| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Secondly, on daylight saving, on which the noble Lord again waxes eloquently, he may regret that there has not been sufficient study of the amount of energy that could be saved through changes to daylight saving. It will be recognised that this issue has been before both Houses of Parliament for three or four decades, to my knowledge, and has been proposed and debated on very many occasions, but until there is a political will to effect the change, which has quite considerable implications for parts of the country that would be adversely affected by it, it is not surprising that the Government have not undertaken full-scale research into its benefits.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, are the Government aware that not all of us on these Benches oppose nuclear power? In fact, quite a few of us support it. Is there not something preposterous about some green activists—I do not include my noble friend Lord Redesdale—warning us about the apocalypse of global warning and at the same time advancing ideological objections to the one safe and reliable alternative of nuclear power, which now provides 20 per cent of our energy? In a generally balanced Statement, which we welcome, is there not a certain element of make-believe in trusting that renewables will provide 20 per cent of our energy needs? This is especially true of wind power, which is far more expensive than nuclear power and is environmentally rather destructive because it takes up an enormous amount of land and is harmful to birds. Should the Government not address this without political correctness?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have been accused of political correctness in a wide range of policies, but never, to my mind, in relation to energy. Clearly, the evaluation of the benefits of wind power has been carried out very fully and the intermittent factor is an important consideration. Wind power is difficult to locate, certainly onshore. Many people may be in favour of it in principle, but not in favour of the towers when they appear in their environment. On the noble Lord’s more general issue, I recognise that there are differences in his party on the virtues of nuclear power. The task of the Government is to identify energy needs and the productive sources from which energy can be generated, which is why we are creating circumstances in which nuclear may make its contribution.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord notice of this question, which may seem rather detailed, but I hope that it will seem very relevant. I warmly welcome the proposals in the
12 July 2006 : Column 720
“This may be a significant issue for HSE as recruitment of appropriately qualified and experienced staff has proven difficult for NII in recent years”?
Will Ministers now swiftly approve the HSE’s proposed pay and rewards measures to address that problem? Is it not abundantly clear that without adequate staffing of the inspectorate, the review’s welcome proposals will be gravely prejudiced?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of that question, as I doubt that I would have been able to give him much of a reply had he not indicated the nature of his interest. The present prediction for work, excluding new build, is that we will need 192 inspectors. At present, there are 163 in post. The noble Lord has also indicated that a much greater number would be needed under new build. We intend to discuss requirements with the HSE. I reassure the noble Lord that there could be no contemplation of new build and development of the nuclear industry without absolute guarantees on safety, which means a fully staffed inspectorate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the 1980s, I had the honour to serve in another place on the Select Committee on energy. I remind the Minister and the House that many of the proposals being put forward were recommended by that Select Committee in the early 1980s—such as energy saving in homes and factories. The Atkins report recommended that we should proceed very quickly with more combined heat and power. If all those things had been done at that time, including the building of the Severn Barrage which could have provided 6 per cent of our energy, we would not be in this mess now.
I should like to ask two questions. First, on the cost of nuclear power, I understand that the cost per kilowatt hour is estimated to be 2.4p, which is exactly the figure that was given to the Select Committee way back in the early 1980s. But when the industry was privatised and the City got on to the figures, it went up to between 5.5p and 6.5p. What is the real cost of nuclear energy? Does the figure of 2.4p include the costs of decommissioning and the storage of nuclear material?
Secondly, bearing in mind that energy is now one of the top priorities of policy not only in this country but also throughout the world, is it not time that we set up again an independent department of energy rather than subsume it into the Department of Trade and Industry? I hope that the Government will take this request seriously.
12 July 2006 : Column 721
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the organisation of government is the preserve of the Prime Minister, but no doubt he will read with the closest attention the suggestion of the noble Lord that there should be a separate department of energy. Perhaps I may also say that hindsight is a wonderful thing. We lived in a rather different environment in the 1980s. It is also true that it is a joy to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that my party had no responsibility for policy during the 1980s, as he may have noticed. If he is being critical, he can leave this Government and my party out of that criticism.
On the more general points that the noble Lord made regarding costs, in a changing situation the evaluation of costs is very difficult. However, nuclear is currently cheaper than wind generation, but it is more expensive than gas and coal; that is the position it occupies. We intend to create the circumstances in which a full evaluation of what can be contributed to the production of energy over the next 20 to 30 years, and that will include careful consideration of costs by potential producers. The nuclear industry will make up its own mind on those issues.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, following the questions put by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, I should like to give the noble Lord another opportunity to respond. My question relates to the costs of long-term waste management. The Statement referred to the full share of these costs being met by the private sector. The word “share” implies less than 100 per cent. My noble friend asked the Minister to confirm whether or not this referred to the private sector meeting 100 per cent of those costs and she invited him to respond by answering yes or no. I so invite him now.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue is not quite as simple as the noble Baroness suggests. First, we face very substantial historic costs that run into billions of pounds and involve the application of high-level technologies to solve the issues. The noble Baroness will know that CoRWM is to produce its full report by the end of this month and that the Government will respond to it. We are not loading those costs on to the future development of the nuclear industry, but we do say that future costs—build, operation and decommissioning—will be borne by it.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the energy review rightly devotes a good deal of attention to energy saving, admits that more needs to be done and recommends further measures. However, is there not a risk, with the round of measures now in place to stimulate energy saving, that consumers will get rather confused? The Statement repeated by the noble Lord refers to “incentivising” the suppliers. Should we not be seeking to incentivise the users? Is there not one way in which they can be really incentivised—a way to really concentrate the mind—and that is by linking
12 July 2006 : Column 722
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who, as ever, is constructive on these matters. It is quite a daunting task to incentivise the whole of the nation to energy saving, although we think that companies can improve the situation by the development of metering systems which convey accurately to the consumer both the cost of their energy—rather than just a series of figures going around in the rather indecipherable way we all recognise—and potentially perhaps the carbon content to show the impact on the environment. That is something which the companies could do and we are looking at the situation. It would certainly help to alert the consumer to the consumption of electricity, particularly against a background—I am sure the whole House will share my concern—where 7 per cent of our electricity is consumed by standby. That is an appalling figure. If we can succeed in communicating that figure effectively to the nation, we may get improvements in that respect.
I shall pass on to my colleagues the noble Lord’s specific proposal in regard to the relationship between saving power and the council tax. It is an interesting and constructive suggestion but I have no comment to make on it at this stage.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I do not think the Minister had a chance to properly reply to the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Surely we need in this country a new energy tsar and department so that we can have joined-up thinking between Defra, the DTI, the Department for Transport and the Treasury where all energy matters are concerned.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I always love appeals for tsars. There are very few tsars that I hold in high regard, from Vlad the Impaler to Alexander II. I am not sure that problems are solved by that model. It is certainly the case that we need co-ordinated operations by government departments—it is a very important area—but if one were to ask noble Lords to identify other areas where co-ordination could take place, we would revise the structure of Cabinets almost weekly. The noble Lord must recognise that the Statement represents from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Cabinet a significant analysis of the energy needs of this country for several decades ahead and the quite dramatic policies that will need to be put in place in order to guarantee that the lights remain on.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, time is up.
12 July 2006 : Column 723
Education and Inspections Bill
4.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Duty to identify children not receiving education]:
Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 23:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. There is a great burden of business before the Committee today and therefore I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible.
We have agreed in our deliberations so far, and underlined this understanding, that education is the right of every child. We have referred to the conventions internationally into which we have voluntarily entered as a nation and we have confirmed that we are determined to see our responsibility in respect of those conventions fulfilled. My noble friend the Minister in his very helpful responses to amendments so far put forward has given an undertaking that he will look very closely at an amendment put forward in my name suggesting that education as the right of the child should be there, directly and explicitly, at the beginning of the Bill and on the face of the Bill.
If we are so determined that this right should be recognised, it is surely equally incumbent on us to ensure that the means are in place to deliver that right. It is my contention that some of those in most need of education will, almost by definition, be those most in jeopardy in terms of fulfilling that right. The difficulty, as I see it, is that the responsibility for ensuring that right is distributed among a number of different agencies and bodies. If we are to be certain that the right is being fulfilled, there is a great deal to be said for one body having the universal responsibility for ensuring that this right is turned into practice. My amendment proposes that we should give that responsibility to the local education authority.
The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to identify children who are not receiving education in such a way that those informally excluded pupils who remain on the register are also covered. I know, because the Minister has been kind enough to indicate to me in correspondence, that the Government will argue that it is illegal for a child to be informally excluded in such a way. Whether it is legal or illegal, it happens. I believe that because of the pressures on schools at the moment in so many respects, not least from the media, there will be a great deal of temptation, whatever we say, for headmasters and headmistresses in certain circumstances to follow that road.
12 July 2006 : Column 724
I think that those of us who are concerned about children most in need would say that while we would not question the disruptive potential of such students and the need to protect the interests of the majority of children at school, very often the disruptive child is the one who is most in need of educational support of an appropriate kind. Therefore, this amendment says fairly and squarely, in effect, that it is the responsibility of the local education authority to discover whether children are being excluded in this way and to make sure that arrangements are made.
On Amendment No. 25, the force of what I have been trying to argue is, in a sense, even more acute. Young people in custodial care, psychiatric units and immigration and removal centres are frequently very much in need of the right kind of support. I have recently completed nine years as honorary president of the YMCA in England which, I am glad to say, does a great deal of work with young people in custody. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that all that I have experienced and heard from such programmes repeatedly brings it home that it would be almost amazing if the majority of these young people were not in trouble. They come from such disrupted, damaging home or social circumstances that they are desperately in need of support. Again, I am not arguing that wrongdoing should not be punished, but punishment which does not seek to rehabilitate or to discover the real background to the situation is just a waste of public money, in addition to being singularly unintelligent and unenlightened. Therefore, children in such situations should be absolutely certain that their right to education is being fulfilled.
The Minister has been kind enough to indicate to me that the Government’s case is likely to be that all the institutions that I have mentioned have a responsibility in this respect. However, those of us who have dealt on the front line with these situations will know that, whatever the formal responsibilities may be, they are not always being fulfilled. Even when they are, they are too often being fulfilled to a minimal degree to the letter of what is required but not in the spirit of what is required at all. From that standpoint, it is absolutely logical and sensible, if we are serious in our commitment to the right of the child to education and the paramount importance of that, to ensure that the local education authority is charged with overseeing such situations and making sure that whatever is in the rules and regulations is in fact being fulfilled and the education is being provided. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 26A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. Amendment No. 24 would do something similar to Amendment No. 23 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It would require the local authority to be the educator of last resort. In other words, the LEA has to find a place for a child who fails to secure a place at a secondary school and an alternative school, home tuition or a PRU for pupils who are excluded, for whatever reason.
12 July 2006 : Column 725
It is one thing identifying the children not receiving a suitable education, as this Bill seeks to do, but someone has to have the duty to provide that education. In the current climate of schools becoming independent and having the right to refuse admission to particular children, there is no mechanism to rectify that situation. I am not normally someone who wants local authorities to have a duty to pick up the pieces of other people's messes, but someone must, in the last resort, have the duty to provide a child with an education—the education to which it has a right. That will have to be the local authority.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 26A have already had the implicit support of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in what he said in his excellent speech. Amendment No. 26 would end the current exclusion of children detained under an order of court from the statutory right to education. It is currently the case that Section 562 of the Education Act 1996 effectively permits the Secretary of State, local authorities and parents to opt out of any obligations under the Act if the child is detained by the order of a court. Although the local authority may make arrangements for educational provision for such a child, it is under no obligation to do so.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child stated in its concluding observations on the UK's second report to the committee in 2002 that it was particularly,
- “concerned that children deprived of their liberty in prisons and juvenile detention centres do not have a statutory right to education and that their education is not under the responsibility of the Departments responsible for education and that they do not enjoy support for special education needs”.
Further, in its report on the UNCRC in 2000-03, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concurred. It said:
“We do not find the arguments presented by the Minister for Children and Young People against giving detained juveniles the same rights to education as other children persuasive—indeed we find them puzzlingly contradictory. He argues that such guarantees are unnecessary because the Government is doing all that is required. The same sorts of arguments were made against the application of the Children Act and the consequence was a judicial finding against the Government. We consider that the persistence of the Government's resistance to placing the educational rights of young offenders on a statutory footing is a contravention of the UK's international obligations”.
The JCHR scrutiny report on the current Bill also highlights as concerning the fact that as a result of Section 562, Clause 4, which puts local authorities under a new duty to identify children not receiving education, will not apply to children in custody. The report says:
“These will be some of the most vulnerable children in the LEA's area and in our view it would be preferable if the duty to make arrangements to identify children not receiving education applied to them”.
Without relevant statutory duties in place, the current situation for young people in custody with regard to education is currently very poor. Many of them start with very poor levels of education, and that is widely considered one of the causes of crime. Prison Service Order 4950 stipulates the requirements for prisons holding children. Education should be provided for at least 15 hours a week and the remaining 15 hours must be spent in accredited educative activities, which may
12 July 2006 : Column 726
“The Youth Justice Board ... set the young people's secure estate a national average of 25 hours a week education and training provision, rising to 30 when resources become available. Between April 2005 and March 2006, eight young offender institutions ... met the national average and eight did not.
In the 2005—08 service level agreement between the YJB and the Prison Service, each YOI was set an agreed target for the provision of education and training. Between April 2005 and March 2006, five YOIs met their individual target and 11 did not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/06; cols. 1262-3W.]
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |