| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, to expand a little on what the Minister says, is not the position that there are well over 20,000 landmines scattered around the Falklands and that about 18,000 of them were put there by the Argentinians, often by recruits—who have no idea where they are now—or by remote devices? It is not surprising that, since it is our sovereign territory—although the Argentinians
29 Jan 2008 : Column 545
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. This process has taken time. It has been complex and sometimes difficult, but we have good relations with the Argentinians. We have no problem, and no uncertainty whatever, about sovereignty; sovereignty is clear as far as we are concerned. There will be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Falklanders wish there to be. That has been made clear to the Argentinian Government; they are well aware of that. Like the noble Lord, I would not wish any convention, such as the Ottawa convention, to be used to underline any claim to the Falklands other than our own.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, while I am well aware of the time it has taken to carry out these de-mining operations, what is the Government’s annual spending now on de-mining in the Falklands? How many personnel are employed in these activities?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there has been a feasibility study on what can be done technically in the de-mining process. Budgets have not been made public and will of course be discussed. There is no beating about the bush; this will be expensive—we are talking about a lot of ordnance. As the noble Lord said, it is spread over a wide area. There are also environmental issues that the Falklanders are concerned about.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the thrust of the Minister’s reply earlier means that the British Government would save themselves an awful lot of trouble and expense if they banned cluster munitions totally, and did not use them. That might be a better way forward than going around the world picking up the ones that we have used or maintaining an unsustainable distinction between so-called dumb and so-called smart weapons. In that case, I assume that we have to pick up the smart ones that are not smart.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am told that we do not use the word “smart”; we use the phrase “not dumb”. The UK Armed Forces use cluster munitions only when operationally necessary. As with the application of all force, it is done only in strict accordance with international humanitarian law and our strict targeting guidelines. Unfortunately, we cannot exclude the use of cluster munitions in certain circumstances as regards the arsenal available to our Armed Forces and their protection.
29 Jan 2008 : Column 546
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what part will the Argentinians play in the de-mining, and is this acceptable to the Falkland Islanders?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we do not see the Argentinians playing any part in the actual de-mining. They have been with us as partners in producing the feasibility study.
Universities: Bursaries
3 pm
Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty’s Government:
In the light of the recent report by the Office for Fair Access, what steps they will take to encourage a better take-up of bursaries by poorer students, especially at older universities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin): My Lords, Martin Harris, the independent director of the Office for Fair Access, has reviewed universities’ performance in paying bursaries in the first year of the new regime. He has found that no university is in breach of its obligations in the access agreement that he approved prior to the setting of fees, but he has written to a number of universities asking them to do more to identify students entitled to a bursary who have not applied. We support this initiative.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate her on her new position on the government Front Bench. Does she agree that it is unfortunate that some 12,000 students have not claimed bursaries of £300 or more that they are eligible to claim? Does she further agree that one of the reasons for this is the sheer complexity of the system, with each university running a separate scheme? Does she also agree that this is an indication that the scheme run in her own country, Wales, which has a single national bursary scheme, might be preferable to the scheme that we have at the moment in England?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question today and for giving me the opportunity to highlight this extremely important report and the work that higher education institutes are doing around England to improve the inclusion of poorer students. Yes, we do share Martin Harris’s concern about the 12,000 students who have not received their bursaries. We are concerned that there appears to be a lack of connection in getting information to these students. All they have to do in many cases is to pass on to the institution their permission for their details to be sent on so that they can get these bursaries. An awful lot more can be done; we are certainly not complacent about the system that we have. We have committed ourselves to reviewing the system in time.
29 Jan 2008 : Column 547
Lord Morgan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the access report showed that some universities have done very well, notably—and I declare an interest—Oxford, but also the LSE, Imperial College London and the University of Sheffield? All of them have 100 per cent uptake from the money that they have allocated for these bursaries—£2 million in the case of Oxford. So it is perfectly possible to be clear and effective and for universities to rely on effective self-help.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. Yes, we are very encouraged by the steps that many universities are taking. I declare an interest in that I am particularly pleased about the steps that my own college—University College—has taken. Many others, such as Imperial College London, have achieved their expectations in granting bursaries and in the outreach work they are doing to encourage wider participation. In fact, 25 per cent of the additional income from the new fees system has been spent on bursaries.
Baroness Verma: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to her new position. Could she tell the House why the bursary forms are so complicated, which deters students from applying? Could not the bursaries be made easier? The take-up might then be better.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I do not accept that all the bursary forms are too complicated. I am absolutely certain that, after the first year, there will be improvements year on year in the operation of the system. However, one of the interesting things about the report is that it shows that in institutions where bursaries were rewarded regardless of the application process to all applying students, a number of students still chose not to apply for a bursary and not to accept one. We have to understand much more about why, in a small number of cases, students do not agree to have their personal details handed on to institutions so that they can receive more money. It is not as simple as it sounds.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, at a time when the university sector as a whole is spending £20 million on outreach work to encourage students from poorer homes to apply to university, applications from the lower socio-economic groups in fact fell last year by almost 1.25 per cent? Can she give any advice to universities to enable them to be more successful this year?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with that statistic. I am advised that participation in higher education by students from the lower socio-economic groups is increasing and that the gap is closing between well-off and less well-off students. I would be very happy to talk to the noble Baroness further about that.
We can give institutions an enormous amount of advice on how to improve their outreach. Martin Harris, as I said, has written to a number of institutions
29 Jan 2008 : Column 548
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the questions here is not simply for universities but for schools? The encouragement of aspiration in schools should be a fundamental part of the solution to this problem.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly. I am pleased that the Government are supporting the Aim Higher initiative which works directly with schools to get children who would not necessarily even think of going to university not only to consider doing so, but to visit universities in order to demystify the whole concept of higher education. This initiative makes higher education seem much more accessible to a large number of children who could, as we all know, benefit greatly from a good higher education.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
3.06 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to which the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 50 to 97,Schedules 9 to 17,Clause 1,Schedule 1,Clause 2,Schedule 2,Clause 3,Schedule 3,Clauses 4 to 6,Schedule 4,Clauses 7 to 13,Schedule 6,Clauses 14 to 23,Schedule 7,Clauses 24 to 39,Schedule 5,Clauses 40 to 49,Schedule 8,Clause 98,Schedule 18,Clause 99,Schedule 19,Clauses 100 and 101,29 Jan 2008 : Column 549
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Electricity and Gas (Carbon Emissions Reduction) Order 2008
3.07 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5 December 2007 be approved. 5th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 January.—(Lord Rooker.)
Lord Jenkin of Roding rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert “but this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to mobilise its sources of information to target the measures to help priority group households in time for the start of the three-year period of the order and the potential severity of the penalties that can be imposed on suppliers by Ofgem for any failure to comply with the 40 per cent obligation imposed by the order; and calls on the Government to withdraw the order”.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment following what I can only describe as a
29 Jan 2008 : Column 550
The issue that concerns me about this order can be simply stated: the order requires energy suppliers—that is, the electricity and gas companies—to secure large reductions in carbon emissions from the household sector, and particularly from vulnerable consumers. The companies have to make sure that 40 per cent of their emission reduction targets are met from the fuel-poor, through households where someone is on any of a specific list of benefits or tax credits, or where someone is aged over 70. The lists are set out in Schedule 2 to the order, and as I am over 70 I should declare an interest. The problem arises because the right to privacy, human rights legislation and data protection legislation prevent energy companies from being told the names and addresses of their customers to whom the 40 per cent obligation applies.
Defra has calculated the number of households with listed benefits or tax credits at 8.8 million; and BERR—I am not quite sure why it is involved—has calculated that households with pensioners over 70 will add another 1.4 million. That makes a total of 11.2 million households, so we are dealing with very large numbers.
The problem of identifying the number of vulnerable households is not new. The Government have run energy savings schemes for some years under the banner of the Energy Efficiency Commitment. They have imposed similar obligations on companies to secure part of their energy savings by targeting vulnerable households. These are assumed to include many of the fuel-poor.
It must by now be clear to the House that imposing these targets on the companies without being free to tell them which of the households they must target creates great difficulties. Indeed, without exception, all the companies and other bodies with which I have spoken have described the problem as extremely difficult. The process is also very expensive. The cost must be added to fuel bills, including those of the fuel-poor, and the procedures that firms must adopt are very wasteful. One local authority has said that it is not at all sure that the system operates for the benefit of the fuel-poor.
The companies have tried to build partnerships with local authorities and housing and social services; have tried to work with the voluntary sector; and have aimed their leafleting at postcode areas believed to contain a high proportion of target households. But without names and addresses, it is all very hit and miss. In Committee, I called it “hide and seek”; on reflection, perhaps a better name would have been “hunt the thimble”. It is to the great credit of the industry and its partners that I have listed that under the original EEC rules most of the companies have been able to hit their targets. The regulator Ofgem—
29 Jan 2008 : Column 551
However, this order makes very big changes. First, the target is no longer on energy saving; it is on emissions reduction, which adds greatly to the complexity. If anyone doubts that, let them read through the Explanatory Memorandum. Secondly, the overall target is doubled for the next three years—over that of the past three years. Thirdly, the cost to customers will be greatly increased. That was made very clear to me by one of the major companies. The industry has been categorical in its comment on the consultation for this order. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the new priority group target is “not achievable”. One has to accept that. The industry states that it cannot possibly be met.
How has this situation arisen? There are two reasons. First, the industry has been slow to recognise that data-sharing, for which it has consistently asked, is not going to happen. It has been hoping that it will be given the names and addresses of the target customers. However, for the reasons I have outlined—data protection and so forth—that has never been on the cards. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made that clear last week in Grand Committee. A much more potent cause is that Defra seems consistently to have refused to admit that identifying the target households is a problem, despite much intensive lobbying on this issue by the industry. In all the 79 pages of the Explanatory Memorandum, the problem of identification is not mentioned. It is not in the summary of the consultation responses on pages 24 and 25; and it is not in the list of barriers described on pages 9 and 10. So until last year, there was no help at all from departments on identifying target customers.
However, last year, for the first time, a pilot scheme began. The industry pays for the leaflets with reply coupons and a telephone help number; the Department for Work and Pensions distributes them to named target households with listed benefits. It is then up to the householder to respond. That covers one in 5,000 of the 11.2 million target households. The Minister told us that there is to be a second pilot this year, this time aimed at pension credit claimants covering a further one in 5,000 of the 11.2 million target households. One has to ask: when are we going to get a system that reaches out to the 11.2 million target households? Is this not going to take years?
Ofgem has now realised the problem. Last month, paragraph 6.6 of its corporate strategy and plan said this, which is quite significant:
“The challenge remains getting the message across to those who most need the help and ensuring that once identified they can benefit from the full range of help ... This requires a joined-up approach from Government, industry and other agencies”.
“It is also dependent on the Government using its sources of information to improve the targeting of the help available”.
Noble Lords may recognise that that last sentence forms part of the first part of my amendment, and that I draw on the key words of that paragraph, “the Government using its sources”. It is far too late. The three-year period of this order starts next April.
29 Jan 2008 : Column 552
I draw on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because I want to refer to the rest of my amendment. This is what he said in Grand Committee about how this is going to be policed:
“Ofgem will be responsible for the enforcement of each supplier’s obligation. It has the power to impose on a supplier a financial penalty of up to 10 per cent of company turnover if it fails”.—[Official Report, 22/1/08; col. GC 85.]
What have we got? The industry says that the target is unachievable. The Government say that if they fail to achieve the three-year targets they can be fined up to 10 per cent of turnover. That could be many millions of pounds.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |