| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Two minor but irritating issues have arisen in recent days. Can the Minister explain why the helpline for families who are worrying about HMRC data losses is on an 0845 number? The misuse of 0845 numbers as a revenue source for government departments has been a growing scandal to which there has been no satisfactory response. It is highly unsatisfactory that an 0845 number is being used in this case.
Finally, is the Minister aware that the many millions of letters which were sent out apologising for the loss of personal data themselves unnecessarily included a great amount of personal data, including national insurance numbers? As, according to the Courts Service, 8 per cent of all official letters go astray, are not the Government just compounding the error of their earlier disaster with another initiative which uses personal data needlessly and in a way that could lead to their misuse?
This is another sad Statement by the Government. So far, the Poynter review has not answered the questions that we need to be answered before we and, more importantly, the public can feel satisfied that personal, confidential information is being dealt with acceptably by the Government. Together with the noble Baroness, I ask the Minister when we can expect, if not a satisfactory conclusion, at least a conclusion to the Poynter review.
5.09 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions and for their seasonal good wishes, which I reciprocate in the terms in which they presented them to me. I hope they recover from their trials and tribulations ready for next year.
With regard to the interim review, Poynter confirms that what the Chancellor said in his Statement to the House was entirely accurate with the data then available. There have been subsequent developments, but there is no question of any challenge to the Chancellor’s good faith in presenting to the House with total accuracy all the information that he had available at the time. Poynter is looking at how to improve security using encryption and other strategies. It will be recognised that HMRC took action immediately to ensure that
17 Dec 2007 : Column 509
The noble Baroness said that the new acting head seemed to indicate that the errors were systemic. Noble Lords who have been before Select Committees in the other place will know that challenging questions are presented and responses are given in good faith. If we look at the context in which Mr Hartnett was responding to those questions, it is clear that he had an open position on whether the errors were systemic. He did not know at that time. He was all too well aware that that is exactly the kind of issue that the Poynter report is meant to identify and which it is in the process of identifying. Mr Hartnett was not ruling anything in or out. How could he when we still awaited a full investigation of what had gone on?
The noble Baroness asked me to identify the costs of the process. I cannot do that at this stage. This is an interim report supported by a sophisticated level of efficiency, as the noble Baroness would wish. The costs involved will become clear when the final report is due, but no one would expect that at this interim stage we can identify the costs involved in this exercise. An element of cost that we can discuss is whether the culture of the department has changed significantly. It is somewhat striking that the party opposite suggests that it has never dreamed of anything that bears down on costs, improves efficiency or introduces new managerial techniques into the Civil Service and that as far as it is concerned this is a wilful Government who pursue aims that it does not follow. That party is for ever berating this Government on the costs of government and emphasising the excessive degree of red tape, which it regards as excessive bureaucracy, yet when we make a strategic change to a major department—a change that is now being reviewed by the Cabinet review which can see no evidence that there was a loss of efficiency through the merging of the departments—it suggest that somehow the Government are at fault. I entirely refute that proposition.
It is important that we recognise that there was a significant failure, for which due apology has been made. Lessons have to be learnt from it and those lessons have to be acted on. Poynter identified that in the most important part of the interim report. If the noble Baroness can contain her impatience until after Christmas, in due course we will get a full report from that highly qualified individual, who will give the Government the best advice from a full analysis of what went wrong. Far from it being a smokescreen, as the noble Baroness indicated, it would be absurd to suggest that in the space of three weeks Poynter could have analysed fully what went wrong in the department and have provided a full account of what needs to be done in the future. Of course the report is significant, not least because Poynter has been working against a background of an intensive police investigation. Indeed, not even the police have been able to conclude their inquiries at this stage, such is the complexity of the issue.
I want to emphasise in response to the noble Baroness that in his previous Statement the Chancellor presented
17 Dec 2007 : Column 510
On the question of the wider review, of course it covers all government departments. The review will come to fruition in the new year. The noble Baroness asked about Cabinet Office protocols. I cannot comment on those at this stage, but I can undertake in due course to give a full description and analysis of the published report. At that point this House will have an opportunity to comment on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that certain lessons had to be learnt. It is the case that we have to look at the relationship between the Government and the big computer companies, as he put it, with which we make arrangements. The noble Lord indicated that in the past he had witnessed a limited exchange of information, but we are in a new era. In order to provide effective government, it is necessary for departments to talk to each other about problems that are frequently referred to in this House as being cross-government in nature and thus in need of that level of co-operation. However, it is absolutely essential that such cross-government activity has to be secure, and that is what the major report will address its investigations into. It will look at the efficacy of government with a heightened emphasis on the security of cross-government information in the wake of this most unfortunate development at HMRC.
The noble Lord also mentioned the problems surrounding communications with the general public through 0845 numbers. In the light of these difficulties, when the department does correspond with anyone directly affected by them, it is absolutely incumbent on officials that they guarantee that the reader and recipient of the letter is the person to whom it is addressed. Given that, of course such a letter will have a little more than just an initial and the surname of the person to whom it is addressed. It is bound to carry some additional information in order to make sure that the communication is delivered correctly. I hear what the noble Lord says, but noble Lords will recognise that this is a misadventure which has caused the Government a great deal of concern and grief. This is nothing more than the product of the need to provide interaction between departments at a much higher level than in the past. Further, the amount of information which a government now inevitably compile is much greater than in the past as a result of the expectations of our citizenry. It will therefore be appreciated that it is important to look at the Poynter report and the further investigation into the wider issues of government in order to identify clearly the constructive road ahead.
5.20 pm
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. When this issue first came to light in early November I tabled a number of Questions for Written Answer. The Minister kindly replied to them last week. In doing so, he jumbled the
17 Dec 2007 : Column 511
It is beholden on the Treasury and its Ministers to answer questions properly. I know that the Minister will agree with me and I am sorry that he has been let down by his colleagues. Will he press on his colleagues the need to give adequate answers to the questions I have asked and remind them that they are answerable to Parliament?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course Ministers are answerable to Parliament. I am grateful that the noble Viscount expressed the point in such a courteous way. He will appreciate that in circumstances where we had both a police investigation going on and an interim report being prepared for presentation to another place today, in answering his questions earlier in the week I was necessarily circumscribed in the information I could give until the interim report had been published.
I entirely subscribe to his viewpoint. It is an obligation on the Government to answer questions as clearly and as accurately as possible. The Treasury has an excellent record in this regard; it is one of the promptest departments in responding to Questions. I shall try to keep my side of the bargain in terms of prompt Answers, but there are times when we are somewhat circumscribed by other inquiries going on. The noble Viscount was asking questions which were clearly identified within the areas of the report and he will appreciate that we needed today’s announcement of the interim report before I could respond to him fully.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, we have been told before that the data were encrypted. That brings me to the heart of what the affair is all about—encryption. My question is very simple: will the encryption methods planned for use in departments in the future be tested by those who specialise in breaking encrypted data? It is one thing to lose a disc, but it is another thing completely to lose the encrypted data on that disc.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important and difficult issue. He will have learnt that the immediate emergency measures taken by HMRC have been to introduce a plethora of passwords for entry into any one area of information. I cannot be absolutely categoric in response at this stage. I expect the report which analyses these issues will provide indications on how security can be guaranteed. I emphasise to my noble friend that his anxiety has been recognised and acted on.
17 Dec 2007 : Column 512
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister has understandably emphasised on several occasions the complexity of the situation. Perhaps I may try to make his life easier by asking two simple questions. The first question is for a number and the second question is for an undertaking. If his briefing does not enable him to produce the number, can he ensure that it is put in the Library before the House rises tomorrow; and can he at least take the undertaking I am asking for back to his colleagues and report to the House early in the New Year?
The number I would like to ask the Minister for is the number of occasions during 2007 to date on which, in total, government departments or agencies have had to report to the Information Commissioner the loss or corruption of or danger to information.
The undertaking I would like to ask him for is that the Government will, from next year, make a ministerial Statement in writing—published in the Hansard of both Houses, weekly to start with, so we can see how we get on, and if the figures justify it we could then go to monthly—about every time that something is reported to the Information Commissioner, giving which department or agency has reported it, what is the information lost or corrupted and the circumstances in which that happened.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the qualification that he edges into on that information—namely, that communicated to the Information Commissioner—which at least identifies that he is concerned about areas of real security that are of concern to Government. We all recognise that in vast, complex organisations bits and pieces between two individuals can go astray. That ought not to occasion a great deal of alarm—but he said “to the Information Commissioner”.
I cannot undertake to deliver that information to the noble Lord before the House rises tomorrow but, clearly, he wants that information as soon as possible. I will attend to that and seek to see the extent to which we can cover all that information given to the Information Commissioner.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I first declare a small interest. Once upon a time, I was the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise, answerable for it to the House of Commons. It was a privilege to hold that office.
In the context of a series of unfortunate lapses after the translation of two revenue departments into one, does the Minister recognise that the two prior departments, while admirable in their individual discharge of different functions, had very different historical and internal cultures? A merger phenomenon such as that is regarded in the private sector as requiring particularly sensitive management.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is true, but Government are there to provide sensitive management and to be challenged if there is a management failure. Clearly, with the loss of those discs, there has been a failure, as acknowledged by the Government.
17 Dec 2007 : Column 513
On the more general issues, the overarching report to which I made reference—conducted under the auspices of the Cabinet Secretary—commented in April of this year on the extent to which the two departments had produced a successful merger and how, in crucial areas, they were working with greater efficiency and to a high level of purpose. No one is going to say that departments settle down in a matter of months after a merger—the noble Lord would be the first to recognise that. There was nothing in the April analysis of the department, which was looked at carefully because of the merger, that indicated that the challenging aspect of the bringing together of two departments with different cultures was proceeding other than satisfactorily.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
5.30 pm
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 23:
“( ) to set within each of the five years within a budgetary period an annual amount for the net UK carbon account (the “annual target”),( ) to set in every calendar year until 2044 an annual amount for the net UK carbon account for the year six years ahead (the “rolling annual target”),”The noble Lord said: When we decoupled these amendments we did so in order to differentiate our proposals from those that we were debating before we broke off. It was not my intention to give the Minister a couple of hours to think about these two sets of amendments. Having said that, I am grateful for his response to the previous debate, particularly for his acceptance of the notion that the annual reporting mechanism might include measurements, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord May. One might perhaps go on to say indices. From there it is a relatively short step to talk about indicators; in other words, milestones—annual milestones, as we were suggesting.
I hope I will not repeat too much of the previous debate because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to build on the answer he gave regarding that set of amendments. I do not want to repeat old arguments but a rolling target mechanism is a different creature with a different—and, I hope, more effective—weapon for the Minister to use in whatever position he might find himself in five years’ time. The amendments would set up yearly targets that were adjusted for the following six years and create a duty to meet those targets.
The mechanism in place for setting a rolling annual target in Amendment No. 30 is that the Secretary of State would set the target in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change and after it had been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Those two conditions would have to be met before the annual target was set. The other amendments stipulate that in the reports, annual and interim, rolling targets would be included.
17 Dec 2007 : Column 514
We believe that rolling annual targets are the more appropriate way to have milestones. They offer flexibility and accountability. As mentioned above, the fact that targets were adjusted yearly would allow the Secretary of State and the climate change committee to take account of the multiplicity of variables that might affect the successful accomplishment of a target. That is not intended to give any Minister—or anyone else, for that matter—a way to shirk their responsibilities. On the contrary, the idea of having projections updated every year simply allows for targets to correspond more closely with scientific realities that affect the process of reducing climate change. Reduction in emissions does not follow a steady yearly pattern; all the speakers in all our debates have recognised that, and it is important that any annual milestone arrangement reflects it.
The risk is that if some great improvement is made at the beginning of five years—say, a group of old power stations is finally phased out—the Minister will be able to do very little for the remaining five years if he wishes and will still meet the target. That is not acceptable. In order for progress to be maintained, yearly evaluations, with an eye on how one year will affect the coming years, are essential. That would affect Ministers—and everyone else. I have altered my notes, because I am sensitive to the point made by the Minister that the Government are responsible for only 50 per cent of emissions. The response to the Bill, when it is enacted, will go way beyond Whitehall. Everyone will have a responsibility to see that the targets are met.
So, with yearly evaluations, Ministers and everyone else could be made more accountable. Actions to reduce climate change could then be assessed independently of some of the accidents of fate that might bring failure or success to a particular year’s budget. That system would allow for an organic assessment process that saw current efforts matched with their related future possibilities. Additionally, having rolling annual adjustments would ensure that projections on expected progress were carried over between Governments. By having the next six years assessed annually, there would be a continuity of the process of reducing emissions that was outside the sphere of everyday politics. No Government could blame their predecessor if the targets for the following six years were under constant scrutiny. That is a major tenet of our position on the Bill as a whole.
I am sure your Lordships are beginning to see that with rolling annual targets we would have yet another way to ensure that we were being as faithful to scientific advancement and analysis as possible while removing the ability of Ministers to avoid what we recognise is a great responsibility. At their core, indicative milestones would increase the pressure to ensure that measures were working early in the budget period and would detract from the ability of Ministers, or anyone else, to pass the buck. I beg to move.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Taking Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, together gives the impression that what he described previously as annual milestones are actually firmer than milestones, as the targets would become a duty for the Secretary of State not to exceed. Given the
17 Dec 2007 : Column 515
Lord Redesdale: We have covered this ground before. The rolling targets feed into the very nature of the targets. We support that. That targets on a yearly basis should be looked at is common ground. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, has pointed out that a duty is being placed on the Secretary of State but, as we know, under the Bill there is no sanction against the Secretary of State if a target is not met, a point that was raised at Second Reading and probably ought to be looked at again. That is the major problem we have with all these provisions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |