| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the differences that the noble Lord highlights are important. I certainly reassure him that those participating in the consultative process will be able to make those distinctions which will be reflected in the deliberations that they undertake.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is particularly urgent to legislate to reverse the decision of the House of Lords in the Bournewood case? Does she agree that it is wrong that people lacking capacity can be informally detained in hospitals under Section 131 of the Mental Health Act without their carers having the opportunity to challenge the decision of the doctors?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to say that we shall take steps to reverse the decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Of course we shall consider intensely the consequences of that decision and will in due course come to an informed judgment as to how we go forward.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there exists in the present law a considerable lacuna in regard to protection of those with vulnerability from abuse of various kinds; namely, sexual, medical, emotional and other such abuses? Does she further accept that the only way to deal with that is to have a comprehensive Act similar to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 which has nearly 100 sections and half a dozen schedules?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we shall of course take into account what the noble and learned Lord says. He will know that a decision was taken that it is inappropriate at this stage to take that matter into consideration when deciding on the legislation. However, those discussions may need to go further. I shall certainly ensure that those who deal with this matter take into account what the noble and learned Lord has just said.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, in fairness to those interested in the final Question we should move on.
Dr Robert Watson
3.25 p.m.
Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What position they took, and why, on the dismissal of the chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr Robert Watson.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in view of Dr Robert Watson's outstanding leadership of the IPCC over the past five years the Government took the view that it would be in the best interests of the IPCC for him to continue as chairman or co-chair. The UK therefore strongly supported his nomination. In the event, Dr Watson was not re-elected. Dr Pachauri of India, also well respected, was elected by a clear majority. We are confident that the IPCC will be in good hands under his chairmanship. He has helpfully indicated that he would like Dr Watson to have a role in the future work of the IPCC.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that as a result of the US Freedom of Information Act we now know that serious pressure was put on the US Government by
Exxon Mobil to have Dr Watson removed or to engineer his removal? Does the Minister agree with Al Gore's comments in the New York Times this Monday that United States environmental policy has been hijacked by a group of former oil and chemical executives who are trying to dismantle the ability of the United States to force the oil and chemical industries to reduce levels of pollution? In the context of those comments does the Minister agree that the removal of Dr Watson was a mistake?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already indicated that the Government strongly supported the re-election of Dr Watson. It is fairly well known, with or without the Freedom of Information Act, that there is strong pressure from oil interests on the present United States Administration. However, I cannot say whether that was crucial as regards the decision of the administration not to renominate Dr Watson and to support the nomination of Dr Pachauri. There was also pressure for a representative of the developing countries to chair the panel. Indeed, the majority received by Dr Pachauri probably reflected that view.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are times in the best of friendships when the gloves have to come off in order to protect valuable principles? Do Her Majesty's Government agree that it is clearly a step in the disinterest of Europe and in the interests of what appears to be the President of the United States' stand on environmental issues that this change of leadership has taken place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have explained our view on the change of leadership. One cannot disagree with the noble Lord's first sentence. Her Majesty's Government regret the stance that the present American Administration has taken on environmental issues as regards its withdrawal from the Kyoto process and other domestic and international measures it has taken. However, as I say, a clear majority of the members of the panel elected to change its leadership. I do not believe that that can be entirely ascribed to the United States Administration. The Kyoto process lacks American participation, but the good news is that the European Union and the vast majority of countries will ratify the Kyoto treaty.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the statement that has been made that Exxon Mobil objected strongly to Dr Robert Watson? What has my noble friend to say about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that it is true that the named companies did object strongly to Dr Watson and reflected that objection to the White House. As I said, I have no way of telling whether that was the crucial element in the White House's decision.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, given that Robert Watson is widely recognised as having embraced assent but forged a clear consensus on the balance of the science—that was endorsed recently by 17 of the
world's major academies—does the Minister agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the person now appointed has been characterised in the scientific press as a "foot dragger" with respect to Kyoto?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have expressed my regret at the non-re-election of Dr Watson. However, it would be wrong, whatever the manoeuvres that took place and the various pressures that were exerted in the process, to dismiss Dr Pachauri as being a foot dragger. He has a commitment to this area and a record in relation to it. Indeed, there has been near unanimity in the IPCC on the analysis and on what needs to take place, as the noble Lord knows. I therefore hope that under the new leadership, the IPCC will continue to show the way in recognising the reality of the challenges presented to us by climate change.
Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Police Reform Bill [HL]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker) : My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to raise a matter before we proceed with our debate. It concerns the issue that was raised by a newspaper this morning about the impression that information that was available to the Minister was not made available to the House on an indication of an instruction from a civil servant that the information should not be made available. It involves the issue of the privatisation of detention officers, which was debated in relation to Amendment No. 163 at great length on 16th April, on the second day of our debate on Report.
In view of the fact that the code of conduct that governs the behaviour of detention officers and their right to conduct intimate searches is not available to the House (more precisely, it was made available to my noble friend only 10 minutes ago, when a letter was given to him in which the information was not enclosed although the letter said that it was) and in view of the fact that the Minister may have been aware of policy suggestions to extend much more widely the privatisation of detention officers and of his assurance to the House that no such intimate searches would be conducted except under the supervision of, to quote his words, "a senior officer" (which the House assumed to mean a senior officer of the police), will the Minister now give an assurance—I ask this with respect for the Minister—that no information that is
relevant to matters that are being debated in the House will be held back from the House? That will enable it to conduct its discussions with the fullest possible information and there will be no question of any information being withheld from it that might be relevant to our debate at Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raises an important issue and makes a significant charge. It strikes me that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has increasingly been a magnet for trouble recently. However, since he came to this House—I believe that I speak for my party in this regard—he has built up a reputation for being forthright, frank, open, candid and, on some occasions, for being very robust in the defence of government policy. We admire those qualities and therefore hope—I hope that he will comment on this—that there is no truth in the rumour that the noble Lord has so offended the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has demanded the removal of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We would be very sorry if he were to go. However, that shows that at least somebody in government is reading copies of Hansard from this House!
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised, is it true that the noble Lord has been asked to keep planned government policy secret from Members of this House? If so, how does that square with the spirit of openness that was laid down in the Nolan code a few years ago?
What is at issue is not just the reputation and integrity of the Government and of the Minister but also the reputation of this House for being a House that can hold the Government to account and scrutinise effectively. I hope that the Minister can offer a full explanation of what has been going on in relation to a matter that increasingly has a very bad smell about it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page