---

Lord Haslam: My Lords, the response to the Statement has been favourable, but I have to strike a sour note. I have lived through the history of this issue. Going back to Rio, its effects were minimal. The main reason for that is that when Mr Clinton went to the Senate, it put down a protocol that said that any environmental measures must not affect the United States economy adversely. That protocol remains in force. Mr Bush has been perfectly honest, because that has been the American position throughout the Rio and Kyoto negotiations.

The other issue that annoyed the Americans beyond measure about Kyoto was the fact that Britain, Germany and France insisted that the base date should be 1990. The Americans wanted 1997, which was the date of the Kyoto agreement. We more or less destroyed our coal industry during this intervening period, while the merger with East Germany gave the Germans a great bonus and the French were going nuclear at the time. We all got the benefit of rapid change that has long gone. We will not have any similar opportunity in the future.

We are now faced with a situation in which America is not in, along with China, India and all the developing world. That represents more than half the potential world consumption and these economies are growing and growing. More coal and gas is being burned in the world now. That trend will continue. Demand for electricity and power is going up all the time. We say that we shall make a reduction of 10 per cent, but we are working on a moving target, not a fixed one. Renewables would have difficulty keeping up with that growth, let alone exceeding it.

The other problem with Kyoto is that, to get people on board, concessions were made that rendered the agreement somewhat flawed. There is trading of emissions between countries—emissions can be

7 Mar 2002 : Column 410

bought and sold. Another important development is that a country can grow forests that act as a sink for CO2. This could become a cheater's charter.

We would like to believe that the agreement is a wonderful thing that will change the world. We may feel good about setting an example, but the industry in this country is not in such a wonderful state that we can put ourselves in an uncompetitive position. All the renewables that we are talking about, even the successful ones, are far more expensive than the traditional forms of energy with which we are familiar.

We are at a critical stage and it would be wrong to blind ourselves to the real situation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord said is correct, and I have never said—nor has any UK Government or EU spokesman—that Kyoto resolves the problem of climate change. However, the conferences at Rio and at Kyoto were the first occasion on which the world as a whole collectively accepted responsibility for trying to slow down and reverse a process that could be devastating for the world as a whole. That was a major political achievement.

Delivering the commitment will be a major first step—although only a first step—in dealing with these problems. As far deeper cuts in carbon will be required post-Kyoto, far more substantial changes in our production and economic methods will be required. Nevertheless, it is a first step. As with any journey, the first step is vital. In this case, the exercise of leadership also is vital. Britain and the EU as a whole, but particularly Britain, have taken that vital first step in leadership. A significant proportion of developed countries must follow that lead before we can expect countries such as India, Brazil and China to come on board.

Significantly, the Chinese have announced for the first time some very serious action to clean up their technology. In the past five years, China's carbon emissions in relation to per capita GDP have been reduced drastically. China has made a start in decoupling carbon emissions growth from economic growth. That process must be greatly intensified. However, we cannot expect countries with a standard of living comparable to China's to adopt the ambitious Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction programme unless a lead is given by countries with much higher levels of per capita carbon emissions. That is why it is vital that 55 per cent—the key figure—of developed countries make that commitment. We can then begin to put pressure on the Chinas and the Indias of this world to come on board.

That is one more reason why it is regrettable that the United States is not with us. I am not accusing President Bush of being dishonest in any sense; I just think that he is wrong—wrong for America and wrong for the world. I believe that American industry and American public opinion need to be persuaded to change that position so that America can take its rightful place as a leader in this process. America is currently on the wrong track, although it is beginning

7 Mar 2002 : Column 411

to see the arguments on the need to stop climate change. Those arguments will become much more substantial as time goes on.

I do not believe that our commitment to Kyoto and to this process puts British industry—except, very momentarily, in a few sectors—at a disadvantage. In the short to medium-term, this type of technological change in production and other methods will give British industry a competitive advantage because, eventually, industry around the world will have to adopt those methods. As we are in the lead in this technology, our commitment is economically sensible as well as vital for the survival of the planet.

Police Reform Bill [HL]

4.23 p.m.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]

Clause 33 [Police powers for police authority employees]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 184:

Page 31, line 34, at beginning insert "After consultation with his Police Authority,"

The noble Lord said: This is a simple little amendment which I hope will catch the Minister in the same helpful frame of mind as we found him in when we began our consideration of the Bill and he agreed that the principle of consultation was inconceivable in the context of the Secretary of State preparing a national policing plan. It seems to me that it is similarly inconceivable that a chief constable would introduce suggested changes in the form of policing in his constabulary without consulting his police authority.

This is a very simple amendment which I hope will tempt the Minister once again to say a very simple, "Yes". If he does not accept our rather basic wording in the amendment but agrees with us in principle, he might consider the issue and return with his own proposals. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am pleased to kick off by saying that I agree with the spirit of this group of amendments—so we are starting off on the right foot. We believe that a chief officer of police should consult fully with his police authority before he extends any powers to civilian police authority employees or establishes an accredited community safety scheme within the force area. However, we believe that there is a danger that these amendments will create an additional and

7 Mar 2002 : Column 412

unnecessary bureaucratic burden by requiring consultation that, in many ways, duplicates what this legislation already requires.

Amendment No. 184 requires a chief officer to consult his police authority before designating support staff. Amendments Nos. 185 and 188 propose a system of consultation that is based on establishing a designation scheme for the extension of powers. The proposal would be drafted by the chief officer and submitted to the relevant police authority in the same way as the annual policing plan—in many ways duplicating an already established consultation mechanism which works well.

Currently, chief officers who decide to make use of support staff—albeit without police powers—in roles such as case managers and custody support staff are not required to consult police authorities. That is seen exclusively as a matter for the chief officer. Therefore, the lack of an explicit requirement to consult is consistent with existing practice. However, I accept that there is a difference in that those people would have a small amount of police power. Nevertheless, we believe that the best way forward, creating the least additional bureaucracy, would be to require annual consultation with the police authority on any proposals to begin or continue the extension of powers to support staff or the establishment of an accredited community safety scheme.

In Clause 34, we have already required that plans to designate support staff under Schedule 4 or to establish a community safety accreditation scheme—and how the two proposals overlap—be set out in the annual policing plan and that drafts of that document be submitted by the chief officer to the police authority. I think that the annual policing plan is probably the right vehicle for this consultation. As we discussed in our initial consideration in Committee, it is a local plan, prepared by the police authority before the beginning of each financial year. The plan sets out the arrangements for policing the force area during the coming year.

The process for producing the plan was established under the Police Act 1996. The mechanism set out in these amendments is very similar to the proposed one in that the chief officer drafts the plan and submits it to the police authority. Moreover, when the police authority disagrees with the draft plan, it is required to consult with the chief officer before publishing a plan that differs from the draft. We believe that this sets out clearly what the consultation process should be. It also ensures that decisions are agreed before the start of the financial year to ensure that adequate resources are available.

In the light of those comments and our belief that there should be consultation, albeit in the form of the annual policing plan, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will agree that we have met the spirit of his amendment.

---