| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
4 Nov 2008 : Column 122
and that the Government would appoint a group of independent experts,
- “to critically evaluate the research findings and data before any decision was made”.—[Official Report, 25/6/07; col. WA 108.]
Can the Minister confirm that that is the process and that those are the actions that the Government are now looking at, to find a way of at least controlling this appalling plant? I remind the House that, because it spreads only vegetatively, it is in effect biologically all one plant and is said to be the largest female clone in the world.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is informative on these critical matters. A regulatory process has to go forward. My Science Quality and Priorities Team is commissioning a peer review at the moment. If, from the processes that the noble Lord has described, it is deemed that the risk is acceptable, Ministers can be asked to agree to the publication of an assessment for consultation with all stakeholders, and we then need to inform the EC Standing Committee on Plant Health. Clearly, very great care has to be taken in relation to the proposed use of a biocontrol agent but, on a positive note, so far the research looks very promising. We must hope that that is confirmed and that we can go through the regulatory processes, and Ministers will then be in a position to make a final decision.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the intergovernmental strategy that the Minister described cover Himalayan balsam, which is rapidly blocking many watercourses in England and Wales?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the concern about Himalayan balsam. My understanding is that an assessment of its impact is in progress using the UK non-native species risk analysis mechanism. We will be advised by the result of that assessment as to whether further action needs to be taken, but I assure the noble Lord that we are not complacent on this matter.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister’s earlier response to my noble friend, has the research previously undertaken on the use of the insect to control knotweed been completed and is the research document on his desk, or he is saying that the research is starting as of now? If so, how soon are we likely to have the results?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the first question I asked my officials was whether I could give noble Lords a timetable. I fear I cannot. This research is continuing, building on research that has already taken place. I can assure noble Lords that my department is not at all complacent. We well understand the problem of this weed. We are very anxious to do everything we can. In the mean time, there is guidance from the Environment Agency about current procedures, such as the use of chemicals, for dealing with the matter. We shall pursue this as quickly as possible, given the regulatory process through which we have to go.
4 Nov 2008 : Column 123
Air Quality
3 pm
Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they requested by 31 October a derogation from the European air quality directive for particulate matter in order to avoid legal action for potential breach of the limits in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government have made the European Commission aware that, subject to public consultation, the UK intends to submit an application for an exemption for those few parts of the UK where there have been breaches of limit values, including London, from the obligation to apply the limit value for particulate matter until June 2011, as provided for by the new ambient air quality directive. Public consultation is expected early in 2009.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which I take to be no, the Government did not apply. I declare an interest as, when in London, I live in one of the most polluted areas of the UK and even of Europe. Is the Minister aware that particulate matter includes particles much smaller than the width of a human hair and that, when inhaled, they can enter the blood stream from the lungs and lead to strokes, heart attacks and other serious health problems, resulting in more than 1,000 premature deaths from this cause alone in London each year? I repeat the Question I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on 9 October 2007, to which I received no reply: by what date do the Government expect to meet the European Union air quality limit values for particulate matter throughout London?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to raise the issue of London and the health consequences of particulate material. She is right to say that some particles can be very small. Some progress has been made. Most of the country meets the target now and, on current projections, a few areas will meet it by 2011. We have a problem in London, but our aim in seeking to extend the time limit to 2011 is that, by working with the London government and its local authorities, we will meet the target by that date.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that particulates come mostly from old vehicles in the fleet and that one way of dealing with them is to scrap and crush vehicles on the road that are not insured or licensed, to offer a scrapping allowance to the owners of old vehicles for a short time and thereby get rid of the particulates and stimulate the motor industry, which sorely needs it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a very interesting suggestion, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench from the various departments concerned will take great notice of it. Clearly, actions
4 Nov 2008 : Column 124
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, following the Question from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, is the Minister telling us that there was no deadline in October for applications? Have any other countries been found to be in breach of these regulations and, if so, what fines have been applied?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think it is time to talk about fines. This year, the European Union requested a letter setting out reasons why the UK and other countries had failed to meet the target. However, we had little notice of that request. We have already informed the European Commission of our action and we will consult in 2009. We will then write to the European Commission. My understanding is that most of the EU countries are in the same position as the UK on this.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could clarify the position. I do not understand his reply to my noble friend’s question. My understanding is that the application for an extension had to be made by 31 October and, according to the Minister’s Answer, that was not done. A letter was sent simply explaining why we were not applying within the correct time. Is that so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is correct because we had very little notice from the Commission that the letter would be required. It is not simply a matter of writing on two sides of A4. Alongside the application, a lot of detailed specification has to be undertaken; that is why we need more time. We also need a public consultation about measures that will have to be undertaken, particularly within London, and we need to take care over that. That is why we initially wrote to the European Commission. We will follow that up next year with a full and detailed dossier in the light of public consultation and our discussions with the various authorities in London.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, do these particulates present any particular problems for children’s health, and do they contribute to childhood asthma?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer to that is yes and yes. Clearly, these particulate matters create significant health issues. That is why it is so important to meet these air quality targets. Children are as affected, which is why we are pleased that most of the country has met the targets. We are pleased that those parts of the country which have not done so are on track to meet them by 2011. It re-emphasises the importance of ensuring that London is sorted out so that by 2011 it meets those targets.
4 Nov 2008 : Column 125
Business
3.07 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at a convenient point after 3.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Darzi of Denham will repeat a Statement on improving access to medicines for National Health Service patients.
In a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, will ask a Private Notice Question. Before he does so, I thought that it might be helpful to remind the House of the guidance in the Companion on such Questions. Proceedings follow the rules for Oral Questions. In particular, supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points. Proceedings are expected to take no longer than 10 minutes.
Economy
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, following the proposals announced yesterday, they will urgently report to the House how they will maintain an arm’s-length relationship with the banks in which they have taken a shareholding.
The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. Yesterday, the Chancellor provided the chair of the Treasury Select Committee with a written update on the financial stability measures introduced in October. The letter, now available in the House Library, provides details about UK Financial Investments, the arm’s-length body that will manage the Government’s investments in financial institutions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the Answer. Will he explain why, in yesterday’s debate in this House on the economy, when we were given assurances that the banks would be dealt with at arm’s length, there was no mention of the setting up of this new high-powered body chaired by one of the most distinguished chairmen in the City, and comprising a senior Treasury official, two other officials and three non-executives? Is it not an affront to this House that when so many Peers asked deliberately about this issue we were not told? What is the explanation?
Lord Myners: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am delighted that he has expressed such confidence in the choice of Sir Philip Hampton as chairman of UK Financial Investments. He will chair a board which will be primarily composed of private sector people with eminent and relevant commercial experience. No discourtesy was intended to your Lordships' House by not announcing the establishment of the arm’s-length body yesterday. It would clearly have been inappropriate for me to anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say at the hearing being conducted by the Treasury Committee in another place. That hearing ran concurrently with our debate.
4 Nov 2008 : Column 126
Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, we had an extensive debate that highlighted what this House is all about as it involved Members with world-class expertise, including three former Chancellors of the Exchequer. Our debate finished at 9.58 pm. The Treasury’s press release was dated yesterday. What stopped the Government circulating a copy of that release during the debate when so many questions were asked about this matter? The Government should be proud as the private sector and the public sector are working together. The Government would probably have been congratulated. Are they scared of being congratulated?
Lord Myners: My Lords, I understand that it is the protocol of the House—when I made my maiden speech barely a week ago, I begged noble Lords’ indulgence as I became accustomed to the procedures and processes of the House—that written documents are tabled only at the beginning of debates.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we are not criticising the noble Lord, Lord Myners, because we realise the sequence of his speech. However, when the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, who unfortunately is not in her place, wound up the debate, she was supposed to be responding to some detailed questions on this point, but largely she did not seek to answer them. That is the discourtesy to this House.
Lord Myners: My Lords, I thought my noble friend Lady Vadera made an extraordinary winding-up speech of great breadth and understanding of the complex issues arising from nearly seven hours of debate in your Lordships' House.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being able to come to the debate yesterday. I had to be in court.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Don’t ask, my Lords. On the substance of the question, rather than the procedure, does the Minister accept that if it is an arm’s-length relationship, we need very short arms because these are effectively nationalised industries with many billions of taxpayers’ money put into them in order to keeping lending going to British business and British families? Does the Minister agree that we need experienced private-sector business people who have run real businesses through real recessions? I suggest that a minimum age of 60 would be appropriate.
Lord Myners: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, brings great and relevant experience to this matter as well as youth. These are not nationalised industries; they are companies in which the Government are taking a shareholding. Those companies will be under the direction of their boards of directors. Those
4 Nov 2008 : Column 127
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that his statement was widely accepted in the House, including his apology, but that the apparent discourtesy to the House pales into insignificance in comparison with the damage that has been done to this country by some of our banks and some of their directors and senior staff? Will he accept my congratulations on the measures that have been taken—albeit lately announced—to make sure that the public investment in our banking system is properly secured and defended?
Lord Myners: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I will convey his appreciation and thanks back to those in the Treasury and elsewhere who played the leading role in the recapitalisation of our banks in a truly innovative way, which has been admired and copied throughout the world. I am but a small bit player in that, but I will ensure that those who worked diligently and extraordinary well over many days and weeks are appropriately reminded of the appreciation of this House.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, can the noble Lord explain her comments last evening? My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked at the end of the debate:
“My Lords, would the Minister deal with the specific questions which I asked her about the bail-out”,
and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, said:
“My Lords, I have not dealt with a number of questions. I would be very happy to answer them”.—[Official Report, 3/11/08; col. 114.]
Then she picked out two. I asked her three questions, but not one of them was answered. That was surely an opportunity for her to say what had developed at the other end of the building.
Lord Myners: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. There were 47 speakers yesterday. In a winding-up speech, it was exceedingly difficult to capture every point and question raised. I remember well the final question of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I believe that he was fixated with the issue of dividends and preference shares. We have addressed that issue in fully explaining, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—if of no one else—that preference shares can be refinanced, repaid and the banks will be
4 Nov 2008 : Column 128
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, had plenty of time; it was not a timed debate and we actually finished before the recommended time. There was time; 47 speakers did not ask 47 questions. If you go through the text of Hansard, you will find that there were not that many questions.
Lord Myners: My Lords, if noble Lords go through Hansard, they will note that a number of Peers asked several questions, so it is not a simple matter of multiplication. My noble friend Lady Vadera made a full and complete explanation of the issues to the House. I stand here; if noble Lords have further questions, I stand here ready to answer them. Please ask your questions.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's invitation and ask him to justify yet again why the Government are dealing so badly with ordinary shareholders in the recapitalised banks and insisting that the preference shares must be redeemed before any dividend is paid.
Lord Myners: My Lords, the Government have handled this with the interests of the shareholders to the forefront. In particular, we have insisted on a full right of clawback. There is no usurpation of shareholder rights. The shareholders of Lloyds TSB, HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland can participate fully in the capital-raising of the ordinary shares. There is a full and unlimited clawback. That has been admired and appreciated by institutional investors, and it is our hope that many shareholders will so participate.
It is also a basic rule and principle—I look to the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, as someone whose work in this area I have much admired—that preference shares stand in priority to ordinary shares. We have said that preference shares must be repaid or refinanced out of retained earnings, a new capital issue or disposal of the premium over book value, at which point ordinary share dividends will be payable. I can assure the noble Lord that that is absolutely standard practice in a refinancing.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |