Postal Services Act 2011 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. As she knows, we were not in support of the major principle behind the Postal Services Act, although I have to admit that we did applaud some aspects of it. We breathed a sigh of relief at the transferring of responsibilities from Postcomm to Ofcom. We can only hope that the regulation will be more effective than it was previously. I have no specific questions on this. As the Minister said, it is just a transfer of existing responsibilities from Postcomm to Ofcom.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I share the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young. This is the first occasion on which a parliamentary body has met since we read in the newspapers and heard on the radio that the Post Office pension fund will be transferred to the Government. Perhaps I may rather cheekily ask the noble Baroness whether she is prepared to expand on that, and to say whether that means that the European Commission has approved the transfer. Or is that a cheeky question too far?
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Tribunal Composition) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall
Lord Razzall
My Lords, it looks as though I have to declare those interests and companies that I have set out in the Register of Members’ Interests, although whether they will benefit from the passing of these orders will depend on whose arguments are correct. I have some sympathy with the points that have been made from both sides of the Committee—although having read particularly the debate in the other place, one would have thought that, from the Labour side, these proposals were going to take the country back to the days of the Tolpuddle Martyrs and, from the government side, that all the problems of unemployment in this country will be solved by passing this order.
I do not share either of those views. This is not part of an agenda designed to take us back to the dark days of poor trade union relations or poor employment relations. I have every confidence in the Secretary of State, who happens to be a member of my party, to ensure that that will not happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and one or two other Members on that side have indicated, there is a danger that one can overstate the opportunity for passing this order to extend the period of unfair dismissal from one year to two years. One can overstate the argument. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, most of the evidence in the survey saying that this will have an effect is anecdotal. He put it rather well when he said that if you get three employers having a drink in a pub—I do not know why he picked Hertfordshire—that is what they will complain about.
However, as someone who has been involved for a number of years in the SME sector, I believe that there is a marginal case here for saying that employers are nervous of taking on new employees in small businesses because of the impact of the unfair dismissal rules. There is a case for saying that if they were marginally relieved from one year to two years, people would be taken on.
One point that has not been made is that there is very little evidence that under the current one-year rule many unfair dismissal cases are brought by people who have worked between one and two years. There are very few such cases, which leads me to think that what happens is that people take advantage of the one-year rule to lay people off before they get into the unfair dismissal bracket. If we extend that to two years, action will not be taken until they approach the end of the second year, which will add employment of a further year for people who have been taken on. It will also mean that if somebody knows that they can get rid of somebody who turns out not to be very good before the end of two years rather than one, in some cases they may be more prepared to give that person appropriate training that will keep them in employment for longer.
I will make a point about the context in which the orders were put forward. One does not have to be privy to the inner secrets of government—one just has to read the newspapers or watch television—to realise that a huge battle is going on over how our employment legislation should be framed. Mr Adrian Beecroft has been commissioned to look at the laws. He starts from the proposition that almost all employment regulation and restriction should be swept away. On the other hand, a number of people in both governing parties want to see a significant improvement in family-friendly policies such as paternity leave and maternity leave.
While the battles rage, I very much hope that noble Lords will come out on the right side of the arguments. There is no doubt where I stand on them, and I suspect that there is no doubt where the Secretary of State stands on them. If the proposals come to your Lordships' House, I hope that they will be resisted. In the mean time, this is a modest proposal, and if it is the price we pay for averting something that might be a lot worse, I urge noble Lords to accept it.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction, even if I did not agree with most of it. It will be no surprise that we oppose the proposals both on unfair dismissal and on lay members. I could not help smiling when the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, suggested that there was some overegging of the pudding. It is true that I could not find the transportation clause in the impact assessment. However, that is not to say that the measure will not have a profound effect.
My premise for being so opposed to it is that if one wants to give small employers—the measure is focused on them—some help and assistance, is this really what one wants to focus on, rather than the quality of management? I could not help reflecting on that. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, spoke about waiting for the annual appraisal. With a new recruit, would that be the first time one gave any assessment? As a small employer, it would be one’s first problem if one waited until the end of the year. One would need to look at a new recruit a lot earlier than that.
My noble friend Lady Donaghy pointed out that a probation period can be extended and that therefore this is not the best bit of advice one could give a small or medium-sized employer. Where they make mistakes is in the quality of management. That is why so many employment tribunals are seen as almost a fait accompli because they know that they do not have a proper set of procedures. I have seen that on many occasions. We have even seen things like the failure to issue a contract of employment. I encountered many people who have complained about the terms of their employment, but when I asked them, “Where is your contract of employment?”, they said that they did not have one. When we have management failure on that basic level, saying that extending unfair dismissal will encourage them to hire more people means, to me, that the Government really cannot see the wood for the trees.
Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 23) (Investment Companies) Regulations 2012
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. It is clearly not sensible that HMRC should propose amendments which, unless the Companies Act is changed, cannot be implemented. I have just one question, which may be difficult to answer. It is suggested that the objective of HMRC is to try to increase the number of investment trusts that become domiciled in the UK in order to take advantage of these changes in company law and tax law. Page 8 of the impact assessment states that,
“there are 200 registered as ‘investment companies’ under the Companies Act”,
but that there are 320 quoted investment companies, which suggests that there is the potential for an additional 120 companies to register. Is that right? If the objective is to get companies that are quoted on other exchanges to register here, it could be presumed that a limitless number of companies might take advantage of these rules. I assume that the 120 companies referred to here are only UK companies, and it would be difficult to estimate the potential if that is HMRC’s objective.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I enter this debate with some trepidation because it is certainly not my favourite subject. I listened carefully to the Minister throughout her complex analysis of the benefits, but I am not sure that I fully comprehended it, so I apologise if I have to call for a bit of reiteration. I have two questions to put. The first is on risk-spreading investment vehicles. Given the problems that we have had with risk and financial collapses, is the Minister satisfied that the requisite safeguards are in place in these companies? Secondly, can the Minister explain in a little more detail precisely what benefits, following the changes to the corporation tax regime, will arise from realigning company law in this way?
Local Better Regulation Office (Dissolution and Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Order 2012
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Perhaps I can try to be helpful, because I do not want us to take up more time than we need to, but that is not quite what it says in the Explanatory Memorandum. I notice that the Minister’s officials are nodding. Perhaps the best thing that the Minister could do is to write to us and clarify the situation.
Lord Razzall
Perhaps the Minister could specifically explain, when she writes, how what she said relates to paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which seems to suggest that,
“the power to direct local authorities, and … to enforce service improvement will be stopped”.
It does not seem to reflect that, but that is actually what it says.
Weights and Measures (Specified Quantities) (Unwrapped Bread and Intoxicating Liquor) Order 2011
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to be back dealing with the wonderfully random nature of statutory instruments. I could not help reflecting: where do the two items, bread and liquor, come together? I thought of the religious context, but then I thought: no, there is another place where the two come together—and I could not resist the lure of this quote for those of you who are familiar with the work of Edward Fitzgerald in his translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. He said,
“A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread—and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness—
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!”
It is probably the first time that that has been quoted here.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I digress only slightly. The statutory instrument before us proposes to amend the legislation whereby it will no longer be necessary for unwrapped bread to be sold in quantities of 400 grams, as the Minister told us. We welcome that and I will not go into any more detail. It brings us into line with European directives and, as she said, follows similar amendments, made in April 2009 when Labour was in government, regarding prepackaged loaves. The only reassurance that the public will require is that loaves should be clearly marked. One can see opportunities for mis-selling or, perhaps, confusion. I should welcome some comment on that.
As to wine, there was a word that the noble Baroness struggled with, if she does not mind me saying so. I was not sure exactly what it meant. She referred to a “flight”. I thought, “I can think of ‘flute’”; so I should welcome some clarification on that. I do not say that in any way other than to ensure that we get it right. Perhaps I misheard—in which case, I apologise. As to selling samples of wine, I read through the explanations in the impact assessment. Again, I should welcome some assurance. What are described as “samples” and “tasters” are allowed to be sold, without there being any specifics as to what they may be. What protection will there be for consumers in knowing exactly how much they will be purchasing. I am talking about only the wine, not fortified wine.
When I was reflecting about beer, I thought that when we now go to the pub the position is quite obvious. I ask my noble colleagues what they are having, and it will be either a half or a pint. Could it be: “No, I will have a two-thirds”? I could not get my head around this and I should welcome any suggestions as to a handy description of what that would be. I am sure that it will find a ready market.
We understand the purpose of these measures, which we generally accept the need for and are ready to support, subject to the clarifications that I look forward to hearing.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, of course I will not oppose these measures, but I have significant reservations as to whether they represent the real world. Leaving aside the provisions on bread, which I of course fully support, I am concerned that the consultation exercise seems to have involved organisations relating to wine, beer and spirits rather than relating to what happens in the real world in wine bars and pubs. Until I read all this material, I had not appreciated—of course, I should have done—that there was any restriction on what a publican could sell. I had assumed that the fact that you ordered either a half or a pint of beer was simply tradition, because that is the way that it had always happened. I had not realised that it was a mandatory requirement.
Of course, in the real world of pubs, they vary. In many village pubs when your pint of beer goes down to a quarter and you ask for a half they will pull the pump so many times you almost end up with another pint. The fact that they have charged you only for a half is not material to the measure that you have actually been served. As far as wine is concerned, at the moment as I understand it, you can have only a small or a large glass if you go into a pub or wine bar. Those are the required measures, but there is nothing to stop six of you ordering a bottle of wine and serving it to yourselves in whatever proportions you want; and if you want more, you have another bottle of wine.
I find the regulation of this rather strange and not necessarily representative of what actually happens in the pubs and wine bars of our country—those that remain open. Had I started with a clean piece of legislation, I would have gone for option two and deregulated the whole lot, but I recognise that the consultation makes that rather difficult.
I also wonder whether there has been proper consultation with the people at the sharp end. Will those who run my local village pub have to spend a fortune buying two-third pint glasses which they do not have? If so, are they in favour of this, or would they rather stay with the existing requirements? I would have assumed that, were the Tory element of our Government—and, I suspect, the Liberal Democrat element too—starting from scratch, they would think you should simply say, “Here are the products we sell, whether it is two pints, one pint, three-quarters of a pint, two-thirds of a pint, half a pint and here is the price,” rather than saying, “You cannot sell anything unless it is one pint, half a pint or two-thirds of a pint.” So I have reservations about the order, as I have expressed, but of course I am not going to oppose it.
Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2011
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Razzall
The two orders are being taken together. I am entirely happy with the first one, which seems to be a very sensible tidying-up of the situation. On the second one, which basically deals with PFI, I am sure that the Minister will be aware that PFI is a highly controversial topic at the moment, not only with Private Eye but with House of Commons committees. It would not be beyond the wit of man if, as we speak, HM Treasury was looking at the details of PFI to see how it could be improved.
PFI contracts normally contain three elements: the management of the project, the finance and the construction. One of the issues here is that the construction element is to some extent being brought into the financing, and the arguments for this order go to how PFI contracts are financed. I am happy to support the order, but it would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that when HM Treasury completes its review of existing PFI contracts and the future procedures for PFI, this will be on the table again so that, if it is necessary as a result of that exercise to look again at this issue, that will be done. This does not have to be the end of the story. It may well be that that is not necessary, but if there is currently a review—not only by Private Eye, as I say, but by a more salubrious body—this should still be on the agenda if necessary.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I welcome the comprehensive statement read by the Minister. We do not see this as a matter of controversy; its origins lie before the 1997 election and it continued until the 2009 legislation. We do not see the proposals as controversial and we do not intend to oppose them. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on PFI contracts. If I had one other comment to make, it would be to ask whether there would be an impact regarding the participation of SMEs in these contracts, something that I know the Government see as desirable. With those comments, I await the Minister’s response.
Postal Services Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall
Lord Razzall
My Lords, the amendment is extremely constructive. However, I have a concern, which is the one echoed by my noble friend Lady Kramer. For those of us who argued long and hard during the last Bill for an employee share structure—which was resisted by the then Government—I am worried that we should be too prescriptive at present as to the form that the employee share scheme should take. Those of us who have had experience in the private sector in employee share schemes know that there are a lot of ways to skin that particular cat—this may well be one of them, but, having fought and won the battle to get at least 10 per cent held by an employee share scheme, I am worried that we will overcomplicate the Bill.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the umpteen privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s which contained an element of employee shareholding. However, time after time, the shares held initially by employees found their way into the hands of institutional or speculative shareholders. They may have started out as employee shares but they did not stay as employee shares for long. What can be done about this? I do not intend to reiterate the very cogent points made by my noble friend Lord Brooke in relation to the experience of the National Air Traffic Services scheme. However, I will respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about being too prescriptive. If there are viable alternatives, no doubt the Minister will deal with that in his reply, and I await it with interest.
The amendment proposes that all shares held for the benefit of employees would be held in trust. That may be difficult to accept for some employees who would rather be able to cash in the shares; I speak from my BT experience. I will not go into the details of that, but certainly a lot of cashing in went on at the time.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
No. Sorry to disappoint the noble Lord; I see that he is returning to his previous night’s form. There needs to be some return on the investment that the employee can anticipate.
The amendment proposes that a dividend of equal amount would be paid in respect of each share held by or for the benefit of any employee. When paying a dividend, it is important that all shares are equal and everyone is on an even footing, regardless of where they are in the company. That is an important principle.
The amendment proposes that no employee eligible to receive shares under the scheme would be permitted under the rules of the scheme to dispose of those shares to any other person. If we are serious about a stake in the company being held by employees, that is an important point. To prevent seepage turning into a flood of shares out of the scheme, as we have seen in the past, it is important to ring-fence the shares in the proposed scheme.
The amendment proposes that, on leaving employment, shares held by employees could be disposed of only by way of a transfer for consideration to the trust. It is fair that employees who leave employment and leave the scheme would be able to capitalise on their shareholding—that is one of the incentives of the scheme. To maintain the integrity of the scheme, though, they should dispose of the share back into the scheme.
The amendment proposes that the consideration payable under paragraph (d) would be an amount equal to what the market value of the shares would have been. To achieve a fair result for departing employees, a fair price for the share would be established in the absence of an open market. That would not be very difficult if other shares in the company were being traded. If this is not the perfect formulation of our ideas or improvements could be made, I hope that the Minister will take this away, give it serious thought and come back with an improved proposal to meet the same objectives.
It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is not in his seat. In a wistful diversion down memory lane last week he reminded us of the “Tell Sid” campaign, conducted to boost interest in the privatisation of British Gas. We were told that Sid was the name of an uncle of the late Lord Walker of Worcester, who was the Secretary of State responsible for the sale. It is a bit ironic that the British Gas share advertisements featured a series of people so anxious to alert Sid to the share flotation that one of them was a postman who got knocked off his bike in the excitement. The mind boggles. If the postmen or postwomen of Britain are to be induced to fall over in the excitement at 100 per cent privatisation of Royal Mail—somehow I doubt it—perhaps the Government should address some of the questions raised in this amendment. They are serious; they make a constructive contribution and improvements so that a good idea becomes a very good scheme. I support the amendment.
Postal Services Bill
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 14 is to provide for the disposal of shares to take place in tranches or batches rather than all at once. In keeping with our previous amendment, the batches are at 30 per cent and 19 per cent, to maintain Royal Mail in overall public ownership. Of course, the Government may wish to propose different figures, but the same principle would apply.
One of our difficulties with the Bill is in trying to grasp the detail and discover exactly what information is in it—whether there will be an initial public offering or a trade sale at auction. The Government have not set a clear timetable and they have not explained whether there will be a general sale of shares to the public—an IPO—a restricted sale to certain categories of buyer or a trade sale by auction to a single buyer, such as a private equity firm or a postal competitor, which may raise competition issues. They have not been clear about how valuable public assets will be allocated between Post Office Ltd, the pension funds and Royal Mail, thus finding their way into private hands. They have not indicated how the board might be constituted. They have not ruled out dismantling Royal Mail and selling off the most profitable parts, in particular GLS, its successful European parcels service, and Parcelforce. They have not indicated how they will guard against a buyer with short-term horizons seeking to squeeze costs and cherry pick the assets.
Before any sale takes place, this House will want to be assured about the future of the universal service, the exact regulatory regime and the future of the post office network. The Government have not explained any measures to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and—this is the subject that this amendment focuses on—they have not explained whether they would sell the whole company all at once, with the risks that that involves of selling cheaply, or whether they would be prepared to sell in tranches.
There is a huge amount of evidence that, when privatisations have taken place in the past, the value for which the businesses were sold was too low, as my noble friend Lord Lea has demonstrated. This is most clearly evidenced where a general sale of shares has taken place. When the shares are traded, it is easy to see what price they trade at and how this compares with the original sale price. If there is a big gap and the original sale price is much lower, it indicates that the shares should have been sold at a higher price—the taxpayer has lost out and someone has pocketed a pretty penny as a result. With Associated British Ports, which was 35 times oversubscribed, the share price rose 23 per cent in one day. With Amersham International, sold for £71 million, the share price rose 32 per cent on the first day of trading.
As early as 16 May 1984, the Public Accounts Committee in its 17th report expressed concern at stock in public corporations being sold, in the words of the committee, at an,
“immediate substantial premium creating windfall gains for the investor at public expense”.
It recommended considering selling in tranches, as was normal practice in the sale of large quantities of government bonds. Selling by tranches worked in a number of cases. For example, in the case of National Power, the share price rose 22 per cent a day after the first tranche sale but only 4 per cent after the second tranche was sold. Powergen’s first tranche of shares appreciated by 22 per cent within one day, but the second batch rose only 3 per cent the day after.
Of course, it is difficult to predict what the reaction of investors will be to the disposal of shares. It is undesirable for the shares to be offered, either in an IPO or a trade sale, in one single tranche, which would have the effect of transferring 100 per cent ownership in one go, albeit with 10 per cent or so employee shares, if that is to be the figure. There is a strong case that transfers should therefore be staged. Our amendment proposes this, such that shares representing no more than 30 per cent of the value of the business should be capable of being transferred in the first year following the Act coming into force and no more than a further 19 per cent in the following year.
The Secretary of State has complete discretion over the disposal of all Royal Mail shares. There are a number of issues to consider. The market may be glutted by a complete offering and so reduce the value. Privatisation of Royal Mail separate from the post office network is an innovation, so it will be best to proceed by degrees to ensure that the universal service is not jeopardised. If the value of the shares rises, the taxpayer would be a loser if the initial share sale were a complete sale.
There is a real prospect that Royal Mail may be undervalued or overvalued by the Government. Ministers have yet to put a value on the Royal Mail Group at this time—or, if they have, they are being exceedingly coy about it. Estimates of the value of Royal Mail have varied wildly. Many factors will impact on the value of the business. The prospective regulatory regime, the industrial relations climate, the onerous nature of the obligations placed on Royal Mail—all these factors and others will determine the value of the business and its share price on flotation.
There are, then, strong arguments for the sale to be implemented in tranches. That would allow for a wide variety of approaches to possible amendments. For example, tranches could be subject to various reporting procedures to Parliament to guarantee effective oversight. I stress that in our amendment we have been consistent with our wish that overall ownership of Royal Mail should remain in the public sector. However, the principle of selling by tranches to avoid underpricing would apply to any percentage of sale, including 90 per cent or 100 per cent. I hope that the Minister sees merit in the notion that disposals should be by way of tranches and that she will either accept the amendment or give assurances to the Committee about how the Government intend to proceed.
Lord Razzall
I cannot say how much I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, but I have to say that from what they have just said they are living in fantasy land. We are faced with a situation where, unless the Royal Mail gets significant investment from a third party, it will be in serious financial difficulties. The idea that there will be an IPO or a sale with tranches is from a fantasy world. If people want to oppose the Bill, they should say so; they should say, “We don’t agree that it should all be sold off”. But, as those of us who deal with the markets every day know, to suggest that in some way we could have 30 per cent here, 30 per cent there and 19 per cent there is a fantasy world.
Export Control (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2010
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall(13 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I do not think that we will detain noble Lords for long on this order. I welcome the Government’s full explanation and clarification that the order will require a Secretary of State licence, whether it is direct or indirect control, which is important. I also welcome the assurance that there will be a monitoring and review process. I cannot help but ask one question, as a result of the O-level chemistry that I never got. Like the Minister and the Explanatory Memorandum, I always refer to the drug as sodium thiopental, but I notice that the order reverses that and refers to thiopental sodium. From mere curiosity, I am wondering why that is the case. I hope that those behind the Minister who know the answer to everything will tell us why the words have been reversed. That aside, I welcome the Government’s decision.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I, too, support this somewhat bizarre order, which I am sure noble Lords from all sides will welcome. I have three questions resulting from the Explanatory Memorandum. As someone who spent an early part of my life working as a lawyer campaigning against capital punishment in the United States, I would be interested to know which two states have used this drug to effect execution rather than simply to anaesthetise the condemned person before execution.
Secondly, it is obviously clear from the action taken by the lawyer for one of the people on death row that he or she believes that if this supply can be stopped there would be an advantage, presumably, to either postponing or stopping the execution of his or her client. If export of this drug from the United Kingdom does not take place, are we aware as to from where the relevant execution chambers will obtain the drug? Will this have a major effect on executions in the United States or is there a simple alternative source of supply?
Thirdly, the fact that this order is being brought indicates that presumably there has been export of sodium thiopental in the past from the United Kingdom to the United States. Do we have any idea what the volume of that has been? Will this have a direct effect on drug companies which have been exporting it or is this simply a theoretical order that will have no practical effect? I obviously overwhelmingly support the order.
Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2010
Debate between Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Razzall(13 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I welcome the order, which is hardly surprising as the previous Government initiated this legislation. We have been playing this role quite often recently. I also welcome the comments of the Minister. As she indicated, the aim is to deter, by ensuring that the cost of compliance is less than that of non-compliance, at least in most cases. Automated dialling that leads to silent and abandoned calls causes anxiety and distress. Since 2007, there have been a number of cases involving large and well known companies—I will not name them all—and a high-profile case that the Minister did name in which Ofcom imposed the maximum penalty but would have gone further.
I will make a couple of points. How will companies be informed of the increase in the penalty? We hope that publicising the change will form part of the deterrent programme. I welcome Ofcom’s monitoring review and the guidance and education procedures. However, will Ofcom require companies that use this equipment to confirm in writing that their procedures have been checked and are fully compliant?
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I support the order introduced by the Minister. To put this into context, one thing that nobody ever says, but which is true, is that before the automatic calling system technology was developed there was a huge number of “heavy breathers” who used to dial random numbers and hope that a woman would answer. I suspect that one reason why a lot of women are distressed by the automatic calling structure is that they remember the heavy breathers. They answer the phone thinking, “Oh my God, it will be a heavy breather”. That is a significant problem, so I support anything that can be done to stop this. If the phone rings at our house in Wiltshire before 9 am, Jane always says, “Don’t answer it, it will be an automatic call”. On the rare occasions when I do answer, it is always an automatic call. They are a pest and a plague.
I apologise to my noble friend for not having raised before the issue of automatic calling by political parties during elections. I will not attack the party of the noble Lord, Lord Young, particularly now that he has had his hip done and is in a better position to defend himself. However, we all remember that during the 2005 election people were getting calls at 3 am from John Prescott, who has since become a Member of this House. I wonder whether in this context—this touches on the ambits of the Electoral Commission and of the Information Commissioner, who tends to take his predecessor’s view that his remit does not extend to this—since it looks as though we are now the best part of five years away from a general election, the Government could look at automatic calling.
Lord Razzall
I cannot sit down because my knees are bad. I apologise for staying standing; imagine that I am sitting.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I cannot resist saying that these were not silent and abandoned calls, but maybe in this instance the recipients wished that they had been.
Lord Razzall
I realise that this point is not an immediate priority because it does not look as though we are going to have a general election until 2015, but perhaps the Government could take on board that the extent to which these automatic calling systems need to be brought under control for elections is an area that could be looked at. I support the order.