Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2013

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the order was made on 3 June and came into force on 10 June 2013. The order specifies four N-BOMe and six benzofuran substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 29 May, the Government received a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act, advising that the N-BOMe and benzofuran substances are being misused, and that their misuse is having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant legislative action. My honourable friend the Minister for Crime Prevention was satisfied, in consideration of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s assessment, that the conditions to make a temporary class drug order were met.

N-BOMe substances are highly potent drugs which are regarded as alternatives to the class A drug LSD. Clinically observed health effects include hypertension, agitation and aggression, visual and audio hallucination, and seizures. Two patients were admitted to intensive care after using this drug. Anecdotal evidence from self-reported users also highlight highly negative effects including confusion, shaking, nausea, insomnia, paranoia and unwanted feelings.

We agree with the ACMD that urgent action is required because of the extremely potent nature of these substances in powder and liquid form, and the high risk of overdose. We are also aware that to mitigate the risk of overdose, some suppliers have used perforated pre-loaded paper doses in the form of blotters and tabs, similar to the way LSD is sold.

The benzofuran substances—such as 5- and 6- APB—are related to the class A drug ecstasy (MDMA). They are most commonly sold under the brand name Benzo Fury and marketed as legal alternatives to ecstasy. The effects of these substances include insomnia, increased heart rate and anxiety, with some users reporting ecstasy-like symptoms. Several deaths and hospitalisations in the UK have been associated with the use of these compounds. There are also risks associated with the long-term use of these drugs such as cardiac toxicity.

The order applies UK-wide to protect the public, enabling enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers, while the ACMD prepares full advice on these substances. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially young people, that these substances are harmful drugs. Of course, we will continue to monitor data on these drugs to measure the impact of the order through all available channels, and share this information with the ACMD.

This order was made in consideration of evidence that these substances pose a clear threat to public health and safety, not least young people who believe traffickers’ claims that legal highs are safer than controlled drugs. We have a duty to take action to prevent new psychoactive substances—NPSs—which pose equally serious health risks from gaining a foothold in the UK drugs market.

Our action today, through temporary control legislation, is a vehicle which enables us to act swiftly to protect the public and provide time to the advisory council to gather evidence and prepare full advice on these drugs. Legislative action also plays an important part in supporting our wider public protection policies.

This legislative action is supportive of our long-term strategic objectives set out in the Government’s action plan to tackle the new psychoactive substances market from all angles; to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of new psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able effectively to provide treatment and support recovery. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the drugs. I am always grateful that these drugs have street names that we can pronounce, because the only light relief there could be on this issue is to hear the Minister reading out the chemical names of all the substances for which he has brought forward the order today.

We on this side of the House put on the record our appreciation of the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, specifically for the work it has done to bring forward this order. Its members give freely of their expertise and advice, and we are hugely grateful that they do so. We are content to accept their advice and support the order before us today. There is evidence that these two drugs, N-BOMe and Benzo Fury, and their derivatives and variations have been responsible for hospitalisations and deaths. They are dangerous and damaging and those who trade in these substances care nothing for their impact and the harm that they cause—merely for their own profits.

In supporting the order I refer to some of the key issues that are relevant to this discussion, and on which I would find it helpful if the Minister could provide some clarity and information. I understand and appreciate the process that has brought this specific order before us, but I am not altogether clear on some issues, such as timescales and action taken by other countries, whether it is on similar timescales and whether greater co-operation is now available. The Minister will be aware of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which has a key role in detection and assessment of new drugs across the entire EU. Can the Minister tell me—I think that we have had similar information from Ministers previously—how many new substances have been identified by the EMCDDA since 2010, and how many of those have now been identified by the Home Office early warning system? The Minister may not have the figures to hand and I am happy for him to write to me. We learnt from the debate on an earlier order that the Home Office had identified only 11 out of 90 substances identified by the EMCDDA in 2010-11. My understanding is that now more than 200 substances have been identified by the EMCDDA. How many of those have been identified by the Home Office? I ask because I am keen to see that we are keeping pace with the rest of Europe in identifying and taking action on new drugs and substances as they enter the UK market.

The Minister mentioned that they are sometimes referred to as legal highs. That lulls some people into a false sense of security that a drug is safe because it is not illegal. Yet the only reason it is legal is that the formal process of making it illegal has not been completed. Yesterday I Attended an IPU briefing on the drugs trade and I was struck by one specific fact: that synthetic drugs now account for 20% to 25% of the drugs market. As their use is growing, the need to be on the ball with identification and action becomes all the more important and crucial.

When debating a previous order I asked the then Minister if he was aware of the reasons for the difference in the number of drugs identified by the EMCDDA and those identified by the Home Office. He was not able to respond to me on that occasion. It would be helpful to know and, again, I shall understand if the Minister prefers to write to me with the accurate statistics and explanation. I suspect that there are probably a number of genuine and understandable reasons. Is there just a short time lag between one body indentifying a substance and the information being fed through to the Home Office? Are the Government waiting for advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? I will come back to that point, because we do not want any unnecessary delay in identifying and taking action, when the growth of these synthetically manufactured drugs is racing ahead.

I am keen to ensure, as I am sure the Minister is, that we make full use of co-operation with other European countries that are tackling the same issues, which are incredibly difficult. Co-operation across international boundaries is essential as we are all facing similar problems that are having a similar impact on our societies. We all want to be reassured that we are acting on these issues with the sense of urgency that the public deserve and expect. I do not for one second doubt the Minister’s intentions; I would not want that to be misunderstood. However, I am worried that some of the factual information of the timings gives cause for concern. It may be that we need to review the process that we have undertaken to get us to this point to see whether we could act more swiftly.

My understanding is that the information contained in the letter that the Home Secretary received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs indicated that Benzo Fury, the drug that we getting a temporary banning order on today, was first referred to the National Poisons Information Service in 2009, after being identified as a drug that led to hospitalisations. I am not suggesting that that on its own would be enough to bring us to this point, because obviously the drug has to be properly assessed. However, the chair of the ACMD, Professor Les Iversen, recently said that the council had the resources to assess only two or three new substances a year. If between 70 and 200 dangerous and damaging substances are on the market legally and there is an increase in the manufacturing of synthetic drugs—many of which there will be a strong case for making illegal—to be identifying or assessing just two or three a year is completely inadequate. Is there more that we should be doing now to ensure that we are not constantly lagging behind what is happening in Europe? Such a lagging behind is likely to lead to increased dangers and increased hospitalisations, and possibly worse.

Does the Minister know how long it took for the drug Benzo Fury, for example, to appear on the Government’s forensic early-warning system since it was first identified in 2009? It seems to me that there should be some co-operation and cross-referencing—I have given him notice that I would be asking this question today—between the National Poisons Information Service, the TICTAC database on chemical compounds, the EMCDDA’s register of new substances and the Home Office’s forensic early-warning system. Can he provide some information on how such co-operation and liaison works? Again, I am happy to receive a letter.

Can the Minister also tell us what processes are in place to investigate the effects of a substance once it is recorded? We need a proper pharmacological investigation into these substances, but I understand that this is very expensive. My understanding is that it costs approximately £100,000 per substance. The Home Office has provided just £200,000 from the health budget for this purpose, although I am not sure whether that amount remains following the CSR. European co-operation would be invaluable. I would be interested to know what discussions are taking place with other European Ministers and agencies.

One of the flies in the ointment of increased European co-operation is the Government’s plan to opt out of the police and criminal justice measures of the EU. I know that the Government want to opt back in to some measures. It would be inconceivable if this kind of measure was not included as it is clear that the EMCDDA is very much ahead of the game as to what is happening across Europe as a whole. Are there any contingency plans on the drugs issue, particularly if a Danish type of situation arose where we could not opt back in, as we wanted?

I apologise for taking slightly longer to speak, but I am very concerned about the number of drugs coming on to the market at the moment. Can the Minister say anything about internet sales? A number of internet sites offer what they call “legal highs” as alternatives to already banned or illegal drugs. It is hard, I know, to monitor the actions of all of them, but what monitoring is taking place? Often it can be a way of identifying when a legal drug is getting hold of the market.

It is clear from the drugs listed today that one has to be very precise about the substances involved. I understand that there is a risk that a minor chemical change can create a new drug and then a new order is needed. The Government are trying to address that issue and that is why the order before us today is welcome. Do we need to have a new order each time there is a chemical change? I support the order. I welcome the Minister’s explanation and thank him for bringing the order forward. However, we need a broader strategy to ensure that we are not running behind to catch up on such a serious issue.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Medical Research Council’s ethics and regulation committee. Can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to altering the defaults on this policy? When it comes to prescription drugs, we require proof of safety before a drug proceeds to clinical trials and attempts to establish efficacy. Why should proof of safety not be a prerequisite for the marketing of any substance that is used as a drug?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I will answer the noble Baroness’s question before I forget it. I suspect the reason is that the legislation creates serious criminal offences and we have to be sure that the creation of such an offence is necessary. If I have anything more to add—if any inspiration comes from the Box—then I shall do so, but I suspect that that is the answer.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I thank the House for the helpful discussion. I trust that when I have finished I will have fully made the case for the temporary class drug order to be approved in the House on the basis of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s advice.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about resources. The Home Secretary commissions the ACMD to undertake specific pieces of work each year, and it has the flexibility to prioritise its resources accordingly. However, the use of generic definitions means that the advisory council is able to consider and provide advice on families and groups rather than on individual substances. This enables the Government to tackle multiple substances in a single legislative action.

Before I go into further detail on the points raised by noble Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in commending the ACMD for its continuous work and support of our work priorities, including on “legal highs”. More than ever, the fast pace of this market requires careful prioritisation of our resources and underscores the need for closer working within a broader network of partners, in the UK and abroad, to inform and preserve the integrity of our drug laws.

The noble Baroness quite rightly asked about a sense of urgency. In the case of this particular order we received advice from the ACMD on 29 May; we made the order on 3 June; and it came into effect on 10 July. The noble Baroness also asked when benzofuran compounds were first identified in the UK. Our forensic early warning system, which I will say more about in a moment, first identified the benzofuran substances 5- and 6-APB in early 2011. Together with the advisory council we kept under review the health harms associated with these compounds. The latest evidence suggests that legislative action needs to be taken.

I remind the House that we take action when we see a health harm becoming apparent, not when we become aware that the drug exists. The drug can exist—theoretically it might be on the market in other parts of the world—but we will not legislate until it starts to cause a problem in the UK. We do not need to legislate for everything. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not want to legislate for every drug that could be abused.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making and I am grateful for it. I was making a point about the different organisations which all have a responsibility to share information in this area. The poisons body to which I referred first identified this as a problem in 2009. It took until 2011, according to the noble Earl’s information, for the Home Office to become aware of that.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness may or may not be right. However, I will have more to say on co-operation.

We are making progress in reducing the availability of these drugs through UK law enforcement agencies prioritising work on new psychoactive substances. We are also working with trading standards to tackle their emergence using consumer protection legislation and providing guidance to complement drug control. We have a world-leading forensic early warning system that we are exporting, through leading two resolutions at the UN, enabling the monitoring of new psychoactive substances at a global level for the first time.

Perhaps I may first draw your Lordships’ attention to the forensic early warning system. This is a Home Office programme set up since January 2011 in response to legal highs. It detects new drugs in the UK through test purchasing and forensic work. It informs the advisory council’s consideration and our wider response. It works by test purchasing samples for analysis from the internet and “head shops”—whatever they are—collecting music festival and non-casework police samples, and other sensible courses of action. This has made a vital contribution to health and safety at summer festivals. Data from FEWS has been shared with ACMD to inform its advice on a drug called 2-DPMP, synthetic cannabinoids, methoxetamine—which I tried to practice pronouncing—including the latest substances, NBOMe and benzofurans which we are talking about.

I also draw the House’s attention to the drugs early warning system. This works by linking health and law enforcement agencies to provide access to evidence and timely information on NPS—new psychoactive substances. UK Focal Point acts as an information hub, collecting and sharing data from UK and EU drugs early warning systems with ACMD and the Home Office. So we are not on our own. UK Focal Point can also liaise directly with the National Poisons Information Service when required. When, for example, a threat from a new psychoactive substance becomes apparent, the Home Office will ask UK Focal Point—and has done so in the case of these substances and others that I cannot pronounce—to distribute a request for information from national and international partners.

The noble Baroness asked me about the number of new substances coming on to the market. Counting the number of substances identified elsewhere in Europe cannot be used as a barometer to measure the extent of the problem in the UK. Many of these substances have never been seen before in the UK, a point that I have already made, and the majority of those that have are controlled thanks to the generic definitions which capture families of drugs used under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government are acting fast to tackle these new substances.

I have talked about the forensic early warning system. In addition, the temporary control power affords a flexibility to control these drugs quickly while the advisory council assesses their full harm and when the evidence base on their prevalence, use or likely use and harm supports legislative action. As I have already said, the use of generic definitions enables us to future-proof our legislation by catching families and groups at a time, and therefore drugs that are yet to appear on the UK market. These systems, including our drugs early warning system, continue to contribute to the considerations of the ACMD, as it has done with NBOMe and benzofuran substances and our previous temporary class drug methoxetamine, which is now a class B drug. In addition, health and law enforcement partners continue to have access to information and the latest evidence from the UK and EU.

The most helpful course of action that I can take is to write to the noble Baroness on some of the further details, which I think she will find interesting. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure will ensure that the public are protected from the harm of these new psychoactive substances. I beg to move.

Asylum Seekers

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the legislation is specifically designed to make sure that asylum seekers do not become destitute. They are supported under Sections 95 and 4, particularly Section 95 when their application is being determined. I would like to discuss with the noble Baroness privately why she thinks that female asylum seekers should be more vulnerable to becoming destitute. She has also previously raised with me the difficulties experienced by female asylum seekers, particularly in respect of torture.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, asylum seekers sometimes wait years for a decision and delays are increasing. As we have heard, that leaves genuine refugees in limbo and makes it harder to send failed cases home. We currently have a shambolic situation whereby 300,000 people are trapped in the immigration asylum backlog, with 90,000 cases being written off so far or given effective amnesty because papers have been lost in some cases. I know the Minister will tell us that the Government are making organisational changes, but can he say something about the specific practical actions that are being taken to deal with the problem? Does he recognise that the dramatic cut in the number of staff at UK Border Agency has contributed to this backlog?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I do not recognise some of the figures the noble Baroness has quoted. My information is that the expenditure on asylum support has gone down, as I said, from £1.2 billion in 2003 to below £300 million now. I accept that there is a problem in dealing with the legacy backlog, but the Question is about asylum seekers’ ability to work. The more we can reduce unfounded asylum claims, the better we can properly determine the genuine applicants and look after them properly.

Police Service: New Governance Structure

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for initiating today’s debate. It has been extremely useful and shows the House at its best and the degree and depth of knowledge and experience among your Lordships.

The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, rightly criticised the Government for not building on the success we have already seen in fighting crime, including the partnerships. She outlined the sweeping and wide-ranging changes in governance, organisations and structures. I shall not repeat the detail that she gave but lack of funding to help make the transition to these changes and a lack of clarity in many areas about what is involved have caused enormous concern.

I wish to look specifically at the creation of the National Crime Agency, the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency and the police and crime commissioners. During the debates on the Crime and Courts Bill, which will shortly continue, we raised our concerns about the lack of clarity and the lack of detail. Far too often it seems that policy is made up on the back of an envelope and is then coloured in with the detail later. At the last election, one of the Government’s flagship policies, as we have heard, was the election of police and crime commissioners, and yet, despite the rhetoric, the Government seem determined to undermine this office.

As your Lordships know, and as we have heard today, we opposed the creating of those positions. Not only is it expensive at a time when the Government are cutting to the bone but there remains a woeful lack of clarity and understanding about how the relationship with the chief constable, the Home Secretary and the new National Crime Agency will work. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, highlighted the problems that could occur from what could be seen as a politicisation of our police force. Despite the spirited and committed defence of the policy by the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, it was flawed by not recognising the existing role of local councillors, local partnerships and local community partnerships, which work and are very successful at present. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, asked specific questions around those relationships and operations which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today.

If the Government’s initial rhetoric about PCCs being at the heart of the community and the voice of policing is to be believed, surely that would lead to them wanting the highest possible turnout and participation in these elections, and yet, unlike with mayoral and many other elections, there is no free postal delivery of candidates’ information to voters. So not only is it difficult for the public to have any information on the candidates, it also makes it harder for those standing as independents to let the public know what they stand for. Indeed, it makes it difficult for any candidate, given the huge areas that they intend to represent. Moreover, the idea that holding stand-alone elections in November would somehow help turnout is ludicrous. I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about America, but I think that at the moment most Americans, particularly those on the east coast, would not exactly welcome November elections.

The Government’s response that information is available online is really quite insulting and inadequate. The Electoral Reform Society has estimated that turnout could be as low as 20%, and the Government have taken no serious or meaningful action to address that. I concur entirely with my noble friend Lady Henig’s comments about the appalling adverts that are somehow supposed to increase enthusiasm and anticipation for people to vote in these elections. The ones I have seen—there may be others—show one example of fly-tipping and numerous examples of young people attacking older people. Dealing with those problems is not the only role for police and crime commissioners and it undermines the very serious role they will play. Despite all this, we have some really able and committed candidates who will do an excellent job as PCCs. They will certainly try their best, but they are being let down by the Government and they deserve better.

Alongside these new positions, we have seen so much change in the structure of how the police operate. I will not repeat the excellent analysis made by my noble friend of the range of changes and the effect that they may have. What worries me is the lack of detail that has been made available. We all want the new National Crime Agency to be successful, but throughout our debates in Committee on the Crime and Courts Bill, we were never able to conduct any meaningful scrutiny of the National Crime Agency because the framework document—the fundamental document setting out what the NCA will do and how it will do it—has not been available. The Minister’s response at the time was that it might be available for the Report stage, but if it was not, it would be available for when the Bill reaches the Commons. Again that is completely inadequate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance today that when we reach the Report stage later this month, he will have ensured that the framework document is available for discussion.

The National Policing Improvement Agency has been abolished before the legislation has even been passed, and yet still there is no complete clarity on where all the functions of the NPIA, its responsibilities and its staff, will be allocated. It is starting to look like another back-of-the-envelope policy where the colouring still has to be added in. It takes no account of the changes and reforms that the agency had already made.

Finally, I turn to the significant changes. The Government have now announced that they are minded to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures where we co-operate with other European countries. Earlier this week I attended a conference in Berlin of the European Confederation of Police, the umbrella organisation for organisations such as the Police Federation. Senior members of its committee were discussing various issues, including that of policing across borders. How can we expect our police effectively to fight cross-border serious crime such as terrorism, sex abuse and the trafficking of drugs and people without European co-operation? How would the British police have been able to co-operate with the French police to return Megan Stammers to the UK and her family if we were not part of the European arrest warrant system? Yet again we have proposals for further changes that do not seem to have been fully worked out.

As my noble friend Lady Henig made very clear in her comments, there have been too many changes made with too little co-ordination. Also, all of these changes and potential changes have to be seen against a background of cuts in budgets and resources—and as my noble friend Lord Prescott pointed out, it is not just the Government making cuts. Crime and disorder partnerships and other partnerships have been cut by local authorities.

The new National Crime Agency will take on the roles of SOCA and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and it will have increased responsibilities around the issues of border control and revenue and customs. Your Lordships will know that no change is ever cost free. The election of police and crime commissioners, the abolition of the NCA and the creation of new bodies such as the new National Crime Agency are all taking place at a time when resources are precious and deep and unprecedented cuts are being made. I am seriously worried about effecting deep and fundamental change without ensuring that the resources are available to ensure that it works. We know that resources are tight and we know the pressures that the police are operating under. We also recognise that cuts would have been made under a Labour Government, but the difference is one of scale and size. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary made it very clear that cuts over 12% were unsustainable and would lead to a worse service. The Government have ignored that advice and have instituted cuts amounting to around 20%. In my county of Essex, we are losing one in 10 of our front-line police officers. We no longer have any 24-hour police stations and a number have closed completely. That is not unusual as other noble Lords have told the same story from where they are.

But this is not just about abstract numbers and concepts. It can really make a difference, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, did this House a service by focusing on how victims are being impacted by these policies. Noble Lords may have seen press reports of the murder in Southend in Essex of Jeanette Goodwin, following harassment and threats made by Martin Bunch which had already led to several arrests and a conviction for battery. Reading through the reports of this case show that it is clear that there were a number of failings along the line in the criminal justice system, although no criticisms were made of the police until that final day. Laura Smith, of the local newspaper, the Echo, after reading reports and interviewing serving police officers, identified serious problems with staffing on that day. A number of officers were sick, another had to provide constant supervision for a prisoner in the custody block and one was sent to the operations management unit at police HQ to deal with appointments there. The result was that there was an acting sergeant and five constables on duty. They were extremely busy because of another 999 call to a violent domestic incident. The police have admitted that even if the final call that Jeanette Goodwin ever made had been classified as urgent, there still was not anyone to attend. The reports make it clear that the man in question was intent on causing her harm. One call handler said that when she arrived on her shift, there were more than 100 incidents on the “open list” and many had not even been allocated. There were a number of other failings across the criminal justice system as a whole, but despite those other failings, there must always be the question that had the police responded immediately with a patrol car, had they been up to full strength on that day, and had they not had to absorb such a high level of cuts, would Jeanette Goodwin still be alive? I do not know the answer, but if we fail to ask the question and continue just to talk about processes and procedure, we fail in our duty to the public and to victims.

When I have asked about cuts in services, I have been disappointed with Ministers’ replies. They say that cuts are the responsibility of chief constables, but Ministers set the budgets within which chief constables have to operate. However good a police and crime commissioner is, he or she can only act within the budget that is to be given to them by the Government. I hope sincerely that the Government do not say, “It is not our responsibility, it is for police and crime commissioners”, because they are acting within the Government’s budgets.

The public must have confidence in the police; it is something we all want to see. We want the public to have respect for the police, and in turn we want the police rightly to earn that confidence and respect. My fear is that the Government’s obsession with changing structures and governance, often not fully worked out and often not having fully understood what was already in place, ignores the serious underlying issues and concerns. The public have not been set alight by the PCC elections and they are not queuing up to vote. However, we want them to do so because for these provisions to be successful, we need to see a greater buy-in from the public. But if the Government really believe in their policy, they are facing a lost opportunity. They need to stop obsessing about structures and look instead at resources, commitments and a whole range of factors that will make policing in this country a success story that we can be proud of.

Olympic Games: Security

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to the House to make a Statement. It may have been better had the Home Secretary made a Statement to the House of Commons rather than there having to be an Urgent Question. We are 15 days—just over two weeks—from the Olympics. We have enthusiastic and excited athletes, and their families and friends, all over the world. Some are already in London. Many are now making their way to London. I appreciate that an event of this scale presents enormous challenges in terms of security, sporting arrangements and logistics. Obviously, no one can guarantee that there will not be the occasional minor hiccup. However, I wonder what is going on at the Home Office.

We have already had an announcement this week that the Home Office cannot guarantee that all the desks at border control at Heathrow will be staffed as visitors arrive. This, however, is of a very different order. My understanding is that, on Monday, when she was very specifically asked about recruitment at G4S, the Home Secretary told the other place:

“The Home Office has put in place a number of assurance processes to ensure that we have effective and robust scrutiny of venue security planning. We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners will deliver a safe and secure games”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/12; col. 9.]

That was on Monday. Today is Thursday and we have a very different position. This morning I heard James Brokenshire MP on the radio, talking about his conversations with G4S, in which he said that he kicked their tyres. I am not quite sure what that means, but clearly it was as effective as the last time I kicked a tyre when I had a flat travelling to work.

Are the Government now satisfied that all G4S staff are fully and appropriately trained? Has she seen the BBC reports today from recruits who are saying that they are in limbo? They have been appointed but not contacted; they have not been trained, and do not really know what is going on. Also, when did the Home Secretary—or the Home Office—first become aware that there was a problem of this scale and that action would be needed to employ additional troops? What are the implications and penalties of the G4S contract? The number of personnel that have been needed in security has been a bit of a moving feast. There are some planning issues. My understanding is that the contract originally signed in December 2010 with G4S was worth £86 million for a certain number. Then LOCOG received further advice about the security needs and the contract increased to £284 million. What discussions have there been about the nature of that contract and if its terms and conditions have been broken?

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s Statement. I had a copy of it when the Answer was given in the Commons, and hope that she can help me with something. She said that it was always intended to employ 7,500 military personnel to support the venue security operation. She also said that there would be an extra 3,500 military personnel deployed and that the total would now be 17,000. I was not quite sure how the original estimate of 7,500, plus 3,500, came to 17,000. Either there have been other increases between the first announcement and the one today, or it is significantly more than 3,500 in addition to the original 7,500. When did the Home Office first have discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the possibility of having to deploy extra military personnel? The Statement says that discussions have been going on with G4S for months. When was the potential for further thousands of troops being required raised with the MoD?

What notice of the loss of leave will the soldiers receive? My understanding—mainly from press reports—is that military personnel are being recalled from leave after serving in Afghanistan. The Statement says that they will not be out of pocket for any personal arrangement that they have to cancel. What other arrangements will be made for them to continue to have leave? It is one thing not being out of pocket. However, I suspect that the value that they place on being with their friends and families on leave is greater than not being out of pocket. Can the Minister tell me if, having cancelled the leave arrangements for service personnel, the Government will give them further leave arrangements? I hope that they will. What impact will that have on future operations in Afghanistan?

All of us want the Olympics to be an enormous success. There is enormous distress over the Home Office’s statements this week. I seek an assurance from the noble Baroness that somebody has got a handle on this, that they know what they are doing and that the Home Office has a knowledge of all security arrangements, knows how many staff it has, know what is required and can guarantee that it can meet those requirements.

Saudi Arabia: Driving Licences

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recognition of Saudi Arabian driving licences in the United Kingdom.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, no consideration has been given to the exchange of Saudi Arabian driving licences in the UK. Consideration would be given only after an approach has come from the Government of Saudi Arabia to recognise their driving licences. To date, no such approach has been made.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am slightly confused by the Minister’s Answer. My understanding is that Saudi Arabian driving licences are valid in this country for up to a year for Saudi Arabian citizens. As he will be aware, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to make it a criminal offence for women to drive. Recently, a sentence of 10 lashes was handed out to a woman driver, although that was later commuted. Will the Minister consider the current position? Will he look at whether the UK recognition of Saudi Arabian driving licences for a year should be withheld until driving licences are available to all citizens and not just to male citizens? Can he discuss with his Foreign Office colleagues what action can be taken by the British Government to raise concerns about the Saudi Arabian Government’s position on this appalling discrimination?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, on the substantive question about recognition or non-recognition of Saudi driving licences, the noble Baroness will recognise that we are under a treaty obligation in terms of the international circulation order. However, we welcome King Abdullah’s overturning of the recent sentence of lashing for a woman convicted of driving. It is well known that this Government, like their predecessor, have particular concern about some aspects of human rights protection in Saudi Arabia, most notably women’s rights. The UK has consistently called for women in Saudi Arabia to be able to participate fully in society. That means removing legal and cultural barriers, like the guardianship system and the ban on women driving.

Localism Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

204B: After Clause 99, insert the following new Clause—
“Development plan documents: climate change and carbon budgets
(1) Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1A) substitute—
“(1A) Development plan documents must include policies designed to ensure the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area—
(a) achieves reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008; and(b) meets the national planning policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change in relation to that area.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister has noticed that the amendments in this group are the same as the ones that I brought forward previously, but she will be relieved to know that I shall not be repeating that discussion. I have brought them back in order to seek clarification on a couple of points.

When I read through the Hansard for that debate, it seemed that, although the noble Lord the Minister who responded to me on that occasion and I were heading in the same direction, we were on different paths. I think that there was some misunderstanding about the issue at the time.

During that debate, I listened to the Minister’s response and agreed that I would take note of what he said. However, I also wanted to read his comments to be clear about his reasons for not being able to agree to the amendment, because he certainly agreed to the principle behind them. He agreed with us that responsibility for the policies to tackle climate change relate not to just one government department but cut across departments. If the Government are to achieve their targets, they need to have policies across all areas, including planning, which is very important. Therefore, as I said to the noble Baroness, I am not repeating previous comments but am simply seeking clarification.

First, in the previous debate the Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary because neighbourhood development plans would have to be drafted, and he used the phrase “in general conformity with” the strategic policies of local plans, which would obviously include policies on climate change. I think that he was trying to be helpful. We thought that the Government would accept the amendments that we had brought forward because, if the plans can be “in general conformity with”—the phrase used by the Minister—that can exclude specifics. The reason for tabling this amendment is to see whether the noble Baroness can tighten that up a bit. I think it was agreed that, if neighbourhood development plans had to be in conformity with strategic policies and local plans, that would be a little stronger and give a clear indication and guidance that the Government intend neighbourhood development plans to take into account climate change. At the moment there is a little bit too much wriggle room, which could be damaging for the Government in trying to reach their targets.

Secondly, at that time the Minister was concerned that neighbourhood development plans should achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008. I think he was under the impression that this would mean that every area would have to achieve the same level of reduction. That is clearly impossible and was never intended in the amendment, and I shall therefore be happy if someone can come back with different wording. Both these amendments seek to ensure that all plans, at whatever level, take these issues into account so that they can make a contribution to the targets and the issue is not ignored.

The intention is no more than that, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to come back on both those points. Amendment 204B seeks to deal with the question of “in conformity with” and the second amendment, Amendment 206B, tries to make a contribution to the climate change targets but does not insist on equal contributions being made. I fear that, although it is not the Government’s intention, this issue could be ignored. I know from the comments made by the Minister on the previous occasion that that is not the intention but I seek to ensure that it is not the effect.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, there is an issue here with which I hope the Minister will be very careful. Local authorities need to be reminded all the time, and we have had some difficulty in the past in concentrating the Government’s mind on the place of local authorities in carrying through the nitty-gritty of fighting climate change. Unless we make sure that they understand that they are on the front line and that what they do contributes a huge amount to the totality, we are going to be in difficulty. I do not think that it would matter so much had we not taken quite some time to get that into the whole run of things. This was a big issue in earlier Bills, and I hope that the Minister will understand that there is a real appetite for her to be pretty tough about this and to make sure that local authorities recognise their role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, it has had a slightly longer shrift than I thought it would. I think this amendment was slipped in on the basis that there would be a two-minute discussion on it. I might have known that it would generate a bit more than that. I hope that I can deal with it quite swiftly. In the draft national planning policy framework there is a very clear description of what is expected in terms of the planning responsibility. The Government’s objective is that the planning mechanism should fully support the transition to a low-carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. That requirement is contained in the national planning framework, which is subject to the consultation.

There is already a climate change duty on plan-making. That duty seems sensible and was introduced by the previous Administration. I do not think that we are likely to change that at present. It is not worth rehearsing how the duty works but a local council’s development plan policy documents taken as a whole—that is, their local plan—include policies designed to contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change. The neighbourhood plans have to fit in with the local development plans, so the neighbourhood plans cannot duck the issue. Therefore, there is a clear line between the local development plans and the national policy framework as one leads into the other—it goes down from the national to the local to the very local and there is a requirement to take it all into account. Local communities when they are preparing plans will be in no doubt about the planning requirement.

We have proposed in the framework that the planning system should aim to secure, consistent with the Government’s published objectives, radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These objectives include the carbon budgets set in law which now cover the period to 2027. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is correct to say that the emphasis on how you do this will differ in different places. Kensington High Street in my borough is one of the worst areas in this regard but then all the traffic in the world comes past our front door. It is difficult to see how one borough can make the full contribution that is required but it has to contribute to the target. That is clearly understood in the national policy framework. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has raised wind farms previously and I am sure that he will do so again but at the moment the planning is pretty clear on what is required. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness as I think she has understood what we were seeking to do—to get these issues taken into account. I thought that when the amendments were moved at a previous stage we were on the right track but that we did not quite tie up the loose ends. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. Like her, I was surprised that the debate took the direction it did but I should know that at any mention of climate change the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will always talk about renewable energy and wind farms. However, that was not the intention behind the amendment. It was exactly as the Minister described. As I say, I am grateful to her for her helpful explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 204B withdrawn.

Localism Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, government Amendments 110, 111 and 113 accept the recommendations of the DPRRC to change the procedures to be followed when making orders relating to the general powers of fire and rescue authorities. Amendments 110 and 111 make orders to expand the scope of an existing order subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC.

In response to the amendment tabled on 20 June by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I said that it was never the Government’s intention to enable charging for all community fire safety or prevention activities and that I would reflect on the best way of achieving that aim. Amendment 113, tabled in respect of England and Wales, retains the existing position that fire and rescue authorities cannot charge for the giving of advice, on request, about preventing fires and means of escape in any premises. The amendment retains the existing ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for the giving of advice in relation to non-domestic premises unless that advice is requested under Section 6(2)(b) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 which sets out the criteria for fire safety; the noble Baroness will know more about this than I do. Fire and rescue authorities will not be able to charge for the giving of advice in relation to domestic premises in any circumstances. Charging is optional and up to full cost recovery, not for profit. This amendment will replicate existing arrangements on charging for giving advice as set out in the 2004 Act. I await the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendment 112 and comment on the government amendments in this group.

I welcome the Government’s amendments and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I appreciate that it caused some confusion when I first raised this. As the noble Baroness generously said, when she first wrote to me, her officials and government Ministers had understood that the legislation as drafted would not allow for charging. It was completely inadvertent, as she said, and they had not appreciated that a consequence of the Government’s proposals to expand and increase charges would lead to community fire safety being charged for. Indeed, she wrote to me to that effect. I thank her because, when it was recognised that our concerns on this were justified, she raised the matter in the House and immediately wrote to me as well to clarify the position and agreed to bring forward government amendments to correct the error. I am grateful to her for doing that.

I have to say to her that this is a fairly large Bill, about 500 pages long. It is very detailed and quite technical in parts, and some of the discussions we have had have sometimes seemed quite complex. We have concerns that some parts of this Bill may have been rushed through to the House before they were fully and properly drafted. It is to the great credit of the noble Baroness that she has been ready to engage and debate on these issues, and at times has been prepared to concede and bring forward amendments to try to improve this legislation. So I am grateful to her for the amendments she has brought forward today, in so far as they go.

I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but I am looking at the difference between the amendment in my name and the amendment from the Government, which refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act. Our Amendment 112 would not allow charging for community safety or fire prevention work, whereas the government amendment refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which is purely about the fire safety work that a fire authority must undertake as part of its core functions. I entirely agree that that is right and proper in so far as it goes. The last Government recognised that fire safety should be a core function, and therefore placed a duty on fire authorities to undertake fire safety. No fire authority should be allowed to charge for that core function, as the noble Baroness rightly agrees. Where I think there is a grey area—and some clarification on this would be helpful, as this is another unintended consequence—is that many fire authorities have extended this work to the related, but slightly wider, community safety remit.

I have some particular examples of this work, which I am sure the noble Baroness would never want to see lost to the community. For example, my authority in Essex runs a number of courses for young people, such as one called “Firebreak” and another called “Young Firefighters”, and there are similar schemes in other authorities. They do promote fire safety—there are clearly benefits for fire safety—but there are much wider benefits to the individuals taking part and to the community. In Basildon, Essex fire service uses these projects, working with local authorities, councils and other bodies, as part of a team tackling crime and disorder. The fire service is part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it is very proud of this work. I looked at its website earlier today for examples. It seems to me—the noble Baroness can assure me on this—that from the wording that is taken from the 2006 Act this does not exactly fall under fire safety.

For example, there is a page on the Essex County Fire and Rescue Service website about Darren, 18, of Ashingdon Road in Hawkwell. He has just joined the crew of his local fire station as the newest recruit, and he said:

“It was Firebreak which really showed me what I wanted to do with life and how I could do it. I had got into the wrong crowd and was getting in trouble with the police and then bringing that trouble with me into school and getting into worse trouble”.

His head teacher referred Darren to the “Firebreak” course—it is a long quote but I will read it—and, as Darren says,

“When I got back to school I ditched my mates and really buckled down. Almost straight away I saw my grades improving and my predicted exam results shot up. Firebreak made me realise that there is more to life than getting in trouble and mucking about and gave me something to work towards”.

That is not technically fire safety, but the benefits to the community are enormous. Another person mentioned is Craig, who is 20 and attended this course in 2005. He says:

“I was taking drugs, drinking and stealing cars. Basically I was completely off the rails. Firebreak has changed my life, I no longer drink or take drugs and am now working to become a firefighter myself”.

The Cheshire fire service signs up to missdorothy.com. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of missdorothy.com. When I was Fire Minister I went to see some of the work that it is doing, which is about community safety for younger children. Given the trust placed in firefighters, and their very respected position in the community, they were engaging very young children in community safety. Part of that was about fire safety and being safe, but also about being safe in their broader lives. The Cheshire fire service is also one of the employers involved with the Prince’s Trust programme. I certainly think that nobody in your Lordships’ House would want to lose the fire service’s involvement with the Prince’s Trust. There is a 12-week personal development course, and the fire service is one of the employers doing that.

Devon and Somerset is another authority that has a personal development scheme, also called “Firebreak”, for key stage 4 pupils from 14 to 16. Its website says that it provides a

“themed educational diet designed to complement and enhance the school curriculum. It aims to raise achievement, improve self motivation, increase educational engagement”,

and aims to develop,

“practical skills, life skills, communication skills, team work”.

Looking around the country, I see that Suffolk authority is another one to engage actively with children and young people. One of its objectives is to prevent and reduce fire crime and fire, but it also wants to engage young people, and has professional staff working with the authority, to identify good practice in working with children and young people. East Sussex has a “LIFE” project and Chester has a “Respect” project.

All of those have proven successes in deterring young people not only from a life of crime but from social disorder as well. My fear is, if it was the Government’s intention, which I suggest it probably was not, that these should be charged for—and I think that, under the Government’s amendments, they would be able to be charged for—then those very young people who can benefit most from these courses would not be able to do so.

Another issue is that, if these courses were chargeable, who would pay? In many cases it would be another public authority. What we would be doing is introducing a bureaucracy to move money around the system. So it would be helpful if the Minister, perhaps not today, could reflect on the advice she was initially given that this would not be covered by fire safety. Perhaps there may be some kind of guidance that could be issued. I think that this is the kind of work that so many people in the community benefit from.

In my own authority, at Basildon fire station, Martin Trevillion leads the community safety programme, and it is an exceptional programme. Having spoken to so many young people that have benefitted from it, I would be reluctant for us to lose that programme simply through inadvertent drafting of legislation.

Finally, I want to raise one other issue, which is that of carbon monoxide safety and awareness. I am also not clear that Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which talks about advice on how to prevent fires and on means of escape from buildings, would cover carbon monoxide safety. This is a particular issue: there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries due to carbon monoxide, and it is something that fire authorities are able to take on and work with, and I know that some of them already do so. I would not think that the noble Baroness intended that that should be charged for as well.

When at Second Reading I first raised the issue of charging for community safety, it was clear that the Government had not thought about the implications, quite inadvertently, and this had slipped through. The Minister was able to respond to those concerns very positively. I hope she understands that my raising these tonight is in exactly the same tone, as this is a service provided by the fire authorities, working with their community, which we really would be very loath to lose, if they had to charge for it. I ask the Minister—I think she has had time to reflect, or to receive enlightenment on this issue quite soon—even if she cannot give me a full answer today, to reflect on that so some guidance can be issued, because this resource that is provided by our fire and rescue services is very valuable for the community.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I would like to support what my noble friend has said about the problem of charging for fire advice. When I read the second part of Amendment 113—proposed new subsection (5B)—I thought, “Well, any fire authority that is able to charge will probably do so”. Is it really the Government’s intention that small businesses, and particularly charities like the Scouts and others that are not for profit, should have to pay for such advice? My experience with such businesses is that it is very hard to start up anyway. I believe that you have to get fire advice in many cases. Having to pay will make life even more difficult. I can understand why the Government want to allow fire authorities to make such charges but to do that for non-profit organisations seems to be a little hard. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that and consider whether it could be omitted for charities and non-profit organisations.

Localism Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

148ZZB: After Clause 96, insert the following new Clause—
“Development plan documents: climate change and carbon budgets
(1) Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1A) substitute—
“(1A) Development plan documents must include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area—
(a) achieves reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008; and(b) meets the current national planning policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change in relation to that area.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 150ZA. The amendments were inspired by existing legislation to which the Government have already signed up, mainly the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have agreed to and supported an overall target of a 60 per cent cut in CO₂ on 1990 levels by 2030. That cannot be achieved unless there is real commitment behind it. That commitment cannot be isolated in the silo of just one government department; it has to be a theme across all government policies. If the Government wish to achieve their objective, there must be a culture change whereby all departments and Ministers in them have to be aware of the impact of policies which might seem unrelated on the Government’s commitment. If the Government are truly serious about meeting that commitment, as I believe they are, that is what they have to do.

In many ways, there is nothing new in these amendments, which I hope will make it easier for the Minister to accept them. They do not seek to introduce new policies; they seek merely to assist the Government in making those linkages and connections between this proposed legislation and legislation that is already on the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I share the concern of those wishing to be ambitious in meeting the challenges of climate change. I also agree that planning has a big part to play. We have underlined this in the carbon plan, our response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on adaptation and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will know—the renewable energy road map published today. The national planning policy framework, which we will publish very shortly for consultation, will make tackling climate change a priority for planning.

We already have a climate change duty on plan-making which was introduced by the previous Government. That duty seemed to them to be sensible and I agree—let me explain why. The current, existing duty expects a local council’s development plan documents, taken as a whole as their local plan, to include policies designed to contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change. Neighbourhood development plans will need to be in general conformity with the strategic policies in local plans, including policies on climate change. The national planning policy framework will be clear on planning’s important role in rising to the climate change challenge. On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the NPPF will be clear on the need to cut carbon emissions and properly adapt to the impacts of climate change, including flooding.

Local planning authorities must have regard to national policy in preparing their development plan documents, as well as in determining planning applications. Neighbourhood development plans will need to be appropriate, having regard to this national policy. The current duty is a sensible approach—I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, will accept that. It reflects that places are different and will be able to make different contributions to tackling climate change. It also recognises that not every development plan document, as a component of the local plan, can make the same contribution. One of the anxieties I have about these amendments, for example, is how every local planning authority would ensure that development in their area achieves reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the national carbon budgets. Places are very different. Some are able to make big contributions, others less so however hard they try. For instance, some have natural energy resources, be it geothermal or wind in more exposed rural areas, that other areas just do not have.

While I understand the direction of travel intended by the two amendments in this group, I do not believe it will help get us to where we want to be in a trouble-free way. For that reason, I cannot support these amendments. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the combination of the existing duty and planning policy within the framework provided by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes this amendment unnecessary and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it, because I do not think there is any disagreement between us on the objectives we are seeking to achieve. It is just whether these amendments achieve that objective.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and, if I understand him correctly, he is saying the amendments are unnecessary because such provisions are already included. I suppose I had hoped that the temptation of joined-up government would have been irresistible and he would have wanted to accept these amendments to the Bill to make it absolutely clear that this is a thread that runs through all government policies.

I will take away and listen to what he has said. I am not for one minute suggesting that in every case the same contribution should be made to neighbourhood plans, but there should be some consideration of these issues at every level of the planning stage. I am grateful for his explanation. There is not much between us in terms of what we are seeking to do but I will look at that and be happy to withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Amendment 148ZZB withdrawn.

Electricity Market Reform

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We welcome the fact that Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State, is seeking to address the matter and agrees with his predecessor on the need for reform. We should recognise that he has come a long way on this issue. He no longer describes nuclear as a “failed technology”, but says that it is an essential part of the UK getting off the “oil hook”, accepting its role as part of the energy mix for energy security. I am still unclear on the Government’s position on subsidy for nuclear. Chris Huhne has mentioned on many occasions that there will be no subsidy, but that seems to be interpreted as no subsidy that is different from that for other low-carbon generation.

In his December Statement, the Secretary of State said:

“We have a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild our electricity market, rebuild investor confidence and rebuild our power stations … this will be a seismic shift, securing investment in cleaner, greener power and delivering secure, affordable and low-carbon energy for decades to come”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/10; col. 1066.]

We agree that that is what this reform should deliver, although I would have put greater emphasis on affordability. That is why this Statement and the legislation that will follow are so important. If we were to get this wrong now, it would be a missed opportunity and would bind future generations to costly and ineffective measures.

So what do we expect from this reform? First, the consumer must be at the heart of any reform. We have to reconcile the interrelated aims of energy affordability to protect the consumer, decarbonisation to protect the environment, and energy security to protect both the consumer and the economy. The Government have recognised that the current energy market structure will not deliver investment in new low-carbon technology and provide the additional capacity that is needed to meet our carbon reduction targets. We welcome that acceptance, because it is clear that fundamental change is necessary to meet these targets, secure energy supply and encourage investment. We will want to be reassured that these proposals add up to a responsible and realistic package that will deliver those interrelated aims

I regret that, to date, despite our seeking to be very constructive with the Government, we consider that they have fallen short in their stated aim to be the “greenest Government ever”. Every time that one firm announces a price increase, the Secretary of State’s advice is to shop around and change energy supplier. We can do that only so many times as one after another company puts up its prices. For the sake of the economy, business and domestic consumers cannot continue paying ever higher prices.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee in the other place has recommended that any reforms need to be accompanied by,

“sound social policy to protect vulnerable consumers”.

Given that the Government have pulled all government-funded energy efficiency programmes, can the Minister say anything today about how these reforms will help both business and domestic energy consumers with their ever-increasing bills?

The Minister’s comment in the Statement that bills for households and businesses are,

“likely to be lower and less volatile over the period … than if we had left the market as it is”,

really is not good enough. If, as predicted, consumers are going to be asked to pay more to deliver this programme, we need to give them far greater certainty. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to reflect on that.

Another concern is that recent ill-judged government intervention in the energy market has already led to a hiatus in energy investment and uncertainty across all sectors. I do not want to labour the point today as we will debate on Thursday the solar feed-in tariffs fiasco that has destabilised the solar sector and sent shockwaves through other renewable sectors, but there are other issues which have had an impact on investment. Companies, including RWE, are considering pulling out of the UK because of the uncertainty caused by the Government on investment. That has been underlined by the Pew Environment Group’s report showing the UK slumping from fifth to 13th in a global ranking of countries for green investment. Constraints on the green investment bank have led the CBI deputy director-general, John Cridland, to say that the bank,

“certainly won't work if it needs the Treasury's permission to blow its nose”.

The Energy Bill seems to have disappeared into a black hole in the other place; it will not even have its final stages before the recess. To date, the Government’s track record is not as good as we would want it to be. In all our interests, with the White Paper before us today, the Government cannot afford to get this wrong.

As the Minister has acknowledged on many occasions, we want to be supportive, and I always approach these issues constructively. We will support measures that achieve the Government’s stated aims and benefit the consumer and the economy. The Government will want to satisfy some key tests if reform is to work. A new market needs to be greener but also create confidence, clarity and certainty for industry; make room for innovation in emerging energy solutions; provide a good deal for both domestic and business consumers as users and taxpayers; and deliver the necessary investment in the UK energy sector for security of supply.

The document before us today is quite lengthy, as are the associated documents published by the Government. They propose a mixed bag of measures. I am not sure that I yet fully understand how they will work together to give us the policy structure that we need to achieve our objectives.

For example, the Energy and Climate Change Committee in the other place considers that the level at which the emissions performance standard has been set,

“would have no material impact and is therefore pointless”.

Since that report was published, have the Government been able to take note of those concerns and make any adjustments before the final White Paper was published today?

The carbon price floor was introduced by the Budget independently of these proposals. DECC seems now to understand the impact of what is seen as a tax grab on industry, thereby potentially exporting businesses and their emissions overseas. What action will the Government take to ensure that this does not disadvantage British business, and what discussions on these issues has the Minister had with organisations representing intensive energy users in industry in the UK?

I certainly welcome the Government’s acceptance that their message that low-carbon electricity is a key part of our future energy mix has not been clear enough and that action will be taken to remedy this. I look forward to further announcements on the detail. As he will appreciate, the renewables road map, to which he referred, can work only if investors can have confidence in the Government’s ambitions.

The detail in the Government’s plans regarding the ongoing consultation on the capacity mechanism and the contract for difference will be crucial. These are complex issues and the devil will be in the detail.

The transitional arrangements to ensure that there is no hiatus in investments while this new system is set up are welcome, but, as I have already said to the Minister, there is a hiatus now and transitional arrangements are urgently needed to restore confidence in the market. Perhaps the Minister could say something about the timing of the transitional arrangements. That would be very helpful.

Our existing “big six” energy companies will undoubtedly need to help to provide our new energy generation, but we need to free up the suffocating oligopoly which stifles real competition from new energy investors. Today’s announcement and publication of the documents is welcome and part of an ongoing process. However, to identify the problems is easy—we have discussed them in your Lordships’ House and the other place on many occasions—but the challenge is to meet the objectives. We will continue to play our part in that.

Building Regulations (Review) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Briefly, I support my noble friend's Bill and the amendment and pay tribute to his persistence and dedication on the issue of fire safety. I support the amendment with reluctance, because the Bill is perfectly adequate as it stands, but my noble friend has gone the extra mile by extending the time.

Given that extension, what assurance can the Minister give us on funding for ongoing community fire safety activity, which has been at the heart of driving down the number of deaths from fires in this country? Since we last debated this at Second Reading, we have had the CLG publication, Future Changes to the Buildings Regulations—Next Steps. In Part B, on fire safety, it states about the consultation:

“However, this exercise has not produced any significant new evidence on the health and safety benefits of greater sprinkler provision that would alter the cost/benefit analysis and the basis of the current approach. The Department will not, therefore, be considering this as part of next year’s programme of work”.

It seems an odd position to take that the Government do not want to engage in or encourage new research but are happy to rely on current research, which has been a bone of contention—we debated the BRE research previously under the Bill—as the benchmark to say that there is no new evidence. That is a rather perverse way to proceed.

On the summary of work to be taken forward from the consultation exercise, I am certainly pleased to see that Part P, to do with electrical safety, will be in next year's work programme, because there is interrelation with issues of fire safety. About 8,000 deaths in the home are caused by inadequate electrical work. I would hope that that will focus on greater use of competent person's schemes. Paragraph 3.4 states:

“Finally, there is also a third group of issues that we believe currently lack clear evidence to support regulation in 2013, but which we would not wish to definitively rule out. This includes whether to expand the provisions for radon gas protection and whether flood resilience/resistance should be incorporated into regulations”.

My second question for the Minister is: where does that leave the review of Part B? What is the programme for review in Part B, or will the Government continue to oppose the Bill and the research that it seeks and rely on the status quo of research, therefore closing their minds to further review of that important part of the building regulations to deal with fire safety?

I support my noble friend and his amendment, although I think that the Government should have been more encouraging and not have required him to seek this extension.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I support my noble friend Lord Harrison’s amendment and his Bill. At the Dispatch Box in our previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to “Groundhog Day”. A number of us in the Chamber today feel the same sense that we have been here before. I pay enormous tribute to the tenacity and commitment of my noble friend Lord Harrison for the work that he has undertaken to drive this forward. He has not been prepared to let the issue drop. He wants to continue purely in the interests of public safety. The same goes for my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, given his former role at the Dispatch Box and his commitment. My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth will remember many discussions on the way forward on this when I was the fire Minister and he was an education Minister. As he said, I am pleased that we were able to make such progress.

I support the amendment—with some reservations, like my noble friend, Lord McKenzie; but it will get my support. I am not sure that it is necessary, but if the Minister thinks that it helps and if that is what it takes to move the issue forward, get the research and assessment we need, I am happy to support that. I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting between his officials and my noble friend Lord Harrison, because that is what led to him proposing the amendment.