14 May 2007 : Column 1

House of Lords

Monday, 14 May 2007.

The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Nuclear Disarmament: Seven-nation Initiative

Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What assessment they have made of the value of the United Kingdom’s membership of the seven-nation initiative on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament; and what are their intentions with regard to the future work of the group, particularly in the run-up to the next review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, we believe that the seven-country initiative has served to broaden understanding of positions on disarmament and non-proliferation and to extend consensus on these important issues. The seven-nation initiative will rightly look to encourage progress in all areas of the NPT during this review cycle and I am pleased to say that the Foreign Secretary recently confirmed to the Norwegian Foreign Minister that the United Kingdom remains a committed member.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he agree that this grouping, which reaches across the divide between developed and developing countries and between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, offers a possible way of working towards a greater degree of compromise than was reached when these matters were discussed in 2005? Can he update the House on progress towards negotiations at the International Atomic Energy Agency on a uranium enrichment bank or drawing facility, which is one of the proposals favoured by this group of countries?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is a good group, which is broadly defined. All members of the group have among their key foreign policy objectives the intention to work on the issue of non-proliferation specifically. There is in general a strong willingness to see the work on the bank improve, but we are also trying to ensure that our initiative on the question of the bond is also part of the formula. There is a strong belief that this may be one of the best ways of unlocking the impasse that has existed for some years.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that earlier this year a remarkable letter was written to the Wall Street Journal by Dr Kissinger, Mr Schultz, the former Republican Secretary of State, the former Minister of Defence for President Clinton and Senator Nunn, which said that the goal must now be the abolition of all nuclear weapons? I think that the Minister would agree that that is a rather surprising group and that in light of that it is important that the United Kingdom is seen to be taking the lead on issues such as the fuel energy bank and the cut-off for fissile materials if we are to stop the possibility of a dangerous rush towards proliferation on the part of non-nuclear powers.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Government have been clear that the whole issue of the nuclear materials bank would be an extremely important move. The difficulties have been practical ones over many years of defining what should be in the bank, given the wide variety of fissionable materials. That was one of the reasons why we worked on it and came up with the enrichment bond. I emphasise that point because the IAEA also feels that this might be a route through to full compliance with the non-proliferation treaty and one which should engage the energies of all of those thinking of nuclear fuel rather than nuclear weapons.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is very good news that the Minister is confirming that we are continuing to work on the nuclear fuel bank idea with the IAEA, as it feels that that is the way forward. Does he agree that the IAEA is firm in its view that there is a vast expansion of civil nuclear power ahead, making it all the more important to enable countries to enjoy civil nuclear power without having to develop their own domestic nuclear fuel cycle? That is the important message to develop now, given that the NPT review treaty in 2005 was rather a failure and the next one in 2010 will fail as well unless we come up with a lot of new ideas.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is broadly right. The 2005 review treaty was very disappointing, given the desire of so many more countries to develop nuclear fuel strategies. I am glad to say that the most recent nuclear non-proliferation treaty preparatory conference—PrepCon, as I understand it is known by those who are involved—which finished last Friday was a lot more successful. For the first time, we have an agenda that the Iranians, as well as everyone else, have committed themselves to engaging in. That is a breakthrough for diplomacy on this front. I would not want to go so far as to say it is a final success, but it has opened the way for negotiation rather than just the bartering of insults.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is a seven-nation initiative on non-proliferation and disarmament. At the next non-proliferation treaty conference, how far does the Minister expect the disarmament element to apply to the existing nuclear powers as well as to potential nuclear powers?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is an extremely difficult question, as I have no doubt the noble Lord appreciates. Not everybody has made a commitment to cutting their nuclear arsenals. I am very proud of the fact that since the beginning of this process the United Kingdom has cut its nuclear arsenal by approximately 80 per cent. We have moved from having three platforms for delivery to one platform for delivery. If others were to take that as being an example of good will and good progress, we should get much more progress out of everybody else in that direction.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will a further effort be made to persuade all those nuclear powers that are not part of the non-proliferation treaty to join it?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is a consistent effort to do that. Some aspects of it have come up in your Lordships’ House from time to time, in particular in relation to trying to keep the Middle East a nuclear-free area. We know that not everybody has committed themselves to the non-proliferation treaty. This Government, indeed Governments on all sides, have regarded this as an imperative. It is important that everybody comes under treaty obligations so that there can be proper policing of all the developments of the most dangerous weapons conceivable.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that the plans to renew Trident are a step toward nuclear disarmament?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I recall that when we held the Trident debate, my noble and learned friend made some very persuasive points. I made the point that we are a recognised nuclear power, we regard ourselves as having legitimate interests and we are not, at the moment, in a position to believe that the world will become so secure and peaceful that we can readily give up our ability to protect ourselves. In those circumstances, there has to be a credible means of delivering nuclear weapons. I make this point because that is our platform. We have one, and it should be an effective one if we are serious about that component of our defence.

NHS: Hospitals

2.43 pm

Lord Crickhowell asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What percentage of the total capital value of new hospital building projects, with a value of £29.7 million or above, built since 1997 relates to hospitals situated in parliamentary constituencies which currently have a sitting Labour Member of Parliament.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, of the 54 new hospital building projects with a value of £29.7 million or above built since 1997, 72 per cent are located in a constituency with a sitting Labour Member of Parliament. The capital value figure is 86 per cent. All major hospitals, of course, take patients from catchment areas significantly larger than the constituency in which they are located.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for confirming the statistics that have been given in the other place and, indeed, for updating the numbers. Will he attempt to justify this rather remarkable distribution of the money invested in hospitals built overwhelmingly in Labour-held constituencies?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no justification is required. We have seen a huge increase in capital investment in the health service, which is why we have so many new hospitals. The noble Lord ignores the fact that hospitals serve a very wide catchment area. My local hospital, Birmingham University trust, has a Labour MP for Edgbaston, but it serves many primary care trusts. The Question is meaningless in terms of the noble Lord’s implication.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that most of those new hospital developments have been in big cities and major urban areas that felt the brunt of the 18 years of neglect of the National Health Service by the previous Conservative Government?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that, of course, is absolutely right. The net capital expenditure on the NHS in 1996-97 was £1.34 billion; in 2006-07, it was £3.54 billion, to which PFI contributed another £1.094 billion. That is a massive increase from which many people in this country benefit.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the figures do not look so meaningless when, in another place at every Prime Minister’s Question Time, one Labour MP or another jumps up to say, “Thank you very much for the wonderful new hospital in my constituency”?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, those MPs reflect the opinions of their constituents. Those constituents and the people of this country have seen the largest-ever investment in our health service, the largest number of people employed in it and a huge expansion in services. That is at the heart of this Question.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that if you are as assiduous in listening to Prime Minister’s Questions as I am, you will hear not only Labour Members expressing their gratitude, but Conservatives constantly griping and then having to be told about the 300 to 400 per cent increase in resources that their own constituencies have received?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, again, my noble friend has asked a penetrating question on the negative attitude of the party opposite to the National Health Service.

Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the 18 years of Conservative government 86 new hospitals were built? Does he accept, therefore, that the rate at which new hospitals have been built has been roughly the same under both Governments?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course the previous Government had a record in capital spend that does not and cannot compare to the huge resources that this Government have put into the NHS and new hospitals. If the noble Earl looks at the spending of the previous Government, he will see that there was a bias towards rural community areas. During the last 10 years of that Conservative Government, at least 60 per cent of those developments were in Conservative constituencies.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, given the questions that abound regarding the basis for decisions made on the building of new hospitals, can the Minister say how much weight we should place on reports in Friday’s newspapers of the economic analysis of PFI schemes in London carried out by the NHS in London? That report suggested that decisions on closures or redesigns of services will have to be made on economic grounds, because PFI hospitals are too expensive to close, rather than on local need and clinical advisability. Is that really the case?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we should await the work of London’s strategic health authority before coming to such draconian conclusions. PFI has enabled us to speed up the development of new hospitals and many people have benefited from that. Flexibility is built into those PFI schemes in terms of future use of those institutions. The NAO’s reports into a number of schemes have confirmed that PFI schemes provide value for money.

Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, is the skew that the Minister reported in the relationship between hospitals built in Labour-held constituencies statistically significant?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, surely the statistical significance is that hospitals have catchment areas that go much wider than the constituency in which they are built. The noble Lord should recognise that many Labour MPs represent urban constituencies, which is historically where large hospitals are based. This programme is about developing an infrastructure that was so grievously undermined when he was a Minister in the health department. We are putting that right and, as a result, we will provide care for all the people in this country.

Lord Patel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that where a health facility should be situated should be based not on the political constituency but on the health needs of the population, particularly where there are poorer outcomes in regard to health?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is entirely the test on which the Government make a judgment on these matters.

Energy: Light Bulbs

2.50 pm

Lord Teverson asked Her Majesty’s Government:

When, following decisions taken at the March European Council on climate change, they expect the last incandescent light bulb to be switched off in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the European Union is working to remove inefficient light bulbs from the market and aims to complete the necessary legislative process by 2010, after which they will be phased out over a number of years. The Government are working with retailers, lighting manufacturers and trade associations to voluntarily phase out inefficient light bulbs in the UK for almost all domestic use where an efficient alternative exists by 2011.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and very much welcome that statement. When the European Council announcement was made it was unclear whether this was a commitment of the European Union. Can the Minister confirm that it is a commitment and that it will happen by 2010? Is it possible to bring this date a year forward? Bringing the process forward in co-operation with industry and consumer groups would save 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can confirm that it is a commitment across the EC. I do not think there is a risk of bringing it forward. The announcement was made after consultation with manufacturers and consumer groups. The number of light bulbs and manufacturers involved is huge. Some 4 billion light bulbs a year are sold in the EU and 300 million in this country, so there is a huge flow. We will work voluntarily before that date and will be one of the first countries to eliminate for almost all domestic use the old fashioned, inefficient light bulbs.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there not an inconsistency in the EU and government policy in relation to these lamps? On the one hand, barometer makers are being told that they may not use mercury in barometers; on the other hand, we are suggesting that we should change over to these new lamps, which of course contain mercury. It will be, therefore, a difficult job to dispose of that material. Is there not some kind of inconsistency there?

Lord Rooker: None whatever, my Lords. There are more efficient ways of producing barometers than by using mercury. No one is being prevented from looking after antique barometers and repairing them, but there are more efficient ways and mercury is a toxic substance. It is true that the efficient light bulbs contain a small dose of mercury, less than 5 milligrams per lamp, and therefore need to be disposed of responsibly. I draw the attention of the House to a note by the editor in the letters column of the New Scientist last week. He said:

“According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, power plants emit 10 milligrams of mercury while producing the electricity to run an incandescent bulb for five years, compared with only 2.4 milligrams of mercury to run a CFL”—

compact fluorescent lamp—“for the same time”. In other words, there will be a saving of mercury by going down the efficient route but they will have to be recycled responsibly.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Church of England is eagerly awaiting an outright ban on incandescent light bulbs having recently encouraged all its 16,000 churches and the people worshipping in them to exercise a voluntary ban? Is it because Australia has been subject to a 10-year drought that it has been brought face to face with the reality of global warming, in a way we in this country have so far been protected from, that has made it face this issue ahead of us? What will it take for us to start taking such firm measures?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is a terrible thing to say, but usually the answer is to tell people it is cheaper and that they can save money. The cost of running an 11-watt compact fluorescent bulb, bringing the equivalent of 60 watts, is £2.41 per year. The cost of running an ordinary 60-watt bulb is £13.14 per year. People can save an enormous amount of money. If every household in the country changed one regularly used bulb to an efficient bulb we would save the equivalent of one power station. To go one better than that, if every house replaced three bulbs with compact fluorescent lighting, it would be the equivalent of saving the whole of the UK’s street-lighting capacity.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the point is surely that there are far more light bulbs than there are mercury barometers. The issue he raises is important; the problem is with people who wish to repair Georgian and Victorian barometers. It is no good telling people who lived 200 years ago that there is a more efficient way of producing barometers.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I made it quite clear that nobody is stopping anybody restoring and repairing antique barometers. There is a dispensation for that, and that was made clear. This is another of these straight-banana, anti-Euro stories that we have to knock on the head straightaway.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in properly designed buildings fit for the 21st century, on most days during daylight hours there should be no need for light bulbs at all?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is clear. Most commercial undertakings are not using old fashioned, inefficient lighting. They tend to use fluorescent lighting, which takes a lot less energy. There are new technologies coming along beyond compact fluorescent bulbs, such as light-emitting diodes, which use even less power to produce the same amount of light. Lights and bulbs left on wastefully are bad at any time.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, when does the House intend to change its light bulbs to reduce emissions?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I answer for the Government not the House, and have to make that distinction. I assume that there are very efficient light bulbs up there, as they would be in any normal undertaking. Domestic light bulbs are the really inefficient ones, and they are used in a vast array. Most commercial undertakings use efficient light bulbs.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, according to the recent National Audit Office report, the Government are failing to meet their own targets on reducing the environmental impact of their new buildings and major refurbishments. Only 9 per cent of projects meet the required standards. What will the Minister do to ensure that more energy-efficient measures are installed, and will he lead by example?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, Defra will lead by example. Half my light bulbs are energy efficient, and I will seek to make that the case elsewhere.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, what advice are the Government giving to seaside resorts that have wonderful illuminations with hundreds of thousands of light bulbs?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not going to be the Minister who shuts down the Blackpool illuminations.

---