---

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Perhaps I may say to the Minister that I am extremely flattered to be described as a member of the Women's Institute. I am not, but as he described us collectively as that, I might as well say that at all times I found members of the institute to be excellent. I consulted the institute on almost every consumer matter on which I had to have

8 Jun 2000 : Column 1247

a common sense view. I spoke at two of its annual conferences and found that the Women's Institute was very good at listening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

8 Jun 2000 : Column 1248

Schedule 2 [The Consumer Council for Postal Services]:

Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The matter came to the House because we had fresh advice. The Cabinet

8 Jun 2000 : Column 1249

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

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

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

4 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Jun 2000 : Column 1250

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is a simple matter. Previously, the subparagraph stated:

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

but now it will state:

"the Secretary of State may approve".

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

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

---