Those who doubt the clarity of purpose of the mission in Afghanistan should listen to the interview on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning with Captain Andrew Tiernan of the Grenadier Guards.  He is on leave and about to return to Afghanistan.   This is his thrid tour of duty and he is clear about the progress that has been made and the importance of the role that British troops are fulfilling.

At the beginning of the interview it was made clear that his appearance on the programme was not at the behest of the Ministery of Defence, but was a consequence of his expressing his frustration to his mother about the way in which the work that he and his colleagues are doing in Afghanistan is being portrayed in the news media.

He emphasised that talk about a pull-out is undermining the work that they are doing and demonstrates a failure to support the troops out there.

I hope his message is taken to heart by those in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties who are sniping at the clarity of the mission or are toying with calling for our troops to be pulled out as some sort of  pre-election stunt.

When the Government introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for the first time it placed a proper legal framework on the extent to which public bodies like local government could use certain surveillance techniques.  If I may remember correctly prior to this the only protections the citizens had were under Common Law.  The new Act codified and limited local council powers with a view to ensuring that Councils only used surveillance powers where there was criminal or potential criminal activity taking place.

In the last few years, however, a number of concerns have been raised that councils were using the powers inappropriately or too frequently.  Conservative Wandsworth Council used the powers nearly three hundred times in four years in some instance to identify people wrongly using a “Blue Badge” parking permit.  Conservative Northamptonshire County Council used the powers to go through people’s rubbish and Conservative Poole Borough Council tracked a woman’s movements to see whether her family properly lived in a primary school catchment area.

The Home Office has now tightened up the rules.  In a written statement, David Hanson MP, Minister of State for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, has made it clear that:

“The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) marked a major step in the protection of privacy. Prior to RIPA, many of the more intrusive techniques which it regulates could be used by any public authority and authorised at any level, for any purpose. There was no comprehensive system of independent oversight, no independent judicial complaints mechanism available in relation to all these techniques, and no means by which Parliament could prescribe the ranks of authorising officers or limit the purposes for which the techniques could be used. …

Nevertheless, a small number of local authorities have authorised techniques under RIPA in circumstances when most of us would say it was not necessary or proportionate for them to do so.”

As a result of a review, the Government will now be introducing the necessary secondary legislation to stop this happening again which:

“will include measures to:

a) clarify the test of necessity and proportionality so techniques will not be used for trivial purposes such as investigating dog fouling or people putting bins out a day early;

b) raise the rank of authorising officer for RIPA techniques in local authorities to senior executive at a minimum of “Director” level;

c) give elected councillors a role in overseeing the way local authorities use covert investigatory techniques;”

This is sensible.  There will be occasions when it is right that public bodies should properly use limited surveillance powers, but such use must be proportionate and the use must be as rigorously controlled as the regime of limitations that apply to the use of such powers by the police and the security services.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill creating a loophole in the proposed new laws on prostitution were finally reached at about 9.40pm last night.  (I think the LibDems had been hoping to spin out the debates on earlier amendments with a view to the debate on prostitution being held over until Thursday.)

The Bill would have made it an offence for someone to purchase sex from another person, if that person was trafficked or had been coerced into being a prostitute.  This would have been a “strict liability” offence – ie it would not be a defence to say that the person charged had not known that the prostitute had been trafficked or coerced.

The LibDems were proposing that such a defence should be possible.  The Conservatives were on a free vote (although their front-bench spokesperson spoke in support of the LibDems) and in practice they were split between those supporting the Government and those supporting the LibDems (mirroring the national – more generic – dispute within the Conservative Party between traditionalist Tories and the libertarians).

Despite the lateness of the hour, there was an excellent debate, which you can read here, with excellent speeches from John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, and from the Attorney General, Baroness Patricia Scotland.
As 11.00pm approached, the Chamber slowly filled up with Labour Peers and it became obvious that, despite a speech from the Conservative front-bench taking the libertarian line, the LibDem amendment would be defeated. When the LibDem spokesperson responded to the debate, she indicated that she would withdraw the amendment rather than have it defeated. (This would have given her the opportunity to reintroduce it next week at Third Reading.) She therefore sought ‘leave to withdraw’ – which is normally automatically given. However, when this was put to the House, a number of us growled ‘No’ which meant that the substantive amendment had to be put. A voice vote was taken with a handful saying ‘Content’ against a roar of ‘Not Content’. From the Woolsack it was suggested that the ‘I think the Not Contents have it’ and when – unusually – this did not produce a counter-shout of ‘Content’, it was declared that ‘The Not Contents have it’ and the amendment was defeated without a Division.

A pager message to Labour Peers had to go through several drafts this afternoon before it was considered to be in a fitting state to send out.  In the end, the message said:

“Votes are expected after dinner on prostitution.  Colleagues are asked to stay for this important business.”

This was a reference to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats which would aim to remove or delete the clauses of the Policing and Crime Bill which make it a “strict liability offence” for somebody to pay another person for sex, if that person has been trafficked or is being coerced into being a prostitute.   (It would not be a defence for the person paying to claim that hadn’t known that the prostitute was trafficked.)

Apparently, the original pager message had said something along the lines of:

“We will move on to prostitution after dinner.  Please be ready ….”

There was a concern about Peers who might have left their pagers at home and whose spouses might read and misinterpret the message.

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, is publishing his memoirs which are designed to get his own back on all his enemies “set the record straight” on his Commissionership.  The first instalment is serialised in today’s Mail on Sunday.

This is an interesting choice of vehicle for him, given the strained relations he had with the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday when he was Commissioner.  No doubt he has had to compromise  under the strain of getting by on – according to the Daily Mail – an index-linked pension of £126,000 per annum plus a lump sum of lump-sum payment of £672,000, a golden handshake of £295,000 plus compensation of £100,000 (he earned between £580,000 and £590,000 in his final months at the Met according to Note 4 of last year’s MPA accounts).

I supported Sir Ian Blair during his Commissionership and believe that the Metropolitan Police achieved much during his time as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, so it was with considerable interest that I looked at the extracts from his memoirs this morning.

I was more than a little angry therefore to read Sir Ian’s description of the “cash for honours” probe and, in particular, these comments:

“Another difficulty was that this was to be a case fought out in the media.

Part of the investigation involved pre-interview disclosure of evidence, which passed through many hands on its way to those who were to be interviewed. The timing of a number of revelations appeared to be linked with this process.

It was obvious to us that, as in the case of David Kelly, the formidable briefing machine of central Government – and indeed Labour interests on the Metropolitan Police Authority and at City Hall – was at work, rubbishing the inquiry.”

The implication seems to be that Labour members of the MPA (and I assume he is including me amongst their number) were privy to details of the inquiry, were leaking them to the media and to key protagonists, and were busy rubbishing the inquiry.

I am not a libel lawyer, but I suspect such inferences are defamatory.

Sir Ian Blair acknowledges that even he was only kept informed of progress on the inquiry on a “need to know” basis.

I would not have dreamed of asking to be informed about any of the details of an inquiry such as this and indeed had I done so would have expected – quite rightly – to be told that it would not be appropriate to provide them.

However, I did go out of my way to defend the inquiry to anyone – including Labour colleagues in Parliament – who asked me about it.  This was not always a popular viewpoint.  Nonetheless, I took the position that the allegations at the centre of the inquiry were extremely serious and that the Metropolitan Police had no option but to investigate them robustly.  I was happy therefore to defend the inquiry, led by John Yates, and the tactics pursued as part of it.

Len Duvall, who was then the Chair of the MPA followed a similar line and I am sure he was subjected to even more pressure than I was on the subject.  His view – like mine – was that the Police had no alternative but to follow the evidence.  Indeed, it was the duty of the Police to do so, even if that meant interrogating the hard drives of computers in Downing Street or in the homes of officials, or arresting such officials early in the morning at their homes.  Not a popular position in the Labour Party at the time, but the correct one.

It would be seriously damaging to British politics if it was believed that such allegations would not be investigated simply because of the seniority of the those accused.  (The same principle incidentally applied in the Damian Green case more recently and for that matter to allegations thirty-odd years ago that the Leader of the Liberal Party had tried to have his boy-friend murdered.)

Thus, Sir Ian’s inferences against myself and Len Duvall are not only grotesquely unfounded, but also display a failure to recognise who was actually defending the Metropolitan Police (and for that matter Sir Ian himself) during his Commissionership.

If he is an “unreliable witness” on this, I wonder how much store we can set by the rest of his memoirs.

Today is the fifth full day of the Committee discussion of the Policing and Crime Bill.  This is the stage when Bills are debated clause by clause with many hundreds of amendments put forward and considered.  There are rarely votes, but it is the opportunity to explore issues and get statements from Ministers on the objectives of particular clauses and how they are expected to work.

I have three amendments down: amendment numbers 152AV; 152AW; and 152AZ.  These deal with the arcane subject of which Secretary of State should arbitrate in the case of disputes between airport operators and the police about how much the former should pay the latter for providing airport policing for security purposes (ie is it the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Transport?) and, in the event of arbitration, how quickly the arbitration should be carried out.

The House sat at 2.30pm and business began with questions, followed by a statement from Lord Peter Mandelson on the industrial dispute in the Royal Mail.  The Committee stage debates on the Policing and Crime Bill then started at about 4pm.

My problem is that there around fifty groups of amendments to be considered and my amendments are about two-thirds of the way through.  I am chairing a meeting of the All-Party Group on Policing with Sir Hugh Orde, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, that is scheduled to take place at 7.30pm until 9.30pm.  When will my amendments be reached?

My initial calculations suggest that the business will be completed around midnight and that my amendments should be reached at around 9.30pm or 10pm.  This suits me fine.

However, the first two hours of debate are much quicker than expected – so that by 6pm, I have revised my estimates and am expecting my amendments to be reached about 6.30pm.  Again that suits me fine and I take my place in the Chamber ready to move my amendments.

At this point, the progress of debate starts to get slower and the two preceding groups of amendments take fifty minutes as other issues around airport policing are debated.  The House is concerned that the costs of security may be such a burden on some of the smaller airports that they will go out of business.  So much so, that I am forced to intervene:

“Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I hope when my noble friend responds to this short debate that he will give a categorical assurance that he will not allow the security of airline passengers and those working at airports to be compromised because of what the airport operators say is their financial situation. I trust that we will be given an assurance that, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, security and safety will remain paramount.”

In the event, my amendments are reached at 7.20pm and concluded about fifteen minutes later – so I am just able to chair my meeting – albeit arriving a litle breathless and a little late.  All part of the unpredictability of trying to fit other activities around duties in the Chamber.

For those with an interest in the arcane.  This was the discussion on my amendments:

“Amendment 152AV

Moved by Lord Harris of Haringey

152AV: Clause 77, page 102, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Home Secretary”

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 152AW and 152AZ. I begin by repeating the declaration that I made at Second Reading, of being a vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities and a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. In that latter capacity, I have been involved in the oversight of the discussions about policing with Heathrow Airport as well as with the non-designated London City Airport, which have been protracted and so far unsatisfactory in their outcome.

The amendments deal essentially with two issues; first, to establish which Secretary of State will arbitrate disputes about airport security plans. I acknowledge at once that it is of course the convention that Secretaries of State are indivisible and that the Government are absolutely seamless and work wonderfully together, but the purpose of the amendment is to clarify who will have the lead on these matters. I also want to establish what time limits should apply to settling arbitration disputes.

The first issue is who will arbitrate in practice. This section of the Bill comprises amendments to the Aviation Security Act 1982, which is obviously a Department for Transport Act, and would imply that the Secretary of State for Transport is the relevant Secretary of State. However, the Bill is also a Home Office Bill, dealing with matters of security and policing at airports, which would imply that the Home Secretary is intended. This is made worse by Schedule 6, which deals specifically with policing plans at airports. It contains similar provisions about arbitrating disputes where policing plans are not agreed. Again, the same doubts apply in relation to which Secretary of State is intended to be the arbiter.

Aside from these technical points, there may be a difference in the way in which the two Secretaries of State might view disputes. The Home Secretary, being familiar with national security threats, might place more emphasis on that side of the equation, whereas the Department for Transport, being more familiar with the concerns of airport operators, might place more emphasis on commercial considerations, which is precisely the issue that we have been discussing in the past couple of groups of amendments.

This has raised some concern that profitability might be put before security—I note the assurance that my noble friend has already given on that point. When it comes to arbitrating disagreements about airport security plans and airport policing plans, I trust that what we will see is the very closest working together between the two government departments. It is in no one’s interest to drive airports into bankruptcy, but it is particularly important to ensure that security is not compromised or suffers in difficult financial times. That means that there should be clarity about what airport operators are paying for, and that should relate to those national security matters.

I hope that my noble friend will offer some reassurance that the statutory guidance to be issued following Royal Assent will include clear mention of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs being involved. I would also hope for my noble friend’s confirmation that such reassurance will be within the guidance issued, that, if the Secretary of State for Transport has the lead, they should be obliged to act in accordance with it in all applicable cases, and that the paramount importance of security in such cases will be uppermost in their mind.

The second issue in this group of amendments is whether time limits should apply in relation to determining arbitration decisions. We heard much in the Committee’s debates on earlier groupings about who has an incentive to put costs up and who has an incentive to reduce them. Equally, there is an incentive for some to allow these decisions to spin out for as long as possible. If you are currently not paying something, then not doing so until 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 seems much better than having to pay it now. So the issue of time limits is critical. The concern here is that a decision could, as the Bill’s wording stands, be allowed to drift indefinitely. That would mean that police authorities and forces could effectively be out of pocket for some months or even years before being reimbursed for delivery of policing services. Although this would be alleviated by interim payments where agreements already exist, it could prove problematic where they do not. In difficult economic times, this might in extreme situations threaten the policing presence at airports, if money cannot be found elsewhere in the police budget to tide them over until agreement is reached.

Perhaps more serious, because it is probably more likely, is a situation where the dispute is about who should contribute which services to the security plan. This could lead to prolonged uncertainty and incomplete security cover in some respects. It is clear that that a prolonged arbitration process in these circumstances would add to an already significant risk. Any absence of clarity in these matters could lead to confusion and potentially very serious consequences. It also makes forward planning and budgeting resources almost impossible if a dispute continues indefinitely.

I appreciate the difficulty in setting a single timescale for all possible disputes and I am not sure that three months is necessarily the right length of time—I am willing to be persuaded that it might be, let us say, four months as opposed to three—but I have included it for the sake of debate. I should be interested in my noble friend’s views on what would be an acceptable length of time and how decision-making within a sensible time limit can be guaranteed. I beg to move.

Baroness Neville-Jones: Amendment 152AX is probing. It seeks to clarify the meaning and practical effect of the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to disputes. If the Secretary of State decides not to exercise his power, or exercises that power but the dispute is not resolved, the amendment would allow him to determine the dispute; in other words, if the consultation mechanism does not work properly between the parties, the Secretary of State may step in and take a decision. Under what circumstances is it envisaged that the Secretary of State would not exercise his power to require relevant persons to take steps to resolve a dispute? Can the Minister assure the Committee that it does not affect the obligation of the Secretary of State—a point which arises later in the Bill—to consult those who have an interest in the dispute? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State simply decide that he was going to decide, rather than trying to resolve a dispute with the parties?

Lord Bradshaw: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made reference to security as if it were some curtain to be drawn so that nobody could probe the situation once security was mentioned. One has to be very careful: there are plenty of people who will raise various obstacles to the proper appraisal of things that are put forward. Security can be one; safety can be one; and we all know how many of these things can be exaggerated.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, Amendments 152AV, 152AW, 152AX and 152BG seek to ensure that disputes about airport security plans and police services agreements are referred specifically to the Home Secretary for resolution.

Given the legislative convention, to which my noble friend Lord Harris in anger referred, of referring to a Secretary of State generically rather than specifically, I assume the amendments seek reassurance that disputes will be referred to the most appropriate Secretary of State, who will make a fair and proportionate determination. This indeed is how we want the dispute mechanism to work.

The provisions amend the Aviation Security Act 1982. Disputes are likely to cover a whole range of matters, of which policing is only one element. All airports within the national aviation security programme will be subject to these provisions, but not all will have a dedicated policing presence. As the regulator for airport security, the Secretary of State for Transport has contact with the full range of security stakeholders operating at the airport, including the police. The Secretary of State for Transport’s remit for aviation security extends to the United Kingdom as a whole, mirroring the application of these provisions. The Home Secretary’s remit for general policing does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Given these factors, we believe the Secretary of State with responsibility for aviation security as a whole is the most appropriate person to refer disputes to, rather than a Secretary of State who has a more narrow focus in this context.

However, it is important to clarify—I am happy to answer the noble Baroness’s point—that the Home Secretary may well have significant interests in security at the airport, particularly with regards to policing or the functions, for example, of the UK Border Agency. When this is the case, we fully expect that the Home Secretary would be consulted. The dispute resolution provisions already enable this by providing broad powers for the Secretary of State to decide procedures based on the nature and complexity of the matter. Similarly, if it were ever the case that the dispute was to be determined by the Home Secretary, we would expect the Secretary of State responsible for aviation security to be consulted, when appropriate. We have considered this dispute process in consultation with others, and both the Association of Chief Police Officers and industry support the approach taken in the Bill. I hope this provides the Committee with some reassurance.

7.30 pm

Amendment 152AX would require disputes about the content of a police services agreement or the costs of policing to be referred to the Home Secretary before the requirement to produce a police services agreement had been established. Clause 77 prescribes the requirement for an airport security plan, containing a holistic range of security measures. If dedicated policing services are identified in an airport security plan, only then is there a requirement to draw up a police services agreement as set out in Schedule 6. The amendment pre-empts disputes over policing and police services agreements in a clause which is essentially about the preceding stages of the security planning process.

Amendments 152AZ and 152BA raise the importance of ensuring that disputes, whether about the contents of an airport security plan or a police services agreement, do not drag on unnecessarily. We agree that there is very little to be gained from allowing such a situation to develop. Disputes need to be handled in a timely and effective manner. What we would question, however, is the inclusion of a mandatory cut-off period for the handling of disputes, which are likely to vary considerably in length, depending on the nature of the issue itself and the complexity of operations at the airport concerned. On the one hand, it may be that a determination need only resolve a dispute about a single security measure. At the other end of the scale, although it is unlikely, a determination could, require a full consideration of final policing levels at an airport, needing a complete reassessment of the airport security plan and police services agreement. This process could also involve, for example, an inspection carried out by an external party, such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. At one end of the scale, three months might actually represent too long a period to determine a dispute, while, at the other, it could well be insufficient.

It is precisely because of the fact that disputes are likely to be very different that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with broad powers to determine a dispute in a manner he considers to be most suitable. Although the Secretary of State’s primary concern will be to ensure that an effective and fair determination is provided, the importance of ensuring that a determination is provided within a reasonable timeframe is also something of which he may be mindful. The Secretary of State may be able to provide an indicative timetable to parties at the start of a dispute once an assessment of the complexity of the dispute is made, to provide the parties with some level of certainty so as to assist budgetary considerations, for example. However, I caution that this will be dependent on the individual facts of each dispute.

It is worth noting that, when parties have been unable to agree a police services agreement and may be in breach of a requirement to have one in place, the airport operator will still be required to make payments in respect of the interim policing services being provided at the airport. The Secretary of State’s determination, once made, can require repayment to the airport operator by the police if that is judged to be fair in light of payments made to the police during this interim period. Thus the Bill ensures that there is no financial incentive for an operator to seek to prolong disputes indefinitely.

In light of the assurances I have offered I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those responses. I was less clear at the end of the first part of his response than I was at the beginning as to how exactly he envisaged the arrangements working between the various Secretaries of State. What I hope is that, in whatever guidance emerges, there can be clarity about the important nature of security within all this. I would not want to see a position in which commercial issues overrode the situation. However, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and others highlighted about the importance of clarity on what security means and enabling that to be assessed independently by those able to take a step back from it. That is what I envisage the Secretary of State’s role will be. I am grateful that we may be able to look at these matters. Any indication that my noble friend can give before Report as to the nature of the guidance to be issued would be extremely welcome.

As for time limits, I understand that there will be different sorts of circumstances and welcome the fact that there will be circumstances in which an airport operator may be required to pay money from the period from which arbitration takes place. However, I was slightly confused by the language that my noble friend used. He said that the Secretary of State may consider whether the time limit would be reasonable. I may have misheard what he said, but the implication was that it would be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to operate within a reasonable timescale. I am sure that that is not what he intended, but could there be clarity in the guidance to make it explicit that the Secretary of State is required to act in a timely manner and that, potentially, if it were felt that he was operating too slowly, it would be a matter subject to judicial review. On the basis that that is what my noble friend meant, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 152AV withdrawn.

Amendments 152AW and 152AX not moved.”

It is now 11.10pm and the House is still sitting and still debating amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill.

The third Lords Question this afternoon related to what Lord Alf Morris described as the haggling going on over the payment of compensation to some Gulf War veterans.  This is a subject I feel quite strongly about.  It was down to Baroness Ann Taylor to defend the Ministry of Defence stance.

This is the full exchange (in which I intervened – not having intended to when I entered the Chamber):

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost in the last five years of the Ministry of Defence contesting war pensions tribunal awards which were later confirmed on appeal.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion.

The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): My Lords, data on costs in closed cases are not held centrally in respect of war pension scheme and Armed Forces compensation scheme cases where we have appealed first-tier tribunal decisions to the upper-tier tribunal, and which were later confirmed on appeal. Therefore, it is not possible to separate out the costs of cases where our challenge was unsuccessful without examining each individual case and incurring disproportionate costs. A first-tier tribunal decision is challenged only in cases where it is considered that there has been an error of law.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, as ever, but is it not disquieting that, while haggling with Gulf War veterans and bereaved families over pensions still drags on, Parliament cannot yet be told even how much the MoD spent contesting the case of the late Terry Walker who, as my noble friend knows, had his war pension cut from 100 per cent to 40 per cent shortly before he died, leaving his two orphaned children in poverty? Again, how much has been spent on trying to reduce the compensation awarded to Corporal Andrew Duncan of the Light Dragoons from £46,000 to £9,250? Will the MoD continue to contest the award to this brave young soldier, who has undergone 11 operations since being hit in the leg by a bullet in Iraq?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with my noble friend’s use of the word “haggling” in regard to these cases. We do not wish to take money away from any individual, we are trying to make a system which is robust and fair and gives most compensation to those who are most severely injured. My noble friend takes issue with the case of Corporal Duncan and Marine McWilliams that on Monday was adjudicated on. I point out to him that the judge in that case, Lord Justice Carnwath, said in his judgment:

“The Secretary of State was, in my view, entirely justified in bringing the appeal … It seeks to clarify some important and difficult issues relating to construction of the scheme”.

Therefore, I think that the case was worth bringing. It is important that in all these things we ensure that those who are most severely injured and most need help get the most benefit.

Lord Addington: My Lords, when many of these cases are brought to public attention it always appears that the law is, at least to some extent, an ass. Will the Government undertake to ensure that everybody knows exactly why these decisions have been made, and that this is put into the general media so that we can at least understand what the Government say, even if we still disagree with it?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I agree that there is a great deal of misconception and misunderstanding about the nature of those cases and, indeed, about the Armed Forces compensation scheme itself. Whatever its deficiencies, it is a new scheme introduced only in 2005. For the first time it gives tax-free lump-sum payments to serving servicemen. We have doubled the basic lump sums. For the first time there is a guaranteed income for those who are most severely injured, so we have made significant progress. There will always be complex and difficult individual cases but the basic principle behind what we are doing—namely, that those who are most severely injured should get the most help—is one on which the whole House should agree.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, in the case cited by my noble friend, is not the issue at stake the complications that arose during medical treatment? While I understand why there is an important argument to be had about whether that is properly the liability of the compensation scheme, is there not also an issue about the duty of care of the Government towards Armed Forces personnel? Was it not possible to separate out the two issues in this case?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, that is exactly what the judge was referring to when he said that there was a need for clarification. This was a complex case and additional factors came in at a later stage which were not part of the original decision. That is why it was right to seek further clarification. The case will now be remitted back to the independent tribunal, which I hope will come to a decision very quickly. Of course, whatever the decision of that tribunal, the MoD will pay whatever funds and whatever money is recommended.”

I do understand the principle at stake here: the MoD argument is that it should only pay compensation for the injuries received, rather than for any complications that arise during treatment.  However, it is not right that the appearance is given that the MoD is quibbling about paying compensation.  The MoD has a duty of care towards members of the armed forces.  In cases like this, that fact seems to be being forgotten.

The only other contribution on this matter was from Lord Addington, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Chief Whip.  The Conservative benches remained silent.

Lord Paul Myners, the Treasury Minister, demonstrated how he has become an adroit House of Lords performer when he administered a devastating put-down of Cross-bencher Lord Bilimoria in the second Lords Question this afternoon.

He was answering a question originally posed by Lord Joel Barnett (the question was actually asked by Lord Robert Sheldon on his behalf as he was absent today – on his 86th birthday – having suffered a mild stroke in the Chamber on Monday) about what specific policies have been imposed on the banks over which the Government has effective control.

The second supplementary came from Lord Bilimoria, the founder of Cobra Beer which has recently faced some insolvency problems with creditors losing £75 million.  The exchange – which drew gasps from the House – was as follows:

“Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, why is it that—I know this through bitter experience—everyone from whom I hear in the SME community continues to feel that they cannot get lending from the banks? Why have the Government saved the banks while not doing enough to save the businesses that those banks are there to serve?

Lord Myners: The experience that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, describes is not one that completely accords with what we hear from the banks. Yesterday afternoon, my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch and I met the heads of small business lending of every major UK bank, together with representatives of the CBI, the Engineering Employers’ Federation and the Federation of Small Businesses. It was quite clear from that meeting that the primary issue in terms of lending to creditworthy, well managed and solvent businesses is demand. I cannot speak to personal experiences in which those definitions of business may not necessarily apply.”

Squelch!  Who can he have had in mind when he referred to businesses that were not creditworthy, well managed and solvent?

Consecutive days’ editions of the Evening Standard have highlighted a split in the Tory party on airport policy in London.

Yesterday, the Tories said no more runways for London airports.  Indeed, a manifesto commitment was promised to scrap plans for a third runway at Heathrow with an added pledge that there would be no expansion at Gatwick or Stansted.

This sparked cynical remarks that  (perish the thought) the Conservatives were eying Labour-held marginals on the Heathrow flightpath.

Today, we hear (from the same reporter) that, in fact, billions of pounds have been pledged by oil-rich countries and China to build a brand-new additional airport in the Thames Estuary.

I understand there are no relevant marginals in the flightpath of the proposed new airport.

So yesterday’s arguments were nothing about climate change or high principle: it was just about votes.

The SNP are threatening legal action if they are not included in any Party Leader election debates.

The reality is that once it was proposed that the LibDems and Nick Clegg be included in any election debate this was inevitable.  Who else?  UKIP?  The BNP?  The Monster Raving Loonies?

Nick Clegg is a fantasist in believing that he has a serious prospect of being Prime Minister.  I know it.  You know it.  And the public knows it.

People are interested in seeing a debate between the two serious contenders for the job.  Anyone else there is an irrelevance.  What is more it will detract from the real debate that people want to see happen.

If the debates are to happen, the objective has got to be to enable the public to hear directly from the Leaders of the Labour and Conservative Parties – and nobody else.

Does this undermine the expectation of broadcasting impartiality?  No – because it gives people the opportunity to examine the stance of those who are in serious contention to be Prime Minister (and not the fantasists).

If there is any doubt on the matter, perhaps the two main Parties in Parliament should agree a simple piece of legislation that puts the issue beyond question.   Let’s have “The Party Leaders Election Debate Bill” and stop all this nonsense from the LibDems, the SNP and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all.