asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government's road safety strategy reflects the need to cut child road casualties by 50 per cent. and to address the problems of novice drivers. In the school curriculum, the personal, social and health education framework includes road safety and responsibility as road users. We are doubling the number of visits to schools and colleges by driving examiners to deliver messages about responsible attitudes to driving and we are encouraging higher driving standards, with improved arrangements for learning to drive and assessing hazard awareness in the theory test.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the great success of such schemes in the United States, will he initiate discussions with driving schools about establishing pilot schemes to assess their feasibility in this country? Does the Minister also agree that good tuition could not only reduce casualties, but reduce the truancy rate in schools?

My Lords, I understand that that approach may have its attractions and its byproducts, but adopting driving lessons in schools, on school premises or arranged by schools for people who are under the driving age, is a serious issue. Some of the evidence from America suggests that that leads to increased illegal under-age driving on the roads. The problem with young drivers is not so much their technical skill as their attitude. Improving their technical skill would not necessarily improve their performance on the road and prevent casualties.

My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, welcome though improving driving skills might be, given our appalling record on accidents involving children, which is one of the worst in Europe, it is much more important that the school curriculum addresses the broad issues of road safety? Children are more likely to be injured as pedestrians or cyclists rather than subsequently as car drivers.

My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Despite our generally good road safety record, we fare much worse than most European countries on child pedestrian casualties. It is important that the totality of road safety attitudes is inculcated in schools, rather than emphasising the pre-driving stage. Nevertheless, it is important that pupils understand what driving is about. That is why we encourage driving examiners and others to go into schools to give lectures and information, under the auspices of the Driving Standards Agency.

My Lords, will the Government also take note of the problem of the exorbitant insurance premiums placed on young people—typically £1,000 a year? That is an impediment to our young men and women who want to learn to drive and acquire roadcraft skills.

My Lords, I suspect that, regrettably, insurance company premiums for young drivers reflect knowledge and experience of the level of accidents and damage to vehicles and people when young drivers are involved. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the Government to intervene on that subject. There are other ways of improving the performance of novice drivers.

My Lords, there are many suggestions around for improving the safety of our roads, ranging from teaching young children to behave better and to understand road safety through to reducing the speed at which people travel. We all have our favourites. Has any research been done on which are the most effective methods of reducing road accidents?

My Lords, there is a large body of road safety research, much of it funded by my department, as well as some international research. It shows that all the factors involved contribute—attitude, speed, road environment, density of traffic and the skill and behaviour of drivers. There is an indication of the relative importance of each factor, but to have a coherent road safety strategy we must address them all, as the Government's recently published road safety strategy does.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that more could be done to encourage some schools that do not allow police officers on to the premises to carry out important crime prevention and road safety work? That situation is unfortunate. A school in Liverpool that I visited uses building a car engine and driving the car as a way of improving science and technology education and helping its young people to be safer than most, particularly those who do not enjoy secure home backgrounds.

My Lords, I am aware that a number of schools have engaged in engine maintenance and a policy generally of introducing children of 14 onwards to car technology and driving. In Northern Ireland, there is a GCSE based on road safety that includes such factors. That has proved of some benefit to pupils who take it, particularly those who come from a more deprived background. Police visits to schools with a road safety message are beneficial. I hope that schools take up that idea and that police authorities continue to provide it. The decision on the curriculum in this respect is a matter for the schools rather than the Government.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce any measures to encourage the take-up of private health insurance. We believe that the best way to provide for the healthcare needs of all British residents is to use the available resources to fund the NHS directly rather than to subsidise those who, for whatever reason, choose to make alternative arrangements.

Oh dear! My Lords, following the historic announcement yesterday about the decoding of the human genome, I was hoping for an Answer from the Minister that was a little more forward looking—given that that marvellous achievement was made by a coming together of private sector and public sector research, which is bound to continue. Does the Minister agree that there are now some 7 million people in Britain who have taken out private health insurance, but that we are still well below the EU average for the percentage of private healthcare as a percentage of total healthcare? Can the noble Lord try to persuade his colleagues that those 7 million people should be allowed to pay their insurance premiums without taxation? Every penny that goes into BUPA or PPP gives the NHS more scope to help others. If, as President Clinton said yesterday, we are all to live for another 25 years, will the NHS be able to cope with that alone? I doubt it.

My Lords, I admire the noble Lord for looking forward. However, he should also look a little backwards. The Conservative government introduced tax relief on private medical insurance in 1990, which we removed after the 1997 election. Experience shows that, over that period of time, the number of people over 60 covered by private health insurance increased from 500,000 to 550,000 only; in other words, the tax relief went almost entirely to those who were already taking out private medical insurance, not to the health service.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the National Health Service undoubtedly benefits most considerably from the admission of private patients into its hospitals? Are the Government aware that one of the problems with some of the big private insurance companies is that, at present, they offer a monopolistic practice that actually prevents their insured patients going into teaching hospitals? I should declare an interest here, as I am an honorary consultant within the NHS.

My Lords, nothing in my answers has indicated a decision on the part of this Government to set up barriers between private healthcare and the NHS. Indeed, that was not the purport of the original Question. My noble friend must not draw the conclusion that we are proposing any further changes in private provision or in its funding.

My Lords, the original Question seemed to assume that more private health insurance would have benefits for our national health services. Is the Minister aware of any evidence which shows that subsidising private health insurance in this way would bring such benefits?

My Lords, I believe that my response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, made it clear that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that many people will find what he says both deeply depressing and quite extraordinary? On virtually every count—whether it be fatalities in certain diseases, numbers of doctors or the proportion of GDP spent on healthcare—this country's health provision, regardless of which party is in power, is behind that of other countries; indeed, France is a classic example. Will the Minister agree that there is a benefit to be gained in trying to get more money spent on the National Health Service, and that the best way to do so is to encourage more people to contribute?

My Lords, I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is referring to the recent report of the World Health Organisation. However, the noble Lord should read that report with a little more care. Although it found that this country spends less of its GDP on health services in total, we stand at 18th in the world list, though that is not an ideal position to be in. We fall down badly—everyone agrees that this is right—on the responsiveness of our National Health Service to patients. That is a problem that we must certainly address. But it does not follow that the best way to improve our health services is to help to fund private medical services through our tax system. The real growth in NHS expenditure has been significant under this Government. We believe that that is the right way to move forward.

My Lords, I am searching for some crumb of comfort in the noble Lord's answers. I believe he said that it was no part of this Government's intention to create barriers between the public and the private sectors of the health service. I hope that the noble Lord will learn from that answer and practise it. The immense inhibitions from which the health service suffers as a result of the sort of proprietary, defensive attitudes of the Government cannot be exaggerated.

My Lords, that sounded to me like an assertion, not a question.

My Lords, would it help the Government to reach a decision in this matter if I mentioned that the only reason why I am still alive is that, last year, BUPA spent 10 times more on my medical attention than I had paid for my premium?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, got good value and we continue to get good value from his continued presence.

My Lords, at a time when the National Health Service is gravely understaffed in terms of doctors, nurses and medical laboratory scientific officers, and is having to turn to the private sector for assistance in carrying out operations, is it not now possible that pragmatism can overcome idealism?

My Lords, the impact of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, proposes, and of what we understand the Conservative Member Dr Liam Fox proposes, would be a continued brain drain from the National Health Service to the private sector, which would benefit no one.

My Lords, the Minister not only insists on taking responsibility for the fact that 97 per cent of the amount of money spent on health is spent by the Government—the world record for a government share—but is actually proud of that. However, is he also proud of the conclusions of the detailed report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred, which shows that we are in 18th position in terms of standards of healthcare? Does he take responsibility for the fact that we are lower in the world table than such countries as San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Greece and Iceland?

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has read the report rather more carefully than the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I take pride in the fact that 97 per cent of our health expenditure is public health expenditure. If we move towards insurance funding of health services—the United States is the classic example of this—we shall have poorer health services at considerably higher cost.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we shall make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply but does not the noble Lord agree that the economic tests are so amorphous, and the answers to them necessarily so subjective, that they are unlikely ever to provide the clear and unambiguous evidence of economic benefits for which the Prime Minister has called? Is not the real purpose of the economic tests to promote the idea that the economic problems are more important than the political questions and to provide a screen behind which the Government will be able to judge according to the state of the opinion polls when it is suitable to hold a referendum?

My Lords, I do not agree that the tests are amorphous and I do not agree that this is primarily a political decision rather than an economic one. As the Chancellor has always made clear, the economic tests apply to a successful single currency and to the circumstances under which the Government accept that there will be a pooling of sovereignty if we go into a single currency. But the tests of sustainable convergence, of flexibility, of investment, of financial services industry and of employment are by no means amorphous. They are capable of analysis and they have been subject to analysis, most recently by the International Monetary Fund.

My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot support my noble friend in what he has said. Seriously, there is only a flimsy intellectual case for joining on economic terms. It is a major political and constitutional issue. For the Government to go on ducking the issue and pretending that this is not the case is simply an exercise in dishonesty which gains us no respect on the Continent, where every other political leader accepts that the major purpose is to foster political union, is it not?

My Lords, I am not aware that my noble friend asked a question in any of that. I am sorry that he felt it necessary to use such language in an intervention.

My Lords, can the Government explain how they will avoid the euro becoming an issue at the next election? In particular, how can die Chancellor of the Exchequer argue, as he clearly intends to, that the Government should be re-elected because of his brilliant management of the economy and in the same breath state that he cannot possibly say that the state of the economy will be in a suitable condition for us to join the euro within a year or so of the next election? Is the Chancellor so blind that he cannot see that he is giving Mr Hague a superb opportunity to make him look foolish?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has departed from the Liberal Democrat script in the final few words of his intervention. Certainly the Government intend to adduce the argument in the next election that the Chancellor has done a brilliant job of restoring the economy to health. We will do that because it is true. However, to say that we are trying to secure that there will be no reference to the single currency in the next election is quite unrealistic.

My Lords, surely the noble Lord must agree that a glance at the second test, which asks, "If problems emerge, is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?", shows that these are not tests at all but matters of judgment, leaving the Prime Minister free to recommend abolition of the pound whenever he thinks that he can get away with it.

My Lords, the second test actually asks whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change. I see no difficulty in that.

My Lords, I hope that I may break the rules and speak in favour of the European Community. I refer to the questioning that seems to take place all the time. It is a long time since I knew any economics, but the notion that any economic test could be exercised without judgment is rather farfetched. Does not my noble friend agree that the tests lay down some sensible criteria but that it is up to someone—in this case, the Chancellor—to interpret them and put forward a view? Does not my noble friend also agree that that view will be subject to the test of many other people expressing their views, and therefore there is no problem?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. This Government have always said that, early in the next Parliament, on the basis of those tests, the Treasury will make an assessment; the Government will make a decision on the basis of that assessment; they will put that decision to the House of Commons and then to the people of this country in a referendum.

My Lords, before the Minister accuses my noble friend Lord Taverne of departing from the Liberal Democrat script, will he tell the House whether he heard my noble friend in so much as a syllable suggest that Mr Hague might take the opportunity he was being given?

My Lords, that is an ingenious let out for the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.

The departure from the Liberal Democrat script comprised the suggestion that there might be some polemic gift to Mr Hague, but it certainly does not follow that he would be capable of taking it.

My Lords, can the Minister give your Lordships' House the name of a single economist who will say that the five tests are objective? Is it not true that the tests are just a matter of opinion and that, as the Minister just said, the opinion will be the opinion of the Treasury and that, if asked to do so by Government Ministers, the Treasury would express the opinion that the earth was flat?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has a gift for answering his own questions. Many economists take the view that these are objective tests. They are not precise tests. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a good example of a distinguished economist and there are many other distinguished economists on these Benches who take a comparable view. However, it is because we realise that ultimately we have to have a political as well as an economic judgment that we have continued to propose the process of assessment, decision and taking the view, first, of Parliament and the people of this country.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the measures taken regarding Austria are not a European Union action; they have been implemented by Austria's European Union partners on an individual, bilateral basis. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lady Scotland have made clear on many occasions, we continue to expect the Austrian Government to fulfil their commitments to European values and obligations, and to combat all forms of discrimination.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Perhaps I may ask two supplementary questions. First, can she tell the House which other nation in the world has been subjected to the kind of measures that we, with our European allies, have taken against Austria? Secondly, does she not agree that, whatever one may think of the political situation in that country, it is a classic example of the disadvantages of PR?

My Lords, the relevance of what happens with the rest of the world is not apposite; we are talking about 15 countries which are members of the European Union. There is a difference between how we react to something that happens with one of those governments when compared to anywhere else in the world. As to the noble Lord's second point, no, I do not agree for one minute that this has anything to do with proportional representation.

My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their present attitude towards the Austrian Government as long as a former right-hand person of Haider is their Vice-Chancellor and while they retain members of their very extremist Right-wing party in government?

Yes, my Lords. It is worth reminding the House that we are not talking about a party with Right-wing economic theories but about a party that was led by a man who, when addressing an army war veteran meeting in Austria—which included Waffen SS—described the Waffen SS as decent men of character; and who also, in a speech to the Carinthian Parliament, praised the orderly employment polices of the Third Reich. It is important to he clear about what caused such offence to the other members of the European Union.

My Lords, the Government were among the more reluctant assenters to these sanctions against Austria; after all, this is a very sharp domestic interference in the internal affairs of another state. If we are in favour of liberal democracy, we have to tolerate the choices of other democratic governments, even when they are not entirely what we would like. As to PR versus the coalition front, Austria suffered a grand coalition for too long. Jobs were divided among the Conservative and Socialist parties—and that seems a very bad thing in any democratic country. However, does the Minister accept that there has to come a point where these sanctions will be withdrawn? Does she agree that, provided the Austrian Government do not offend against any of the aspects of the Treaty of Rome—and they have not yet done so—the sanctions will, in time, have to be ended?

My Lords, the 14 European Union countries are united in their policy towards Austria. We have had, and continue to have, serious and intense discussions with the other 13 EU countries on a bilateral basis on this issue. Five months is too short a time to make a definitive judgment of the performance of the Austrian Government, but we are reflecting on a way forward.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the policies of the 14 on public opinion in Austria? In the light of Hugo Young's column in the Guardian this morning, what proposals do the Government have for getting off the hook upon which they have impaled themselves?

My Lords, I have not read this morning's Guardian. I do not consider it unbriefed not to have read all the newspapers. I do not think for one minute that the Government have impaled themselves on a hook. As to the question of the impact on public opinion in Austria, as the noble Viscount knows, it is difficult to gauge public opinion anywhere. However, the fact remains that the Austrian Freedom Party is still in third place in the opinion polls. So it has not improved its position in any way, if that is the point that the noble Viscount is trying to make.

My Lords, following the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, is the noble Baroness aware that, if she had read the Guardian this morning, she would have seen that this whole saga is described as a spiralling diplomatic disaster? While we all regard the views of Mr Haider as repulsive, has not this whole saga shown up an enormous political ineptitude, and a bit of childishness to boot? Is not the sensible position for the Government now to tell their EU partners that this is leading to disaster; that the sanctions should be ended; and that Austria should be brought into the company of the EU again and dealt with as a mature nation that has done nothing wrong, and whose original repulsive leader has disappeared to Carinthia as a governor and left the party?

My Lords, I do not understand how the noble Lord, Lord Howell, can say that the whole House finds the views of Mr Haider so repulsive, and then go on to think that it was—

My Lords, I said that the whole House finds Mr Haider's views repulsive. I did not say that—

Exactly, my Lords. His "views" instead of his "opinions" repulsive. I do not understand how anyone can say that on the one hand and then, on the other, think that it was not important for the other members of the European Union to send the strongest possible signal to Austria about what they thought. As the noble Lord knows, the use of the word "sanctions" is not correct. Diplomatic measures were taken against Austria, which were well understood by that country as signalling the disapproval of the rest of the European Union. I think that was absolutely right and proper.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief business statement in regard to the Summer Recess. Your Lordships will be aware that it is not usually possible to announce the dates of the Summer Recess until a week or 10 days before the House rises. This year, because of the co-operation of the Official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, I am able to make the announcement significantly earlier than usual.

The usual channels have agreed a programme which will allow all the necessary business to be completed by Friday, 28th July. Predicting business for a whole month ahead is difficult as there will be many uncertainties over the next month. However, I am aware that Members and staff alike—particularly those with young families—will find it helpful to have as much notice as possible of our Recess dates. Recess dates are always announced as being, "subject to the progress of business".

On this occasion, given the difficulty of predicting the progress of business so far in advance, there is a particular need for me to stress that if the programme agreed by the usual channels is not achieved and the necessary business is not completed by the end of July, it will be necessary to sit into August.

However, I am pleased to announce that, subject to business progressing as we hope it will, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Friday, 28th July. We will sit at 11 a.m. that day. The House will return on Wednesday, 27th September.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the usual channels for their constructive approach, which has made it possible to make this announcement much earlier than usual.

My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for giving the House the dates of the Summer Recess and for assuring us that this was as a result of co-operation with the usual channels. However, the undercurrent of what the noble Lord said was so much nonsense. Of course the Government could have made an announcement much earlier than they have done. I appreciate that on occasions in the past it has not been possible to do this, but on this occasion the Government could have done so. It is only through the co-operation of the usual channels that they are able to bring it forward now. I should like to ask for a commitment from the Government that in future years the announcement will be made somewhat earlier than in the past.

Not knowing when business is to be brought forward causes great inconvenience, not only for the Official Opposition but for all Members of the House. The Government have a large number of Bills still outstanding—far more than one normally expects at this stage. The Official Opposition have co-operated far more than is necessary. We have allowed far more Bills to go to the Moses Room than is usual. As a result of that the Government could have come forward and been slightly more helpful. It would be useful for the Government to offer some advice to all Members of the House as to when all the Bills are likely to come before us. When are we likely to see those?

We have now had the announcement that we are to rise at the end of July. As I said, that announcement could have been made much earlier. The problem is that the Government have far too much legislation. The Government should think about reducing the amount of legislation they bring before this House. I hope that in the next Session we shall see a slightly less heavy burden of legislation before us.

My Lords, I, too, welcome what the Government Chief Whip has just said. As he will recall, all Oppositions complain about the immense size of any government's legislative programme. That will no doubt be true in the next Parliament, as in this, as well as it was in the last Parliament.

Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The Liberal Democrats would prefer to have more Bills considered in the Moses Room than is now the case. We would get on with our business far more effectively were we to do that.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords and in particular to the Opposition Chief Whip for his—if I may say so—typically gracious response. I have checked and this is the earliest ever date that the date of the Summer Recess has been announced, certainly in recent years. I have all the figures for when it was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he was the Government Chief Whip. This is, as I say, the earliest ever date. Business has been agreed until the summer. The noble Lord knows the dates on which we will be bringing forward all the Bills, and, depending on their progress in the Commons, all the Bills we have to reach before the Summer Recess. I was asked to set out the business for the spill-over period. Frankly, I do not think that any Chief Government Whip could do that. I agree with the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip regarding the use of the Moses Room. The usual channels have to work by agreement. But that does not mean that the Official Opposition can have a veto over the Government's business.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 33, line 22, after ("provide,") insert ("subject to subsection (4C) below,").

My Lords, I must begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the way in which over a considerable period of time he has pursued this issue. As a result of that there has been a greater clarification of the present position. This matter first came to light some considerable time ago. Indeed, we debated it at length in the course of the debates on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill in October 1999. Subsequently there have been statements by the Government, notably on 15th March of this year, saying what the Government intend to do about it.

However, I am concerned about the timing and the way in which this matter has developed. It has been a considerable time since the matter first came to light. In the course of the debates last year we were told that there was to be an ombudsman's report. That report was in due course produced. But it took one year to produce it when the ombudsman merely examined six illustrative cases. That was a very long time indeed to deal with six illustrative cases. It is also true, as pointed out on previous occasions, that the ombudsman's report was far from clear on precisely what its recommendations were, although the Government have said that they accept them.

That is really the basis of my amendment. I comment only briefly on Amendment No. 76 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with people who,

"have a serious mental disability and as a result they are incapable of establishing a claim and they are likely to remain incapable throughout the duration of the scheme".

Whatever else may happen, I certainly hope that when the Government come to produce their final scheme they will include provision for that category of person and others who may, in one way or another, be either physically or mentally incapable of dealing with the matter.

The earlier part of the noble Lord's amendment states that:

"A person shall he deemed to have received incomplete or incorrect information and to have relied on it if—

(a) they read one of the relevant Benefits Agency leaflets and took the incorrect or incomplete information contained in it into account",

when deciding what to do. Essentially, people who wish to receive compensation under the Government's proposals now face two hurdles, or at least that appears to be the case until eventually we discover what are the precise proposals. The first hurdle is that the person making the claim needs to demonstrate that he or she was misled or received incomplete information. The second hurdle is to prove that, as a result, he or she sustained a loss in one way or another.

Estimates of the amounts involved in terms of costs vary considerably, but there is little doubt that this sad saga is probably the most expensive administrative mistake of all time. I believe that the estimates vary between £2·5 billion up to £5·9 billion between 2000 and 2050. Of course, those costs will be spread over some 50 years. Nonetheless, this will be a major item of expenditure. We do not know how, in practice, the Government's proposals are going to work. We are still remarkably in the dark on this.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said that my proposal covered the whole problem. However, it covers only half of the problem. My amendment states that,

"regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete".

My amendment, unlike that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, does not deal with the second leg of the argument; namely, whether people did or did not incur losses as a result of having been misled.

That brings me to the report of the ombudsman. I shall need to quote from it at some length at the point at which he discusses what happens when a department makes an administrative error. The ombudsman wrote to me in response to my inquiry, following an exchange on the Floor of the House in which the Minister said that if I wanted to know the opinion of the ombudsman, then I should write to ask him. I did so. This is part of his reply:

"It is reasonable in such circumstances to ask someone who claims to have been misled and to have suffered an injustice to prove his or her case. That is the normal requirement before the Department of Social Security will consider compensating someone who claims to have been misled or misdirected by the Department and as a consequence to have acted, or failed to act, in a way that has been to his or her disadvantage".

The ombudsman goes on to say:

"In the case of SERPS, the Department's leaflets were not accurate; and incomplete and misleading advice was given by staff of the Department and the Benefits Agency. The department has acknowledged that".

In the course of his investigations, he concludes:

"I suggested to the Department that the onus of proof was therefore reversed. It was for the Department to prove that someone would not have acted differently if they had not been misinformed. It seemed to me that the normal rules of the Department's non-statutory scheme of financial redress for maladministration would be inappropriate. The presumption had to be that anyone who could reasonably claim to have been misled and in consequence to have acted, or failed to act, to their detriment had a prima facie claim for redress".

My amendment therefore states that it is accepted by the Government and by Parliament that people were misled. The reason for that is twofold: either they received the leaflet, in which case there cannot be the slightest doubt that people were misled—especially when taking into account the report from the ombudsman; or alternatively, for one reason or another they did not receive the leaflet and, as a result, they will have assumed that the original situation remained the same—that their widows would have been entitled to the full amount of SERPS. For those reasons, all my amendment—which is modest—seeks to do is to ensure that the Government's position is set out very clearly on the face of the Bill. It is extremely important that that should be done at this stage.

In his report the ombudsman stated that the department,

"will also need to take account of the fact that most of those misled by DSS or BA are likely as a result to have decided no action on their part was needed, because they had been led to believe that a surviving spouse was secure in an entitlement to full inheritable SERPS".

Thus, if my amendment is accepted, the overall effect would be to ensure that the individuals concerned will be told in the leaflets to be issued in due course by the department that they do not have to prove, unless the department can prove to the contrary, that they were misled. However, they will still have to prove that they suffered loss as a result. In that regard perhaps my amendment is a little more rigorous than that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.

At the beginning of my remarks I stated that I was worried about the length of time it has taken to reach a resolution on this issue. We still do not know precisely what are the Government's proposals. In his report, the ombudsman pointed out that he, too, did not know the details and therefore he was unable to comment at this stage. One might think that he could perhaps have reported a little more broadly. In any event, given that this matter has been under consideration quite literally for years, we cannot simply leave it until the regulations are published. We need to reach a point where, at least as regards the first hurdle, we know exactly where we stand. I hope that that point can be clarified this afternoon.

Surely the department has by now some idea of what is to be contained in the regulations. Perhaps, as she has done so often and so courteously in the past, the Minister could provide us with them at this stage so that they could be debated during the course of the passage of this Bill. If we wait then we shall not be able to discuss them and to put down amendments to the Bill which could cover any points that we did not like, given that the regulations themselves will not be subject to amendment. It will be too late for this House to take a view on what should be done. We shall remain in ignorance of the exact details here.

At least as far as concerns the first hurdle, I hope that, when the House considers Amendment No. 75, it will take the view that this point should be clarified beyond any doubt whatever.

My Lords, on previous occasions I have expressed grave reservations about whether a protected rights scheme is the best way to address the awful problem of inherited SERPS. However, today I shall limit my comments to the amendments before the House, which look at who should be covered by the scheme.

I very much welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rix. It has my full support and I hope that it will receive the support of the Government. I also have a great deal of sympathy with the approach adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his amendment. His amendment accepts that there is an obligation, albeit a moral one, for people to be positively informed of changes.

Amendment No. 76A, standing in my name, is a modest attempt to explore the current view on the definition of "incomplete information". It attempts to highlight the position of some people who fall into the category of being, not misinformed, but only not informed. They have a particular reason to believe that they should have been told of any changes. This might include those who, prior to 1986, based their decisions to contribute to SERPS at least in part on information they had been given as regards the inheritance provisions. Those people may have sought information about their future pension rights, but may not have asked specifically about the situation as regards their spouses, because I think that they would have taken it for granted.

I wish to consider in particular those people who asked for a pension forecast in order to plan their retirement. They were given one, but one without any specific guidance as regards their spouses. A number of people who have contacted organisations such as Age Concern have found themselves in this position. They believe that the information they received was incomplete because, although they were given detailed information about their future pensions, no reference was made at the time to changes in the law. I appreciate that consultation is on-going and that there will be further opportunities to consider the regulations. However, I would very much welcome the Minister's assurance that in looking at the definition of "incorrect or incomplete information" careful consideration will be given to the issues I have outlined.

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I support the spirit behind all these amendments. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has fought the battle in this House extremely valiantly and with good effect. I hope that he will continue to have that effect. He is now supported on the Cross-Benches—he was not when the battle began some considerable time ago—by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I also support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

As the noble Lord pointed out, there has been a cock-up on a massive scale in which a great many people have suffered. It is not by any means easy to decide who has and who has not suffered. It is something about which we on these Benches have felt very strongly ever since the matter was first raised in Parliament, which I believe was towards the end of 1998 by my honourable friend Mr David Rendel in another place.

This is a case where justice has to be done to the many people who have suffered. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that when the regulations are published, which cannot be too soon, they will take into account the points raised in these amendments and in the debates which have taken place on this and other occasions.

My Lords, I agree with noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who have tabled amendments to Clause 38. There is no doubt that confusion could arise unless something is done. I say in passing that for reasons connected with the mentally handicapped, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I have tried our best to help. But on this occasion I prefer Amendment No. 75 in the name of my noble friend Lord Higgins. I believe that this matter would be more forcefully and clearly dealt with if that were done in accordance with regulations to be drafted. For that reason, and if the matter comes to a Division, I would be obliged to support my noble friend.

My Lords, I was unable to be present when this matter was discussed in Committee. I had to catch an aeroplane. I have read the debate and I am filled with admiration for the clarity with which noble Lords on all sides of the House discussed the matter. The issues are perfectly plain as a result of that discussion, and that is very clever considering that it took place between 10.15 and 11 at night. That was wholly admirable. I pay tribute to noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Higgins, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, have reiterated their concerns.

I speak in particular to Amendment No. 75 because it is all-embracing. It is a very important principle. The nub of the matter is that the ombudsman said that the burden of proof should be shifted and the onus should be on the department to prove that a person has not been misled, instead of a person having to prove that he had been. The Government have accepted that in a number of ways and they are on record as having done so.

The Government want to put that decision into action following consultation and by their own route through regulations. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said from the Liberal Democrat Benches that he supported all the amendments, he seemed to believe that regulations would do. My noble friend makes the point that the principle should be enshrined on the face of the Bill. We have not seen the regulations and it does not appear that we shall until the Bill has become law. Unless something of that nature is put on the face of the Bill we cannot be sure that this clear principle will be included.

I hope that the House and the Minister will accept my noble friend's amendment. If she does not, she needs to give us a full assurance that a government amendment would make the point clear at Third Reading. I do not believe that the House should leave the matter to chance. Regulations are not a suitable method for implementing this matter in any case because the detail will count. Unless we are sure that the principle is there the regulations may easily escape. I support my noble friend's amendment, as my noble friend Lord Renton has done.

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly only because the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in speaking to her amendment, said in her closing remarks that in some way a palliative might be applied to her wish to have an amendment involving a reduction and that there would be regulations which we could discuss. The frustration of this place is that we can discuss regulations but we cannot amend them. Almost never do we reject them. I cannot remember when regulations were rejected. Therefore, once we get to Third Reading and beyond, the rabbit is out of the hutch and there is nothing that can be done.

The Government always prefer to proceed by regulation for fairly obvious reasons. My noble friend has left them with the opportunity, but merely stated the principle on which the regulations should be based. I should have thought that we are all agreed on that. I hope that his amendment can be accepted.

My Lords, we have debated the issue of inherited SERPS on many occasions. Like your Lordships, I endorse the tenacity, good humour and degree of detailed information that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has brought to this matter on numerous occasions. I admire some of those virtues more than others.

We shall debate the matter once again once the regulations for the inherited SERPS scheme are drafted. I know that noble Lords opposite are suddenly filled with distaste for regulations, but perhaps I may point out that for 18 happy years the government of that time were perfectly pleased to carry quite substantial items through regulations without their necessarily being in the affirmative. This sudden change of heart when in Opposition is rather churlish. We are rather more scrupulous about using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure compared with the previous government.

My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the issue we are now talking about is of a magnitude unlike almost any other for so many people? To have to deal with that matter by regulations in this House seems churlish.

My Lords, on the contrary, we shall be bringing forward the structure of a scheme, but its details may involve quite specific levels of payment. They need to be uprated without having to return to primary legislation, otherwise we shall fall foul of the Henry VIII principle. It been well established in the field of social security that matters involving numbers normally have to be dealt with through regulations for uprating without involving primary legislation and all its consequences.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point is not that the detail has to be on the face of the Bill, but the principle. If the principle is there we may be content for the detail to come through regulations. I also point out that it may be true that a great deal was done by the Conservative government through regulations, but that was not willingly accepted by many Members on the Cross-Benches.

My Lords, I do not mean to sound discourteous, but noble Lords who have a particular concern often wish to see matters on the face of the Bill which in other areas they would regard as inappropriate because they are either declaratory or, alternatively, far too detailed.

Noble Lords will know, particularly on the Benches opposite—I see a smile of recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—that parliamentary draftsmen are very anxious that legislation should be tight and fitted to the appropriate purpose and that it should not embody broad statements of principle on the one hand, which come through statements made at Second Reading, nor the kind of detail that comes through regulations. Obviously, if your Lordships feel that the wording of proposed legislation should be amended, it is in your Lordships' hands to do so. However, so far as I am aware, we are following the broad principle established by parliamentary counsel and accepted by this House over many years.

Consultation about regulations is under way and I am grateful for the constructive contributions that many noble Lords have already made to this exercise. This is a problem that we have inherited. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his amendments because it gives me the opportunity to reassure the House about the way in which we envisage deciding claims to the inherited SERPS schemes. It also gives me an opportunity to say a little about how we propose to allow for the situation where a would-be applicant for redress is no longer able to provide evidence of what happened because of mental disability.

As your Lordships know, we undertook to consult widely, including the parliamentary ombudsman, the National Audit Office, the Social Security Advisory Committee, Age Concern, and other organisations, about the operation of the scheme. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for their contributions.

Our consultations are still progressing and I should not want to prejudge the outcome. I hope noble Lords will also understand where I am coming from and that I cannot anticipate some of the detail on which noble Lords might reasonably seek assurance until those consultations are complete.

This debate has reflected concern about the hoops and hurdles that many fear we may put in the way of applicants for redress. We have accepted the Parliamentary Commissioner's report and we are designing the scheme in a way that provides ready access to redress for those who are entitled to it.

If I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it is about the best way to put the provision into law. He prefers to add it to the face of the Bill. While I appreciate his intentions and largely share the aims of his amendment, I should not want to pre-empt the results of the consultation exercise. I therefore prefer that the Government use the greater flexibility that is provided by setting out the detail in regulations. The Bill sets the framework for the scheme, but we are not yet ready to define all the rules in detail and we need the maximum scope to respond to points such as those raised by the noble Lord, and other points that we have probably not yet anticipated.

Having said that, I am clear on the two issues raised by the noble Lord in his amendment. I shall now follow my script quite closely and my words may be made available for circulation to organisations in order to provide advice and at least giving the reassurances that the noble Lord seeks.

The noble Lord's first point related to people who received one of the leaflets that provided incorrect or incomplete information about the rules on inheritance of SERPS additional pension. I am clear that anyone who read one of those leaflets and who took the information contained in the leaflet into account in ma king decisions about building up their pension satisfies the principal test. That would also include people who took into account information passed on to them by, for example, friends or relations who had read the relevant leaflets. I am happy to confirm that this includes the clients of organisations such as Age Concern and citizens advice bureaux who were given incorrect or incomplete advice obtained originally from the DSS.

When the time comes for people to make their claims, we envisage asking them a few questions about how and roughly when they saw a leaflet. I want to make it clear that we shall not expect them to produce the leaflet or to quote it verbatim. Their own account of what they did is likely in many cases to be enough to reach the decision that they are entitled to redress to have their rights preserved. We have not finally decided what the regulations will say, and I should not want to be prescriptive at this point about all the circumstances we expect to cover, but I am happy to tell your Lordships that we shall make that clear.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Yes, of course, it is true that if people saw the leaflet or if they were wrongly advised by someone who had seen it, they were misled. But it is also true that people who did not see a leaflet for one reason or another thought that the situation was the same as they had originally thought; consequently they, too, have been misled. In other words, anyone who believed that he or she was entitled to widow's SERPS was misled, and that is what the amendment seeks to address.

My Lords, the noble Lord refers to his own amendment. I am dealing with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. If the noble Lord will do me the courtesy of waiting until I have finished responding to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I shall be happy to engage in the debate on his amendment and perhaps address his point.

The second part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, deals with people who may have received incorrect or incomplete information but who are no longer able to make a claim for themselves for redress because they suffer a severe and continuing mental disability. That is an issue that the noble Lord helpfully raised as part of our consultations.

I am happy to confirm that we accept the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment and want to make sure that such people are covered in an appropriate way that is unambiguous. I am not in a position now to define precisely what the outcome will be. We have work to do on a definition of the people we should wish to include. We also have more to do to decide exactly how we should allow for people in that situation.

But our intention is clear. People with a severe and continuing mental disability will not be disadvantaged in their ability to obtain redress. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I have done my best to give him the assurances that he sought in moving it.

I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her contributions on this subject. I know that she is concerned that the SERPS scheme should work as effectively as possible. The noble Baroness's amendment refers to circumstances in which a person could reasonably have been expected to be informed about the SERPS reduction and that such circumstances should be taken account of when considering whether or not a person satisfies the first test. As the noble Baroness said, she is concerned that those people who made inquiries about their pension entitlement. For example, they may have asked for a pensions forecast but did not specifically ask about widows entitlement—this overlaps with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—and who had a reasonable expectation to he informed about the widows changes.

The amendment as drafted could have a very wide application. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is arguing the point, but we could not, for example, accept that her amendment embraced those who might argue that they should have been notified individually of the changes in the law. We went over this ground in Committee and I can only repeat that I do not believe that a special case should be made for inherited SERPS. This is only one of three significant changes made to state pensions in the Social Security Act 1986.

If the Government accepted that people had a reasonable expectation of being told about the change to inherited SERPS, would it not mean that the other changes introduced at that time should also not apply to them if they were not personally told about them? Of course, they were not. These changes included, for example, that entitlement based on the 20 best years was no longer to be the case but was to be based on the whole working life; and they included the difference in accrual rates. The provision with regard to widows is of lower financial significance than the 20 best years provision. People were expected to rely on the information in the leaflet, and there was never any suggestion that they should be individually notified about the changes or, if they were not individually notified, that they were entitled to be protected from their impact. The case of inherited SERPS and widows must therefore be aligned with the other changes that took place as a result of the 1986 Act.

I accept the point that inherited SERPS is an exceptional case in that the information was consistently omitted from departmental leaflets for 10 years. Even after it was included, many people were still given incorrect or incomplete information. There is no disagreement about that. I accept also that the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that the scheme operates fairly. But my comments in relation to the noble Baroness's amendment also apply here. We are still consulting. We have not finally decided on the regulations.

What I am concerned to establish is that we should not accept, or appear to accept, the principle that everyone was entitled to individual notification. That has never been the way of government legislation. As we are still consulting, it would be premature to be prescriptive at this stage. However, we shall certainly take account of the views expressed to us on these points. On that basis, I believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is premature and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.

As to Amendment No. 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on 15th March I repeated the Government's statement about inherited SERPS. The noble Lord was quick to highlight the issue of where the burden of proof should lie in an application for redress under the scheme. He urged, as did the ombudsman, that it should lie with the department. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quoted from the ombudsman's report and urged the Government to accept that the scheme should cater for people who took no action and would have difficulty demonstrating that they would have acted differently if correctly advised.

The words used in the Statement in another place and repeated by myself were:

"I intend to accept all the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman".—[Official Report. 26/3/2000; col. 1609.]

Among other things, the Government accept that the burden of proof lies with the department. We accept also the ombudsman's point that the inherited SERPS scheme must be capable of a global solution that includes providing redress to persons who were misled and took no action.

Amendment No. 75 requires us to presume that all applicants under the scheme received incorrect or incomplete information unless they were specifically given the correct information. That goes much further than the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. It does not allow for the situation in which a person had neither received nor requested any information. The noble Baroness's amendment deals with persons who raised a query being expected to cast a wider net for information.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was logically contradictory. He said that the first test was whether the person would have acted differently, to avoid financial detriment. If one accepts that a person did not know positively about the change—the amendment presumes they were misled—I do not see how the second test of suffering loss could be established, if the individual did not know there was any change that might produce the loss that followed.

On the basis of the noble Lord's case, anybody who did not know about the change would be entitled to compensation—provided they could show financial loss. But if they did not know—and did not know the action they might have taken if they had known—one cannot logically move on to the noble Lord's second step.

The noble Lord is looking puzzled. There are two steps. First, it is expected that the person can show that they were misled. The burden of proof is on the department. If a person claims that they relied on the information to take action—or to decide not to take any action—with resulting financial consequences, they move on to the second step of financial detriment. The noble Lord seems to be saying that somebody who did not know— whether or not they were misled because they had no information at the time—could subsequently show that they suffered financial loss. We cannot know whether they suffered financial loss if they did not know at the time about the changes and the action they might have taken.

My Lords, either they were misinformed—that is common ground—or they thought the situation was as originally stated, which was that the wife would inherit the full SERPS. If they did not know about the change, they may not have made provision for their wives as they otherwise would have done.

My Lords, how could they know now what they would have done then, if they had known what they did not know? The noble Lord's second position cannot hold. If they did not know, they could not have known what they might have done if they had known. By definition, that has to be true. I will send the noble Lord a note to that effect.

The change to SERPS inheritance was only one of three significant changes in the Social Security Act 1986. The others were the 20 best years calculation, the reduction over 10 years from 25 per cent of earnings to 20 per cent, and the reduction in the survivor's pension from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. In 1995 there were further major changes. The link between SERPS and alternative pension provision was broken and the annualisation formula was introduced—matching a person's earnings to the years in which they were earned. Finally, there was the equalisation of state pension age, so that women would not be able to collect their SERPS until age 65—the same as men.

If the Government accepted that people had a reasonable expectation of being told about the change to inherited SERPS, would that not mean that the other changes that I have outlined would also not apply to people who were not personally told about them? Although the information was contained in the leaflets, the previous administration did not tell people personally about those changes. People who did not pick up the right leaflet would also have remained ignorant of the change to the 20 best years rule.

It has never been the Government's position that they are responsible for people's ignorance of changes to the law. We have here the much narrower situation in which the then government persistently gave misinformation in leaflets. Our changes are intended to redress that situation.

The Government have already publicly accepted the NAO and ombudsman's recommendations. We are consulting widely on how to put them into effect and will put the resulting regulations before the Social Security Advisory Committee, Public Administration Select Committee and the ombudsman. As a final stage, the recommendations will come before both Houses of Parliament and require your Lordships' approval.

The situation that we inherited was not that people did or did not know about the change but that some—we do not know how many—were misled as a result of the then government's continued propagation of misinformation. We are seeking to correct misinformation, not lack of information. That is the difference between the noble Lord's amendment and our position. The Government have never been responsible for correcting lack of information—only misinformation of which the Government were the author. The inherited SERPS scheme must provide redress to individuals and the regulations that establish it must satisfy various interested parties—including the ombudsman.

I hope that I have addressed the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I have gone as far as I can to meet the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, although they are still for discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is asking us to take a step much farther—one that his government would not have contemplated in the 1985 and 1986 Acts—in saying that unless a person was notified by the Government, it must be assumed that they were misled. That has never been the Government's position. No government could adopt such a position. However, where government were the author of misinformation, they have a moral and, in my view, legal and financial obligation to correct the situation—which is what we propose in good faith. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, did I hear her say that organisations will have the opportunity to see draft regulations before they are laid'?

My Lords, if we are asking organisations to take part in drawing up the regulations, I see no reason not to allow that. A different status applies, in terms of consultation, in respect of official organisations such as the Social Security Advisory Committee.

My Lords, there has to be some logic in rolling boulders up hills. If one is persuaded that the chances of getting further are remote, the logic is to call a halt. The Minister has helpfully gone as far as the Government are prepared to go at the pre-regulation stage. I appreciate and welcome her assurances—particularly the opportunity to study and comment on the draft regulations before they are laid and past amending.

Like the actor I once was who wishes to believe his kind notices, then is surprised when the box office is disappointing—I am happy to say that I was rarely in that position—I wish to believe the Minister's kind words and will be most surprised if the regulations are disappointing. In light of the Minister's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 33, line 36, at end insert—

(""(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete."").

moved Amendment No. 78: