Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Higgins: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not at least accept that there is a transfer of risk from the employer?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords, I said that on the one hand there is a transfer of risk and on the other hand there is also a transfer of cash, which is made possible more easily by the portability of DC schemes. I tried to suggest that the one offset the other, but that is a matter of judgment.

The trend away from DB schemes has been in evidence for 40 years—not for four years. It is due to a combination of long-term increases in longevity. Over the next 20 years the numbers of people over the age of 85 will double, although some of the more alarming statistics about our average life expectancy should be taken with health warnings. The big difference that has taken place over the past 200 years is not that people are living longer—once people reach the age of 20 they live much the same length of time—but there has been a reduction in infant mortality, and averaging conceals that fact.

There has been a combination of long-term increases in longevity and medium-term losses on the stock market, which, as my noble friend Lord Varley emphasised, may have wiped something like £450 billion off pension assets on some calculations, as well as short term issues with FRS17. I agree with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on FRS17. I share his views and my right honourable friend in the other place shares his views, that an equalising of accountancy standards over, say, three years on the European standard, rather than that imposed by the accounting standards board, will be a more appropriate way forward.

15 May 2002 : Column 376

The level of contribution is important. One of the reasons that employers under DC schemes are reducing contributions is because they are matching the contributions made by employees. The trouble is that many schemes are being set up for new employees who tend to be younger and, therefore, contribute less. We shall need to encourage employers to have foresight in relation to this matter, which not all young people entering the labour market can be expected to have.

I want to take issue with the fact that there is a savings crisis as opposed to a pensions crisis. I have looked at the chart lines on that, comparing the level of savings with the level of inflation over the past 15 or 20 years. It is clear that the level of savings tends to reflect the level of inflation. It is insecurity that begets saving. Instead, with low inflation and low cash returns, considerable savings have been transferred and diverted into house purchase. However, low inflation itself is vital. It is true that annuity rates have fallen, which in turn reflect low inflation. Much as pensioners would like, they cannot have high annuity returns and low inflation rates.

In this context, noble Lords have advanced the case of the David Curry Bill that the world will be a much better place, and there will be positive incentives to save if only people could ensure that they could pass on their annuity pot to their children in the future. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who said that my right honourable friend Mr McCartney in another place said that this was a rich man's privilege. I believe he should respect that information. As far as I can ascertain, to ensure that people have a pension pot that floats them off state benefits, which is the minimum that every one would require, would require an annuity pot of at least £200,000 or even £250,000.

If on top of that one strips out the tax privileges that ensured that there was protection against poverty in old age—there is no point in having a double provision of tax privileges for inheritance purposes—one takes a further 30 per cent out of the pot. When one adds those two things together, one is saying that if those two points were built into the David Curry Bill they would benefit only the tiniest minority of pensioners and certainly not those pensioners facing any possible risk to comfort in their old age.

What really matters is the combination of return and inflation. I asked for work to be undertaken to find out what would happen if one had an annuity of £20,000 a year and how long it would take to be halved. At 2.5 per cent inflation it would take 29 years for that annuity return to be halved; at 5 per cent inflation it would take 14 years to be halved; and at 10 per cent inflation it would take eight years to be halved. Low inflation matters at least as much as high returns because that will protect people, particularly women, against poverty in their old age.

As many noble Lords have said, we have to be honest about the situation. It is not realistic to expect people to join the labour market in their early 20s, work for 30 or 40 years and out of that find themselves with a pension for a further 40 years unless employees

15 May 2002 : Column 377

and employers make adequate provision. However, one encouraging factor is often overlooked. The difference for pensioners between a minimum income and a comfortable retirement is often whether they have a second pension. What may increasingly transform their pension finances is whether the spouse has an occupational pension as well.

I return to a point I made earlier. The more we encourage married women into work—over 70 per cent of them now do—the more they benefit from the Government's combination of our minimum wage policy, our change to the lower earnings limit, our favourable treatment of second earners under the new tax credit scheme, our development of the state second pension and our stakeholder proposals. When we put all of that together it is more likely that women, as spouses, as partners, will bring into the retirement family income a second occupational pension which may admittedly be modest, but which may make all the difference between getting by and having comfort in old age. I accept that his 40 years and in this case her 20 do not add up to 60; we do not get the effect of compounding. Nonetheless, it will be a significant contribution.

I conclude. The Government believe that they are doing their bit. We have provided stable economic conditions in which people can find, attain and hold down jobs. Youth unemployment has virtually disappeared in this country. We have reduced inflation, which is now lower in this country than anywhere in the OECD, so pensions hold their value. We are producing pension products for those who have not had access, through modest incomes, to unfunded and funded schemes alike, including stakeholders. We are making information available. We are ensuring that the right products are in place to offer choice and flexibility. And we are ensuring that the most appropriate regulatory regime exists. We are drawing on the expertise of Mr Pickering, Mr Sanders, Mr Myners and others, to ensure that that regime is the correct one.

But now it is up to individuals, with the support of employers, to ensure that they safeguard the future. The key to a secure retirement is to start saving enough early enough and to continue to do so throughout one's working life.

8.32 p.m.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, this has been a short but important debate and I am grateful to all who have taken part. We are all agreed that savings for retirement need to improve. As my noble friend Lord Freeman and others said, we need to improve the climate for saving and we need to encourage pensions for, as both my noble friend Lord Higgins and my neighbour from the Isle of Wight, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, we are facing a pensions crisis.

But I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Varley; it is a crisis that we can tackle. That is clear. Indeed, valuable suggestions have been put forward in the debate on the measures that can be taken at this stage. I regard annuities as being one of the most important.

15 May 2002 : Column 378

The Minister played a straight bat on virtually every proposal that was put forward. But I hope that the Government will not only take note of the warnings that have been given in the debate—I sincerely believe that they are serious warnings—but will also take note of and take time to consider quietly the proposals that have been made during it from all sides of the House. I do not believe that we can allow the position simply to drift on in the present way.

This has been a valuable debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TSE (England) Regulations 2002

8.34 p.m.

The Countess of Mar rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 27th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/843).

The noble Countess said: My Lords, it is with a sense of sorrow that I table this prayer to annul the TSE (England) Regulations 2002. They were laid on 27th March 2002 and came into force on 19th April. Before we go any further, I should like to reassure noble Lords who are under the impression that it is unconstitutional for Members of this House to vote on a prayer to annul a statutory instrument that, while it is not done very often, there is no constitutional bar.

My concerns are serious concerns. We, in this House, as well as in another place, must ensure that the laws we make are compatible with the laws already on the statute book; that they are reasonable and proportional. I am not satisfied that these regulations meet those responsibilities. I am also certain that they are seriously over-prescriptive.

I declare my interests. My husband and I have a small herd of pedigree Blonde d'Aquitaine cattle, a flock of pedigree Black Welsh Mountain sheep and a herd of dairy goats. I have had an interest in animal health for many years and the Minister knows that the sheep were blood tested only yesterday under the voluntary scrapie scheme.

I have absolutely no political axe to grind, nor am I seeking vengeance for any act of this Government against the farming community. It is all very well for the Government, the Minister, or officials from DEFRA to say that most of these regulations have already been on the statute book. They may well have been. They may well have slipped past the parliamentary defences as these regulations very nearly did. That does not mean that they make good law. We are now looking at this particular piece of legislation, not what has been. Having almost accidentally discovered what I believe are serious flaws, I believe that we should now get it right.

15 May 2002 : Column 379

I wrote to the Minister last week to outline my concerns. He replied with what I believe is a genuine attempt to reduce those concerns. Instead, unfortunately, he has increased them. He informs me that,

    "The TSE controls have been developed largely to protect the public".

Despite the millions of pounds that have been poured into research to prove that human variant CJD is caused by eating beef, there is still no conclusive evidence that that is so. There is no shred of evidence that sheep have ever had BSE. Indeed, there is no conclusive evidence that BSE is caused by cattle ingesting meat and bone meal or even that BSE is infectious. But that is not the point of my argument tonight.

I accept that meat must be put upon the bones of Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 and its subsequent amendments. As the Minister said in his reply to me,

    "Whilst Community legislation is directly applicable, it does not say how key objectives in relation to public and animal health should be achieved".

Is it a "key objective" to hold the sword of Damocles over the heads of millions of animal keepers? I am sure it was not the Minister's objective. But he must understand that that is what those regulations do.

I have scoured Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 for mention of animals other than bovines, ovines or caprines—cattle, sheep and goats for the uninitiated. The only reference that I can find is in an amending regulation, (EC) 270/2002, Annex 1 Chapter B, headed: "Information to be presented by Member States in their report". Paragraph 9 states:

    "Positive TSE cases confirmed in animals other than bovine, ovine or caprine animals".

Article 6 of the EC parent regulation orders an annual programme for monitoring BSE and scrapie, the details of which are laid down in the amending Regulation (EC) 270/2002. Each member state is also required to inform the Commission and other member states of the emergence of a TSE other than BSE. Part II of those regulations details the authority and powers of an inspector, ostensibly to carry out the monitoring functions under Article 6.

Article 6 and the amended Annex 3 make no mention of an inspector,

    "entering any premises (excluding premises only as a dwelling)",

to carry out the functions listed in paragraph 4(2)(a) to (n) of our regulations.

First, most farmhouses contain a farm office. So the inspector could, by law, have access to any farmhouse where there is an office because it is not used only as a dwelling. Secondly, there is no definition of a "TSE susceptible animal", despite the Minister's assurance to the Joint Committee that the definition was in the EC regulation. The EC regulation gives a definition of

    "an animal suspected of being infected by a TSE".

That is not a TSE-susceptible animal and it specifically excludes humans.

15 May 2002 : Column 380

For some inexplicable reason, dogs are excluded from the TSE (England) Regulations 2002, when all other animals, birds and fish are not. Why the distinction, and where is the authority? Are all those creatures, except dogs, TSE-susceptible? I understand that scientists have tried in vain to produce a TSE in pigs. Why are not pigs excluded? How is the alpaca keeper to know whether the inspector is right when he is ordered to lock up his animals? I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that there is a difference between a TSE-susceptible animal and an animal suspected of being infected by a TSE.

To put it plainly, paragraph 4(2)(k) gives the inspector power to kill any number of healthy animals that he thinks are susceptible to a TSE and, if the owner argues the toss with him or he thinks that the owner may do so, under paragraph 4(4), the inspector can take himself off to a justice of the peace to obtain a warrant to force the owner to comply. There is no provision for appeal. I have put that simply, but that is the essence of this part of the regulation. That is what we all objected to so much in the Animal Health Bill.

We then come to paragraphs 4(2)(l) and (m). They give an inspector the right to examine and take copies of,

    "any record, in whatever form the record may be held",

and to,

    "have access to, and check the operation of, any computer and any associated apparatus or material which is or has been used in connection with any record".

The inspector can require,

    "any person who has charge of or who is otherwise concerned with the operation of the computer, apparatus or material to afford him such assistance as he may reasonably require and, where a record is kept by means of a computer, may require the records to be reproduced in a form in which they may be taken away".

That is an extraordinarily draconian measure to enforce Chapter 6 of the EC regulation. I remind noble Lords that that chapter refers to monitoring of slaughtered or already dead animals for BSE or scrapie if they are cattle, sheep or goats or of any other dead animal that has died from a suspected TSE.

Many farmers now keep their personal business records, such as bank account details and addresses on their computers. Whether or not those powers are ever used, I suspect that they infringe the right to a personal and family life under the Human Rights Act 1998 and that the Data Protection Act 1998 will also be infringed. If we are to pass legislation, do we not have a duty to ensure that it will not immediately lead to legal proceedings under superior legislation?

I have covered only three pages of a 221 page document. I have read all the other pages and have repeatedly felt that the legislation should be in the form of a Bill that can be thoroughly debated. Your Lordships may think that this is just another whinge by a farmer. I wonder whether they realise that, while the regulations' principal targets are farmed animals, there is nothing to stop an inspector from entering a garden where one may keep a carp in a pond, ferrets in a shed, pigeons in a loft or grandchildren may have a rabbit in a hutch. Cats are not safe either, if they are outside a dwelling.

15 May 2002 : Column 381

I note the amendment to my Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Tolgarth. I assume that he knows that nothing can be achieved by tabling a Motion to amend a statutory instrument, which is what his amendment will do if it is agreed to. A statutory instrument can only be annulled. If noble Lords agree to his amendment, sadly, I must assume that they are happy for our parliamentary system to be brought into disrepute and for our freedom to be drastically eroded.

The Minister, in his manuscript amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is clearly trying to meet one of my concerns, but his amendment will have the same effect as that of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The Minister seems not to have grasped my concern about the constitutional and procedural aspects of the statutory instrument.

Various spurious arguments are being circulated about the effect of a vote in favour of my Motion. Scientists say that it will destroy all that they have built up over the years since BSE erupted in our cattle. The National Farmers Union protests that consumer confidence in British meat would immediately collapse and that our export market would be destroyed. When did we hear that before? Today, the Minister published a statement to the effect that the Government will be left without any powers over BSE and scrapie monitoring, prevention and eradication. He said:

    "People who knock this SI are totally misguided. They run the risk of dismantling long-standing, evidence-based BSE controls of paramount importance for public and animal health".

In my opinion, that statement is, to say the very least, disingenuous.

Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 provides for the annulment of statutory instruments by resolution of either House of Parliament. If this House resolves that,

    "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that these Regulations be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution".

I understand that that means that the regulations continue in existence but cannot be enforced and that any earlier, revoked regulations are not revived. I accept that the effect of that would be that no controls would be in force. However, I also understand that the courts could be expected to interpret the 1946 Act in such a way as to lead to a satisfactory state of affairs. They may well hold that the revocation of the earlier instruments was, in effect, suspended. My Lords, from my point of view, the most satisfactory solution would be for the noble Lord the Minister to make new regulations that take into account our reservations as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 27th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/843).—(The Countess of Mar.)

15 May 2002 : Column 382

8.47 p.m.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth rose to move, as an amendment to the Countess of Mar's Motion, to leave out from "That" to the end and insert—

"this House calls upon Her Majesty' Government, in relation to the regulations laid on 27th March (S.I. 2002/843):

(a) to give an undertaking that the period of time in which a veterinary inspector issuing a notice of intended slaughter shall permit representations to the Secretary of State shall be no less than seven days;

(b) to consider bringing in further regulations setting up an independent appeals adjudicator nominated by the British Veterinary Association; and

(c) to keep the regulations under review in the light of scientific and technological developments relating to TSE."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on the well-informed concern that she displays—she has a record of that in animal health over a long period. I agree with her that governance by statutory instrument is unsatisfactory and governments of all persuasions increasingly use that device where primary legislation should be used. This statutory instrument is of great importance and the fact that it is 221 pages long is evidence of the detail that it contains.

The debate is balanced between the right of the public to be protected and the right of producers and their animals to receive just treatment. That is a finely balanced argument that must be weighed up in the legislation. There is no doubt that many people—myself included—feel that the provisions in the statutory instrument for livestock breeders and producers tend to be over the top and gold-plated, with stringent provisions for the immediate slaughter of TSE-susceptible animals, entry to holdings and the forced removal of records from premises. In many respects, they replicate the powers of the Animal Health Bill, which was recently defeated in your Lordships' House.

In particular, there appears to be no provision for farmers and livestock breeders incidentally to appeal against an order by an inspector to slaughter animals. In my view, that infringes the rights of livestock producers and, as this is secondary legislation, there is no statement to proclaim that the instrument complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in UK legislation.

Therefore, in my amendment I call for three measures to protect the rights of livestock keepers affected by the statutory instrument. The most important is contained in paragraph (b) of my amendment, which would allow for the nomination by the British Veterinary Association of an independent appeals adjudicator who can fairly assess and judge the issues without prejudice or influence from the Secretary of State. I have discussed the matter with the British Veterinary Association, which believes that such a mechanism could be put in place. Farmers and

15 May 2002 : Column 383

stock-owners would at least have more confidence that they were being fairly treated in the situation with which they may be confronted.

Paragraph (a) of my amendment refers to seven working days, to allow sufficient time for proper informed representations to be made. The Minister's manuscript amendment would take away that timescale. Why? Do the Government require more flexibility with regard to time? How will they ensure that representations can be made against a notice of slaughter? The fact that TSE is not infectious, animal to animal, must be relevant. The situation with foot and mouth disease is entirely different, as it is highly infectious animal to animal and requires immediate action. There are clear differences between the two situations.

If more flexibility is required, have I unearthed a loophole by which the provisions for TSE can be applied to foot and mouth disease? That would bring us back to square one and the slaughter provisions of the Animal Health Bill that were opposed by most Members of the House. The time allowed for representations is a crucial acid test of the Government's integrity and their intentions for the statutory instrument. I require a definitive time limit, unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise. The reasons had better be good.

Paragraph (c) of my amendment refers to the never-ending march of technology. The scientific study of the diagnosis of BSE in cattle and scrapie in sheep is moving fast. This part of the amendment would allow the Minister to review the regulations in the light of developments.

A distinction must be drawn between the objectives of Statutory Instrument 2002/843 in controlling the effects of TSE on animal and human health and the means deployed to control the disease through the slaughter of TSE-susceptible animals. Such animals may or may not be carriers of TSE. In the case of scrapie, "susceptible" may mean only that the sheep carries a certain gene. There is an argument about destroying animals with a suspect gene. The concern of many sheep breeders is such that they believe that other desirable characteristics of the gene that may be worth preserving may be lost for ever.

The only real proof of TSE comes from tests carried out on the brains and specified risk materials of dead animals, hence the slaughter policy in the statutory instrument. The TSE monitoring provision in Part II, paragraph (7) of the statutory instrument which refers to animals on farms gives cause for concern about the powers that the Government require. Those fears were best expressed in a briefing note prepared by the British Veterinary Association. The association said:

    "While the British Veterinary Association is supportive of any measures designed to protect animal and human health, we do seek Government reassurance as to the way in which these Regulations are to be implemented, not least since the SI contains wording seemingly identical to that contained in the Animal Health Bill introduced (and lost) earlier this Session.

15 May 2002 : Column 384

    The BVA has noted that in the definition of livestock, equines now appear. These are not subject currently known TSE and this could be seen as setting a precedent insofar as future legislation is concerned.

    The BVA is also concerned to note that the new Statutory Instrument includes powers to slaughter 'any TSE-susceptible animal', while, to our knowledge, the EU regulations mention only suspected and infected cases.

    The BVA can but ask whether the SI as drafted is in the spirit of the EU legislation or has it been added to—the wording concerning powers, penalties, etc. is all too reminiscent of the wording contained in the Animal Health Bill—and whether other member states will be introducing similar legislation".

That is a reasonable question to put to the Minister.

The most important points include the fact that there is no independent appeal allowed by the statutory instrument. My amendment would redress that inequality. Secondly, the seizure of livestock or the property of livestock breeders and keepers would have an impact on the farmers' human rights. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and there should be adequate redress in the form of an independent appeal. Thirdly, possibly forcing the owner and his staff to participate in the slaughter of their own animals is a highly undesirable state of affairs. Anyone who has kept animals will know that most stockmen could not indulge in such a thing.

There is no clear statement in the statutory instrument that it cannot be extended to cover foot and mouth disease. The Minister must give us a clear statement to that effect. After all, the Animal Health Bill, which allowed for some rather over-zealous methods of disposing of livestock, was defeated. There is no clear specification of the genotype of TSE that might help identify susceptible animals, although that might be found in future legislation relating to scrapie. We cannot see what is meant by "a susceptible animal". That must be spelt out.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned her fears about Part II, paragraph (7), sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the statutory instrument. Those provisions are of concern to me, too. Provided that the Government accept the kind of redress suggested in my amendment, we can overcome some, if not all, of the fears that have been expressed tonight. At least, it would create a better balance between the rights of the public to receive clean, safe food and the rights of the producers to protect their living, their animals and their way of life. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move, as a manuscript amendment to Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment, to leave out paragraph (a) and insert––

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page