Vol. 728 Friday No. 162 10 June 2011

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Dog Control Bill [HL] Report Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] Second Reading Demonstrations in the Vicinity of Parliament (Removal of Authorisation Requirements) Bill [HL] Second Reading Wreck Removal Convention Bill Committee Written Statements Written Answer For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/110610.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscription: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2011, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; email: [email protected] 485 Dog Control Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Dog Control Bill [HL] 486

The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which has House of Lords been in force since February, has not led to an influx of barking dogs being brought before court or issued Friday, 10 June 2011. with dog control notices. It is important to keep in mind that the final decision on whether a dog is 10 am dangerously out of control must lie with the court on the evidence presented to it. Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby. I will address the specific concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, at the previous stage of the Dog Control Bill [HL] Bill. He sought clarification on why the words “aggressive or” were removed from Clause 2(1)(a) while the same Report words were left in Clause 2(1)(b), and he wanted to know whether this was intentional. The decision to 10.06 am retain “aggressive or” within Clause 2(1)(b) was intentional, as it refers to the person who is responsible for encouraging a dog to be aggressive. Clause 2(1)(a), Clause 3 : Dog control notices however, simply refers to allowing a dog to be aggressive, which I conceded at Second Reading could be open to Amendment 1 abuse or misinterpretation. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is immediately looking straight through the Moved by Lord Redesdale Bill with his usual “dogged” determination— 1: Clause 3, page 3, line 4, Noble Lords: Oh. leave out “is to” and insert “must” Lord Redesdale: My Lords, that is nothing compared Lord Redesdale: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 1, to the jibes which I have had from these benches over I wish to raise a couple of issues about how we have the course of this Bill, so I thought I would poke a tried to deal with some of the questions raised at little fun back. earlier stages of this Private Member’s Bill. Obviously, Obviously, this is a very difficult question to deal Private Members’ Bills rarely become law, but they with, because it raises so many issues. Many dog provide a fabulous test bed to make sure that the owners feel that this has raised a number of issues wording and sentiment of the proposal are correct so which will put them at risk and, therefore, I was using that, hopefully, when the Government come to their this opportunity to put the record straight and maybe senses and decide that this is one of the most worthy to stem some of the flow of letters that I will probably pieces of legislation to be placed before them, they will receive after this stage. immediately grab it with both hands and at a later Amendment 1 would delete “is to” and insert “must” stage bring forward a Bill reflecting almost every in Clause 3(6). It deals with and acknowledges the aspect of this Bill. I would like to address some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in Committee concerns highlighted at Committee stage in March in relation to the terminology, surrounding the issues of how and by whom it is “the appropriate national authority, local authority or police decided what “dangerously out of control” constitutes authority is to satisfy itself”. within the Bill, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord The recommendation is that this wording be changed. Skelmersdale and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. One of I hope that this addresses the issue. I beg to move. the reasons for doing this is that I have had a large number of letters on this matter, so I thought it as well Amendment 1 agreed. to deal with the issue by way of formulating the amendments that have been put forward. Schedule : Databases The Bill’s intention is not to see responsible dog handlers and owners penalised but to deal with those Amendment 2 owners who give others a bad name so that we can Moved by Lord Redesdale better protect the public by dealing with potentially 2: Schedule, page 10, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” dangerous dogs at the first signs of a behaviour problem. and insert “appropriate national authority” It is important to note that dogs are protected from the overzealous officer by writing into the Bill specific Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I was slightly taken circumstances when a dog can be excused for being aback by that exciting debate. I realise that I am aggressive. A dog that bites a burglar or a mugger does obviously winning the argument this morning. not commit an offence, as the burglar or mugger is in Amendment 2 deals with the point raised by the noble the wrong. Equally, police and service dogs are protected. Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, during the previous debate If the dog is attacked by a person and bites, no offence and rectifies a drafting error within paragraph 3(3) of is committed. I believe that these rules achieve a the Schedule. As the Bill covers both England and sensible balance between protecting the public from Wales, “Secretary of State” has been removed and unwarranted dog attacks and allowing dogs to behave “appropriate national authority” has been included in normally. The Bill expects that the enforcers of this its place. I do not intend to speak a great deal on this legislation will have adequate competency in dealing issue, but it does show the value of being able to use with dog-related issues to distinguish between a true the knowledge of this House to scrutinise and pick out act of aggression and normal acceptable canine behaviour. issues that are difficult to spot for those putting forward 487 Dog Control Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 488

[LORD REDESDALE] Lord Henley: It might be, depending on when Third Private Members’ Bills. I thank all those, especially Reading happens, that in the course of the debate on those from the dangerous dogs study group, who have whether the Bill do now pass, I might be in a position taken part in helping with the amendments. to say something. That depends very much on when I very much hope that, at the next stage of the Bill, my noble friend seeks the Third Reading of the Bill. we will receive some indication from the Government I make no guarantees, and the noble Lord will well that their position may change and move forward, know that “in due course” can be a rather flexible especially considering the results of the consultation, form of time, and he will just have to wait and see. to which 4,500 have replied. On that basis, I beg to move. Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble lord, Lord Richard, for coming in and eliciting a response from the Lord Richard: As the noble Lord was kind enough Government. I also thank the Minister for the fulsome to refer to me, perhaps I may briefly respond. I have to proposal that the Government will bring forward such say that I do not think that this is very well-drafted, useful information at the point of Third Reading. On apposite or timely Bill, but on the other hand I think that basis, I will wait probably until after the summer that the thrust of it is good. What the noble Lord is for Third Reading, although I realise that “after summer” trying to achieve on the whole might be a desirable means September rather than, in the Government’s thing. However, the one thing he will not be able to do parlance, somewhere nearer March. However, on that is legislate in this way by means of a Private Member’s basis, I hope that this amendment will be acceptable. Bill. He has done a service to the House in exposing Amendment 2 agreed. both sides of the argument, and it is now for the Government to decide whether they wish to pick up this issue and deal with it. As far as I am concerned, it Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from is an issue that the Government ought to deal with. Residential Premises) Bill [HL] I know that we are considering a specific Private Second Reading Member’s Bill—as your Lordships may have gathered, I am not too keen on the actual Bill itself—but, 10.17 am nevertheless, it does seem to me an issue that the Government ought to take seriously and look at. Moved By Lord Reay That the Bill be read a second time. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Lord Reay: My Lords, in introducing the Bill I (Lord Henley): I was rather hoping that I would be should like to declare an interest: I live within one and able to get away without intervening at all. The a half kilometres of a wind farm that is in the pre-planning Government have made their views fairly clear at both application stage and which would be disallowed under Second Reading and Committee, when my noble friend the provisions in this Bill because of its proximity to Lord De Mauley dealt with this Bill. I will say very my house and, I am told, to about 600 other houses, briefly again that we cannot give our support to this which would all be within two kilometres of the Bill, but we are well aware of the problems that it is 110 metre-high turbines. addressing and are prepared to consider moving forward in due course. There are many reasons to be opposed to the Government’s policy towards wind farms and I agree As my noble friend Lord Redesdale mentioned, the with most of them. But this Bill only concerns itself House will be aware of the consultation issued by the with one disadvantage of onshore wind turbines—their previous Government towards the end of their 13 years propensity for making life a misery for those unlucky in office—I think it was issued in about March 2010, enough to find themselves forced to live in their shadow. just before the general election—and that concluded in June 2010. There were some 4,250 responses to that There is now a well-established body of evidence, consultation, which Ministers are still considering. We collected worldwide, that demonstrates the harmful published a summary of those responses in November effect of turbines for at least some of those who live 2010, and, as I said, we are still considering the right close to them. Complaints are made continuously to way forward. It is a matter that we want to discuss the environmental health officers of local authorities. across government, because these matters are not just In February 2009 the Renewable Energy Foundation for Defra but for the Home Office and others. In due produced a roll, obtained under freedom of information course, I hope that we will be able to have something requests, of 27 out of 133 wind farms in the United to say, but we will not offer support to this Bill. It Kingdom which had given rise to noise complaints. might be that, when the noble Lord seeks a Third This number subsequently rose to 46 out of 217 wind Reading and moves that the Bill do now pass, that farms by April 210, with 285 complaints having been might be a moment when I might be able to say a little recorded in total. more. However, as I have made clear and as we made In her book Wind Turbine Syndrome, Dr Nina clear on earlier occasions, we cannot offer support to Pierpont recorded and analysed the symptoms of a this Bill. number of families in different parts of the world who had been driven out of their homes by their sufferings Lord Richard: Before the Minister sits down, can I from wind farms. Dr Pierpont concludes that a minimum ask him to clarify that, with regards to this Bill, “in setback distance of two kilometres should be required, due course” means that we will hear something on also that developers should be obliged to buy out Third Reading? effected families at the pre-turbine value of their homes. 489 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 490

Jane Davis is another famous authority on the The revised Draft National Policy Statement for subject, and a victim herself. Driven from her Lincolnshire Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), which is home by a wind farm that appeared within 1,000 metres currently before Parliament, says, upwind of her, she has fought for the last five years for “appropriate distances should be maintained between wind turbines recognition and compensation. She goes to the High and residential properties to protect residential amenity”. Court in July in a case expected to last for 12 days. In To leave it to the developer to interpret what is appropriate the very recent BBC2 series “Windfarm Wars”, which is like leaving it to the motorist to decide an appropriate chronicled with admirable fair-mindedness the story speed limit for him to observe. of a Devon wind farm application, at Den Brook In Scotland, Scottish planning guidance contains Valley, viewers will have seen Jane Davis’s evidence, an advisory, rather than mandatory, limit of two together with plenty of other examples of the intolerable kilometres. Adherence to this seems to be gaining consequences for some people of having to live close ground. The Scottish Borders Council last month to such developments. approved a presumption against any turbine within Only the day before yesterday an account appeared less than two kilometres of any residence. Of course in a local newspaper, the North Devon Gazette, under Scotland has more open, undesignated countryside the heading “Our Sleepless Nights with Wind Turbines”, than the rest of the United Kingdom, although not so of a Torrington couple who were being forced to sell much so in the Borders. their home and business following a planning inspector’s In Wales, Technical Advice Note 8—TAN 8—adopted decision to overrule Torridge District Council and by the Welsh Assembly, specifies what it calls a “typical allow a wind farm within 500 metres of their home. separation distance” of 500 metres, not to be applied “I can hear the turbines through my pillow at night”, rigidly. However in Wales a flurry of interest has the wife was quoted as saying. recently been caused by Carmarthenshire County Council, “It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes”, which decided that its new development plan would said her husband. not permit wind farms within 1,500 metres of dwellings. Wind farm noise differs from other continuous I believe that the Welsh Assembly may have the power forms of noise, for example the noise from a nuclear to annul that decision. I also notice that an e-petition power station. It has a rhythmic, pulsing quality, with against TAN 8, which is incidentally still open for at times a vibrating effect which many have found too signature, has gathered the most signatures to date for invasive and disturbing to live with. It can quite obviously any petition on the Assembly for Wales website. I hope seriously damage people’s health. There are many that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may illustrations of this in Dr Pierpont’s book. perhaps be able to comment on these stirrings in Wales. But there is another baleful effect, which is more In sum, I believe that where limits are imposed at than visual or aural. This derives from the scale of the all, they are generally insufficient as well as haphazard turbines. So vast have they become—the largest currently and that it is time to do something about it. The need in the planning process being over 600 feet high, twice to do something is increasingly widely perceived as the the height of Big Ben—that the more humane inspectors, number of those affected has risen. I suspect also that those few who have chosen not to be ruthless agents the effects today are more dire as the number and size for enforcing the Government’s renewable energy policy, of turbines have grown so massively. This in itself is a have described them as dominating, intimidating, blighting reason for the Government to bring up to date their for a generation the lives of those who have to live absurdly out of date system of rules for prescribing under them, and have rejected applications on that tolerable noise levels—the so-called ETSU R 97 rules, score. which are now 14 years old. So except by hoping to be lucky in the choice of the In resisting any attempt to prescribe distance limits, inspector that is parachuted in on them from Bristol, Ministers have deployed the argument that it is illogical how can local communities hope to defend themselves to require a distance limit for wind farms and not for against the threat of this nuisance to their lives? nuclear or fossil-fuelled power stations. This makes a ludicrous comparison. In the first place nuclear and In England, in practice, developers decide on the fossil-fuelled power stations, being for the most part limit they will adopt, many opting for 500 metres, sensibly sited unlike wind farms close to the places some for 800 metres, some not setting limits at all. A where the electricity is required, are generally to be 100 metre high turbine has recently been permitted by found in semi-urban or brownfield sites where there is Lancaster County Council within 250 metres of a no comparable destruction of visual amenity and dwelling and kennel business. Paragraph 22 of PPS22 where also any noise they make is smothered by other in fact permits local authorities to set limits to the noises. distance between wind farms and other existing developments, which they could interpret to mean In the second place there is nothing like the same dwellings. But the reference is oblique, and virtually number of them; fossil-fuelled power stations can be no local authorities have made use of it, Devon County counted in dozens, while wind farms already number Council being an exception, setting a limit of 600 metres hundreds, and wind turbines thousands. I believe that in 2009 in the case of one proposed development at the latest official figure for those operating and under Holsworthy. Today, by coincidence, a Private Member’s construction on shore is 299 wind farms, comprising Bill introduced by Christopher Heaton-Harris MP is 3,649 turbines. being debated in another place, which would give Ministers have also said that it would be unfortunate statutory authority to local authorities to set distance to remove the possibility for wind farms to be placed limits. in semi-urban or brownfield sites, which this Bill as it 491 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 492

[LORD REAY] wind farm, you will understand what the noble Lord now stands would do because there are always houses has been saying. There is brutal noise on two levels: around such sites. There is not a very large demand to noise that can be heard and noise that, curiously place wind farms in such places, but in so far as there enough, cannot be heard but still affects the brain. is, I can see some force in the argument. I would That is one of the major problems that this Bill will therefore be happy to see my Bill amended to give have to deal with. discretion to the local authority to set its own distance Noble Lords will know that this issue was raised in limit where the application was for a development in a another place about a year and a half ago by Mr Peter brownfield site. Luff. There was a wind farm application in his constituency It has also been argued that to restrict development of Mid Worcestershire. Nothing much came of it in in more inhabited areas will put greater pressure on another place, but I gather there are again moves to the less inhabited areas, in particular national parks produce something along the lines of the Bill of the and areas of outstanding natural beauty. But my Bill noble Lord, Lord Reay. I welcome that. does nothing to lessen the protection which is rightly given to those designated areas under present planning We might be able to put up with these problems of policy and which will remain in force. noise and unsightliness if these machines were efficient and cost effective, but they are neither. The average Would my Bill if enacted therefore preclude any wind turbine will probably produce something just further on-shore wind farms? Plainly not in Scotland, over 20 per cent of its installed capacity in a given where a two-kilometre distance limit is already year. It is enormously costly. When we had the big recommended and apparently largely observed. But in freeze last winter, there was a high-pressure system England? CPRE once did a study which I believe over the whole of the United Kingdom. Wind farms indicated that at these limits something like 70 per cent in the UK produced at 3 per cent of their installed of existing wind farms in England would not have capacity, just when the electricity was needed. That been allowed. really shows how dreadfully inefficient these things are. So my Bill might to some seem likely, if ever enacted, They are also extremely expensive. The noble Lord, to deal a devastating blow to the Government’s present Lord Reay, referred to Wales. It is certainly true—we renewable energy policy.But why is it thought appropriate have a plague of these things in Wales. In Powys and for England’s green and pleasant land to be industrialised Ceredigion, about 240 turbines are in operation, and by ever more gigantic wind turbines for the sake of a another 1,000 are under application. The cost of these— pointless gesture towards an economically crippling together with the cost of lines, pylons, hubs and green ideology? low-voltage lines—will be in the order of £1.3 billion. The Government claim to believe that they will This works out at something like £5 million per achieved achieve support for their on-shore wind farm policy megawatt. That is the scale of the economic disaster by encouraging developers to pass on to local communities that we seem determined to invest in. I do not believe in one form or another more of the subsidies which that the Government have been entirely honest, because they are about to receive. Apart from being unlikely to the vast bulk of this cost will not be paid by the succeed, this policy is both corrupt and divisive. The developers. It will be paid by either the taxpayer or the people who will receive the advantage will not be the consumers of electricity. same as those who suffer the injury.How will a community playground, while it may sway a planning committee, I understand that when local authorities come to compensate someone who has seen his environment assess planning applications, they have to pay attention immeasurably degraded and the value of his house fall to the policy guidance that comes from central by 35 per cent? government. The problem with that is that none of these planning policy statements—neither PPS 22 nor At the same time, some farmers and landowners are the additions to PPS 1—is properly debated in Parliament. enriched obscenely. How can the Liberal Democrats, They are just issued by government, and the chief or my modern caring Conservative colleagues, let alone planning officer, known as the chief planner, simply noble Lords opposite, tolerate this, achieved at the writes to local authorities saying they are obliged to direct expense of those who are pushed into fuel have regard to these statements when they assess the poverty? This is the way to create the torn society, not applications for wind farms according to their the big society. So I hope that the Government will development plan. The courts have ruled that these have a change of heart, show some humanity and are material considerations for local planning authorities remove this scourge from our countryside by adopting when they make that assessment. this Bill. I beg to move. None of that has been discussed in Parliament. I am sure the Minister will be able to assure us that—under 10.30 am the localism proposals—that will change, and we will Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am very grateful have an opportunity to discuss, in both Houses, planning to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for introducing this Bill guidance that comes from central authorities. The and for the way he set out his stall—if I may put it like problem is that, not only do we not have a discussion that—with clarity and persuasiveness. On the whole I of what government policy is but, other organisations— agree with what he said, but there are two major such as Natural England, which I will come to in a problems with wind turbines. One is to do with noise, minute because it is important for Reeves Hill—seem and the other is visibility. The noise point has been to take these policy guidance notes as government satisfactorily illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. policy that they themselves must respect. They believe If any of your Lordships have actually been near a these notes should override the instructions given to 493 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 494 them by Parliament. Under the Act setting up Natural driven to Cornwall will know used to have massive England—this is relevant to Reeves Hill—it is perfectly traffic jams, but is now a dual carriageway. As one clear that Natural England has a general purpose of comes over the peak, there is an array of three wind enhancing and protecting the landscape. There is an farms. They add to the fantastic vista of central and application for four turbines at Reeves Hill. Natural west Cornwall. England originally opposed the application, but suddenly A few years ago someone who was affected by a withdrew its objection in the light of something called wind farm in north Cornwall asked me to look at a the local landscape enhancement fund, which was to similar vista, though a very different one, where the be created in order to compensate people who felt they wind farm was going to be established. The major were affected. This has nothing to do with the general despoiling factor—as is the case in Scotland, but purpose of Natural England, yet it went on to say that maybe not so much in Wales—was the pylons, which the person who should distribute our money is the were rather ugly, and criss-crossed the landscape. In developer, not the local authority. So the developer terms of comparison, wind turbines are one of the not only gets the money himself, but also the right to most elegant structures of recent technology ever devised, distribute it as he thinks fit. That simply cannot be though I readily accept that they are not to other right. I would like to ask the Minister if she would people. impress upon the Government the necessity to instruct Natural England to have regard to the general purposes— There was a wind farm application recently in which were laid by Parliament—in the Act that set north Cornwall, near Davidstow. One of the concerns them up. on the community side is that the Cornish tourism I do not want to go on too much about the unsightliness industry might be affected. A colleague of mine on of these turbines. However, your Lordships will recognise Cornwall Council but not, to give him his due, of the that, in Wales, we have them on top of hills. If they same party, surveyed tourists on whether they would were in valleys, they might be reasonably acceptable. If like a wind farm in that area. He had no difficulty in your Lordships go along the Cambrian mountains filling his petition for the wind farm to go ahead. So I and see the wind farms there, they will understand hear what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, says about what I am talking about. If you put them on top of people’s reactions. It is true of some people, but it is hills, they can be seen for miles. The proposed turbines not necessarily the reaction of the majority. Indeed, on Reeves Hill stand on one of the most beautiful another fellow councillor in west Cornwall—again, parts of western Herefordshire. Youcan see the Brecon not a Liberal Democrat—commented on strategic Beacons from there. You can almost see Plynlimon planning and said that people tend to like wind farms from there. You can see right across towards the and when they have them nearby, wonder what all the Upper Wye Valley. That will be destroyed by these fuss is about. enormous turbines that are going to be erected if this With regard to issues with households, I am not application is successful, and Natural England really going to discuss the broader matter of energy policy, ought to be there to oppose it. which previous speakers have done. That is not what Fortunately, it may be that access to the site has to the Bill is supposed to be about. The main problems come through Powys. Powys County Council has started are to do with flicker and noise. Recently I was at to move—very sensibly—in the direction of saying, Delabole, which has just been repowered. It has larger “We have had enough of these turbines in mid-Wales”. wind turbines, but far fewer of them. That is the way If it does that, we are at last getting somewhere. As the the movement is going: fewer individual turbines, but noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, we should Carmarthen if larger ones which are much more efficient. I walked we can and start to change what is a disastrous policy. round Delabole wind farm and I cannot remember If the Government wish to engage in renewables, there even hearing the noise. I am sure that there are sometimes are plenty of reliable renewables—in tides, nuclear or noise issues, but I suggest that noble Lords stand by even offshore wind, which is much more reliable than wind turbines to hear what noise there is. It is extremely onshore wind—that they can use. If they wished they low; it is far less than a main road or a railway. On could do it, but it needs political will. There is no point many occasions it is not particularly perceptible. wrecking the landscape to try to save the planet, and With regard to flicker, I was interested to read a these turbines do wreck the landscape. I hope very recent study by Parsons Brinckerhoff—not an organisation much that the Government will give the noble Lord’s I know particularly—for the Department of Energy Bill a positive reception—possibly even a fair wind. and Climate Change, which found that: “There have not been extensive issues with shadow flicker in the UK. The frequency of the flickering caused by the wind 10.40 am turbine rotation is such that it should not cause a significant risk Lord Teverson: My Lords, I apologise to the noble to health. In the few cases where problems have arisen”— Lord, Lord Reay, for missing the first 30 seconds or and clearly there are individual cases where wind one minute of his speech. I usually go back to Cornwall turbines have been badly sited, and there will be noise from this House by train. Today I have to go back by and flicker; that is a planning issue—it says here that: car, because I am picking up my daughter and all her paraphernalia from university to drive her back to “they have been resolved effectively using mitigation measures”. that county. One of the pleasures—and I say this So the case about the alien nature of wind turbines absolutely seriously—of driving across Cornwall is and the effect they have on local communities has been when I come along the A30 to an area called Fraddon/ strongly exaggerated in relation to the facts and the Indian Queens, which many noble Lords who have reactions of the communities living near them. 495 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 496

[LORD TEVERSON] 10.49 am It is important to look at the Bill’s effects. The Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I strongly support my figure is that if there was an exclusion around dwellings noble friend’s Bill. Indeed, I empathise with the sort of of two kilometres, 0.5 per cent of the UK landmass buildings that he is seeking to protect, finding myself, would be able to take wind turbines. Effectively, we as I do, sandwiched in the speakers’ list between two would end that industry completely. Although some powerful wind turbines. I hope that everybody realises noble Lords may welcome that fact, this Bill would that the environmental impact of wind farms is an effectively close down this most efficient and cost-effective important point. It is not acceptable that they should form of renewable energy. do huge damage to the environment of people where I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, they live; that matters as much as anything to those mentioned the Liberal Democrats. I am pleased and people. The purely environmental aspect of any wind proud that he did, but we should remember that it was farm application must have a high priority. the Labour Government who primarily promoted wind power and renewables, and the Conservative Party has Of course there are places where wind farms are also been strongly supportive. This is an all-party completely acceptable. I drove down this morning conspiracy, if you like, against the British landscape, from Suffolk, and I always drive through Dagenham. but one in relation to which it is important to meet our In Dagenham, there are two enormous wind turbines renewable targets. However, this should not be the which enhance the factory landscape. Just to give your major argument with regard to this Bill. Lordships an idea of the scale of some of these wind turbines, the Ford factories barely reach their knees. I do not recognise the strong feelings expressed in They are very welcome there, and I get from Dagenham this debate; wind power is an obvious, traditional and the sort of delight that my noble friend Lord Teverson effective way of generating renewable energy. feels in Cornwall. However, there are real problems with the number Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the noble Lord recognise, of applications coming forward, as the noble Lord, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, that a massive Lord Williams, has already said. They are tempting number of people have signed a petition in Wales because of the economic subsidies that are offered. against TAN 8, more than have signed any other Many farmers are tempted by that monetary reward. petition to the Assembly? Does he also recognise that A couple of years ago, the Marlesford Parish Council, the other evening 2,000 people went to a village hall in which I chair, objected to a wind farm at Parham, the mid-Wales to protest against an application for a wind next-door village. Although it did not affect me or my farm? That is local response. property or anything, it would have damaged a number of houses in Parham because it would have been very close to them. This is an example of the sort of thing Lord Teverson: I thank the noble Lord for his which my noble friend’s Bill seeks to counter. intervention. I do not know the situation in Wales; clearly the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows that far Of course, the location of wind farms that are better than I do. However, many issues that generate agreed depends primarily on the planning authorities, long petitions. I have used them many times myself then on the planning inspectors when there is a public during my political career. Do they always accurately inquiry or objection, and finally on Ministers. Inspectors reflect public opinion? Sometimes they do, sometimes have often been particularly brave, especially in the they do not. They are not necessarily conclusive. But I rather notorious example of Whinash in Cumbria, would not want to comment specifically on the Welsh next to the Lake District, where distinguished locals situation. such as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, Chris Bonnington and John Dunning all successfully opposed that wind farm with ultimate success. Lord Thomas of Gresford: Will my noble friend take However, my main worry is the way in which the on board that the proposals in mid-Wales are for Government have embraced wind farms as a means of 170 wind towers that are closely stacked together? Not increasing the proportion of renewables and reducing only that but, because there is no energy-generating Britain’s carbon footprint. In fact, as has been said by plant close by, the towers have to be taken into Shropshire others, they are in general very uneconomic without over a very considerable distance. It amounts to the the huge subsidies they get. As the noble Lord, Lord destruction of a beautiful landscape in mid-Wales. Williams, has pointed out, the intermittent nature of their output makes their real contribution of rather Lord Teverson: I thank my noble friend for that doubtful value. intervention. I was about to conclude by saying that One of the most dramatic experiences of my life there is an issue with the over-density of wind was visiting the pump storage station at Dinorwig in turbines—we see this in other European countries, Snowdonia; how unlike that wind farms are. There is particularly Spain. The irony of this Bill is that that is this enormous cavern with a huge wheel which slowly exactly what we would get. The effect would be an circulates. At night, they use electricity which is surplus over-concentration of wind turbines in the most rural to the grid to pump the water up to the top of the areas. I would probably be in favour of a Bill that mountain and, in the morning, they release it as stated that, through strategic planning, we had to everybody puts on their electric kettles. It adds something ensure that the amount of clustering was not over-dense. like an 8 per cent surge to the country’s electricity I rest my case and look forward to hearing other noble supply. That is the sort of renewable which is thoroughly Lords on this subject. desirable. A wind farm which will not obey anybody 497 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 498 except the weather—and we all know that the weather Lord Marlesford: I apologise to my noble friend for obeys no one, including the Government—is much describing him inaccurately. more doubtful. I am afraid that wind farms are largely political tokenism, and very expensive political tokenism. Lord Greaves: I thank the noble Lord for that. We One of the disappointing aspects of this Government have a unique landscape in these small islands. is how they have yielded to tokenism in their policies. Geologically, the rocks on which the landscape is To some extent—one does not know how much—I formed cover the entire length of geological time, from suppose that this reflects the costs of coalition politics. some of the oldest rocks known on this planet in the If one wants an example, one has only to look at Isle of Lewis through to the most modern. The landscapes Germany, where Chancellor Merkel has had to do a which we have as a result are of extraordinary variety total U-turn on nuclear power and has made a yet are concentrated in such a small area. No other commitment that is quite undeliverable. Frankly, it is part of the world has landscapes as diverse and interesting probably about as undeliverable as the commitment as those in the islands in which we live. To cover them made at the G20 in Seoul in November to underwrite in industrial power stations seems to me the height of all the sovereign debt of any European country up to folly. 2013. I accept entirely that people have different views on However, there are other examples of such tokenism whether wind turbines are wonderful, beautiful modernist in the UK. I will not mention one of them as we will structures and will attract lots of tourists, as my noble spend two days debating it in the next couple of weeks. friend suggests, or are a blight on the landscape, as I But another, which is all too real, is the determination believe. Many of Cornwall’s landscapes were devastated with which the Government have set their face against by tin mining and, in particular, china clay mining. GM foods—this is not directly relevant except as an Why, when we are cleaning all that up and dealing illustration of the mischief in some of the thinking—at with it, are we devastating the landscapes with more a time when the production of food is of paramount industrialisation in this way? importance in a world with masses of starving people. I welcome the Bill. It is not perfect by any means, It is a paradox that the Government oppose GM but it is at the very least a means of debating these foods—this is where I wish they would get their thinking important issues. There are three main issues, as noble sorted out—while making the aid budget a top priority. Lords have said. There is noise and flicker. However, It makes them very guilty of the charge of tokenism. unlike my noble friend, I do not believe that they are the only main issues. Amenity and landscape are crucial. Lord Avebury: What has this got to do with wind Of course, people will always go to look at unusual farms? things. I do not know if they still do so in our part of the world, but people went to look at the first wind Lord Marlesford: It is another illustration of tokenism farms when they were erected on the Pennine moors in government policy. I believe that wind farms are an because they were new and therefore interesting. That illustration of this. is not to say that if we cover all the Pennine moors I conclude by saying that I hope my environmental with wind farms—it is an ideal place for them if they credentials are sufficient. Although I do not think that are to be placed on the land—suddenly people will I would qualify as a “bunny hugger”, I am nevertheless come from all around the world to look at our wonderful passionately keen on preserving the landscape. Therefore, landscape of continuous wind farms, instead of the I ask the Government to focus their efforts on what wonderful, wild and open wilderness that we have in will really help this country. I hope very much that my many areas. For a one-off, lots of people go to Sellafield, noble friend’s Bill will prosper and that the priorities because it is a very special place. There used to be a reflected in it will be reflected in the new policy planning tourist facility at the nuclear power station in mid-Wales framework which Secretary of State Pickles is planning at Trawsfynydd. However, if there were a whole series to bring before us. It is extremely important that we of nuclear power stations next to each other, they have the opportunity to debate that policy fully in this would not all be tourist attractions. It is the unusual House. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will things that people look at in that sense. be able to give us that reassurance. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, suggested that an unforeseen consequence of the Bill might be the pressure 10.57 am put on other areas, but said that it would not be Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord important. This issue must be looked at in context. He Marlesford, ought not to worry too much about being suggested that that concern would not be too important sandwiched between my noble friend Lord Teverson because there are national parks and areas of outstanding and myself. This issue is not aligned on rigid party natural beauty with special designation. Indeed, there lines. If one takes a spectrum of opinion on terrestrial are other areas such as large SSSIs and so on in the onshore wind farms, my noble friend Lord Teverson uplands. However, a large part of our uplands and and I would find ourselves nearly at the opposite ends. interesting coastal areas do not have that kind of I am one of those people who believe that wind farms designation. I am interested in the mid-Pennines. There constitute a blind alley, are not the answer and, to cite are national parks in the Pennines, but there is a whole the words of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, are a scourge area of the Pennines between the national park in the on our countryside. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord north and the Yorkshire Dales and Derbyshire that Williams of Elvel, that there is no point in wrecking does not have that sort of protection. The areas of our landscape in order to save the planet. I am not mid-Wales that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was against all wind turbines— talking about have been precisely targeted for large 499 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 500

[LORD GREAVES] can give their consent. I would hope that the noble wind-farm development because they are situated between Lord would consider that it is residents, including the national parks. There are the Black Mountains tenants, who should have to give their consent, not and the Brecon Beacons, and Snowdonia in the north, just owners, because it is the people who live there who but there is a huge area of mid-Wales that does not have to suffer. Clause 3(3) comes very close to putting have such landscape protection. Yet who can deny that in legislation that people should not break the law, that is a wonderful wilderness area that should be which seems a little unnecessary. Having made those protected from this kind of large-scale development. cavilling points, the Bill has my general support and I I return to the issues in the Bill. The issue of noise is hope that it will get thorough and careful consideration crucial and there is no point in pretending that it is not in Committee. difficult. The traditional approach to noise is to measure the decibels. That is a technical matter but fairly 11.08 am straightforward. If there is a noise problem in a particular area, the appropriate environmental health officers are Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I strongly called out, they come with their noise meters, and they support the Bill produced and so eloquently proposed measure the level of noise. However, in many cases, by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and supported generally some of the most annoying noise does not register by Members of this House. The Bill would not be loud enough to count as an environmental nuisance. needed were it not for our foolish commitment to sign I am not talking just about wind farms. There can be up to the EU requirements. Our renewables obligation all kinds of industrial and commercial premises cheek requires us to produce 20 per cent of our electricity by jowl with housing. You might have heating plants, from renewables by 2020. I hope that the whole House, for example. You might have generators. You might including the Minister in her reply, will bear that in have other plants which cause low-level low drones, mind. That requirement means that one particular low whines and sometimes even the kind of throbbing, energy generator, wind, is guaranteed a market share drumming noise that you get with wind farms. That and a price—which is underwritten by the taxpayer, kind of noise, which is relatively quiet, nevertheless regardless of how competitive that energy source is. can be extremely irritating and annoying. It can prevent The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that he believes people from sleeping. Whether it has an effect on that wind power is competitive on cost and efficiency. people’s brains is a matter of technical research, which I do not know how he can say that with a straight face. I do not understand at all. A moment’s study of the facts will show that to be completely nonsensical. Let us take costs first. Here I Lord Thomas of Gresford: Is my noble friend aware take the facts from the report of a House of Lords that noise can come from the most unexpected places? committee on The Economics of Renewable Energy, I once had a case involving a house next to a primary 2008-09, which said that onshore wind is twice as school. We measured the decibel level at 120 decibels expensive as coal, gas or nuclear; that is before taking at playtime, which was the equivalent of Concorde into account the cost of transmitting the power produced taking off. by this uneconomic source to the National Grid, Lord Greaves: I am sure that that is the case, but if which is a substantial added-on cost. The result is the decibels are there, you can do something about it. that—thanks to the requirement to produce our 20 per If there are not sufficient decibels, it is very difficult to cent by 2020, as we are told by the EU—our consumers do something about it, but that noise may be ruining will be forced to pay twice as much for a proportion of people’s lives. My noble friend said that there is no their electricity requirement. evidence that that affects their health, but if people Turning to efficiency, mentioned by the noble Lord, cannot sleep and are having their mental health affected Lord Teverson, and other noble Lords, there is the by it, because they simply cannot cope with it, there is well known problem of intermittency and fluctuation. a serious problem. Those of us who live in areas where Who has not driven down any road recently, particularly industry and housing exist side by side know about during the past two winters, and seen wind turbines those problems. From my experience, noise from wind totally stationary and not generating a single watt of turbines can be heard for considerable distances across electricity for weeks on end? The noble Lord, Lord valleys in some circumstances. There is a real problem Marlesford, said that he had driven down this morning there. and seen two attractive turbines in Dagenham. Perhaps There is the question of the relationship between he could tell us whether they were revolving and height, distance and size, which needs discussing. There producing electricity. This morning I drove to the is also the question, fundamental to the Bill: at what station from my house and passed a wind turbine level should those decisions be made? I have great which was running a road-warning sign; that was sympathy with the aims of the Bill, but am not sure stationary. Coming in on the train from Moreton-in- that it is appropriate for national primary legislation. Marsh to Slough, I saw a large factory outside Slough It seems to me that it ought to be incorporated within with four large wind turbines and not one of them was the planning system. Nevertheless, the basic principles moving a single inch; they were not generating a single are right. watt of electricity. They are grossly inefficient. I wanted to make some technical, detailed points The problem is that in order to maintain a stable about the Bill. Clause 3, which covers exceptions, electricity supply, wind turbines have to have a permanent states: back-up, whether they need it or not; it has to run all “The condition is that the owners of all residential premises the time. That may not be a problem at the moment which fall within the minimum distance requirement”, because such a tiny proportion of our power is produced 501 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 502 from wind, but it will become a problem if we ever frankly derisory percentage of 1.5 to 2 per cent of hope to achieve this absurd 20 per cent target of our electricity generated from renewables, mainly wind, to energy from renewables and particularly wind. 20 per cent, according to our masters in Brussels. Perhaps in answering the debate the noble Baroness What are we doing about that? First, we are wrecking could tell us how many extra fossil-fuel or nuclear some of our most cherished landscapes. Secondly, we power stations would have to be built simply to support are forcing electricity users to pay far more than they the extra percentage of power which is due to be need simply to subsidise these grotesque, inefficient produced by wind, according to the aspirations. She and costly wind farms. As a result of government may not have the answer at her fingertips, but perhaps intervention, the wind industry is turning into a money- she could write to me about that and put the answer in grabbing scam masquerading as an environmental the Library. It may be a little technical. benefit. There is no environmental benefit from wind farms—but it is a money-grabbing scam. Lord Teverson: I would like to put something that Yesterday, BP produced figures showing that global the noble Lord said into context; it is an important emissions in 2010 from energy consumption increased point. Clearly wind is an intermittent technology. by 5.8 per cent. China accounted for the biggest rise, Generally, the utilisation of the UK generating capacity overtaking America as the prime emitter. Whether the is about 50 to 60 per cent anyway; it is quite staggering UK increases or decreases its CO2 emissions will have how inefficient it is as a whole, and wind is probably a absolutely zero effect on global emissions as a whole, lot worse than that. To put the issue in context, the yet in the vain pursuit of this chimera—this dream—the other half of the equation on renewables and intermittent financially and morally bankrupt policy continues. It renewables is that, in terms of the distribution grid, enriches landowners—as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, you have to move towards smart grids. How you use said—and wind farm operators at the expense of those is part of the total package. You have to do both pensioners on fixed incomes who are least able to and one helps to solve the other. That is how the afford the luxury of subsidising renewables and wind overall energy strategy works. The argument itself is power. This is Robin Hood in reverse: robbing the not conclusive. poor to pay the rich. It is completely crazy. Opponents of wind farms—we have heard from Lord Willoughby de Broke: I think it is conclusive. some of them this morning—are branded routinely as The noble Lord has made my point for me. There are Luddites by the proponents of wind energy. In truth, huge added costs in creating a wind grid which will the wind energy fans are the Luddites. They are blocking feed into the national grid. That problem is not even the one energy that will give us a secure supply without close to being addressed, let alone solved yet. damaging our landscape for ever, which is of course I turn briefly to the environmental impact of wind nuclear. The dream of relying on the wind to keep the farms. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, lights on will go down as one of the most costly and said, they are scarring some of our most beautiful damaging fantasies of our time. landscapes. He mentioned Wales. I have been to Wales on many occasions and seen the increase in these 11.19 am dreadful wind farms over beautiful parts of mid-Wales. Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I One noble Lord mentioned a figure of 160, but there rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in the are proposals for 800 new wind turbines in mid-Wales excellent Bill he is putting before this House, to support that will scar the Cambrian mountains beyond redemption. its committal and to thank him most warmly for the Each turbine will be 425 feet high—higher than St Paul’s effort he has put into creating the Bill. This is a Cathedral. Not surprisingly, local communities have very important topic indeed, and I believe it has come together to oppose this despoliation and vandalism been underresearched, underdiscussed and, perhaps, of the countryside in pursuit of a chimera—a dream—that underdebated. is unachievable. The Department of Energy and Climate I shall explain my interest. My colleagues behind Change must know that there is no chance of achieving me will be surprised to hear me speaking on wind these dream targets. farms and on energy when some of them have spent I go back to the report of the Select Committee. most of their political lives thinking about these important With masterly understatement, in paragraph 227, it topics and I have apparently not done so. That is not summed up the opinion of its witnesses on the precisely the case. My initial constituency, Blyth in Government’s target on renewables. It stated: Northumberland, drew my attention very seriously to “Witnesses’ views of the target ranged from challenging to fossil fuels. It is one of the great coalmining constituencies, unachievable”. but unfortunately I did not win it. I was then selected We know from Sir Humphrey Appleby that “challenging” by Torridge and West Devon. The noble Lord, Lord is the equivalent of “unachievable”. We should say Reay, has already mentioned a very important case that the targets are fully and wholly unachievable. that arose in my constituency when I was a Member of I will present my own evidence. My electricity is another place: the Holsworthy wind farm case. In the supplied by Haven Power, which thoughtfully provides European Parliament, in which I subsequently served, its customers with a statement detailing the fuel mix I sat on an important European Union/US climate for the electricity that it supplies. In 2010, 33.7 per cent change scientific committee for several years and, as a of its electricity was generated by coal, 54.1 per cent by result of that experience, I gladly accepted the invitation natural gas, 7.2 per cent by nuclear and 1.3 per cent by from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, to join renewables. I would guess that that pattern is representative the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and I declare for England as a whole. We must now crank up the that interest today. 503 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 504

[BARONESS NICHOLSON OF WINTERBOURNE] so on where the noise is at too high a level, but it is I shall turn first to the important point on which all too easy to damage babies and young people by this Bill rests, which is the separation of wind farms noise. and human habitation by a precise measurement. I also I shall touch on a point briefly, although there is serve as vice president of the pre-eminent school for much more to say. Why has this not been raised by the deaf children and young people in the United Kingdom, National Health Service? Noble Lords may not be the Mary Hare School just outside Newbury, where I aware that the NHS does very little indeed on hearing. was brought up. I have a lot of knowledge and experience Of the total professional medical training provision about human hearing. First, I wish to focus on why for doctors in the United Kingdom, only five days out the premise on which this Bill is based is so profoundly of the seven years of training are spent on the human right. I recently asked the House of Commons Library ear. The National Health Service is very unlikely to to extrapolate for me the statistics available on problems have an understanding of this, other than in bits and of human hearing in the British public. According to pieces. the House of Commons Library, something like 27 per One or two noble Lords have said that the population cent of the British population has hearing problems. is comfortable with wind turbines, but we are discussing There may not immediately seem to your Lordships’ the spending of taxpayers’ money. I believe that when House to be an absolute correlation with the potential taxpayers know the truth about the subsidies that difficulties caused to human hearing, which have already wind turbines have attracted, they will not be at all been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, but that comfortable that their hard-earned income is being is not so. Every year 400 babies are born profoundly spent in this way. It is an unhappy fact that wind farms deaf in the United Kingdom and a vast number of are almost entirely subsidised by a complex yet hidden young people now have induced hearing loss but that regime of feed-in tariffs, tax cuts and preferential tax does not, alas, give them a fundamental protection credits. A typical turbine generates power that is worth from pain, distress and psychiatric problems caused around £150,000 a year, but attracts subsidies of more by noise. In fact, it is a curious fact that quite often the than £250,000 a year. These subsidies are of course loss of human hearing or its failure to develop in the added directly to consumer bills on the premise that womb creates a much higher sensitivity in the brain. I the consumer pays. The cost to consumers of the do not know enough about it to understand the renewables obligation scheme has risen from £278 million connection. All I can say is that when a noise drills in 2002 to more than £1 billion in 2009, which is a through the brain, that is perhaps where the hearing total growth of £4.4 billion over seven years. Ofgem should have been, and it causes immense pain. The predicts that the total cost to consumers of the renewables fact that one-third of noble Lords should by rights obligation between 2002 and 2027, when the scheme is perhaps be seeking some hearing enhancement from set to end, will amount to a staggering total of £32 billion. technical devices would not mean that the noble Lords I cannot believe that consumers would be happy if in question could not feel pain despite the fact that they fully understood this. they could not hear the noise in a normal sense. An analysis of wind patterns in the United Kingdom My attention was drawn to this problem by another suggests that at high penetration levels here, wind case, in North Tawton in my then constituency. A generation offers a capacity of between 10 and 20 per retired man with very acute hearing had pain from the cent, which in itself is an indicator of how much of the noise that emerged. It came from a long way away capacity can be statistically relied on to be available to from his retirement home, but it hurt his head. It was meet peak demand. It compares with around 86 per absolutely clear. The hospital tests showed that it was cent for conventional generation. This means that the case. I merely make the point that the fact that fossil fuels and other thermal or hydro power still have people cannot hear does not protect them from pain to be available as a back-up in times of high demand and acute psychological distress. If you penetrate the and low wind output if security of supply is to be brain with harmful noise, you upset people very much maintained. I therefore make the point that new indeed. That gentleman and others like him—he was conventional capacity will still be needed to replace certainly not unusual—experience great physical difficulties the conventional and nuclear plant which is expected through accessing parts of the brain that should be to close over the next decade or so, even if large left alone unless it is through our normal hearing amounts of renewable capacity are deployed. To put it mechanisms. plainly, this means that every 10 new units’ worth of wind power installation has to be backed up with On top of that, I saw from the case in Holsworthy some eight new units’ worth of fossil fuel generation. that the general population was extremely distressed. I This is because fossil fuel sources will have to power accept that over the border in Cornwall things may be up suddenly to meet the deficiencies of wind. Wind different, but I hae ma doots, dear colleagues and generation does not provide an escape route from friends—very large doots—because my experience is fossil fuel use, but embeds the need for it. Nuclear fuel that people mind very much indeed about the persistent runs at base load and therefore cannot power up to noise. It is painful, it is harmful and, as I said a few cover the absence of wind. moments ago, it has a bearing on noise-induced hearing loss. It is the easiest thing of all to bring about in Lord Teverson: I thank my noble friend for giving babies and young children, in whom the delicate way. That energy prices go up as a result of renewables mechanisms of the ear are still developing. These can is clearly a concern of us all, but does she not agree be readily damaged. In most young people it that the cost of renewables is almost insignificant in happens because of discotheques, jazz concerts and comparison with the increase in the cost of gas and 505 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 506 oil, which has put up the real bills of consumers 11.35 am hugely? It is that supply pinch on fossil fuels that has Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I support the Bill of caused the explosion in cost to consumers. the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and I do so as a Labour person. Not everyone on this side takes that view, but I Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My noble friend’s do because it is the poorer parts of our community argument might hold water if wind power or the other that are paying the main price for this bizarre programme. alternative renewables were able to provide the 86 per As has been pointed out, they are paying often without cent of our energy that conventional fuels provide. knowing, because the extra taxes that come through Since conventional fuels have to back up renewables, I the subsidies are often not revealed. I also resent the cannot give credence to his argument. Conventional fact that it involves a huge transfer of wealth from the fuels have to be around to back up the intermittent less well-off to my good friends who own great estates wind power that is all we get in the United Kingdom. I in Scotland and make millions of pounds out of it. happen just to have spent the Recess in Oklahoma, I am very happy for them but unhappy for the poorer just down the road from cyclone country. It is very parts of our community who have to pay for it. I hope different there. I was blown so hard in the street one that my party will look more closely at this situation in day on my way to the conference I was attending that I the future than it has in the past. almost fell over. How very different that is even from I also support the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as an the Isle of Lewis, with its unique rock, and the Isle of environmentalist. It is bizarre that the environmental Man, with its trembling granite—another unique feature warriors support this programme when what it does to of the United Kingdom. the visual environment, as has been pointed out, is I cannot accept that wind power offers a decent quite appalling. I object to the fact that they are alternative to fossil fuels. Of course, fossil fuels, as my described as “wind farms”. Farms and the farming noble friend has immediately pointed out, are themselves community contribute enormously to our visual expensive, which is why I have always backed nuclear environment but these objects do quite the opposite—they fuel as the only really sensible, long-term solution for scar it. We need a new collective name and I think the United Kingdom. “wind blight” is one that could be used in the future I say again that I am enormously grateful to the because environmentally they are a menace. noble Lord, Lord Reay, for bringing about this important As a one-time economist, I particularly object to debate. I am immensely unhappy that our intermittent the economics of the programme, which are absolutely wind power has attracted such monstrous subsidies. appalling. I shall not go over it all but the wind, Largely, of course, I am unhappy because it has been especially, is the most uneconomic part; the cost of it kept away from the consumer, for it is ultimately is outrageous relative to its contribution. Its contribution consumers who will have to tell us how they wish to is minute. During the winter, the official figures produced go. There is enormous unhappiness about the wind showed that wind contributed 0.5 per cent to our farm programme. The chair of energy policy in the energy, partly because of the feature that during very Parliament of one of our closest allies in the European cold spells—certainly in this country—the wind blows Union, Denmark, calls the Danish wind programme a less. terribly expensive disaster. I support the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in passing, mentioned a figure of 60 per cent in relation to the efficiency of 11.33 am wind farms. Baroness O’Cathain: I shall speak in the gap in this immensely fascinating debate. I was stimulated to Lord Teverson: My Lords— make a very short contribution by a statement made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. He said that wind Lord Donoughue: The noble Lord said 60 per cent farms were not the answer. Then I began to mull over for the others and that wind was not far from it. I can the question. Do we really know what the question is? tell him that it is a very long way from it. Official Surely the time has now come for us to reconsider figures on the efficiency of the wind blight show that it whether we need to increase relentlessly and in an may be up to 30 per cent but on average it is around unthinking way the despoliation of our countryside, 20 per cent. That is a very poor contribution indeed. establishing wind farms and wind turbines in order to I should tell the Minister that just before the Recess produce inefficient energy on a cost-benefit analysis, I put down two Written Questions on this issue and when we should be asking and undertaking a total received helpful Answers. The Government stated that reassessment of the impact of so-called climate change. the cost of the whole programme, of which wind is a I suggest that the documents which have just been part, was up to about £30 billion but pointed out that adduced by our noble colleague Lord Turnbull be read a large number of costs were not included in that. It by everybody. Only on that basis will we be able to see would be helpful if the Government could explain the that these things are changing inexorably—the balance full gross cost of this programme. I asked also about between the costs of fossil fuels and the amount of the number of jobs that were forecast to be lost and electricity that is required. We are going back to old the Government said that they had not made any statistics without taking the new assessment into account. calculation of this. It would be helpful if the Government would make a calculation of jobs lost. Lord Greaves: As the noble Baroness has called me I considered tabling an amendment suggesting that in evidence, I ought to make it absolutely clear that I 100 miles might be an appropriate distance between do not agree with a word she is now saying. the wind blight and houses. I support the Bill. 507 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 508

11.39 am The first thing that could perhaps be said about the Bill is that it uses an unusual way in which to measure Lord Grantchester: My Lords, this Bill has implications wind. The Bill takes the tip of the blade as its highest on a very important policy area in Britain’s energy point in measuring its impact. The more accepted policy. It aims to put the UK on a path to cut its method of measurement is to the top of the nacelle, carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and where the rotor is fixed. Adding blade length to the some 70 per cent by 2050. The size of this challenge standard scale of masts may impact on the development is underlined by the fact that in the next decade over of technologies that reduce noise and have other impacts 30 per cent of existing traditional electricity power in future. I also wonder whether the exceptional condition sources will be removed from the grid as current that owners of residential premises that fall within the power stations are decommissioned. Abundant gas minimum distance requirements must agree in writing supplies are set to diminish. Shale gas exploration has to the construction of a wind turbine could lead to a been put into review following fears that it has triggered number of perverse outcomes affecting blade choice small earthquakes in Lancashire. Fossil fuel supplies and effective siting. Planning policy statements set are being pursued in ever more hazardous environments, flexible parameters within which developments can with deep-sea oil drilling. The investment required for take place that take account of changing circumstances the UK’s energy policy is estimated at over £40 billion, and technical advances. Experience and knowledge well beyond the capacity of the public sector alone. could perhaps inform our decisions in future. Increased development from all quarters is vital to In a Written Answer on 14 September 2010, Charles facilitating the delivery of UK commitments on both Hendry, Minister of State for Energy in another place, climate change and renewable energy. This inevitably replied to a Question concerning reports on and challenges puts increased focus on land use, agriculture and food to the Energy Technology Support Unit method of and bio-energy production, as well as supply chains assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines, and transport. In response to criticisms that agriculture most notably ETSU R 97, by acousticians. He replied is responsible for an overproportionate amount of that he had, CO2 emissions, the agricultural industry has voluntarily signed up to the greenhouse gas action plan to reduce “asked Hayes McKenzie to carry out new analysis of this”. emissions by 3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents by This method remains the applicable guidance for assessing 2020 without compromising domestic production. This and rating noise from turbines. Could the Minister plan was launched by Jim Paice, Minister of Agriculture provide the House today with any more information in another place. on the progress of this analysis and when it may be This is the wider context and the place within which published? This is separate from and in addition to a the provisions of this Bill are to be assessed. This Bill University of Salford report which has already endorsed is focused not only on larger development but also on the ETSU system. As this is not primarily her department’s small farm-scale turbines in the larger end of the small responsibility, could she ask her colleagues to write to wind sector, including some turbines that fall within me on the matter? In a further Written Answer that the definition of microgeneration. That area has been same day, the Minister stated: unlocked by the feed-in tariffs regime brought forward “There are currently no plans to introduce a proximity rule. by our previous Labour Administration. All planning The assessment of an application to develop a wind farm already decisions reflect a balance of competing interests and includes, among other things, an analysis of visual and landscape benefits, advantages and disbenefits, development and impacts to ascertain whether the location and height”, conservation. In this case, striking the right balance of a wind turbine, between regulations and incentives is vital. “is acceptable. The Government consider that these impacts are We have heard today across the House of the best assessed on a case by case basis so that local factors can be challenges that wind farms face from your Lordships. taken fully into account”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/10; All but one noble Lord today has expressed disapproval, cols. 960-61W.] but it is important to distinguish between, on one Will the Minister confirm today that as yet nothing hand, long-term legislative and prescriptive “thou shalt new has been learnt to override this statement? not” regulations—which may be necessary to project While acknowledging that the balance of benefits citizens and the environment where there is certainty of any development can be controversial, it would be of outcomes and overwhelming evidence—and assessment foolish not to take account of the considerable animosity against guidance on the other, where parameters are and protest that has arisen in such areas as Devon, set to measure each situation on a case-by-case analysis. Dorset and west Wales. However, there are procedures On these Benches, we would be concerned that this and mechanisms that already apply in this situation. Bill’s definitive prescription would be required for all From these Benches, I urge caution before embarking cases. As has been argued even by the noble Lord, on heavy regulation that defines prescriptive parameters Lord Reay, this situation is covered by provisions in for all cases and situations. The continued use of PPS22, which sets out government policies for renewable site-specific assessments may still provide the most energy and parameters which planning authorities appropriate and effective means to assess and determine should have regard to when preparing local development any potential development impacts, while protecting documents and taking planning decisions. The noble the amenity and health of local residents. Lord, Lord Greaves, made the point that nuisances such as noise could perhaps be encompassed within The recently announced review of the renewable these provisions rather than primary legislation being heat incentive and feed-in tariffs has been extremely brought forward. destabilising and disruptive to investments in renewable 509 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 510 energy. Let us take care today before endorsing further renewable energy developments. I do not think that planning constraints on the enormity of the task we my noble friend will agree, but wind farms can bring face on energy security. real benefits to communities as long as they are in the right place and of the right size. 11.48 am The noble Lord referred to ETSU R 97, as did the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. That report potentially The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department gives a different answer in every case, varying according for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): to factors such as: the number, type and space of My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Reay for turbines in the proposed wind farm; ambient noise providing the opportunity to discuss an issue that is levels at the nearest residence, which can vary significantly clearly close to his heart. From the speeches made around each site; and topography between the turbines around the Chamber, it is obviously close to the hearts and affected property. For local plans to set minimum of all those who have spoken. We have had a thoroughly separation distances from wind farms, all those factors interesting debate and I thank the noble Lord for the would have to be assessed for all likely locations while opportunity.IappreciatethatthenobleLordhaslong-standing looking at them case by case would vary the separation concerns over wind turbines, and that this Bill proposes distances. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a way of tackling some of the matters that can arise me two questions that I cannot at this moment answer, when proposals for wind farms and wind turbines are because they are not actually for my department, but I considered. I have listened with interest to the points will ensure that he has a Written Answer to them. that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the advice While I can appreciate the concerns that have led to given by Natural England to support a development this Bill being placed before us, we need to consider in Wales. He was kind enough to give me notice that whether legislation, and particularly legislating in this he was going to ask that question. I am bound to tell manner, is the most appropriate way to address them. him that, unfortunately, all of that is still an undecided I have my doubts, not least because the approach set planning issue and I therefore cannot comment on it out in the Bill sits uncomfortably with the Government’s today. However, he referred to the land enforcement reforms to the planning system and energy policies. fund, which would provide local landowners and We also need to recognise that in a rapidly changing communities with funding for environmental schemes world some degree of flexibility is both desirable and such as the replacement of hedgerows to help mitigate necessary. Fixed separation distances may be attractive, the effect of the wind farm proposals. I do not know but once in place there may be good and unforeseen where that is being pursued but it is clearly a factor reasons why the original justification for setting them which will now be taken into consideration during the no longer applies. By that I mean that technological planning process. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby advances could lead to sites that were once seen as de Broke, also asked a question to which, again, I am unsuitable being suitable in the future. afraid that I do not know the answer. It may sound It is helpful to put this Bill in context and remind feeble of me to say this but again it is not for my ourselves of why we need more renewable energy department. However, I will make sure that the noble developments. Harnessing our renewable resources is Lord gets an answer to it. necessary for energy security and environmental reasons. The Government have stated on many occasions The Government firmly believe that climate change is that decisions on siting wind farms should be made on one of the gravest threats we face. It is not something a case-by-case basis, so as to take account of the local that we can ignore and hope will go away, so there is context. This Bill would prescribe fixed-separation no question that the United Kingdom must become a distances according to the height of the wind turbines. low-carbon economy and decarbonise, where possible, The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, drew attention to its electricity supply. Having said that, we are aware the fact that it is the height where the measurements that this is a huge challenge, as was absolutely clear are taken from. The Bill would also automatically rule from the speeches. out locations that might otherwise be suitable for wind Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective and turbine developments because, for example, it makes established renewable technologies. Where small-scale no allowance for matters such as local topography or schemes are put forward by local communities or the presence of other buildings. Both are capable of individuals or much larger-scale ones are put forward providing mitigation against the impact of a turbine. as part of a commercial generator’s portfolio, our That can make a development which might otherwise energy security is enhanced by a resource—wind power— be considered unacceptable in isolation of its context which is ours alone. Renewables also provide opportunities quite acceptable when considered in its context. for investment in new industries and new technologies: There can be good reasons for rejecting proposed the kind of opportunities we so badly need to help the wind turbines. However, the reasons for some refusals economy recover. could be addressed by future advances in technology. None of this, though, gives an excuse to ride roughshod Improvements in technology could make acceptable over local communities, or for building wind farms in sites which are currently deemed to be unacceptable. the wrong places. The views of local communities are a vital contribution in making decisions about the Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: I hate to interrupt suitability of a proposed wind farm’s location. Through the Minister in what I think are her winding-up remarks, the Localism Bill we are committed to ensuring that but she has not chosen to comment on my important local communities should have a much greater say in points, which have not been put to the House before, shaping the places where they live, and that includes on the impact wind farms’ proximity to communities 511 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][LORDS] Wind Turbines Bill [HL] 512

[BARONESS NICHOLSON OF WINTERBOURNE] move away. I, of course, recognise that the Bill is can have on psychiatric, mental and hearing health. intended to apply also to major infrastructure projects Does she not agree that this is an important and as well as to proposals decided by local councils, but in almost wholly under-researched topic? Might she be fact because of the way it is drafted it does not, minded to recommend to her colleagues in the Department unfortunately, fulfil this ambition. of Health that they should perhaps undertake a proper Over the past few months we have been working research study on this vitally important issue? hard to put together the new national planning policy framework. This will simplify the reams of existing Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the noble Baroness planning policy. Part of it will cover renewable energy. has intervened a little before I got to the conclusion of It will be published for consultation and I am sure my remarks. However, it would be sensible for me to noble Lords will ensure that we have an opportunity address her concerns now and to say that of course the to discuss it in this House. I believe that its approach matters that she has raised in her speech today will be to localism and the importance it places on protecting referred on; I will make sure that they are. the environment will be reassuring. Returning to where I was, technological advances We want to reward those communities that welcome in radar, for example, could overcome current objections development and help deal with the demands for on radar grounds. Future turbine designs could be supporting infrastructure that may arise. Specifically, quieter than the turbines being erected now. Our approach our commitment to the local retention of business to localism means that we want communities to be rates generated by renewable energy developments will able to shape and influence new developments— reward communities who host these developments. [Interruption.] I do not think that my remark justified that thunder! Focusing on the detail of the Bill, if it were to I am concerned that even small-scale or community- progress further, a number of technical drafting issues backed developments could be inadvertently ruled out would need to be addressed for it to become a workable through fixed separation distances. I accept that the piece of legislation. For example, it would need to Bill makes some allowance for flexibility where local clarify what is meant by “relevant authority”. The agreement is reached, but there are flaws in this approach. reference to “government department” in the definition of “relevant authority” could imply that my noble On the planning policies coming forward, the current friend intended that his Bill should apply to all wind approach is looking at each proposal on its individual turbine proposals, but I am not clear whether this is merits within the context of the local council’s the case. Is it meant to include within its scope those development plan; that is well established. It enables a wind farm proposals which are considered to be major flexible and customised approach to be taken to each infrastructure proposals as well as those decided by proposal. Decisions on applications such as wind farms local authorities or by the Secretary of State if the are therefore taken on a site-by-site basis. This enables local decision is appealed? However, under the Planning impacts such as noise and shadow flicker to have Act 2008, nationally significant infrastructure projects tailor-made assessments using recognised methodologies require development consent rather than planning rather than being judged against an arbitrary separation permission. The Planning Act removes the need to distance. It enables the impact on the surrounding obtain planning permission, so as drafted the Bill landscape to be considered, and for topography to be would not apply to wind farms with an installed taken into account. That case-by-case approach is capacity of more than 50 megawatts. evidence based. I am not aware of any evidence which supports the thresholds proposed in the Bill. I am The exception provisions in the Bill may not empower afraid to say that they appear to be quite arbitrary. all those who live in properties within the thresholds Noise issues were referred to by the noble Lord, to be involved in the written agreement process. That Lord Greaves, and several other noble Lords. It might point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. be helpful if I told the House that the Department of Owners do not necessarily live in the properties they Energy and Climate Change is currently undertaking own; they can rent them out. The Bill would also need research to analyse how noise impacts on, and is to be amended to clarify the position with regard to considered in, wind farm planning applications in leaseholders. Would they be classed as an owner, or England. The aim is to ensure that noise assessments would “owner” include only the freeholder? I am also are consistent and effective, and provide the intended unclear as to how a “relevant authority” might be level of protection from noise impact. The results of expected to ensure that written agreements are not this research are expected to be published in the next elicited by unlawful or pressurised means. How do we few weeks. I hope that that will address some of the stop this becoming a charter for bureaucrats laying points that have been raised. down their view of the law? On planning, we are in the middle of major reforms I have other concerns, but my final point is that by to the planning system. We are taking forward major setting such rigid separation distances and linking changes to the way planning decisions are approached them to the height of the turbines, the Bill could and we are firmly committed to decentralising power actually lead to perverse outcomes—and I suspect not to local authorities and communities. The creation of at all the sort that my noble friend has anticipated. neighbourhood plans will help with this. My noble I wonder whether, as a way of getting round the Bill’s friend’s Bill unfortunately cuts right across our proposals provisions, we will simply see proposals being submitted for localism. By prescribing in legislation separation for turbines which cluster just below the height limits. distances, it is setting out—actually imposing—the Instead of submitting a proposal for, say, four turbines type of top-down approach from which we want to of a particular height, a developer might bring forward 513 Wind Turbines Bill [HL][10 JUNE 2011] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 514 a greater number of smaller ones just to get around am particularly grateful to those who supported me, the relevant separation distance limitation, so in the but also to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He and I end the impact could be greater. have taken part in debates when I have been in a I conclude by restating that by imposing rigid minority of one. It is only fair that the tables should be separation distances, the Bill would cut across the turned on this occasion. It would have been unnatural Government’s reforms to deliver localism and the if not one person, apart from those on the Front decentralisation of power. Ruling out what could be Benches, was willing to put forward his point of view. suitable sites on an arbitrary basis could hinder our The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that he thought ability to meet our ambitious but necessary renewable the effects of wind farms were being exaggerated and energy and climate change commitments. I understand that people got used to being near them. Many who that wind farm proposals, and even individual wind find themselves in that position get on with life, however turbines, can cause a great deal of concern in communities much they dislike the situation. It is probably only a about the impacts that they might have—we accept minority who are so severely affected that life becomes that—but I do not believe that this Bill is the way to intolerable, but it is a substantial minority, and some address these matters. inspectors have found that even a minority of a single It is normal practice for the Government not to family was sufficient reason for them to reject a planning support or oppose Private Members’ Bills and I do not application that was too close to where they lived. propose to break that convention. However, I ask my The noble Lord referred to renewable energy and noble friend to consider the extent to which the localism wind power in particular as being cost-effective, but, agenda will address his concerns, and how he might unlike many other noble Lords, he ignored the effect contribute to the national planning policy framework of the subsidies. The current subsidies paid through on this matter through the forthcoming consultation. the ROCs system by the electricity consumer are running at a rate of £1.2 billion a year. Under policies that are Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will the already adopted, this figure will increase to £5 billion noble Baroness clarify one point? She said, rather or £6 billion a year by 2020. If wind power needs that, encouragingly, that the Government wanted to move how can you possibly describe it as being cost-effective? away from the top-down planning structures that we The noble Lord suggested that the consumer was have seen in the past. Under their policies, including suffering more from increases in the price of oil and the Localism Bill, perhaps local people will have more gas. It was interesting that he mentioned gas. Because of a say on wind farms. Does that mean that there are of the recent extraordinary discoveries around the no proposals to reinstate the Infrastructure Planning world of shale gas deposits, there is an opportunity for Commission that was dismantled, but would have had cheap gas to be available on a huge scale for long into the power to override local decisions, and thus render the future. This is an alternative that the Government null and void the decisions of local people and local should welcome, not seek to close out by favouring authorities? That was the specific role of the IPC. Is renewable energy instead—which is what is happening. there a “son of the IPC” in the making, or has it been I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for abandoned? fully addressing the subject in her wind-up speech. Of course, I dispute many of her assertions, but I should Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the son of the IPC like to study carefully everything she said. There were will be the Secretary of State. These matters will be positive features, including her invitation, which I brought back under democratic accountability and eagerly accept, to take part in the debates leading up the final decision will be made by a Minister or the to the adoption of the national planning policy framework. Secretary of State. It will not and cannot be made by This issue will not go away. Like the noble Baroness, the IPC alone. I should add that neighbourhood planning Lady Nicholson, I think that the public are waking up will also be helpful and effective in this matter. to the costs that they are having to pay through their bills for the Government’s current renewable energy policy, and I doubt that that will be welcomed by Lord Marlesford: Will my noble friend comment on them. the remarks that have been widely expressed about the level of subsidy and on the issue of the intermittent and low output of wind farms? Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House. Baroness Hanham: My Lords, one of the difficulties of a debate such as this is that it ranges across several departments’ responsibilities. The two matters that my Demonstrations in the Vicinity of noble friend has now raised do not come within the Parliament (Removal of Authorisation ambit of planning, and that is the aspect that I have Requirements) Bill [HL] been addressing today. Second Reading 12.07 pm Lord Reay: My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to 12.10 pm all who have taken part in an extraordinarily good Moved by Lord Tyler debate with most powerful, passionate and well informed speeches from many parts of the House. Of course I That the Bill be read a second time. 515 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[LORDS] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 516

Lord Tyler: Perhaps I should reassure noble Lords special law saying, “You are disturbing us in this who took part in the previous debate that I have no building”, in a way that we would not allow anyone intention of promoting the location of a wind farm in else to pass special laws? No other offices could do Parliament Square. that. I am especially delighted that, in addition to a However, we had some extremely good evidence number of Members of your Lordships’ House who from the Westminster City Council’s environmental will speak in the debate, I can see one or two others health officer who is responsible for us. I apologise to who I know have a long-standing commitment to our your Lordships’ House for quoting at length, but I democratic and architectural heritage. I am particularly think this is important. He said: delighted that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire “The first thing is that if you have to look at noise from the is to respond from the Front Bench, because, as will local government perspective, noise actually creates a nuisance. become apparent later, he, too, has a track record in That is the way legislation frames it. That nuisance is really aimed these matters. around protecting residential areas but the courts have been tolerant with us in terms of applying it to work premises as well There is widespread agreement that the Serious … If we were to look at demonstrations that we have experienced, Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was not the what we have found is that when we have tried to measure the most appropriate legal mechanism to regulate and sound as each phase of traffic passes through Parliament Square manage democratic demonstrations in and around the sound of the loudspeakers disappears; it is drowned out by Parliament Square. Some thought that it was simply the noise of the traffic”. ineffective; others that it was excessively heavy-handed; So it is important that all these issues should be but I think that all now agree that it has not really considered in the light of factual evidence. In other worked. Worst of all, it has put our police force in an words, the noise of protesters is seldom, if ever, a unnecessarily compromised position, seeking to administer statutory nuisance that Parliament has to find a way a very defective law. All of us, as lawmakers, have an of circumventing. important responsibility to take that into account. Then, from the Constitutional Renewal Bill in the My Bill would repeal the part of the Act which latter part of the last Parliament, we had provisions manages to be both inadequate and overbearing. The that went into the so-called CRAG Bill—the Constitutional words in my Bill are directly lifted from the previous Reform and Governance Bill, as it became—and they Administration’s draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. were lost in the 2001 wash-up. Finally, as noble Lords However, I should also say that my Bill takes account will know, we have in Part 3 of the Police Reform and of the pioneering demolition job done by Mr Mark Social Responsibility Bill, currently before the House Thomas, whom I heard on BBC Radio 4—but I think in Committee, a very welcome restriction of the area to there are other occasions on which he was able to be the subject of a unique control regime. We have not demonstrate its inadequacy—and of the persistent reached that point in the Committee proceedings yet campaigning of my noble friend Lady Miller of so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it Chilthorne Domer. As noble colleagues will know, in detail. However,my Bill precedes these later developments. since I introduced my Bill, a very useful Bill has been My job today is simply to suggest that the repeal of brought forward by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. SOCPAis an opportunity for really constructive, positive, I do not want in any way to suggest that my Bill is an imaginative thinking about the relationship between alternative to his; indeed, it could lead on to his; but as Parliament and the public spaces around this building. his Bill has been more recently introduced, we cannot I have some experience in architecture and planning; as yet give it the attention that it deserves. I have never qualified but when I had a real job I However, I think that we all agree that the present worked for the RIBA in these matters so I can tell messy hiatus is intolerable. It may take an initiative colleagues that some of the discussions about the from Parliament, advised by our security experts. I noted future of Parliament Square go way back to the 1960s the reaction of colleagues in your Lordships’ House when I worked in that role. Personally, I think public when there was a clap of thunder—at least, I hope it spaces are the key to this issue. I welcome the fact that was a clap of thunder—a few minutes ago at midday. the public see democratic demonstrations and marches We are all very conscious of security concerns. It may focused on this building, on Parliament, and not just take the advice of our security experts to both Houses on Downing Street. Parliament is the proper site for of Parliament to break the bureaucratic logjam and democratic dialogue, not the Executive’s offices in knock together the heads of the London Mayor and Whitehall. Surely, that is entirely appropriate in a Westminster City Council who, to my mind, have been parliamentary democracy. We do not yet have an trying to find interminable ways to pass the buck. elective dictatorship run from the bunker in No. 10. As I said, pre-legislative scrutiny on various Bills Equally, the current physical characteristics of the that have come before your Lordships’ House has immediate environs of Parliament are hardly conducive considered the issue. I was involved in the Joint Committee to an effective dialogue between electors and the elected that considered the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill representatives, let alone with those of us who are in 2008, where we had a lot of fact-based evidence appointed at this end of the Palace. Parliament Square before us. That put in their place some of the more is an extraordinarily important, iconic, architectural fanciful prejudices that had been apparent. For example, construct. It is surrounded by significant buildings we looked with some scepticism at the idea that Parliament such as the abbey, the Supreme Court, Parliament and should exercise remarkable special privileges for itself the Treasury. You have the church, the judiciary, the in relation to noise nuisance—another theme from the legislature and the Executive. What could be of wider previous debate. Was the idea that we should pass a significance in our democracy? 517 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[10 JUNE 2011] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 518

It was in that context that, many years ago, there and in Prague—and yet we are discounting the idea of was the very important analysis of what should happen finding the right place for one in our own city of in Parliament Square, which was given the title of London, as near as possible to our Parliament. World Squares for All and it dealt with Parliament I understand also that some very useful and Square regeneration. We do not have to buy into all its comprehensive research is being undertaken at the recommendations but it included the principles that moment by the Hansard Society—again, I declare a pedestrian access to the central area should be approached non-pecuniary interest as an officer of the society—on more sensitively, that traffic should be more carefully behalf of the parliamentary officers of both this House and sensibly addressed and that, of course, as I have and the other place who sit in the Group on Information already said, security should be looked at in the context for the Public. I will not test noble Lords, but I wonder of potential threats today. how many have any knowledge of what the GIP is or As long ago as June 2008, the Chairman of Committees does, because it does not have any responsibility or of your Lordships’ House wrote to the Mayor of accountability to Members of either House. Anyway, London calling for the closure of Abingdon Street it is a useful exercise. The society is looking at the and St Margaret Street. In his letter, he said that that whole question of what should be said and done to tell closure should take place, Parliament’s story, which will include the way in which “to all traffic except vehicles requiring access on behalf of Parliament Square is to be planned in future. I would parliamentarians and the emergency services”. be very interested to know what the GIP hopes the long-term aim, outcome and timescale of this research His letter urged that this would create a “coherent should be. open space”, allowing both Londoners and tourists, I come back to the issue of security. Naturally, we “fully to enjoy the historic buildings contained within it”. should all aim to ensure the safety of all who visit this No doubt my noble friend the Chairman of Committees building, as well as those who work here, and there is a will be able to tell us whether he received a coherent strong argument for the removal of traffic from the reply from Mr Johnson. The ideas submitted by the east and south sides of the square for that reason Chairman of Committees on behalf of your Lordships alone. I am sure that the necessary access and parking were naturally very modest, but even they seem to issues could be successfully addressed. I also recognise, have been brushed aside in the interminable discussions as has been mentioned before in your Lordships’ that have taken place since. House, that the sessional orders of both Houses may In the 2008 debate, my noble friend Lady Hamwee require some review. However, surely we cannot allow described her feelings every time she came here. She that review to hold up the wider improvements that said that she was, have become so urgent. As the very successful depopulation of Trafalgar Square has demonstrated, “ashamed, embarrassed and uncomfortable about what London presents to our visitors when they visit the Palace of Westminster it is perfectly possible to achieve greater priority for and Westminster Abbey”.—[Official Report, 14/7/08; col. 1053.] people over vehicles without major disruption. We are always told by the motoring lobby that this is impossible, As a non-Londoner but someone who has had an but we have proved it possible in Trafalgar Square, almost lifetime interest both in our built environment and we need to look at it again in the immediate and also democratic politics, I could not have put it environs of this building. better myself. Our overall objective must surely be that the heart Since then, there has been a deafening silence. We of our parliamentary democracy should be seen as should revisit the options urgently and not let the such, with clear guidelines on what should be permitted passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility and even encouraged to enhance this role, without Bill impose an entirely negative context. We should recourse to unwieldy, excessive and unworkable regulation. look at positive opportunities as well. Most importantly, Your Lordships’ House will no doubt remember the those practical proposals could ensure general public disgraceful case of Maya Evans and Milan Rai, who access to the central area and so secure what I would were arrested in 2005 under existing legislation simply describe as popular self-policing, rather than simply for reading out the names of war dead at the Cenotaph. permit the present exclusive, permanent encampment That was wholly disproportionate. It reflected a piece by a small minority to persist for ever. of legislation—the Serious Organised Crime and Police It is a disaster that the Mayor of London and Act—that vastly overestimates the risks attached to Westminster City Council seem completely to have legitimate, well managed demonstrations and protests. blocked progress. I will make one suggestion; I do not The Act is very obviously a blunt instrument that by pretend that it is the answer to everything. Why should its nature gags free speech in the very place where it we not relocate or replicate Speakers’ Corner in the should be allowed. Indeed, for every demonstration centre of Parliament Square. I am very grateful for my that grabs the attention of the media—perhaps one a noble friend Lady Trumpington’s agreement. My erstwhile year, on average—there are so many which are well colleague in the other place, the former MP Mr Peter managed by stewards and the police. I do not know Bradley, founded the excellent Speakers’ Corner Trust, whether there are any figures that my noble friend can in which I have no pecuniary interest but which I and a give us, but I think there must be many demonstrations number of distinguished parliamentarians of both of that type every year. We will recall the Ghurkhas, Houses wholeheartedly support. He could find this an the countryside march, which was on a much bigger important opportunity. It is ironic that the trust has scale, and, indeed, the biggest one of all, the demonstration created a number of speakers’ corners in the and lobby of Parliament in favour of Make Poverty United Kingdom and abroad—in Lichfield, in Leicester History. They were well managed, well organised and 519 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[LORDS] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 520

[LORD TYLER] There have been attempts to do something. My extremely important ways in which our fellow citizens noble friend has referred to what happened in 2008 were able to communicate their views to parliamentarians. and made a passing reference to 2005. For some five Far from discouraging them, we should make better years until 2005, I sat on the House of Commons provision for them, instead of allowing permanent Commission, and it was an issue then. I kept raising it encampments of a small minority to persist while at commission meetings and was told that it was attempting to enforce the totally unworkable incredibly difficult because of the divided responsibilities overregulation of everybody else. for Parliament Square, something to which my noble I end with a quote from a 2008 letter published in friend also alluded in his speech. I raised it on the the Guardian on 1 May—May Day. It is perhaps Floor of another place. The then Government attempted significant for those who share my view that May Day in the 2005 Act which my noble friend is seeking to should not be allowed to be for just a minority. Those amend to tackle the problem, but they signally failed. of us who are parliamentary democrats can take significant They had produced a Bill that was draconian in its dates, such as May Day, as being ours too for all apparent dealing with the freedom to demonstrate radicals. The letter runs as follows: but which was completely ineffective in removing the “The current proposal is to close off the south side, with squalor. traffic continuing to flow between parliament and Westminster It is vitally important that in this wonderful country Abbey. If, however, the east side were closed as well, a grand new open space would be created from the end of Whitehall through of ours, people should have the freedom to demonstrate. Old Palace Yard. That would provide a far more welcoming I was proud to take part in the countryside march, and context for parliament itself, allowing the removal of most of the I addressed the countryside rally in Parliament Square, barriers, and creating a space where visitors can gather/demonstrate. which was vast but on the whole very well organised, The wealthy inhabitants of Smith Square object to this as they and certainly should have been allowed to take place, will have to drive round the other side of Westminster Abbey. as indeed it was. I would deplore any legislation that Given the national importance of this democratic space, I hope that broader considerations will prevail”. prevented a similar peaceful demonstration taking place in the future. But it is one thing to demonstrate Amen to that, say I. The author of that letter was, of for a particular time on a specific day, and another course, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Wallace of thing to camp indefinitely—and in so doing, in fact to Saltaire. I beg to move. prevent others from demonstrating, which is something that we should bear in mind. 12.27 pm I hope very much that the measures now before us Lord Cormack: My Lords, I am delighted to follow in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill my noble friend Lord Tyler. He has performed a real will deal effectively with this matter, but I have my service to the House in introducing his Bill and in doubts. Earlier today I was talking informally to my what he said in his wide-ranging and excellent speech. noble friend Lord Blencathra, who I know has tabled I thought that his idea of a speakers’ corner should amendments for discussion in your Lordships’ House commend itself to serious consideration. There are, in a couple of weeks’ time. They seek to ensure that perhaps, problems, but nevertheless it should not be the measures that the Government are introducing are dismissed. I was fascinated to hear about the GIP. I indeed wide-ranging and foolproof. It is, for instance, did not know it existed, I do not know what the letters tremendously important that in clearing up Parliament stand for even now—something to do with information Square, we do not move the squalor to Abingdon and Parliament, I believe—but I am grateful to him Green or to the green around the statue of King for drawing it to our attention. When it comes to George V. All the spaces around Parliament should be closing the sides of Parliament Square, I am not available for appropriate free and peaceful demonstrations, entirely sure that he took sufficiently into account the but none should be available for encampments. It is traffic problems within London, which are a serious therefore necessary, in whatever legislation is finally issue. adopted—be it that before us from my noble friend, be it from the Government, or be it an amalgamation What I want to concentrate on in supporting my with the admirable Bill drafted by my noble friend noble friend in his admirable endeavour is the need to Lord Marlesford, who has left the Chamber—to have clear up the squalor in Parliament Square. We are a foolproof solution. It must be a solution that imposes dealing with one of the greatest and most historic a sensible curfew so that people cannot demonstrate squares in the world. We are dealing with a world indefinitely. heritage site, as my noble friend said, a site which has the Abbey, the Houses of Parliament, the new Supreme Of course we have to be sensitive. When talking Court and the Treasury. It is symbolic, valuable and about this with colleagues earlier, I suggested that we architecturally of enormous importance and worth. should place a time limit on demonstrations, but I was To have in the centre a beautiful green defaced by asked what would happen with a silent candlelit vigil squalor is a disgrace to our nation, and I have lost by nuns. Would we want to stop that? Of course we count, as I am sure many other noble Lords have, of would not, so it is very important that whatever we do the number of taxi drivers who have said as they have allows for the legitimate but does not give freedom to gone around Parliament Square, “When can you do those who would exploit the very freedoms that we are something about this? Every time I have a foreign here to safeguard and protect. I hope very much that, tourist or visitor in the cab, they say, ‘This would never following the initiative of my noble friend and the be allowed to happen in any other great capital city of welcome attempts by the Government in the Police the world’”. Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, we will arrive 521 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[10 JUNE 2011] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 522 at a solution which enables people properly to enjoy protest in the name of people who are not here, who this glorious world heritage site and properly to wander are not citizens, who are never involved and we want between the buildings around it. to protest”. I do not think that it is a matter of the I said at the beginning of my remarks that the level of noise that those people make. As I said in my traffic issues cannot be lightly dismissed. Perhaps the speech on another occasion, is certainly less than if answer is a couple of underpasses so that people can Parliament were to be broadcast, when you would find go into Parliament Square. One of the problems at the that it drowned out even the traffic noise. I do not moment is that that massive traffic island is difficult to think that it is a matter of squalor, because the protesters access. Those who have got there, camped there and have been very tidy lately. They are on a little area of stayed there fall into one category, but those who want pavement and hanging on by the skin of their teeth. to go and look at the statues of great statesmen, to They are silently demonstrating with placards. What is wander around and see the buildings of Westminster the problem? I have heard tourists walking by express Abbey and Parliament from the square, have to take admiration for the fact that this happen; it can happen their lives into their hands to cross. We need underpasses only in British democracy. The noble Lord is quite and a proper public access to this greatest of all public right: foreign tourists will come and say that this could spaces. not happen in their country. Of course it could not I very much hope that when my noble friend comes happen in their country. This is the cradle of freedom to reply to this debate he will be able to give us both and it is everyone’s right to be able to demonstrate reassurance and encouragement. I hope that he will be provided they do not cause hindrance to anyone else. able to tell us that the Government are utterly and I go along with Clause 1(1) which seeks to remove absolutely determined to restore Parliament Square as Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime a place in which every citizen of this country and the and Police Act 2005. That would take us back to the world can take pride, a place to which people can Public Order Act 1986, which was perfectly adequate come and say, “Yes, this is the heart of the oldest, for a number of years until everyone panicked. We greatest democracy”. I hope that he will be able to give were not an unruly country—there was no anarchy—when us an assurance that there will never again be an the Public Order Act 1986 was in force. Why we opportunity for that space, once cleaned up, to be needed the 2005 Act is beyond me. It was introduced defaced. I hope that he will be able to tell us that the because everyone was panicking about 9/11 and 7/7, Government’s measures will make it absolutely impossible or whatever it was. Terrorism is being used as an for people to camp indefinitely and to create squalor excuse for all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms. where there is beauty and where that should always I quite agree with the first proposal in the noble remain. It is a question of adequate public access and Lord’s Bill and that we should remove Sections 132 to proper freedom for proper demonstrations, but an 138; I also go along with him that we should celebrate absolute recognition of the beauty and historical Parliament Square and make it accessible to everyone. importance of this great world heritage site. Let us make it a speakers’ corner—that would be quite I am delighted to support the Bill that my noble right. Let us have a variety of demonstrations and friend has introduced and to welcome the Government’s different ideas being floated about our politics and indication that they recognise the importance of these other people’s politics—I do not see what the problem is. issues. I very much hope that, in a few months’ time, taxi drivers taking me and other noble Lords round We ought to examine ourselves and ask whether we the square will not continue to say, “Why can’t you do as a Parliament really want to be part of suppressing something about it?”, because I hope by then that it people’s right to demonstrate even if that means will have been done. occupation. I would argue that that occupation is very orderly, as anyone who was there during the recent 12.37 pm Royal Wedding and saw encampments all over that area will know. People were camping and no one said, Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to speak on this Bill, “This is squalor”. There was a lot of squalor, I can but having heard the noble Lord who moved it and the tell you—I walked through it—but, of course, it is noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I am not quite sure that I remembered as a joyous occasion. So it is a joyous will go along with it all the way. I spoke at Second occasion when people agree with what the establishment Reading of the Police and Social Responsibility Bill, wants—there is joy and everyone is fine—but if you but only on Part 3, which has to do with Parliament do not agree, it is squalor. I reject that. Square. I took the view that it is part of a free society that if people want to demonstrate they should be able I say let the people who are there be there. Yes, let to do so. If it is squalid, that is a price of freedom. The us open up Parliament Square—I do not have a car so people who are camped there are not causing anybody I do not worry too much about traffic; whatever you any harm. They are registering protest about something want to do about traffic, do it—but do not remove the with which you may or may not agree, but you cannot people who are there because the fact that they are deny that there is something to protest about. I supported there is one of the greatest tributes to our democracy. the war in Iraq and continue to do so—I make no The excuses are always related to issues other than bones about that—but the fact that Mr Brian Haws politics—noise, squalor, inconvenience—but they have has been able to demonstrate for 10 years this month is a political subtext. It may seem harmless but there is a a great tribute to British democracy. Parliament Square political subtext to it. You do not like looking at those is a heritage site already because our society allows, posters; they are terrible. They remind you of things across from Parliament, people to demonstrate and which you probably think are all lies. Refute them—but say, “We reject what this Parliament has done; we do not deny the right of people to demonstrate. 523 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[LORDS] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 524

[LORD DESAI] 12.47 pm I urge the Government to accept what the noble Lord asks for in his Bill which is already in the Lord Rosser: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, political and social forums through the Act, but to has explained the purpose of his Bill, which addresses desist from doing anything which would remove the an issue that is addressed in the Police Reform and right of people to demonstrate as and when they think Social Responsibility Bill going through Committee in necessary. your Lordships’ House. With the conflicts of interest that need to be balanced, policing protests often generates controversy, not least 12.44 pm in respect of protests around Parliament where, unsurprisingly, people wish to come to make known Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, a very long time their views if they feel strongly about a policy that the ago I asked a question on this matter in this House. Government of the day are or are not pursuing or a I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on introducing decision they have made. The European Convention the debate and the Bill; I hope that the three councils on Human Rights gives people rights under both involved in this matter will read every word that is said Article 10 on freedom of expression and Article 11 on in this Chamber today. The mistake that has been peaceful assembly, but such rights are not absolute. made is not telling the people who are in their little The rights of protestors have to be considered, as well tents where they can legitimately go. I hope the Minister as those of the general public. In recent years, the issue can tell us of sites or a site—speakers’ corner or where has arisen as to whether Parliament requires different have you—where they can legitimately do what they arrangements from elsewhere to control demonstrations want to do without making such a terrible mess of a in its vicinity. place of great beauty and state importance. Before the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was introduced, a number of byelaws and the 12.45 pm Public Order Act 1986 applied to Parliament. In addition, there were sessional orders for the House of Commons Lord Wills: I was not going to say anything, but the and stoppages orders for the House of Lords, which words of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, reminded me of related to access and gave the Metropolitan Police the many gruelling months that I spent in the last Commissioner the power to direct police officers to Government as the Minister responsible for these issues, keep Parliament free from obstruction. In 2003, the so I felt that I should speak in support of his Bill. I am Commons Procedure Committee carried out an inquiry also in support of the careful way in which he has tried into those powers as a result of demonstrations that to strike a balance. had taken place outside and near Parliament, and I very much associate myself with the words of my concluded that the law was inadequate. The Serious noble friend Lord Desai in stressing the importance of Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 followed, which the right to protest. It is precious; we often may not created a new offence of demonstrating without like it, and many of us may be offended, as he rightly authorisation in a designated area, which was defined points out, but it is one of the most precious supports by order, but had to be within one kilometre of Parliament of our democracy. But at the same time, I think that Square. The Act also banned the use of loudspeakers my noble friend would accept that that right is not in the designated areas. without constraints. The problem lies in where exactly However, concerns soon emerged about whether those constraints should be drawn. Trying to strike that Act had, in its effects, struck the right balance. that balance is what has made this issue so brain-achingly For example, two people were arrested and prosecuted and heart-achingly difficult to reach any kind of achievable for reading out the names of British soldiers and Iraqi solution. citizens who had been killed in Iraq. Yet the concerns It is a great criticism of this place that we have the Act was intended to address remained largely failed consistently, over many years—and I take my unaddressed as people sought to find loopholes in the own share of responsibility for this—to find a solution law and ways to get around it. As a result it became to this problem. But as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, generally accepted that the provisions of the 2005 Act so rightly says—and I agree with every word that he should be repealed. Such a proposal was included, as says and pay tribute to all his efforts to find a solution has been said, in the Constitutional Reform and to this problem—Parliament Square is a very important Governance Bill. However, that measure fell in the symbol of the way in which our democracy works. wash-up before the general election last year. I do not think that anyone looking at it at the moment The Government have now introduced their own thinks that it is a good advertisement for that, which is proposals to deal with this issue in the Police Reform not to gainsay anything that my noble friend Lord and Social Responsibility Bill, which is currently going Desai has said in support of that precious right of through your Lordships’ House. Their proposals are peaceful protest. in many ways similar to the provisions of the Serious I welcome this Bill and congratulate the noble Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, but would Lord, Lord Tyler, on bringing it forward and his effort apply to the much narrower and more restricted to give Parliament once again an opportunity to reach geographical area of Parliament Square. I assume that a solution. I hope that it is successful. He has all my when the Minister responds, he will say something support and this House, Parliament and the whole of about the thinking behind the Government’s proposals our democracy owes him a debt of gratitude for giving in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill in us this opportunity. pursuing what I am absolutely sure is the objective 525 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[10 JUNE 2011] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 526 the Government want to achieve: maintaining the The Government are therefore making it clear that balance between the right to protest in the area around Sections 132 to 138 have not prevented the abuse of Parliament, the right of people to go about their our public spaces by a determined few to the detriment everyday business and the right of people to enjoy of the enjoyment of those spaces by the wider public. Parliament Square. I think we are talking about a maximum of 150 in the This is certainly not an easy issue to resolve but democracy encampment and fewer than double figures there is a need for change and for further proposals. in the Brian Haw encampment. However, in striking a There will obviously be further discussion on this balance we are also bringing forward a package of issue. While the best way forward now will be through measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility consideration of the proposed clauses in the Government’s Bill to ensure that everyone else is able to access the police reform Bill, rather than through the Bill before square equally and to enjoy its amenities. There are, us today, we still await the Minister’s response with after all, others who come to Parliament Square for a interest. number of reasons: as tourists, to see the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben; as a cultural experience in visiting this world heritage site; and as an educational 12.52 pm experience for those interested in the democracy process, by seeing where Parliament is situated. Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this debate has ranged a little more widely than the Bill under I am happy to say that discussions have been under consideration and has raised some large questions way between the Dean and Chapter across the road about the future of Parliament Square. I start by and the authorities here about joint visits by school declaring two personal interests. First, I live in a world parties and others to the abbey and to the Palace of heritage site in Saltaire and have therefore spent Westminster—and, incidentally, extending to the Supreme considerable time dealing with the legislation on world Court, while there will be discussions in the summer of heritage sites. Secondly, I was, many years ago, a whether that could also include Buckingham Palace—to chorister across the road at the abbey and still have bring people to this central area of English history. links to it. Indeed, I give occasional singing tours of That also raises questions about how easy they find it the abbey for charity. I am conscious that the two to get from one part to another. halves of this world heritage site are, alone among We all witnessed the occupation of Parliament Square world heritage sites in this country—and on the absolute Garden by the democracy village encampment during outer edge of UNESCO regulations—divided by a the summer, which prevented member of public and main road. visitors using and enjoying the garden. The courts I start by addressing the issues raised by this Bill have said that Parliament Square Garden is not a and Part 3 of the Police and Social Responsibility Bill, suitable area to be used for any sort of encampment. which I hope will reach the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, The High Court has also said: in one week’s time rather than two if we are able to “Parliament Square Gardens is not a suitable location for make progress in Committee next Thursday. The prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character of”, Government have set out their commitment to restoring the rights to non-violent protest, and have therefore Parliament Square Garden and, brought forward the repeal of Sections 132 to 138 of “is also inconsistent with proper management of the area as a the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. We agree whole. Members of the public have been and would be precluded from using the area occupied; the area in question is the area that Sections 132 to 138 impose unnecessary restrictions nearest to an important entrance to the Houses of Parliament”. on the right to peaceful protest around Parliament, The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked whether and that they have had a chilling effect on that right, we could tell campers of sites to which they might which has contributed in some quarters to a breakdown legitimately go. One has to say that they can legitimately in trust between the Government, the police and those go to authorised campsites. It is no more legitimate who wish to protest. We recognise that we are talking under general law to move to encamp in Green Park, about striking the right balance. However, I am very St James’s Park, Westminster Abbey churchyard or happy to hear the consensus across the Chamber—and, elsewhere than it is to camp on Parliament Square I am sure, in the other place—that it is important to itself. maintain the right to peaceful protest. I shall just throw in a small amount of history, since I was heavily criticised over answering a question Lord Desai: What were the permissions given during about sessional orders and have done a little research. the royal wedding for people to camp across from In the 17th century this Chamber assumed that noble Westminster Abbey and all around Parliament Square? Lords had the right, under all circumstances, to come Was there a special dispensation given by the police or to this Chamber and that spaces should be cleared for was an announcement made about that? them. Having looked at the book just published on the Lords in the 17th and 18th centuries, the degree of Lord Wallace of Saltaire: They were not only there arrogance with which the Lords then assumed that the but on The Mall, as I attempted to walk at speed from right of access could be enforced is not one that would the Cabinet Office to Tothill Street the day before the be appropriate to our modern Chamber. In the 1780s, royal wedding and it took me nearly 20 minutes. I am after the Gordon riots, a battalion was encamped in well aware that policing is by consent and discretion in St James’s Park for some months in order to maintain this country. On special occasions, as in the run-up to the right of access to Parliament. That is not the sort a royal wedding, we accept obstruction of the footpath of thing, I suggest, that we now wish to repeat. for a limited period. That is what happened then. 527 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[LORDS] Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity) 528

[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE] of noble Lords talked about noise as a nuisance, and I On whether obstruction of the footpath for extended reinforce everything that has been said about traffic periods is also acceptable, we are absolutely talking noise being one of the largest problems we have to about the balance between the very small number of face. I look out of my windows on to Old Palace Yard, people who have occupied Parliament Square Garden and the heavy trucks that pass by extremely close are and the footpath adjoining it and the very large number also a potential security risk. The reason those heavy of people who come through. steel Corus structures are in place is because there is a We all welcome that very large number of people. I real security risk. have had an office on the West Front for some years Parliament Square is, as some noble Lords have and I am used to hearing people singing hymns, or remarked, a traffic island, surrounded by a traffic hundreds of schoolchildren producing a substantial roundabout. The questions raised in the project for number of decibels as they cheerily march past, and a World Squares for All of one or more sides of Parliament whole range of other demonstrations. I do not mind Square being closed to traffic would answer the point that noise as it comes through; I much prefer it to the raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about pedestrian more regular noise of the heavy traffic. That is part of access to the centre, give us a much larger space and what Parliament should be about. We shall return to give us something which we all, as pedestrians, enjoy the exact question of the measures which are now in Trafalgar Square. When, as a Liberal Democrat proposed to replace SOCPA next Thursday. I say opposition spokesman I raised this question on one simply that those measures are to have a small controlled occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, objected area in which certain activities—erecting tents and the that closing off two sides of Parliament Square would unauthorised use of loudhailers—are prohibited. inhibit her ability to arrive for weddings at St Margaret’s in a car. I regret to remind her that that would indeed Lord Berkeley: My interpretation of what the noble be the case, but there would be compensating advantages Lord has just said is that if the establishment approves to a larger of number of others. We cannot restore of people camping, it is all right, but if it does not, it is Parliament Square to the glory which the noble Lord, not all right. Is that true? Lord Cormack, and others evoke without restricting traffic. Lord Wallace of Saltaire: No, we are talking about On the question of sessional orders, which other timescale. This democracy encampment has gone on speakers have also raised, I point out that the Commons for a very extended period, and the Brian Haw situation no longer has a sessional order. The order, in its very for even longer. Of course one has to use discretion on grand-sounding statements, does not actually enforce certain occasions, but people who put up their picnic any action outside the Palace of Westminster. It might tables and chairs for one overnight, cheery encampment indeed be time, therefore, to consider whether it is is not at all the same thing as people who erect desirable to continue the grand language of the sessional permanent tents over months and years at a time, order, given that it gives rise, as I have discovered which then extend to the sort of huts which we now when answering questions on this, to a number of see opposite us that are almost permanent erections. misunderstandings about its potential use. That is of a different scale, and the timescale is We welcome the frequency of well managed fundamentally different. demonstrations, and in all that we do here we want the We argue that what is proposed in the Police Reform maximum number of people to come into the Palace and Social Responsibility Bill is a proportionate and and to appreciate how the Palace, Westminster Hall, targeted response which is the minimum necessary to Westminster Abbey and the surrounding area are a deal with the particular misuse of tents and structures central part of English history. We welcome the on Parliament Square Garden and the footways. For opportunity that visits—particularly of the younger the rest, protest in this area will henceforth be governed generation—to this area give to educate a new generation by the same laws as govern protest elsewhere. We think about English history and the growth of democracy in that returning to that is the appropriate course. By it. Although I am not saying that the Government removing the SOCPA rules against protest as such, we support this Bill in another place, I very much hope are saying that if people want to protest for days, that those who have spoken in this debate and others weeks and months, including candlelit vigils by nuns will continue the debate about how this world heritage or others, they can. What they cannot do is erect tents site—this place that we love so much—should best be and/or other long-term structures to do so. So while redesigned and rearranged so that we can welcome the the Government cannot and will not support this Bill largest number of visitors and the largest number of in the other place as it stands, we welcome and urge people who want to express their views in a free continued debate. society. I shall now deal with some of the wider issues which are of clear interest to Members of the House 1.06 pm about the future of Parliament Square and the way in which it fits in to the central democratic space which is Lord Tyler: My Lords, I certainly do not seek to the Palace of Westminster and its environs. The noble delay and to detain the House for more than a few Lord, Lord Tyler, talked about the need to break the minutes. This has been a very positive debate, and I bureaucratic logjam of the division of responsibility think there has been wide agreement on all sides. between Westminster Council, the Greater London I take up just one small point. My noble friend Authority and various other authorities, which has Lord Cormack is usually spot-on accurate, but I think made it very difficult to deal with these issues. A number I am right in saying that the statue to which he referred 529 Demonstrations (Parliament Vicinity)[10 JUNE 2011] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 530 was not of George V but of George VI. However, that Wreck Removal Convention Bill is significant in this respect: I recall one particular demonstration by the Gurkhas, and somehow the Committee Gurkhas immediately around the monarch who led us during the Second World War, when they served this 1.11 pm country so well, was symbolic of precisely the sort of important demonstrations that might not get the attention Clause 1: Planning permission that they deserve. I therefore very much welcome the fact that no one on any side of the House is seeking to use the opportunity of the new legislation before the Amendment 1 Government simply to impose yet more draconian—I Moved by Lord Berkeley think that was the word used by my noble friend—controls over demonstrations. We seek to enable demonstrations 1: Clause 1, page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of to be more effectively managed for the sake of all—indeed, line7onpage4 for the safety of demonstrators, apart from anyone else. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall also speak to expressed some misgivings, summed it up very well Amendment 2 for the convenience of the Committee. when he said—I paraphrase, and I hope that I have got Before I start on the substance of the amendment, I this about right—that he supported everyone’s right to record my thanks to the Minister and his officials for a demonstrate so long as they do not prevent others very useful meeting yesterday.I look forward to continuing from doing so. That is the crucial issue at present. We discussions and this debate today. want to enable people to use their democratic rights as I remind the Committee that I am a harbour our fellow citizens outside their Parliament, and not to commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. At be tucked away somewhere quite different. Second Reading, we had a good debate. I said that I The noble Lord, Lord Wills, was very generous in supported the Bill in principle; I think it is a very good his compliments, and I in turn compliment him. He Bill. I want to focus on one issue, that of wreck worked very hard to get the balance right, but I have recovery: who does it and who pays for it. As the Bill to admit that I think that we on all sides would now says, as the wreck occurs, it is generally marked by a accept that the present regime failed, that it is therefore harbour authority or a GLA. However, under the Bill, right to look at another one, and that we have to strike dealing with the wreck is now the responsibility of the a new balance. Government, who can instruct—and I mean instruct—the harbour authority, conservation authority or GLA. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly identified the The idea is that the costs incurred in doing it can be fact that the area for limitation, control and management recovered from the ship’s owners or insurance. That is more restricted under the Bill, but I think that is also seems fine and complies with the wreck conventions welcome. I think it is a kilometre, not a mile—ooh, that the Bill is designed to incorporate into legislation. dangerous, European stuff—but the previous legislation was excessive, and this Bill is much improved. However, We are told by the Minister that all ships will be again, as other noble Lords have said, the strict definition, insured because the insurance documents will be inspected which goes back to some previous legislation on at UK ports. The first question one has to ask is how Parliament Square, might not be sufficient and we robust the arrangements for this inspection are. The might need to look at Abingdon Green and the area noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who sadly cannot be with immediately around the statue to which I have referred. us today, asked a Written Question to which the Answer from the Minister stated that in 2010 there I end now with what my noble friend Lord Wallace were 12 instances where an inspection of the insurance of Saltaire said. His final words were extraordinarily documents revealed a deficiency in them. encouraging, because he is saying to us that, in parallel with any new restrictions on demonstrations when the Rather more serious is a recent statement by Vice- SOCPA provisions are removed, we must urgently Admiral Massey, the chief executive of the Marine have positive reassessment of the role of this iconic and Coastguard Agency, to an all-party parliamentary square. It is so important, not just to our architectural group, as reported in Lloyd’s List of 28 March. He heritage but to the way in which we relate to our fellow said that the agency is, citizens. If this is the centre of a parliamentary democracy “missing some ‘high priority’ ship inspections”, we cannot continue, as we are, discouraging people particularly at night and at weekends. Therefore, one from seeing it as such, and seeing its relationship to could argue that there is a certain lack of robustness the other pillars of our state—which are still, curiously about the inspections, which could mean that some enough, the church, the Supreme Court and the Executive ships which are not insured will not be caught by these up Whitehall. inspections. There is also the question of the ships that My noble friend’s final words were very encouraging, go round our coasts but do not enter our ports, which and I am sure that there will be others in your Lordships’ will not have to show their certificates to anyone. House who will hold him and the Government to On Second Reading, the Minister said that all ships account if we do not see some progress in the next few will be insured and therefore the costs can be recovered, months on the positive as well as the negative concerns but what happens if the harbour authority or GLAs that we all have. cannot recover them? As the Bill stands, they cannot refuse an instruction from the Secretary of State. The Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee trouble is that the instruction is not accompanied by a of the Whole House. commitment to fund a problematic wreck removal. 531 Wreck Removal Convention Bill[LORDS] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 532

[LORD BERKELEY] instruction to deal with a wreck. If the amendments On Second Reading, noble Lords said that this would were accepted, these organisations could still be asked not happen very often, it was very unlikely to happen to do so, and in many cases they would accept. However, and the cost would not be very high. However, I do without the amendments, they could not refuse. Without not know what would happen if the cost was high. If some financial assurance, those organisations, or the the cost was high, it could cause severe financial legally operated ships paying light dues, could on a problems, or management problems, for small harbour few occasions be put at severe financial risk. It would authorities or GLAs. Of course, they will do their best not happen often and it may not happen for 10 or in this regard but it could put them in financial difficulty. 20 years—but it still could happen. It is not the The British Ports Association supports these amendments polluter paying but the good ones paying for the bad and strongly opposes a requirement which would mean ones. that the harbour authorities were financially liable for There is a strong argument for the Government to cleaning and removing uninsured, or even occasionally accept these amendments on the basis that it is a more unowned, wrecks. Ports have a problem with small equitable arrangement for the very few occasions when boats the world over, but the association is saying that somehow the costs of dealing with a wreck cannot be ports authorities would possibly be less willing to recovered from the insurers or the owners. If the accept boats which are in difficulty into their harbours Minister and the noble Baroness who has put her if they thought that in so doing they would be liable name to the Bill do not accept the amendments, it for a big financial penalty. One should take that into would be important for the Minister to provide some account. assurance that the Secretary of State will not direct We have heard that Trinity House supports the Bill GLAs, harbour authorities or conservation authorities in its entirety, but I argue that it would do so as its job to remove a wreck, unless that can be carried out using is to mark wrecks. That is part of its work, and it does their normal vessels and personnel as part of their it very well. However, if it were called on to manage normal business. That would give comfort to the harbour and undertake a major salvage operation, the problem authorities in particular that they will not be exposed is that it would probably have to pass on the costs of to a small risk with a very high cost. I beg to move. doing so to ships in the form of light dues, because that is the way Trinity House is financed. Trinity Lord Addington: My Lords, in the absence of my House could even argue that—I hope that it would noble friend Lord Bradshaw, I have looked at the not—it needed to buy bigger and larger ships to amendments and issues relating to the Bill. The noble undertake this new responsibility, but I trust that it Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be technically correct, but it would not do that. The Chamber of Shipping in occurs to me that if we get away from the fact that particular is rightly concerned that the measure puts people will break the law and you make law only for an extra cost on insured ships that comply with the people who will comply with it, what does the noble regulations, and that some of that cost is to cover Lord think will be the political cost of a Government ships which do not comply, and have not complied, who went to an authority—whether the harbour authority with the regulations. That body has asked whether the or the general lighthouse authority—and said, “Do Crown will indemnify the General Lighthouse Fund something you can’t do or we’ll bankrupt you for against costs that cannot be recovered, given that the functions that are important”? You would be asking a costs arise as a direct consequence of the Government’s Minister to pay an almost suicidal political price. The decision to sign the convention. We could discuss that House and another place would rip that person apart. for a long time. How real is that danger? That is the only thing that comes to mind. The noble Lord may be technically We should note that the Transport Select Committee correct, but I wonder how real that danger is in the in another place investigated this matter in 2008 and world in which we actually live. No one will leave in stated that, place a dangerous provision that restricts commercial “if the General Lighthouse Authorities were to be directed, under activity and endangers people. I leave that sitting new powers in the Bill, to undertake activities other than those there, because it should be mentioned in these discussions. which they would have undertaken in the past, there is a possibility that the liability of the General Lighthouse Fund for unrecoverable costs could increase. This legislation should not be used by the Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, in short, Government to transfer further the financial risk resulting from these amendments are about leaving the obligation for uninsured ships to other shippers through the General Lighthouse the removal of wrecks by default with the Secretary of Fund”. State. That effectively means leaving the taxpayer with Therefore, a lot of people do not think that this is a the liability. Clearly, ship operators have to be concerned terribly good idea. about costs—and rightly so. However, the Bill—unless I have misread it and I do not think I have—is not, as Finally, the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning was recently alleged in the shipping newspaper Lloyd’s MP, said that the Bill enshrines the principle that the List, about shifting the financial burden for the removal polluter pays. He is wrong, because while it certainly of wrecks to shipping. As I understand the Bill, it is makes the polluter pay, in making the GLF pay, it about maintaining the status quo as regards unrecovered achieves the opposite effect, because the owner of the costs. If the Bill becomes an Act, it will not make any uninsured wreck will not have contributed to the GLF, difference so far as unrecovered costs are concerned. but is being saved. An uninsured ship could go down in a conservancy These amendments would remove the requirements area or a harbour authority area and there would be for the harbour authorities, conservation authorities exactly the same situation as that which pertains at the and GLAs to comply with a Secretary of State’s moment. 533 Wreck Removal Convention Bill[10 JUNE 2011] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 534

As the Bill provides that there will be a mandatory to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, I have no doubt requirement, for the first time, that all vessels over that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, should be a great 300 gross tonnes have wreck removal insurance and deal happier than he appears to be. The noble Lord, there is strict liability on the ship owner to remove that Lord Berkeley, said nothing new in moving his amendment wreck, it is highly unlikely that there will be any today to what he said at Second Reading. Anyone who increased costs to the General Lighthouse Fund or to reads Hansard will see that, at Second Reading, he harbour conservancy authorities. I know that my noble said that he was very satisfactorily answered by the friend Lord Berkeley is understandably concerned about noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and, in particular, by my the cost to a small harbour authority if an uninsured noble friend Lord Attlee. If the noble Lord, Lord vessel requires removal after an accident, but Section 255J Berkeley, cares to refresh his memory of the Second states clearly that the UK ship or a foreign-owned Reading debate, he will find the words of my noble ship may not enter or leave the UK port. In default of friend Lord Attlee, who said that, that, the master or operator of a vessel is guilty of an “the Bill maintains the status quo”.—[Official Report, 13/5/11; offence. col. 1134.] So it is more likely in future, that that requirement The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants to do nothing will be widely known by all ship owners and operators more than transfer existing liability on to taxpayers, as and much less likely that uninsured vessels will seek to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, has pointed out. He enter our ports. I agree that it would be useful if the has wrapped it rather cleverly with harbour authorities noble Earl could say something about small harbour this time, but we know that the real beef of the noble authorities, which unlike, for example, Southampton, Lord, Lord Berkeley, is the GLAs. He does not like Felixstowe or Clyde Port, may not have the funds to them, and we are all used to that. I do not think I am effect removal in the unlikely event of an uninsured alone in getting slightly concerned about this. It reminds casualty which is a hazard to navigation. Overall, it is me of the wolf story; he has been going on about much more likely that the introduction of the convention GLAs for so long. He has been answered very properly will lead to reduced costs, to the benefit of the General and correctly, but I am no longer certain when he is Lighthouse Fund and, thus, to ship owners. being serious or when he is playing another agenda While some wrecks and strandings are beyond the that I do not know about. That slightly perturbs me. If control of any ship operator or ship master, far too my noble friend Lord Attlee could comment on the many of them are a consequence of negligence. Casualties MOU, which was mentioned at Second Reading, that arise from one or more of causes such as poor navigation, might help to reassure the noble Lord. An update on poor watchkeeping practice, and underqualified officers. that would be helpful. We know that it is possible to have people with fake qualifications on the bridges of ships. We have undermanned bridges. There are problems with alcohol 1.30 pm and fatigue and, not least, inadequate maintenance. In Lord Greenway: I very much agree with what the that connection, in 2009-10, the Marine Coastguard noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has just said. Having Agency found that 1,265 vessels had safety issues and debated these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had to detain 59 of them until matters were put right. for many years, we all know where his concerns lie, Sir Alan Massey has reported that there was insufficient particularly in regard to expenses put on the ship rigour in some of those investigations. He is in a owner through the payment of light dues. position to put that right. If the Bill is enacted, I hope The convention is quite clear, as has been said, in that he will do so and that there will be proper examination that it will require ships over 300 gross tonnes to of certificates. Of course, that would ensure that ships carry wreck removal insurance and the onus of without those certificates do not come into our ports. wreck removal is firmly placed on the registered owners However, where maritime accidents occur in the of those ships. The instances where a ship might fall circumstances that I described, it is quite wrong that through the net, so to speak, will be very much reduced the taxpayer should be expected to be the insurer of in future. As has been said, I think the possible cost last resort, and therefore wrong to seek dilution of the to the General Lighthouse Fund will certainly be clause, as proposed in my noble friend’s amendment. lower. It is for shipping operators and owners to be properly As far as I can make out, the amendments limit the insured and for them to arrange prompt removal of options open to the Secretary of State, compared with any wreck that is a hazard to navigation. I have not the what he has today. The Secretary of State and his slightest doubt that most shipping companies—good representative—SOSREP—are well known to the general ship operators—will be properly insured. lighthouse authorities. They have worked together over The requirement for mandatory ship insurance is many years and those authorities have been marking long overdue. It is a valuable addition to maritime and removing smaller wrecks for 150-odd years, so safety and should be supported. I recognise my noble they have some experience in this matter. It would be friend’s concerns but I hope that, having listened to wrong to try to bypass that experience by getting the the debate in Committee, he will feel able to withdraw Government to appoint independent salvers to do a the amendment so that we can give the Bill safe job; for example, they would not necessarily have the passage. experience of marking the wreck in the first place. There is an argument for maintaining continuity in The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to dealing with the marking of wrecks and their possible your Lordships for not being here for Second Reading, removal by one source that is used to dealing with butIhavereadHansard carefully. Having just listened them. 535 Wreck Removal Convention Bill[LORDS] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 536

[LORD GREENWAY] Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I thank the The memorandum of understanding was mentioned noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this lively by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. That is certainly and interesting debate which the noble Lord, Lord something where I think many of these concerns can Davies of Oldham, promised me at Second Reading. I be thrashed out. I echo what the noble Earl said in am sorry that he is not in his place, but I welcome the asking the Minister whether he can give us an update noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to the Front Bench for this on how that is proceeding. As I said before, there is Committee stage. already close co-operation between the Government’s Your Lordships will not be surprised that I support representative and the general lighthouse authorities. noble Lords who have spoken in opposition to these The harbour authorities are perhaps slightly different. amendments. As I pointed out at Second Reading—and Some of the smaller ones would not have the necessary as every noble Lord contributing to today’s debate vessels to cope with removing a wreck, but there is understands—the costs associated with removing a absolutely no question of the general lighthouse authorities wreck can be substantial and also difficult to recover, using this Bill to extend their fleet with newer and particularly as at the moment there is no straightforward larger ships. I think that that is a red herring. obligation on ship owners to be responsible for the I emphasise that the cost to the General Lighthouse removal of their wreck. Fund, over quite a number of years of removing The Bill builds on the well-developed arrangements wrecks, is very small. I have a figure of 0.004 per cent, that already exist for dealing with maritime casualties. and that went up to 3.2 per cent only as a result of the Above all, it provides legal certainty by placing the one-off exercise of the removal of the German First primary responsibility for the removal of a wreck that World War U-boat from the Dover Strait, when the poses a danger to navigation or the environment on Government required Trinity House to do that and it the ship owner and ensuring that, if the authorities had to appoint separate salvage contractors. have to step in, the owner will pay their costs for I will mention one final point. The point of the removing it. Under the Bill, the liability of the ship Secretary of State being able under the Bill to direct owner is strict; the claimant does not have to prove harbour authorities or general lighthouse authorities that the owner was negligent or at fault. to remove a default wreck is so that they can recover The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, their costs. Without that direction, which in effect Lord Berkeley, puts some of this certainty at risk. It makes them agents of the state, they cannot recover would delete not just the discretionary power to direct them. That is an important point. authorities to remove a wreck, but, in doing so, the statutory link to cost recovery under the convention. Lord Rosser: My Lords, I will make only one or two This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. comments about the amendments tabled by my noble The Secretary of State’s discretionary power to direct, friend Lord Berkeley. I do so in the context of repeating included in the Bill, ensures that authorities will benefit that we welcome the Bill. from the convention’s cost-recovery provisions when My noble friend raised again the issue of the possible removing a wreck. high level of costs that might have to be borne in the The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that if this event that, contrary to requirements, a ship is not amendment were to be agreed, there might be occasions insured, the insurance does not cover the full costs or when the authorities would choose to carry out or there is a lengthy delay in the insurance money being participate in the removal of a wreck in any case. If paid after the costs have been incurred. I sense from that amendment were to be accepted, ship owners or what my noble friend said that this could be an issue insurers would undoubtedly argue that as there is no particularly for some harbour authorities because of explicit linkage to the convention’s cost-recovery their financial reserves. I am aware that in the Second provisions, they do not need to pay an authority’s Reading debate, the Minister said that the Government costs. As I have already said, the fact that that direction were of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill is in the Bill invokes the connection to the convention. would ensure that the risks of a shortfall in expenditure That argument would be reinforced and could lead to would be significantly less for bodies such as harbour all costs having to be recovered through harbour fees authorities than they are now. The Minister referred or the fund because the ship owner or insurer would later in the debate to a memorandum of understanding be able to point to the inconsistency that the amendment between the respective parties that would be agreed would create because proposed new Section 255C, prior to the entry into force of the International which provides a similar statutory link in respect of Maritime Organisation’s International Convention on locating and marking, would remain in place, thus the Removal of Wrecks. allowing authorities to recover those costs direct from There have been discussions already between my the owner or insurer, just as the Bill intends for all noble friend Lord Berkeley, the Minister and the noble costs. There would be direction for locating and marking Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. I am sure that but not for removal. those discussions have been both appreciated and In addition to creating inconsistencies, these useful. I simply ask the Minister and the noble Baroness amendments would also delete the provisions in proposed whether there is scope for further discussions with my new Section 255F(4) for the explicit extension of the noble friend Lord Berkeley on the issue that he has general lighthouse authorities’ areas of responsibility raised, and in particular whether any wording could to the edge of the United Kingdom’s convention area, be incorporated in the memorandum of understanding which noble Lords will know is up to 200 nautical that might at least mitigate or lessen the concerns that miles from shore. As such, a ship owner or insurer have been expressed on this issue by my noble friend. would doubtless claim that a general lighthouse authority 537 Wreck Removal Convention Bill[10 JUNE 2011] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 538 had no statutory basis on which to remove a wreck 1.45 pm outside territorial waters and that therefore no payment The MoU will of course be based on several principles. was required. Importantly, one of these is that one of the objectives The Bill’s direction regime removes the real risks of of SOSREP giving a direction is to ensure that the such disputes by linking the authorities clearly and authority being directed will benefit from the convention, simply to the convention’s cost recovery scheme. With as explained by my noble friend Lady Stowell. Another the Bill imposing strict liability on the ship owner to principle is that SOSREP should only give a direction remove a wreck and requiring mandatory insurance, it when the authority being directed has the capacity to is clear to me that the risks of a shortfall in expenditure deal with the problem. By that I mean that it already for recovering wrecks will actually be significantly less has a ship or a facility that could help resolve the for these authorities than those they now experience. situation. Capacity would not include the capability to Other noble Lords have already pointed that out. As I engage a salvor or other expensive facility. However, understand it, as a percentage of GLA budgets, the this would be trumped by the foremost principle of costs of dealing with wrecks are already very small. allowing the directed person to benefit from the The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned 0.04 per convention, and I stress the word benefit. Thus, a cent. However, to remove the provision allowing the harbour authority would benefit from being directed general lighthouse authorities to obtain reimbursement to remove a properly insured wreck from its domain. for unrecoverable expenses from the General Lighthouse It would be inappropriate to put these arrangements Fund on the rare occasion that it is not possible to on the face of the Bill or into secondary legislation. recover all costs would be at odds with existing and This is in order to ensure the clarity and certainty that established arrangements. Indeed, it would leave the will allow the directed person to benefit from the GLAs with no obvious means by which to make up a convention. shortfall, should they need to. I am concerned that the It may be that a small piece of wreckage has to be combined effect of these amendments would be to dealt with, such as an unidentified shipping container. leave authorities wary of undertaking any wreck removal, In this case, it would be impossible to invoke any notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, insurance. How this would be dealt with would be a said, even though they have existing powers and experience. matter of detail in the MoU, but neither the GLAs nor If that were to happen, it would be in no one’s interest. the harbour and conservancy authorities would be In summing up, I reiterate that the Secretary of any worse off than they are now as they already deal State’s powers of direction are discretionary, but they with these problems within their existing resources. In must exist and appear in the Bill for all the authorities the case of the GLAs, this is a tiny proportion of their to enjoy the benefits of the convention, as they have annual turnover, and has been for many years. every right to do. I expect SOSREP to take control in the manner he now does under existing powers. As the As I have indicated, the MoU is being worked up by noble Lord, Lord Greenway, described, SOSREP is the Department for Transport, within which SOSREP aware of the authorities’ capabilities, experience and works, and the GLAs. I would expect that the harbour capacity. If he needs to issue directions, I expect him and conservancy authorities would want the benefit of to act reasonably and to issue them only to those he a similar MoU as well. It would be impractical to have thinks capable of fulfilling them, not least for the tailor-made MoUs with all bodies and I would expect reasons the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to. that the relevant trade associations would negotiate a I will leave it to the Minister to expand further on this joint MoU in due course. It would be rather odd if any point if he wishes. For these reasons, I ask the noble MoU were not based upon principles including the Lord to withdraw his amendment at the appropriate two that I have just outlined. time. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be concerned that the GLAs will increase their capacity in order to Earl Attlee: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady meet a new need, perhaps with specialist ships, a point Stowell for her full response to the amendment moved touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I doubt by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The noble Lord that they have any desire to do so, but in any case, this referred to discussions yesterday, and I am very happy is not something which could be done unilaterally. to continue them, not least because they are so interesting, Regular fleet reviews consider the vessel needs and because the noble Lord genuinely seeks a solution to provision for GLAs every five to 10 years. As part of these problems. I understand his very real concerns, this process, a full business case has to be considered. and I am delighted to have the opportunity to give a The Government would consider any proposal for an fuller response in Committee. increase very closely indeed. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I say a few The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also referred to a words about the memorandum of understanding between Question for Written Answer tabled by my noble the Department for Transport and the GLAs. This friend Lord Bradshaw, on uninsured ships. Some 12 ships will provide guidance and understanding about how had some deficiencies in their insurance, but noble the convention would work in practice. The Committee Lords should remember that some of those deficiencies will understand that the development of the MoU is may well have been technical and could be rectified in its early stages, as it will be a while before the quickly. Inspections are targeted, and we would expect convention comes into force. The noble Lord, Lord there to be good intelligence on those ships that are Berkeley, will want to keep abreast of developments, not properly insured, not least because that would be and I am sure that I will be able to facilitate that at the an extremely good indicator of ships that have other appropriate point. serious problems. 539 Wreck Removal Convention Bill[LORDS] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 540

[EARL ATTLEE] said so in my opening remarks. I would not want to see There is of course the problem of ships not calling that changed; it is terribly good at what it does. at UK ports and our therefore being unable to undertake I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, any port state control—a point made by the noble whose Bill this is, for her response. If the wording of Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein—but the Bill and the amendment is defective in some way, then it needs the convention would help reduce this problem because looking at, but perhaps that will not be necessary. it would be more impractical to operate a ship without I need to reflect on what she and the Minister said. insurance. I accept that we will not completely eliminate I was particularly pleased that he mentioned the idea ships running without proper insurance, but, as I say, of MOUs with harbour and conservancy authorities, the Bill and the convention will help reduce this problem. because they are just as important as MOUs with the GLAs. However, he was quite right: the thought of Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to all noble Lords who having 30, 40 or 50 different MOUs with every harbour have participated in this short debate. I shall not try to authority around the country cannot be very attractive respond to all comments, but one or two things come to him or his officials. I shall certainly try to encourage to mind. the representative bodies of the harbours, of which there are two, to try to come together and come up The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble with something based on the principles which he so Earl, Lord Caithness, both suggested that the biggest clearly outlined. problem that I was concerned about was the GLAs. That is not the case any more. If it was thought that I again thank all noble Lords who have spoken the GLAs were going to spend too much money on in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the recovering a wreck and would have a serious financial amendment. problem as a result, there are enough Members of Amendment 1 withdrawn. your Lordships’ House who have some relationship with Trinity House who would sort it out by asking Amendment 2 not moved. questions here. That may well be the case; it is the way the political world works. For a small harbour authority, Clause 1 agreed. it might be slightly different. If it were an enormous wreck, I am sure that the Government would see to it Clause 2 agreed. that there was some financial settlement. However, there is something in the middle that could just happen, Schedule agreed. although it is not very likely. I was grateful for the Minister’s response, because it went a long way towards House resumed. satisfying many of my concerns. Bill reported without amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned Trinity House marking wrecks. That is part of its job, and I House adjourned at 1.55 pm. WS 51 Written Statements[10 JUNE 2011] Written Statements WS 52 Written Statements Health: E.coli Statement Friday 10 June 2011 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley): Employment: Work Programme My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has today made the following Statement. Statement The Secretary of State for Health informed the House on 7 June of how the Government are taking The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department all possible measures to monitor the serious E.coli for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My right honourable 0104 outbreak that is centred in Germany and to friend the Minister for Employment (Chris Grayling) assess and deal with any associated risks should any has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. arise for consumers in the UK. I will not repeat what I am delighted to announce that the Department he has said in relation to the background of the for Work and Pensions (DWP) is launching the work outbreak. programme today. The Government’s vision of a high It is deeply regrettable that this outbreak has resulted quality, personalised employment programme for those in the loss of life. It has also had a disruptive economic benefit claimants throughout Great Britain who need impact on growers and others within the supply chain more intensive support is now a reality. for fruit and vegetables across the EU, including our The Work and Pensions Select Committee report domestic industry. published last month was very positive about DWP’s At retail level, prices for domestically produced management of the procurement process despite salad (lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers the very ambitious timescales set. Thirty-eight of the and courgettes), have remained relatively stable, although 40 contracts have now been signed. The two remaining demand has declined, with the result that more produce contracts are all on track to be signed w/c 13 June 2011. is being sent to the wholesale market, which is experiencing Today, I will be personally visiting a provider in movement in prices. I welcome the support for UK west London to meet their first participants and see producers shown by the big retailers who have in some first hand how they are starting to use the freedom we cases increased their offering of UK salad produce, in have given them to innovate and design personally and response to consumer demand for our home crops. locally tailored support. One impact of the decision by the Russian Federation The Government will publish providers’ minimum to impose a ban on EU fruit and vegetable produce is service offers to all claimants in due course. This will that surplus produce has been directed to alternative ensure that claimants are aware what they can expect, EU markets, including our own. The consequence has and that providers live up to what they have told us been to depress values in the wholesale market, with they will deliver. We will also be publishing the details volumes down, although here again, I understand that of the local voluntary, public and private sector prices for English produce are faring better than those organisations that make up the prime providers’ supply for imported produce. But the situation continues to chains. develop and the latest indications from our trade Unlike in previous employment programmes, the organisations are that the market has deteriorated. Government have adopted genuinely long-term goals The impacts of the overall situation are being felt in the design of the work programme. across the EU and because of this, the Agriculture and Providers will be in place for up to seven years, Fisheries Council on 7 June discussed the need for giving them time to invest in building strong relationships exceptional measures to address the market situation with local partners and to innovate to find what works, and to provide financial support for growers affected. enabling them to deliver the best quality back to work Proposals were discussed by Ministers at Council level support possible. and considered by officials at the EU Fruit and Vegetables Claimants will join the programme for up to two Management Committee but no package has yet been years, so providers will have a real chance to address agreed for implementation. Discussions will continue the most serious disadvantages some of our claimants on 14 June. face in the labour market. The proposals build upon existing measures that Once claimants have found a job we will pay providers are available within the fruit and vegetable aspects of to help them keep it for up to 18 months for mainstream the common agricultural policy via its Single Common jobseekers, and up to 27 months for an employment Market Organisation (sCMO) of agricultural markets. and support allowance claimant moving from incapacity No brand new measures are proposed. The total budget benefits. proposed would be ¤210 million, which would come I am confident that we have given the work programme from the existing European Agriculture Guarantee every chance of making a real difference to long term Fund (common agricultural policy) budget to cover worklessness. We expect to see substantial indications tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce and also peppers and of the success of the programme from spring 2013. A courgettes. No additional funding is proposed. The full independent evaluation has been commissioned proposals cover the extension and relation of the rules for that year as the first customers complete their two covering market withdrawals. In the main this means years and I look forward to sharing the results with that produce will go for destruction, because the perishable the House as soon as possible. nature of fresh produce means that intervention is not WS 53 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 54 a viable option. Compensation would be paid only in at a later stage, the Commission will consider whether respect of the withdrawal of produce and it would not a promotional campaign for fruit and vegetables extend to compensation for loss of earnings nor to pay could also be considered, to support the restoration for the difference between current and normal expected of consumer confidence in the market. market value. Details of the proposal are as follows: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural separate maximum compensation rates (@ euro/ Affairs will continue to maintain close contact with 100kg) would be established for tomatoes, lettuce, the Food Standards Agency and with industry cucumbers, peppers and courgettes, to represent organisations and is discussing with the Rural Payments about 50 per cent of the usual average June price Agency and other government departments how to for such produce; implement the proposed measures. the measures would be open to all member states to implement; the allocated funding would be available on a first Taxation: Double Taxation come first served basis (ie there are currently no Statement plans for an allocation per member state); in general withdrawals of produce must be made via producer organisations (POs) recognised under The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord the sCMO. There is already such provision through Sassoon): My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary POs’ existing funding programmes but the proposed to the Treasury (David Gauke) has today issued the new funding will be additional. However, under following Written Ministerial Statement. amended proposals, the Commission is considering A new double taxation convention with the Federal an alternative route via the Paying Agency direct, Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was signed on 9 June which would be helpful for growers who are not 2011. The text of the convention has been deposited in members of a PO; the Libraries of both Houses and made available on the proposal is for a temporary measure, to apply HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be retrospectively from 26 May to 30 June, or when the scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before budget is exhausted—whichever is sooner; and the House of Commons in due course. WA 157 Written Answers[10 JUNE 2011] Written Answers WA 158

Between these two points, the A1 has a total of Written Answer eight roundabouts. The table below shows the names and locations of these. Friday 10 June 2011 Name Nearest town

Roads: Roundabouts Black Cat roundabout St Neots Question Sandy roundabout Sandy Biggleswade North roundabout Biggleswade Asked by Lord Jopling Biggleswade South roundabout Biggleswade To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Buckden roundabout Huntingdon roundabouts are still in existence between London Scremerston roundabout (A1167) Berwick-upon-Tweed and the Scottish border on the A1 road; where they Berwick/Coldstream roundabout Berwick-upon-Tweed are; and what plans exist to eliminate the five between (A698) Highfields roundabout Berwick-upon-Tweed Biggleswade and Huntingdon. [HL9725]

Earl Attlee: The Highways Agency has responsibility for the A1 between the Scottish border and just south Neither the Highways Agency nor the Department of the M25 at the Rowley Lane Junction at Borehamwood for Transport has any current plans to eliminate the (Barnet Bypass). five roundabouts between Biggleswade and Huntingdon.

Friday 10 June 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Employment: Work Programme ...... 51 Taxation: Double Taxation...... 54 Health: E.coli...... 52

Friday 10 June 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWER

Col. No. Col. No. Roads: Roundabouts...... 157 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWER

Col. No. [HL9725] ...... 157 Volume 728 Friday No. 162 10 June 2011

CONTENTS

Friday 10 June 2011 Dog Control Bill [HL] Report ...... 485 Wind Turbines (Minimum Distance from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] Second Reading ...... 488 Demonstrations in the Vicinity of Parliament (Removal of Authorisation Requirements) Bill [HL] Second Reading ...... 514 Wreck Removal Convention Bill Committee...... 530 Written Statements...... WS 51 Written Answer ...... WA 157