Disabled People: Blue Badge Scheme

Debate between Lord Harrison and Earl Attlee

Thursday 25th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the results of the consultation on the workings of the blue badge scheme for the disabled.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the consultation on the personal independence payment and eligibility for a blue badge closed just three weeks ago. The responses are currently being read and analysed. This is an important decision to make and Ministers will take the time needed to ensure that all the relevant issues are taken into consideration. The Government will announce their decision shortly and will publish a summary of the responses.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, given that general practitioners know best the mobility and medical capabilities of current blue badge holders, was it not a bureaucratic and costly folly to vest within overpressed and understaffed local authorities the sensitive task of assessing eligibility for a blue badge, especially when that task was so often assigned to box-ticking junior staff with absolutely no medical knowledge? When will this Government respond to this semi-detached Prime Minister and do something about those who deserve blue badges getting them?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the only thing I agree with the noble Lord on is his point about box-ticking. Applicants’ GPs act as patients’ advocates and are not always best placed to assess mobility or to advise on badge eligibility. In 2008, the Transport Select Committee reported that using an applicant’s own GP to assess eligibility,

“is likely to produce a bias in favour of approving the application”.

Cycling: Accidents

Debate between Lord Harrison and Earl Attlee

Thursday 8th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many accidents have been caused by cyclists riding on pavements and how many cyclists have been charged with riding on pavements in the past year.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in 2010, there were 680 reported personal injury road accidents involving cyclists on the footway on GB roads. The Department for Transport does not hold data on who caused such accidents. In 2010, 342 defendants were proceeded against in a magistrates’ court for the offence of cycling on a footway. However, this offence is normally dealt with by a fixed penalty notice and we do not collect information centrally on the number issued.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, one evening recently my wife and I stepped out to go to our local Chinese restaurant in Chester to be met by a young man on a bicycle advancing at speed. When confronted and challenged, he told us with an entirely straight face that, as he had no lights on his bike, he was obliged to ride on the pavement. Will the Minister first strengthen the powers of the police and community support officers to intervene where these cases happen? Will he intervene to improve the primary education of our young people learning about the art of cycling? Finally, will he improve the road environment for cyclists who mistakenly believe that it is legitimate to ride on the pavement as a result of the number of deaths attributable to the problems of cycling on the roadway?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I know that all noble Lords are very concerned about these issues and I come to the Dispatch Box with some trepidation on this Question. PCSOs, like constables in uniform, can issue fixed penalty notices in respect of an offence of riding a cycle on the footway contrary to Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835. I do not know about their powers regarding lights. Youngsters may be more susceptible to a word in their ear rather than a fixed penalty notice. Education is an extremely important part of the process.

Building Regulations (Review) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Harrison and Earl Attlee

Friday 4th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has in his amendment extended the period for commencement of a review, as prescribed in his Bill, from 12 to 30 months. However, our reservations remain the same as those I set out at Second Reading. We must focus on the priorities at hand, and it would be difficult to find any Government who would be willing to support a statutory commitment of their resources in the way that the Bill proposes. I must gently remind the Committee that the question it must consider is: for how long do the Government need to consider this review?

Therefore, I will not be drawn into some of the technical issues that I have recently studied. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, raised some of the plumbing issues, which I have discussed with the House Builders Federation. I did sanity-check some of the advice that I received. I asked, “Can you plumb sprinklers into the central heating system?”. I was advised that it was much more complicated than that. If you want a sprinkler system, you need a separate pressure supply that bypasses the house’s water meter. I also challenged why it costs £3,000 to £5,000 to install a sprinkler system.

We recognise that work is in hand, sponsored by industry, to refine and update the available evidence base that exists on the costs and benefits of sprinkler protection in residential premises. Clearly, we would need to consider any new information as and when it becomes available. Indeed, I have personally undertaken to read and understand the report currently being prepared by the Building Research Establishment for the Chief Fire Officers Association. I do not know how big that report will be.

I am grateful for the comments of many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who made a very useful contribution, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Best. The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about design problems and design flexibility. The building regulations already include the facility to vary the design of buildings where sprinklers are provided.

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, asked me what I was worried about with regard to extending sprinklers to all houses. We are not aware of any problems with this provision, and the recent review of building regulations concluded that the excellent provisions for fire safety did not need to be changed. I am advised that the cost of carrying out a detailed review, as set out in the Bill, would be in the order of £250,000 and that it would divert departmental resources away from other government priorities. If you keep spending £100,000 here and £100,000 there on every single problem, eventually you run out of money, and that is more or less what has happened.

The noble Lord asked me what items under paragraphs (a) to (i) of Clause 1(1) caused me anxiety. I cite as an example paragraph (f), which refers to,

“the evidence for and experience of automatic fire suppression systems already available both in the UK and internationally”.

I am sure that my officials would enjoy going round the world looking at the international experience of fire suppression sprinkler systems, because that is what they would have to do.

Just before Christmas, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the department, Andrew Stunell, published his plans for taking forward the outcome of a recent review of building regulations. The review included looking at any changes that might be necessary to ensure that the regulations continued to operate effectively in the future. During the review, a number of respondents called for the introduction of regulation to increase the provision of sprinklers in buildings. However, the review did not produce any significant new evidence of the benefits of greater sprinkler provision.

Sprinkler protection is recognised as a highly effective measure, and provisions for its use have been in place in building regulations for many years for buildings where the fire risk is high. However, when you consider that all new homes are already provided with hard-wired smoke alarms, it is difficult to justify further increasing the regulatory burden with a measure that will impact only on new buildings.

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and perhaps others asked about the recent vote in the Welsh Assembly. Parliament has given the Welsh Assembly the power to adopt such a measure if it chooses to do so. By the end of the year, it will also have the necessary powers to set its own building regulations. However, this debate is about England, and what the Welsh Assembly does is a matter for the Assembly.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the review of Part B, relating to the fire safety building regulations. We have made no plans to review the fire safety aspects of building regulations. No doubt they will be reviewed at some point when it is considered to be necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned reducing spending on the fire service, suggesting that sprinklers could help. However, if building regulations changed tomorrow, only homes built after that point would be affected, and it would take decades for this to have a meaningful effect on the building stock. If there was a real concern that the service was under-resourced, I think that a more rapid solution would need to be found.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made several interesting comments, some of them relating to technical matters. I should have liked to engage on them if I had known that he was going to ask those questions. He suggested that Ministers and policy are controlled by officials, but I assure the noble Lord that Ministers determine the policy with advice from officials, not the other way round.

Prevention is much better than cure and an example of a more effective and innovative approach is the introduction of fire-safer cigarettes, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We have actively supported the European Commission’s efforts in developing a safety standard for reduced-ignition cigarettes. We estimate that this standard, once introduced, will save with almost immediate effect between 25 and 64 lives per year in England alone, not just in new buildings but across the board.

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, asked why the Conservative Party has changed its policy now that it is in government. I gently remind the Committee that I answer for Her Majesty’s Government, not for the previous Opposition. Where noble Lords have raised wider issues, I will write if I have something valuable to add to my comments.

In summary, while we agree with the desire to answer the questions set out in the Bill, we must express strong reservations about the provisions in it for a statutory commitment for the Government.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, that was a lame reply to all the contributions that have been made to the debate this afternoon. I know that colleagues who have been here today to support the Bill have other urgent things to do so, in thanking them, I take the opportunity to say to the Minister that we will return to this issue; we will write to him and point out where we believe the deficiencies are in his reply. I still hope that we can make some changes but, in the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roads: Illegal Motorway Advertisements

Debate between Lord Harrison and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of illegal motorway advertisements; and whether they will issue revised guidance to local authorities on the matter.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government have not undertaken any assessment of the number of illegal motorway advertisements. The enforcement of advertisement control is a matter for the local planning authorities, which have a range of powers to take action against advertisements displayed in contravention of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Guidance has been issued in CLG Circular 03/2007 which emphasises the importance of amenity and public safety in advertising control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and for his continuing interest in this matter, but does he agree that motorway adverts are not only illegal but often ugly, badly designed and represent a driver hazard? After all, they would not be succeeding unless they distracted the driver’s attention. In the light of that, will he renew the 2007 advice to local councils with increased vigour, and study the research by Brunel University which suggested that some 20,000 accidents and 300 deaths might be ascribed to the hazard of adverts aligning the motorways?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in his campaigning on this matter. He is right to do so and I agree with much of what he said about these advertisements. He identifies a lack of definitive scientific research. The Highways Agency has advised me that there is no obvious pattern of accidents near these advertisements. There is no cluster effect. It is therefore difficult to give the necessary research much priority. The Highways Agency informs local authorities of any infringements and it is up to them to determine their priorities. But the noble Lord’s Question will do much to raise the profile of the issue.