Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

A number of the girls want to come home the next day. The instrument makes it far worse to get out, because you are stuck. You cannot get the transport

17 Dec 2007 : Column 551

out until the bus returns at the end of the week. They do not get paid for the day, so they have no pay to use to get a bus or train home anyway. There needs to be some better welfare condition built in. One of the suggestions was that there ought to be some sort of mother hen appointed to every dormitory, to look after it—that would be a good move. I suggested that to a noble Baroness on our side of the House and she said that in her young days such a person used to be known as the bunny mother, which raises some interesting possibilities. There is a welfare issue of serious concern. I have known of some young women who have gone on these affairs and been stuck there for the whole week because they could not get out and were seriously distressed by the experience. This instrument makes it more dangerous.

My other concern relates to the famous regulation 7, which both noble Lords who have spoken so far have mentioned. They missed one of the more important and pernicious points of it, which comes in Note 24 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

It is not unusual for model agencies to be asked to provide a block booking of 20 or more models for a party, which is part of the selection or casting process for a promotion or launch. In so doing, the agency will get a fee for providing 20 or so models to arrive at one time. The models get to go to a free party and they get paid a fee. This now says that a portion of that fee can be taken by the agency. That might seem fair enough, but it really is not because these are very impecunious young people, trying to make their way. If the fee is taken from them in part, it is not particularly nasty or dirty-minded of me to suggest that the likelihood is that they will seek to augment the depleted earnings by negotiating another fee with anybody they can find at the party.

It is not the function of government to promote prostitution, and this is a pimp’s charter. It needs seriously reviewing and readdressing because it opens up a very serious moral hazard. I think it is wrong and I ask the department seriously to consider these issues. We do not expect this instrument to be withdrawn on its course to implementation in April, but we ask that when the Employment Bill comes through, the Government give more detailed and less na├»ve consideration to some of the implications of this instrument.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank the noble Lords on the Front Bench for their overall support for these amendments. I am sorry that they do not agree with us about Regulation 7. There is room for proper debate and disagreement about the right course to take over the problem that has been identified.

I am tempted by the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to go down the highways and byways of agency policy. Apart from saying that the Government continue to support the underlying principles of the EU draft directive—we want a directive that offers appropriate protection to agency workers, without damaging economic flexibility or closing off a valued

17 Dec 2007 : Column 552

route into employment for many people—it would be better not to go down that particular path tonight. The noble Lord knows that we have the thrill and excitement of the Employment Bill coming to this House for Second Reading on 7 January. I suspect that he will find a number of opportunities to debate the very interesting subjects that he has referred to. I do not say that they are illegitimate subjects for tonight, but it is not practical to go down that particular path.

As for Regulation 7 , I cannot do more than repeat what I said in opening, and what my honourable friend Mr McFadden said in debate with Mr Prisk last Monday when these matters were being discussed in another place. We thought carefully about what was the right thing to do but came to the view that the cooling-off period was the appropriate remedy. We did not want to jeopardise, as Mr McFadden said, legitimate publications, such as The Stage or Spotlight and others, which have been around for a long time and play a legitimate and valuable role in the industry.

We want to tackle the hard-sell tactic of inviting people to attend a casting session, and trying to take money from them on the day, often on the promise of finding work or making bogus pledges to the effect that the young person has a great chance of success. We believe—and only time will tell—that the cooling-off period will have a significant impact by allowing people to think before taking a particular route. That is not to say that the payment of a fee for inclusion in a legitimate publication is always wrong. We accept that there may be a disagreement with our judgment on the matter, but that is how we came to our conclusions.

All the representations that we received were considered, but in the matter of distinguishing between agencies and publications there was a question over whether this could be easily done in such a way as to prevent disreputable agencies producing publications of little value and abusing the distinction. We wanted to use the cooling-off period to give people time to think without putting in jeopardy—and this is really the nub of our argument—the legitimate promotion activity that is carried out by some very long-established publications. The Minister said that he was looking at one such publication, which has existed for 80 years and performs a legitimate role in the industry. We would not want to take action that goes too far.

The noble Lord, Lord James, who has a particular interest in these matters, was good enough to let my department know what he intended to raise, and to talk to me today about these matters. As far as out-placement agencies are concerned, I repeat that the practice he described so well is already an offence, under the Employment Agencies Act 1973. We are also proposing measures in the Employment Bill, which will increase the penalties for this offence by making it eligible for trial in the Crown Court as well as a magistrates’ court. Where offences were tried in the upper court, there would be no limit to the fine that could be imposed. I invite the noble Lord, who obviously has great experience in this field, to report to the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate

17 Dec 2007 : Column 553

any agency he is aware of that is charging such fees. We would be most grateful. I am sure that will be in his mind anyway.

As far as models are concerned, the noble Lord will know that the 2003 regulations contain a framework of minimum standards that clients—both workers, who in this case are models, and hirers—are entitled to expect. The regulations cover measures to protect workers, the contents of terms and conditions, and steps that agencies must take before supplying workers to a hirer. Additionally and importantly, the conduct regulations require the agency to take all reasonable practical steps for the protection of the worker. The noble Lord, Lord James, said that, for workers under the age of 18, agencies are required to obtain consent from a parent or guardian before supplying them for a position where they are required to live away from home. There may be some ignorance about that, but that parents or guardians of workers under that age are required to give that permission represents a significant control. Forcing people to give sexual favours against their will, or any assault—actual or aiding and abetting an assault—is a serious criminal offence and a matter for the police. That is true also of taking illegal drugs. While we do not for a moment contradict what the noble Lord said—it would be foolish to do so—we think that remedies already exist.

The noble Lord mentioned a third area where he believes that more should be done. As far as that area, too, is concerned, if the wrongdoing involves forcing people to give sexual favours against their will, it is a matter for the criminal law and the police. Any cases of that which come to light should be dealt with harshly.

I hope that I have dealt with the points that were made in this interesting debate. I am sorry that I do not have the support of the House for all the regulations; I must comfort myself with the thought that we have it for the majority of them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.44 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.44 pm.]

Climate Change Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 4.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: moved Amendment No. 29:

The noble Lord said: It is tempting to reprise the previous debate, but it is a running theme of all our debates in this Committee that the success of the Bill will depend on the power and authority that we give to the climate change committee. We now come to another area in which we seek to empower the committee and, in turn, put some spine into the Bill.

17 Dec 2007 : Column 554

This group of amendments offers provision for the climate change committee to set carbon budgets for particular sectors if it feels that it is an effective way in which to contribute to emissions reduction. They also stipulate that reports on carbon emissions should contain breakdowns by sector, such that we are afforded a clearer picture of from where our emissions are coming. This should be taken in two parts—to allow the climate change committee to budget for sectors, and the stipulation of reporting on emissions by sector. I shall deal first with the whole concept of sectoral budgets.

There are various arguments for and against having carbon budgets broken down by sector. We have tabled the amendment allowing the climate change committee to budget for sectors without mandating that it does so or that it does so for all sectors. The purpose of this is to ensure that it considers the potential advantages of sectoral targets and is at liberty to produce budgets containing sectoral breakdowns should they prove to be beneficial.

Budgets for sectors can be useful in targeting specific areas of the economy that are in dire need of improvement. If the net UK carbon account is considered too broadly, it risks ignoring the fact that tremendous efforts in some sectors might be mitigated by the emissions of another. They might also serve as a means of providing early incentives to the industry that emits most carbon. However, there are arguments that dictating too much from the top strips away some of the dynamism and innovation required to combat climate change effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned earlier the role of the markets in tackling climate change—and that certainly is a factor. Certain sectors might be able to reduce emissions by availing themselves of the services of others. There is a risk that it will provide too prescriptive a framework; likewise, there is a risk that a particular sector of the economy will not be as progressive about reaching targets if it feels that it has comfortably met its particular target.

Will the Minister comment on the role of sectoral targets in carbon budgets? Does he think that they are a useful weapon and would he be prepared to see them included in the Bill, in an amendment such as this? Once again—and this repeats a theme that has run through this evening’s debates—we feel that this is a decision best left to the experts on the climate change committee. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I shall speak to Amendment No. 32; it follows the gist of the other amendments, which we support from these Benches. This issue has been brought up before. The Secretary of State is given the responsibility for the whole of the carbon emissions. According to the figures that I have here, the energy industry is worth 37.4 per cent, road transport 21.6 per cent, other industries 17.8 per cent, residential 14.9 per cent and agriculture is at around 15 per cent. Obviously those figures change on a year-by-year basis. Of course, road transport has its own department. Energy is under DBERR and residential under DCLG. Even though there is discussion of ministerial responsibilities, the problem for any Minister is that those other industries will

17 Dec 2007 : Column 555

have different targets. I could understand if the Secretaries of State of each department were given the responsibility and a binding target to meet the obligations that are set out, but that is not how the Bill is constructed at present. That feeds back into the argument about whether the Prime Minister should have overall responsibility.

The issue with sectoral targets is that by giving sectors targets, each of those Ministers would have the same responsibility as the Secretary of State for Defra in meeting the obligations set out by the Committee on Climate Change. They are not easy targets to meet. We are talking about 21.6 per cent of road transport, but does anyone in the Committee believe that, because of carbon, there will be a massive reduction in road transport on that basis? There will have to be long-term policies, which are difficult to implement, as we have found. As the congestion charge has shown, it is difficult to bring about a reduction in traffic, keep that reduction static and reducing on a regular basis. On that basis, I hope that the Government will look favourably at the amendments.

Lord Puttnam: I, too, support this entire suite of amendments, which I think are rather more important than they appear. They go to the heart of several things. On page 29 of the Joint Committee report, Professor Sir David King told us that:

More interestingly, many of the witnesses we talked to were stunned that sectoral targets would not be made available. They saw it as fundamental to the whole process of accountability.

I also had the good fortune to talk to a previous Cabinet Secretary who made it clear that the machinery of government itself would require that such sectoral targets existed within government. I would have thought that we had now reached a stage of maturity in our democracy where, if such sectoral targets exist within government, they have no reason whatever not to be made available, certainly to the Committee on Climate Change and through that committee on an annual basis to Parliament. On that basis alone, I support this suite of amendments.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I regard this amendment as particularly important because it helps concentrate the minds—in the way that I suggested on an earlier amendment—of officials and Ministers on what is actually required. While the Bill speaks in generalities about the ultimate objectives of the legislation in the long term, I wanted to find something in the Bill that was more concrete and which would be a spur to industry to respond. Setting targets against sectoral backgrounds would indicate to industry precisely where we want the changes. With the makeup of the Committee on Climate Change including, if I remember rightly, one person who specialises in innovation and technological developments, one would hope that the team that surrounds that person would also be part of generating the debate. That would be a spur to industry to follow that route.

17 Dec 2007 : Column 556

The target for the energy industries, for example, is 37.4 per cent—I have the same briefing as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I would have thought that setting such a target would concentrate the mind on the need to go down the nuclear route as soon as possible—some of us passionately believe that—as indeed, it will send us down renewable routes and other routes that are perhaps not being fully exploited at this stage.

I want to tell a little story. Every individual and community can make a contribution if they know that their sector has been identified. I offer as an example the block of flats where I live in London. There are 170 flats and we were arguing with Peverel, the managing agents, about how we could introduce changes in compliance with the objectives of Parliament to reduce energy. Peverel was not introducing any great changes. Last week, in desperation, I took a representative of the managing agents round all the floors of all the blocks in our development and said, “Take out that light and that light”—every other light throughout the whole development. If we deliver on the number of lights we intend to take out, the result will be to cut our energy bill from £90,000 per annum to about £45,000. That is a 50 per cent cut in a substantial energy bill in one development, which could be replicated nationally in offices, shops, residential accommodation, blocks of flats and community homes throughout the United Kingdom, and certainly in local authorities, where huge amounts of energy are being consumed.

If you have a target area—in this case, energy combined with residential accommodation—then people will know what the expectation is in that area, and industry and communities will respond to that objective. I have taken just one area—I could speak at length on road transport and the way in which economies might be produced there—but it is only by identifying these sectoral areas as targets for change and for the reduction of energy consumption that we can realise the ambitions of the Bill.

The Earl of Selborne: I entirely agree with those remarks and declare an interest as a farmer. My particular interest is to get the land management sector to understand what a pivotal role it can and should play, not only in reducing carbon emissions, but in improving carbon sequestration. I am in the middle of conducting an exercise to determine how, in the next five years, we can reposition ourselves as a carbon-neutral producer of apples. It is a complicated concept, because so much carbon is used in refrigeration, as well as transport and marketing. It is possible, and it is an exercise that we are in the middle of exploring, but it will be possible only if we can do it as part of a sectoral target. No doubt there will have to be market incentives, and perhaps others, to encourage farmers and land managers to adopt practices for which they have not seen a need before.

I like this amendment because it allows the climate change committee to set challenging targets. It allows policy makers to determine how best these can be delivered. They will not all be delivered by altruism—we are clear about that. There have to be incentives, and a market force. I have to say, as a fruit grower and dairy farmer, that much of the pressure is coming from our

17 Dec 2007 : Column 557

customers, the multiple retail outlets, which are extremely keen to be associated with an apple grower such as myself, who is seen to be taking the trouble to try to produce carbon-neutral apples. If this modest amendment helps everyone to get their act together, it should be commended.

Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend’s amendment. It is extremely important. Often when you talk to people outside this House about what influence they can have, and what changes they can make, they say, “We’re helpless, because there is so little we can do”. In following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the churches instituted an eco-congregation award about five years ago. It has made an enormous difference, and people identify with it. It is a question of trying to have legislation which makes people feel, “Yes, I can buy into that and make a difference”.

The churches have done an inventory of where their money goes. One figure that came out of some congregations was that a 1 per cent reduction in the use of heating fuel equates to a 10 per cent reduction in the heating bill, which is remarkable. I follow my noble friend Lord Selborne in his comments, too. I hope the Government will take this on board.

I have been reflecting, since Defra was invented, on the addition of rural affairs to what used to be the MAFF brief. The rural affairs side is quite difficult because it overlaps so many departments, and in doing so, it gets lost. That is why I am particularly attracted to the amendment. If people within that sector feel that they are being recognised for good work or for trying to reduce their responsibilities in that way, they will buy into this.

I hope that, even if the Minister does not like the wording, he will take on board the comments made round the Committee tonight. It is a great encouragement to people outside the Chamber to realise that the Bill is not just for Parliament—it is for each and every one of us to make a difference.

9 pm

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I shall also speak in favour of the thrust of the amendment, but will offer one or two cautionary words. Some sectors are self-evident, such as energy. Transport is not just one sector but a variety of sub-sectors. The climate change committee, as much as the Government or more, will have to build up an overall target based on what it thinks is possible in particular sectors and sub-sectors. Overall targets mean nothing unless they are based on an assumption and estimate of what is achievable at the level of sub-sectors and, in some large cases, individual businesses.

Over 40 or 50 years, the climate change committee will have to be able, in giving us advice, to acknowledge changing imperatives and technological opportunities over time. The idea that we can look 15 or 20 years in advance and be pretty clear about what will happen in each sub-sector throws me back to my early days as a young economist at university looking at Russian and Indian planning, five-year plans and

17 Dec 2007 : Column 558

so on. It is a fine line between targets and sectoral planning. George Brown comes to mind—national plans and so on. The history of national planning is not a great success.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page