asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government accept that there is a relationship between heavy cannabis use and the risk of experiencing a number of mental health problems, although these are mostly short lived. The British Medical Journal papers strengthen the evidence for its potential role in schizophrenia. The editorial points out that cannabis as a cause of schizophrenia remains unproven. The Government will continue to update policy and guidance informed by carefully considered expert analysis of the evidence.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. The article to which I refer in my Question bears the subheading,

"More evidence establishes clear link between use of cannabis and psychiatric illness".

Does that not show clearly that cannabis increases the risk of schizophrenia and not only for those who already have mental health problems?

In the light of that evidence, is it not horrifying that cannabis use is soaring; and should not the Government in its publicity make plain that cannabis, far from being relatively harmless, is a cause of mental illness as well as being five times more likely than tobacco to cause lung cancer?

My Lords, the BMJ article is an interesting article. It reports the association between the level of cannabis use and the risk of development of depression and anxiety. It shows evidence that prior cannabis use is significantly associated with an increased risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia. What has not yet been shown beyond doubt is whether there is a causal relationship. But, in relation to the general point made by the noble Lord, I am concerned at the instance of cannabis use in this country, as I am concerned about the use of other harmful drugs in this country. We shall endeavour in our preventive and educational programmes to make the point the noble Lord raised.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that heavy and continuous consumption of cannabis in itself may give rise to delusions and hallucinations, which are symptoms that closely resemble those of schizophrenia? Does he also accept, as is implied by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and his reply that there is nevertheless growing evidence to suggest that schizophrenia may be precipitated by its use, in particular in genetically disposed individuals? Is it not therefore the Government's duty to publicise the nature of this risk?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we need to publicise the risk of using cannabis as part of our educational and preventive programmes. Clearly, the current state of research and evidence points to the physical and mental health risks. What has not been proven is the direct causal relationship between the use of cannabis and schizophrenia. But the general points raised by the noble Lord are apposite.

My Lords, I think that the Minister is agreeing that there is an increased risk of mental health problems and certainly physical health problems due to the carcinogenic effect of cannabis. Can he therefore explain the Department of Health's deafening silence on the Home Office's reckless policy of abandonment of protection through the criminal law?

My Lords, I do not think that that is a very accurate reading of the situation. The Home Office has taken advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Government have made absolutely clear that use of all controlled drugs, including cannabis, is harmful. But drug laws must accurately reflect the relative harm of drugs if a credible message is to be put out to the public, including young people. That is why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised that, although cannabis is harmful, it is not as harmful as other drugs currently classified in class B and therefore recommended that it should be reclassified as a class C drug. But its use will still be illegal. There will still be severe penalties for trafficking. The police will retain the power to arrest for possession linked to aggravated public order. That is proportionate advice from an expert advisory committee.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we have plenty of time. Perhaps we may start with my noble friend Lord Mackenzie and then the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

My Lords, bearing in mind the dangers of driving while under the influence of cannabis, can my noble friend say whether there has been any progress on the development of a roadside testing device that detects cannabis in blood?

No, my Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that, although I am happy to write to him about the matter.

My Lords, the Minister is correct to separate the criminal law and its treatment of cannabis from the health and educational aspects relating to cannabis as done by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Runciman report. Should not the health education unit be given more resources, so that it can credibly put across to young people the health problems associated with the use of cannabis?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the need to emphasise and develop health prevention programmes, including getting the right messages across to young people. We have a local drug education and prevention budget of around £13 million in 2002–03. A great deal of work is being undertaken and co-operation between the NHS, local education authorities, schools and the police is of a high order. Of course we encourage them to work together in this area.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable potential value in the use of cannabis as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of certain diseases, such as disseminated sclerosis?

My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend makes. Research is currently being undertaken into some of the medical benefits of certain derivatives of cannabis. The results from those studies will be considered in due course—we believe that some results will be available later in the year. If any of the trials are successful, application can then be made to the Medicines Control Agency for a licence.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that cannabis can be used in several different strengths? Will liquid cannabis still be a class A drug?

My Lords, so far as I am aware, there are issues concerning the strength of the cannabis being used. However, the recommendation of the advisory council to reclassify cannabis applies to all cannabis preparations.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one problem is that cannabis is now supplied by illegal providers and, as a result, the strength and quality of the drug is unknown and it comes with no health warning? Does my noble friend even remotely accept that, if it were available through controlled legal outlets, it could be of known potency and could even carry an accompanying health warning, giving advice such as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton?

My Lords, I believe that the implication of my noble friend's question is that the use of cannabis and, indeed, other drugs should be decriminalised. The Government believe that it would be wrong to do so and that it would give all the wrong signals. A MORI poll carried out for the Police Foundation in March 2000 found that 30 per cent of adults cited illegality as a reason for not taking drugs.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a patron of the child's charity, Kidscape.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what priority is given to child protection by the police.

My Lords, child protection needs to be a priority. The National Policing Plan makes that clear. It stipulates that chief officers should review their local policing plans to ensure that child protection is given the appropriate priority. The Victoria Climbié inquiry report, published earlier today, highlights the urgency with which we must address that issue.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Does he agree that, while the NSPCC has welcomed many of the proposals in the forthcoming Sexual Offences Bill to improve the protection of children, it is right to be concerned that, if the police are not able to dedicate appropriate resources, little impact will be made? Will be therefore confirm that child protection will be made a national priority for the police and the probation services, as recommended in the joint report of the chief inspectors in October, and that it will receive a high priority in the National Policing Plan?

My Lords, I can confirm that it is a national priority. The National Policing Plan requires chief officers to reflect the fact that it is a national priority in their local policing plans by including child protection strategies from 1st April. More detailed recommendations are contained in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, published today, on which my noble friend Lord Hunt will make a Statement immediately after Questions. The report focuses on precisely what needs to be done. The issue is incredibly important and the Victoria Climbié inquiry indicates its urgency.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm today's report from the Met that large numbers of police from the Child Protection Unit are being removed in order to deal with more than 1,200 cases of people identified on the Internet as paedophiles? Effectively, does that mean that there is less protection for children now? Will he enter into discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to see how far it is possible to offer children all the protection that is necessary?

My Lords, the National Policing Plan makes it clear that child protection must be a priority. The Laming report, which my noble friend will deal with later this afternoon, specifies what that means in practice. The Metropolitan Police have reorganised their child protection arrangements in advance of the publication of the Laming report. Individual police forces must determine where the priorities lie as between operation and individual cases of child protection. But we all agree the importance that must be attached to the protection of children in individual cases.

My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, does he further agree that the leaking of a list, apparently from police sources, to the Sunday Times is very serious? Can he assure the House that steps will be taken to investigate the source of that leak?

My Lords, I do not know the details of any leak and I should need to make inquiries about it. Plainly, it is inappropriate to leak that type of information to the press. Such steps as need to be taken will be taken. The focus of this Question relates to child protection, which I believe has more to do with the issues raised by the Laming report than with the kind of issue raised by the noble Viscount.

My Lords, can the Minister say what correlation he believes exists between the downloading of child pornography from the Internet and active involvement in child abuse?

My Lords, I believe there is a link in the sense that people who download child pornography may well be connected in some way with activities which are worse than simply downloading pornography. I believe that there are differing views as to the scientific link, but plainly there is a link.

My Lords, I also declare an interest as president of the Welsh Trust for the Prevention of Abuse. The work of the trust follows a slightly different tack but I believe that it is significant in the question of child protection. Does my noble friend agree that it is important to ensure awareness among children of the many difficulties or potential dangers that they face? In that respect, is he aware of the much acclaimed video produced by the trust that I mentioned? The video will go into all schools in Wales to make children aware of the potential dangers.

My Lords, it is important to make children aware of the dangers. I do not know of the video to which my noble friend refers and I would welcome the opportunity to view it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we have no specific information about large retailers' awareness towards customers in this matter as there is no legal requirement to provide such assistance. The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 set out employers' responsibilities. Employers must provide adequate and appropriate first aid facilities and equipment for employees who are injured or who become ill at work. The regulations do not require first aid provision for members of the public. However, research has found that on the whole employers, including retailers, are aware of their responsibilities.

My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I know that she has had some difficulty with the way in which I have phrased my Question. I thank her for dealing with the issue in relation to staff.

I was concerned about a report that I received from a member of the staff of this House. Over a week ago he was in a supermarket and suffered a hypoglycaemic episode, which describes a dangerously low blood-sugar level, from which he subsequently collapsed. He woke up in hospital and later discovered that he had been put into an alleyway outside the premises by the staff of the supermarket. Thanks to an observant member of the public, an ambulance was called and after treatment he recovered. Does the Minister agree that that demonstrates a need for further education for the staff and management of businesses such as supermarkets? I know that this matter is somewhat outside her scope, but can she offer some encouragement and guidance on it?

My Lords, the noble Viscount, gives the House an appalling and horrifying story that could happen to any of us who suffered a cardiac arrest or a similar problem when staff were not in a position to recognise the cause. Staff may assume that one's condition is due to something other than a medical condition and as a result bypass it. I can give the noble Viscount some help.

Although under health and safety legislation employers have a responsibility only towards their employees, this autumn the Health and Safety Executive will publish a discussion document on the provision of first aid in the work place. Together with my colleagues at the Department of Health— my noble friend Lord Hunt is listening to what I say—I shall ensure that a copy of that discussion document is sent to all major retailers. I shall also ensure that it includes questions, thus seeking their views as to what provision they can make for members of the public who may be in such a horrifying position as described by the noble Viscount.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that a year ago I was smitten by a similar event and was carried unconscious from the palace where I was picked up by an ambulance? Senior staff of the Law Lords department appeared to know exactly what to do and happily I am here today.

My Lords, we are all the richer for the presence of the noble Lord. It struck me that your Lordships may be interested in the situation in the Palace of Westminster. To allay the fears of noble Lords, there are 18 trained first-aiders in the House of Lords and an additional 71 trained first-aiders in the House of Commons who are available to both Houses. I am delighted to report that there are also 42 people trained to use defibrillators, so I am confident that if any of us experiences a sudden cardiac arrest, a hypoglycaemic attack or a collapse we shall have the best possible support and service. That support and service is also offered to members of the public.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former trustee of Diabetes UK and as someone who has type II diabetes. Is my noble friend aware that although the health and safety first-aid regulations cover employees, the Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance to undertakings that provide a service to the public, such as places of entertainment and shops? Will she encourage the Health and Safety Executive to make that more widely understood and available particularly to large retailers?

Yes, my Lords, I had picked up that point. I understand that local authority licences require that there is adequate first aid provision for members of the public in places of public entertainment, such as cinemas, sports halls or the like. As the noble Lord has rightly identified, the problem is that health and safety at work applies to employees and there is no clear legal responsibility for members of the public who may collapse in a shop or on the street. There is a duty of care for ambulances to respond to a call for help, but there is no duty on any of us to summon that ambulance.

My Lords, while I welcome the proposed discussion document, can the noble Baroness say whether it will consider not only the provision of equipment and training but also the provision of suitable notices for anyone who may happen to be on the spot when such an incident occurs?

My Lords, I shall do my best to ensure that that is included.

My Lords, I declare an interest in Epilepsy Action. Is the Minister aware that the generic first aid courses undertaken by the staff of such stores do not include how to deal with epileptic seizures or diabetic comas? Perhaps it would be helpful if guidance were issued stating that at least one member of staff in such large buildings should have that special training. Does the Minister agree that people who suffer such illnesses should helpfully wear clearly visible Medic Alert bracelets or necklaces so that staff can identify them?

My Lords, on the second point, clearly it is not appropriate to have an information leaflet inside one's wallet; it needs to be obviously available to staff so that they know that there is a medical cause for the collapse. On the training in epileptic seizures, the point of the discussion document is that the current first aid provisions are based on regulations drawn up in 1981. At the moment that provides for extensive training initially—four days—which can be costly to small employers, but there is then a problem with skill fade. Issues about how to keep training up to date, whether we can extend it to the use of defibrillators, the use of medicines, Epipens and the like as well as the treatment of epilepsy, are precisely the points that we hope to explore in the discussion document.

My Lords, would it be a good idea if more first aid training, including training in diabetes and epilepsy, were undertaken in schools and colleges so that a wider proportion of the populace had such expertise? Is it true that often when people pass out, other people believe that they are drunk, leading to someone being placed in an alley?

My Lords, I spoke more euphemistically about the matter, but I am sure that your Lordships understood what I was saying. Many schools offer some first aid training, but there are something like 1,500 first aid training providers led by St John Ambulance which trains 500,000 volunteers a year, and the British Red Cross which trains another 200,000 a year. It is found that those who volunteer to undertake first aid training as employees often do so because it is of value to their family circumstances. We need to find the most effective way to keep such skills up to date. That is one reason why we shall be seeking views in the discussion document.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of Micropower, which promotes the small-scale generation of electricity.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to reduce losses in the transmission of electricity, estimated at £600 million a year.

My Lords, on 17th January Ofgem announced that it had approved a modification to the Balancing and Settlement Code to implement zonal transmission losses on an average and ex ante basis throughout England and Wales by April 2004. The authority believes that short-term benefits would accrue of approximately £200,000 to £1.5 million on annual transmission losses of £90.8 million, by incentivising companies into making more efficient decisions on the siting of demand and generation in the future. My honourable colleague the Minister for Energy and Construction announced last Thursday that the DTI would be undertaking a consultation on the applicability of zonal transmission losses on a GB basis.

My Lords, I am pleased to hear of those initiatives. Is the noble Lord aware that transmission losses at the present level add £12 to the average electricity bill and account for 5 million tonnes of carbon emissions? The Government's target is a reduction in emissions of 30 million tonnes, but those losses contribute substantially to the problem.

Will the noble Lord accept that, in addition to improvements in the distribution networks, more effort should be made to site generating plant near consumers, including siting on consumers' premises, which would eliminate transmission losses?

My Lords, the question of transmission losses is a difficult one. The figure of £90 million, to which I referred, is the figure for transmission losses on the main transmission system. Obviously, there are additional losses on the local distribution system, but it is difficult to do anything about those by resiting generators.

There are some gains to be made, although they do not look so great, due to the resiting of generators. The figures that I gave—from £200,000 to £1.5 million, with an upside figure of £5 million—are, in one sense, quite large. However, compared to the £60 billion cost of electricity, they are not a major issue.

Although the proposal is of benefit to embedded generators because it saves the transmission, we must also take into account the fact that it could be unfavourable to the location of renewable sources of energy, particularly offshore wind, or the generation of energy in distant places. There are benefits in both directions.

My Lords, does not the Minister's reply suggest that the time has come to review the workings of the new electricity trading arrangements, the principal effect of which seems to have been to make previously profitable undertakings unprofitable and vice versa? Does the Minister understand that the loss of power to individuals and regions would subject the citizens of this country to serious problems that would be unwelcome to Her Majesty's Government at this time?

My Lords, NETA has removed the distortions of the old pool and prices problem. It has led not to chaos but to a fall in prices. That is appropriate in circumstances in which there is too much capacity. We propose to bring in the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements for the whole of GB, and we hope that that will also lead to a fall in prices in Scotland.

My Lords, are the proposals for reducing expenditure that the Minister has just referred to based on improvements to transformer systems or on more use of overhead lines, although there must be restrictions on the siting of pylons?

My Lords, the answer is "Neither". It is a supposition that the generators will either resite the generating plants in clue course or will realign them so that there is less loss on existing lines between the point at which the electricity comes on the line and the point at which it goes off to the supplier.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the British National Party won the support of only one in 10 eligible voters, and the party holds only five council seats out of around 20,000 in England and Wales. However, the result in Halifax is a matter of concern. Even limited successes for far-Right parties show that we cannot be complacent about community cohesion and race relations in Britain. We must persuade people that solutions do not reside in the dangerous ideas put forward by far-Right groups.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly the comments at the end. The BNP win in Halifax last Thursday is the latest in a small number of disturbing successes for that fascist party that appear, at least in part, to be the result of the present national climate of completely unjustified fear and hysteria about refugees, whipped up by the tabloid media and fanned by some politicians. Have the Government considered whether some of the provocative, racist lies that have appeared in parts of the press should be referred to the Press Complaints Commission or made the subject of prosecutions for racial incitement? Is the frightening situation helped by some new Labour politicians, who have wrongly referred to schools being "swamped" by asylum seekers and now threaten to scrap this country's obligations under international human rights legislation?

My Lords, that was a long supplementary question that, step-by-step, turned to other areas. I shall try to respond to some of the issues raised.

The public have the right to make complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, if they think that some media reporting is extreme and offends against the PCC's code. The Times described some recent media coverage as hyperbolic. That is an accurate description of the equation that is made between asylum seekers and terrorists. It is a dangerously overlapped equation. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned about the situation and is monitoring it.

Oblique reference was made to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has been absolutely right in signalling that, as a nation, we had to make two issues clear: we are committed to providing protection to refugees from oppression and torture, while being realistic, clear and tough in stamping out abuse and making it harder for illegal immigrants to come into the country.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a contributing factor to the relative success of neo-fascist parties in places such as Burnley, Blackburn and Halifax is the misleading and deliberate distortion of facts in those areas? Does he also agree that the Government's initiatives—urban regeneration, neighbourhood renewal, local strategic partnerships—offer a way for the nation to combat such wicked and evil people? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will do their best to get the truth out in areas that, unfortunately, have been neglected for decades?

My Lords, ensuring that conditions are in place that will allow all in our society to prosper is, undoubtedly, a part of any proper strategy for stopping the growth of racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia. I include poor white communities in that, as much as others. Such conditions are crucial, which is why the neighbourhood renewal, social exclusion and community cohesion work that is being done throughout government to strengthen capacity in such areas and promote dialogue and understanding is vital.

I also mark the importance of local leadership in that context. Without going into detail, I will say that particular local issues will always contribute to the results of such elections. That is not to take away from the responsibility of the Government and each of the major national political parties to consider again whether they give people confidence that mainstream politics can address their concerns.

My Lords, is it not likely that the BNP cashed in on the public perception that the Government have lost control of the asylum situation? Is there not a lesson for the Government to learn?

My Lords, there is a lesson for the Government to learn, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been clear, brave and courageous in acknowledging that we must put across to the public the fact that we are getting to grips with the asylum situation. I shall not go into detail—I am happy to do so on another occasion—about the measures that are in place, following the legislation, to make entry harder and stamp out abuse.

At the same time, we do not aid community cohesion or create the sort of society that we want by extremism—in this place or anywhere else—that implies that all asylum seekers are terrorists or by creating that impression. At that level, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is correct: some of the extremist reporting that has taken place will, perhaps, have played into the BNP's hands.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, under any electoral system bar Britain's bizarre first-past-the-post system, the BNP would not have come within a country mile of winning that seat in Halifax? Will he change the system?

My Lords, I think that if I said that it would be done by Tuesday, the House would not believe me. So the answer is no. It is also noted that the contribution of independent parties in these elections was one of the products that led to the result. I shall say no more at this point.

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected Member of Calderdale Council, of which Halifax is part. Would the Minister agree that there are several lessons to be learnt from that result, and the disaffection that led to the result last Thursday? In particular, it is far from helpful that, because of our system of organising local government finance, the council has to consult on the 14 per cent council tax rise, for no discernible increase in services, at six or seven times the rate of inflation. Furthermore, Calderdale is one of only two metropolitan councils out of 36 that is denied benefit from neighbourhood renewal funding. Should not the criteria for that be looked at afresh?

My Lords, I am disappointed by that question. It implies that the result of that election was the product of the local government finance settlement by this Government. While we should take responsibility for many things, I do not think that is a reasonable or fair inference in this case. There will never be enough money for local government, in terms of what it wants; there will never be a system of local government finance distribution that commands universal support. Members opposite know that as well as we do on our Benches.

If we should want to find local issues, the large increase in members' allowances had substantially played to the BNP's position, plus the failure to resign voluntarily of a councillor who had not turned up for six months. Those are factors which are very much within the hands of local parties and the council itself.

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind, that although not all asylum seekers are terrorists, some of them are not genuine asylum seekers?

My Lords, unless I blinked at the wrong moment, I thought that during the past six months, in the legislation brought into this House from about June through to November, we could not have been clearer on that fact. The challenge to the Government, and to public policy generally, is to sort out one from the other. We must ensure that we do not encourage illegal migration to this country, while, at the same time, we should give refuge to those who are genuine migrants. We are clear on that issue and have put in place a range of measures which will make significant progress on closing that gap.

My Lords, I refer to the point made by my noble friend concerning the national press. Does the Minister not consider that the press complaints' system is entirely inadequate to deal with some of the racist comments that have appeared in certain newspapers and, in particular, the Sun? Will he refer these matters to the police so that they can investigate whether a criminal offence has been committed under the provisions regarding incitement to racial hatred?

My Lords, I am sure that those issues are being regularly tracked by the responsible authorities. I shall say no more than that.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the grave and very extensive concern that exists throughout the country about the volume of illegal immigrants? Can he explain why the Prime Minister has confessed that perhaps the measures referred to may not be altogether successful and why the European convention may need to be examined?

My Lords, yes, I would be blind if I had not noticed the strength of concern in the country about illegal immigration, while not for one second implying that legal migration does not play a valuable role in our economy and in our society, because it does. If one looks at the Prime Minister's comments on "Breakfast with Frost"—the transcript is clear—he made absolutely clear his expectation that the measures taken in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, combined with the measures we are undertaking with France and Belgium substantially to strengthen entry control physically, should make very considerable progress in terms of ensuring that we have staunched the problem.

In response to a specific question, the Prime Minister also recognised that there would be a need to think about how immigration asylum policy develops in the future. That is an issue on which we have signalled in this House previously, that while the 1951 convention is right in its principles, it will benefit from serious and sober reflection on how it should be developed to cope with a world that has changed since 1951. I know that many Members share that endeavour; later this year, we shall no doubt outline further thinking on that.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be particularly unfortunate if the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister does anything along the lines that he was suggesting just at the moment when the Community is fighting really hard to obtain a unified policy on immigration which would be of great benefit to this country, because immigrants would have to be registered in the country where they first arrive in the Community?

My Lords, I am not certain that I totally seized the question; I shall be happy to give further thought subsequently. However, I am certain that what the Prime Minister said, and the leadership that he has given in both international and domestic issues, are absolutely appropriate for the circumstances that we are in. For the future, we must think about whether there are better ways of giving refuge to those people who need it under the 1951 convention but who currently do not get it. I can but instance what happened in Rwanda and in many places around the world. We must be concerned about the fact that operationally the current system does not help such people. Therefore, it requires fresh thinking.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

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

Moved, That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that matters already decided may not be brought forward again during the same Session, the House may vote on all of the seven Motions standing in the name of the Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday 4th February; and that Standing Order 41 (Arrangement ofthe Order Paper) be dispensed with on that day so that the seven Motions may be taken before other public business.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

My Lords, bearing in mind that we have already spent 20 hours or more discussing this very important matter—three and a half hours in a debate before Christmas and at least 17 hours last week—is it necessary for further discussion on the seven Motions? If all those Motions were put to the vote, they would collectively take a good many more hours to dispose of. Would it not be better if we went straight into voting on these Motions?

Oh yes, my Lords. But it is not my birthday on 4th February; it is on the 5th. Therefore, I do not think that I shall have a present on the 4th. That is entirely a matter for your Lordships. Most of your Lordships will think that we gave the issue a fair ventilation—if that is quite the word I am looking for—last week. It was 15 hours, only. There is much to be said for going directly to the Motions. If we vote on the seven Motions without any, or too much, discussion, that will take approximately an hour and a half.

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

Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Freyberg and the Baroness Warnock set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of discussions at ACAS.

"The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should,

"bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side should seek to rule any issue in or out".

"Despite that, the Fire Brigades Union executive decided yesterday to go ahead with further strikes and at nine o'clock this morning the FBU walked out for the fourth time. They will be on strike for 48 hours and at present are scheduled to walk out again for a further 48 hours on Saturday morning.

"While we sit here, the Armed Forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained fire fighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking fire fighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me to express our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute.

"I have made clear that the Armed Forces will have the resources they need. As I said when I made my last Statement to the House on 20th January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the Green Goddess fleet. I can now inform the House that for the first time in these strikes we have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The Armed Forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.

"The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt. The switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on the part of the FBU. Far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.

"It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety and we will continue to do so. But the House should be aware that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million. And costs continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues—whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve. It has come from programmes in my office designed to help the most needy in our communities.

"The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the Fire Service rather than pay and modernisation, as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the Fire Service.

"The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better Fire Service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for Fire Service employees.

"The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, now before the House. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation. The repeal of Section 19 will do no more than put the management of the Fire Service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is an obstacle that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on Fire Service priorities and plans. That has not changed.

"Let no one be in any doubt, the FBU's claim remains what it has been for the past nine months—a 40 per cent pay rise for fire fighters and 50 per cent for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatever. No change. No compromise. No modernisation.

"Talks at ACAS started on 4th December. There have been days and days of talks about talks. And yet the FBU has walked away without any substantive negotiations.

"I have had numerous discussions with the General Secretary of the FBU and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt. But this latest strike—coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed—leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.

"This latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and the local authority employers want to see a fully modernised Fire Service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that.

"The employers are rightly now insisting, in the light of the past two months of strike action, that talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU showed, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.

"The Fire Service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute.

"We all want to see a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. This is the only basis for negotiations. But the Government have to be prepared. The FBU may continue to refuse to discuss modernisation. So, it is against this background that I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.

"As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the Fire Service. These powers will, it is to be hoped, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations.

"I will discuss through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way forward to introduce this legislation. I will draw on provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947, which were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed the Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the Fire Service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the Fire Service on its objectives and its use of facilities and assets.

"Legislation in itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take these powers to use if necessary to help reach an agreement.

"The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the Fire Service employers. But for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda. We will continue to resist these strikes. And we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety—especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and the Armed Forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.

"Mr Speaker, it will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultation I have proposed today. Meanwhile, the whole House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating yet another Statement on the fire fighters' situation. While I and the House appreciate the courtesy which is extended to us and the information which is brought to us on a regular basis, it is becoming wearisome for everyone. As I and the Minister have said, it is about time the matter was quickly and equably resolved. It is extremely unfortunate that the fire fighters decided to step back from the talks which started at ACAS. I hope that when they return on Thursday, those talks will be renewed and reach a beneficial conclusion.

We cannot overlook the fact that the fire fighters' job is currently being done by retained fire fighters for whom there is little reward and for whom Bain rightly says there should be proper reward based on the same pay as that given to the fire fighters. All of us believe that that must be a proper outcome at the end of the discussions, if only to acknowledge their loyalty and the service they have provided throughout the dispute. I join the Minister in thanking not only them but also our Armed Forces, who earn much less than the fire fighters and substantially less than the fire fighters would earn if they achieved the objectives they laid out at the beginning of the dispute.

We cannot continue to rely on our Armed Forces. We know that and the country knows that. It is abundantly clear that over the next few weeks—as has been the case during the past few weeks—the attention of our Armed Forces will properly be engaged elsewhere. So in a few weeks time we may not have sufficient Armed Forces available to take over this role. In the situation of a possible war—but certainly of the withdrawal of many of our troops to a potential front—why will not the Government use the legislative powers they already have at their disposal to prevent further strikes? With each Statement I have asked repeatedly why the powers to seek injunctions are not being used. Each time the Minister has replied that they are under review and will be used if necessary. But nothing happens and we end up in the same situation, over and over again, of talks starting and the fire fighters then going on strike.

What further thought is being given to using the legislation that is currently available to the Government to put a stop to these strikes? Will not the Government give thought to doing that before they start considering the value of the new legislation—or the old legislation which was taken out of the provisions of the 1947 Act but which the Deputy Prime Minister now seeks to put back in.

We on this side of the House wish to consider very carefully whether the action proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister will be beneficial. If we think it will, we shall of course co-operate with the Government. But it will take time—more than a few weeks at the very least—before legislation that may be of use to the Government in this situation is on the table. However, there is no guarantee that even that legislation will have the slightest effect on the Fire Brigades Union, which appears hell-bent on defying every obstacle put in its way. Even if the legislation is put in place in a timely fashion, what will happen if the union still refuses to co-operate? Again, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that current legislation could be used.

Bain's proposals have been on the table for some time now. The proposals in the interim report, which was rushed forward in an attempt to prevent further strikes before Christmas, would, as matters stand at the moment, bring a substantial extra reward to the fire fighters. But we have been told by the fire fighters that the proposals, which embrace modernisation, will bring with them substantial job losses for fire fighters—I believe a figure of 4,500 has been produced—and the closure of 150 fire stations. In the Statement, the Deputy Prime Minister makes clear that he does not believe that to be the situation. He suggests that there would be, or could be, some job losses, but without compulsory redundancies. Can the Minister give a clearer view of what he believes the implementation of Bain's proposals might mean under those circumstances?

The cost of the dispute is becoming very substantial. I watched the Deputy Prime Minister giving evidence to the effect that he had already spent £70 million that could have been usefully used elsewhere. As he says in the Statement, the dispute is costing more than £6 million per day. But, whatever happens, at the end of the dispute there will be transitional costs for the introduction of whatever new pay scale comes about. I know that there is a real concern among local authorities—the employers—about the kind of transitional funding that will be available at that stage. I bear in mind what was said in an earlier question about the forthcoming increase in council tax. Potentially, these additional costs could add extra money to that. Can the Minister say whether or not transitional resources will be available when, it is to be hoped, we get to the end of the dispute.

The offer from the employers has also been on the table for some time. If we are not going to get any further with ACAS, at what stage will that offer be removed and the negotiations moved back to stage one?

I am also glad to note from the Statement that at last—I say "at last" quite heavily—the red fire engines have been made available to the Armed Forces and the retained fire fighters so that they are at least not fighting fires with one hand tied behind their backs. That is a good and useful move. I am only sorry that the point was not taken when we on this side of the House first made it and that those fire engines were not made available earlier.

If the situation was not so tragic this would indeed be a farce. There have been repeated Statements; repeated walk-outs; repeated television appearances of the general secretary making repeated suggestions that he was rushing off to come to an agreement with ACAS; repeated withdrawals; and repeated strikes taking place one after the other. I return to what I said earlier: if the fire fighters are to seek judicial review under Section 19 of the 1947 Act, why do not the Government get in first?

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he is aware, we on these Benches have expressed our thanks and admiration to the Armed Services for carrying out a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and we do so again. We also associate ourselves with the noble Baroness's thanks to the retained fire fighters.

We have supported the Government in seeking a fair and realistic settlement to the dispute and we support the Government in giving priority to public safety. But why is it that the famous gibe of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the last days of the Major administration—"a government in office but not in power"—keeps running through my head? The Statement has all the hallmarks of a panic measure rather than a considered strategy.

That is not surprising because, during the course of the dispute, I can think of at least seven Ministers who have been wheeled out a various times to try to explain government policy. Sometimes the Government have been loftily saying that the dispute is a matter for the unions and employers; at other times they have intervened in minute detail. Instead of a clear strategy for industrial relations and public service pay, we have the usual cocktail of bluster and panic from Mr Prescott. Will the Minister tell the House which Minister in the Government is ultimately responsible for industrial relations policy? The bitter tone of the Statement suggests that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the man to do that job.

Can we be told whether there is a coherent policy towards the public sector, or is each dispute to be handled by a separate department on an ad hoc basis? Would the Minister now care to answer a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, before Christmas. Have the Government a norm for public sector pay settlements?

Is this emergency legislation part of the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999? If not, how is that review progressing? What kind of parliamentary timetable do the Government envisage for the legislation? The Minister referred to discussions through the usual channels, but will it be rushed through both Houses in 24 hours? Is it that kind of emergency legislation?

For five years the Government have been living off the fat of the Thatcher industrial relations reforms without giving any thought to a long-term industrial relations strategy. Warnings of a need for urgency have been pooh-poohed and patronised. Ideas such as compulsory and binding arbitration have been sneered at—again today, I notice, by Mr Prescott—or dismissed out of hand. It is not to dodge the issue to say that we would not have started from here. We are here because the Government stuck their head in the sand for too long about changes in public sector unions and in our industrial relations climate.

So do the Government intend to use the breathing space between now and the introduction of emergency legislation to make further proposals themselves? Or is this the domestic equivalent of sending in the weapons inspectors? For example, as the noble Baroness asked, will the Government still finance transitional funding for modernisation if a deal can be struck? Surely, at this stage it is absolute madness to withdraw the offer of funding. Will the Minister clarify that point?

There is still a good deal of goodwill among the public sector unions for modernisation based on multi-year pay deals. The latest edition of PSM, the public service magazine, states that,

"they guarantee to some extent stable industrial relations where successfully negotiated. Where linked to structural reform, they have also often successfully addressed major staff concerns and provided a greater degree of certainty. Members have largely welcomed them".

We on these Benches urge the FBU to return to the negotiating table. We believe that a multi-year, structural-reform, modernising pay deal is what will finally settle this dispute, probably around the ACAS table.

The Government may well get their emergency legislation, but if they go down that road and if I were Mr Prescott, I would also keep the telephone number of the Official Solicitor handy.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her generally supportive comments on the Government's position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, at least for his comments, if not entirely for their content. The noble Lord is entitled to take the view that he does, but I shall try to deal with the various points that have arisen in response to the Statement by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

The first point to bang home is, yes, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It is a rather wearying process. We come to the Dispatch Box week in, week out, to explain the latest twist and turn in the unfolding of this most unfortunate and regrettable industrial dispute. However, I do not think that anyone can question the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to ensuring that another place and this House are kept fully informed of developments "straight from the heart", as it were. The way in which the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted himself throughout this dispute does him great credit.

The noble Baroness repeated the question that she has asked from time to time with regard to the possible war, the withdrawal of troops and using other legislative powers at the Government's disposal. The decision to seek an injunction rests with the Attorney-General—it is his decision alone. The matter is rightly kept under constant review; the Attorney-General is, of course, kept informed of developments and is no doubt well aware of the current situation.

The noble Baroness asked what would be the impact on the current dispute of the legislation we are considering and proposing to introduce. It is our hope that the FBU and its members realise that further strikes are futile. We have underlined that point by bringing forward our proposals. If, when the Secretary of State had decided on a settlement, perhaps using those powers at some future point, FBU members remained on strike, we should have to review our options and give further thought to what we might wish to do. I repeat the comment made on many occasions by the Deputy Prime Minister that nothing has been ruled out.

A number of references have been made to the Bain proposals. The noble Baroness referred to what I believe to be a calumny; namely, the often repeated message from the FBU that there will be four and half thousand job losses and that 150 fire stations will be closed. The references to job cuts and station closures are entirely false and misleading information. I can only repeat that, as Sir George Bain said, there is no need for any compulsory redundancies. Modernisation is about improving the way in which the service works to ensure that the health and safety of our nation is preserved. It is about saving lives, not costing lives; it is not the situation as portrayed by the FBU during the course of the dispute.

Obviously, we continue to be concerned about the cost of the dispute. In his Statement today, the Deputy Prime Minister has spelt out exactly what that cost is. We said that any pay deal must pay for itself over the next three years. That is very much in line with what Sir George Bain concluded in his recommendations. Also in line with the Bain proposals, we acknowledged, at the time those proposals were brought forward, that some transitional funding might be needed and that we should examine sensible proposals to fund the transitional period. It is obvious that, the more we spend on fire cover, as a product of that there may well be some squeeze on the transitional funding; but we remain committed to the principals put forward by Bain and to the way in which we see the Bain proposals being rolled out.

The noble Baroness raised a question about the employers' offer. She commented that it had been on the table for some time. That is quite right—too long. Our belief is that this dispute should have been settled a long time ago. She asked at what stage the offer would be withdrawn. This has to be a matter for the employers. They have rightly said that it is unreasonable to expect them to negotiate against the backdrop of a strike or strike threat. But that offer remains on the table; it is for the employers to seek agreement with the FBU. We hope that once the latest 48-hour stoppage is concluded the FBU will return to negotiation and "talk, rather than walk"—the second has too often been the case over the past few weeks.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, properly raised the question of responsibility for industrial relations policy. In this situation, the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the fire service and for handling and prosecuting this dispute. Appropriate arrangements are in place for collective discussions on industrial relations issues across Whitehall, but in this instance it is the DPM who is in charge. We should do all we can to provide him with support in ensuring that the dispute is brought to a speedy end.

With regard to emergency legislation, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we shall consult through the usual channels and with the appropriate bodies. Legislation will, we predict, take weeks rather than months. It is not our intention to "bounce" this House or another place, but to introduce it in a timely fashion, taking account, as one properly should, of the usual channels and the usual procedures. But it is important legislation. As I said at the outset, it underlines our commitment to ensuring that no one is under any illusion as to our determination and resolve in bringing this dispute to a timely end.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether the Government have a norm for public sector pay settlements. The FBU's negotiating position remains that it wants a 40 per cent increase for fire fighters and a 50 per cent increase for control room staff. All that I can say relates to that. An increase of that magnitude would obviously have an enormous knock-on effect and would destabilise our economy and the economic future of this country. We cannot agree to that approach. I hope that the FBU sees the sense of what we are saying and that it will return to the negotiating table. That must be the hope of everyone in this House. It is certainly the Government's firm resolve.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his common-sense approach to this difficult issue is much preferred to the declaration of war issued by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats today? Is it right that all hope of resuming arbitration is out of the question? The Minister has inferred that the Fire Brigades Union will see sense; but is he aware that it is important that the Government assert clearly the possibility that this very grave dispute will be settled if the unions and its members see common sense?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support on this. We have been grateful to all sides of your Lordships' House, who, to date at least, have given the Government fulsome support in their position. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we are looking for an injection of common sense within the FBU leadership. Sadly, that has not been displayed. It is greatly to be regretted. I hope that the FBU considers what has been said today very carefully; that it rethinks the issue; considers the position of its members, who must be more than frustrated and wondering how events will turn next; and return to the negotiating table. The machinery is in place. More than a month ago, the FBU welcomed the opportunity to put its case in front of ACAS. But there have been talks about talks, and so far the FBU has not moved on the issue.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on, at last, having proposed to do something. It is difficult to assess objectively the value of what they propose to do. We have no idea other than that there will be a series of emergency directions. Be that as it may, the measures may or may not resolve the dispute, which has hardened, largely through the ineptitude of the Government, who did not know how to deal with it.

As usual, the fundamental question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who rightly said that the Government are floating along—it is not quite how he said it—on the coat-tails of Lady Thatcher, and had not really extended the relevant concept of law to deal with the situation that has now arisen. That leads to the fundamental problem: shall we deal piecemeal, ad hoc, with every dispute by emergency legislation, in consultation with the Attorney-General and the usual channels; or shall we settle down and try to establish a general concept of law to deal with disruption of public services by collective industrial action? I respectfully suggest that a piecemeal approach using emergency legislation must serve to deal with an emergency. It affords no substitute for a stable system of law established by Parliament.

My Lords, I greatly respect the point of view that the noble Lord has put forward in this regard—he has expressed the view consistently. I know that he has played a part in the past in advising on industrial relations law and has sought to introduce legislation that no doubt gives effect to some of the points that he makes. But, this Government have been acting in a concerted way throughout the dispute. They have respected the negotiating machinery that is properly in place. They have reminded the unions and the employers of the importance of the positions that they occupy. I cannot agree with the assertion that we are, "floating along on the coat-tails of Lady Thatcher". We have led where it has been appropriate and right for us to do so. We have made clear and public our position on the dispute and how it has been prosecuted by the FBU. Today's further Statement and the clear lead by the Deputy Prime Minister underline that exact point.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in my experience—and I have been around this place for a long time—if the Statement that he has just repeated had been made by a Tory Minister, there would have been howls of anger and dissent from the Labour Benches? The Government, in respect of a particular dispute, are using a huge hammer to crack what could be a small nut. To take control of the Fire Service nationally and to seek to impose their will on a trade union is not what the Labour Party is about. It effectively removes the right to strike from a democratically elected union in this country.

Is that really what he wants? Is that the Government's intention? If that is so—and, believe me, it is so, because he said it would be futile for the unions to strike—every other public service union is under threat if it takes strike action to gain what it considers a legitimate settlement. I am most disappointed in the Statement. We are supposed to have a new Labour Government; but it is becoming clear to some that we have an anti-Labour Government.

My Lords, it will not come as a great surprise to your Lordships that I cannot possibly agree with a word that the noble Lord has spoken. I do not think it is right that we should have a situation where an important, major public service such as the Fire Service acts irresponsibly and undermines public safety. It is not part of the role of any government, not least a Labour one, to do anything to undermine public safety. That is why we have adopted a firm position in this dispute.

That says nothing about removing the right to strike. We fully respect that the fire-fighters' union has that right to exercise. But it also has a responsibility to conduct industrial relations in a way that does credit to trades unions generally, and to its union in particular. At the moment, it is hard to see that that is the case. I simply use this opportunity to urge it to return to the negotiating table and to use what has been put before it on the table in the past as a reasonable basis on which to formulate a settlement. That would be in the interests of FBU members and in the greater interests of the public. It would do the Fire Service great credit, too.

My Lords, is not the FBU very likely to interpret today's Statement and the legislative provision it contains as simply a threat designed to get it hack to the negotiating table? Can the Minister make it clear that the Government intend to go ahead with the legislation whether or not the FBU conies back to the negotiating table?

Secondly, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is not right to use the occasional dispute with one union as a basis for legislation that should apply to vital public services generally.

My Lords, before any confusion about legislation enters into this discussion, let me make it plain that what we are suggesting today relates simply to the Fire Service. To pick up the noble Lord's earlier point about threats, it is not, in our view, a threat. We are simply making our intention plain so that the dispute moves on and the FBU is under no illusions as to the strength of the Government's commitment to their position. I hope, as I said earlier, that the FBU reflects calmly and clearly on what has been said today and takes the sensible step—the step that everybody in your Lordships' House wants it to take—of returning to talks later this week when the current 48-hour strike concludes.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that some of the statements being made here today are somewhat far from the mark? I am old enough to remember the Conservative government's 1970 employment legislation and experienced the raft of anti-trade union legislation enacted in Margaret Thatcher's time. However, we have a Labour Government who have been extremely patient and are not attacking the public sector workers. The situation would not necessarily happen elsewhere because other public sector workers, or most of them, would not require the Army to do their job. That is a very different situation. Given this crisis, and a possible war in Iraq, the Labour Government are taking a stance against the Fire Brigades Union that is sensible in view of the safety precautions that this country needs.

The people of this country are the Government's responsibility. The Government have taken this measure with a view to bringing collective bargaining closer; it might also be a spur to bringing about a settlement. I do not see it as extreme, compared with measures taken by previous Tory administrations.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has far more experience of industrial relations than I, and I take great encouragement from what he has said. The Government have been patient and it would be understandable if that patience began to evaporate. We have taken a clear trajectory on this and have been measured in our response, but public safety must be paramount. We must do all that we can to ensure that there is proper and adequate fire cover in our nation. If what we propose today helps us establish that in the future, it is a valuable step. I am sure that that is what we will be seeking to do. We remain patient and diligent, and we hope that at the end of this dispute, there will be a return to cooler and calmer thinking, particularly on the part of the FBU, on the way in which the union has conducted itself throughout the dispute. We want to get the FBU back to the negotiating table to sort this out.

My Lords, in the mid-1980s, as a Home Office Minister, I had responsibility for chairing the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. It was a useful body that brought together the Government, the Fire Brigades Union, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and others. As far as I know, it still exists. It was not a particularly easy ride. Nevertheless, it was a useful forum and I hope that when the Government consider the form of the emergency legislation that they will bring before both Houses, they will bear it in mind that that forum is a useful way of making at least some progress even if it gives Ministers a hard time, as in my case.

My Lords, I come to the Dispatch Box with a confession. From time to time I was an official on behalf of the local authority side servicing the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. I may, in an earlier life, have been partly responsible for giving the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, a hard time. I make no apology for that—I was doing my job.

Of course such organisations all have a value. What is important is to get people round the table to talk and sort these matters out. Anything that can be done to speed up that process will be welcomed by all sides.

My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, does the Minister agree that the employers have not been mentioned this afternoon? As I look around these Benches, I see many colleagues who have fought long and hard all their life for working people. I detect, from my knowledge of them, that they have always tried to put out fires—in the industrial sense—rather than light them. But it takes two to tango, and although my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, is one of us—he has worn the shirt and has been there—and I applaud him, as have other noble Lords, I have to say that the condemnation of the employers in earlier days has not been mentioned this afternoon.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work in the industrial relations field. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, he has a great deal of experience. The employers have a difficult job, and the Government see it as their role to ensure that they are well supported. Reviewing the legislation will go some way to stiffening their position and giving them extra support. That will be an important objective of those measures.

My Lords, there is no doubt in my mind that the employers have not done their job in this instance, and have not done it for 25 years. This is only the second serious dispute in the Fire Service for 26 years, and, if what the Deputy Prime Minister says that he will do comes to pass, it will be the second occasion on which a settlement has been forced on the fire fighters. I do not want to go over the past but I hope that we will learn some lessons from it. Many ill conceived steps have been taken on both sides.

When the dispute is settled, there will be considerable bitterness and low morale among the workforce. I wish to be satisfied that the new arrangements for managing the Fire Service have some prospect of working. We had a formula that worked for 26 years before coming to an end; the employers should have done something about it six years ago but they did nothing.

A second question, which arose on an earlier question, is the relationship between local government fund raising for themselves and the contribution of central government. I do not expect my noble friend to have the answer, but it would be interesting to know the proportion of local government expenditure supplied by the Government today and the proportion supplied immediately after the ending of the community charge.

Thirdly, I suggest that someone in government should have the task, across the public service, of trying to see where industrial fires may break out. You can see them coming, and no government since the war have found a way of dealing effectively with the public services, in which nearly all disputes take place.

My Lords, as ever on these matters, the noble Lord speaks with tremendous knowledge, gained from many years of personal involvement and commitment. His comments are helpful. I repeat that of course we must do all we can to ensure that the employers are in a position to be as effective as they should be and need to be. These are necessarily complex relations between employers, the service involved and the Government. That is one reason why a review of the current situation has been undertaken. I think there will be a clear route map outlined from our intention to take additional powers so that we do not end up in a situation similar to the one we are currently in. We need to do what we can as a government to ensure that public services are well run and well organised and that disputes over wages, pay and conditions can be easily resolved. We hope that the changes we propose can aid that process.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Victoria Climbié inquiry. The report of the inquiry is being published today. It is now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your agreement that Victoria's parents should have had advance access to a copy of the report.

"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I established the inquiry in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Lord Laming, formerly the Chief Inspector of Social Services. We are both extremely grateful to Lord Laming and his advisers for producing a searching and detailed report and recommendations.

"Words in a report can never be enough for a family whose child has died in such terrible circumstances. I am grateful to Mr and Mrs Climbié for seeing me last week and allowing me to express, on behalf of the House and the country, the sorrow we all feel at the death of their beloved daughter, Victoria. Anyone who has had the privilege to meet Mr and Mrs Climbié cannot fail to be struck by their quiet dignity in the face of what happened to Victoria.

"I hope the report provides them with some comfort as it seeks to answer the questions any parent would ask. What exactly happened? What went so wrong? What needs now to change to prevent services that are supposed to keep children from harm failing in the way they failed Victoria so badly and so repeatedly?

"Lord Laming's inquiry lasted more than a year. His report runs to some 400 pages. We will study its 108 recommendations with care. Today I will outline the inquiry's findings and the Government's initial views. We will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on children at risk which we intend to publish this spring.

"Victoria Climbié was part of a large, loving family living in the Ivory Coast. Her parents had agreed she could come to Europe in order to be educated. This was not about giving Victoria away; it was about giving Victoria an opportunity. All they wanted, as any parent would, was for their daughter to have the best education. Instead, she suffered the worst cruelty.

"Victoria arrived in Britain with her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, in April 1999. Within a year she was dead—murdered by the people who had taken the principal responsibility for caring for her: Kouao, and her boyfriend, Carl John Manning. Both are now serving life imprisonment.

"The cruelty experienced by Victoria before her death is the stuff of nightmares. Manning told the trial that Kouao would strike Victoria daily with a shoe, a coat hanger and a wooden spoon. She would hit her toes with a hammer. Victoria's blood was found on Manning's football boots. He admitted hitting her with a bicycle chain.

"Victoria's final days, in the depths of winter, were spent living and sleeping in a bath in an unheated bathroom, in her own urine and faeces, bound hand and foot in a bin bag.

"Despite valiant efforts on the part of NHS staff, Victoria died of hypothermia, after months of abuse, on 25th February 2000 at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington. She had 128 separate injuries to her body. She was just eight years old.

"It is a shocking but sad truth that around 80 children a year die from abuse or neglect. While a civilised society must do everything it can to protect children, sadly a few adults will always manage to perpetrate abuse, not least because those who do are, by definition, secretive and manipulative.

"What makes Victoria's case so appalling, however, is that while the unspeakable abuse she suffered took place in secret, behind closed doors, Victoria herself was never hidden from the authorities and the agencies empowered by Parliament to protect children.

"Victoria was known to three housing authorities and involved with four social services departments in Brent, Ealing, Enfield and Haringey. Despite receiving allegations that she had been abused, none of the councils even managed to undertake a proper assessment of her needs. Social services did nothing to help her.

"Victoria was known to two separate child protection teams of the Metropolitan Police. Despite being told she had probably been deliberately harmed, they failed to investigate the alleged crime. The police services did nothing to help her.

"Victoria was referred to the specialist Tottenham Child and Family Centre managed by the NSPCC. Despite marking her case as urgent, they failed to take any action to see Victoria. The NSPCC centre did nothing to help her.

"Victoria was admitted to two different NHS hospitals—the Central Middlesex and North Middlesex. Despite suffering scalding to her head and face and other evidence that staff saw of beatings and abuse, she was discharged and returned to her abusers. The health service did nothing to help her.

"Between April 1999 and February 2000. on more than one dozen occasions the relevant services had the opportunity to intervene to protect Victoria Climbié. More than 12 times in 10 months they failed to do so. This was not a failing on the part of any one service. It was a failing on the part of every service.

"As Lord Laming says:

"The extent of the failure to protect Victoria was lamentable. Tragically it required nothing more than basic good practice being put into operation…doing the basic things well saves lives… Victoria died because those responsible for her care adopted poor practice standards".

Lord Laming considers that the current statutory framework for child protection set out in the Children Act 1989 is basically sound. I take little comfort from that. Sound legislative policy and guidance is useless unless we can be sure that it is implemented effectively and consistently.

"Those who take on the work of protecting children at risk of deliberate harm face a difficult and challenging task. As Neil Garnham QC told the inquiry:

"Hundreds of children benefit every year from efficient and timely intervention by social workers, police officers and hospital staff. We would do children like Victoria no favours if we demonise entire professions as we seek to understand and remedy the weaknesses and deficiencies highlighted by a single case".

"But while public servants should enjoy our support, they should not expect our excuses. There were failures at every level and by every organisation which came into contact with Victoria Climbié. There were problems with staffing and with resources. Haringey Council was spending substantially less than the SSA it had been allocated for children and families. Brent Council was spending just half of what it had been allocated.

"Lord Laming rightly describes as breathtaking the unwillingness of some of the most senior people in these agencies to accept that they were in any way accountable for these failures. It is his concern with this lack of accountability that leads Lord Laming to recommend change through the creation of new national and local structures for services for children and families. Lord Laming rejects proposals to separate child protection services, but calls for better co-ordination from top to bottom.

"It is an all too familiar cry. In the past few decades there have been dozens of inquiries into awful cases of child abuse and neglect. Each has called on us to learn the lesson of what went wrong. Indeed, there is a remarkable consistency both in what went wrong and what is advocated to put it right. Lord Laming's report goes further. It recognises that the search for a simple solution or a quick fix will not do. It is not just national standards or proper training or adequate resourcing or local leadership or new structures that are needed. It is all these things.

"In recent years there has been a renewed effort to improve safeguards for children: the Protection of Children Act 1999; the Care Standards Act 2000; programmes such as Quality Protects and Sure Start; and new work on systems for identifying, referring and tracking children at risk.

"Alongside the fuller response we will include with the Green Paper in the spring, I can tell the House that there are important steps which I intend to take immediately. First, the inquiry is highly critical of the local services that failed Victoria. Since her death, each has been subject to review. Some have been restructured. Some staff have been disciplined, others dismissed. In the light of the Laming report it will be for each employer to determine if further action is necessary against individuals, including those in senior managerial positions. In the meantime, the Home Secretary and I are asking the inspectorates responsible for health, police and social services to undertake further joint monitoring of these local services in north London to provide independent assurances that standards are improving.

"Secondly, the inquiry concludes that in all agencies there was a low priority given to the task of protecting children. The Home Secretary has made child protection a priority through the national Policing Plan. He has asked chief constables to review force child protection units and consider how to action the recommendations of the report and reflect them in their policing plans.

"Additionally, I am today writing to all chief executives in local health services and local authorities emphasising their duties towards vulnerable children and the need to reflect them in their budget decisions. Social services budgets will rise by an average of 6 per cent in real terms in each of the next three years. NHS budgets will rise by nearly 7 per cent. Extra resources should help employ more staff, including an extra 5,000 social workers, at a time when applications for social work courses, which fell for almost a decade, are now rising.

"Thirdly, the report highlights inadequacies in the training of frontline professionals. Training for police officers is already being reviewed and we will ensure that Lord Laming's recommendations are fully taken on board. Social work training is also being fundamentally overhauled. From September, a new three-year social work degree will be introduced to raise the status and standards of the profession. It will focus on assessment, communication and working with other professionals—the areas where Victoria was so badly let down. The Home Secretary and I also intend to ask the professional bodies responsible for training police, social services and NHS staff in child protection to oversee a review of training needs including interagency training.

"Fourthly, the report highlights the failure of agencies to adhere to common standards in the care of children. I believe that the Laming report re-emphasises the need for new national standards to which all local health and social services can work. I can tell the House that I intend to publish the first part of those standards—covering the care of children in hospital—next month and the remaining standards by the end of the year.

"Fifthly, the report says there was confusion about guidance on aspects of child protection. Within the next three months, I intend to secure the replacement of all the existing local guidance with new, shorter, clearer guidance which will reach every one of the 1 million professional staff dealing with the safeguarding of children. I also intend to simplify the wider range of Children Act guidance. It currently runs to over 1,500 pages. It covers 15 volumes. Some of it is out of date. Our intention is to reduce it by 90 per cent, to make it available in a single volume, and to update it on a regular basis.

"Sixthly, over half of Lord Laming's recommendations are aimed at correcting repeated failures in basic professional practice. We are today issuing a checklist of these recommendations. Police, health and social services are being asked to guarantee that, within the three-month deadline demanded by Lord Laming, these basic elements of good professional practice are in place.

"Seventhly, the report says there was a fundamental failure to translate good intentions into good practice. The Home Secretary and I have therefore asked the relevant inspectorates to supplement their planned joint inspections with a new programme of further visits to verify that these elements of good practice are being implemented, particularly where there are concerns about local services. We will also consider whether further powers are needed to intervene earlier and more effectively.

"Finally, Victoria needed services that worked together. Instead, the report says, there was confusion and conflict. Down the years inquiry after inquiry has called for better communication and coordination. Neither exhortation nor legislation has proved adequate. The only sure way to break down the barriers between these services is to remove the barriers altogether.

"Fundamental reform is now needed to pool knowledge, skills and resources to provide more seamless local services for children. I am, therefore, today inviting health and social services and other local services to become the first generation children's trusts. These pilot children's trusts will mean local services for children are run through a single local organisation. We will explore a range of models including children's trusts that could be led by local authorities and others that could be established as new public interest organisations drawing in the expertise of the community, private and voluntary sectors. In future, services for children must be centred not around the interests of any organisation but around the interests of the child. Nothing—no existing organisation, no existing structures—should be allowed to stand in the way.

"We will consider Lord Laming's recommendations for further structural changes in the Green Paper.

"These reforms cannot be the end of the matter. If some good is to come out of this tragedy, lasting change must come out of it, too. Lord Laming is determined that that is what should happen. The whole Government share his determination.

"Victoria's parents asked for nothing more for their daughter than the opportunity of a better life in our country. I am deeply sorry that she did not get that simple chance. We cannot undo the wrongs done to Victoria Climbié. We can, though, seek to put right for others what so fundamentally failed for her. That is what Lord Laming's report demands. It is what the Government are determined to do. I commend it to the House".

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, I begin, if I may, by associating myself fully with his expressions of appreciation and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for all that he has done to produce his report. Those of us who have the good fortune to know the noble Lord will understand what an excellent choice he was to chair this extremely difficult and sensitive inquiry, with his immense experience of social services matters.

The death of Victoria Climbié would have been an appalling tragedy in any circumstances, but had it occurred as the result of the failings of one or even two public servants it might not have been the trigger for a public inquiry. However, the injuries of that little girl were known to four social services departments, three housing departments, two specialist child protection teams, the Metropolitan Police, two hospitals, plus a specialist child management centre run by the NSPCC. That catalogue tells us on its own why this inquiry was necessary and why the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was absolutely right to use the uncompromising language that he did and to ensure that the proceedings of the inquiry were in the fullest sense conducted in public. I congratulate him on a conscientious, thorough and hard-hitting report. It makes chilling reading. His conclusions merit the most urgent attention.

During the past 30 years, there have been more than 30 inquiries into the deaths of children known to social services. None of those inquiries has had any effect. This report, as the Minister rightly said, has to break the mould. Every week in this country there are between one and two deaths of children at the hands of parents and carers. The group of people who run the greatest risk of a violent death are children of less than one year old. My first question to the Government is therefore this. Will they, please, publish a firm timetable for action in respect of the key recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming? Some 82 of the 108 recommendations in the report are, in his opinion, capable of being actioned within six months. We need to get on with it.

I am immediately drawn to the recommendation that there must be a fundamental change, a systemic change, to the co-ordination of children's services locally. In that connection, I shall follow with great interest the formation of the children's trusts that are to be piloted. I completely agree that much more attention needs to be devoted to the training of frontline professionals, including health professionals, to the codification of standards and to the dissemination of those standards.

However, can the Minister reassure me on what I consider to be an especially important aspect of the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Laming: accountability? We do not want to encourage a blame culture, but if things go wrong, the buck must stop somewhere. That does not simply mean a chain of accountability in line management, although that is clearly important. It also means that incompetent social workers should be held to account by a professional body, in exactly the same way as are other professions—such as doctors, nurses and lawyers.

Do the government agree? If so, exactly how is that to be achieved? If—as I think that we all accept—we need to enhance the status of social workers, to value them, and to confer real professional responsibility on them, equally, they must expect to live by and be judged on a defined set of professional standards. The system must have teeth. We should not be content with a set of structures and reporting lines that amount to a giant talking shop and little else.

In that context, what recommendations have been made about the need for professionals to communicate directly with the children themselves? That conspicuously did not happen in the case of Victoria Climbié, despite the fact that it was her right under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Proper communication between professionals is also vital, but how are the Government addressing the legal barriers to information sharing between professional agencies caused by the Data Protection Act 1998? That is a real issue. I should be glad to know how it is to be overcome.

The Minister will remember our debates during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 about the need to regulate private fostering. Victoria Climbié was subject to a private fostering arrangement. It is estimated—and it can only be an estimate—that currently about 10,000 children in England and Wales are fostered privately. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of them come from West Africa.

The Utting report highlighted the risks that those children are subject to, but nothing has been done. Will the Government now take urgent action? In the immediate term, what is being done to promote greater awareness among parents in West Africa about child abuse dangers? Is anything being done to encourage a culture of child protection among faith communities—especially in the sort of church that is popular with West African and Afro-Caribbean citizens? I believe that one such church was closely involved in this case.

On a separate but related issue, evidence was given to the Laming inquiry about unaccompanied child refugees being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation without regard to their safety. What is to be done to address that highly undesirable state of affairs?

I welcome much of what the Minister said about steps to be taken immediately, before the publication of the Green Paper. We on the Opposition Benches will support those and, indeed, all necessary measures, but he should bear in mind that we shall expect each programme of action to be properly resourced.

The failure to protect Victoria Climbié was not just a failure on the part of front-line staff, it was equally a failure by senior managers of all the organisations concerned to ensure that the necessary services were properly financed and staffed. That is as much a matter of resources as it is of ensuring that accountable, in-touch managers are in place.

Unless that happens, the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will not have delivered the one thing that we all desperately want: never again should Parliament have to address the kind of catastrophic failings in our public services that so shamefully let down that poor little child.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on performing what must have been one of the most difficult jobs. His frank and moving introduction to the report is testimony to the fact that he was indeed the right person to do that difficult job.

I also pay tribute to Victoria Climbié's parents, who throughout what must have been a harrowing process for them have displayed a quiet dignity that is humbling. Perhaps the saddest thing about the report is that little, if any, of it is new. We can go through the list of names: Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford and Victoria Climbié. Every time a report such as this is issued we return to three recurring issues: first, recognition of abuse; secondly, co-ordination and sharing of information across agencies; thirdly, the location of responsibility to act with an accountable person.

We welcome the report's recommendation of national standards for the definition of "risk" and "harm". At present, there are about 150 different definitions of harm operated across the country by different authorities. That leads to understandable difficulties with consistency of application and confusion in staff training.

We ought also now to consider giving children the same legal protection as adults in definitions of assault, so that abuse does not start at a low level and grow. The people who are not mentioned in the report but who are often the first to see signs of abuse are members of the public. In a culture in which it is still permissible to hit children, it is often difficult for them to make a distinction about what is abuse and what is not. That is a serious matter that the Government should consider.

The report is a damning indictment of children's services in England. The Government should therefore press ahead without delay to appoint a children's commissioner for England to ensure consistency of services across areas.

Staffing and staff turnover played a huge part in this case. One in 10 children's social services jobs is vacant; and one in eight social workers leaves the profession every year. In their response to the report, the Government should consider how to enable experienced social workers to stay in the front line and use their experience to protect children.

While the report was being compiled, much has been done by professional bodies, which are as horrified as anyone else at what happened. They have been considering what lessons can be learned by using the expertise within area child protection committees—especially by the involvement of general practitioners and teachers in such multi-disciplinary teams.

Pilots, such as the new model for delivering children's services, called Serving Children Well, which has been developed by the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Social Services and education authorities, are beginning to prove that they may be the way to get around the central problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Laming—that child protection will always be the product of different agencies working together. Even if children's trusts are set up, their constituent parts will still play a separate role in looking after children. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Statement that the Government are willing to consult such bodies on best practice.

As noble Lords will know from our discussions during the passage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I believe that it is high time that private fostering is at least subject to registration. I hope that the Government will implement that and institute a programme to advertise the fact through embassies and consulates to parents in the countries that are most likely to be involved.

Finally, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that 82 of the 109 recommendations can be introduced immediately, because they concern the development of good practice—ensuring that good practice that has already been identified is spread. I hope that the Government will put their energy and resources into that, rather than into a process of reform that may simply lead to a new, different administrative muddle.

Today is not the day to give this report the full consideration that it most certainly needs. I assure the Minister that when we have time to do that he can count on the full support of these Benches who, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, believe that this little girl was failed and that no child should ever go through the hell that she went through.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their constructive and very serious responses to the Statement.

First, I echo their tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. He was an excellent choice to chair the inquiry not just because of his previous experience as a very distinguished chief inspector of social services but simply because of the nature of his experience and his robustness. Shining through the nearly 400 pages of the report is an extremely robust procedure in which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, uncovers almost everything, if not everything, that there is to uncover. He subjected those who gave evidence—rightly, in my view—to stringent and rigorous tests as regards the questions that they were required to answer. The result is a very thorough report indeed as regards what happened to Victoria and as regards the almost daily and step-by-step disasters that occurred in the handling of the case. Victoria's case was considered by many different professionals, only one of whom needed to do the job properly for Victoria's life to have been saved.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was right to refer to the number of inquiries that have been held into similar tragic cases in the past 20 or 30 years. I certainly agree with him that we must learn the lessons arising not just from Victoria's case but also from all those other inquiries. If the common theme running through almost all those inquiries is an inability on the part of professional people to undertake the basic tasks correctly, we must ask why that is so.

The noble Lord makes it clear that it is not the legal framework that is at fault but rather professionals who were not doing their jobs properly—for example, failing to write notes of meetings and failing to have an action plan which made clear which member of staff was responsible for taking actions forward. I refer also to a failure of supervision; supervisors who were seemingly unable to give effective supervision and support to fieldworkers; and a complete failure to monitor cases to help fieldworkers—who we all know come under a great deal of pressure—with proper advice.

We must learn lessons from the report. I say to the noble Earl and to the noble Baroness that we shall implement speedily the recommendations that can be implemented speedily. We shall replace the plethora of existing guidance to obtain uniformity. We shall reduce it to an appropriate number of pages so that one can expect workers in the field to understand fully what is being asked of them. We require all the services involved to assure us within three months that the basics of good practice are being followed. That will be followed up by spot checks. In the mean time, we shall look very carefully at all the recommendations to inform the Green Paper that we shall produce in the spring.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of training. We must learn lessons in that regard in respect of individual professions. Let us be clear that this matter does not concern just social workers, it also concerns police officers and the National Health Service. The National Health Service does not come out of the report well. There were failures in both hospitals. We must look carefully al. the training of individual professions, but alongside that we must ensure that that training covers the integrated and collaborative approach that is required between members of different professions.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly raised a number of points about accountability. The General Social Care Council provides the opportunity to ensure that the professional regulation of social workers is of a high order. But I have to say to the noble Earl that it is very important that the buck does not stop at the level of the individual practitioner. I do not exaggerate the position when I say that there was almost a breathtaking unwillingness on the part of some senior people in some of the authorities to accept their own responsibilities and accountability. Although I agree that it is right for individual practitioners to be subject to disciplinary, and professional disciplinary, action where appropriate, the lesson that I take from this is that senior people—people responsible for the organisations that we are discussing—must accept their own responsibilities for this matter. To leave field officers without proper procedures, proper supervision and proper support is inexcusable.

I agree with the noble Earl's comments about communication with children. One of the tragedies of Victoria's case was—I refer to all the contacts that were made with the different statutory agencies—the very limited time that was spent talking to Victoria herself. We must learn lessons from that.

We shall consider the issue of information services and the disclosure of information. But I have to say that disclosure of information without consent is permitted under the Data Protection Act if it is necessary to protect the vital interests of the subject. Some statutory agencies are in my judgment misreading what they are allowed to do under the law. But clearly we need to give proper advice to those authorities.

The noble Earl and the noble Baroness mentioned fostering. I understand the arguments in favour of further legislation. There is legislation, but is it sufficient and are local authorities doing what they need to do? We know that the situation is patchy. We shall review the matter and embrace it within our Green Paper.

As regards finance and staff, I do not want to denigrate the work of social workers, nor do I wish to say that they do not come under great pressure. Funding issues and workforce issues cannot be discounted. But the fact is that the evidence of the inquiry reveals an incredible amount of sloppy work undertaken by individuals which is not excused by staff or resource pressures. The great bulk of professionals involved in this area do their job properly, whatever pressures they are under.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about national standards. I welcome her support. She asked about children receiving the same legal protection as adults. There is a great difference between what might be described as reasonable chastisement by parents and abuse. In relation to the seriousness of abuse against children, one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was that the police must recognise that as being a serious crime. I am encouraged that the police force and the Metropolitan Police have very much taken that on board. I understand the point that the noble Baroness made about a children's commissioner. We shall consider that. It is important that that appointment, if it were ever to be made, should add value. The noble Baroness referred to children's trusts. I believe that voluntary organisations have a large role to play in this area. Some boundaries will always exist. It is important to ensure that children's trusts can work together with other local agencies, whether statutory or voluntary.

My Lords, it is 30 years since I came into this House. Almost the first major debate with which I was concerned was on Maria Colwell, and this case is a horrific repetition.

As summarised in paragraph 1.45 of the introduction of the report, the ignorance of the different agencies of one another's knowledge was devastating in its effect. It is reassuring therefore to hear the noble Lord say that social work degree courses will be extended for a further year, with emphasis on inter-agency work. Will similar extensions with similar emphasis be introduced for the training of the other agencies, so that they are common to all? In that connection, I mention the very laudable fact that the guidance is to be reduced by 90 per cent from 1,500 pages.

I have brief questions on two other points. The noble Lord led with a reference to the children's trusts. Will he explain how that does not cut across what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, says in the first bullet point of paragraph 1.30 in his introduction? It states:

"It is not possible to separate the protection of children from wider support to families. Indeed, often the best protection for a child is achieved by the timely intervention of family support services".

What is the way round that?

What steps are being taken to see that the operation is not focused primarily on London, the South East or even England? How is good practice to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?

My Lords, on the extension of good practice, we very much want to work closely with the devolved administrations and will wish to keep them informed on any decisions that we make. It will then be up to them to consider what action, if any, they wish to take. If I remember correctly, we certainly took on board lessons throughout the rest of the United Kingdom from the tragic North Wales inquiry in relation to children's homes a couple of years ago.

I cannot say that we have any particular plans to extend the length of time that other professions undertake training. However, it will clearly be necessary to ensure that the training programmes, whether they relate to the police, nurses, doctors or social workers, cover the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.

We need to think about social workers in particular. They have to undertake probably one of the most stressful jobs in the public sector, and are often subjected to a great deal of criticism. The headlines today inevitably focus around the failures of social workers, but the failures were not only theirs. The NHS failed. Those concerned with housing failed. The police failed. The NSPCC failed. We recognise that social workers need to be more professional, to come under the discipline procedures of the General Social Care Council, and need a three-year degree course to raise the stakes and their professional competence. At the same time, it is important to say to the country that the great majority of social workers do a very tough job, and I believe that they do it very well.

The noble Lord is right to pinpoint the great problem that so much guidance has been produced, has not been kept up to date and is inconsistent. Our aim will be to produce consistent guidance in a form that people can readily follow and understand. The aim is consistency, not only between different local authority social service departments. However, I accept the point that he raises in relation to interaction with health services, the police and other public sector services.

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from on children's trusts. There is no doubt that wherever one draws the boundary—one can cut the cake in any number of ways—there will always be a boundary issue. Although some people think that we should have a national child protection agency, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, decided against that, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Those are relevant reasons when it comes to the local organisation of services as well.

The advantage of children's trusts is that they will bring in a different range of services, provided by different statutory and voluntary agencies, and will lead to a more integrated approach. However, whatever way the cake is cut, boundary issues will still need to be developed. We will have to ensure that children's trusts work together with the other agencies as well.

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister two brief questions. As a professional social worker, I can say that most social workers across the country are appalled by the case. We have to recognise that social workers are distressed, and would be as distressed as I am to read the report.

Will the Minister reinforce with all his powers the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that we do not go into major structural change? That is the request of social workers across the country. I have spoken to social workers who have talked about turbulence in their work, the inability to get consistency, and being overwhelmed by documentation. I therefore express gratitude about the fact that information is going to be made consistent.

As someone who has spent all their life against the background of childcare and children's services, I welcome children's trusts if they have the continuity to ensure that workers stay with their caseloads. Every time we have restructuring, social workers are moved from the people whom they are helping to another lot of people. Those children then have to make new relationships, and social work is all about relationships. We must have consistency and continuity as we go into any new boundaries. We must not spend a lot of time simply moving desks, but must move practice, training and professionalism.

My second question is about ensuring that quality of service is delivered. I too am shocked about the basic issues on professional need. As we go into yet another change under the commission for social care inspection, will the Minister ensure that inspections look at quality, and that the whole inspection, working with the inspection by the Commission for Health Improvement, looks at those issues in a solid and reliable way?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I fully recognise that the great majority of social workers will be appalled by what happened. I reiterate that it is very easy to knock the social work profession, and we should be wary of doing so. Actually, the profession needs support, at the same time as a rigorous approach to minimise poor professional practice.

I agree with the noble Baroness about the impact of major structural change. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, makes some significant proposals in terms of accountability at local level, to try to get over the problems that he identified with some area protection committees. Obviously, we will study them with great care. I fully understand the noble Baroness's point about turbulence.

The commission for social care inspection has a major role to play. Often it will need to act in concert with the health inspectorate and the police inspectorate. We will encourage that in relation to child protection procedures. I have indicated that we will carry out spot checks, which will be jointly undertaken to make sure that the basics are done right.

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question about recommendations 6, 7 and 9, which are directed towards the responsibilities of local authorities and social services. All three recommendations are, according to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, feasible within three years.

The point is that counsellors from various departments of the authorities should work together as a committee. The board to serve that committee should be chaired by the chief executive, and a budget should be identified for the work of the committee. That appears to be an admirable and simple way of improving co-ordination. How does that tie in with the much slower process of establishing children's trusts? If a children's trust is an alternative to those committees, will it have the advantages of those committees? Those advantages are that the chief executive is the responsible reporting officer for that local authority; he is responsible to the government and to his members and he is responsible in the eyes of the Audit Commission.

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting question. I draw a distinction between the recommendations that the noble Lord makes in relation to the appointment of a local member committee for children and families, a management board for services to children and families and the director of children's and families services. In essence, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is making those recommendations to ensure proper accountability when different agencies are involved. I distinguish between those recommendations and the children's trusts, which essentially involve providing those services. Clearly, we will need to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord. We shall address such issues in the Green Paper, which we hope to publish later in the spring.

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the establishment of the General Social Care Council. I declare an interest as its former chair, and I am a former social worker. The GSCC was established to ensure high standards and common standards in training and practice in social care, as the Minister knows. It is also charged with improving the profile of social care workers. As we heard today, that will be important in terms of recruitment if the morale of that profession is not to suffer. Does the Minister see any change in the remit of the GSCC with the establishment of children's trusts, which I am sure most noble Lords welcome? If the idea is to provide a seamless service, it would be a pity if workers were subject to different standards and expectations.

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for the sterling work that she undertook in getting the General Social Care Council up and running. There is no doubting the fact that it has a very important role to play not only in upholding public safety and public standards but also in raising the status of the profession, which is vitally important. I agree with her that where one has different professions—whether they are doctors, nurses, social workers or the police—working alongside each other, within a consistent framework in relation to child protection, one needs a consistent approach towards regulation. I very much agree with her. We should encourage the GSCC to work with the other regulated bodies to ensure that that happens.

My Lords, I have two quick questions for the Minister. Does he know why Brent council's spending was half what had been allocated? Is he in a position to give the House some reassurance that those members of staff who have since been dismissed will never, ever be re-employed in any way in any child-oriented agency?

My Lords, my understanding is that some staff have been disciplined and some have been dismissed. That will be a matter for the employing authorities to deal with. I repeat my earlier point that it is important that when the authorities concerned review the question of staff responsibility in the light of the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, they do not overlook the role of senior management in accepting its own responsibility and accountability. If one looks back over instances of failure in organisations over the years, it is striking that it is often the people at the lowest level who pay the ultimate price. That is unacceptable.

I do not believe that I can go into the details about why Brent made the decisions about its budget. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, found failures of priority and leadership within the local authority. He found that it had a weak management structure, that there had been service reductions and that there was a lack of senior supervision and monitoring. The evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, found shows that the local authority was in many ways dysfunctional in terms of the way in which it dealt with social services. Our current aim is that, using the Social Services Inspectorate and our intervention powers, we intervene where we identify that local authorities are failing in that way.

My Lords, one of the most appalling aspects of this tragic case is that two professional people refused to visit Victoria Climbié because they were frightened of catching scabies. Will the Government place more importance on giving those concerned in such cases more training in infectious conditions of all sorts? Some people have a real fear of infectious conditions. Does the Minister agree that there should be far more control of infections? There should be more experts on call who can come in when people put their own safety in front of poor helpless little children.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. The rise in infections concerns us all, and we have a number of initiatives in place to try to reduce that. However, this is simple stuff. If there is effective collaboration between local authorities and the health service, it does not, frankly, take a great deal of organisation to ensure that the ready advice of NHS professionals on such matters is readily available—and it should be available.

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question about language. I welcome his statement that there should have been much more effort to talk directly to Victoria. Victoria Climbié came from francophone west Africa, and it is reasonable to suppose that some at least of those people with whom she came into contact would have had no difficulty in speaking to her in French; I do not know whether that was the case in this instance. There must be many children who are in need of care or in danger of abuse who have little or no English. Is it possible to say with confidence that interpreting will be available in such cases to enable members of social services, hospital staff, the police and so on to converse directly with the children?

My Lords, the report contains a number of instances in which social workers and other professional staff mentioned the need for an interpreter. In some cases, interpreters were present. However, this is a more fundamental issue. One of the problems is that many of the professionals involved seemed to be inhibited about talking to Victoria. That was not so much a question of language as about their professional practice. There was also professional confusion about which section of the Children Act related to Victoria at any one time. That confusion caused many problems and led to a hiatus in taking appropriate action.

The revised guidance that we issue will need to deal with the issue of the appropriate use of the specified section of the Children Act and the issue of communicating with the children concerned. I agree with the point about translators and interpreters.

My Lords, I return to the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, about accountability. Much of what the Minister said was about accountability. Some years ago, when I was the chairman of an NHS trust, I chaired a committee that was investigating the death of a patient in hospital who should never have suffered what he suffered. He was an adult, not a child. I got the most unsatisfactory answer from a senior nurse on the ward. When we asked her, "To whom do you consider yourself accountable?", she said, "I am accountable only to the General Nursing Council". If there is not in addition proper line-management accountability of the practitioners on the ground to the senior professional managers who are in charge of them, one will have many problems.

When the Minister lays great emphasis—and I do not disagree with this—on the role of the professional bodies concerned, there must on the ground be a clear line of accountability, so that managers can deal effectively with the staff for whom they are responsible. I hope that in the further consideration of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—and I agree with everything that has been said about him and the report—that can be taken into account.

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. One should look at the report's description of what happened at the Central Middlesex Hospital and at the North Middlesex Hospital. At the Central Middlesex Hospital one had a situation where nursing notes were inadequate; some of the doctors' notes were inadequate; and there was no effort to reconcile medical differences about whether Victoria had scabies or had suffered abuse. At the North Middlesex Hospital there was no formal attempt to speak to Victoria to find out what had happened; the record keeping was poor and there was a failure to get the notes from the Central Middlesex Hospital; no thorough examination of Victoria ever took place; and when she was moved to a different ward, nurses failed to record their observations.

The whole situation cries out for someone to be accountable. There is no doubt in my mind that, alongside getting the guidance right and getting consistency in practice, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is saying that there needs to be a clear system of accountability, so that within each organisation it is clear who is accountable. With his suggested arrangements at local level—a local member committee and a management board—he is trying to achieve accountability between the agencies so that someone can be identified as the person responsible for making it work.

That is not easy. We shall have to look carefully at what the noble Lord recommends. But there can be no disagreement about his aim, which is to try to pin down responsibility within each organisation and, when organisations have to work together, between those organisations, so that no one can run away and say, "I was not responsible".

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

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 7, after "(1)" insert "or transferred under Schedule 1"

I can be even briefer on the matter. We on these Benches entirely support the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson.

I cannot be quite as brief, but I shall not be too long. I add my support. The noble Baroness does the Committee and especially employees a service by tabling these amendments. We do not always see eye to eye on employment law, but today I am sure that we shall.

Perhaps the noble Baroness will also want the Minister to place on the record some of the assurances that have been given, both in the letter that the Minister was kind enough to send to noble Lords over the Christmas period, and in the letter of 28th January that was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, a copy of which was handed to me as I came into the Chamber. Both letters are useful.

Today is a significant clay for the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, to move the amendments. Over the past 24 hours reference has been made, both on the radio and in The Times law supplement, to the fact that this may not be the last of the Lord Chancellor's empire building with regard to transfer of responsibilities. The report by Sir Andrew Leggatt is waiting hot in the wings and it looks as though tribunals—another not "unconsidered trifle"—are about to be snaffled up by this Autolycus of a Lord Chancellor.

So any provisions which the Government implement with regard to magistrates' courts may well become a model for what might happen to tribunal property and employment rights. Therefore, we should all look carefully at the assurances given by the noble Baroness. Perhaps we shall need to return to them on Report simply to tease out some of the details, because they will undoubtedly be of future significance if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has his way.

I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in referring to the setting up of a department of justice, which I think was suggested today. That is a step forward towards the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of having a minister of justice. So we welcome the bringing together of factors which will make the transition to the appointment of a minister of justice instead of the Lord Chancellor that much easier.

However, the Minister may recall that at Second Reading I raised the question of the cost of transferring pensions to the Civil Service fund. I quoted the figures which had been given to me, which indicated that the cost of transferring the employees of London magistrates' courts to the Civil Service fund was £8 million. If that figure is extrapolated, it means that the cost for the whole of England and Wales would be in the region of £100 million in legislation that was supposed to be cost neutral. Has the noble Baroness considered what I said at Second Reading and does she have any comment to make on those figures?

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I hope that in responding I can reiterate the assurances that we have already provided by correspondence.

My noble friend Lady Gibson moved her amendment very succinctly and expertly, as one would expect. I shall try to run through its exact impact and the Government's view.

Clause 2(2) currently provides that any staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor to work in the courts would be eligible to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The effect of the amendment would be to add an express provision stating that transferred staff are eligible to join the PCSPS immediately after their transfer. I doubt whether it is necessary to add a provision to the Bill for transferred staff to join the PCSPS because, as civil servants, they would be eligible automatically for membership on transfer into the employment of the Lord Chancellor.

Furthermore, we want to treat the pension provision for staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(1) and those employees transferred to the new agency under Schedule 1 distinctly. This amendment would prevent us from doing that. That is because there is a possibility that staff who transfer to the new agency on the abolition of magistrates' courts committees will remain temporarily in their present pension scheme after the date of the staff transfer to the new agency while actuarial calculations and negotiations with the relevant trades union as to the terms of transfer of pension benefits are carried out. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 provides for that eventuality. As with transferred staff, those appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(1) will immediately become eligible to join the PCSPS on the date of entry into the new agency.

Amendment No. 8 would replace the word "arrangements" in Clause 2(4) with the words "contracts or sub-contracts". Again, I rather doubt whether this amendment is necessary because the word "arrangements" has a wider meaning than the word "contracts". Clause 2(4) as drafted provides the Lord Chancellor with flexibility and allows him, for example, to enter into arrangements with agencies for the provision of temporary staff or to contract out entire functions. Most arrangements would be contracts. However, there may be situations where a secondee from another government department, or perhaps even from the private sector, works for the new agency on a loan basis. Therefore, the current wording provides for a wider range of eventualities.

It is our intention to reflect in legislation what happens in practice. Under current legislation, a distinction exists between staff in the courts employed under the Lord Chancellor's statutory powers via the Court Service and those employed under non-statutory powers. The former category includes staff employed under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971; namely, those carrying out an administrative function within the courts.

Other categories of staff do not fall within the meaning of "administrative". They might be security staff, enforcement staff or cleaning and catering staff. They are employed via the Court Service under the Lord Chancellor's residual non-statutory powers.

We are obviously very aware of, and sensitive to, the concerns that the trades unions have raised about our wording on contracting out. We give an undertaking to hold further discussions with the unions, and we shall endeavour to report back to the House so that all those involved are aware of what has happened.

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I shall wait with interest to see what transpires on the further discussions that take place. I declare an interest as a pensioner with PCSU. If people, such as security guards and so on, are employed on a temporary basis to assist in the new agency, can the Minister explain how they will do so without a contract governing them to undertake such functions? So far as I am aware, any government department or agency would enter into a contract and would not simply have an arrangement.

My understanding is that the term "arrangement" describes something which is temporary in nature, but there will be a contract which describes that arrangement. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the noble Lord but I believe that that is how it would work in practice.

Do I understand from the Minister that there will be sheep and goats? The sheep, who are fully employed by the Court Service or whatever replaces it, will be included in the pension scheme; the goats, who are there because they are part of a privatised service hired by the Lord Chancellor, will not receive any pension at all. Is that what the Minister is saying in a very long passage?

I do not believe that I said that at all. I urge the noble Lord to read very carefully what I said. I do not believe that he gave an accurate summary of what I said. I thought that I made the situation clear.

I thank the Minister for his interesting reply, to which I listened carefully. I thank Members of the Committee who have spoken and given support to the amendment. At present, I believe that the best thing I can do is to say that I would like to consider the answer in more detail in Hansard. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 11, after "arrangements" insert "including contracting out services to private companies"

I am not surprised that the noble Baroness has not chosen to elaborate on this ridiculous amendment. When she said that she had a more open mind than the Government, she really meant the opposite—that is, that she had a more backward-looking mind than the Government. I see nothing which the Lord Chancellor should do beyond what the Bill envisages at present. I ask the noble Baroness, who is usually diligent about such matters, to rethink the amendment entirely.

As this is the Committee stage, it may be convenient if I respond to the noble Lord now. As I said, I am open-minded. The amendment was tabled in order to give the Government the opportunity to put on the record the commitments that they gave to noble Lords in a letter over the Christmas break. Noble Lords who took part at Second Reading received the benefit of that letter. Other noble Lords did not necessarily do so. Perhaps a copy of the letter was placed in the Library. If so, that was good practice. I know that this particular Minister is almost always open to good practice. But, of course, members of the public do not have the opportunity to see the letter. Open government; open minded—that is me.

I am very surprised at the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with whom I sometimes have the honour of agreeing, but not on this occasion. We should bear in mind that the Government who call themselves "new Labour" are far more broad-minded than old Labour used to be. On a number of occasions—I shall not cite them all—the new Labour Government have enlisted the help of private enterprise in order to perform public duties. That is all that the amendment suggests. I would have hoped that it would receive a favourable reception from the Government Front Bench.

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in the name of myself, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and others. Under Section 27(3) of the Courts Act 1971, as amended by the Deregulation and Contacting Out Act 1994, the Lord Chancellor may contract out the provision of officers and staff for non-judicial functions, but under Section 27(6) the Lord Chancellor must consult with the four senior judges before contracting out any services.

We believe that that obligation should be repeated in this Bill. If the Lord Chancellor is minded to contract out the provision of courtroom security to a private security firm—an example of what has already been contracted out—surely it is appropriate that he should consult with the senior judges. Picking up a point made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, it is increasingly clear that the Lord Chancellor can no longer be regarded as a judge and that he should take the opinion of the judges—the four designated senior judges—before he contracts out any services that otherwise would be provided by the agency.

I notified the Public Bill Office that I wanted to withdraw Amendment No. 10, so I shall not speak to it. However, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Overall the Bill has been welcomed by the relevant trade unions because it streamlines the system relating to the courts and brings in accountability where there was none before. Those points are seen as great steps forward. The single executive agency and the proposed courts' administration councils are welcomed. However, the unions have some worries about parts of the Bill relating to the management of the new systems and about contracting out.

Contracting out is not an easy subject to understand fully and requires some cross-referencing between Acts. In this context, Clause 2 raises some queries in my mind and in the minds of the trade unions representing the employees involved. Clause 2(4) appears to allow for the expansion of contracting out and removes the requirements and safeguards that currently apply: that is, consultations that take place with the senior judiciary, as the noble Lord said.

The Courts Act 1971, as amended in 1994, specifically provides that any proposals to contract out must be examined by four senior judges and both Houses of Parliament before any contracting out of court work can be undertaken. We cannot understand why those safeguards are being removed. The wording of the Bill appears to weaken considerably the safeguards currently surrounding contracting out and the unions involved have raised their anxieties with me and with other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall also indicated worries on this issue at Second Reading.

The system of scrutiny that has worked well until now is an important checking mechanism. Not only does it ensure the fair administration of justice; it also maintains the independence of that justice. These amendments have been tabled to reinstate the previous provisions from the 1971 Courts Act as amended in 1994; they redress what we see as a weakening of procedures that have worked well in the past.

I hope that whichever Minister replies to this amendment will answer fully the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the previous amendment; namely, what is the real level of costs in transferring such staffs from their present employers to the Civil Service scheme and why should it be so costly to transfer their pensions? Those questions were not answered at all by the previous reply from the Government. I hope they will be answered now.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. It seems to me that the Government may have in mind reducing the cost by making more and more employees of the Court Service part of a contracted out service where pensions would not apply to them. That was the reason for my previous question. Putting two points together, is it intended, for example, that all court ushers should be part of a contracted out service? Or the office staff, or the listing officer? So many important functions in the courts are carried out at the moment by people who are fully part of the administration.

To cut costs it would be tempting for the Government to say that they will transfer to the Civil Service pension as full-time employees those who have some judicial function to perform or who have to exercise a judicial discretion, according to the terms of subsection (5) of the clause. That would refer to a limited class of people—perhaps court clerks, but not many below that level. It is possible, it seems to me, that employees will lose considerable rights as a result of this clause.

Before I refer to the substance of the amendments I owe the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, an apology for not addressing his point on costs. I did not have the figures to hand and still do not. I can refer him to the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 290 which gives a broad outline of costs. It says:

"The current cost of running the magistrates' courts is £435m per annum".

Our intention is to ensure that there is a more than adequate resource for the new service. It is perhaps worth putting on the record what was expressed in correspondence on this point by Yvette Cooper, the Minister responsible for the Bill in another place. The letter was to one of the trade union representatives. She said:

"Funding the new agency. With regard to the point you raised about funding the new agency generally, this will be accommodated from within Departmental spending limits, using appropriate phasing and piloting as necessary. I agree that it is important that the new agency should be properly funded, which is why it will not be established until it is known how the costs can be met. As part of the development of the new agency's blueprint, more work is needed to determine the cost profiles associated with the management of the transfer of pay and pension responsibilities, buildings and associated contractual obligations to the new agency. Until a clear costs profile has been established together with how those costs can be met, clauses bringing the new agency into effect will not be invoked".

I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, sometimes pokes fun at what he may describe as "management speak", but I believe that this is a clear commitment to ensure that the agency is properly funded, and that until more precision can be brought to bear on the costs and the costs of transferring pay and pension responsibilities, those matters will not be established and put in place. That is a reasonable guarantee to give.

Perhaps I can go a stage further. We shall try to put more meat on the bones and see what more information can be provided in terms of facts and figures. It is only reasonable to make the point that such matters are part of an iterative process, that there is much to work out in the detail and so on, but our clear commitment is to undertake to do that.

We also want to offer reassurance, principally to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and to other noble Lords who have been responsible for properly tabling the amendments. There is no plan to expand contracting out as described. Contracting out will be used, as at present, simply to provide some flexibility. It is not part of the transitional plan. We cannot make it clearer or plainer than that. There is no hidden or secret agenda; it is simply to provide the necessary flexibility.

I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Clause 2(4) states:

"The Lord Chancellor may enter into such arrangements…as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts".

The clause does not set out all the bodies or persons with whom the Lord Chancellor can enter into arrangements, as that would restrict his flexibility and choice. It is the Government's intention that the Lord Chancellor will be able to enter into arrangements with a range of people or bodies, including, as I said, private companies, self-employed people or independent contractors, as and when appropriate. For that reason, we doubt whether the noble Baroness's amendment is necessary or adds anything, although it is kind of her to have thought of the point. We are grateful to her for giving some further thought to the point, but we see no reason to go further than we have.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, for withdrawing Amendment No. 10. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 11 would oblige the Lord Chancellor to consult heads of division before contracting out under Clause 2. I doubt whether a specific provision requiring him to consult heads of division is necessary or appropriate. The current statutory instrument, made under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971—the Contracting Out (Administrative and Other Court Staff) Order 2001—provides for a general power to contract out the provision of services listed in Section 27(1) of that Act.

Given the broad terms of the 2001 order, there is a question over what consultation with heads of division would otherwise achieve. The order is only about the power to enter into contracts; it does not cover or govern any actual or proposed contracts. It is simply concerned with the power to enter into those contracts. I want it in the public domain and on the record that the Lord Chancellor would obviously wish to continue to consult in much the same way that he currently does. Regular consultation is carried out, in particular, with senior judges about contractual matters. We will continue to consult, and the normal processes will continue. The fears that have been expressed about the provisions are not justified. I hope that, in trying to describe the arrangements, I have provided the necessary assurance.

Can I intervene without embarrassing the noble Lord? No one is levelling their guns at this Lord Chancellor, but, if we leave the power in without any obligation to consult, his successors would be immune from any obligation. The fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has wisely consulted on major matters would be history. We need something that will bind his successors, who may not be as generously disposed to the judiciary.

With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I must say that it would be a foolish Lord Chancellor who failed to consult. At this stage in these proceedings, we cannot legislate for every future Lord Chancellor and everything that he or she might do. However, we have well established, entrenched practice, which has served us well. Future Lord Chancellors would be ill advised to depart from good, well established practice.

My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, he is conceding that the Lord Chancellor engages in such practices now. What is wrong with including the requirement in the Bill?

We want to ensure, particularly in creating CACs, that we have the broadest possible opportunities to consult. If we put something in the Bill along the lines of what has been suggested, we may limit our flexibility and close down opportunities to consult those whom we need to consult.

Then, why cannot my noble friend include in the amendment after the words "the Vice Chancellor" something to the effect that the Lord Chancellor may consult such other persons as he deems appropriate?

Such matters are probably best left to guidance, and the framework document will set out that guidance. It would be more appropriate for us to ensure that consultation arrangements are properly addressed in the framework documents. That is something for the future, but I can give an assurance that those matters will be dealt with directly in that document.

Amendment No. 12 would require the Lord Chancellor to obtain an order before entering into arrangements for the provision of officers, staff or services under Clause 2(4). The new unified courts agency should have the power to enter into contracts for administrative work in the courts as necessary, so that, for example, agency secretarial and clerical cover can be provided. The agency will consult the unions fully about any more significant proposals to contract out for staff, as opposed to directly employing them. I make that commitment.

We see no reason to maintain the provision that the Lord Chancellor must make an order authorising himself to do something. As the order currently in force is in the broadest possible terms, there would be no difference in outcome from that in the existing legal position. Moreover, the Bill specifies that some activities and posts will not be contracted out—justices' clerks, fines officers and officers and staff who discharge functions that involve making judicial decisions or exercising judicial discretion. We have specifically ruled out certain posts from the effects of contracting out.

We are aware of the concerns that the trade unions raised during the preparation of the Bill and their concerns about the ending of the requirement to make an order. I repeat our undertaking that we will discuss those matters further with the unions and, quite properly, report back to your Lordships' House.

I hope that, with that full response, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I take from the noble Lord's reply that the Government have not done the sums, do not know how much the reforms will cost and cannot introduce them until they have worked out the sums. If it so happens that the Government can balance the books only by contracting out services, they will do that and keep people off the pension fund. Finally, the Government do not want the judges interfering with the Lord Chancellor's ability to do that. That is what the noble Lord has told us in the past 10 minutes. I have the gravest fear that, if that is what happens, there will be considerable trouble among the administrative staff not just of Crown Courts but of magistrates' courts and county courts.

I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Renton for his defence and support of the amendment. First, I turn to my Amendment No. 9. I thank the Minister for his helpful response; although, I am not sure how helpful it was to other noble Lords who have amendments in this group. The Minister has shown clearly that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, is right. Clause 2(4) allows the expansion of contracting out in the future. The Minister assures us that there are no plans systematically to expand contracting out. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the potential is there.

I consider that there may be good reasons—I may be on the Government's side for once—at some future stage for contracting out. Where we all agree is that we would consider them good reasons only if there had been proper consultation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with regard to the importance of consultation being up front and clear in the Bill. We shall need to look at that issue further.

The Minister said, "Ah, well, yes, we need flexibility on this", but one person's flexibility in management is another person's fracture. We do not want a fractured management. Certainly, at this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment, but it may not be the end of the story.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 2, line 16, at end insert "(including the functions of a fines officer)"

I speak with diffidence, following the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is clear that we must give full support to the collection of fines imposed by the court—not to do so would countenance the collapse of the entire system. However, there is concern among magistrates that fines officers will have the power to vary a fine without reference to the magistrates who impose them. That could surely undermine the validity of the sentence passed by the court.

Will the Minister consider that point in his response to the debate? Many magistrates would be grateful for a considered view of a matter that greatly exercises them. I know for sure that that is the case in north-east Wales. What checks will there be? What will be done to monitor this scene? How will the fines officer be responsive in all of this? On what grounds will a fines officer vary the fines of magistrates? Is there guidance other than in the schedule and in Clause 31? What links will there be between the magistrates and the fines officers? I was impressed by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I hope that the Minister will respond.

I had not expected to be in a position to raise this point. At Second Reading, I expressed doubts as to whether the position of the fines officer was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was kind enough to write to me—stupidly I have left the letter behind—giving the Government's thoughts on this matter. If I have it wrong in recollection, I hope that she will correct me.

My recollection is that, in part, the fines officer will not be acting in a judicial capacity, but merely enforcing decisions already made by the magistrates' court. So be it. However, in part, the letter stated that the fines officer would be acting judicially in providing different remedies for collection of lines. It stated that that would be acceptable because there would be a right of appeal to court. I can see the noble Baroness nodding; perhaps my recollection is not far wrong.

Frankly, I was taken aback by that answer. If that is right, we can abolish the independence of the High Court, because there is always an appeal; we do not have to bother about the circuit court, because there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal; we do not have to bother about vast tranches of courts which no longer need to be independent and impartial and qualify under the European Convention, provided there is an appeal to a tribunal court which does qualify. I cannot believe that I understood the noble Baroness's letter correctly; or alternatively—I hesitate to suggest this as an alternative—that she understands the European Convention correctly.

Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seccombe, directly approach the point raised at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. As a result of hearing and subsequently re-reading his speech, I decided to draft the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, has raised an important but wide issue. I do not believe that it would be helpful to the Committee if I rehearsed some of the arguments that will be put in detail later by my noble friend Lady Seccombe.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we shall discuss this issue at a later stage. In order to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, I should put on record that the role of the fines officer is to manage the collection of fines on behalf of the court through the tines collection scheme. Before a fine may be enforced through the scheme, the court must first make a collection order. I believe that much is clear.

I should like it to be further understood that judicial powers will not be usurped; neither will the power and validity of the court sentence be undermined. The court will continue to take the sentencing decision, but it will be for the fines officer to exercise the purely administrative function of applying any necessary enforcement measures. I hope that is clear. We can have further elucidation when we reach the relevant part of the Bill.

In respect of Amendment No. 13, I am confident that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the point that he raised in the amendment. Obviously, the amendment would prevent the Lord Chancellor from contracting out the work of fines officers. We are grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but we question whether it is necessary. An amendment to subsection (5) to prevent the Lord Chancellor contracting out the work of tines officers is, in our view, pointless. Clause 31(1)(a) clearly states that fines officers will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. No mention is made of the Lord Chancellor being able to make arrangements under Clause 2(4) for the provision of fines officers. There is a distinction, which I am sure the noble Lord will understand.

Therefore, the Lord Chancellor would not have the power or the authority to contract out the work. I gave that reassurance in earlier debate. I hope that that reassurance will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I want to take up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. His summary of the Government's position was far wide of the mark. I am sorry he made the summary in the way he did because it tries to sour the debate. We should today be concentrating on the practical steps that the Government are taking to implement important legislation which seeks to modernise and improve the working of our courts system. We should focus on the reality rather than on an imagined and unconscious attempt by the Government to undermine its proper operation.

I hope that there is no cynicism in the debate because we are trying to improve the way in which the court system works. We want it to be more accessible, understandable and available, enabling the public—the consumers—properly to use it. I hope that we enter into a better spirit in discussing these important clauses and amendments.

Is cost not the greatest reality? The Minister says that the Government have not costed the proposal. Surely the consumer—the taxpayer—is concerned with cost. That is reality. I do not want to sound as though I am carping. But like are here to test the Government out on all the details of their legislation. We want to look at what appears to be a large loophole in the provisions of the Bill.

I shall return to the point. It is incorrect to say that we have not costed the proposal. However, any reasonable person would see that it is right and proper that some of the detail is worked out during the process of bringing forward legislation. We want to ensure that the new system is proper and effective in its running and organisation. That is why we have been necessarily cautious in saying that we want to work out the detail and introduce a pilot scheme.

One cannot be precise at every instance when estimating exactly the breadth of the cost, but we want to ensure that the resources are available in order that the courts work effectively and properly in everyone's interest.

I rise with practicality in mind and in the best spirit. Does my noble friend categorically say that the fines officer shall not vary the fines imposed by the magistrates?

I make it clear to my noble friend that the fines officer does not vary the fines but that he will be able to vary the way in which they are collected. That is the point.

My noble friend, with great courtesy, gave me the answer which I did not want. My question was specific and categorical. Will the fines officer have the power to vary the fines imposed by magistrates in the courts?

I thought that I was clear. The fines officer will not have the ability to vary the quantum—the totality—of the fine. However, he may well vary the way in which the fine is collected; in other words, the collection period.

Having looked at paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, I am by no means certain that the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, is correct. However, that matter can be left until our debate on Clause 31 and Schedule 2.

Amendment No. 11 was tabled for debate to take place on the assumption that no alteration was made in the powers of a fines officer under Clause 31 and Schedule 2.

I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record the fact that the fines officer can be appointed only under Clause 2(1) and not by virtue of an arrangement under subsection (4). That satisfies the doubt which prompted me to table Amendment No. 13 and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 2, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Amendment No. 14 is important. In order that justice may appear to be done, it must be carried out in circumstances which impress the people. That can occur only if the courts are properly maintained, are suitable and efficient places in which to work, and where necessary have the royal coat of arms. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor of the day should be under a strict obligation to spend public money on ensuring that the courts are properly maintained. That is why I hope that the Government will sympathise with the amendment moved by my noble friend.

I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. If not, perhaps I may direct his attention to line 10 on page 3 of the Bill. There he will see, in relation to the establishment of court administration councils under Clause 4, that subsection (5) states:

"The Lord Chancellor must provide the councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions".

Why is it right to have "must" there if it is not right to have "shall" in the part of the Bill with which the amendment is concerned?

On the face of it, this seems an innocent and worthwhile amendment. I was sitting there thinking that I should concede. However, on reading my notes again, I have to reconsider that proposition.

It seems a sensible amendment—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put it in good terms—but my understanding of the impact is that it would place the Lord Chancellor under a duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, to provide court-houses and other accommodation. That is certainly the Lord Chancellor's intention and exactly what we want to do. But Clause 3(1) is modelled on Section 28 of the Courts Act 1971. I was not anywhere near government in 1971—I was probably preparing for my A-levels—but no doubt the draftsman considered that what he had drafted at that time was fit for purpose. The important point is that, as the clause is drafted, it empowers the Lord Chancellor to provide such accommodation. Changing the power to a duty would, I am advised, prevent the Lord Chancellor from entering into arrangements with other persons or bodies for the provision of accommodation as set out in Clause 3(2).

That would be the effect of the amendment. To give its impact some body, some life, I am advised that it would specifically prevent the Lord Chancellor from entering into arrangements with people such as the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of any property held by him. The effect of the amendment would be to impose a straitjacket and prevent the flexibility required under the original legislation to allow arrangements to be entered into for the use of properties held by other departments. That is the explanation.

We always pay great attention to suggestions for improving the quality of the wording and we shall certainly have another look at it. But the amendment could have an unfortunate and unintended consequence. We wish to ensure that courts are properly provided for, properly equipped, properly maintained, and so on. That is the intention, as it was in 1971 when the legislation on which the clause is modelled was originally drafted.

Before my noble friend sits down. I fail to understand his logic. I would much prefer that he said here and now that the Government will have another look at the matter. My noble friend has not delivered that assurance. He may have intended to, but we have to observe firm rules here.

A sensible case has been argued. We have an opportunity to look at the matter again. On the face of it, inserting the word "shall" in Clause 3(1) is very sensible. Can I hear from my noble friend again in regard to that?

I support the amendment. The Lord Chancellor is not going to build the court-houses with his own hands. I do not see how his flexibility to hire other firms to build court-houses is affected by changing "may" to "shall".

I was around in 1971, in a brand-new court-house in Mold—the palace-on-the-hill—which really was splendid. However, on visits there over the past 10 years, as I said in the Second Reading debate, there have been buckets all over the place to catch the water coming through the roof. I believe that the Lord Chancellor has not given the right priority to the maintenance of some of these excellent court-houses. The word "shall" would impose a duty—something to which people could point—and require the proper repair of court-houses currently in existence.

The 1971 Act has been quoted as a precedent. I am sure that at that time the concept of private finance initiatives had never been thought of. It is very much on the agenda now. I wonder whether the Government's reply, to which we listened carefully, might not conceal an intention to provide new court-houses by PFI.

One of the oddities of the opposition to the change is that, in replying to the argument, the Minister seemed to address himself to the "may" found in Clause 3(2) rather than the "may" which is the subject of the amendment—leave out "may" and insert "shall"—at page 2, line 18.

It is perfectly appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should be under a duty in subsection (1), but when it comes to the issue of making arrangements he should be given a degree of discrimination and allowed to use his best discretion in these matters. There is nothing incompatible between having "shall" at page 2, line 18, and "may" in subsection (2) at line 21.

Would it be unkind to suggest to the Minister that he has overlooked his best point—that is, that guidance is free and putting up court-houses is not?

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the support of my noble friend Lord Renton, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, urged his noble friend the Minister to look at this matter again, but there is no need. As the Minister said, the Government have an opportunity here to do something simple. There is no need to wait. My amendment would not impose any prohibition on the Lord Chancellor from doing his job properly. Indeed, it would ensure that future generations of Lord Chancellors would do their job properly.

I would have been happy if the Minister had stayed with his first comment, that the amendment was innocent and worthwhile and that he should concede. I shall give him a chance to think again by seeking the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 2, line 37, after "into" insert "a minimum of 25"

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he proposing that there should be as many court administration councils as there are police authorities?

That would be the effect of Amendment No. 17. It is very practical. The new administration must start somewhere. Tying the number of court administration councils to the number of police forces would give us an existing pattern of building blocks. But that does not prevent the numbers from falling. A reduction in the number of police forces, which may happen, would provide an opportunity for a change in the courts administration system. The difficulty is that, under the Bill and from what we have learned so far, we have no means of judging what should happen and whether it will work. I beg to move.

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with some diffidence. In the White Paper Justice for All the Government promised that court management decisions would be taken locally by local management boards. They also stated that,

"resources can be managed flexibly to meet local requirements".

If I understand it correctly, instead we are told that management boards are now to be court administration councils to provide the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with recommendations, which are not necessarily binding. Might that result in an erosion of local accountability rather than the enhancement promised six months ago by a Minister in a letter to all magistrates? I emphasise that magistrates' courts committees currently include in their membership 12 justices of the peace who practise in the area. Under the proposals, each court administration council would have only one justice of the peace as provided at line 3 on page 3 of the Bill in subsection (4)(b).

It is fair to argue that this will not keep the courts,

"in touch with the communities they serve",

as promised previously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.