---

EU: Emissions Trading Schemes

11.30 am

Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What recent assessment they have undertaken of the European Union emissions trading schemes.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the establishment of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which is the world's largest market for trading CO2 allowances, is indeed a notable achievement. There are clearly lessons to be learnt from phase 1 of the scheme, which finishes this year. We have already taken account of some of those lessons in completing the United Kingdom's national allocation plan for the second phase, from 2008 to 2012, which will also inform the forthcoming review by the Commission of the trading scheme directive.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's reply. He will be aware that the White Paper issued a couple of weeks ago made it clear that the Emissions Trading Scheme is the carbon price instrument of choice and a key component in the UK's policy framework to fight climate change. Given the weight that the Government are putting on the Emissions Trading Scheme, are they confident that, in the new round, the national allocations not just to the UK but to the other countries involved in the scheme will be sufficiently tight to bite, rather than, as happened in the first round, allowing an increase in carbon emissions and substantial subsidies to some of Europe's big energy producers? Are they also confident that the system can be policed sufficiently well to prevent the fraud and cheating that has appeared in the first round? In particular, given that the system is to be linked to the UN's clean development mechanism, are they confident that the CDM certificates issued under that scheme actually relate to schemes that promote clean energy and a reduction in carbon emissions?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked an awful lot of questions there—rather more than two. It is true that phase 1 of the scheme has been a learning exercise; everyone accepts that. Lessons have been learnt from phase 1 and incorporated into phase 2. The United Kingdom has a clean pair of heels on the issue of allowances. We were the only country not to have adjustments. It is clear that there have been defects in the scheme, as is shown by the price of carbon. Yes, there have been allegations about the clean development mechanism not quite working. There was a long piece about that in one newspaper last week. A new official has been appointed on behalf of Defra to the board of the CDM and we expect the board to take account of these issues. This is an ongoing process. It is the first time that there has been such an inter-country trading scheme and phase 1 is certainly a learning-by-doing process.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords—

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the emissions trading business has been widely exposed to have become the biggest scam on the planet, most recently in a very thorough and excellent investigation published in last Saturday's Guardian, which I am sure is a newspaper close to his heart?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I referred in my previous answer to some of the allegations made in that fairly long article. They are serious and specific allegations, especially against Ernst & Young. Those will clearly have been drawn to the attention of those responsible for the clean development mechanism. They need investigating and it is appropriate for the board to do that. That is what it is in place for. It is a United Nations body; following Kyoto, that is its role. But to say that this is the biggest scam on the planet is, frankly, extravagant language.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the research that was noted in the very same Guardian newspaper last week showing that Heathrow Airport is set fair, if all its polluting emissions, not just CO2, are taken into account, to become the biggest single polluter in the country, above Drax power station? Does he agree that, in view of that and the continuing concern about aviation’s contribution to emissions, it is time that the Government reviewed their policy on the expansion of airports in this country?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, one of the gaps in phase 1 was aviation, which has been debated in this House on more than one occasion, to my recollection. It is our intention to incorporate aviation into phase 2, and we expect decisions from the Commission by directive later this year. Obviously the matter is complicated, because planes take off and land in different countries. My understanding—I will get advice on this if I am wrong—is that any future development at Heathrow must maintain the same carbon footprint as is there now. It will not be allowed to increase the carbon footprint. Whether its carbon footprint will be greater than Drax’s, I do not know; I will have to take advice on that. I do not have that Guardian article in front of me, although I have all the others.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, there have been recent reports in the press that the aviation industry is complaining that the entry into the trading scheme might lead to a reduction in the growth of aviation, but is not the whole point of the trading scheme to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by aeroplanes, and does the Minister support the objective of reducing the numbers of flights?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the intention behind the scheme is to change people’s behaviour, both in business and as individuals, in the long term. Obviously this is consequential as the money flows through the system. We have no intention of stopping people having holidays, but it is better if they can use the train rather than fly. It would certainly be nice if all the leaders of the G8 went home by train—well, not all of them, obviously; it would be a bit difficult for some of them. It would set an example. Our intention is not to stop people having holidays but, overall, to reduce emissions from aviation.

Business

11.37 am

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, a Statement on counterterrorism will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Scotland after the second debate today. As both debates are timed, the Statement will be repeated at about 5 o’clock.

Business of the House: Debates Today

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House on the Order Paper. I apologise that the speakers list for the second debate shows a time limit of two hours. It should be two and a half hours, although the timing for each speaker is accurate. It was the mistake of my office, which proves that even the Government Whips’ Office is occasionally fallible.

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Dear set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick to two and a half hours.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,Schedule 1,Clauses 5 to 55,Schedule 2,Clauses 56 and 57.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police: England and Wales

11.38 am

Lord Dear rose to call attention to current arrangements for policing in England and Wales, and to possible improvements; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate today, and am encouraged by the interest that has been shown in it. The police service is an integral part of our society; yet it is taken very much for granted. It is 47 years since the police were last exposed to the all-embracing scrutiny of a royal commission, and the totality of policing has not, I understand, been debated in your Lordships’ House for more than seven years. It is all too easy to wring one’s hands and hark back to the so-called golden days when Dixon bade you “good evening” from Dock Green. The fact is that, in the half-century since policing was last examined in the round, society has changed faster than probably at any other time in our history. No business could survive in that environment without radical restructuring; without deciding what its future core business should be; and without identifying how it can best position itself in the future.

The only real attempt to get ahead of the game was last year when the Home Office attempted to introduce a plan for the amalgamation of police forces, although I have to say that that was, in my view, without proper consultation or research. I will not comment on that, save to say that no successful business would conduct such an exercise without first being sure what its role and its offering should be in the future. Let me put it another way: until we can decide what the police service should be responsible for and what we can realistically expect it to succeed in doing, any attempt to reform its structure is wasted effort. Form should follow function and not the other way around.

I want to look at three sets of tensions: first, that which exists between local and central control and accountability; secondly, that which exists as a result of the now-extended range of police responsibilities; and, thirdly, the tensions that exist between the provision of perfect or, one might say, total security for the public on the one hand and human and legal rights on the other.

First, I turn to the tension between local and central government. The Victorians built the current policing model. They were very clear that they wanted a division of power; a tripartite arrangement, in which power and accountability were equally shared between the chief constable, the Police Authority and the Home Secretary. Policing was a local service, which was delivered and overseen locally. In the past 10 years, the gravitational pull has changed very much towards the centre. Although there is much talk about the need for local involvement and accountability, the central directive hand is very obvious. Look at examples like the annual policing plans set by the Home Secretary; PSA targets; chief constables on fixed-term appointments with central assessments and performance-related pay; ring-fenced funding to achieve ministerial objectives; a Police Standards Unit with powers of intervention if central targets are missed; and a national policing board chaired by the Home Secretary as a policy-making forum. I could go on, because that list is not exhaustive.

This tension has brought the police service to a very uncomfortable crossroads. If the broad reach of the task is local in nature and impact, but we have an agenda which is largely set and controlled from Whitehall, the dilemma is viciously circular in its consequences. The more that central government seek to control the direction and priorities of policing, so successive Home Secretaries feel responsible for the outcomes, and for the brickbats. Therefore, they look for even tighter mechanisms of control.

In an attempt to reverse this trend, the Conservative Party has recently published its policy review, entitled, Policing for the People. It contains a good many very thoughtful recommendations, but in seeking to counter the growth of central control, the paper recommends the replacement of police authorities—which noble Lords should note—with directly elected local police commissioners who are responsible for appointing and supervising, and, one may think later, for directing the professional police commanders who would be their de facto subordinates. That is the model found in some states in the USA, where it works after a fashion because all public office holders are elected. If that model were to be adopted here, there would be little to stop the idea spreading to the election of magistrates, public prosecutors, judges, prison governors and so on. I believe that that suggestion is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It flies in the face of the long-held view that the police should be accountable to the law and be able to operate without pressure or influence, especially political influence. Sensitivity to local issues is one thing; subservience to them is another thing altogether.

I turn to the second tension, which is caused by the widening mission for policing. The time was when every local police force provided patrol, response and basic crime investigation. Now every force must be competent in major crime investigation. Local crimes become national news. Examples of that are Soham and the murder of prostitutes in Suffolk. Every force needs the skills and the capability to tackle serious organised crime and terrorism. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that terrorists awaiting trial today have been arrested in places as diverse as Stirling and Thetford. Amalgamation of forces might provide a partial answer, but not to the parallel problem of the clamour for visible local policing. Current government requirements for more visible police patrolling has produced action in urban areas, but I would suggest that many rural areas are often bare, and government funding has already been withdrawn for 8,000 CSOs. The motoring organisations continue to be concerned that main road patrolling by the police is seen much more in the breach than in the observance, and the only regular driver supervision is provided by ubiquitous and wholly non-discretionary speed cameras. Meanwhile, criminals travel on main roads with only a scant chance of a check by the police.

It is fair to say that record amounts have been spent by the Government in recent years, and full-time police strength now stands at around 140,000, although I have to say that this is low by overseas standards. In England and Wales, there are 264 officers per 100,000 population. In France, the figure is 387; in New York, 457; and in Chicago, 467—almost double the figure here. It is undeniable that the public and the police remain dissatisfied. Both often focus on the increasing gap that is left in the middle reaches of police activity where there is an absence of effective action to counter crime committed across force boundaries, a weight of bureaucracy and compliance with often inappropriate targets, and resources stretched too much to make any real impact on issues that directly affect public confidence and esteem. Too often the police do not respond, or respond late, to calls for assistance. Too often the public believe that the police no longer care. In reality, the police are stretched too thinly across the middle ground.

I shall stay for a moment with the middle ground. There is a tension simultaneously upwards to deal with the most serious, and downwards to produce a visible presence. No one could argue that the thrust against very serious crime and terrorism should be lessened, and most would argue for more visible patrolling. But the bulk of police work is found in the middle ground where the tensions will grow rather than ease. Recent briefings emanating from the Cabinet Office forecast some significant future trends, including the growth of what are called “low aspiration cultures”, which I take to mean the growth of an underclass; Home Office budgets that will not rise in real terms over the next five years; race and immigration issues featuring more as a social concern; continuingly high reoffending rates; crime becoming increasingly global and therefore more difficult to combat; climate change, resource competition and demographics, all posing additional drivers for conflict; and of course the continuing serious threat of mass casualty attacks by terrorists.

The truth is that the police task is too wide to ensure a good level of response and service across the board. We have long since left the world where the police were expected to be the only true 24-hour emergency service, and we cannot put the clock back. We have to face facts, and I want to emphasise that if we are to provide what in my opinion is a professional service, the police task must be reassessed and adjusted to match available resources to ensure that what is left can be properly addressed. We cannot go forward with resources stretched to invisibility, and with the police and the public alike confused as to what is expected.

I have addressed briefly the local versus the central tension, and the tensions around the extended police task. I turn now to the third tension, which I believe is around the expectation that the police, together with other security organisations, should provide what is sometimes called the “perfect”, or total, security solution while at the same time adhering to high standards vis-Ã -vis human rights and privacy. Over the past 20 years or so, we have seen the introduction of PACE, disclosure rules, criminal justice processes that demand a high burden of proof regardless of whether a misdemeanour or a serious indictable offence is involved, and many other changes. I do not criticise the trend, of course, but in my opinion it sits uncomfortably with the growth both of the surveillance society and the increasing trend to make the police both judge and jury in a growing array of offences that can be dealt with by way of fixed penalty on the street.

Many lawyers share my concern. Justice, together with Liberty, both identify summary justice on the streets as one of their major concerns. Others include compliance with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act at operational level, where officers are given very broad discretion to exercise powers that can restrict convention rights; and also the broader and related question of the regulation of policing generally. How, Justice and Liberty ask, can excessive bureaucracy be avoided without compromising standards and accountability? How, Justice asks, are the police sufficiently operationally independent of government? What, it asks, are the appropriate degrees of independence and accountability? A plethora of questions, all of which, and others, demand answers if policing is not to be completely overtaken by red tape and events within the next five or 10 years.

But one other issue runs right through the debate as a central theme: what about the leadership of the police service and the quality of officers from top to bottom? Since 1979 salaries have been pegged at the retail prices index, moving the service for the first time away from the shameful situation that was last seen in the late 1970s, when the best often did not join the police, the best still serving left in droves and morale plummeted. Current suggestions that the service should once again be opened up to “market forces” ignore the lasting damage that we saw before the Lord Edmund-Davies review of 1979 and fly in the face of history. In the future, the task is going to become more complex, more difficult and more dangerous, and we need a service populated by people who are up to the job.

To be frank, for many years the police service has not been seen as a service of choice for the best. Top-class leaders like Sir Norman Bettison are thin on the ground, and will become thinner unless current arrangements for accelerated promotion are addressed. The Police Federation places an absolute premium on the need for senior officers to have experienced life on the beat, and I do, too. But, very shortly, we shall have to produce a scheme that recruits the best people; that exposes them to rigorous, extended training where leadership is emphasised; which vigorously culls those falling short of high standards; which exposes them to the proper experience of life on the street; and which sees them at the rank of chief inspector or superintendent within five years. That is not much different in concept from what exists today, but it would have higher standards, tighter time-scales and better guarantees of appropriate advancement for the very best. Neither the service nor the Government can afford to duck the issue if what is sought is the very best for policing.

I begin to conclude by asking how can a pool of only a few hundred of the very best officers be best managed nationally to avoid the present lottery where the vagaries of local police authority selection precludes any attempt at career planning and development at the very top? I am impressed with the model in Sweden. Admittedly, there it is a national police service—I do not necessarily advocate that—and Sweden is small in comparison with England and Wales. But the Swedish system is scaleable and there a cadre of top officers is developed nationally. These officers are posted to areas where they must relate effectively with the local police authority before perhaps being moved on to maximise the overall personnel thrust. It is a model that would repay some careful attention.

It would ruffle a few feathers here, but more than ruffled feathers is required if we are to ensure a police service that is up to the job, not only now but in five years’ or more time. We cannot go on simply making adjustments as we bump up against events, knee-jerking our way from problem to problem as we have for so many years.

The present police model is tired; it is largely incapable of much more responsive change; it is stretched too far and too thinly; it urgently needs a redefinition of role. Both the police and the public they serve deserve a brave, open and adventurous new approach if we are to continue to have a service that we can still hail as the best in the world. I beg to move for Papers.

11.55 am

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dear, on securing this important debate. I have great respect for the noble Lord, who gave a valedictory speech at the Police Staff College when I was attending it on a course. He will not remember it as it was many years ago, but, as with a good teacher, you remember these things, particularly if you are a policeman.

The defence of our citizens against criminals is second only to the defence of the realm against external enemies. Let us be clear that criminals are properly described as enemies of society because of the pain, misery and despair they cause. Policing is about more than fighting crime, as the noble Lord said. It is about keeping the Queen’s peace; dealing with road accidents, air and train crashes; missing people; lost property; and safeguarding sporting events and crowds of all kinds. It is about helping to maintain social cohesion by creating safer neighbourhoods.

I could go on but the list is endless, and the problem is that it is getting longer all the time. As an example, when I joined the service all those decades ago there was no National Crime Squad, no regional crime squads and no anti-terrorist squad. There were no family liaison officers, drugs squads or riot squads, admin support units, paedophile units, child exploitation and online protection centres, or indeed anywhere near the number of vehicles or radios that are available today. That was the situation throughout all parts of England and Wales.

---