| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness raised the importance of protection and balancing that against causing harassment. Exactly what the balance is going to be is the same in almost every context in the counterterrorist area. It is always a balance and we believe that we have it correct. The data that have been gathered and the way we are looking after that data are necessary to help our security, in the fight against serious crime and so on. We have put in place many data protection measures. We are constantly aware that when we are collecting huge amounts of data on people—and, as has been rightly said, more and more data are being held—there are risks.
But nowadays, I am afraid, in any big organisation, to be able to do these things you need to get that data. We have got to become better as a nation at looking after data, not only in pure physical security terms but in making sure that everyone who ever gets their fingers on it and works with it has been correctly trained and understands the full implications of doing so. However, I do not think that means we must not do it. In this modern world, we cannot avoid doing these things; instead, we must become very good at it. Within this context, the way that we will run JBOC—and then, in the future, EBOC—will achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the encryption of data and whether they would be passed encrypted. The plan is that they will be passed by a secure means and encrypted, but this is an issue that I want to check again, so I shall get back to the noble Lord in writing. All my experience is that people are often not as good at that as they should be. I want to make absolutely certain that that is done.
The European Union is not really part of the order. There will be further debate about the EU and US aspects of it.
The carriers are already collecting some of these data. Clearly they have them there because they need to be able to issue tickets and do other things, but not always in a format that they can pass to us easily, which is why there is an extra cost aspect to all of this.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, my concern was that the PNR data, which are already being collected by the carriers for transmission to the United States under the provisional agreement we had with it in 2006, should be identical with the information that is now being collected by the Borders Agency. Otherwise, the carriers would have to collect two different lots of information, for transfer to the US and for use internally respectively. That would be a tremendous waste of resources.
25 Feb 2008 : Column 517
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point. As I understand it, we include the same data fields but we might need some more. Again, I will try to come back with a precise answer on that point.
The noble Lord made a point about the code of practice giving adequate ability for access to, and removal of, data. I think I can assure him that that will be the case. The removal of data can sometimes be quite difficult—we have to know exactly who gives that authority and how it is to be done—but the intention is that it will be incorporated.
I hope I have answered most of the points raised, and I am grateful that they have been, because they are all very valid. One does not like suddenly to apply a requirement to provide more and more, for the reasons we have discussed, but this is important and it will make us safer. It is something the public would expect a Government to do. I assure your Lordships that the necessary safeguards are in place; certainly, I will put a huge effort into trying to protect these data.
I will come back on that one point to ensure that that side of encryption is there. I have not yet visited the JBOC, but I was talking to the team in the briefing for this debate. I intend to go there and have a good look at it—it is out near Heathrow—to ensure that it will be as good as they tell me it will. I find that by walking around and looking at things, one sometimes gets a slightly different perspective from when one is told things by people. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner on this issue, and I believe we will achieve what we want. The order is good for this country, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I want to go back to the sharing of bulk information. It was clear in the statement made by the Under-Secretary in the other place, Meg Hillier, that bulk sharing of travel-related data would take place under e-borders. I am not sure whether the Minister was referring to the transfer of bulk information or the sharing of that information and whether the sharing comes about in the whole of the e-borders system. We want to clear that up. Information piece by piece is one thing, but just transferring a whole load of data from one place to another is quite another.
The second issue that arises is the concerns I still have about transferring anything by disc. The Minister said in his reply that this would be from hand to hand. The Benefits Agency was meant to have transferred things by hand, but in practice people put items into little packages and gave them to someone else for delivery, and in the midst of that some of them got lost. Does the Minister not agree that the very least that can be done by disc should be encouraged? Perhaps there should be some very secure system that requires only the highest level of intervention if a disc is going to be made at all?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, to add to what the noble Baroness has just said, I do not understand why any data should have to be transferred by disc at all. You can transfer large quantities of data over the internet. The Government have their own secure internet system, so why is it ever necessary to use discs for transfer?
25 Feb 2008 : Column 518
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, can I just come back on those points and first address the disc issue? As I said, a number of the machines have been disabled so they cannot actually produce discs and therefore this would be done on a very exceptional basis. The sort of thing might be, for example, if the security service or the SOS IT system was not functioning. There might be a requirement, in terms of the encrypted transfer, to cut a disc for it. It would be done in very exceptional circumstances. It is not something that would be standard procedure at all. If a disc was cut, it would be done in the very special way that I talked about.
In terms of bulk data, perhaps I can reply in writing and clarify it. As I understand it, the bulk data, by which I mean the PNR information—all the data fields we have asked for from the various airlines, shipping firms and so forth—will all be transferred and pumped into the JBOC; into the organisation which I talked of. I think of it as a great operation centre cocooned and cut off with a huge pipe pouring in. Within that centre, the operators, who have all been specially trained and will not be allowed to use the machines unless they have passed the various tests on looking after data, will do the analysis. They will look at this, will decide, “These two match. This is someone they should be aware of”. That bit of data then goes out so, it is not bulk data pouring out again. That is as I understand it. If it is any different from that, perhaps I can get back to the noble Lord in writing. I think that that covers everything. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in view of our precision delivery here, I think I can predict accurately that the Minister will appear at this Dispatch Box almost within seconds. There is no need to further consider anything on these matters and I think we can probably proceed.
Climate Change Bill [HL]
8.26 pm
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 19:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 20:
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. With it I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 78, 85 and 158. In Committee, the Minister remarked on what an interesting debate
25 Feb 2008 : Column 519
I am most grateful to noble Lords to see that the Government have also tabled amendments to the effect that the advice from the committee to the Secretary of State may include breakdowns by sector that it thinks represent a particular opportunity to reduce emissions. On the face of it, this does seem to come a long way to our position, but appearances can be deceiving.
First, there is no provision for the inclusion of actual sectoral targets. In Committee, we touched on many of the arguments for and against targets for particular sectors. It has been our view since the beginning that it is up to the committee to decide whether these would be beneficial. Crucially, the Government have not followed us thus far; that is, in enabling the Secretary of State and the committee to set sectoral targets. They might claim that it is already in the power of Government to do this by order, but we would like to see a more specific enabling section in the Bill. The important difference between our amendments and the Government’s is the way in which they operate. One of the biggest advantages of sectoral targets is that they provide industries with a framework within which they must innovate; that is to say, they encourage an element of bottom-up approach to the targets. So much of this Bill involves top-down government action. This was a window of opportunity to encourage innovation within the individual sectors. The Government's amendments do not really allow for that. Their Amendment No. 54 stipulates that reports must explain how the proposals and policies will affect the different sectors. That would be a very useful tool for industry, but do we not have enough faith in the industries themselves? Were targets placed on individual sectors or policies implemented that concerned them, they would know better than anyone the impact on their line of work. If we are going to embrace the potential benefits of the idea behind sectoral targets and reporting, we must seek to ensure that a bottom-up approach can be encouraged so that the most cost-effective savings can be made. I have later amendments that I think would re-emphasise that element.
8.30 pm
The other government amendment, Amendment No. 144, calls for the committee to identify sectors where there are particular opportunities for reducing emissions. The same arguments apply. Although we very much welcome the Government's newfound
25 Feb 2008 : Column 520
Lord Dearing: My Lords, it might be convenient if I spoke at this stage to Amendment No. 145, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has joined me in tabling. I must apologise for having tabled amendments when I have taken so little part in the Bill, but it seemed of such importance that I desired to try my luck.
Clause 27 provides for the committee to give advice on contributions to meeting the carbon targets of the various sectors of the economy. That is fine. However, as the White Papers of 2003 and 2007 make clear, a quarter of carbon emissions come from households and, in addition, some 10 per cent come from private passenger cars, making a total of 35 per cent of emissions which are outside the scope of the committee's advisory role. That seems surprising, because if one thing is clear, it is that we need a major contribution from that sector.
The Government are not saying in the White Papers for a moment that they cannot influence consumption by the household sector as a whole, to which my amendment refers—they list ways in which it can do so. The Energy Saving Trust has written to me with proposals for further enhancing the contribution of the sector. So the proposals are there. When I read the 2007 White Paper I saw, around about the middle, a table showing how cost-effectively the target of 60 per cent might be met and giving projections for what might be reasonable expectations from various sectors, one of which is private households. The expectation is a fairly modest one; only one-third, compared with the overall target of 60 per cent. The Energy Saving Trust says in its letter that it thinks that they should be aiming for 60 per cent. That is another reason why the matter should be open to consideration and advice to the Government.
If I have interpreted the White Papers correctly, the 2003 White Paper refers to an objective of moving towards a 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2010, taking 1990 as a base. It says that we had achieved a reduction of 8 per cent by 1999, which is fair progress. However, it also acknowledged that we had fallen back to 5 per cent in 2001, though it looked forward to a recovery in 2002. When I looked with a magnifying glass at the very small footnotes to an appendix to the 2007 White Paper I saw—if I read it right—that by 2006 we were still at 5 per cent, whereas the target is 20 per cent, or moving towards it. That indicates the difficulty of meeting the target.
Finally, in earlier discussions, we talked about whether the target of 60 per cent is enough. However, the economy will have doubled by 2050 compared with its 1990 base, so that is really equivalent to 80 per cent per unit of industrial or commercial activity. We
25 Feb 2008 : Column 521
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no need for the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to apologise to the House for raising this important matter. He has done the House a good service, and I am grateful to him. I congratulate my noble friend on putting down this amendment, and I thank the Government for moving as they have; they were rather reluctant to move in Committee but they have certainly listened to what we have to say.
The report of the Joint Committee shows that Mr Robin Mortimer, head of the Bill team, said when giving evidence that,
- “the Committee will have to look sector by sector at what it considers possible across the economy”.
“Having said that, it would certainly need in its analysis to look sector by sector, and it could make that publicly available”.
Could the Minister confirm that it will be made publicly available?
Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for having brought me back to real people and individuals with choice at a micro-dimension in their own lives which we, in talking about the macro and the global, sometimes forget about. We are all aware that much of the change that will have to take place in how we live and in bringing down our carbon emissions will concern not just individuals being forced to do things but households being given incentives or motivated to make their own, individual, unforced contributions to reducing climate change.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has said, households account for some 27 per cent of emissions—and, taking into account their transport, more than that. It is absolutely right that, as we start talking about sectors, we should particularly take the household sector, which I see as focused on individual citizens’ decisions on and reactions to global warming, and specify that in this part of the Bill. The noble Lord also brings up a particularly interesting point in looking at the targets against those that the Government already have. We are, indeed, nowhere near that 2010 reduction of 20 per cent. Again, that shows that the Bill is fine in what it does, but just having committees and targets does not mean that we will meet the latter or be successful in this important mission.
The noble Lord mentioned the carbon performance of the UK economy over the past few years. When the Minister spoke about annual targets, it was interesting that he mentioned the big year-on-year changes in total greenhouse gas emissions during the 1990s; if only those still occurred! Regrettably, they do not, as we have almost completely flat-lined our carbon emissions over the past four or five years, and all the gains made pre-1997 have levelled off. The Bill must involve individuals and households
25 Feb 2008 : Column 522
Lord Rooker: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on bringing us back to the reality of how this affects people. I shall always remember the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about making brave decisions. Is this a brave decision? We shall certainly have to confront that matter after the climate change committee has reported.
We discussed some of these amendments in Committee when we had a useful debate on sectoral targets and I rested my case then on the need for flexibility. We believe that these amendments would considerably constrain this flexibility by giving powers to government to carve up the budget into sector-specific parcels.
As I said in Committee, the Government may be unable to realise fully the emission-abating potential of some new technology. We do not want to be prevented from diverting resources into using this technological breakthrough to reduce emissions more quickly in one sector instead of reducing emissions in a different sector because that is what our sectoral targets say we must do. We do not want to be held to that rigidity.
We also discussed the importance of avoiding a rigid top-down approach to sectoral targets. It is not clear that these amendments would prevent such an undesirable approach. Amendment No. 20, for example, gives no clear role to the Committee on Climate Change in deciding which sectors should be subject to its own targets within a budget, nor how this target would be set. The committee would have a role in assessing progress towards meeting such targets under Amendment No. 158, but would have no role ahead of this stage. This suggests there is a risk that the amendments would result in just the kind of inflexible, top-down approach towards sectoral targets that we are strongly opposed to.
While we are therefore strongly opposed to mandatory sectoral targets, there are also shortcomings with the idea of optional sectoral targets, as proposed in these amendments. As they would be optional, there would be a risk that if the Government decided not to set sectoral targets, nothing more would happen. We would therefore not be any further forward than under the current situation in the Bill.
I recognise that these are new amendments since Committee stage, and agree that it is important that information is provided on the emissions from different sectors of the economy. There is no dispute between us on that. However, we do not think that Amendments Nos. 61, 78 and 85 would achieve this because they relate to sectoral targets which are optional—and which therefore may not exist.
I reassure noble Lords that this information will already be available, regardless of whether any targets are set for particular sectors. The UK is already under an obligation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to report the annual emissions of a detailed range of sectors in accordance with the
25 Feb 2008 : Column 523
So the latest UK national emissions inventory, for example, contained UK emissions data disaggregated by key sectors of the economy under broad headings including energy, industrial processes, agriculture and waste. These categories are then further disaggregated to provide more specific sectoral information. In view of the optional nature of any sectoral targets and sectoral reporting under these amendments, we therefore consider that the Government already go further than these amendments propose.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |