

"in accordance with a public tariff".

Should that not be,

"in accordance with public tariffs which are uniform"?

In other words, it would specify deliberately on the face of the Bill that there is more than one tariff.

I also rise to support my noble friend's point. I, like others, have been quite concerned about the rumours going around that the second-class mail may be withdrawn in the future. Would the noble Lord the Minister clarify that?

I start by putting the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, at rest. Tariff does not mean a single price. A tariff can have any number of ranges of prices, different speeds of delivery and different weights. That is the nature of a tariff. It is not a single price. There is nothing sinister in the use of the words "a single tariff".

I think that I can also put the minds of the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford, at rest. There is no intention whatever in this Bill to make it necessary or possible to withdraw the first and second-class post. That is a matter for the operators and the commission. The commission will no doubt make its requirements known to the operators when it is seeking to negotiate a licence.

The common understanding is that the services represent the first and second-class postal services currently provided by the Post Office. We do not believe that it is necessary to make specific reference to the present services of one postal operator in a clause which is designed to be universal.

There is no threat in this Bill to first and second-class post.

I quite accept the noble Lord's clarification of the word "tariff". I am sure it is defined somewhere in law. If it does allow for separate pricing, I am very pleased to hear that. I entirely accept the noble Lord's assurance.

However, does he believe that simply stating that there is an understanding that the first and second-class post will continue is good enough? The Bill is extremely specific in many circumstances—for example, regarding geographical coverage and so forth—but it is not at all specific regarding the provision of first and second-class post. Many people and businesses in this country would consider such a guarantee to be exceptionally important. Would it not be sensible to write that on to the face of the Bill, so that the Minister's assurances that he has no understanding that there are any proposals to withdraw one or other of the services could be turned into concrete legal fact?

Perhaps I may also follow my noble friend on that subject? I am slightly anxious that the provision is not on the face of the Bill. Will the noble Lord confirm that if the commission decided to do away with the second-class postal service the commission would have to come back to Parliament for approval, or could it be done without Parliamentary approval? If the latter is the case, surely the former option, of having it on the face of the Bill, is desirable.

I had hoped that by taking my response to Clause 4 at somewhat inordinate length I had dealt with the issues in all of the amendments, and in particular in this amendment. I am sorry that I failed to do so. The point I tried to make about the whole of Clause 4, and all the amendments to it, is that Clause 4 represents the minimum standards in conformity with the European postal services directive, and no more than that. The actual level of standard will be a matter for the licence between the commission and the operators.

We do not think it appropriate to prescribe on the face of the Bill all of the improvements to the minimum standards, some of which already exist and some of which might result from the negotiations between the commission and the operators.

The basic structure of this part of the Bill is that there is a European Union directive which requires a universal service provision. That is required through a licence. The operator is required to agree on quality standards and to observe quality of service standards. Those quality of service standards are published; they are monitored by the postal services commission and by the consumer council; and, for the first time, as I have said, there are penalties if they are not met.

There is a whole range of other things we would like to have, including first and second-class post, midday delivery, 7.30 a.m. delivery, and collections on Sundays. There are all kinds of things we would all like to have from the postal services, but I suggest that it would be inappropriate to put them all on the face of the Bill in addition to the minimum standards which are required by the European directive.

The whole point is that we are setting up an independent commission whose responsibility it is to ensure that services meet consumers' needs. I am sure the members of the commission who have just been appointed will read what noble Lords have said and will take their passionate defence of first and second-class post very seriously.

The Minister cannot pray in aid the fact that he is putting into effect European Union legislation and that there should be no more and no less. During our debate on Amendment No. 5 he conceded that he had deviated from that course when it had suited him and felt it appropriate. Why not in these circumstances?

We are not talking about a "not before 7.30" provision or some more trifling point. This issue is fundamental and I believe that my noble friend Lady Miller has identified an important omission.

Before my noble friend responds, I hope to encourage the Minister to reconsider the proposal. During an earlier discussion, he spoke proudly of the fact that written into the Bill is the responsibility for a universal delivery service. If that is so important—and I accept that it is—it is equally important to have on the face of the Bill a requirement for a second-class service.

My noble friend Lady Miller referred to "old money". I am afraid that my brain will not work with the old money, but I know that for many pensioners there is a big difference in the cost of a first-class stamp, at 26p, and the cost of a second-class stamp, at 19p.

I hope that, as a result of our gentle persuasion, the Minister will be willing to take the proposal away and reconsider it. If it is so important to have a universal delivery service on the face of the Bill, I believe that it is even more important to have provision for a second-class stamp and that that will not preclude people from using the service as all Members of the Committee want.

I am always responsive to gentle persuasion, but I am afraid that the purpose of Clause 4 is to set out the minimum standards as required by the European directive. I—and I am sure other Members of the Committee—can think of many additional qualities they would like from a postal service, but it would not be appropriate to put them on the face of the Bill.

I was interested to hear the Minister's view that it would not be proper to gold-plate the European directive which deals with the provisions in Clause 4. I am always hearing that the Government are gold-plating almost every directive which comes across from the EU and that we must go along with it. However, this proposal is something else. Line 11 on page 69 defines "postal services" and a second-class post could easily sit in there.

The Minister made a great deal of saying that we would all like to see many other items on the face of the Bill; for instance, delivery before midday, every day and so forth. I understand why they cannot be included and his explanation that the Bill is designed to deal with the minimum service. But we are talking about something which is already a service; we already have first and second-class post. Old age pensioners in particular rely on the second-class post, but its provision is not in the Bill and the Minister cannot even take away the proposal for consideration. Such concern has been reported in the media and it has been tested.

All that makes me believe that I should test the opinion of the Committee.

Clause 4 seeks to enact the EU postal services directive, which specifically mentions the universal service obligation. Earlier today, a Member on the opposite Benches, who has since left his place, raised the spectre of the European Union introducing a "portable" stamp that is usable throughout the EU, letting yet another hare run for the Eurosceptical press to pick up.

Is it not worth making the point that it is because we have an EU postal service directive that we for the first time, through this Government, are putting into legislation the requirement for a universal service which I beg to suggest will be universally accepted and applauded by the people in this country? Is not the distinction that we are not seeking to gold-plate, because we are enacting the EU postal services directive? I believe that there would be agreement in the Committee that too much legislation, which was lean and mean and originated from Brussels, found gold-plating in this Parliament and that that practice has been unacceptable.

I have listened with great interest to what has been said on both sides of the Committee and find it astonishing that there is a focus on one service within the Post Office. It seems to me entirely proper that the Bill should set out the minimum universal postal standard. I can think, for example, of recorded delivery and registered post, both of which are important to many parts of society, but neither of which are set out on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we either go the whole hog and include a list of services which we believe to be part of the universal service, or we quite properly leave it to the postal services commission. That is what I believe we should do.

As regards delivery services, I view any directive of the EU with suspicious eyes. In my experience, those services in Europe are not a patch on ours and often do not involve a delivery to a person's house; letters are left in boxes at the end of roads. I am not impressed with or happy about the idea of relying on the European Union directive.

Before putting the amendment to the Committee, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, looks at page 69, line 23, which gives a definition of registered post. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and prices shall be geared to costs").

The noble Baroness said: As the amendment states, it is intended to ensure that prices are geared to costs. The need for the Post Office to link costs to prices was emphasised by the Government in the July 1999 White Paper entitled, Post Office Reform: A world class service for the 21st century:

"The Post Office should not, therefore, charge different prices to different customers, or categories of customers, for the same service where the differences in prices do not reflect the quantity, quality or other characteristics of the service supplied".

The reason was set out clearly earlier in the White Paper at paragraph 26:

"[The regulator] will also need to ensure that there is no abuse of a dominant position, for example by the Post Office using predatory pricing to deter or drive out competition".

The amendment is in line with the requirements of Article 12 of the European Union postal services directive. I have no idea which of the two noble Lords opposite will answer. I suggest that it will probably be the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as he seems to be dealing with the whole of Clause 4. Therefore, I believe that he will be pleased that at this stage I am trying to bring the amendment into line with the directive. As he seems to be keen that everything should be ihus—no more, no less—I hope that eventually he will agree with me.

I am sorry to trouble Members of the Committee with another full quotation but it is necessary to illustrate how wide the Bill is from our legally binding EC obligations. Article 12 of the directive provides,

"Member states shall take steps to ensure that the tariffs for each of the services forming part of the provision of the uniform service comply with the following principles:

"prices must be geared to costs; member states may decide that a uniform tariff should be applied throughout their national territory,

"the provision of a uniform tariff does not exclude the right of the universal service provider(s) to conclude individual agreements on prices with customers".

Article 12 of the directive could very well be described as defining the essential ingredient of a universal postal service. The directive emphatically rules that prices of each of the services forming the universal service must be geared to costs. The amendment incorporates that requirement into the Bill. I am prepared to concede that the phrase "geared to costs" is somewhat ambiguous and that some improved definition is called for even though the words used follow those of the directive.

If the Minister will accept the principle of the amendment, which merely puts into effect, no more, no less, our obligations under EU law and, even more importantly, the Government's own policy as set out in the Government's White Paper, I shall gladly discuss with him some possible improvement in the wording. I beg to move.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her explanation of the amendment. She is right in saying that the provision in Clause 4(2) is in line with the definition of the universal postal service in Article 3 of the EU postal services directive, and the further provisions in the directive at Article 12 regarding tariff principles and transparency of accounts.

We have not included a specific reference in the legislation to prices being geared to costs. That is not because we do not think that such a link should exist—it should—but that it is a matter best enforced by the postal services commission through the licence, as I mentioned earlier in response to amendments to Clause 4.

We intend that the Post Office plc will be granted a licence that will take effect from the first day of the new licensing regime. The licence will be agreed between the Post Office plc and the commission. It will include provisions which satisfy the detailed requirements under the EU postal services directive. A draft outline licence was placed in the House Library on 11th February 2000.

The document illustrates the kind of terms and conditions that the Government expect to see in the Post Office plc's licence. The outline of the proposed licence states at paragraph 5 that the commission is expected to prepare proposals for a price control structure and that the Post Office plc will be obliged to obtain the commission's permission before setting any new prices in relation to the universal postal services.

The commission will take into account the relationship between costs and prices as it is required to do by the directive, which has direct effect on the national regulatory authority. The amendment would not make matters any clearer; it is already clear. Indeed, it could have the unfortunate effect of restricting competition in certain circumstances. While the directive requires that universal postal services are geared to costs, there is no requirement that the ability to negotiate individual prices should be restricted in that way.

The effect of the amendment would be to limit competition. Constraining the universal service provider in the way envisaged by the amendment might prevent volume users of postal services from negotiating commercial discounts. That would put the universal postal operator at a competitive disadvantage.

The restriction imposed by the amendment would apply to all the services within the universal service, irrespective of whether such services are within the area to be reserved for licensed postal operators. It would be particularly undesirable for those parts of the universal service, such as parcels and registered post, which are outside the licensed area and subject to full competition.

I am afraid I cannot agree that the amendment would be in the interest of users of postal services. On the basis on which I started out, that is, that the postal services commission will be regulating the prices of universal services in line with the requirements of the directive, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

I have to tell the Minister that I am somewhat disappointed with his answer but not unduly surprised. I find it extraordinary that the Minister feels that the Government cannot put what I propose on to the face of the Bill. He is certain that it will be a matter for the regulator and will be in the licence when it is set out. Therefore, it will be there at some stage.

I find it extraordinary to rely on the fact that something will happen when one considers the words in the Government's own White Paper. We have a directive on the matter, yet we are left in the position that the Government hope that it will be in the licence. It may not be. I do not think that what we say here will have any effect on what the commission decides to put into the licence.

However, I shall read carefully the comments of the Minister. In the course of his detailed answer he mentioned that he thought the proposal would restrict competition. There is no way that any Member of the Committee sitting on this side of the Chamber would wish to restrict competition. We are all for competition. We believe that it is healthy and will make for a better service for the consumer using the services of the Post Office. Whether it is on the face of the Bill or goes into the licence, one would have thought the effect is the same. However, as I have said, at this stage I shall read carefully what the Minister has tried to persuade me to believe will be an excellent position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 3, line 24, leave out ("20") and insert ("10").

The noble Baroness said: I suspect that this is the last amendment that I have tabled to Clause 4, but it is by no means the last amendment I am proposing to the Bill.

The considerable importance of the amendment is not reflected by its brevity. It brings the definition of a "relevant package" down from 20 kilograms to 10 kilograms. In other words, it reduces the Post Office monopoly on packages up to 20 kilograms down to those up to 10 kilograms.

For the benefit of those Members of the Committee who, like me, still think in pounds and ounces, here we go again. Twenty kilograms is 44 pounds. That is the equivalent of the amount of baggage carried free on an economy-class flight. The proposal in the Bill is partially inconsistent with the EU postal services directive which fixes the figure at 10 kilograms but permits individual governments to increase the ceiling to what is proposed in the Bill; namely, 20 kilograms. As drawn, the Bill would subject commercial couriers to unfair competition.

A universal service provider, such as Parcelforce, would be able to cross-subsidise its delivery of packets and packages weighing up to 20 kilograms. I said that the importance of the amendment is not reflected by its brevity. The point I make is that 20 kilograms is an enormous parcel weight. I believe that it should be reduced to 10 kilograms. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Perhaps I may follow on from the comments of my noble friend Lady Miller and press the Minister to explain to the House how he would justify the figure of 20 kilograms. My noble friend put forward a powerful argument against having a band between 10 and 20 kilograms. There may well be equally powerful arguments for why that should not be so. However, there is an important issue here about the cross-subsidisation of parcels within the range of nought to 10 kilograms and from 10 to 20 kilograms. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

There certainly is a good reason. Let me repeat for the record that the Government are committed to preserving the universal postal service; that is, the delivery of letters and parcels to any part of the United Kingdom at a uniform tariff. We feel that that is enormously important and believe that the public feel it to be important also. That is why we enshrined the universal service obligation in legislation through the Postal Services Regulations 1999.

Amendment No. 12 would reduce the scope of the universal service from that proposed in the Bill. It would halve the maximum weight under the universal postal service obligation from 20 to 10 kilograms—I cannot remember how to work that out in pounds.

The point is that the EU Postal Services Directive allows the Government to extend the scope of the universal postal service for clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal packets from 10 to 20 kilograms; in other words, that is already envisaged in the directive and we are taking one of the options available to us. If we extend it in that way we allow domestic users to benefit to the same extent as those posting items to the UK from other member states.

The directive requires member states to deliver within their territories packages received from other member states up to 20 kilograms. When we made the postal services regulations in 1999 we took the view that there should be no discrimination between users on the basis of where they were posting packets. And we ensured that postal users in the UK would enjoy a right of universal service that was at the very least as good as that available anywhere else in Europe.

We did not want the situation where we could post to anywhere in the UK from outside the UK, elsewhere in Europe, at the same tariff, whereas, by dint of the 10 to 20 kilogram range being outside the universal postal service, there could be differential charges for different destinations within the United Kingdom. It is for that reason, fundamentally, that this amendment is not to the benefit of postal users and the Government cannot accept it.

The Minister will not be surprised that I am somewhat disappointed by his reply. I shall read what he said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I gave notice of my intention to raise this question. I noticed, when reading the Bill, that in Clause 6 there is no reference to how a prosecution might start in Scotland. I am certain that it is intended that Clause 6 should have effect in Scotland. I believe this to be an almost wholly reserved matter and that no devolution issue arises here. I note that in the Explanatory Notes it is said that prosecutions in Scotland will be started by the Lord Advocate. Why therefore does it not say that on the face of the Bill? Or is it intended that the Scottish Parliament should legislate for this element of the Bill?

The answer is simple. We have a complicated system of a range of prosecuting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland the system is very simple. In Scotland it is virtually only the Lord Advocate who can initiate prosecutions and therefore it is not necessary to say so in the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 4, line 36, leave out ("£1") and insert ("50 pence").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. I am pleased to say that we have now reached Part II of the Bill and have left Clause 4 behind us.

These amendments are designed to modify the Post Office monopoly by reducing the ceiling in value of money and weight where that monopoly exists. The amendments enable the Government to implement their own policy, which they have reversed since it was first announced.

On 16th September 1999 the Government placed an expensive display advertisement, seven inches by seven inches, in the Sunday Times, seeking candidates for the chairmanship of the postal services commission. It said,

"the Government is granting the Post Office greater commercial freedom but is convinced that successful reform requires more than this. It requires greater competition in the postal market; already a major first step towards liberalisation has been taken with the halving of the monopoly currently enjoyed by the Post Office to 50p from April 1st 2000".

The Government laid an appropriate statutory instrument before Parliament in October.

On 8th December the Government tabled a Motion to revoke their own statutory instrument. The Minister for Competition had the embarrassment of trying to explain away that massive U-turn to the committee in the other place. He produced a reason which I can only describe as pathetic. He said that the Government had been persuaded by an "eloquent and persuasive argument" contained in a report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, that the regulator should set the limits of the reserved area.

I described the reason as "pathetic" because the report of the Select Committee was published on 14th September 1999, having presumably been in the Minister's hands for some time before that. In any event, 14th September was two days before the advertisement which appeared in the Sunday Times and well before the Government's statutory instrument was first laid before Parliament.

It does not take a detective to see what happened to cause that U-turn. I believe it was pressure from the unions and the Government decided that that is what they would do. It is another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. If and when the regulator changes the boundaries of the monopoly, the Government will be able to trot out their usual excuse, "Its not my fault, guy".

I turn now to Amendment No. 14. I believe that there is an even blacker cloud looming on this horizon. On 30th May it was announced that the Dutch Internal Market Commissioner at the EC is planning to reduce the monopolies enjoyed by the post offices of the 15 individual member states down to a nominal 50 grams. That is about one envelope and a couple of sheets of A4 paper. The chief executive of the Post Office, Mr John Roberts, reacted by pointing out that that proposal would jeopardise existing services, forcing it to charge more for mail delivered to remote areas. He said that the proposals would risk damaging postal services throughout the EC.

While the Conservatives support the greater liberalisation of postal services, we remain committed to the maintenance of the universal service obligation.

My honourable friend, the Shadow Secretary of Trade and Industry in the other place, tabled numerous Questions today on this very point, one even asking the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he would support a levy on postal licence holders to create a fund to support the universal service obligation. We would not like to see domestic customers facing the higher prices that have been the case in some of the more, so-called, "liberalised" regimes elsewhere.

In view of the dire warning from Mr Roberts that I just quoted, I suggest to the Government that, although they and the unions—and perhaps many people—do not much like the present amendment that I have tabled, it might be better than nothing. It would reduce slowly and gradually the monopoly area, which is what the Post Office said that it could live with. I believe that it would be a very good thing to bring in certain disciplines. I suspect and very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us that they will push this directive aside for as long as they can, but, in the end, it will no doubt be brought forward. We must ensure that our Post Office is prepared for this development. If we protect the Post Office in a way that is too easy, we shall make its position very difficult. I believe that my amendment is just one step forward: it is not the giant leap that we may be ordered to take at some stage.

In its 1997 manifesto, the Labour Party said that,

"effective competition can bring value and quality to consumers … In utility industries"—

I assume that postal services could marginally be described as one of the latter—

"we will promote competition wherever possible".

As I have already said, we admire competition, but we do not want it thrust forward in a way that makes it impossible for the Post Office to live within it. That is why we are reintroducing these two amendments that were introduced in the other place. We hope that the Government will be able to accept them. It would help to make life easier for the Post Office if they were to accept these modest amendments now, thereby preparing it for what might happen in the future. I beg to move.