Lords Hansard text for 12 Jul 200612 July 2006 (pt 0932)

Mental Health: Patient Safety

3.24 pm

Baroness Barker asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, we take seriously concerns raised by a National Patient Safety Agency analysis of individual reports on patient safety in mental health services. We have concerns about some information on sexual allegations and are working with the NPSA to establish the accuracy of the most serious allegations. Professor Louis Appleby is leading a review of these reports, which we shall act on. We had already intended to publish the NPSA report on completion of this review. However, as inaccurate accounts have been made public, we shall publish the latest version shortly.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. In 1996, Mr Blair, in opposition, asked the following question about mixed-sex mental health wards:

Today, when 25 per cent of mental health patients record that they are held in mixed-sex wards and it has taken the Department of Health more than six months to respond to a report setting out allegations of more than 100 serious sexual offences against women, does he not think that it is time the Government responded to the report fully and quickly?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there are two points there. As I understand it, the latest published figures show that 99 per cent of mental health trusts and PCTs that provide mental health services meet single-sex

12 July 2006 : Column 706

accommodation objectives. We are working closely with the remaining one per cent to ensure that they achieve the necessary standards as quickly as possible.

The delay in responding to the report has been caused by trying to get to the bottom of the allegations. That is what Professor Louis Appleby has been doing and will continue to do.

Baroness Murphy: My Lords, I accept that the departmental returns suggest that 99 per cent of trusts now have single-sex wards, but in reality does the Minister not accept that at least 25 per cent have makeshift arrangements because they do not have the capital investment to allow them to arrange for separate wards? Those unfortunate arrangements allow daytime occupancy to be joint and rooms at night to be unlocked, often in separate wards but too close to each other to provide appropriate protection.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that a very small number of patients, when admitted as an emergency, may be put in mixed-sex accommodation. It is the nature of an emergency that some action has to be taken. However, we have put a large amount of extra money into mental health services, including capital. I will look into any cases where applications have been made for capital money that has not then been granted in that area.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the Minister said that a very high percentage of providers met an acceptable standard. What is an acceptable standard? Does that mean that women are still at risk in these units, as the report suggests? If that is the case, will he please look at it as a matter of extreme urgency?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I will write to the noble Baroness with the definitions of standards. I think she is aware of them. I do not have time to go through the detail of them here, but I will share them with her.

As I said, there are occasions when people are admitted to a mixed-sex ward in an emergency. A small proportion of providers—one per cent—are not meeting the standards, and we are working with them to make sure that they do so.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in 1994 I sponsored and took through this House a Bill outlawing mixed-sex wards? Ever since that time—12 years ago—I have been assured by Minister after Minister, including the noble Lord himself, that such wards would indeed be phased out completely. Now I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others, that they have not been phased out. Surely, after 12 years, we should have eliminated mixed-sex wards entirely from the National Health Service.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord in this area. I say to him that rather more progress has been made in this area under this Government than under the previous one.

12 July 2006 : Column 707

Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm my understanding that no organisation is specifically tasked with monitoring assaults committed by patients on other patients? Is that not quite wrong? Will the Minister consider the case for drawing up clear national guidelines for how trusts should react when one patient assaults another as there does not seem to be any consistency in this area?

Lord Warner: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the trust that is running the facilities to ensure the safety of its patients. Where there are possible criminal assaults, it is for the trust to inform the police. Work is going on about whether more guidance is needed in this area. I am happy to write to the noble Earl about that.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, will the Government institute a robust, transparent and easily accessible reporting system for incidents of sexual assault and harassment in mental health units in general, and for women in particular? If that is to be the case, when will it occur?

Lord Warner: My Lords, this Government introduced the National Learning and Reporting System under the NPSA, for which they have been fully commended by the National Audit Office. This leaked document is part of that work. We are continuing to get to the bottom of that. This has demonstrated that there is a more open culture in the NHS, which is for the good of patients.

Water and Sewerage Services (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

3.31 pm

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 5, 6 and 12 June be approved [Considered in Grand Committee on 4 July].—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy Review

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, somewhat exceptionally, I seek to repeat a Statement made by the right honourable Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the other place yesterday. The Statement is as follows:

12 July 2006 : Column 708

“Today I am publishing a report setting out the conclusions of the review. Copies will available in the Vote Office in the usual way. The report is extensive and of necessity my Statement has to cover proposals in some detail.“Mr Speaker, we face two major long-term challenges: first, along with other countries, to tackle climate change and the need to cut damaging carbon emissions; and, secondly, delivering secure supplies of cleaner energy at affordable prices. Increasingly, we will come to depend upon imported gas and oil as our own plentiful but harder to exploit North Sea reserves decline. The proposals I am announcing today set out our approach to meeting our energy needs over the next 30 to 40 years. Many of the proposals contained in this report will need further consultation. Thereafter, the Government intend to publish a White Paper around the turn of the year.“The starting point for reducing carbon emissions must be to save energy. If we are to meet our goals of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emission by 2050, we need not just to reduce carbon intensity through low energy sources such as renewables, but also to save energy. So we make a number of proposals to encourage greater energy efficiency. For consumers we need better information about the amount of energy used, smart metering and real-time energy use displays, better and clearer energy bills and more information for new buyers and tenants on energy efficiency in homes.“It is estimated that leaving electric appliances on standby uses about 7 per cent of all electricity generated in the UK. So we will work with industry and others to improve the efficiency of domestic appliances and to phase out inefficient goods, limiting the amount of stand-by energy wasted.“We also propose a range of measures to take us towards a long-term goal of carbon neutral developments—new homes can use around a quarter of the energy to heat compared with the average home. We aim to make the Government estate carbon neutral by 2012. We will also provide strong support for the use of on-site electricity generation such as solar panels.“Energy efficiency will help people on low incomes especially. The review sets out our approach. If we are to make a real difference to reducing energy demand we need a radically different approach. We need a stronger obligation on energy companies to provide energy saving measures and a radical plan to change the way they sell their services. “We will encourage Britain’s 27 million homes to become more energy efficient, but it is also essential that we incentivise Britain’s big six energy suppliers to work with home owners to make their houses more energy efficient.“Today, companies have the incentive to sell as much as they can. Instead, we need to give energy producers incentives to make households more energy efficient and to sell them more insulation products. We are consulting on the most effective way of doing that.

12 July 2006 : Column 709

“The EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which covers 11,000 high intensity users of energy and the climate change levy are key to encouraging businesses such as power stations or steelworks to save energy and to cut emissions. But there are around 5,000 large businesses and public services in the UK not covered by that scheme. We want to reduce energy inefficiency for these companies too. One supermarket chain in the UK alone is one of the biggest single users of energy in the country. These businesses should be incentivised to reduce their emissions. “So we shall consult on a proposal for an emissions trading scheme for them along with other options to cut the amount of carbon produced, which is something that they support. It makes economic and environmental sense. “Saving energy in businesses and homes is essential. But so too is the need to cut emissions from road transport. Fuel efficiency in transport continues to improve, and we will encourage the use of lower carbon fuels, especially biofuels. There will be more cost-effective opportunities to save carbon as new technologies are developed. Company car tax and vehicle excise duty have been reformed to encourage energy efficiency, and we will continue to press the EU to consider the inclusion of road transport in the emissions trading scheme as well as including aviation. “Last November, we announced in the renewable transport fuel obligation that 5 per cent of all fuels are to be from renewable sources by 2010. Today, we propose that the obligation, after consultation, should be extended after 2010, provided that some important conditions are met. This could provide a further carbon reduction of 2 million tonnes, which is equivalent to taking another 1 million cars off the road once it is fully implemented. “Providing the right incentives to reduce energy is critical, but we also need to do more to make the energy we use cleaner. We make a number of proposals. Most of our electricity is generated in large power stations, and around three-quarters of our heat comes from gas that is fed through a national network. It delivers economies of scale, safety and, crucially, reliability. The Government believe that we can do more to encourage the generation of electricity on a smaller scale near to where it is used.“Today, less than half of 1 per cent of our electricity comes from microgeneration. Combined heat and power provides about 7 per cent. We need to do more. There are technical and other obstacles to overcome, but we want to remove barriers to the development of what is known as distributed generation. We can do more to make it more attractive to energy microgeneration and to set up combined heat and power schemes. The Government believe that this is a major opportunity for the UK not just to invest in renewable energy but in other low carbon technologies.

12 July 2006 : Column 710

“The environmental transformation fund, which was announced recently, will provide investment for energy funding services. Details of the scale and scope of that fund will be announced in the spending review in 2008. We will also encourage low carbon alternatives such as biomass, solar and heat pumps. “Over the next two decades, it is likely that we will need substantial new electricity generation capacity as power stations, principally coal and nuclear plants, reach the end of their lives. It is equivalent to around a third of today’s generation capacity. Power stations are long-term investments, and we need to put in place the right framework to incentivise investment decisions to limit carbon emissions. “First, we remain committed to carbon pricing in the UK through the operation of the emissions trading scheme. It is essential that there is a carbon price, to encourage us to use less of it. Today, around 90 per cent of the UK’s energy needs are met by fossil fuels, so we need to do more to encourage renewable generation of electricity. “The renewables obligation is key to supporting the expansion of renewables. It has brought forward major developments, particularly onshore wind, landfill gas and the use of biomass in coal stations. Far from getting rid of the renewables obligation as some have proposed, we intend to increase it from 15 per cent to 20 per cent.“We also want to give a boost to offshore wind and other emerging technologies to encourage the growth of other technologies—off-shore, wind or tidal, for example. So we will consult on banding the obligations to encourage these developments.“The Government also see a continuing role for both gas and coal-fired generation. The Government will convene a coal forum to bring together UK coal producers and suppliers to help them find solutions for the long-term future of UK coal-fired power generation and UK coal production.“Coal-fired generation continues to meet around one third of electricity demand. Last winter it reached as much as half. This shows the importance coal can play to the UK’s energy security. But to have a long-term future we need to tackle its heavy carbon emissions.“Carbon capture and storage could cut emissions by 80 to 90 per cent. And we have some natural and commercial advantages—strong oil industry and old oil fields where CO2 can be stored. The next step would be a commercial demonstration if it proved to be cost effective. We are working with Norway and the industry in developing this and a further announcement will be made in the Pre-Budget Report. Carbon capture could lead to saving several millions tonnes of carbon by 2020.“The Government believe that a mix of energy supply remains essential. We should not be over-dependent on one source. That is especially so if we are to maintain security of supply in the future. We will continue to do everything we can to promote

12 July 2006 : Column 711

more open and competitive markets, which is why we are backing the Commission in securing an effective implementation of the energy market.“We will also take steps to secure gas supplies, maximising the exploitation of oil and gas from the UK Continental Shelf. Last month we saw a record number of applications for further development in the North Sea. We also need to facilitate the construction of sufficient storage and import infrastructure.“Against a background where Britain’s nuclear power stations are ageing, decisions will have to be taken on their replacement in the next few years. If we do nothing, the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear will fall from just under 20 per cent today to just 6 per cent in 15 years’ time. And nuclear has provided much of the electricity base load, contributing to consistency of supply as well as security of supply.“While some of that capacity can and should be replaced by renewables, it is more likely than not that some of it will be replaced by gas, which would increasingly have to be imported. The Government have concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals. It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs.“The review makes a number of proposals to address potential barriers to new build and the HSE is developing guidance for potential providers of new stations. For nuclear, new-build consideration of safety and security will be paramount, as it is now. We are setting out a proposed framework for the way in which the relevant issues on nuclear should be handled in the planning process and will be consulting on this before the publication of the White Paper.“The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management published its interim recommendations in April, confirming its preference for geological disposal of nuclear waste. The committee is to be congratulated on the open and transparent way in which it has conducted its work and the broad consensus it has developed for securing the future long-term management of the UK’s nuclear waste. CoRWM will publish its final report this month. The Government will respond thereafter. “If we are to see any of these developments, whether they be renewables or conventional power stations, we need to change the planning laws in this country. We will work with the devolved administrations to make sure that we have an effective planning regime. There are some changes we can make now, for example, bringing together the planning process and consents on the Electricity Act but the Government believe that the current planning regime needs fundamental reform and the Government will consult on proposals to do that later this year.

12 July 2006 : Column 712

“The proposals that I have set out will result in a reduction of between 19 and 25 million tonnes of carbon by 2020, over and above the measures announced in the Climate Change Programme review already. We are on course to achieve real progress in cutting emissions by 2020 and on the right path to attaining our goal of cutting the UK’s carbon emissions by 60 per cent by about 2050. These proposals will help us meet our twin objectives of tackling climate change and providing security of supply. The scale of the challenge is great. The proposals I set out show how we can overcome them to secure our prosperity and the health of our planet”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Since this Statement was made in the other place, it has come to light that the statistics quoted on electricity appliances on standby should have referred to electricity used in the home, not electricity generated in the United Kingdom. Arrangements are being made to advise the other place of that clarification.

3.46 pm

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the other place. I am pleased that Her Majesty's Government are, in theory, considering nuclear energy within the mix that we need to protect the security of supply to our small country, especially considering that we on these Benches had to fight the Government during the progress of the Energy Bill in 2004 to keep the nuclear option open. Indeed, one might argue that, welcome though some of the noises in the Statement are, the gist is more, “We’ve thought about it, now we are going to think about it again—a little more—and then consult on it”, or, as my honourable friend in the other place stated yesterday,

Official Report

Two years ago the Government had the opportunity in primary legislation to address many of the points that they have raised today. Yet I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will remember that the Government resisted amendments that addressed sustainable energy, microgeneration, combined heat and power, energy efficiency and clean-coal technology, to mention just a few—perhaps because it was an election year. As the energy crisis deepens, we know that the Energy Act 2004 was a missed opportunity and that, with the rapid rise in the price of oil and the depleting gas supplies, the matter is now becoming critical. There can be no doubt that the Government agree with us that security of supply and carbon reduction are the two key priorities.

I will not repeat the comments of my honourable friend, who succinctly laid down the many areas in which there is now a consensus, nor shall I ask the questions that he did, unless there was no answer in the other place. However, I want to ask the Minister what consideration has been given to the flexing of muscles by Russia in the energy field and how that may affect our security of supply at the end of the pipeline.

12 July 2006 : Column 713

I started by suggesting that, in theory, the Government seem to be considering nuclear energy. In a well publicised speech, the Prime Minister announced that nuclear power is

However, in his preface to the energy review report, the Prime Minister spares 10 scant words to the subject of nuclear power. In his Statement in the other place yesterday, repeated by the Minister today, the Secretary of State said that the Government have concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy needs. I emphasise the word “could”—not “will” or even “should”. Is this a diminution of what the Prime Minister said about nuclear power being,

It is perfectly clear that, perhaps in deference to their vast body of anti-nuclear supporters, the Government, while offering to grasp the nuclear nettle, have done so with heavily gloved hands.

In the very next paragraph of that Statement, the Government said—I précis it—that it will be for the private sector to fund its full share of the long-term waste management costs. The Secretary of State was pressed by several of his Back Benchers in the other place to explain what the full share was. One honourable Member asked him whether it was 100 per cent. To all those questions, no answers were forthcoming, so, on behalf of the House and in the interests of clarity, I repeat the question: is the full share 100 per cent? A simple yes or no will suffice. I assume that nuclear waste from sources other than nuclear power—for example, medical and industrial waste, and isotopes—will not be charged to the generators.

I am conscious of time in a discussion in which many may want to take part, so I shall add only one more comment. In the Statement, the Minister repeated that we need a stronger obligation on energy companies to provide energy-saving measures. The Secretary of State pointed out that energy companies have a great incentive to sell as much energy as they can. The suggestion is that energy companies should be incentivised to sell more insulating products. It sounds to me like trying to get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

The Prime Minister has referred to energy-saving bulbs. They are first class: they save power and last much longer than ordinary bulbs. But they cost several pounds each, and we obviously need to look for things that are not necessarily beyond the pocket of many people. What energy efficiency regulations will be imposed both on new builds and on conversions of existing properties?

Overall, the Statement poses more questions than it gives answers, because it lacks detail and calls for further consultation. How much more do we need? We welcome the Government’s focus on renewables, particularly for planning procedures. However, what else will they do to achieve those targets? I remind the Minister that the Government have had targets of 10 per cent by 2010, 20 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050. Today, 3 to 4 per cent of our energy comes from wind power, so the question is: how they will achieve that? After nine years, six Secretaries of State and three energy reviews, our supply is not secure and carbon emissions continue to rise.

12 July 2006 : Column 714

I started by saying that the Energy Act 2004 was a missed opportunity. This Statement has been, as well. It is, as my honourable friend said in the other place,

Official Report

I return to the cry so often heard. It is time, in the immortal words of Elvis, for:

3.52 pm

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, although it is rather unusual that we had to have it today. It seems that, through the usual channels, the Conservatives did not ask for this Statement. That is an interesting situation and it is the role of the Lord Speaker to adjudicate in such cases. However, I thank the House authorities for making the Statement available today. It is important, and must be made. Perhaps there is some way in which the usual channels could be changed so that we can get these Statements brought forward.

This is one of the most interesting Statements that I have ever had to talk to. It is the first time that I have been lobbied, as a Front-Bench spokesman, by Members from all sides of the House to make points on one side or the other against their Front Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has made a strident and excellent speech in support of her view on nuclear power, but that strident view is not shared by her leader in another place.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know that this is timed, but I should like to point out that I did not make a “strident” defence of nuclear. I was asking about the Government’s opinion.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, perhaps a reading of Hansard will elucidate my misconception.

I am split on the Statement, because half of it—up to point 45—is, for somebody who has been fighting for renewable energy, Christmas come early. It is an excellent Statement, setting out many issues that will be welcomed by those fighting climate change and looking carefully at ways of reducing carbon emissions. Some points are very interesting. I find it particularly interesting because, when I took my Renewable Energy Bill through two years ago, the Government had not taken on board the need for some of these measures, but they are now taking them forward with some alacrity.

The issues in which I am particularly interested are smart metering, which should be in every house, microgeneration, eliminating standby, combined heat and power—especially large-scale combined heat and power, which is not utilised at the moment—and energy-saving light bulbs, which should not be underestimated. As has been pointed out, the use of energy-saving light bulbs in this Chamber is saving the House authorities £3,000 a year.

A number of questions have to be asked of this Statement. We on these Benches are against nuclear power for two reasons. The first is waste. Are the

12 July 2006 : Column 715

Government taking the interim report as the final report? Does the Minister believe that there will be any changes between the interim report and the final report? Is that why the Statement is being made before the final report has come out? The second reason is cost. The Government have clearly said that there will be no subsidies for nuclear power. I find that interesting because, in the past, nuclear power has always cost a great deal more than was set out. Indeed, this paper gives different prices for the provision of nuclear and wind power from the ones given in the 2002 paper. That might be because nuclear power has become cheaper, but I do not believe that wind power has become more expensive. Can the Minister say whether there will be no subsidy in relation to the emission of carbon or through the regulations dealing with carbon release and nuclear? Will renewable obligation credits be extended to nuclear? There is talk of increasing the renewable obligation from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said that he believes that nuclear is a renewable resource. If that is the case, are the Government changing their view and extending ROCs to nuclear?

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page