Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

I am grateful that my noble friend the Minister took the time to meet interested Peers, even before today’s Committee stage, and hope that we will receive a favourable response from her today. However, there is one final matter to consider carefully. This issue has come late to the Bill. Organisations such as those I have mentioned stand ready to try to mobilise the Commons, even at this late stage. The key factor in any such approach is those who have had direct experience of this issue—perhaps a relative killed by a driver who had 63 milligrams of alcohol in his or her blood. Some relatives will ignore the calls from these groups to see their MP and speak to the press. Some will feel that they want just to grieve in peace and quiet. Others will feel that coming forward is cathartic and helps them to do something to prevent anyone else suffering as they have. However, some will just want to be left alone and not have the burden of even considering whether they should come forward at the request of these organisations. I am instinctively uncomfortable about this reality of our politics—namely, the necessity of taking action to get things changed when there are reasonable, rational arguments for doing so, when a measure has been on the statute book for 60 years, and when Her Majesty’s Government say no. In the light of a recent American campaign, I ask my noble friend the Minister to reflect on how much better it would be for everyone, particularly victims, if there was a change without such a campaign. Do we really need to conduct our politics like this all the time? I do not think so. I await my noble friend’s reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on tabling such a moderate amendment. I would have pushed for a much stronger lower limit. It is absolutely irresponsible for anybody to get into a car once they have had a drink. Here in Britain we have one of the highest limits in Europe. Some EU nations have completely banned drinking alcohol before getting into a car. Personally, that is what I would like to see.

The new limit would be equivalent to a pint of beer or a large glass of wine for a man and half a pint of beer or a small glass of wine for a woman. I argue that even that relatively small amount of alcohol affects your ability to drive. It reduces one’s inhibitions and perhaps one’s ability to speak clearly. If you drink that amount and then get into a car, you are making that car a dangerous weapon. I do not understand why it is acceptable to get into a car and then be likely to, or have the possibility, to injure or even kill somebody. Drink-driving led to 240 fatalities and more than 1,000 serious injuries in 2014, the last year for which we have figures. It is unreasonable to accept this number of deaths and injuries in our society. We should aim for zero deaths. The reason that so many drivers do not get killed any more is simply because of better medical practices. Help is given to them sooner and so they are more likely to kill or injure people outside their vehicle—pedestrians and cyclists.

We accept road deaths far too easily. I talk to people who say, “It just happens”, but it should not happen. Every death costs society over £2 million. That means every taxpayer pays for you getting into your car and going off and killing somebody. The £2 million cost is for social services, emergency services and medical services. We allow this ridiculous sum to happen on a regular basis.

We have not had the results of the Scottish trial yet, but Police Scotland said that in the nine months after the drink-drive limit was reduced in December 2014, the number of offences fell by 12.5%. That means people have been saved—they have not died or been seriously injured. There is also evidence that it has changed social attitudes. A December 2015 survey suggested that 82% of Scots now believe that drinking any alcohol before driving is unacceptable. That is the sort of thing that we should expect here in England as well. It is time to update this ridiculous figure, which allows somebody who has drunk far too much to be competent to get into a vehicle and be dangerous on our roads.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for bringing this amendment. I have long form on this one. I first chaired an EU sub-committee in 2001 that recommended we should fall in line with what was happening in Europe and go down to 50. I moved a Private Member’s Bill—this year or last year, I forget—that ended up going through Committee stage and everything. It cleared the Lords so your Lordships, I hope, have not changed your minds and are still in favour of this—as on the previous occasion when an amendment was tabled. However, there was no shift from the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised a very interesting point about how we come here with evidence and everybody seeks the change, yet the change does not take place and the deaths continue. She mentioned that there has been a plateau in the number of deaths. There was a decline from 2000 to 2010 but there has been little shift, other than last year when it went marginally up. When I concluded my last contribution on this I forecast—I cannot remember the number—the number of deaths that would take place over 2015, 2016 and 2017. In fact, I think I probably underforecast because of the rise last year.

The simple reason for that is that the Government do not have any initiatives of any importance that are going to change the course of events. It is bits and tiny pieces here and there when we should be looking at the policy that has been proven to work in Scotland. We ended up with the Minister last time saying he would have conversations in Scotland. The Minister for Transport at the other end also said that he would have conversations in Scotland and look at the evidence there, but I have had no further reports from the people I know on the outturn of those conversations and I do not even know if they have been held.

Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to advise us on what is coming out of Scotland. The initial evidence there was certainly compelling enough to indicate that the change was working and that it had effected a cultural change—people were not even driving the following day. One of the problems you get with drink-driving is that people still drive the following morning when they are intoxicated. That had changed in Scotland to a fair extent. I hope it is being maintained.

I hope the Government are taking this seriously and that at some stage we are going to get a lower limit—even Malta, the last remaining European country with a higher limit, is committed to fall in line down to 50; we alone remain. Ireland has changed. Northern Ireland is changing. Wales wants to change. Yet England alone holds out, wanting to be convinced. The evidence of the deaths is there and it is time we did something about it.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Committee will permit me to speak even though I did not hear the start of my noble friend’s speech—for which I sincerely apologise to the Committee.

I am disappointed that some time ago I tabled a Written Question, to be answered by my noble friend Lord Ahmad for the Department for Transport, asking when we expected to get useful statistics from the experience of Scotland. Although noble Lords have pointed to positive changes in compliance in Scotland, we really need to see from Scotland figures relating to the number of drivers who are far in excess of the legal limit. The statistics for England are very interesting—I found them compelling when I had to answer on this issue at the Dispatch Box. If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps she can write to the Committee, but I should like to know when we will get useful statistics from the Scottish experience. That will be very important in informing the Government’s decision on whether we should go to 50 or remain at 80. It is the persistent, unregulated drinkers who have very serious accidents—but without the statistics from Scotland I think we would be making a premature decision.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

What does the noble Earl mean by “serious accidents”? People are being killed and seriously injured by those who have had a drink. A lot of the time those accidents are caused by people who have had far too much to drink but sometimes they are caused by people who have had a small amount to drink—but their faculties and ability to drive are lessened. So it is not just a question of drinking a lot; it is a question of drinking at all.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. Any alcohol whatever will to some extent cause a reduction in driving capability and increase the risk of having an accident. I am saying that we need to be careful and take advantage of a full range of statistics from the Scottish experience. I was disappointed with the Department for Transport because it could not tell me at what point it thought it would get useful statistics from Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the arguments proposed by noble Lords are ones we have heard for many years. The arguments have not changed. Why, therefore, did the party opposite not lower the limit when they were in government? The reason is that it is a tricky issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, we are not talking about the past but about now. We have an opportunity to do something now: to save lives and prevent serious injuries. I do not understand this reluctance to face facts. As the noble Lord said—is he a friend?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Yes, I am.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

As my noble friend said, we are not talking about comparing ourselves with other countries, and nor are we arguing for any other changes. We are not talking about drug-driving but specifically about drink-driving and the damage it does to innocent lives.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I wish to speak about two proposed Bills: the Investigatory Powers Bill and the extremism Bill. I am not sure whether noble Lords know that the States, which has had similar legislation to this in the past, is now rolling it back partly because of privacy concerns but also because it has been found not to be very effective.

I have a little experience of the police and can tell noble Lords that they cannot cope with the data they have at the moment, so giving them vast amounts more data is very counterintuitive and is likely to worsen their work rate. This legislation, if adopted in its current form, would have devastating effects on people’s right to privacy and on other human rights. It seems to me that the surveillance activities proposed in this legislation go way too far, far too fast. Vast powers to monitor communications, access personal information and tamper with computers, phones and software are provided for. These powers are vaguely described, disproportionate and lack critical safeguards, including proper independent judicial scrutiny. I hope this House will examine these proposals carefully, some of which are technical and difficult. I am not very technically minded but I aim to follow the proposals closely, as they could have a serious impact on the privacy of all of us.

Turning to the extremism Bill, as others have said, the definition of “extremism” will be very difficult to pin down. This has caused problems in the past. Noble Lords may or may not know—I have mentioned it before—that I am an accredited domestic extremist as far as the police are concerned. It seems to me that if they can judge me an extremist, they are experiencing some mission creep. The minute you give powers to people, they will abuse them. They may not mean to. Indeed, they may think that they are doing their job properly. However, the fact is that I and several other senior Green Party people have been described as domestic extremists. That is absolutely ludicrous. We are elected and obey the law. I very much hope that at some point I may get an apology from the police, but none has been given so far.

I have some specific questions about the Bill and the proposal. I do not expect an answer today but they may inform the debate later as I shall certainly raise them again. Will I and other people on the domestic extremism database be banned from talking to schools, for example, under the new counterterrorism and safeguarding Bill, because that is one of the proposals? Will the list of banned people be separate from the list of those monitored on the domestic extremism database? Will there be categories? Will the proposed definition of an extremist be legally binding, or will it merely provide the police with “guidance” and thus enable them to include whoever they like on whatever list they like? Again, I refer to my comments about mission creep. Will the Bill allow the Home Office to include categories of people on the list in the way that the police currently include elected Greens? Will the definition of extremism be restricted in any way to those advocating violence—as I feel it should—or to those convicted of a serious crime, or will it bear absolutely no relation to whether the person is innocent of any crime, or even under investigation for a specific crime? How will a person appeal against being on the list and challenge the Government’s view that they are an extremist? I have tried to get to the bottom of who originally labelled me a domestic extremist and who decided that it was worth monitoring me. It has been impossible to get that information out of the police. They decline to talk about specific cases, even when they involve the person asking for the information.

If the Government reduce our freedoms, they are doing the extremists’ job for them. They are doing the terrorists’ job of changing our culture and our society. That is extremely damaging.

Housing and Planning Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support everything that has been said on this side so far and, in particular, Amendment 102D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I suspect that I will be supporting every amendment that comes forward on Report but this particular amendment adds value. Personally, I would like to scrap the whole Bill—it can be consigned to my wood burner any time. However, if that is not an option, at least we should clarify things as much as possible. As a former councillor, I understand that this tiny amendment is crucial in order to save an awful lot of stress, argument and anxiety down the line. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept it.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my pre-declared bunch of interests. I do not know whether I have to declare them again—someone will have to explain the rules to me.

I am sure that noble Lords will be surprised to hear that I am not that bothered whether local government has to face competition in dealing with planning decisions. On the basis that they already cost local government a fortune, I would be very surprised if, under the current fee structure, anybody from the private sector came anywhere near them. So I see this part of the Bill as a chance to get value for money for councils and, if the private sector does get anywhere near it, we will be able to get an increase in planning fees. Therefore, from a councillor’s point of view, I welcome the competition because it can only drive prices up, not down, and in this case I am happy with that.

I should point out that the comments of my noble friend Lord Carrington about those producing the planning report being involved only in the mechanics of the process does not give the whole picture. There is a presumption in favour of development, so somebody will have to recommend to the committee either that the application complies with a presumption in favour and therefore it must be granted, leaving the matter to be democratically argued, or that it should be rejected because it is not sustainable development. Whoever prepares the report, whether they are independent or council-based, must come forward with a recommendation to either grant or refuse, but the final decision must be made by politicians who are accountable to the affected community, and something needs to be put in the Bill to make sure that that is explicit. I am not sure whether these amendments do that but the Government will need to ensure that it is done somewhere.

I am making a brave step out, as I am going to try to take on one of the big beasts for a bit of sport. My noble friend Lord Deben talked about attaching farm fields to gardens not being a problem and being fairly straightforward. It would be fairly straightforward if gardens did not then become previously developed land and thus brownfield, leaving them more susceptible to development in areas where that might not necessarily be sustainable. Before anyone on the other side laughs, they need to remember that under the brownfield policy vaunted by the previous Labour Government, 60% of the brownfield land that they managed to develop during their time in office was reclaimed garden land. So there is a good reason why councils are very cautious about changing use from farm fields to garden land.

Energy: Fracking

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I speak as a politician but also as a scientist, albeit in a slightly more esoteric area of science. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on securing this debate. It has not done anything for my blood pressure. I am so constrained by time that I cannot answer all the points that have been made but I will cover a few, I hope.

First, on pollution, the European Commission and US research have identified significant pollution risks from leaking wells, including the contamination of drinking water by methane, heavy metals, radioactive elements and carcinogenic chemicals. There is also air pollution and noise pollution. Wildlife loss is a threat, although if we want to save more birds we should ban cats rather than wind farms. PM2.5 is a very nasty component of our air here in London and major cities in Britain. If we want to cut it significantly, we should cut traffic. I would be glad to hear noble Lords’ ideas on that. It is also hard to regulate away human error. It is incredibly difficult to make anything completely safe.

On costs, instead of investing in energy efficiency to reduce our bills, our Government are giving 50% tax giveaways to an industry forecast to have rising prices for decades. The Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Davey, warns that it would be really expensive if we were over reliant on gas. Furthermore, UK fracking is likely to be much more expensive than the US variety. Despite what Ministers claim, the experts at Deutsche Bank, Chatham House and Ofgem all predict that shale gas extraction will not bring down fuel bills, so fracking will not help the 1.5 million children growing up in cold homes in the UK.

There would also be lost opportunities. By undermining investment in offshore wind power, tax giveaways for shale gas will suppress development of clean renewable energy. That is exactly what we do not need. A reckless dash for shale gas could prevent clean electricity being supplied to 7.8 million homes and cost more than 40,000 clean energy jobs. That is really too much to bear.

Finally, on climate incompatibility, shale gas is likely to be burnt in addition to coal. Shale gas drilling and combustion are completely incompatible with UK climate change commitments. Replacing conventional fossil gas with shale gas to generate electricity would increase greenhouse gas emissions by up to 11%. A mixture of methane, a greenhouse gas much more potent than CO₂, will further contribute to the dangerous climate change impacts of fracking and, finally, recent research suggests that replacing coal with gas may be worse for climate change in the medium term. So this environmentalist is not convinced.