| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
A noble Lord: Amendment No. 177H is a future amendment.
Lord Rooker: Why am I dealing with it now? If I can answer the noble Lord's question then perhaps I shall be able to avoid an extra debate later on. That might be helpful. I shall put on the record a note that I have on Amendment No. 177H, which may answer the point put by the noble Lord. I am keen to give as many detailed answers as possible.
The amendment would require the code of practice, agreement or direction issued under this part to include transitional arrangements. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, retention periods need to be proportionate to the purpose for which the data were collected. Therefore data which will be retained under the code of practice, for both business and law enforcement purposes, will be stored for a different period from data which are held at the moment for business purposes only.
In addition, communications service providers may need time to adjust and possibly invest in new retention and/or retrieval systems. So we recognise that the code will need to make provision for
transitional arrangements. However, this amendment is unnecessary. Transitional arrangements are a matter for implementation and will be considered in the course of consultation on the code of practice. Our expectation is that a voluntary code will work and that service providers would not sign up to a code which was not reasonable and practicable.On the point made by the noble Lord with regard to hotmail and what terrorists might do, to pure lay people like us it seems that they could not possibly be found out if they used other means which I shall not describe. I am surprised at the technological proficiency that is around these days, but if terrorists are in any case technologically proficient, we shall just have to keep one step in front of them.
Lord Lucas: If I have understood correctly what the noble Lord said about the Data Protection Act, the data will be accessible by the police but not by the individual to whom that data refer. I am not sure whether that is a delightful conclusion.
So far as concerns Internet headers, I hope that the noble Lord will suggest to someone in the Box that they might drop me a note to answer my question with rather more precision. I shall then be content.
The Earl of Northesk: Dark secrets notwithstanding, this has been a wide-ranging debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I have not kept score, because there was no real need so to do, except to say that, regrettably, the Minister has scored nil.
This side of the Committee has come to an agreement on what would be an appropriate way forward. It is that which makes the Minister's position unsatisfactory to us. I take heart from the opening remarks made an hour ago by my noble friend Lord Goschen. This debate must have felt quite like old times for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. It also struck me that my noble friend has all but shot the Government's fox in explaining that the amendments need not constrain the Secretary of State, or the wholly admirable task of countering terrorism, in the way that the noble Lord has sought to argue throughout our scrutiny of the Bill thus far.
I should also point out to the Minister that I have always accepted the Government's assurances on content, a point which I made on Second Reading. Indeed, all my remarks on this amendment have been concerned with the pure business—to use the noble Lord's own word—data. There is no confusion in my mind on that point. I can also assure the noble Lord that I am not confused about the distinction between Xretention of" and Xaccess to" data. However, the difficulty is that while the noble Lord insists that all the Government want to see retained is billing data, that is not quite what is set down in the Bill. As drafted, the provisions raise the prospect of vast accumulations of data being retained, which in turn raises concerns about practicality that I have already mentioned.
Most kindly, the noble Lord read out the definition of communications data from the notes on the regulation of investigatory powers to demonstrate the
point. In pursuing that a little further, the Bill also confers powers to track the movements of everyone who carries a mobile phone. If business data were the only data already retained, no legislation would be needed. Furthermore, access to such business data is relatively easy. Part of the point of that is that RIP Act powers did not anticipate any degree of bulk retention when the Bill was before Parliament.As I have said, it would be easy to distinguish between data held for business purposes and for the purposes that are specified in the Bill. Thus a distinction must be made which the noble Lord has not quite explained to our satisfaction. CSPs do not want to hold the data the Bill demands they should hold, albeit they can distinguish the Xbusiness data", to use the noble Lord's term.
As to the voluntary code, it is my understanding that the industry has been working towards one for years. The problem is that it has never had any agreement from governments—nor, indeed, from law enforcement authorities— as to what is required of it. The noble Lord may try to rest his case on the code being voluntary, but that cannot work if delivery of the voluntary code is stuck in a pipe in some way.
I make no comment about the futility of this operation, but I am intensely disappointed by the Minister's response— the more so because my noble friend Lord Goschen has indicated a way out. I shall, of course, read extremely carefully what the Minister said. I have no doubt that I shall return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167B to 171 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee should recommence not before one minute past nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order 2001
8.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order is an opportunity for a significant step forward in the promotion of domestic energy efficiency in Great Britain. The main purpose of the order is to place an obligation on electricity and gas suppliers to achieve
targets in energy efficiency. They will do this by encouraging and assisting their domestic consumers to take up energy efficiency measures.The energy efficiency obligation, more commonly known as the energy efficiency commitment, or EEC, will have three important benefits. First, we estimate that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 0.4 million tonnes of carbon a year. Secondly, by helping electricity and gas consumers to save energy, it will reduce their fuel bills, or they may choose to enjoy greater comfort by living in better-heated homes without increased costs. Thirdly, it will give practical and particular help to lower income consumers who spend a larger proportion of their income on energy. This will contribute to the alleviation of the problem of fuel poverty.
The order sets out an overall obligation on all electricity and gas suppliers of 62 fuel-standardised terawatt hours of energy savings. This is a challenging but achievable target. It represents a significant increase in activity over the programmes that have been operated successfully since 1994 by the regulator, Ofgem. The cost of meeting their targets will fall on suppliers, but, even if it was passed on in full to their customers, it should be no more than #3.60 per customer per fuel per annum.
The order also sets the framework for the EEC to be administered by Ofgem. Ofgem will set the energy efficiency targets for individual suppliers and monitor their achievement. It will also be responsible for their enforcement.
The order offers a balanced approach to achieving environmental and social objectives. It contributes both to our range of actions for tackling climate change and to the eradication of fuel poverty. With this in mind, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order. While my party applauds any move to arrange an effective target for carbon savings, the issue of cost is an important concern. The Electricity Association, in particular, feels that householders will greatly suffer in terms of price. While DEFRA officials have stated that they hope that the increase in price will be met to some extent by suppliers, the regulator, Ofgem, seems to believe that local authorities will assist suppliers with expenditure. The Electricity Association claims that consumers will have to bear the full brunt of the changes. According to the very nature of the energy supply industry, it understands that suppliers will not subsidise the additional costs.
These facts seem to beggar some extremely important questions. Who will pay for these energy efficiency targets? Will the Government outline how much they estimate the average householder will be affected by these measures? The Government estimate that the average annual financial gain for those in the priority group of lower income consumers who would
benefit from measures under the scheme, either in lower energy bills or increased comfort, would rise to around #14 a year by 2005. The Electricity Association claims that the Government have been over-generous in their attempt to estimate the effectiveness of energy efficiency measures, and consequently have understated the resultant costs.
While I and my party wholeheartedly commend energy saving initiatives, my consultations with the industry lead me to believe that the Government have not lent a rational argument to both the proposed costings and timescales. Will the Minister enlighten the House and tell us who will pay, and how much?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page