Wheeled Goods Vehicles

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is quite right that the UK played a leading role in changing international standards. In July 2016, measures for large HGVs with improved mirrors came into effect, largely as a result of our intervention. More work is going on in what is called detection technology, which detects vulnerable road users, and measures using cameras. There will be new requirements for buses and lorries, which could come into effect in 2021 under the direct vision standards initiative.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I do not really understand the Minister’s reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. He said that the Government are focusing on other measures. What other measures? I do not find it acceptable if he says it is either/or, when it is in fact a simple change that the Government could make which could save lives or prevent life-changing injuries.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sorry if the noble Baroness did not understand my reply. What I hope I said was that cement mixers are not exempt; in other words, they have to comply with the sideguard regulations. Since 2012, all new tippers have be fitted with sideguards and we are taking other measures. On 22 November, we published proposals to increase road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders. The Government are taking a wide range of initiatives to promote road safety. Our roads are among the safest in the world but one casualty is one too many.

Prisons: Rehabilitation

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on securing this debate—it is clear that many of us here care about it—and on his masterly delivery of his introductory speech. I have never been to prison, but as a green campaigner I can obviously never rule it out. There are many issues here that I would like to pick up, but today I am going to talk about an initiative where, although I think the Government have potentially got the right idea, some adjustment could improve it enormously. It is a scheme that places probation officers inside the prison; it has proved a success and is now being rolled out across the country. Their clients get to attend meetings regularly and can plan their rehabilitation properly. I understand that such meetings outside prison can fail because the client may not attend. In addition, the probation service loses money if they do not attend, so they do not report meetings that do not take place and we do not know how many such meetings actually happen and how much rehabilitation can be offered.

There are the 2,500 extra prison officers being employed and their remit is going to include 45 minutes a week of one-on-one time with prisoners to establish a relationship. It is hoped that they can communicate problems and issues and identify any help that the prisoner might need. However, these prison officers are not trained in relationship building: it is simply not part of the prison officer culture. That is why there needs to be a connection between what the prison officers are doing and what the probation teams are aiming to do. To give prisoners a sense of there being a future—a way forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, described it—there has to be the hope of a better life. There is a need to bring the two cultures closer together: the probation officers’ soft skills and the security-oriented approach of the prison officers.

Prisons are currently, as we have heard, overstretched and collapsing due to a perfect storm of austerity, induced early retirements and the emergence of the drug Spice. It is easy to see how security can take priority over relationship building and rehabilitation, but without these things prisons will be harder to control, ex-offenders will become offenders again and the prison population will continue to rise. I urge the Government to give training to the new prison officers so that they can become part of the solution and not part of the problem.

House of Lords Reform: Elected Second Chamber

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, none.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Minister did warn me that he was going to give me a brief reply, but I had hoped for more than one word. During the coalition Government there were plans for reform, which were dropped because of Back-Bench rebellion and that sort of thing, but since then the public atmosphere has changed and even staunch traditionalists are calling for the abolition of this House. Does the noble Lord not think that the Government should think again and make this House truly representative, accountable and democratic?

Government Vehicles: Procurement

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the first part of the noble Lord’s question, the Government published a document in December last year, Government Buying Standards for Transport, which makes their position on cars absolutely clear:

“The default is zero or ultra low emission at tailpipe with alternatives considered only in exceptional circumstances”.


As the fleet is refreshed—we keep cars for four or five years—and as that mandate begins to bite, so the percentage of government cars that are electrified will inevitably be driven up. As for his broader question, we will be publishing our clean air strategy later this year. We are due to respond shortly to a Select Committee report recommending that the Government should set out a procurement route map to show how they will achieve this target in the Budget and extend this commitment to cover the fleets of all departments, agencies and public bodies.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, are the Government putting any energy into thinking about reducing their car fleet overall? The Minister mentioned cleaning up the air. The best way to clean up the air is not to have any vehicles at all and to encourage people to walk and cycle, including Ministers. Have the Government considered that?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

This Minister certainly has. Not only do I have an all-electric car, but I have a non-electric bicycle, and I suffer from range anxiety with both. As for reducing the fleet, the document to which I referred a moment ago starts by asking government departments whether regular journeys are required at all, whether journeys can be replaced by phone teleconference and whether the need for a vehicle is still valid or just a legacy arrangement. The cost of the Government Car Service continues to be reduced.

Terrorism: Public Alert Technology

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right that some work was done a few years ago—I think in 2014—but at that stage it was decided not to make progress. Progress was reignited by the report done by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and the correspondence with the Mayor’s Office and the Cabinet Office. As a result of that, progress is now being made. I accept what the noble Lord has said about a possible delay. We think the scheme has potential and we are working it up.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, did the Minister’s meeting this morning have anything to do with the fact that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was coming up this afternoon?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The meeting I had this morning was precisely because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had a Question, which he put to me. However, the work was in hand and if the noble Baroness looks at the progress report—which I think came out last October, following the noble Lord’s report—it said:

“Engagement is continuing between City Hall, the Cabinet Office and other partners on this work. MOPAC”—


which is the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—

“will continue to work with central government to make the case for a trial in London of the technology suggested in Lord Harris’ review”.

So it is not the case that nothing was happening before the noble Lord tabled his Question.

Revised Draft Airports National Policy Statement

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I listened with horror as the noble Baroness the Minister laid out the Government’s rather quaint and old-fashioned plan for Heathrow expansion, with its overoptimistic, fantastical mitigation factors, and felt that the Government have not learned any lessons from all the court cases they have been taken through on issues such as climate change. The fact is that the so-called benefits of Heathrow expansion cannot possibly measure up to the disbenefits for the bulk of society—not just for the people around the airport but for the bulk of us, who will end up paying for a lot of the measures that Heathrow would like to see implemented.

For starters, Heathrow expansion will contribute to air pollution. It will negate all the measures that the current Mayor of London is putting in place in and around London. It will be impossible to keep within his plans if the expansion goes ahead. Heathrow is already a pollution hotspot that breaches legal limits. The plans include schemes that have yet to be identified and laid out clearly, and they make all sorts of optimistic claims about public transport use. I am not sure whether the Minister laid this out but I would like to hear by how much Heathrow Airport is planning to subsidise public transport. Quite honestly, you cannot expect Transport for London and London taxpayers, as well as taypayers all over the UK, to pay for this extension of public transport.

What is definitely planned is expanded car parking, with at least 40,000 to 60,000 extra vehicles a day on the roads. Air pollution from Heathrow with this expanded road capacity will shorten people’s lives—there is absolutely no way round it.

Noise from Heathrow currently impacts on 1.5 million people—a figure based on World Health Organization standard levels. It does not just impact on those around the airport. It is marvellous that a lot of insulation will be installed in houses around the airport, but, quite honestly, everybody in London is impacted at some point by the noise levels from flights overhead. We were told that £40 million will be available to insulate some local schools, but it is an absolutely paltry sum which will be nowhere near enough. Added to that is the fact that children obviously have to go outside to play, and they will be playing in dirtier air and noisier playgrounds. I do not see how Heathrow Airport can justify any expansion.

A fully operational, three-runway airport, open from 5.30 am, could mean that night flights jump by a third. The safeguards that should be in the NPS are simply not there, and the final decision about flight paths will not be taken until after the NPS has been signed off. Therefore, how can the Government be sure that any of those mitigating factors will be valid? Currently, 102,000 people live around Heathrow and are exposed to very high levels of noise. They are up to 20% more likely to suffer a stroke or have heart disease. Again, the noise reduction from insulation might be very effective when they are in their houses, but what about when they want to go to the shops or travel locally? Insulation will not help them then. I guess that headphones might help if Heathrow Airport would like to supply a pair to every single resident.

The NPS forecast is that there will be five domestic routes, down from the current eight, which means that regional airport capacity will shrink. That is an optimistic forecast that ignores what will happen if a future Government enforce a cap on climate change gases and aviation is hit by increased charges. If unmanaged, Heathrow expansion will increase climate change gases by a third. How can the Government feel that that is justified?

Will the UK economy benefit from Heathrow expansion? In fact, it probably will not, but the owners of Heathrow will. Over half the new passengers will never leave the Heathrow shopping mall, as they will be on international connecting flights. The benefit might go to a few shops but the general population will not benefit from more jobs and more sales.

The NPS also includes tunnelling the M25 and diverting some major roads. I would like to know just how much Heathrow Airport is putting into that expense. I would like some clear figures, because it has been very difficult to get them. The upgrading of trains on South Western Railway and Southern rail are mere aspirations, yet there are meant to be an extra 200,000 trips per day by public transport, a lot of them relying on the Metropolitan line and the Elizabeth line, which are already being expanded to cope with other over- crowding problems.

I would like to quote from a BBC article by Roger Harrabin which has been published today. It concerns a report produced by four Commons Select Committees —the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Health Committee, the Transport Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee—which have been rather critical of some of the Government’s actions. They want a new clean air Act and a clean air fund financed by the motor industry. These will impact on Heathrow expansion because, even before that happens, Heathrow will again be in breach of all sorts of legal limits. I would love to read out the whole article because it is fascinating. Roger Harrabin says:

“The report—the first time that four committees are thought to have collaborated—urges the Treasury to take greater account of the costs of air pollution when setting tax and spend policy”.


But of course, allowing Heathrow expansion to go ahead is something that the Government will also have to take into account, given that air pollution will almost certainly increase. It already has a huge impact on the NHS, which is having to deal with people’s heart and breathing problems, and it will have an impact in the future because of the thousands of children whose lungs have already been stunted by air pollution and who will need care from the NHS far into the future.

The Government’s long-term target of abolishing cars driven only by petrol and diesel by 2040 is also rather feeble. The article points out that India has made the same pledge but for 2030. There is also the fact that replacing cars with more cars is not necessarily the answer. Electric cars can also be polluting if their source of electricity is not renewable.

Finally, the article states that,

“recent reports have drawn a possible link between attention deficit disorder, dementia and air pollution”.

Therefore, again, not only is air pollution having an impact now but it will do so far into the future.

I end by pointing out that there is no guarantee that air pollution will not get worse. In fact, we can probably guarantee that it will. There is no guarantee that regional airports and jobs will not go into decline as Heathrow favours international routes—perhaps the Minister could comment on that in his reply. There is no guarantee that taxpayers will not be landed with a multibillion pound bill for new transport infrastructure to support Heathrow Airport. There is no guarantee that several hundred thousand residents in the south-east—not just around the airport—will not find that their sleep is even more disturbed than it is now. And there is no guarantee that climate change will not get worse as a result of Heathrow expansion. Quite honestly, this national policy statement on Heathrow is a joke. It displays an old-fashioned way of thinking about the problems that we face, and it really is time that the Government started to think in a very much greener way.

Local Government Elections (Referendum) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, on bringing it before the House. As far as I am concerned, it is a tiny little brick that we might pull out of a colossal wall of indifference and bad democracy.

I am sympathetic to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that a referendum is often not a way to settle a complex issue. I think we have understood that with the Brexit referendum. But at the same time, I am not sympathetic to his view that voters sometimes find things too complex or cannot be bothered. I would have thought that the voting in Alabama this week shows us that when a cause is just, voters will come alive and cast their vote to make a difference.

I am probably one of the few people here in your Lordships’ House to have been elected under PR but also under the first past the post system. It was difficult to get elected as a London Assembly member and equally difficult to get elected as a local councillor, but it was obviously a very rewarding experience on both counts. There is always a lively debate about proportional representation, with people often feeling strongly one way or the other. But most developments in Britain’s constitution have come about though compromise and negotiation, sometimes as an unusual add-on.

The noble Lord’s Bill offers a gentle compromise on allowing for proportional representation in a way that will have the support of voters. It would not force change from above and would allow local people to decide how they elect their local representatives, which is excellent. I would have thought that the Bill fits quite well with the Government’s declared devolution and localism agenda, because there is no good reason why local people should not be able to choose their own local election system. There is even less reason that the Government should force first past the post on a local authority if there is public and cross-party support to replace it.

It would be pretty hypocritical if the Government were to oppose referenda on the future of local democracy. Quite a lot is made of the will of the people at the moment; we hear of it constantly on both sides of the Chamber and in the other place. It seems that a lot is made of it when it suits people and then it is completely negated when it does not suit their arguments, which is very depressing. Even though I voted for leave, because I want to amend the Bill I am assumed to be a traitor and an enemy of the people, which I find very offensive. You cannot care about the will of the people when they want Brexit but not when they want a local election system to suit themselves. The will of the people is either sacred or it is not.

As a Green Party member, I care very deeply about proportional representation because I am well aware that our first past the post system in the past always produced a strong and stable Government, but that is clearly not the case anymore. It is clear that first past the post has outlived its usefulness. It has become infuriating to watch this minority Government in league with a very niche party which actually got half as many votes as the Green Party at the last election but got 10 times as many MPs. I would really like an answer from the Minister about how half the number of votes and 10 times the number of MPs is fair or democratic in any way.

Green Party policy is that we should have single transferable vote for local elections. It can be done in a way that maintains a constituency or ward link, whichever is more appropriate, while creating a much more proportional voting system. However, there is a variety of views about which system to use, and almost all of them are better than the current system. This Bill would allow local communities to decide for themselves.

It is possible for local authorities to be too strong and stable. A local authority that is totally dominated by one party can easily resist common-sense and reasonable views that are not its own. I could name quite a lot of councils: for example, Sheffield City Council has a supermajority and has denied debate by opposition councillors simply because it can. I do not think that is democratic in any sense.

Directly elected mayors have been a very interesting experiment. In London, the mayor has quite a lot of scrutiny because the London Assembly is a very competent group of elected politicians and the mayor can be held to account. In other places, it is not as easy and a lot of tweaking is needed with mayors of cities. The balance of power between councillors and the mayor was considered, to some extent, by the Court of Appeal in the Doncaster libraries case in 2013, but many questions were left unanswered. The general view is that councillors are massively weakened where there are directly elected mayors, so the mayors have a lot of leeway that they may perhaps not use to best effect. We need to shake up our political system to break up the safe seats, rotten boroughs and political monopolies. It is not healthy for democracy when we have those sorts of things.

Returning to the Bill, it is very sensible and moves forward on an important issue. We are told that people are tired of politicians and experts telling them what is best and that power is being wrested back from cosy elites. We are told that politicians must respect the will of the people. If we can trust the public on Brexit, then we can trust them on virtually anything, so let us try with this Bill to start a process of making our system more democratic.

Today, there were three Second Readings in which I would have liked to have spoken, but I do not want to hog lots of time, so I am speaking in this debate only. If I had some Green colleagues, noble Lords would not have to hear from me all the time. I would have thought that is a big enough incentive to get some more Green Peers in the House of Lords.

Housing: Availability and Affordability

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a little daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, after such a passionate speech, which I wholeheartedly agreed with. I was also born in a council house; I live now in a council flat, albeit privately owned, and I love the sense of community and security that living on a council estate can offer. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for bringing this debate to the House. It is a crucial time: the situation is worsening daily and we need dramatic action.

I want to make three specific points on what is obviously a huge topic—I should like to speak for much longer than six minutes. I have three specific questions to which I would appreciate an answer. My first question is about an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to: land banking by developers and builders, which often delays the supply of housing and makes it more expensive when it does come on stream. Have the Government thought about land value taxation, which is a very simple method that will make everything much better? It would remove the incentive for land banking and holding back on building houses.

My second question is about the demolition of estates. It seems to be happening quite a lot—I have seen council estates demolished against the wishes of the residents themselves. It is absolutely wrong to do that, if residents like the place they are living in. What happens is that estates are demolished and less affordable social housing is then brought in—and some of the housing is sold off privately and very expensively. I understand why councils do it; they have been kept short of money by this Government. But if you demolish estates against the will of residents, you are not listening to people who understand how that development works. That is extremely damaging.

My third point is about community housing. It has been said already that more housing could be built, but sometimes nimbys are blocking it—but in fact many communities are stepping up and providing more affordable homes through community-led housing. Such groups have already built 800 homes in recent years, many in areas of outstanding natural beauty, having won support for more homes than the local council thought likely or even possible. In the spring of 2016, the Government announced the community housing fund, designed to help community-led groups build affordable homes. It could help them to build a further 12,000 homes over five years. The first year’s money went directly to councils, but the Government have still not released any funding for this financial year, more than halfway through the year. When I asked the Government in July when the money would be released I was told, “In due course”. The appropriate time would have been in March, after the sector submitted a detailed proposal to the Government. The longer it waits, the more projects get stuck in limbo and the fewer homes acceptable to local communities can be built. A decision from the Government on the community housing fund is long overdue. When will it happen?

As I have a little more time, I shall react to some of the things that I have heard. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the garden villages, which are so revolting. I would add Poundbury to that mix—it is a truly vile development, and how he got away with it I have absolutely no idea.

I take the point about undistinguished green belt, but it may be quite valuable for biodiversity. One person sees brambles and another sees habitat for all sorts of birds, insects and mammals. So we have to be very careful. There is even an issue about building on brownfield sites, which can be incredibly biodiverse. Every single site should be assessed properly before anything is built, and green belt should be the last option, simply because it is part of our heritage and incredibly valuable for us to breathe and relax in.

The clean growth plan was released today, which offers all sorts of opportunities for not only reducing our carbon burden but making life better for people on very limited incomes. One issue that I would very much like to see included is energy storage solutions in the home. Greens often talk about things for 10, 15 or even 20 years before they get picked up by the majority of other parties, so I would like to say, “Please put this on your radar”. Home energy storage solutions would be an incredible way in which to reduce people’s expenditure on energy and take pressure off the national grid.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Friday 3rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am aware that, when I introduced this Bill at its First Reading, it did not receive a rapturous reception on all sides of the House. Therefore, I state very clearly that it is not aimed at destroying or abolishing this House—on the contrary, it aims to preserve it in very much its present form while providing it with a new democratic legitimacy to protect it from destruction in the years to come. I therefore ask noble Lords to give it a fair hearing in keeping with the traditions of this House, which are a part of what I am seeking to conserve.

Some years ago it was said by the Government that,

“it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.

That was in the introduction to the Parliament Act 1911. We had to wait a further 88 years for that promise to begin to be honoured in the 1999 House of Lords Act, by the abolition of the right of the majority of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords. However, its fulfilment is still a matter of unfinished business.

Since then there have been three attempts to move matters forward; two by the then Labour Government and another by the 2010 to 2015 coalition Government. But all failed to achieve the support of either House. Nevertheless, the issue remains a live one, so much so that the manifestos of all the major parties at the 2015 general election included the intention to further reform the House of Lords—although the Conservative manifesto added that it would not, for them, be a priority. The 1999 Act was only a temporary stop on the road to full democratic reform. There can be little doubt that until further substantial reform takes place, it will remain firmly on the political agenda. Even if it does not happen under the present Government, the issue will not go away. It will be taken up by the next Government, of whatever complexion that may be. Whether that is in five, 10 or even 15 years, it will be a short time in comparison to the 106 years since the 1911 Act—and a short time indeed in the 800-year history of this House, since Magna Carta.

Since democratic reform is inevitable sooner or later, there are two ways in which this House can react to the prospect. One is for the House simply to turn its back on the idea of reform and wait, ostrich-like, until a future House of Commons imposes reform on it. The second course, which I argue is a much better option and which I seek to present in the Bill, is for the House to recognise the inevitability of eventual reform. We can take the initiative and design our own reform in a way that satisfies the legitimate demands of democracy, while preserving all that is best about our history, traditions and present arrangements. If we can do this, and pass our own reform Bill, it would be extremely difficult for those in the other place to then turn it down.

Let me explain how I believe this can be done. At the heart of the problem are two diametric viewpoints, and the fact that both are perfectly valid. From one, the House of Lords is seen as wholly undemocratic, based on privilege and patronage and entirely lacking in legitimacy. From this viewpoint, it should be abolished and replaced with a wholly elected Chamber. From the other viewpoint, the House of Lords is an institution that, either despite or because of the strange succession of historical accidents that have led to its present make-up, does a good and worthwhile job, contains an unrivalled wealth of experience and specialised knowledge, provides a platform from which people of outstanding achievement can deservedly contribute to the national debate, holds Governments and Ministers to account, and corrects the errors and omissions of the other place—and does all this with a traditional politeness and civility that is respected by the public in a way that the goings-on in the other place are not. From this viewpoint, for all these reasons, it should be left just as it is.

Not only are both these viewpoints valid, it is possible for one person to hold both simultaneously. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Blair Government failed to find an acceptable third way in an arithmetical splitting of the difference between the two views. For the abolitionists, a second Chamber would remain undemocratic unless it was wholly elected, while for the preservationists, no reform that involved expelling half or more of the present Members could possibly retain those features that they hold dear.

My Bill puts forward an entirely different approach. It would retain 100% of the present membership, except for the 92 hereditary Peers who were permitted to stay under the 1999 Act. It would allow for new life Peers to be created in the future with the right to sit in this House but, at the same time, would provide the reformed House with 100% democratic legitimacy. The key to achieving this apparently impossible reconciliation of opposites, and the compromise at the heart of my Bill, is that the life Peers and Lords spiritual would become full but non-voting Members of the reformed House. They would retain all their existing rights and privileges, except that of voting in Divisions of the House. It is a big concession, but it is absolutely necessary because nothing less will satisfy those who demand democratic legitimacy, including those who would rather abolish the House lock, stock and barrel. It is the price that must be paid by preservationists to preserve everything else, and to leave the abolitionists, once and for all, with no further case for reform.

There may be some who would argue against my Bill on the ground that it creates two classes of Member, voting and non-voting. However, the reality is that we already have two classes of Member: those who attend frequently, vote and partake in the business of the House—the so-called working Peers, many of whom are hereditary—and the remainder, who attend and vote less frequently or perhaps do not come at all. There is no exact definition, but between 200 and 300 Members of the current House would probably consider themselves to be working Peers—some more full-time than others. Under the proposals in my Bill, there would be 292 elected voting Members of a reformed Chamber, and current Peers would be eligible to stand for those positions without having to renounce their peerages. Elected Members would serve for an eight-year term and half would be elected every four years, so there would also be a four-year transitional period during which there would be 146 elected voting Members and 146 current Peers—perhaps those who had been most active over the previous years—who would retain their voting rights. It is not unreasonable to expect that most current working Peers who represent a party would be adopted by their party as candidates in those elections.

My Bill also provides that the group of Cross-Bench Members would be treated as a party for those elections, so present Cross-Benchers could also stand for election. It is quite possible that their group would be a popular option for many electors disillusioned with party politics. It is therefore likely that at least a significant proportion of the new elected Members would be current Peers, but with their voting rights endorsed by a democratic mandate. Those noble Lords who did not wish to stand for election as voting Members, or who did so unsuccessfully, would remain as Members of this House, with all their other rights and privileges intact.

The elections would take place using a regional list system, essentially the same as that used since 1999 for the election of UK Members of the European Parliament, but electing twice as many Members at a time. My reasons for choosing this system rather than any other are first, that it is a proportional system, and, secondly, that although it may not be the best or the most proportional of the many proportional representation systems available, it is the only such system that is already in use throughout the UK and, as such, is one with which voters, politicians and returning officers are already familiar.

I do not expect all Members of the House to agree with all the measures in my Bill. I believe, however, that the ideas contained in it have the potential to produce a reform of this House that would combine the preservation of the best features of the present Chamber with democratic legitimacy, which is essential if the House is to survive at all beyond the first quarter of this century. These ideas are certainly worthy of serious debate and consideration, not just at Second Reading but in Committee, so that the House can look at the various provisions in detail, amend them if it sees fit to do so and make a serious attempt to design its own reform, rather than waiting for a future House of Commons to impose a version that we perhaps do not like.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I have nearly finished. Perhaps the noble Lord would not mind if I conclude.

Some people have said that my Bill cannot succeed because it is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. If I may use the analogy without disrespect to my fellow Peers, the point is that reform, like Christmas, is coming whether the House votes for it or not. I am offering noble Lords a chance to vote for a vegetarian Christmas.

In conclusion, I have a confession to make. I did not write this Bill. It was written by Brig Oubridge, who, I think noble Lords will agree, has written a very fine Bill that is worthy of being passed into law. It has been through the Green Party conference and voted on as Green Party policy. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed today and I realise that I am the only thing standing between your Lordships and lunch, so I shall be fairly brief. I will not be able to answer all the questions put to me, and I apologise for that, but I am happy to talk to anyone who would like to discuss these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, opened his remarks with the whole idea of polls, which we know to be almost completely discredited. He used numbers a lot. I could argue that there are as many Conservative Peers called Malcolm contributing to this debate as there are women Peers, but it would be utterly meaningless. When we talk numbers, it is important to make sure that they mean something.

Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Low, I understand your reservations about elections and I am delighted that you are in favour of reform. You asked in particular whether non-voting Peers would have the right to speak, and I can say that they most definitely would. I love the idea of nominations from civil society and that is sort of what I am trying to get at through a Cross-Bench party grouping.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that I am glad you can support the Bill—

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I am sorry, but would the noble Baroness permit me to ask her to address the House and not individuals within it? We do not say “you”, we say “noble Lords”.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I offer my apologies. I am quite good at languages; I do not know why I am having a problem with the language used in the House of Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that non-voting would be a massive concession, and that is absolutely true. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to a “soft landing”, and I think that was my motive. It is a kindness to those who are here already and have contributed massively. We would keep them for as long as we possibly can. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich pointed out that we must look at the powers, too, but that is not the point of this Bill. I agree with him and I think that in general we have it more or less right, but again, that is not the point of this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out that this is the third Bill, so there is an appetite for change. The noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out that there is no consensus on the matter, possibly apart from the size of the House. That is useful, but we have to find consensus on other things as well.

Several Peers mentioned the patronage of the Prime Minister and said that it must stop because it has been abused recently. I totally agree because it brings discredit to the House. The only thing that can be said for it is that it brings down the average age of the House. I am 67 and feeling my age, but I am still under the average age here, which is 69.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that successors to hereditary Peers also brought the average age of the House down? The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and I combined have been here for more than 100 years. We were quite young when we arrived.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the noble Lord. I personally think hereditaries have contributed massively to the House. Some of my best friends are hereditaries.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

That is not quite true. Their contribution is huge, but it is an anomaly in today’s world that they are still here. Of course, there is nothing to stop them standing for election under my scheme.

The “simple” scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, left me breathless. I look forward to discussing it with him further. I was very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I am not a psephologist; I cannot argue voting systems with a Lib Dem. I agree with the right of recall, which is quite an important part of democracy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, mentioned that this is a probing Bill and talked about this being a House of elders. That is a really valid thing to say. It is about not necessarily age, but wisdom and experience. That is something that I have noticed is of incredible value here. Whatever changes we make, we must not lose that.

I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, enjoyed himself today. I am not sure I did, but at least somebody in the Chamber did. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that I would be disappointed if this did not get on to the statute book. Quite honestly, I have been thrilled to get a Second Reading, but of course I will be disappointed if it does not get on to the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned that the Whips are a danger to democracy, but with only one term of office the power of the Whips would be considerably reduced. That would not necessarily be a problem.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her points. She raised an awful lot of points that I will not answer now, but I will be quite happy to answer them privately. As a point of record, I support the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It is plainly ridiculous that the Government are not supporting it.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the valuable role of the House. I was grateful that he said he was not unsympathetic. That is very kind. He said that this was not the time. I have to ask: if not now, when? It is never the time. Some future Government really have to grasp this nettle and make a difference, and make the House representative of the nation. At the moment it simply is not. I also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I did not mean to prevent his speaking. I did not realise that that would be the outcome of asking him to wait.

This is a really good Bill. I am grateful for the debate, but we have to move on. We have to make decisions—and if we make them for ourselves it will be a lot less painful than if they are made for us. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We support the amendment from these Benches. I congratulate those who tabled it on their persistence and on taking forward the work of a Select Committee to seek to translate it into legislation. That is an example of how this House can work so effectively.

As others have said on many occasions, we should not have to legislate, but it seems that we do in order to change attitudes. Sometimes we have to make something enforceable before people come to understand that the subject is actually a right. The amendment has been described as anticipatory. Unfortunately one often sees that it is too easy for someone who infringes a rule not to take the sanction seriously. It can be regarded as an operating cost. If you are caught out and have to pay a penalty it is tough, but it is part of the costs of the business.

The value of the amendment is that bringing the issue into the licensing process will concentrate minds at the right point. I slightly take issue with my noble friend Lady Thomas, who talked about teeth. I say that it is about a mindset—so minds rather than teeth —but I think that is the only difference between us.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is about mainstreaming the issue, making sure that everyone approaches it with the right objectives in mind. It is very harsh—almost offensive—to expect the objectives of the amendment to be met by individuals who find themselves unable to get into a set of premises, to use that as the example, not having known beforehand that there would be a problem, and to put the burden on them, in retrospect, to take it up—and we know that these rights are difficult to enforce, because individual rights are not easily enforced.

The Minister said in Committee that it would be inappropriate for licensing conditions to refer to specific legislation, because there is already an obligation to comply with that legislation. The new formulation is very neat. The current objective is shorthand, in just the same way as the other four licensing objectives are shorthand—one of them is for protection of children, safety is another. Indeed, the Minister gave examples of that in Committee. There would not be a call for the amendment if guidance worked and if good practice, which is no doubt observed by the good practitioners, was observed by those who have made the amendment necessary. We are very enthusiastic in support of the amendment, although it is sad to have to be enthusiastic for it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I support the amendment not because I am disabled but because like most of our population I am getting older. Although I can still run for a bus, there is going to be a time when I shall not be able to. So this is not only for disabled people—it is for us all. It is for the whole population, and I think that we have been incredibly flabby as a nation in not putting this into practice before. I was astonished to find that there was this let-out and gap in our legislation and that people can still exclude and discriminate against an important section of society. If we do not all support this amendment today, I think that we are being thoroughly wet and flabby and not living up to the ideals of an enlightened society.

[Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I was a member of the ad hoc Select Committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, along with others who have already spoken. It was a great learning experience. In my long lifetime, if not as long as some in this House, I have always been struck by the immense progress that we have made over the years. But when you get into the detail, you are absolutely appalled that the rest of society imposes on our many colleagues with disabilities that they shall not enjoy that which we all take for granted. Imagine if we were not able to go into a restaurant or a pub—I am a teetotaller, but I spent half my life in pubs and bars trying to find Labour Members when I was Labour Chief Whip. It is appalling that we expect disabled people to put up with second best.

The Act put through in 1995 by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, is one of which the Tory Party is rightly very proud. I ask the Government to live up to that Act and agree to the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I recognise that there will soon, I hope, be evidence available from the Scottish change in the law. There will be evidence, as we heard outlined previously, about the rural economy, and there will, I hope, be evidence about the reductions in deaths and injuries. We need to be careful about the difference between correlation and causation when we look at that evidence. But there will also be, I hope, the evidence from the criminal courts on how the change in the alcohol limit affects prosecution, particularly that of causing death by careless driving. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give assurances that the Government will take forward this matter constructively. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I support both Amendments 174 and 175. I rise slightly wearily because I do not know, after the calm, clear and patient explanation from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, of why this is necessary and it is illogical not to do it, that I can find any more reasons to give to the Government for making this change. However, I will try.

We heard from Mr Grayling in the Daily Mail today—he was Secretary of State for Transport this morning, but I am not sure if he still is—that the Government are,

“not interested in penalising drivers who have had ‘a glass of wine at the pub’.”

Nor are we. Drinking is a perfectly acceptable way to spend your time, but I object when the person who has had a drink gets into a car, which then becomes a dangerous weapon. We hear again and again that any alcohol in your blood can impair your faculties and behaviour. Drinking and driving is just not something that we ought to accept in civilised society.

We heard that the number of deaths has plateaued at 240 a year since 2010. From the available evidence, there are estimates that 25 people die unnecessarily a year, and we could reduce that number still by bringing down the limit of blood alcohol content. Yet it seems to me that we accept 25 deaths a year. Why on earth do we think it is okay for 25 people to die on the roads? That does not even include the people injured from crashes. Some 8,000 people a year are injured from crashes, so if we accept that 25 lives would be saved, we must also accept that quite a lot of injuries would be prevented as well.

Lowering the limit would be a deterrent. We do not need to wait for Scotland. Multiple countries and multiple reviews show that lowering the limit has a deterrent effect. It is in fact the biggest deterrent, and it is cheap and easy to do. It is something we ought to do quickly. Martin Luther King said that,

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

It is an injustice when we accept that deaths on the road are something we do not want to deal with because we do not want to stop people drinking and getting in their cars afterwards. Personally, I think that is unacceptable.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the evidence. An analysis was done in Switzerland comparing both novice and experienced drivers who had been fatally or seriously injured, and whether they had been drinking alcohol. The analysis compared two time periods, before and after reducing the legal limits, for 2011 to 2013 and 2014-15. In between-time, the limits in Switzerland were reduced to 20 milligrams for novices and 50 milligrams for others. The study found a larger reduction of serious alcohol-related accidents in both groups of drivers than of accidents without alcohol between the two time periods.

Early trends from Scotland with respect to the impact on fatal accidents of reducing the drink-driving blood alcohol levels to the same levels in December 2014 are also very promising. In 2010, the North report published by the Government reviewed drink and drug-driving laws, and modelled that a lower limit of 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood would save a significant number of lives. Applying those models to Scotland suggested that between three and 17 fewer deaths per year could be expected. The good news is that there seems to be a trend of that happening. In 2015, the first full year in which the reduced limit was in place, there were 24 fewer fatal accidents, a 13% reduction, and 98 fewer accidents involving serious injury—a 5% reduction.

As the noble Baroness said, it is difficult to attribute causation conclusively. However, is there really any reason why the results found in other countries should not also apply here? I strongly support a reduction in these limits to the same levels that apply in other UK jurisdictions. We must not forget that in May this year, your Lordships’ House also voted to support this reduction, anticipating that this could save as many as 100 lives a year. The measure is supported by a significant majority of the public.