Grand Committee
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
My Lords, before the Minister moves the first statutory instrument to be considered, I remind noble Lords that, in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee is that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2010.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, this order fulfils the commitments in the coalition programme for government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s structural reform plan and business plan to reform the lottery so that more money goes into sport, the arts and the national heritage, restoring the shares for these good causes to 20 per cent each. The order amends the percentage apportionment of money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund in two stages in order to protect the funding to the voluntary and community sector through the Big Lottery Fund.
From 1 April 2011, the shares for the arts, heritage and sport will increase from the current 16.66 per cent each to 18 per cent each, with the Big Lottery Fund going from 50 per cent to 46 per cent; and on 1 April 2012, the arts, heritage and sport will each go to 20 per cent, with the Big Lottery Fund moving to 40 per cent. Why we are doing this? The National Lottery was set up 16 years ago this month. It has been a huge success, raising £25 billion for good causes and over 350,000 projects. Every part of the country has benefitted. The success of the lottery depends on people continuing to buy tickets, of course, but sales remain very strong and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that, on current projections, they should remain strong.
It is important to remember the “additionality” principle. The lottery is intended to provide additional funds in the areas of the arts, the national heritage, sport and the voluntary and community sector. The lottery funding is not used for government matters and purposes, but rather for projects which the Government would be unlikely to fund. So despite the success of the lottery, we need to reform it so that it can remain true to its founding principles.
We have said that the share change alone will provide £50 million a year extra each for the arts, heritage and sport: a total of £150 million. However, when the effect of increased lottery income and the end of the Olympic transfers is included, the cash figures will be much higher. Arts Council England should receive around £80 million a year more from 2013-14. The Heritage Lottery Fund should receive around £115 million a year more. Sport England should receive around £70 million a year more.
We carried out a public consultation on our proposals between May and August, and received 362 responses. As well as the lottery distributors and the devolved Administrations, we also heard from local and community organisations and others with an interest. The response was overwhelmingly supportive of the change. Seventy-three per cent of the responses clearly supported the change, with just 12 per cent opposed. In the arts, heritage and sport sectors, 97 per cent were supportive.
Many respondents welcomed the idea of more lottery funding for these good causes. Some wanted the change to be made in one go. We considered that option, but because the diversion to the London 2012 Olympics does not end until 2012, it would not have been able to protect voluntary and community sector funding through the Big Lottery Fund. Some respondents from the voluntary sector were concerned about the impact on their sector, but others felt, as the Government firmly believe, that the protection of voluntary and community sector funding through the Big Lottery Fund, together with the additional funds that are available through the arts, heritage and sport, will enable the sector to benefit overall. Indeed, all lottery distributors should, on current projections, have more lottery income after the Olympic transfers end, including the Big Lottery Fund.
Alongside the order, we intend that the Big Lottery Fund will, in future, be able to focus its funding on the voluntary and community sector. We intend to issue a policy direction which the Big Lottery Fund would be required to take into account when it makes funding decisions. Our public consultation on this ended on 29 October and we are currently considering the responses received.
Many respondents wanted to ensure that increases in lottery funding should not be used as an excuse for reductions in government funding. The Government agree. We remain committed to the principle of additionality, as I have already mentioned. Nothing in the order would change the principle of additionality. The lottery regime, as set out in the legislation, and the way in which distributors function, are untouched by the order, save for a discrete percentage share change to the good causes.
The reductions to government funding announced in the spending review are necessary across the whole of government because of the structural deficit. They have not been made to the arts, heritage and sport, because increased lottery funds will be available. Actual funding decisions are for the lottery distributors themselves to make, acting independently of government, and they will continue to be required to report each year on how their grants have met the additionality principle. So the pattern of lottery spending will continue to meet the principle of additionality, and will not be used to replace the kind of Exchequer spending that is being reduced.
Some voluntary and community sector respondents wondered about the effect on their organisations, but I hope I can assure noble Lords that the Government believe that the staged change, together with the increased levels of lottery income and the extra money available when the Olympic diversion ends, mean that they will not be worse off. Indeed, from 2013-14, they will be very much better off than at present. Voluntary and community organisations will also be able to benefit from the additional funds that are available in the arts, heritage and sport. The Big Lottery Fund should have about £635 million a year from 2013-14, compared with about £565 million now.
Some respondents from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were concerned that their countries might lose out from the change. The Government appreciate that it is difficult to make a precise estimate because a number of UK-wide distributors do not have formulas for allocating funds to each country, but we believe that in cash terms every country in the UK will be better off. Scotland should receive about £40 million a year more in 2013-14; Wales should receive more than £20 million a year more; and Northern Ireland £12 million a year more.
I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive statement. We on these Benches welcome and acknowledge the huge success of the National Lottery. Thousands of projects, small and large, throughout the country have shared in the fortune bestowed on them by the lottery, and thousands of community groups, millennium halls and galleries would never have existed had it not been for the lottery. That is in part because lottery money has supplemented and enhanced the work of government, thanks to the principle of additionality which the Minister spoke about. I will come back to that issue later.
I also put on record the achievements of those on our Benches in supporting the arts and heritage while we were in government. We greatly increased government investment, raising it to record levels. Funding for the arts rose by more than 70 per cent in real terms; and for sport, investment more than trebled. It is thanks to that that museums and galleries were able to open their doors to the public with free access. One enormous side benefit of that has been to the tourist industry.
Since the general election, we have had the comprehensive spending review, which plans substantially to cut the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by 24 per cent over the next four years. Cuts to the Arts Council will come to 29 per cent. English Heritage, so ably chaired by noble friend Lady Andrews, will see a third of its income cut. I would be grateful if the Minister could make a statement about what impact the Government consider these cuts will have on these vital areas of our public life.
I turn now more directly to the order in question, which is to fulfil a commitment in the coalition agreement to,
“reform the National Lottery so that more money goes into sport, the arts and heritage”,
as we heard from the Minister. I am sure all in this Room welcome that commitment. However, what was strangely absent from the coalition agreement was the resulting fall in money to the Big Lottery Fund from half of lottery funding to 40 per cent—a cut of 20 per cent. In other words, there will be a cut of 20 per cent to expenditure that is charitable or that is connected to health, education or the environment. The Government’s own assessment of the impact of this change, in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is that,
“A smaller proportion of funding will be available for organisations and projects via the Big Lottery Fund”.
I also express great concern at the ongoing funding of many of the projects that the Big Lottery Fund has committed to. I quote from the Big Lottery Fund’s 2010 annual report:
“The fact that many of our grants will be paid out several years after they are committed means we make commitments from money we do not yet have”.
It goes on to say that if,
“Lottery income fell, we might be unable to meet all our commitments”.
Is this not an income fall for the Big Lottery Fund? Is this not an issue of great concern to the Government and to all of us?
We have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister about the big society and how important it is that the voluntary sector plays a greater part in our communities—a laudable aim with which we all agree. However, we are concerned that the big society is a mask for handing over swathes of responsibility for work that has been done by government to the voluntary sector simply as a means of reducing government responsibility and expenditure. At the same time, there is great concern that government funding of the voluntary sector is under threat. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance on this matter.
It is because of the proposed cut in funding to the Big Lottery Fund that I ask whether the Government will listen to the concerns of those who stand to lose. In any redistribution of money, those getting the increases will, as we know, widely welcome them, often quietly, while those who lose will loudly protest. However, in this case it seems that some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our country are to be the losers. They are the ones who do not have the voices to protest or friends in the media to make their case. I quote from the DCMS summary of consultation responses on this order:
“Many … respondents were concerned that transferring funding away from the sector would have an adverse effect on many organisations, and that this would compound the effect of the anticipated forthcoming reductions in public spending, both for the organisations themselves and for their clients and the communities they work in”.
I would be most grateful if the Minister could provide assurances to the organisations that have submitted those responses, of which I just gave an example.
I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to improve the efficiency of the lottery distribution organisations. The Government have indicated that they intend to impose a ceiling of 5 per cent of expenditure for administration charges. The Big Lottery Fund has reduced its expenditure on administration from more than 10 per cent to 7.5 per cent in the most recent year. How will the Government fulfil their objective, and when do they plan to do so?
Turning now to the proposed increase in funding, what criteria will be used to decide how the additional funding is apportioned? How transparent will the process be? Will Ministers be involved in any way? How will the balance between national and grass-roots spending be decided? Finally, as I indicated at the beginning, I come back to the question of additionality. It is right to say that the Minister gave an absolutely irrevocable undertaking on this matter during her speech.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as having been the Secretary of State responsible for the introduction of the lottery. I emphasise that the interest is emotional rather than financial. Additionality was discussed widely when the Bill was going through in 1993 and 1994. In those days it had the agreeable title of the National Lottery etc. Bill. There was a concern as to whether the charities would lose out through the apportionment, which was 20 per cent to each of the five lottery funds. During the passage of the Bill, the Government made the offer that in any Parliament there could always be a day’s debate to discuss whether the apportionments were in fact correct, and whether the charities were losing out as a result of what had occurred by comparison with the charitable money they had received previously. After 1997, when the Labour Government came in, a general debate did not occur, but there was a consultation to which there were about 600 respondents. It was not wholly surprising, given that the people who replied were mainly producers who would be the beneficiaries of any change in the apportionment, that 90 per cent communicated that they would like the apportionments to be altered.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, alluded to additionality both at the beginning and the end of his speech, and perfectly understandably raised his concerns about the change in the Big Lottery Fund’s resources and that, inferentially, of its initial predecessors. I will say, having sat through the whole of the process between 1997 and 2001, that one noticed that if, for instance, the Department of Health decided that it would be agreeable for there to be a rather larger allocation from the lottery for cancer equipment, one did not hear from the lottery distributors that money was going to be coming to one’s constituency. The first thing one had was a letter from Frank Dobson saying how pleased I must be that money was coming to hospitals in my constituency. I did have to warn the Secretary of State for Health that it looked as though the doctrine of additionality was actually being offended against if he was the first person to communicate the news rather than the lottery distributors themselves.
I conclude by saying that I wholly support what the Government are now doing and I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she introduced the order.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and I am pleased to respond to the points made. Our consultation has shown that there is wide support for the changes, with many people pleased to see increased lottery funding for the arts, heritage and sport. However, I would acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the contribution made by the previous Government on aspects such as free entry to museums and other measures that were taken during their time in government. I also reassure the noble Lord that, in cash terms, each of the good causes of the arts, heritage and sport should expect to receive well over £100 million a year extra from 2013-14 compared with the present total of an extra £300 million a year. The additional funds will be for lottery-funded projects and need not raise any questions about breach of additionality. On that, I noted with interest the comments of my noble friend Lord Brooke and assure him that lottery projects should certainly be decided by the distributors. We hope, too, that it will be the distributors rather than Ministers who convey information on those projects in order to get the proprieties right. Nothing about this order changes that in the lottery regime.
The economic situation of the country has meant that government funding has to be reduced across the board. The arts, heritage and sport are not being singled out because more lottery money will be available. The noble Lord raised his concerns about that, but I assure him that in cash terms, Big will have much more money in 2012 than now. Between now and then, Big is not restricted to its annual income because it has a balance on which it can draw, so the voluntary sector should not feel the impact too severely. Of course, if lottery income generally falls, there might be a problem, but we are confident from what we hear from the Big Lottery Fund that that is not anticipated in any way.
All lottery distributors, including the Big Lottery Fund, should have more lottery income after the Olympic diversions end in 2012, and the voluntary and community sector will certainly be able to benefit from the extra funds in the arts, heritage and sport. This order will allow a considerable increase in the funds available for additional projects in the arts, heritage and sport, while protecting the funds available through the Big Lottery Fund for the voluntary and community sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked whether there would be an effect on Exchequer cuts. There will be a spending review, and the Government will shortly announce the administration costs of lottery distributors, which relates to another question raised by the noble Lord.
If there are other points that I have not picked up on in my response, I shall of course write to noble Lords. I beg to move.
Official Statistics Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Official Statistics Order 2010.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, all Members of the Committee will be aware of the important work that is being done by the UK Statistics Authority. This body was created in 2008 with a statutory responsibility to promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics. This includes the authority monitoring and reporting on official statistics.
Under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics, government departments, the devolved Administrations and other Crown bodies are automatically deemed to be official statistics. The Act also makes provision for identifying other organisations as producers of official statistics. This is important as it enables their work to fall within the remit of the authority and for the public to have confidence in their statistics. The purpose of this order, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, is to specify these organisations.
The UK Statistics Authority has been consulted in preparing this order in accordance with the statistics Act, and is content for it to be laid. The Cabinet Office has laid this order on behalf of government departments in preference to each department laying an order for the bodies for which they are responsible. This approach saves considerable parliamentary time.
This is the third such order, and it revokes and replaces the one that came into force on 1 April 2009. The previous order contained 54 bodies. In arriving at the current order, three bodies have been removed from the previous order and six new bodies have been added.
On 14 October, the Government announced their plans to reform 481 quangos. Consequently, 37 of the 57 bodies in the order will be reformed. Once the Public Bodies Bill has received Royal Assent, many of these will be abolished through legislation. However, until the bodies are abolished or reformed, it is important to continue to recognise them as producers of official statistics so that the public can have confidence in their statistical outputs. The Government will lay a further order for the House to consider once the reforms have been completed. This is likely to be some time in 2012.
In summary, this order extends slightly the number of bodies that are subject to the UK Statistics Authority’s oversight. These bodies will have to work to the new code of practice for official statistics, and their statistics will have the potential to be nominated for formal assessment by the authority as national statistics. The agreement of the House to the order is a vital part of enhancing public confidence in official statistics. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation. The integrity and validity of official statistics is an important issue. Numbers make the world go round, as the adage goes, and if the numbers are not right, authoritative and independent, the world has a greater tendency to go around wrongly. So the statistical output of a new number of public bodies being designated as official statistics is welcome.
The standards set for this designation are rightly high. The UK Statistics Authority, which we on these Benches established three years ago when we were in office, maintains high standards of integrity and independence, both in itself and in the statistics it produces—as, indeed, did its predecessor body the Office for National Statistics. It is important for the Government and for the country that it does so. Without proper statistics that are properly compiled, properly produced and properly presented, none of us can properly gauge the state of the country, the economy or where politics and government are taking us. So I welcome the inclusion of the statistical output of the new range of bodies listed in the schedule to the order and its status as official statistics. I am sure that the designation will be a benefit to the statistics, which will now be produced under official auspices.
One issue puzzles me, however. As the noble Lord recognised, as well as proposing this order he is also in the early stages of taking through your Lordships’ House the Public Bodies Bill, which aims to scrap or modify a number of non-departmental public bodies—or, as we might call them, quangos. The Bill had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House last week, and although we on this side did not manage to convince the House of the value of sending the Bill to a special Select Committee, I think the Minister will agree that what was said in that debate gave him and his ministerial colleagues a considerable amount to think about.
The point that I wish to draw to noble Lords’ attention today is a point which the noble Lord has himself recognised: the overlap between the organisations appearing in the list set out in the schedule to today’s order and the lists of organisations set out in the schedules to the Bill. Let us take the new organisations that are listed in the schedule to today’s order. Of the six new additions to the list detailing the organisations that produce official statistics, half of them appear on a list in a schedule to the Public Bodies Bill as being under review and, in effect, two statutory instruments away from abolition: the Marine Management Organisation, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. On the one hand, the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Minister are saying that the statistical outputs of these bodies is of such value that they qualify to be designated as official statistics, while on the other hand the Government, the Cabinet Office and the Minister are placing these organisations on a list of public bodies that have been characterised, rightly, as having, in effect, the sword of Damocles dangling permanently above their heads. And that is only with the new bodies coming on to the list in today’s order.
The same applies to a number of bodies that are already on the list, such as the British Tourist Authority, the British Transport Police Authority and the Competition Commission; I could go on. So the question is this: where is the consistency here? Where are the signs that the Government have thought through all these issues? How does the Minister square the inclusion of a number of new and extant members on the designated list before us today with the proposals in the Bill? How can he value these organisations in one way but threaten their very existence in another? What will happen to the statistical outputs of these bodies if they are axed by another part of the Government in the future?
Consistency in politics is hard to achieve, but the Government seem to be doing two entirely opposite things at the same time. I would be grateful for an explanation of how and why the Government are doing so.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think I have the dubious distinction of being the only person in the Room who has taken part in previous debates on the equivalent order. I do not want to repeat the debates that we have had in previous years, but I draw to the Minister’s attention a point that was originally drawn to the attention of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The body that produces the most statistics and is the most controversial, but sadly does not appear on this list, is the Bank of England. We have had happy debates in previous years about whether it would be a good idea to include the Bank on the list. I think that in the past the Bank has succeeded in persuading the Treasury that it should not be included—surprise, surprise—but the list would be strengthened, and indeed the way in which the Bank’s own figures are viewed would be strengthened, if the ONS could have a look at them. I do not expect the Minister to have anything of comfort to say because I know how formidable the Bank can be in guaranteeing and protecting its independence, but it is a logical body to be covered by the order. I remain sorry that it is not.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I shall deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. He is quite right that I am not in a position to give any immediate comfort, except to say that he will of course recognise, as does everyone, that the independence of the Bank of England has been a major development in politics. Indeed, one has to give credit to the previous Government for putting the Bank of England in a position of independent standing. Although the authority and the Bank are in regular contact with each other, they have agreed not to include the Bank in the 2010 order, and that has been done with the consent of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. The Bank has its own code of practice for statistics, which works well for its specific and important role. It passes a lot of data on to the Office for National Statistics, and any resulting statistics, including parts of the national accounts and their publication, Monetary and Financial Statistics, are national statistics and therefore fully compliant with the authority’s code.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Leader of the Opposition, made a strong point about the overlap between this order and the Public Bodies Bill, and those who are responsible for my briefing for this short debate will vouch for the fact that my first reaction on receiving the brief was, “Oh, public bodies again”. There is, of course, an overlap, but I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that there is a consistency in that the Official Statistics Order deals with the current position and is designed to implement this year’s additional bodies and reinforce their standing.
As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, the Public Bodies Bill is legislation in progress. It is not for me, standing at the Dispatch Box and dealing with this order, to presume the outcome of the legislative process in Parliament. The Government clearly have to allow for the passage of the Bill before they can address its statistical consequences.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that placing bodies in Schedule 7 does not mean that they are threatened with immediate abolition or that the statistics that they produce are not an important part of government. It is therefore very important to recognise that, although a number of bodies in this order are also mentioned in the Public Bodies Bill, the collation of statistics is a matter for government and will continue to be so. Any process that produces statutory instruments under the Public Bodies Bill will address the issue of the statistics that a body may well provide to government and to the public.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2010.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I am pleased to present this order to the Committee. It will be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Natural Environment and Fisheries presented this statutory instrument in another place yesterday. As the Committee knows, better regulation across government and its network of delivery bodies is an important tenet of the coalition Government’s drive for responsible and accountable policy and delivery. This statutory instrument seeks to ensure, formally, that the Marine Management Organisation adheres to a common standard of better regulation by adding it to the existing list of bodies that are subject to the legislative and regulatory format of 2006.
The principles of better regulation stipulate that regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these principles must underpin the effective working of all our public bodies. The MMO has been following these principles since vesting on 1 April this year. The framework document setting out its remit and corporate governance responsibilities, as agreed by the MMO and its sponsors, states:
“As a government regulator the MMO must have regard to the five principles of good regulation … The MMO will have a risk-based, proportionate, targeted and flexible approach to regulatory inspection and enforcement”.
Although the MMO already complies with this, it is nevertheless important to recognise formally its commitment to these regulatory principles.
The Committee will also know that the MMO is the Government’s key delivery body for marine policy, bringing together management for a number of marine activities including fishing, nature conservation, planning, licensing and enforcement. Delivering functions on behalf of a range of government departments, the MMO is jointly sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence, and my department, Defra. The length and breadth of responsibilities that rest at the door of the MMO are huge and range from planning and fishing to aggregate extraction and pollution control. Its influence is felt not only locally but at a national and international level.
That is exactly what we—the Government, the Opposition and all parties—envisaged when the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 passed through Parliament. People right across the political spectrum worked together to put this important piece of legislation on to the statute book. For my part, now that we are in government we want to ensure that the legislation is enacted correctly. It is therefore right that the MMO adheres to the common standards of better regulation, and today this statutory instrument recognises its efforts. I beg to move.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order and for explaining it. From the outset, I can assure him of the support of the Opposition for the instrument. It is good that, as a result of the delay caused by parliamentary business, the MMO could be consulted; obviously, it is right to add it to the list of regulators and that it should have to meet the key principles of good regulation which the Minister has enunciated.
As he said, the MMO was created as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It is a cross-cutting body that brings together key maritime decision-making powers—planning, regulating and licensing activity—in the marine area. It has the overarching emphasis on and duty to the promotion of sustainable development. Generally, I strongly agree with the Minister that the Act and the establishment of the MMO are good news for the public, particularly with the establishment of marine protected areas, which have been described as doing what national parks did for enhancing awareness of the natural environment and countryside but this time in the marine environment.
The role of the MMO is very important in fulfilling the terms of the Act. Not surprisingly, the Minister will understand that I, as a north-easterner, very strongly welcome the establishment of the MMO in the north-east of England, with its long maritime tradition, its superb Newcastle University marine research department and, indeed, allied facilities such as the very long-established research facility, the Dove Marine Laboratory at Cullercoats.
I am also glad that the Government have a strong commitment to the MMO. Perhaps, via the Minister in this House, I could congratulate the Minister in the other place who spoke to this order yesterday. He admitted that in opposition he had concerns about the MMO, but he said firmly that his reservations had been resolved after visiting the organisation and that he now had nothing but praise for the motivation of the staff and their determination to make it a success. I, for one, very much welcomed the remarks that the Minister in the other place made in Committee yesterday.
Not surprisingly, I have concerns about the effect of budgetary cuts on the organisation. It was recently established, and it was to be a lean, mean and efficient organisation without lavish start-up costs. For that reason, we are concerned that it should not bear the heavy brunt of cuts in current circumstances, and that it should have the resources to carry out its work and responsibilities.
Lord Henley
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. We are grateful for them, particularly for certain points that she underlined, such as the fact that there is a duty on the MMO to promote sustainable development. We will ensure that that continues. I also thank her for emphasising its north-eastern connections. I might be from the north-west but these matters are still important to me. I will certainly pass her remarks back to my honourable friend, who will, I am sure, be very grateful for what she said in praise of him and what he said in another place.
The noble Baroness asked, in effect, only one question and that was about the spending review and the effect it might have on the MMO. She will appreciate that I cannot go into any further detail only 24 hours after my honourable friend spoke in another place, but I will make two comments, which I think my honourable friend made, to give her some assurance. First, we accept that the MMO is a new organisation and has been created as a lean and fit machine, as the noble Baroness described it. The implication behind this was that there might not be much fat on it. Its newness and the fact that it has further duties that it will have to take on next year will be taken into account as we develop the details of the spending review. Obviously, no part of government or Defra can be immune from that, but those two factors are relevant to any decisions that we make about the MMO.
Secondly, as an adjunct to that, the noble Baroness asked that we keep her and the House informed of any details of this. Again, I have given assurances that that will be the case in due course. I end by thanking the noble Baroness again for her contribution. I beg to move.
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, these regulations set new recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for 2011 and 2012. They will also improve transparency in the way in which the packaging recycling system is funded and will make a number of technical changes to improve the clarity of the regulations and reduce costs to business.
First, it should be remembered that tackling waste is not just the responsibility of government; it is a responsibility for all of us, including businesses, private individuals and local authorities. It is for this reason that the Government are undertaking a review to look at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. The review’s main aim will be to ensure that together we are taking the right steps towards creating a zero-waste economy in which resources are fully valued and nothing of value gets thrown away.
Last year, nearly 11 million tonnes of packaging were placed on the United Kingdom market with the products that it protects. About half this packaging is from household goods, and after use it accounts for about 20 per cent of household waste. The rest of the packaging is used and disposed of by businesses, and it accounts for about 10 per cent of commercial and industrial waste.
The EU directive on packaging and packaging waste, which has been in place since 1994, requires member states to recover every year a minimum of 60 per cent of all packaging waste, of which 55 per cent must be recycled. Through the producer responsibility system that we have put in place in the UK and which is set out in these regulations, the UK achieved those targets in 2008 and 2009 and is on course to do so again in 2010. However, the current regulations set recycling targets for packaging producers in the UK only until the end of 2010. We therefore need to put measures in place to ensure that the UK continues to meet the EU packaging recycling targets in future years, and so ensure that packaging waste continues to be recycled. If we do not, we can expect rather costly infraction proceedings. At the same time, we need to ensure that these targets are achieved at the lowest possible cost to businesses to support them in this challenging economic climate.
The Government will set out our long-term approach to packaging as part of the waste review, to which I referred, which is due to be published next spring. In the mean time, the Government propose in these regulations to set packaging recycling targets for 2011 and 2012 only, and at a level that will ensure the delivery of the EU targets in the packaging directive but no more. Targets for 2013 and beyond will then be considered in light of findings of the review.
The regulations also include provisions to improve the transparency of the funding associated with packaging waste recovery notes, PRNs, and packaging waste export recovery notes, PERNs—the evidence notes issued by reprocessors and exporters to show that recovery and recycling has taken place. Reprocessors and exporters will now be required to report on how they have spent the PRN revenue against new more defined categories. The new categories, developed with the industry, will provide a more accurate picture of how this funding is used to benefit the packaging recycling system as a whole.
Finally, the regulations contain a number of minor technical changes. Most of them aim to clarify definitions, key dates for data returns and payment deadlines, and update references to legislation revised since 2007. Two changes are deregulatory. First, the amendment removes the requirement for reprocessors and exporters to have an independent audit, which can cost up to £10,000 for a large company. Secondly, it will allow a certain category of smaller businesses to use a simpler method to calculate their legal obligation, which will save time and effort. Benefits from these mean that as a whole, the proposed package of changes will reduce the net administrative burden placed on UK businesses by between £285,000 and £371,000 annually.
In conclusion, I believe that the amendments that the Government are proposing to the packaging regulations will enable the UK to continue to meet its EU obligations, while minimising costs to UK businesses; will make the flow of producer funding more transparent for producers and local authorities; and will resolve a number of technical issues, which will overall reduce costs to business. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, again, I begin by thanking the Minister for his explanation of the regulations and for bringing them forward today. They are in many ways a continuation of an existing policy and approach, and derive from EU obligations. As the Minister explained, the targets needed to be updated for the immediate future. In responding for the Opposition, I simply raise a few questions that are largely stimulated by the Explanatory Memorandum. We know that consultation has taken place on the regulations, and I ask the Minister about the level of interest in the consultation and the overall responses to it. Is he happy about how extensive the consultation was and whether those who will be affected by the regulations heard about it and had a fair chance to give their views?
The Minister was uncharacteristically uncharitable yesterday at Question Time in referring to consultations under the previous Government. In my modest experience as a Minister, consultations were very important in arriving at and even changing government policy. It would be interesting to hear how effectively the Minister rates the consultation process that took place on the regulations.
At paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, mention is made of the targets being set higher to offset the exemption for small businesses. Were any problems created through that; were there any specific areas of difficulty? I am not sure what proportion of SMEs are covered by the regulations. Does the Minister consider that the burden that is now on SMEs through the renegotiation of the regulations is reasonable?
In paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government talk about longer-term targets being set. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an idea of the timetable for that process. In paragraph 7.7, mention is made of the revenue that can be raised. It states:
“Reprocessors and exporters are not compelled to spend the revenue in any specific way”.
Was any specific obligation on the spending of that revenue ever considered? Does the Minister have any further information about that?
In paragraph 7.10, the Government say:
“Most of the changes will have a negligible impact on businesses”.
I am happy to accept that that is the case, but since “most” is not all, it would be interesting if he could give us any information about what seem to be the most significant impacts of the changes.
Paragraph 7.11, to which the Minister referred, states that there is to be:
“The removal of the requirement on reprocessors and exporters to be independently audited”.
When I first read this I felt some concern, because independent auditing requirements are often extremely important. However, I understand from a later point in the Explanatory Memorandum that the regulators were happy with this change. None the less, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the regulators have any outstanding concerns about that. I realise that this may not be easy to answer, but can he say whether this requirement for independent auditing happens elsewhere in the EU, given that we are talking about EU regulations?
My final question is fairly basic but important. Can the Minister assure us that nothing in these regulations will affect negatively our recycling targets and the other environmental commitments that we have entered into? We want to be reassured on that point.
Once again, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced these regulations and for explaining the large element of continuity in them, which certainly seems to be in evidence.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the Minister’s speech, except for his excellent final paragraph, but I was caught in the Chamber, having intervened on what turned out to be a rather controversial occasion. Politeness meant that I had to remain there until it had finished. I should also declare an interest—two interests, really. I was the Minister who invented these regulations and drew up the environmental regulations that were accepted by the European Union. This is unusual, because these regulations were created by Britain and France together to avoid the interference in trade that had otherwise occurred. Therefore, the regulations are permissive in the means by which we meet the ends. It is a very British concept. I also declare an interest as chairman of Valpak, which is the largest of the organisations that help businesses to meet the obligations under the regulations. It is a not-for-profit organisation set up by British industry and covers about 65 per cent of those who have to meet the regulations. I declare an interest, but perhaps I also declare knowing something about how these things work, which is not easy because they are somewhat complicated.
I have to say that there is a real and fundamental disagreement with the way in which the Government have decided to proceed. Britain has managed to become not the worst operator of recycling—as the noble Baroness knows, we have not been very good in our recycling record—by having the most permissive system that you could possibly have. It is very competitive and we have managed to do this probably more cheaply than any other country in Europe. Last year, it cost British business roughly £180 million to meet the obligations. It is likely to have cost German business about £1.8 billion. That is the difference in the efficacy of our systems; this is not a heavy burden on our businesses. Indeed, we actually have a positive advantage, because we run the system so effectively. I have to say that that is because we went in for a good capitalist system—it is competitive. Anyone who provides services has to compete with everyone else; if you do not provide or buy the evidence of recycling at the lowest possible cost, they do not come to you, they go to someone else. There is a real reason for this.
Lord Addington
My Lords, after the last speech I feel that I am treading on someone else’s carpet. It was an extremely interesting intervention and both my noble friends should be encouraged to continue talking about the questions raised. If there is a danger that the incentive to carry on will be removed, given the expertise here we should consider that matter. If allies of long standing, new allies and all those who are interested in the field say that there is a danger here, perhaps the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will keep a weather eye on the situation. I would be reassured by that commitment.
It is more reassuring when you hear from someone who genuinely knows what they are talking about; not a parliamentary expert, which is how I interpret someone who has merely spoken on the subject three times, but someone who knows something about it. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will say that the Government are watching the situation and monitoring these concerns, because if we cannot have a broad church on environmental matters we should give up and go home now.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, teased me at the beginning of her remarks that I had possibly over-attacked her at Question Time yesterday on the subject of conservation, and I wonder whether I possibly over-egged my remarks. Perhaps I was provoked by the noble Baroness; I am not sure. I accept that her Government consulted effectively on some occasions and I hope she will accept that, when we consult, we consult genuinely and with a real intention to listen. She asked what interest was shown. I can assure her that we had 96 responses from local authorities, producers and trade associations, and that the consultation covered the usual 12 weeks. I hope I can say that we consulted enough; that, as far as one ever can, we got to everyone it was necessary to get to, although one can never guarantee that; and that we covered as many SMEs or their representatives as possible. Very often, SMEs do not have time to respond themselves but have representatives who can.
Baroness Quin
In the consultation, did any of the responses raise some of the concerns that have been raised so interestingly today by the noble Lord, Lord Demon?
Lord Henley
It is the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I think the noble Lord, Lord Demon, might be someone rather different. However, that might be for another life of my noble friend.
Lord Henley
As far as I am aware, that was not the case. I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course about that.
The noble Baroness then asked about the waste review—again, a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Deben—and when it would come out. Our intention is to publish it in April of that year. April might turn out not to be a suitable month because, as the noble Baroness will know, there are local government elections on 5 May. It might therefore have to be published on 6 May, but I cannot give a precise date other than an assurance that it will be before June.
On independent auditing, again I can give an assurance that, as I made clear in my opening remarks, we are keen to try to reduce the burden on all businesses. So far as I am aware, the regulators were perfectly happy. I am not aware of any concerns. We will continue, as we have said in the past, to make sure that we strive to meet all our recycling targets, and our targets post-2012 will be considered as part of the review to be published in 2011.
I turn to the points made by my noble friend, and again I pay tribute to him for, as he reminded us, inventing these regulations, getting them through with the support of the French—something I hope we will be able to do more often in the future, but we are all learning new tricks at this stage—and getting them agreed. I am also grateful to him for stressing their efficacy and the competitiveness of our system. What my noble friend is saying in effect is that our targets for 2011-12 are not ambitious enough. The simple answer to that is that we will have the review and we want to make sure that we get everything right before we move on.
Lord Deben
I understand my noble friend’s view, but this is a continuing system. If you decide to stand aside for a relatively important period, as this would be—if my noble friend can tell me that it will be for only a year I shall be happier—the fact of history is that it takes you several years to catch up if you discover that you do want to raise the targets. As I cannot imagine that anyone in the coalition would want to lower the targets, it might be better to do this as we have done it for the past 12 years.
Lord Henley
I can see my noble friend’s argument. In some respects we are continuing with that line. Perhaps I can offer him some encouragement in another field in this area. One of the other drivers of these things is the landfill tax. It will continue with its escalator, which is due to go on up to 2015, at which point I think it will reach £80 a tonne. It is certainly a driver for all those involved in waste when considering how to handle waste. What happens to the tax after that, as my noble friend is perfectly well aware, is not a matter on which I can comment. No doubt colleagues in the Treasury will look at the efficacy of that particular tax because it is one of the most successful taxes that has ever been created in changing behaviour.
My noble friend also said that he has been listening to those who advise him and that he wants the Government also to listen to them. He said that if he was wrong he would come to me, as he put it, covered in sackcloth and ashes and admit it. If we are wrong, I see no reason why we cannot amend things later, but in the mean time we want to get the waste review right. Once we have done that we can look at these issues again.
Lord Deben
Can my noble friend assure me that nothing will stop him—let me put it as delicately as that—coming back next year with a revision, or does he really mean that the arrangements for the waste review will mean that it will be at least two years before he can change this?
Lord Henley
I cannot give my noble friend an absolute assurance because we want to consider the results of the waste review before we come to decisions. He will know that Governments can do a great deal of things as and when they wish, particularly after publishing a review. I certainly cannot give an assurance that we will do something. All I can say is that we might, if it was necessary. I would then come to the noble Lord in sackcloth and ashes to say “Mea culpa” and whatever else he wished me to say. I am not saying that we will do this; I am saying that it is always a possibility.
Lord Deben
Of course my noble friend cannot say that he will do it; indeed, that is not what I asked him. I asked him whether, if it turned out that it were necessary, he would do it. I am sure that he would. My question now is: if it were necessary, could he do it in the time, or could something in the circumstances make it impossible? If nothing in the circumstances would make it impossible, I am happy to rest on his good assurances and he need not say “Mea culpa” to me.
Lord Henley
I can never give an absolute guarantee; it would have to be a guarantee given by me at this stage. All that I am saying is that I believe that it would be possible if necessary. I might be wrong, but my noble friend will have to rest on that assurance. The important thing is that we think that it is right and proper to get these things sorted out, as we are doing now, for 2011-12, then publish our waste review and then take things forward and make further decisions thereafter. I know that my noble friend says that the price of glass has collapsed. We have seen that in the past and it has gone back up again. We have seen that with other recyclables. I think we can cope with that. These are not the only drivers in this field; as I mentioned, there is also the landfill tax. I do not believe that we face the problems that my noble friend suggests.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept that at this stage it is right and proper that the regulations go through, and that we will consider them again in the light of the review, which will be published in the spring of next year.
House of Lords
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will implement the National Clinical Strategy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the reforms set out in Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS will ensure that the NHS focuses on improving outcomes for patients. As a result, we are looking at the role and nature of clinical strategies within the reformed NHS to ensure that they reflect this focus.
Today is World COPD Day. I can assure the House that we are committed to improving outcomes for those who suffer from COPD and from asthma. We will make further announcements shortly.
Baroness Thornton
I join the Minister in welcoming World COPD Day, which draws attention to this incurable, degenerative lung condition. However, I am disappointed that he has not thought fit to use today to adopt the COPD strategy, which was left up and ready, as it were, when the previous Government left office. Apart from anything else, I wonder whether he is aware that the British Lung Foundation’s research shows that up to 80 per cent of GPs cannot tell the difference between asthma and COPD. That is a very serious issue for prescribing. The adoption of the COPD strategy would bring systematic training and awareness-raising of this condition.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I indicated in my Answer, the reform programme that we have outlined is intended to ensure that all parts of the system work more effectively in improving health outcomes. That has to include COPD. We have to ensure that everything that we do fits into the proposed new architecture of the NHS. In the mean time, we will continue to work with key organisations and with clinical leads for COPD and asthma to make sure that change happens. I know that a great deal of activity is in hand across the NHS to improve outcomes for patients with COPD and asthma as a result of the good work undertaken so far.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Will the Minister give a pledge on World COPD Day to ensure that the compensation scheme for miners affected by COPD that was begun by the previous Administration will continue?
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, both my brothers and my father died after years of breathlessness, which is an appalling condition. Can the Minister say why pulmonary rehabilitation courses are being closed around the country, despite being recommended by the NICE guidelines?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am concerned to hear the noble Baroness’s comments because I know that an enormous amount of good work is going on around the country. There are programmes to encourage clinical leadership, improvement projects designed to integrate services, a commissioning toolkit, benchmarking data on outcomes and tools to aid local campaigns. If the services designed to help COPD patients are being diluted in any way, I should be very concerned about that and interested to hear the details.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, does the Minister recall the recent paper from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that highlights that mental disorder is behind a large number of people taking up smoking and drinking? Will he consider whether this is not an argument for further investment in child and adolescent mental health services, so that children and young people suffering from anxiety and depression receive the help that they need at an early stage and do not reach for alcohol, tobacco and other substances that can have these awful outcomes in later life?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on linking mental health with COPD in that neat way. He is absolutely right that smoking is an activity that puts one at high risk of COPD and that smoking is closely associated with poor mental health. Fifty per cent of the tobacco smoked in this country is smoked by those with mental health problems. We are determined to continue efforts to discourage smoking in the general population. We are also keen to raise awareness of good lung health generally, which brings us back to the Question on the Order Paper. To a large extent, such efforts will fall to the new public health service in future.
Baroness Barker
Will the Minister say whether the Government have noted the conclusions of the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, which reported that poor air quality aggravates and is a contributory factor to COPD? Has the Department of Health been in discussion with the Department for Transport about scaling back pollution as part of the forthcoming paper that the noble Lord mentioned?
Earl Howe
My noble friend is right to raise the issue of air quality, which is of concern to my department. She is also right that we are working with colleagues across government to look at air quality—particularly in London but also in other cities—which has such a damaging effect on the health of a number of people.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, is not the network of breathe easy clubs, which is widely extended across this country, a very good example of the involvement of the statutory and NHS services with volunteers and patient response? Could not that reasonably be said to be a very good precursor to the big society?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have been working with the breathe easy groups and the British Lung Foundation to ensure that the good work that they are doing, along with that of the newly appointed strategic health authority respiratory leads, will improve outcomes for those with COPD and asthma. I agree with him fully that this is a very good example of the big society in action.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, patients with COPD are classically those who do not get access to palliative care services at the end of life. Will the Minister tell us what the Government will do to improve the access to palliative care of patients with COPD and other chronic conditions at the end of life?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that an enormous amount of work is going on with palliative care services, and a great deal of money is being directed towards them. I share her concern that hospices tend to focus above all on patients with cancer, to the detriment of those with other conditions. This is an area that we are looking at very closely.
NHS: Prebiotics
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Masham of Ilton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they will give to using prebiotics to prevent Clostridium difficile in a clinical setting, with a view to improving patient experience and saving NHS resources.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
There is currently insufficient evidence to show that prebiotics offer benefits in a clinical setting to be able to make a general recommendation in relation to prevention of Clostridium difficile infection. Of course, we will keep this issue under review. However, it is important for all patients, including those who have contracted Clostridium difficile infection, to have a well-balanced diet.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. Is he aware that C. difficile costs the country about £100 million a year and prebiotics are very cheap? Prebiotics are a food supplement that bypasses the stomach and goes into the gut and helps to keep a person fit, so that they may not get C. difficile. Does he agree that anything is worth trying with such a debilitating and dangerous condition?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, not for the first time, about the devastating incidence of C. difficile infection. More than 25,000 cases of C. difficile infection are reported annually and there remain significant variations in outcomes among organisations.
In principle, prebiotics should be beneficial, but there is in fact little good evidence to show that they work or that food can provide a prebiotic effect. There is likely to be considerable inter-patient variation in the gut flora response to prebiotics, which could be exacerbated by differences in diet. However, as I have already indicated, we will look closely at the issue.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, given the difficulties and dangers of Clostridium difficile, can my noble friend reassure me that the Department of Health has noted that the Food and Drug Administration has in recent days approved fast-track designation for a parenteral toxoid vaccine, which thus opens the possibility—I hope—that immunisation will be possible, in particular for elderly, vulnerable people who are in danger of developing Clostridium difficile infection?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of the interesting development of a vaccine for C. difficile, but I understand that the vaccine is still in clinical trials. As my noble friend indicated, the company may be seeking agreement from the US FDA to fast-track the application when the development programme is complete, as that would give them access to the US market. It is of course for the manufacturer to decide when and if it wishes to seek access to the market in the UK and the wider EU.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I have said, we will continue to look at the matter with interest. Of course the department has a very sizeable clinical research budget, which is open to all bids of a high quality. There is no reason why a bid should not be made on this issue as well.
Lord Walpole
My Lords, I will try again. Can the Minister tell me whether carbolic—either as a soap or as a cleaner—has any effect on C. difficile, or is C. difficile resistant to carbolic?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my advice is that best practice guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection is clear and is available. The management of the infection requires the isolation of cases, hand-washing with soap and water and the use of the antibiotics metronidazole or vancomycin.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, the Minister said that there was not enough evidence to be sure that prebiotics are effective. Can he say whether any active efforts will be made to get that evidence, or does he mean that people must wait until a request has been made before such efforts are embarked upon?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we regard the departmental budget as being there to enable those who have good-quality and well-designed research projects to bid for those funds. I will take on board my noble friend’s implicit suggestion that the department should pursue the issue but, in doing so, I bear in mind that these products are commercially produced and that it is really for the manufacturers to come up with robust clinical data.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are more trials on probiotics than on the prebiotics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham? Although there are no Department of Health trials that I am aware of, was the Minister suggesting in his earlier response that he is seeking the opportunity for such trials to take place?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I merely meant to indicate that we would welcome good-quality proposals. On probiotics, I understand that one study using live yoghurt showed a patient benefit but my advice is that the study methodology was flawed and its findings were not generalisable. Probiotics are not therefore recommended, as studies have failed to show any convincing evidence that they either treat or prevent C. difficile infection.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, is the noble Earl concerned about the presence of the potentially more aggressive and resistant forms of C. difficile that have been identified in our hospitals? What action is being taken to ensure that they do not spread more widely?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is appropriate for me to emphasise that, as he will well know, inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is above all what has caused the high levels of infection that we have seen in recent years. The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics predisposes people to C. difficile infection, so it is important that those in the health service understand the cause and effect relationship involved.
It is also worth mentioning that tomorrow is European Antibiotic Awareness Day, so it is appropriate that this Question has been asked today.
Lord Colwyn
My Lords, I know what an antibiotic is, but can the Minister help me with what a prebiotic is and what a probiotic is?
Earl Howe
My noble friend has asked the question, and I hope that he will be pleased with the answer. Prebiotics are non-digestible carbohydrates that act by promoting the growth and/or activity of probiotic bacteria in the gut. The most common prebiotics are fructo-oligosaccharides, inulin and galacto-oligosaccharides. They are found in various vegetables and fruit, such as tomatoes, asparagus and bananas. The best example of a probiotic is yoghurt.
Tajikistan
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Waverley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their current priorities as they take forward their relationship with Tajikistan.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare interests as serving on the advisory board of the Central Asia and South Caucasus Association at Asia House and as chairman of the British Tajikistan All-Party Parliamentary Group.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we value our relationship with Tajikistan and welcome recent high-level exchanges with the Tajik Government. Our priorities are to encourage democratic and other reforms that will help to underpin stability in Tajikistan and the region. We also believe that there is benefit for both sides in working more closely on issues relating to Afghanistan. Parliamentary links form an important part of our efforts to strengthen the bilateral relationship and I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he does to that end.
Viscount Waverley
I thank the Minister very much for that response. The willingness of the United Kingdom to engage more would be appreciated by Tajikistan and so deepen the bilateral relationship. I believe that there are multiple reasons for doing so. Is the Minister aware that they include fully understanding the culture of the Tajik ethnic north of Afghanistan, the potential for extremism to destabilise internally and so reach into central Asia, the fact that this is a major drug route with 1,500 kilometres of open border with Afghanistan and, finally, economic and other sector opportunities for mutual co-operation and benefit?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank the noble Viscount for his constructive question. I am aware of the points that he raises. He reminds your Lordships that there is a long border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan and that many Tajik people live in north Afghanistan and play a relevant, decisive and, we hope, fully helpful part in seeking to pacify that country and meet our priorities there. He makes valuable points. Also relevant are his references to the narcotics problem, some of the cross-border trade that has been going on and some of the difficulties with the Uzbek border of the country as well.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, the distinguished Speaker and leader of the Tajik delegation now in the UK under Inter-Parliamentary Union auspices tells me that the English language is now on a par with Russian in Tajik schools. However, DfID does not see this as a proper tool of development and empowerment of ordinary people; it is in effect given low priority because DfID thinks of the British Council as the main supplier. To what extent will the Government help the Tajik Government in respect of English language teaching in schools and universities and in the training of teachers of the English language?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who reminds us that there is an important parliamentary delegation in this country led by the respected Speaker of the Tajik Parliament. I know that the noble Lord had the opportunity to meet and converse with this delegation. He raises valid points about language training. Language training does go on; indeed, part of our defence co-operation is that we assist with language training. He is certainly correct that this is a valuable part of the support for the future and something on which we must seek to build. There are obviously priorities for DfID to look at. Indeed, DfID is looking at recurrently reviewing the whole range of its support operations, almost around the world, including those in the Caucasus and in the region that we are discussing. That does not deny for a moment, however, that language training is one of the great exports and assets that we can contribute to peace and stability in the region, which I hope will continue to be the case.
Lord Dykes
Will the Minister say anything about the insecurities of some of the surrounding territories, with particular reference to the recent political disorders in Kyrgyzstan? For example, what is the position of the BBC World Service and the British mission in Kyrgyzstan?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Although the Question is not about Kyrgyzstan, which is to the north of Tajikistan, the noble Lord is certainly right that the regional issues all impinge on one another. We are still concerned about the terrible violence that went on in Kyrgyzstan back in the summer and we very much hope that the political process can now be reinforced and that a coalition can be built to bring stability to the area. I do not have at my fingertips exactly where BBC World Service activities stand, but the message of independent news delivery, ideally in acceptable languages, is very important. It is an area that concerns us and we hope that the horrible violence of the recent past will not be repeated.
Baroness Stern
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a moratorium on the death penalty in Tajikistan since 2004? If he is, I am sure that he agrees with me that it is most welcome. Are the Government ready to give support to Tajikistan if requested in taking further these reforms, particularly in relation to reform of the court system and judicial training?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I must say frankly to the noble Baroness that I was not aware of the date of the moratorium on the death penalty, but I greatly welcome it. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and some of my fellow Ministers have been active in carrying this message of, one hopes, the almost universal end of the death penalty to as many areas as possible. It is certainly something that we as a civilised nation believe in and we hope that that message can be spread. As to judicial training and other forms of training and technical assistance, there is a programme of help in that direction. We intend to do more, but there are limits to our resources and we must spread them as effectively as we can. These are valuable additions and we want to develop all kinds of assistance in the best way that we can.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have a quick question. In the past there have been discussions between the United Kingdom and Tajikistan over a double taxation agreement and an agreement on provision of investment on both sides—an investment protection and promotion agreement. Do the Government have any plans to take forward discussions on those important agreements with Tajikistan?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I will certainly look into that. The general level of trade with Tajikistan, as the noble Baroness probably knows better than me, is fairly modest, but we are keen to do more on the commercial and financial side. I will look into the issue that she raised on tax arrangements and write to her if there is more news to tell.
Regional Development Agencies
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills’ comment that the handling of the proposed abolition of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) had been “a little Maoist and chaotic”, whether they will now withdraw their proposals to abolish the RDAs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
There are no plans to withdraw our proposals to abolish the RDAs. We fundamentally believe that it is the right thing to do to ensure growth and economic development that meets local needs.
Lord Liddle
I thank the noble Baroness for her clear Answer, but does she agree that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a pickle—maybe an Eric Pickles brand of pickle—on this issue? Will she clarify whether she agrees with the comments of her boss, the Secretary of State for Business, and if so why will she not withdraw the regional development agencies from Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Bill and transfer them to another schedule where their great contribution to economic development might be properly considered and assessed?
Baroness Wilcox
We will not do that because we know that the system does not work. It has cost a load of money and has taken ages. It has not achieved what it wanted to achieve in the first place, which was to bring the north and the south together, so it is time for change. That is why I am standing on this side of the House and the noble Lord is on the other.
What did my honourable friend in another place mean? He meant that change is upsetting and can be chaotic. Let us face it: if any of us have moved house, we know exactly what that feels like. We have set an ambitious pace for reform and are trying to move at speed to reorganise completely the way in which economic development is targeted and supported locally, where it can really impact on people. In abolishing the nine autonomous organisations, we have set ourselves a challenging task to achieve that by March 2012. Change is upsetting and unpleasant and feels chaotic, but at the end of change we know that what we are doing is for the best.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in praying in aid Chairman Mao, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is a little out of date? Perhaps, like the Chinese, he might prefer to follow the doctrines of Chairman Deng, who commented that, after all, it does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend is very helpful. It is worth remembering that the Secretary of State has just been in China doing business for Britain, and we are proud of him for doing that.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, is the Minister aware that independent research has shown that, under the plans announced by the Government, significant areas of the country will not be covered by the new local employment partnerships? Nearly 21 million people and 780,000 businesses have been excluded from local employment partnerships, with some areas, such as the north-east and the south-west, being very badly hit.
Businesses are also sceptical about the proposals. The EEF—the manufacturers’ organisation—has said that many of the proposals fail to make their mark with manufacturers. Nor did the proposals get a much better press from the CBI director-general, Richard Lambert. For the record, it was not the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, but the Secretary of State who prayed in aid Chairman Mao. Has the Minister taken into account the economic impact of the failure to appoint LEPs in various parts of the country?
Baroness Wilcox
We have appointed 24 LEPs, others are coming through and very interesting combinations are coming together. The partnerships are local and are working extremely well, so I do not think that we are doing too badly. It is worth remembering that, when the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives talked to businesses before the election, we were told over and over again that the RDAs were doing no good job whatsoever and that, the sooner they were gone, the better.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
Is the Minister aware of the way in which emerging LEP arrangements in the south-west seem likely to separate the great city of Plymouth, which she will know well, from much of its economic hinterland and its travel-to-work area in south-east Cornwall? This is of deep concern to the private sector, on which so much of our economic health depends. What guidance will be given to the new LEPs to ensure effective, wider co-operation between them?
Baroness Wilcox
The LEPs are being given a lot of help and guidance. The right reverend Prelate is right, as I come from Plymouth and live in Cornwall. Under the previous Administration, we were being run from Bristol, whereas Plymouth is right on the edge of Cornwall, as the right reverend Prelate knows well. The LEPs will make these arrangements between themselves and the arrangements will work because they are local. Local people are getting things right for themselves locally. We will assist them in any way that we can.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am afraid that Question Time has gone on rather long. We have reached 30 minutes and must move to the next business.
Disabled People’s Right to Control (Pilot Scheme) (England) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12 October be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 November.
Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons) Bill [HL]
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Identity Documents Bill
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:38 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 2 agreed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) giving cardholders the option of being reimbursed £30 on surrendering their ID cards by such a date and pursuant to such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to an important amendment, which I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept, to do right by those members of the public who in good faith purchased an ID card. The introduction of ID cards was controversial and subject to intense debate in your Lordships' House. We on this side saw the ID card scheme as a convenient and secure way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was more affordable than a passport and functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, and we saw it as a way of demonstrating eligibility to work and as proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. The parties opposite disagreed with that principle and in their election manifestos argued for abolition of the cards. For that reason, we have not at any stage sought to oppose the Bill, although in Committee we tabled some probing and constructive amendments, including this one.
The point of my amendment is this. As a result of the introduction of ID cards, 12,000 or so members of the public purchased a card for £30. The cards were for a period of 10 years. As a result of the Bill, should it successfully pass, the cards are to be cancelled within a short time, many years before their due expiry date. That is fair enough; it is a decision of the Government and is why they have brought this legislation to your Lordships' House. What is not fair is the Government’s decision to refuse to refund the £30 to those who purchased an ID card.
I have been rather disappointed by the Minister’s somewhat unsympathetic attitude. On Second Reading, she said:
“We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out”.
She went on to say that,
“citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. It was clear that this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 715.]
She then dismissed the potential refund of £30 as,
“rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 742.]
The Minister seemed to be saying that members of the public are meant to have a thorough understanding of the views of political parties, make an assessment of who is going to win an election and then make their dispositions accordingly.
Baroness Hamwee
I am confused—I do not know whether other noble Lords are. Is the noble Lord speaking to the first and third amendments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
In the flurry of Members leaving, the noble Baroness may have missed that my noble friend Lord Brett did not move the first group. I am talking about Amendment 2.
Even if you were to accept that argument, which I do not, the fact is that there were mixed messages. I shall read an extract from the Daily Telegraph of 24 May 2010:
“Chris Grayling, the former shadow home secretary, had signalled that there would be refunds for cancelled cards”.
So even if you accept the argument that members of the public were meant to read the newspapers to get an understanding of what the opposition parties were saying would happen with ID cards in the event that they won—that even though a member of the public had bought a card for 10 years, it was tough luck—the fact is that the position was not clear in the media and there were conflicting statements.
I encourage noble Lords to think about the wider principle, not just about ID cards and £30. An incoming Government are saying that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is simply tough luck that members of the public decided to act on that policy. They are simply expected to have this right taken away from them without any possible compensation or recompense at all. I think that that is a rather extraordinary principle to adopt. I also think that it impacts on the reputation of governments as a whole. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is really developing a new principle which can only reduce trust in government generally?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 2. I led the opposition from these benches to the Identity Cards Bill. I spent a good deal of one year of my life opposing it. I am therefore utterly delighted that this Bill is before the House. However, I have to say that, for me, it is slighted by the denial of reimbursement of the fee paid by 12,000 of our fellow citizens when they took out this card. Had they been told at the time they took out the card that they were in danger of losing the card and not being reimbursed, then that would be different. Had the coalition partners in their election manifestos said not merely that they would revoke the whole of the ID card scheme, but not compensate those who had taken cards in the interim, then that would be different. But neither of those circumstances prevails. I really do not think that it is remotely acceptable, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, laid out in moving the amendment. It simply is not acceptable to say, “Ah, but they should have realised”, which is what it boils down to.
Governments must set an example of the standards they expect of private industry. Had private industry engaged in a tactic of this sort, noble Lords on all the Benches would have been up in arms, and rightly so. I feel probably more strongly than I ought to that there is a simple, basic issue of fairness in this. Since this coalition launched itself as a coalition on the basis of fairness, I felt compelled, contrary to the wishes of my Whips, to put my name to this amendment, and I have done so with some conviction.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I support noble Lords who have spoken. Will the noble Baroness tell the House whether she disputes that the card is property for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights? Its cancellation is therefore a deprivation of property and compensation is payable. It would be most unfortunate if those whose cards are being taken away need to litigate this matter.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I supported the introduction of ID cards. I still oppose this Bill in abolishing them. But certainly I think that the Government are being very petty in terms of refusing compensation to those who bought the cards, particularly as it appears that they are paying compensation to contractors which supplied machinery, software and everything else to set up the ID scheme. They will be paid full compensation. The argument is that they have a contract between the Government and them.
I would argue that the people who bought ID cards equally have a contract between themselves as individuals and the Government from whom they purchased the card. If that is the case, they are as much entitled to compensation as the companies which are being compensated for loss of earnings and profits as a result of the card scheme being cancelled. Will the noble Baroness spell out exactly what compensation is being paid to these companies? I gather that the computers holding the information will be physically smashed up. Will she also include the cost of that smashing up? There must be a cost to the public purse involved in all of that. Perhaps the noble Baroness will spell some of that out during her speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the people who hold these cards, and there were not many of them, were inveigled into getting them on the basis that the scheme would go ahead and eventually would apply to everyone. In fact, they were helping the Government out. Although it was not this coalition Government, it was a Labour Government. Nevertheless, those people had every reason to trust the Government and trust a future Government to give them some recompense if the system of ID cards did not go ahead.
I have to say to the noble Baroness that the coalition is in need of support at the present time. Would it not be in their own interests to show good will and to show that they are cognisant of people’s feelings and do not want them to feel offended? Would it not, for a small cost, be better if the Government supported, or accepted, this amendment, which might do them some good electorally? You never know.
Lord Brett
My Lords, Amendment 1 was not moved not because the Minister convinced me in Committee of her arguments on cost and complexity. The complexity seemed to be manufactured and the cost involved figures that I could not recognise; nor could anybody else who studied it, given that banks issue cards every day of the week gratis and do not expect it to cost a tremendous amount of money. On the other hand, I was convinced by the noble Baroness’s determination not to move on the issue and not least by the discourtesy shown—not that I blame the Minister for this, because she has always been courteous. But I asked two questions in Committee and I did not get the courtesy of an answer. I indicated that I was happy to accept the answer betwixt then and Report. I asked whether the Government had consulted the Government of Gibraltar, who issue travel cards and replace them at very little expense for the same kind of number as the 12,000 that have been issued in this country to people who are not airside workers. I also asked how many ID cards from different countries were accepted by the UK Immigration Service at British ports and airports. I did not get an answer to that, either.
But those unanswered questions were not what determined me not to move Amendment 1. I thought that the moral high ground was rather greater on Amendment 2 than on Amendment 1. Amendment 1, although it was justified in my view, would have applied to a number of the 12,000 people and it would have pre-empted consideration of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 applies to everybody who voluntarily applied for a card, meaning that they at least would have the consolation of the restoration of the money they paid. For me the most telling argument for why this should happen concerns the impact assessment that the Government carried out. The civil servants who drew up that impact assessment put as the case for refunds that a non-refund would mean a reputational loss to the Government—a reputational loss for the sake of £400,000. I said in Committee and I say it again: the reputation of any democratic Government in this country, of whatever source, colour and coalition, has to be worth £400,000. It is de minimis in departmental budget terms and infinitesimal in national budget terms, but not to those 12,000 people, many of whom are elderly or very young. Business people might use the card for travel, young people would like the card because it would get them into places where they needed to carry their passports, such as clubs and pubs where they had to prove their age, and elderly people could use it as a travel document although it was also a document of some cost.
It seemed to me that the Minister was saying that if you are wealthy enough that £30 does not matter, you will not complain. Ipso facto, if you are poor and you do not complain, you will suffer in silence. Again, for the sake of £400,000, 12,000 people who voluntarily believed the Government of the day are being betrayed by the Government that followed them. I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships’ House or the other place can sit easy when this happens and we have the opportunity with this amendment to remedy it.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I am equally concerned that for the sake of a very small amount of money the Government are taking this intransigent attitude. That is assuming that 12,000 people will be seeking £30. I very much doubt whether everybody who has paid their £30 will in fact be doing so, so the sum is probably rather less than the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was talking about. I wondered, as a sort of compromise, whether it would not be possible for those who had paid their £30 to be allowed to offset it against the cost of their next passport so that the cost of their passport is reduced by that amount. That might in some way alleviate this disheartening feeling that everybody seems to have about this rather abrupt and unfair arrangement.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
What is being done here is to deprive the identity card of value by the main provisions of this Bill. For the people who have paid for the card that is something that we really have to take into account, having regard to the Government’s situation at the time they took out the card. I suggest to my noble friend that this matter should be subject to further consideration. There is an opportunity to do that if my noble friend is willing.
The Earl of Erroll
I spoke on this matter in Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, because I see that the card could still have some use. Although the national identity register, which is what we all objected to, has been removed, having a bit of plastic as a travel document to get around Europe would have been useful and still might be. Some of the 12,000 people concerned bought the card for that. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I certainly think that those people who thought that they had bought a plastic passport should be allowed to offset it against the cost of getting the more expensive passport that they will now require to go to Europe. For them, it was effectively a cheap way of getting a passport if you needed to travel to Europe.
We penalise insurance salesmen for being more honest than this. The Government are guilty of misselling. They went out and sold the card hard as having lots of benefits, and so people took it up. If you expect a member of the public, seven months ahead of the general election, to be able to predict its outcome, there are a lot of geniuses among the public whom we ought immediately to recruit to become pollsters. They may be all the people who did not buy the card. To me, it looks vindictive and nothing else. This matter could be a PR negative for the Government—a little spark that could catch the newspapers’ imagination. They will find someone who feels really hard done-by. It will get blown up; it will be in the Daily Mail, which will say that something must be done about it, but it will be too late by then.
I know that civil servants will produce reasons for the refund being difficult to administer et cetera. I cannot see the problem in saying, “The only people who get refunded are those who turn up with a card. If you hand in a card, you get 30 quid”. It would be as simple as that. That would not be very expensive to administer. If the Government wished to give the contract to one of the large systems integrators, however, they would end up with a bill for about £5 million, because it is their job to make sure that partners in America are well satisfied with lots of dosh. They are the people whom the Government will have to pay at the end of all this. They will have had unbreakable contracts, so they will have to be paid several million pounds for breaking the contract. A large slice of that will end up in American partners’ pockets. The poor old citizens of this country will get absolutely—I will use unparliamentary language if I go on.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and said so in Committee, that this is an expropriation of property, or certainly property rights. Even if the card belongs to the Government and is non-transferable, that card gave you rights—that is what they sold it on. I am quite sure that that is expropriation and that there could be a claim under the ECHR. It will go on top of the Digital Economy Act, which we were advising the Government against the other day. So they will have a nice time in the courts.
If I had been lucky enough to get a card, I would have kept it as a collector’s item, but I know that a lot of people would not like to do so and would like their 30 quid back. They are better Scotsmen than me.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I share the disquiet of many who have already spoken. I urge the Government to think again about this.
Lord Deben
Perhaps I might concentrate on why people bought the card in the place. If they bought it, as it seems, for a purpose, and that purpose no longer obtains, there is no doubt that we are taking away something from them. Surely, therefore, the answer is not to recompense them but to enable them to continue for the period of the card’s validity to be able to do what it is they bought the card for in the first place. That is a sensible and proper way of doing it. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—though I may express myself in less elevated language—I feel that the public have every reason to believe that, if they buy something from the Government for a period of time, they should be able to continue to use it in that way. Whereas recompense is an expensive and untidy way of doing it, I really do not see why they cannot go on using it for the time that they were supposed to use it for.
Baroness Hamwee
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for interrupting him. I think that the technical term for what was going on around here is “kerfuffle”.
I will not pretend that I have not been troubled by this issue. I am not persuaded by arguments that members of the public should have read the manifestos, certainly not in the detail that might have been expected, nor that they could have predicted the outcome of the general election. I am being told that everybody should have been reading the manifestos, but we leave it to the press to summarise them. However, the debate in Committee was about fine detail in the manifestos, and I do not think that that should be used as the basis—certainly not the only basis—for the Government’s argument.
My view is that this issue is finely balanced between taxpayers and individual cardholders. It is not the same as a consumer situation where there are two parties, the supplier of goods and the purchaser of goods. There are three parties, and the third party is the taxpayer. I understand the point that this is a comparatively small sum of money, but comparatively small sums have more value than they did a year or two ago.
The point has been made about whether this would be expropriation. That point was not taken up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. No doubt the Minister will say something about that. I hope, too, that she will say what would be required if the cards were to go on having a use. As I understand it, it would still be necessary to retain the register. Otherwise, the cards are pieces of plastic that do not relate to anything. Quite apart from our objection to the offensiveness of the register, the cost and perhaps the confusion of retaining the register would be issues.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, I am sorry to speak from this side against the clause, but I believe that it is morally indefensible. It is not just that it is a small sum of money, so it is particularly stupid not to pay it, but, as has been said, this sort of thing does the Government—any Government, those of the ruling political class—absolutely no good. The public will say, “They are just not to be trusted. They just can’t do things fairly”. Whoever was the civil servant and others who put up the suggestion that this money should not be compensated or that the card should not be used, I beg them to think again. We really cannot endorse something as shabby as this.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I have taken no part in the debates concerning the Bill. Indeed, when I came in here this afternoon, I did not think I was going to take part in it today. However, I have listened to this debate and I find myself in total agreement with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It seems to me that, from looking at this as objectively as one can, this is an issue about the continuity of government. The identity cards were not sold on the basis of, “You are buying it from a Labour Government, but if another one come in, things may change and you may have to renegotiate it”. The contract—if it was a formal contract—was with the Government, and it is the Government who are now reneging on the contract. I feel very uneasy about it and I hope the Minister will take this back and have another look at it. It is interesting, listening to this debate, that the only person, I think, who has suggested that what the Government are proposing should take place was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Everybody else seems unanimously against the Government’s position. There is a famous dictum about a hole—I do not need to repeat it. This seems to be an occasion when the Government should think very hard.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I would like to raise a further issue which relates to the wording of the amendment. It requires the surrender of the ID card for there to be a reimbursement of £30. There may well be a category of person who would like the £30 back and feel entitled in law to get the £30 back but who actually wants to keep their ID card. Of course, there is a further issue here, which may have struck a number of us. With only 12,000 or so cards in circulation, the residual value of the identity card in future might well be a great deal higher than £30. So the question may arise of how many people with an eye to the future would be keen to get that £30 back now but to retain their identity card. Some further examination of these and other issues might be helpful.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I recognise the strength of sentiment expressed on all sides of the House. If the House will permit, I shall explain why I cannot accept the amendment.
The Government set out at an early stage that they would not continue with this legislation and that they would repeal the Bill. That has been the long-standing position of the Government, well known in advance. It is fair to say that the Government made their position known on the fact that the ID cards would no longer have any validity.
The Earl of Erroll
Excuse me, but that was the opinion of the Opposition at the time, not of the Government.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Earl is quite right. It has always been the intention, whether in opposition or in government, to scrap the ID cards scheme at the least possible extra cost to the taxpayer. Our primary purpose has been to prevent further expense being incurred when we can avoid it. We have no option but to pay compensation to some contractors because we are tied in by the contracts negotiated by our predecessors. That is a contractual agreement, and we are negotiating at the moment what that final sum should be. We do not agree that there is a contract between the Government and cardholders who received a service, nor do we believe that there is any expropriation of property or rights under it. The cardholders are not card-owners; the noble Lords who said that the card was government property were quite right to say so.
Lord Maxton
I hear what the noble Baroness has just said about the card being government property. Is she saying, therefore, that it would be illegal for a person who had that card to use it in any way for identity purposes? In other words, if a young person was asked for ID in a pub who still had their ID card, if they produced their ID card would they be committing an offence by using a government document?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think not, any more than if one uses a passport for that purpose, which is also a government document. The basis is the same.
Lord Maxton
But the passport is being retained. It is still going to be a legal document, whereas presumably the ID card, once it is abolished, ceases to be one.
Baroness Neville-Jones
If it is a valid document, it can be used validly for identity. If it is an invalid or cancelled document, obviously it no longer has any legal status.
The Earl of Erroll
Under Clause 6 about the possession of false identity documents, does the ID card once it has been revoked become a false identity document? That was the point that the noble Lord was making. It is government property and it is no longer an identity document, so in using it you are probably using a false identity document.
Baroness Neville-Jones
You are certainly no longer using a valid identity document. It is not any longer valid in law.
The Identity and Passport Service has estimated that the cost of cancelling the ID cards scheme and the national identity register will be up to £5 million. This includes an estimated figure for compensation to the contractors, which I have just mentioned, destruction costs, staffing and other administrative matters. They are all necessary costs that we cannot avoid in abolishing the scheme. A refund scheme would add 10 per cent to that cost, which we do not consider to be a trivial addition.
Noble Lords have talked about principle. One can look at that in several ways. One of the principles that seems to be on offer this afternoon is that one set of taxpayers should refund another set of taxpayers. This does not seem to be a sensible arrangement. Some say that the sum is only about £400,000—one of the noble Lords mentioned that sum—the inference being that in the grand scheme of things this is entirely insignificant. Certainly, compared with the cost of the ID card scheme that has already been paid out—over £290 million—another half a million pounds might not seem significant. That is not, I am afraid, the attitude that the coalition Government take to public spending. We have demonstrated that we have a commitment to ensuring that unnecessary and unjustifiable expenditure is stopped and that we focus on delivering more for less. We are not therefore in a position to offer this refund.
Lord Soley
I am listening with some puzzlement. I am not a lawyer, but the Minister has signed off this Bill as being compatible with the convention on human rights. Yet this identity document is the possession of the Government—it is a government-owned thing—and she is confiscating it without compensation. Would it not be wise to take legal advice as to whether she would face a legal challenge if she went ahead with this?
Baroness Neville-Jones
As I have just said, we do not believe that we are expropriating anybody of their rights. If this is challenged in the courts we will obviously defend that position.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
May I follow that point? The Minister has made the proposition that there is no right in contract by the cardholders and no expropriation. On the assumption that no advice has been obtained from the law officers on these matters, would it be prudent before the next stage of the Bill to obtain such advice?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I will confirm the advice that I have received.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am not sure that I can confirm that. I will seek to do so before Third Reading.
We should not exaggerate the significance of all this. Much has been made of the elderly and the very young. We have no reliable demographic information at all on who the purchasers were. We know that 3,000 of the 15,000 were given free to airside workers for a particular purpose.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Baroness is getting into the complexities and numbers of this. Is this not a matter of simple principle, irrespective of numbers? If the noble Baroness buys a good or a service and the merchant or other supplier who sells that to her fails to deliver it, she would feel cheated. If that merchant got away with it, she would feel that that undermined the good faith on which the economy and society depend. Is it not a fact that people have in good faith bought a service for 10 years, and after a matter of months, that service is being unilaterally withdrawn? Are people who have done that not entitled to feel thoroughly cheated? Is this not a disgraceful example for a Government of this country to give?
Baroness Neville-Jones
The point I was answering before noble Lords intervened was the inference somehow that we are inflicting great hardship on cardholders. We do not believe this to be the case.
We do not believe that the statutory basis of the issue of ID cards creates a contract or anything akin to a contract in relations between the Secretary of State and the cardholder. Remedies that would be available in the courts if the contract were governed by the law of contract or consumer legislation—which I think is the point raised by the noble Lord—is not available for identity cards.
One or two noble Lords have raised the issue of compromise and of whether it would be a good idea to have one. Could we not, for instance, set the cost of this against the cost of the next passport or, indeed, use the lifetime for which the present card was available? There are associated problems. I do not want to detain the House extensively on this, but the fact of the matter is that the two databases—that is to say, the identity register and the passport database—are not the same. They contain different information, issued for different purposes; their legislative frameworks for what you pay are also different. We cannot therefore simply transfer the one across from the other.
That construction of two differently governed databases with different information on them was the construction of the legislation put through by our predecessors. Unfortunately, in addition to that we are going to destroy the database. We would otherwise have the continuing cost of maintaining it. That is why it cannot be regarded as a valid document for its lifetime; there is nothing behind it against which anybody needing to check your identity would validly be able so to do. There is a problem in that it simply is not a useful document any longer.
Lord Deben
I understand that there may be technical reasons why my proposal does not work, but surely they do not apply to the question of a passport. If you sent your form in, it would be quite clear from all the other documents that that little card was for the same person who sent in the form. You do not have to look it up on the two databases; you just know that that is one of the cases in which they could have £30 off. I do not see that that costs anything at all.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am sorry; I thought that the noble Lord was suggesting that this card should be available for use during its previously indicated lifetime. It is of course a separate issue as to whether you could ask for a refund. There are many problems about the refund issue, one of which is that we would have to verify whether the person presenting a card was actually entitled to that refund, which would mean referring to the database. We would have to notify everybody. The costs involved—
Lord Filkin
I will be brief. There are times when we have to look at Civil Service advice, good and honest though it is, and apply a political judgment to it. Sometimes it is clear that, in terms of both the justice of the case and the political risk and pain of humiliation, we have to override Civil Service advice. To avoid further pain and agony to the House and to the Minister, I urge her to withdraw and say that she will look at this again.
Lord Higgins
In answer to an earlier intervention regarding the position of the law officers, my noble friend said that she would look at that and return to it on Third Reading. Since it would be helpful to have the law officers’ advice, which at the moment we do not have, would there not be a strong case for deferring this matter until Third Reading, at which point it would be clear?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I said that I will indeed confirm the advice that we have received on the legal aspects.
I want to make one final point before concluding: I am not sure whether the concern which has been expressed in this House is entirely shared by the public. Much has been made of public attitudes but, against the background of 15,000 cards having been taken out, we in the Government have received a grand total of 297 letters on the subject, of which 122 included complaints about refunds. That is 122 against 15,000. We should bear in mind that that is against the background of sending letters to all individuals who had taken out a card when we came into office, so one cannot say that they were uninformed about what was going to happen—that they would not be receiving a refund, because that is what we told them. That letter is also in the Library. So—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I regret interrupting the Minister again but it really is crucial, if I may say so, for her to draw a distinction between information given to people before they purchased their cards and information given to people after they purchased their cards. Therefore, I hope that she will not lay any stress at all on what she has just said.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I understand that difference. I am saying that all 15,000 cardholders were informed specifically and in terms that these cards would be withdrawn, that they would not be valid thereafter and that there would be no refund. We have had 122 letters of complaint, not necessarily all of them from actual cardholders. I do not think that that indicates a very high level of concern about £30. One has to take into account—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The House is listening with some incredulity to the defence the Minister is making of a mere £400,000 recompense. Today, the Chancellor has assured the Irish Government that he will give them £7 billion of support and here we are in the House of Lords talking about recompensing British people £400,000. It is complete and utter nonsense, if I may say so to the noble Baroness. For her own sake and for the sake of the Government, will she not at least say to the movers of this amendment and to the House, “I have listened to what you say, I will take the matter away and reconsider it and we can come back to it at Third Reading”?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, support for the Irish Government, the national interest, the economic prosperity of this country and the welfare of Ireland are quite different matters. I do not think that we can ignore the very low level of public interest in and reaction to the Government’s decision. The House should take note of that. I have tried to deal with compromises. They do not work; otherwise one might be able to do something in that respect.
I ought to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brett. I apologise to him that he did not receive an answer earlier. We have not consulted the Government of Gibraltar, who issue their cards in a rather different way. The Identity and Passport Service is not able to answer that question directly. The UKBA is the agency which sees the documents of EU cardholders. We will have to get further information on that point, which I will endeavour to do for the noble Lord.
In light of the views that have been expressed in the House this afternoon, I propose to take this amendment away and consider it.
The Earl of Erroll
Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she guarantee to come back with an amendment along the lines of recompensing people? On two occasions the Government have promised to take a proposal of mine away—this Bill has only one more stage—but at Third Reading have weaselled out of it at the last minute. Under the rules governing Third Reading, we are not able to put down anything at that stage to ensure that the Government come back with something, so we need a binding commitment from the Government to come back with an amendment along the lines of this one. If the Government will not give such a commitment, we should not permit the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I see the position in which my noble friend finds herself. I respectfully submit to the House that it would be perfectly reasonable for her to ask that this matter be postponed to Third Reading so that she has an opportunity of conveying to her colleagues—because the Government as a whole are involved here—the sentiments that have been very clearly expressed in your Lordships' House. She has explained the reasons for the Government's position. However, a great deal has been said here and I submit that the Government have an opportunity to reconsider. If the Opposition are anxious to achieve fairness and justice, I am sure that this is the correct course, rather than seeking to take the matter further at this juncture—if my noble friend is prepared to take this back, to have it considered by her colleagues in government and to return at Third Reading and tell us what the situation is.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I will pick up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. It might help the House if my noble friend were to say that the Government would have no objection to similar amendments being tabled again at Third Reading, so that the matter could be deliberately left open to be considered again then.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I say to the government Front Bench that we are out of order. It is the job of the Front Bench on the government side to make sure that we keep to order.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Perhaps I may just say that I have undertaken to take the point away. I have done so in good faith and noble Lords may rely on my good faith.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I say to the Minister that her good faith is not at issue at all. The issue is whether it is possible under the rules of the House to bring back at Third Reading an amendment that has been moved on Report. I would like advice from the Clerk because, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I do not think that that is within the rubric of the House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It is not me to give this advice, except in response to what my noble friend has asked. However, as I understand it, it is certainly within the rules of the House to bring back the matter at Third Reading if it has not been decided before that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I understand that there are anxieties around the House. The House is self-regulating, unlike another place, and some noble Lords today have been venting the habits of another place.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there have been interventions on Report that have not been in the customary style that we have had in the past. There are Third Reading rules that enable the Government to clarify remaining uncertainties. Where a Minister has in good faith given an undertaking to take away a matter and look at it again, they are able to do so and bring it back at Third Reading. The Minister may also have discussions with opposition and other Peers on how best to deliver that. Certainly, I would be prepared to take further advice between now and Third Reading to enable my noble friend to carry out her commitment. Of course, it is for those who tabled the amendment to decide how they wish to proceed today. My noble friend has given a commitment to look at the matter again. I know that she has also given a commitment to reflect on particular advice. That is where we have reached.
Third Reading guidance is straightforward. Paragraph 8.145 of the Companion states:
“The practice of the House is normally to resolve major points of difference by the end of report stage, and to use third reading for tidying up the Bill ... The principal purposes of amendments on third reading are … to clarify any remaining uncertainties … to improve the drafting … and to enable the government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill”.
In response to my noble friend Lord Phillips, that means that my noble friend has given an undertaking, as she has today, to look at this matter again. She will do so. She does not, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, requires, have to give a commitment today as to the precise amendment that may or may not be brought forward. These are the normal rules of procedure.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
My Lords, with respect we are faced with an issue of law—
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has said on this matter, and I am in some difficulty because the noble Baroness and I are now the usual channels. There are no longer three; there are two of us. The noble Baroness will know that we have met on many occasions to discuss whether it is in order for noble Lords to table an amendment at Third Reading that was previously moved in Committee and on Report. We need something rather clearer than we have had so far this afternoon. We need an assurance that if this matter cannot be resolved to our satisfaction—and I think that the House is very much behind the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt—then we can bring back precisely this amendment so that this House can quite properly determine this issue on the terms in which it has been set out this afternoon for the benefit of your Lordships.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this is a matter for resolution in the normal manner, which is that usual channels discuss these issues. I understand, as Government Chief Whip, that it would be appropriate for the Opposition to bring forward an amendment if they felt that the government amendment or failure to act was inappropriate. These are the matters that are discussed in the usual manner; as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says, we have had these discussions in the past. It may perhaps assist the House to recall that over the last few months the Public Bill Office has on two occasions advised Opposition Members that they may table Third Reading amendments to take forward matters that have been debated on previous occasions. We do enjoy a fair amount of latitude—I say fair because it is fair to all—within the overall context that Third Reading is not intended to open new issues.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I have heard with a great deal of interest the comments from the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Government Chief Whip and the Minister. This matter has been aired at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and now on Report; this is the third time we have debated these issues. While great eloquence has been brought to our debates, no new argument has been brought. The noble Baroness has said, finally, at the end of a long debate—and I suspect rather reluctantly—that she will take it back to look at again. Frankly, in view of the debate, that is not good enough: it is quite clear that the House requires the Government to change their mind. Not much purpose is served by yet more agonising. The House is quite prepared to come to a view and I wish to test its opinion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Report on costs and savings
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 4 months of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament a report setting out the costs and savings associated with cancelling ID cards.
(2) The report laid under subsection (1) must, in particular, specify—
(a) the costs associated with cancelling all ID cards and sending letters to cardholders under section 2(3),(b) the costs associated with destroying information in the National Identity Register under section 3, and(c) any savings identified as a result of cancelling ID cards and destroying information in the National Identity Register.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the amendment is fairly straightforward, and I hope that it will be seen as a much-needed addition to the Bill. Conservative shadow Ministers when in opposition made varying claims about the current cost of the ID card scheme which ranged widely from nearly £1 billion to up to £20 billion. Meanwhile, the National Identity Service cost report of October 2009—the official document laid before Parliament under the terms of the Identity Cards Act 2006—stated that the projected forward cost of providing ID cards for the next 10 years until 2019 was £835 million. Crucially, that figure does not equate to the savings to be made from scrapping the scheme. We know that because we read the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, which states at the bottom of page 4:
“The October 2009 cost report indicated that cancellation of ID cards would avoid future costs of £835 million up to October 2019. However, these costs are planned to be recovered through future fees to ID card purchases. Therefore, there are no benefits to the taxpayer from Year 3 onwards”.
The tables included in the impact assessment reveal that total savings from scrapping the scheme are £118 million. The total cost of cancelling the ID cards and the NIR are given as £22 million, although the Bill’s Explanatory Notes state the cost to be £55 million. There appears to be a muddle and the Government have been rather misleading to claim the scale of the savings that they have done. A definitive, preferably independently audited cost and saving report would be desirable and it would be appropriate for it to be part of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter as sympathetically as she can.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The Government certainly agree that it is important that we are open and transparent about costs and savings. Ministers have set out the level of costs, both in the debate here and in the other place. Clearly, the Opposition do not entirely agree with our figures, but we have set out the costs and savings as we see them and as they are expected to be over the spending period. We also agree that it is important that these are set out in an accountable and auditable form and that is why we are including the costs and savings associated with scrapping the ID card scheme in the annual report and accounts—we have already undertaken to do this—which will be submitted to the House of Commons by the chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service.
Noble Lords will be aware that the annual report and accounts are presented to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 7 of the 2000 Act and they are published by the House of Commons. The accounts are aimed at being published in advance of the Summer Recess. If one looks at the noble Lord’s amendment, one can see that the timings are such that we would be invited to publish the same information twice over a very short time. I do not think that that makes a great deal of sense.
I can confirm to your Lordships that there will be a full and transparent breakdown of the costs and savings related to ID cards in the IPS annual report and accounts for the next year and that these will cover the points raised in the amendment so that there will be complete clarity on the points that noble Lords have raised. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am grateful to the Minister. She has said that the details that I require will be published and I am very happy to accept that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Rosser
“Identity fraud
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006 on combating identity fraud and the lessons learnt from the operation of the identity cards scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament within one year of the coming into force of this Act.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this amendment calls on the Government to produce a report on the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act on combating identity fraud and on the lessons learnt from the operation of the scheme. Identity fraud is one of the UK’s fastest growing crimes, with nearly 2 million people a year falling victim, and figures suggest it costs the country some £2.7 billion a year. More than nine out of 10 people in the UK consider themselves to be at risk from identity fraud. According to the Government’s own fraud prevention service, in the first three quarters of this year, levels of identity fraud increased by almost 10 per cent when compared with the same period in 2009 to nearly 80,000 cases. Any Government obviously have a duty to address this concern and to obtain whatever information is available to ensure that they have an up-to-date and coherent plan for action in this area.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I wonder if, when he comes to wind up, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, could be a little more explicatory—for want of a better word—on the meaning of Amendment 4. Presumably, he is talking about the costs and savings incurred. We have just had a very long debate on the subject—
Lord Rosser
We are not actually on Amendment 4. I have been speaking to Amendment 5.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could confirm that he would be happier—I am not quite sure that I took this from his speech—for such lessons as there may be from a relatively short and limited experience to be included in the wider work that the Government are doing. Of course, one would not disagree that any available lessons should be learnt; but I doubt whether that work is as useful to Parliament if it is provided separately and discreetly from other work being done on cyber crime and related areas. It is an enormously important area and Parliament will look forward to debating it further. I am not convinced that this is precisely the way to go.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, at Second Reading of this Bill, I suggested that, while at the moment an identity card would not help to stop fraud on the internet, it will come. There will eventually come a point when, in view of the rising number of people purchasing goods and services online, the banks and the people selling goods will insist that there is some form of identity involved in the transaction. Whether it will be putting a card into your computer or a camera that will show that you actually are the person, I do not know, but I would think the banks in particular will insist on this in the longer run, both for their own hole-in-the-wall cash machines and for buying online. The ID card, as it was originally proposed, if it had been made compulsory from the word go, as I wanted it to be, would have been one of the answers to that and would have saved the private sector very considerable sums of money in the long run.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I fully understand the sentiment behind this, but I am not sure this is the best way to go. I do not think it is really the Home Office’s forte to produce such a report. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; there are a lot of lessons to be learnt and a lot of people studying this sort of thing. As for the figures used by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and taking the point just made about the banks—that is the whole point. People confuse theft of credit card details with identity theft. Identity theft is when someone’s identity is taken over and used to do many other things, such as entering into contracts, travelling across borders and perpetrating crimes. Nicking a credit card and its details is something completely different. Those provide the huge figures, and the people who can stop that are the banks and the credit card companies by increasing their security. They are always looking at this, and they are trading off between the losses they make on transactions where cards are not present, and the cost of additional security. We are seeing new security measures coming through, but it is not a government job. There is no point at which you would take a national identity card that is not designed for online transactions, and a credit card that at the moment is not designed for them, and hope that one is going to help with the other. Actually, the entire problem about security for the credit card is contained there, and the people know what to do about it. They are getting on with it rather slowly to my mind, but when the fraud figures get big enough they will do something about it. I agree there are lessons to be learnt, but I do not think it is an identity card lesson. There are some other lessons to be learnt, but I think that there are other bodies better qualified to do the job than the Home Office writing expensive reports.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raises two issues. He spoke to the first issue as regards combating identity fraud and the effect of the repeal. He did not really mention the second, which would require us to write reports on the operation of the identity card scheme. I will deal with both those matters because, if the amendment were accepted, they would be obligations on the Government.
I very much support the notion that what we do in government should be evidence-based, but I do not think that trying to draw lessons from a scheme of such narrow scope and numbers, as well as short duration, will help us a great deal in what are, without doubt, serious issues. One can draw a number of lessons about the operation of the scheme itself, but I do not know that they would cast much light of a general kind on how to operate identity schemes in the future. Frankly, the Government’s view is that this is not a worthwhile thing for us to try to do.
We entirely agree that combating fraud is a major issue. There is no argument between us on that. That is precisely why the Home Office is taking it very seriously in conjunction with other departments. The National Fraud Authority and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have, as I mentioned in Committee, produced a strategic threat assessment of the harm and the impact of identity fraud. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that identity is an issue and we certainly will have to do work on identity authentication. That would have been the case even with the NIR.
These assessments are now being taken as the base for an action plan, which I also mentioned in Committee. I hope that the House will accept that it would not be sensible for us to publish the details of the action plan, which is designed to try to get at the root of those who are engaged in criminal and fraudulent activity. But I can assure the House that we are taking this issue seriously.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said. It worries me that the Home Office seems to be considering another form of identity card. I sincerely hope that we will not have another proposal for a national identity card and register by the back door.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am not quite sure how the noble Lord gained that impression. All I said, I think, was that identity authentication, which is not anything like the identity card, is an issue. If you have a transaction with the bank, it does not know who you are, and you want to know who they are.
Lord Maxton
Does the noble Baroness not agree, however, that an identity card would be the easiest way of authenticating identity?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think that this is a debate perhaps of a more expert kind, but I do not agree that that is the case. I should like to make one other point on combating fraud. We also said in Committee that we would review whether there was overlap or duplication of the offences which are being re-enacted as a result of this Bill with those in the existing Fraud Act 2006. We are looking also at the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in an exercise to make sure that the legislation is tidy and, if we can, to simplify it. Both on the legislative front and on the question of actual action in government to combat fraud, vigorous action is being taken. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
Obviously, the reason for bringing forward this amendment relates to the evidence given in Committee in the other place. One of the organisations that had had most involvement with the identity cards scheme—the pilot carried out with the Manchester Airports Group—clearly referred to the benefits of the scheme with regard to identity. Quite relevantly, it said it thought that, even if identity cards were no longer there, perhaps the benefits that it had seen arising from the scheme could be achieved through other means. In the light of that kind of evidence, I should have thought that the Government would have been interested in the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006 and of trying to ensure that the benefits that at least some of those involved in the pilot exercise saw coming from it could be retained through other means. I am a little disappointed that the Minister has not indicated that the Government intend to carry out any sort of investigation or review of the benefits that were achieved from it and of any benefits relating to the issue of identity fraud to see whether they could be maintained through other channels.
The part of the amendment about a report being required within one year is less important than actually looking at what happened with the identity card scheme and trying to ensure that any benefits that arose from it could be retained in other ways. I am very grateful for the interventions and contributions that have been made by noble Lords in this debate in which reference has been made to the problems of identity fraud. I think I am right in saying that there is a rollout of a new generation of identity documentation in Germany which will include a radio-frequency identity chip to help to facilitate, or so it is claimed, secure online transactions. I hope that as part of the action plan to which the Minister has referred that has been set up and is being developed that some regard will be paid to what is happening in Germany and whether that has a contribution to make in this field.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister, irrespective of the issue of the report, was not prepared to say that the Government would seek to take advantage, through an examination of what happened during the identity card scheme, of any contribution that could be made towards the fight against identity fraud and ensure that any benefits that the scheme had achieved were retained through other means. I am sorry that she has not been able to say that the Government will do that. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“Independent review
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the coming into force of this Act, appoint an independent person to keep under review the arrangements for the time being maintained by the Secretary of State (and any person or authority to whom or to which he delegates any related function) for the purpose of his functions under this Act or any subordinate legislation made under it.
(2) The person so appointed shall report annually the findings of his review to the Secretary of State, with such report being made contemporaneously available to Parliament.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee. I bring it back and I hope that what my noble friend may have to say in response to my moving it will assuage the concerns that exist in this House about the dismantling of this complex scheme. Let us make no bones about it, the national identity register and all that is therewith and the dismantling of the whole apparatus is no simple matter, hence a 12-page Bill. The object of the exercise is to ensure that there should be an independent review to satisfy this place and the other place that all has been done properly and well, particularly of some of the subcontractors in relation to the national identity register and the deletion in a safe way of the mass of information that they already hold.
Clause 51 of the Data Protection Act 1998 imposes a general duty on the Information Commissioner to promote the eight data protection principles. They are all very sensible principles and the network of those eight principles provides reassurance that use of data is not improper. However, that is a general duty. There is no specific obligation that one can point to arising from those eight principles in terms of the national information register that we are dealing with here.
Those who have added their names to the amendment and, at an earlier stage, Earl Erroll—
Earl Ferrers
My noble friend referred to Earl Erroll. Actually, he should have said the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, but if he was going to say Earl Erroll, he ought to have said the Earl of Erroll.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am thoroughly schooled, my Lords, and deeply grateful to—I scarcely dare address him now—the noble Earl Ferrers.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Oh my gosh. I shall go back to school.
This is a basic and simple matter. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in response to the amendment.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the amendment may be slightly surprised to know that I support it, but for reasons that are rather different from those that he put before the House. A friend of mine described the Bill as the King Canute Bill; in other words, it is doing away with something—identity cards—which, in a relatively short time, whatever Government are in power, will have to be reintroduced. That is almost inevitable. I would hope that an appointed independent person would give that recommendation to the Government of the day and say, “Sorry, we have got it wrong. It is time that we reintroduced ID cards”. I agree entirely with my friend’s view, except that poor old King Canute is the most maligned man in English history, because he never suggested that he could hold back the tide. What he said to his courtiers was, “I cannot hold back the tide”. I suppose that it is the first example of PR going badly wrong.
There will come a point where the need for smart card technology will become such that we will have to introduce an identity cards Bill. This amendment would at least allow an independent person to look at it and say, “Sorry, we’ve got it wrong. Let’s have another look. Let’s introduce ID cards”.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, if I had got my act together a bit more quickly, I would have added my name to the amendment, because it is very sensible. There are some residual powers in the Bill which we need to keep an eye on. Although an Information Commissioner exists, he does not have the power to march in and look at things unless there are complaints. He would also be overextended.
We need to look out for residual powers that could give rise to concern. They come in Clause 10. Subsections (8) and (9) sensibly state that certain information which is gathered to prove someone’s identity when a passport is being issued should be destroyed after 28 days. Given that the Government will destroy the information within 28 days, I am happy for them to consult other databases—I mentioned in Committee electricity bills, which is probably the quickest way of finding whether someone has changed address or where they really are. I have no problem with the Government doing that to verify a person’s identity for the purpose of producing a passport.
However, then we get to subsection (10), which is the good old catch-all. It says that the Government can retain the information beyond 28 days for the purpose of “preventing or detecting crime”—I remember this sort of wording in RIPA, which led to a lot of grief—and “apprehending and prosecuting offenders”. Well, that depends on how quickly they apprehend them again. We should have oversight by an outside commissioner who reports to Parliament and not by a Home Secretary, because this sort of thing can get out of hand and, later, suddenly rise up to bite a Government in the future. We have several commissioners doing this sort of job elsewhere in the security world. We either add it on to someone’s job or create another one, but it is sensible for protecting the public.
Baroness Hamwee
In Committee I raised the point on subsection (10) to which the noble Lord referred. Is it the noble Earl or the noble Lord?
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, it is the noble Earl. It is very confusing. I am actually the Earl of Erroll, but we are in distinguished company as we have two Earls who have surnames as their titles—Earl Ferrers and Earl Attlee. However, I would still refer to them as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Thank you very much for correcting the House on this.
Baroness Hamwee
In Committee I raised the issues on subsection (10) to which reference has just been made, and I did so for the same reasons—the concerns about, for instance, judicial oversight of a Secretary of State’s decision to retain information for these purposes. I was told then that subsection (10) reflects the provision in the Data Protection Act. I went away and looked at that, and I ought to say thank you. I was entirely happy that although the wording is a little different, it amounts to precisely the same thing. That is not to say that the issue is entirely satisfactorily dealt with. Perhaps it should be dealt with in a different way in this piece of legislation or, as I would like to see, more widely. However, I think that that is a different point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers, to our debates on—
Earl Ferrers
It is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. For goodness’ sake, the noble Lord is still on the Front Bench. He really ought to get to know the rules and procedures of the House.
The Earl of Erroll
If noble Lords will indulge me for two seconds, the only person who is the exception here is the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Otherwise, we are all Lords and Ladies. We are Peers, so socially we refer to each other as Lord and Lady. Even a Baroness is a Lady, and we put the true title in front.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers—
Earl Ferrers
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is a very bright noble Lord, and he normally picks up things straight away, but he has made the mistake twice. If he wishes to refer to me as he should, he ought, with respect, to say “the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers” and not to say “the noble Lord, Earl Ferrers”.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, while we are in a correcting mood, may I remind the House that we are actually on Report and not in Committee, as amusing as the exchanges have been heretofore?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was quite right to correct us on this matter. I would however say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I have always referred to him in that manner. I will read Hansard with great interest, because I think that, when he rose, he actually said “the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers”. Perhaps we could reconvene tomorrow to discuss that further when we have all studied Hansard with great care.
We find ourselves in interesting company in this debate because noble Lords who have spoken have, very clearly, different views about ID cards. My noble friend Lord Maxton and I are convinced that, before long, a proposal will come from a Government to reintroduce identity cards on the basis of convenience to the public.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Before we forget, we need to remember that the ID system that we are abolishing was not obnoxious for the mere card; it was obnoxious for the national identity register which carried a mass of personal information and which Microsoft reckoned would become the greatest honey pot in the world for crime.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I shall make two points about that. First, I fully understand the point that the noble Lord is raising. It is quite remarkable that we have reached a situation in which private sector companies such as Google are allowed to amass a massive amount of information and then use it for marketing purposes. Frankly, I have some concerns about that. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
The fact of the matter is, as the noble Lord must know, a lot of the material gathered by Google has been gathered illegally. I do not think that the point that he is making in quoting Google is a very good one.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I look forward to further debates on those matters. The noble Lord is quite right. I hope that your Lordships' House will have further opportunities to discuss the implications of that, because it is a matter of great concern. There are some international companies that seem to feel that they can do what they like, and there is a need for this to be looked at very carefully. I understand the concerns about Governments amassing data. Equally, I refer the noble Lord to Mr Hodder, who wrote to me before Grand Committee, as an example of a business person who has used his card 30 times in going to the European zone and found it very convenient. For that reason, I do not think that we have heard the last word about the use of such cards.
I hope that the Minister considers taking this matter away. Whatever view noble Lords take of what the last Government did and of the nature of the cards and the information, it is rightly important that the public have confidence that the process used is done properly and well, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. The BBC carried a very interesting story about some of the techniques that will be used to ensure that the information is appropriately destroyed. I welcome that, but it would be helpful—and it is an important matter of public confidence—to have a proper independent scrutiny of this matter, which is why I very much support the noble Lord in his amendment.
Baroness Neville-Jones
Two separate issues seem to have been debated under this amendment. The first was whether one needs the extraordinary amount of information that would have been contained on the national identity register as a means of establishing ID cards, and whether that is the kind of thing that we want to see reintroduced, which I certainly do not believe to be the case. The second issue, which is the proper intention of the amendment, is about ensuring that information retained by the Government is properly governed and accountable. On that second point, I share absolutely the preoccupations of those who have proposed the amendment, but I have reservations about the method that they have chosen to achieve the end. In effect, the amendment establishes a new individual—some sort of passport commissioner—who would have the job of overseeing how the data were used and retained by the IPS. That would also be the case in connection with information received by third parties for the validation of passport applications.
In our view, the Information Commissioner has significant powers, and we would regard them as sufficient to examine and consider or scrutinise any of the data processed within the IPS. I think that the noble Lord has had a conversation with the Information Commissioner to that effect. My impression of the Information Commissioner is that he takes a considerable interest in the operation of the Act and has powers to serve the IPS with a notice to allow him, or his staff, to find out whether the IPS is complying with the Data Protection Act, which is the governing Act here. He is able to oblige the IPS to allow him or his staff to enter any premises and to show any of the specified documents or to see any of the information of the specified descriptions that he wishes to inspect.
Those are very considerable powers. I share the preoccupation of the House in ensuring that Government retain information only for the purposes for which it is genuinely needed and they are governed in ways which ensure that that is the case—that it is not used for purposes for which it was not specified and for which the Government are not entitled to use it. It is important for us to ensure that this is the case, and to talk to the Information Commissioner to ensure that he is able and willing to exercise his powers in this way, which I believe to be the case. I ask the noble Lord if on that basis, and with an assurance from the Government that we will take the intent of this amendment seriously, he is willing to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but would she keep us informed about the conversations she intends to have with the Information Commissioner? Could she assure us of that?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Jones
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 October be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the UK Border Agency currently spends over £2 billion to manage its borders and control migration. Over a third of its total running costs is recovered through fees on visas, nationality and immigration applications. The remaining costs are met by the UK taxpayer. Clearly there is a balance between these two things to which I shall return.
Earlier this year the Chancellor set out in his emergency Budget the position of the nation’s finances, which revealed the very difficult choices that had to be made by government departments. Of course the decision to increase the fees is relevant to the background and the economic situation which we were left by our predecessors. The decision has been taken to take the UK Border Agency into the new spending review period in a position where more is done to balance the costs of supporting the immigration system between those who use and benefit directly from it and the UK taxpayer, who is otherwise obliged to subsidise it.
The Home Office is making savings of £367 million this year. The proposals we are debating today form the other part of the equation—that is to say, seeking to increase fees paid by migrants and sponsors.
The regulations are made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and are in accordance with the powers granted in Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Under Section 42, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an application at a level that exceeds the administrative cost of determining the application. The way in which the legal powers are defined means that the Government must also specify fees for applications, processes and services that are provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the application, in separate regulations under the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. These regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 September 2010, are subject to the negative process and are not being debated. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated and I am happy to take the points that may be raised today on any of the fees proposals.
For these mid-year increases, the UK Border Agency has undertaken very careful consideration of the issues. These increases are made in line with the principle that the overall contribution of fee increases should be spread across all routes and be in line with our broader policy to align better our fees structure overseas with the one operating in the United Kingdom. Where there are greater increases to the fees on some routes than others, we have done so on the basis of the benefit to the migrant of a successful application. Examples of benefit vary from route to route but may include, for instance, access to the UK labour market, the right to stay here permanently or the right to vote.
These increases mean that the Government can hold other fees at existing levels, or increase them only by a comparatively small amount to help maintain our international competitiveness and in recognition of the importance of these routes to the UK economy. For example, the Government recognise the importance of keeping direct costs to sponsors under the points-based system as low as possible, particularly in the current economic climate. The fees for acting as a sponsor and the certificate of sponsorship fee have been held at the same level as previously, while maintaining existing concessions for small businesses, charities, education providers and the arts and entertainment sectors.
In the same spirit, we have managed to limit the tier 4 visa increase to just £21, which is for a visa being offered below cost. It is a very small proportion of the overall costs incurred by a tier 4 student coming to the UK to study, who will pay an average tuition fee of close to £10,000 a year in higher education. The visitor visa has been increased by only £2. Tourism is obviously important to the UK economy, but it is right that the migrants contribute towards the costs of the services they use and benefit from. However, we have still kept it down and the fee recovers only about half of the total administrative cost of the visa.
The House will, I hope, be pleased to hear that these proposals also introduce a fee exemption where a person makes an application for a nationality registration relying on Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981. This will align better the position of those applicants born to British mothers with that of applicants born to British fathers. This is a long-standing grievance, which I have shared, and was a matter of great interest to this House. I hope that fulfilment of that commitment made by the previous Government gives satisfaction today.
This Government are committed to sending a message overseas that we welcome legal migrants and that the UK is open for business. I believe, as the Government believe, that migration brings great benefits to the UK. However, I also believe that UK citizens and newcomers to this country wish to see an immigration system in place that is sustainable and stronger in the future, and is less subsidised by the average taxpayer. The immigration system costs money and, through these proposals, the Government are seeking today a greater contribution, as I say, from those who benefit most—a little more in line with the benefits on offer—so that the traveller and migrant meet a greater proportion of the costs of the system. As your Lordships can see, we have tried to keep down the cost for those who receive comparatively little—the tourist and, indeed, the student—and put the increases primarily in those areas where there is long-term benefit for individuals who come to work or to settle here. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I rise to speak on the Motion as the regulations have a direct impact on a tiny company—on whose advisory board I sit—called Pingar UK, which is developing contextual search engine technology for a number of years. We are a subsidiary or offshoot of a New Zealand company that is funding the research and wanted to have a research establishment over here. This information is highly relevant as it will explain why this government policy is a disaster that will drive small companies such as Pingar offshore.
Tomorrow night, I will take part in a conference call with the New Zealand company in which we will almost certainly decide to move out of this country because of the immigration policy and the visa policy. A company employee took a degree at a Welsh university. He is a Hong Kong citizen. He obtained an 18-month postgraduate visa to do further development work, but that has expired. In the summer, we applied to get the visa extended, but we got caught up in the mish-mash of everything when the new immigration cap of 24,100 visas was suddenly introduced. We needed a certificate of sponsorship.
We got the certificate of sponsorship just in time, which was amazing since we employ hardly anyone over here and the chap in question will really be the first serious employee. That was the right thing to do. However, we were given a zero visa allocation. All the time that we put into the matter was completely wasted because we cannot sponsor him. We have now been told that, for £1,000, we might get a visa after all. The decision has been taken that, as a small business, we cannot afford to pay out £1,000 on a gamble. As another director of the company said, “It is a lottery”, so there is absolutely no point in doing it.
I am intrigued that the Explanatory Memorandum’s paragraph 11, “Regulating small business”, states:
“The legislation does not apply to small business”.
The very reason that we will have to relocate offshore is because, indirectly, the legislation does apply to small business. We will probably try to relocate the research arm in either Singapore or Hong Kong. Pingar is not the only company that I know of in this situation. Many people are considering relocation. I am afraid that the Government’s immigration policy is about the most stupid thing that they could have done for small business.
I have heard, and read in the papers, about the new entrepreneurship visas that are about to be issued. I would love to know how to get one for the chap, if we can. We do not have long to make up our mind. He is currently abroad as, under the law, he is required to be. In the next week or two, we have to decide where he should move to. I should be delighted to hear from the Minister how these new entrepreneurship visas will work. Why should we pay £1,000 to enter a lottery to see whether we can exist in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I thank the noble Baroness for her careful explanation of the regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has taken us into a rather wider debate. His comments were very interesting and I hope that we will be able to hear more about that issue. There is great concern that the way in which the current cap is operating is doing real damage not just to British business and industry but to the arts and academia, as we have discussed in the House on several occasions in the past few weeks. I hope that we will receive an early announcement from the Government that they will look at the policy again and make it more flexible.
Having said that, we support the general principles that the noble Baroness has outlined. We recognise the challenge of balancing the burden of the administration of the system between the migrant and the taxpayer. My reading is that the burden on the migrant is increasing slightly, although not significantly. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that. I should also be grateful if she could say what impact the fees increase is likely to have on the number of applications. Has an analysis been carried out of the possible impact on at least the main categories of application and whether there will be any unwelcome impact on regular migration when fees are increased? The Minister rightly mentioned some of the benefits of migration, which I must say was welcome.
Has an analysis been carried out of where there is clear benefit to our country from the skills that have been brought in and of our costs and prices as compared with those of other countries, such as Australia, European Union countries and the US? To extend the theme that was mentioned by the noble Earl, we need to be mindful that this country is a great global trading nation. We must be wary of any action that we take that would undermine the ability of UK companies to attract the best people. That has been one of our great strengths over the past 30 years, which it is important that the policy on immigration should not undermine. It is worrying to hear of small companies looking to, say, New Zealand for R&D purposes because of the constraints of the current system.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the increase in the cost of visas, particularly settlement visas, is part of a more general policy to bear down on numbers. Is the price increase part of a general policy of reducing net immigration? Perhaps the Minister would also refer to the matter of the migration impact fund, which was raised by my right honourable friend when the regulations were debated in a committee of the other place. I understand that the visa fee increases of the previous year took into account a £50 million contribution from migrants to that fund, which was intended to pay for projects in constituencies with a sudden increase in the number of immigrants. The Government have decided to abolish the fund, but the amount to cover the fund is staying within the visa fee. If the Minister could give us an explanation of that, it would be extremely welcome.
Will the Minister also provide a little more explanation of the alignment between fees in country and fees out of country, which she referred to in her introduction? Is the goal to have equalisation? Given the policy of looking at the proportion or cost of the administration of the fee, what measures will be put in place in that regard?
I note the significant increase in the fee for dependants. We do not oppose that, as there is a huge benefit to the dependant, but is that increase part of a deliberate policy to deter immigrants from bringing in dependants? Is it in line with the reductions of the rights of dependants, such as work rights, as part of the scheme, or is it just a method of raising extra resources when there is pressure on budgets?
Will the Minister also reassure me that no fees or charges will be imposed on Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House who make inquiries about the progress of an immigration application, on behalf of a constituent, in the case of an MP, or of someone who has approached a Member of your Lordships' House, as happens from time to time?
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be able to respond to these questions, orally or in writing. She may take it that we support the general principles, although I share the noble Earl's concern about the wider aspects of the cap, which are doing great damage to British business at the moment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very closely and will try not to repeat what he said, but I, too, have a number of questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how our fees compared with those of a number of other countries. I would be particularly interested in those of EU countries, because that is the context in which we should look at ourselves.
Wider policy objectives are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 8.2 gives the example of attracting specific groups of migrants who are beneficial to the UK. Like both the previous noble Lords, I find it difficult to separate that from the wider issues of immigration policy. Perhaps the Minister could amplify on that, without taking us into a bigger debate, which we will no doubt have very soon.
Can the Minister tell the House how the monitoring of the impact of the fees, which the Explanatory Memorandum promises will be monitored closely, will be done? Will it be a matter of looking at trends? Important as the examples that we have heard are, those examples would probably not feature very much, if at all, in the statistics. However, sometimes anecdotes are useful.
Like the noble Lord, I am happy to support the approach that has been taken in the regulations.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, a number of points have been raised in the debate, which I will try to answer.
One of the first points was on the question of a sensitivity analysis of the elasticity of demand for visas and whether price affects take-up. Partly because the impact of the fee in relation to the benefits gained is relatively marginal, there is little or no convincing evidence that the increase will have such an effect. Indeed, we have had cases—this may be regarded as perverse—in which an increase in the fee actually led to an increase in demand. The reverse is also true, as a reduction in the fee has coincided with—I do not know whether it led to—a reduction in demand. We do not have convincing evidence of a direct elasticity relationship. However, it is clearly important that we monitor what goes on, and we intend to do that. It is fair to say that there is a continuous monitoring process. In the wake of price increases, it is right and sensible that we should be particularly careful about the monitoring of their effect, and we will certainly do that.
On the competitiveness of the UK visas system with other regimes, comparisons are fairly difficult because, as Members on the Benches opposite will know, no two national systems are exactly the same. However, I will try to give some comparisons. Two comparisons that are perhaps relevant include comparator countries in the European Union, which the noble Baroness will be interested in, and some of our Anglophone competitors. France and Germany operate simplified immigration systems. In Germany, applications include a Schengen visa—comparable to a UK short-term visa—for which the fee is €60, which this month is roughly £51. France offers a Schengen visa for the same fee or a long-term visa to remain for more than 90 days, for which the fee is €99 or roughly £85. The comparable figure in the UK is £70. Overall, therefore, we mostly reside in the middle range, although we are possibly nearer the upper end for the charges for some long-term visas. I am happy to give the noble Baroness more detail in a table if she would like. To give another example, Australia charges a total fee of £1,074 for a tier 2 visa, which is a longer term visa, whereas the equivalent figure for the UK is £1,750. Ireland is much more expensive. From looking at these figures, you would not immediately say, even with the increases, that the UK is out of line with comparator migrant countries.
On the question of fees inside and outside the country, this is where one enters the Hampton Court maze of the fees structure, as the permissions for raising fees inside and outside the country are different. However, I can say to the noble Lord that equalisation is not the objective. We are raising the fees in those contexts in which we are allowed to do so and where we are able to do so without regard to whether we are going over the limits of the cost. We do not intend, or indeed have as an objective, that the fee increases or the fee structure should contribute to, or be part of, immigration policy. The issues are separate. Therefore, if noble Lords have any thought that the fee increases might somehow be a covert immigration control, I can assure them that that is not the case.
I am quite certain that we will not be charging MPs or Members of your Lordships’ House for inquiries.
Finally, on the question of the migrant impacts fund, it is indeed the case that a contribution from the visa fee previously went to feed that fund, which has now been abolished. The money will now contribute to the cost of the visa and will mitigate increases that we would otherwise have had to make.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for—if I understand the mood of the House correctly—the price structure that is being put in place.
Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 10th Report from the Merits Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, in moving the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, I shall speak also to the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the AP1000 Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010, and the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010.
The House should consider these three instruments, which I laid before it on 18 October, together. Two of them contain the decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as justifying authority under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, that the generation of electricity from two nuclear reactor designs—Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Areva’s EPR—is justified. The third, the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order, specifies which technical matters, in addition to those already in the Energy Act 2008, are to be “designated technical matters”.
First, I will consider the two regulatory justification decisions. Regulatory justification is derived from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the ICRP, which are used around the world as the basis for radiological protection. The ICRP’s recommendations form the basis of the European basic safety standards directive and, in the UK, of the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.
The regulations provide that the Secretary of State, as justifying authority, must decide whether a new class or type of practice resulting in exposure to ionising radiation is justified, in advance of it being first adopted or approved, by its economic, social or other benefits in relation to the health detriment that it may cause.
Regulatory justification is an initial, high-level process. It is the first step in the radiological protection regime and is made on a generic, not a site-specific, basis. Following a regulatory justification decision, there are further processes involving more detailed examinations by regulators of reactor designs and of the impact on specific sites of proposals to build nuclear power stations separately and after the regulatory justification process.
A justification decision does not mean that the reactor design and the nuclear power station will pass through these further processes successfully. These further processes are based on the principle of optimisation, a requirement to keep all exposures as low as reasonably achievable, and dose limitation, the principle that the total dose to any individual from regulated sources in planned exposure situations—other than medical exposure of patients—should not exceed the appropriate recommended limits.
Regulatory justification decisions are made in advance of full information on the benefits and detriments of the practice which might emerge from operational experience. They therefore seek to identify the potential detriment from the reactor designs by making assumptions based on the best information currently available, including information arising from the operational experience of similar classes or types of practice and the expert opinion of regulators and others. If new and important evidence about the efficacy or consequences of the class or type of practice comes to light, the 2004 justification regulations allow the Secretary of State to reassess any regulatory justification decisions.
Last year, my department published a consultation on proposed decisions that two reactor designs should be justified—Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Areva’s EPR. After considering responses to that consultation, on 18 October my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced his decision that the two designs are justified. I will outline our reasons for making those decisions.
We see a clear need for the generation of electricity by the AP1000 and EPR through the contribution they can make to securing the UK’s energy supplies, helping the UK decarbonise and meet legal low-carbon obligations and benefiting the economy more widely. Against this, the radiological detriment to health from these nuclear reactor designs and their associated waste facilities will be low compared to naturally occurring levels of radiation and effectively controlled by the regulatory regime. The AP1000 and EPR will be able to produce large quantities of electricity over an extended period, making a significant contribution to the electricity supply. Nuclear power has long been our most significant source of low-carbon energy and can continue to contribute to our energy mix.
It will be for companies to fund and build any new nuclear power stations and to determine whether they provide sufficiently attractive returns. Nuclear power is economically competitive with other forms of generating technology, and developments in the UK market have made clear that energy companies are investing significantly in the prospect of new nuclear power stations.
We are confident that there will be economic benefits for the UK from new nuclear power stations. Beyond direct investment and employment, we can benefit through the development of a globally competitive nuclear supply chain and improvement in the quality of a skilled UK workforce. Further, we believe that, if nuclear power stations are not part of the UK’s future energy mix, the UK would face significantly higher costs in meeting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Against these benefits, there is the potential for detriment. However, the safety features of the designs and the regulatory regime, which sets limits to the release of radiation and monitors compliance, will ensure that emissions will be minimised. The radiation to which members of the public would be exposed, as a proportion of the overall radiation to which they are exposed from all sources—including medical procedures and background radiation—would therefore be very small and the risk of health detriment very low.
The decisions apply to the operation and decommissioning of new nuclear power stations and also the management and disposal of the radioactive waste they will produce. In making the decision, we are therefore satisfied that the regulatory regime will limit health detriment from waste management and disposal, that the interim storage of waste can be carried out in a way that causes a very low level of health detriment and that a robust process is in place to identify a site for, and build, a geological disposal facility.
We also concluded that the potential environmental detriments arising from new nuclear power stations are likely to be avoided or adequately mitigated by the licensing and planning regime. We considered the risk of detriments from an accident or terrorist incident. This potential detriment already exists and the risk of such incidents would be seen in the context of the regulatory regime, which is intended to prevent accidents and protect against terrorist attack. We are confident in the regulatory regimes for safety and security of civil nuclear installations and materials in the UK and consider that the likelihood of an accident or other incident giving rise to a release of radioactive material is small. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change therefore concluded that these significant potential benefits outweigh the potential detriments, and that the generation of electricity by the AP1000 and EPR should be justified.
I now consider the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order. The purpose of the draft order is to support the requirement under the Energy Act 2008 for nuclear operators to make financial provision in their funded decommissioning programmes for those designated technical matters. The Energy Act 2008 contains only one category of designated technical matters—decommissioning a nuclear power station and cleaning up the site. The Energy Act provides that the Secretary of State specifies by order the other matters which are to be designated technical matters. The order is, therefore, necessary to give operators clarity over what are the designated technical matters that they must provide for.
The order specifies that the construction and maintenance of an interim fuel store used for storage, any activity preparatory to the decommissioning of a relevant nuclear installation, and the cleaning up of the site are designated technical matters. This means that these costs also have to be funded through funds set aside as part of the funded decommissioning programme. It might be claimed that the operator could pay for these costs out of operational expenditure and that designation is unnecessary. However, this may put the costs in competition with other demands on revenue and if the operator was unable to meet these costs when they fell due, there would be a risk that they could fall to the taxpayer. It is therefore appropriate to designate these costs to limit the risk to the taxpayer by ensuring that funds are set aside to carry out the relevant work. The order will be complemented by the Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Finance and Fees) Regulations, which will be laid before Parliament once this order completes its passage.
Following a consultation on the provision of the draft order earlier this year and responses received, the Government do not propose to extend the definition of “designated technical matters” beyond interim stores and activities preparatory to decommissioning and cleaning up the site. I believe that the order will benefit both industry and the public. It clarifies the obligations of the nuclear industry and therefore reduces uncertainty and helps investment. The order, together with the Act, ensures that the costs of waste management, disposal and decommissioning do not fall on to the taxpayer.
I commend these regulations and the two other instruments to the House.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I start by declaring an interest as chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association. I do so for a number of reasons, not least because the NIA undertook the drafting of the justification report on which these statutory instruments are based. It was a lengthy process. Indeed, some of us thought that we would never see the end of it—first, in getting the reports right and, secondly, in terms of ministerial overview and the preparation of the SIs which we are debating today. It is fair to say that this is of critical importance to the realisation of the new nuclear build programme.
There are various elements. One could say that the building blocks, or the foundations, involve more than just the justification process in respect of the Areva and Westinghouse reactors. These reactors will also be subject to the rigorous generic design assessment programme being undertaken by the health and safety regulator and the Environment Agency. But these are of a different order, being almost exclusively technical in character and they do not concern us today. We have to satisfy ourselves and the country that the kit we are going to use is of a quality that can allay the fears of people in the UK. We have to recognise that there is not unanimity on the issue of nuclear power. There is certainly now, I think, what could be called a working majority and the consensus is probably a wee bit more robust than some of the elements within the coalition, but in order to reinforce and develop this consensus, we have to deal with the broad issue of the environmental concerns of the EU.
We have ceded to Brussels—probably correctly—a number of responsibilities in relation to environmental matters. I may be wrong, but I think that, apart from the reactor at one of London’s universities, the nearest one to London is in France, so it is only appropriate that we are subject to rather broad environmental legislation which covers the continent and not just this island.
In considering the process of preparing the report it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the work of Peter Haslam on behalf of the Nuclear Industry Association and its members. He had the responsibility of herding the cats into the bag and it was not always easy getting the various players around the table, but consensus was established, agreement was reached, the document was prepared and it is in no small way due to the efforts of Peter Haslam.
We have to be careful, not only about the issue of building a consensus of tolerance of and support for nuclear power, but about taking account of the fact that there are those who are quite happy—with other people’s money, usually—to seek access to the courts to have judicial review and things like that. It may well be that this will be the subject of a judicial review. I hope not and, indeed, I think that one way to ensure public confidence is that when those who are against nuclear power—they are perfectly entitled to be so— take the advice of their learned friends, they get the message that this document stands up to close scrutiny. The Minister and many of us across the House feel that to have got to this stage and to have these statutory instruments being discussed is evidence of our confidence in the robustness of the documents and, as time will go on, of the robustness of the case for nuclear power.
It is fair to say that issues relating to waste and decommissioning are worries. There is sometimes a wilful ignorance of the fact that other countries have accommodated waste, are treating it and dealing with it in a way which has, by and large, allayed public anxieties within those countries. We can look to Finland and Sweden. In Sweden, there has always been an anxiety about nuclear power, but there has not been the concern about storage, because Sweden has got on with the job. The funding of decommissioning and the treatment of waste and its storage are paramount and people have to be reassured that that part of it that has been created by private industry will be paid for by private industry. I make that distinction at this point because a lot of the waste that we have was created by nationalised industries and therefore is the responsibility of government. That part of the deal is not a subsidy but is the public purse meeting its historical responsibilities.
My second point is that not all of the waste is civil in character. It is waste that has come about as a result of the various forms of nuclear deterrent we have had. That again is a responsibility of the state. That is not a subsidy. It may well be that in putting together the three elements—the privatised waste, if I can call it that, the nationalised waste and the military waste—we create economies of scale that make the job that bit easier because the volumes will be such that critical mass will be created and we will be able to do it more cheaply, but that is not to suggest that we are talking about subsidies of one against the other.
It is important that these statutory instruments are dealt with today and that they get the support of the House. The industry can stand up to the challenge, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”. It does not want to be an unsafe industry. That is one argument, but the other argument, which is far more compelling, is that if these private companies do not get it right, it will perhaps cost people their lives, but it will certainly cost their shareholders a hell of a lot of money. Therefore, we realise the significance of the investments, the dangers of the materials that are being used and the problems that could be created if the reactors are not satisfactory. All these issues are being considered. Once we have this element out of the way, get the generic design assessment process completed and eventually get the planning applications going to the IPC in whatever form it finally emerges, we will be in a position to start building the nuclear power stations.
At the end of the day, even if we build no more nuclear power stations in this country, we will still have to decommission the existing facilities and handle the waste, so the three statutory instruments are relevant this evening. It is important that they are given the best support that the House can give them. I do not anticipate there being a vote as that is not our custom.
I have a commitment this evening so I have to leave the House and will not be here for the wind-ups. No discourtesy is intended. I was going to send the Minister a letter, but I thought that since there are not many people here I could just say it entre nous, as it were. It is important for the industry that we get this cleared out of the way. It is one of the important building blocks. It has been not tiresome, but time-consuming, and it is a necessity that no one would shirk from recognising has been central to the development of the nuclear industry and its regeneration in this country.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I add my voice in support of these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, and I were fortunate to attend a briefing this morning by one of the potential investors that would be building these nuclear power stations. One word came out of that. The noble Lord used it; it is “confidence”. He was talking about the billions of pounds that will be invested in the next generation of nuclear power stations. The investors will have to have confidence at every stage that this is going to go ahead and be successful.
We are discussing these regulations and the order. The whole process of justification has been very elaborate. I have here the justification report on one of the two designs of reactor. This has been a formidable step. The fact that the Secretary of State has now accepted that the justification process has been properly completed and that we now have these statutory instruments is one further step in the confidence of the industry.
This is not the last word: the industries have to continue to get further consents, not least the licensing of the designs through the generic design assessment process. We heard high praise this morning of the work of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in getting to this stage. There seems to be confidence that this will happen by the due date of July next year. That has to happen, but I say nothing about planning—we are not talking about planning tonight, and that is another stage to be got through.
The industry has been looking for a number of steps to generate confidence. The Secretary of State’s statement last month was a major step along the way. There was no question about that: it made an extremely favourable impression on the industry and its potential investors and the supply chain as well.
Last week I asked a Question about the future of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and I raised with the Minister who was representing the Department for Work and Pensions—he is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive, and the NII comes under the HSE—that we are still waiting for the decision about the reorganisation and, I hope, the setting up, through a legislative reform order, of a new statutory corporation to take over the functions of the NII. I do not know whether my noble friend can say anything more about that. It is something to which great importance is being attached by the industry, particularly because of the need for the NII to be able to recruit the people with the very scarce experience and skills against a background of a global nuclear renaissance. These people are much in demand and this process, which has been under discussion for some time, is seen by the industry as another important step which, if and when it is achieved, will continue to generate confidence. I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about that, although the actual process—I entirely accept this—is not for his department but for the Department for Work and Pensions. If he can say something that would help this process of confidence, to which I have referred, I would be extremely grateful.
Like the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, I too have an engagement. I hope I can stay until the end, but I offer my apologies to the House if I cannot.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I have never felt such pressure to make a short speech, so I will see if I can do it. I thank my noble friend for his usual panache in introducing the subject. One of the things that strikes me while reading through these statutory instruments is that we have, once again, a problem of opaqueness with respect to this industry and sector. They are among the few SIs I have read in which, even after reading the Explanatory Memorandums, it is quite difficult to really get to the depths of what they are trying to say. No doubt we can blame that on EURATOM regulations or whatever. In terms of designated technical matters, this sounds innocuous but is obviously crucial to these documents and the meaning of “justification” is rather different from what I have known before. In particular, we talk about approval, but neither of these reactors is approved at all. This is just the start of the process and there is much more to go on further. I was particularly interested that in the justification SIs we have two useful definitions—on intermediate-level waste and on spent fuel—but they are never referred to in the documents. That is slightly strange.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been a short but perfectly formed debate and I welcome the contributions from noble Lords. I note that the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan and Lord Jenkin of Roding, may not be able to stay until the end, but I have probably benefited more from hearing them than they would from hearing me. I note also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the technicality of the statutory instruments. In looking at the SIs today, I have been through more assessments, consultation documents and justification orders than I have for any other SI I ever spoke on in the other place. I am grateful to the Minister for the time he took in taking us through the process and the issues.
The three instruments before us today are linked. We have two justification decisions on nuclear reactors and a further instrument on nuclear decommissioning and the handling of waste. In all cases the Merits Committee drew special attention to these SIs because of their importance and because nuclear energy is a high-profile and sensitive issue, as was acknowledged by all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the Merits Committee for its work and I am sure that when he comes to reply the Minister will want to address the issues that it has raised.
The justification decisions are taken by the Secretary of State as the justifying authority; that is that the generation of electricity from the nuclear reactor designs, the AP1000 and the EPR involving ionising radiation, can be justified as the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriments. The third statutory instrument relates to the costs of the decommissioning of waste and the funded decommissioning programme, which must be approved by the Secretary of State, setting out the likely costs of decommissioning and cleaning up the site and how those costs will be met. These three instruments strike at the heart of the issue, addressing, first, the need for new energy capacity and the ability of nuclear to provide low-carbon energy while assessing the level of risk, and secondly, the need to have a strategy and a policy for funding to deal with the waste that is created.
I want to flag up to the Minister, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the need to move quickly on the new arrangements for the regulatory regime. I appreciate that this is not his responsibility—although he will have heard the Questions in the House on this last week—but rightly the remit of another government department. However, if there is to be public confidence in the system, the new arrangements have to be in place as the Government move forward with decisions such us those before us today. The Minister will know that the regulatory arrangements and expertise in this country are recognised and admired around the world, and we all want that to continue. Will he assure the House that his department has raised and will continue to raise this with the relevant Ministers in other departments?
We currently have 10 nuclear power stations in England, Scotland and Wales which provide 13 per cent of the total electricity used in the UK. All but one of these will be shut by 2025. If we are to maintain an energy mix using nuclear, then new stations will have to be built, as Secretary of State Chris Huhne announced on 18 October 2010 when he laid the instruments before us today. In his Statement he summed up the basis of his justification as,
“a clear need for the generation of electricity by these nuclear reactor designs ... because of the contribution they can make to increased security of energy supplies and reduced carbon emissions”.
He added:
“Against this the radiological detriment to health from these nuclear reactor designs and their associated waste facilities will be low compared to overall levels of radiation, and effectively controlled by the UK’s robust and effective regulators”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/10; col. 44WS.]
Both the justification decisions were subjected to considerable consultation and no changes were made as a result of the consultation that took place. There has been some concern that there was no inquiry or hearing relating to the justification process. Does the Minister consider that the process is in any way weakened by not having any hearings?
These justification decisions are time-critical, given that the Government are committed to nuclear new build by 2017. The delays are regrettable. It would have been helpful if we had been able to get to this stage before the general election, and we have had nearly six months since then. I raise this not to apportion blame in any way but to seek the Minister’s views as to whether he considers that the Government are still on schedule for the new nuclear power stations to come into operation by 2017.
A further issue that may cause delay is the HSE licensing programme, which we have heard about already this evening. In July 2009, it was reported that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate had written to two French companies that want to build reactors in the UK to express its concerns about the control and instrumentation—the C and I—of the European pressurised reactor, the EPR, which is one of the reactors that we are discussing today. I shall not pretend to have any great technical knowledge on these issues, but I know that C and I is also known as the cerebral cortex of a nuclear power station. It controls performance, including temperature, pressure and power outlet levels. The NII raised other related concerns; similar concerns have been raised by other regulators.
The HSE said that the EPR design in Britain could be rejected if its concerns could not be satisfactorily addressed. At the time, it was reported that, in addressing these issues, the design assessment stage could be delayed well past its expected completion date of 2011. As far as I am aware, none of the EPR reactors being built in other countries is yet in service, but the companies concerned engaged with the NII and were, and may still be, in discussion with it. The companies were confident that a solution could be reached. The NII rightly made it clear that it would not issue a licence unless it was satisfied that that design could be built and operated safely. Similar issues arise also with the AP1000.
The Health and Safety Executive has announced that it may have to delay a definite decision on whether to approve the designs of both the AP1000 and the EPR reactors. My understanding is that the HSE considers that all the technical issues can be resolved, but that there may be some delay. I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, say that at the EDF briefing this morning it was said that a slight delay is expected, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that.
Have the Government given any consideration to possible legal challenges to, or judicial review of, these justification orders? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also raised this matter. If it were the case, does the Minister consider that it could significantly delay the process? Both these issues have the potential to impact on the 2017 time scales, so any reassurance from the Minister would be appreciated. Perhaps I may also raise something that is not in the justification orders: the use of mixed oxide fuel or reprocessed fuel, known as Mox. Are there plans to bring this forward at a later date? No justification order for Mox could potentially limit the scope of the reactors. It may just be that the work is ongoing, but it would be helpful to know.
I also invite the Minister to say something on any potential health risks and the level of any such risk. A number of respondents to the consultation raised concerns on this issue. It is difficult for any Government to balance risk to health and well-being against other factors. This justification order means that the Secretary of State, having examined the issue, considers that the social, economic and other benefits of proceeding with these two reactors outweigh the health detriments. The Secretary of State is charged with making an assessment not just for citizens at this point in time but for many years ahead.
I know that the Secretary of State, the Minister and his colleagues are fully aware of the weight of this responsibility and I have read his considered view in the justification documents. The Secretary of State responded to the concerns raised by using evidence from a number of studies. I invite the Minister to say something further about the relative risk and the Secretary of State's assessment.
In its submission to the Merits Committee, Greenpeace raised a number of issues about which I hope the Minister can say something, but I draw one specific issue to his attention; namely, whether decisions on justification are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, given they are “practice as a whole” decisions and have a wide ranging impact.
On the third SI, on nuclear decommissioning and waste handling, the Minister will understand why I want to probe the amendments made to the impact assessment. I understood an impact assessment to be a statement of fact, so I was surprised to receive notice of a change. In the original impact assessment, at several points under what was then described as the “do nothing” option, which is now called the “correct base case”, it was stated that the cost of verifying the information provided by operators in the funded decommissioning programme, or FDP, “would fall on Government”.
The new impact assessment states that there shall be no subsidy to new nuclear power stations and that operators should pay all costs. The reason for the change is that government policy is not to provide any subsidy to new nuclear power stations. The new policy is that the Government would seek to agree with the operator to recover reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary of State when verifying the information contained in the FDP. But the impact assessment adds:
“Although we would not be able to compel the operator to agree such terms, it would be likely to be in their interests and so we view it as quite likely that the costs of verification would not fall to Government”.
Is the coalition Government's policy of no subsidy now reduced to “quite likely” and only with the agreement of the industry? What discussions have there been with the industry on this change? What is its view? How likely is “quite likely”?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. This is a great day for the nuclear industry, and I am delighted. Unfortunately, everyone who has spoken seems to have left, which says a lot for my winding-up speech. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for sitting there and listening to what I have to say. Perhaps she can report it accordingly. It is a great day for the nuclear industry, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, who is a terrific exponent as chairman of the NIA, for his kind words in saying that it is a great day. I think this clearly sends confidence to the industry that we are determined to get the nuclear show on the road. We have had 13 years without the nuclear show on the road. I am grateful to the previous Government for helping to change public opinion, but we have had no activity, and we now have activity. As always, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, makes good points in everything he says on this issue, because he is an expert. He is a pleasure to work with on this subject. He makes good points about waste, the economic benefit perhaps of economies of scale working with government and with civil waste, and I take those messages on board. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, again talks about confidence. The first two statutory instruments clearly demonstrate that there is confidence and that we are going down the road for it. Both he and the noble Baroness have asked questions on the subject of the NII. I take on board her comments, asking us to get on with sending a clear route map of what we need to do. The Government have been considering two options for the reform of nuclear regulation, as was said at Question Time last week—a discrete agency within the HSE or a stand-alone, statutory corporation. This is a discussion between two departments, and I assure the noble Baroness that we are pushing very hard for a conclusion on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a series of excellent points, as always. He talked about spent fuel and the levels of waste not being defined. They are defined in the regulations, in the companion instrument to this order, and I should be happy to have my staff take him through those pages, because I shall not be able to do it myself.
Lord Teverson
I hope the noble Lord does not mind if I decline that particular offer, certainly this evening.
Lord Marland
It is all very well the noble Lord asking questions, but he should know the answer to them.
One question is why we should designate interim stores. Operators must provide for interim stores during the life of a station and it is essential to ensure that the money is set aside. I was asked whether the funds were secure. Yes, there is protection in the funded decommissioning programme and in the Act itself. Funds must be remote from the operation of the Government. Neither party, including the Treasury, can get its hands on it. That was the concern.
The two reactors are hybrids and based on the foundation of reactors already in use. Obviously, they are not the same, because the people who make them are continually trying to improve on them and technology is moving forward on that. The noble Lord asked whether other reactors would require approval. Of course they would—as, indeed, would a Mox plant, as it does not fit within this legislation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, very much for her co-operation in this particular SI. She let me know in advance about some of the matters of concern affecting her Benches, and I am grateful for that level of co-operation. We are trying to build a consensus and get the ball rolling as quickly as we can, and it is very welcome that on all sides of the House we seem to have a common theme. I thank her very much for that.
The noble Baroness asked whether we have considered whether there should have been an inquiry. Over three years we have had the three consultation processes that her own Government instigated, which I think is pretty exhaustive in the current circumstances. She asked whether we were on track; we are, and we have published the timetable on the DECC website. If she has time available, we would be happy to show her how to get on to it. We can keep her posted through that means.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I reassure the Minister that I look at the website every single day.
Lord Marland
That is very gratifying, because I do not. Perhaps she would not mind telling me about the changes that are going on at the moment.
Lord Myners
I congratulate the Minister on his honesty, which brings him great respect from the House.
Lord Marland
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, whom I much enjoy bumping into on the street every now and then. I hope that his dog is fine, and all the rest of it. I admire his honesty for saying such honest things about me, so it is a mutual appreciation society here. On the last question, noble Lords say that they are concerned, rightly, that there may be a legal challenge. We obviously feel that our case is extremely robust, or we would not be here now trying to get these regulations through.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The question I was asking about judicial review or possible legal action was not on whether the case were robust. I have read all the documents and I am sure the Minister is convinced that his case and the work undertaken have been robust. The point was specifically whether legal actions would significantly delay the process beyond 2017. He may want to check on that. If there were legal actions, would that delay the process?
Lord Marland
Clearly they would delay the process. A legal challenge is what it says, and would delay the process, but there is no sign of it at the moment so we hope that it will not happen. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, not everyone agrees with nuclear as being the future and we know who some of those people are. Through a consultation process over three years, with three types of consultation at least, you try and get to a hard edge on it.
I turn to the human rights issue that the noble Baroness raises. We believe that all human rights issues are compatible with legislation. On her point about no subsidy, I will repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said—that no subsidy means,
“that there will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear operator, unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/10/10; col. 45WS.]
That clearly gives opportunity for a watering-down, because if similar support is made available more widely to other types of generation then obviously we will consider it from a nuclear standpoint. I hope that answers her concern in that area.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise for intervening again on the noble Lord; he has been generous in giving way yet again. He goes a long way to answering the point. The point I was asking was particularly on the waste disposal area and on the funded decommissioning programme, because no other process of energy generation allows for waste in that way. I was particularly referring to the order and the FDP. It seemed to me that it was tightening up the issues around any subsidy available and all costs would fall on the operator. Has this been discussed with the industry and what is its reaction?
Lord Marland
If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, the cost for provision for waste falls on the operator, who has to—as I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—provide funds at all stages of the decommissioning. That includes storage and the final decommissioning. They are fully aware of it. Clearly, we have not got to where we are now without consultation with all the operators. They understand the rules of engagement—I am not going to say they are happy with them, as I cannot immediately tell you that—and these rules are the way we are intending to proceed.
I hope the noble Baroness feels that I have answered the majority of her questions, if not all of them. As always, it is good to have a lot of questions as this is an important step change that we are making for the future of the nuclear industry.
Lord Teverson
I think my noble friend may be about to move off the questions. I did ask about these types of approvals in other European member states and how they had seen these reactors. I should have given the Minister notice of that question and I apologise that I did not. If he could write to me with any information on that I would much appreciate it.
Lord Marland
I felt that I had answered the noble Lord’s questions. These are obviously hybrids and there are similar types of reactors in Finland and France, which form the basis of these operations. If he feels that is not an adequate answer, however, I shall write to him later on the subject, if I may.
We face major changes in moving to a low-carbon economy. There is an urgent need for a diverse range of new energy infrastructure with a massive expansion in renewables, as well as more new nuclear, clean coal and gas. All of this will help us to reinforce our domestic security of supply. Regulatory justification is one of the facilitative actions necessary to enable new nuclear power stations to be built in the UK. It requires an assessment of whether the benefits of building these nuclear reactors in the UK outweigh the radiological health detriment that they may cause.
These instruments give effect to our decisions that the benefits, including the contribution which new nuclear power stations can make to ensuring secure, low-carbon energy supplies, outweigh the detriments. For that reason, they are very important measures. The provisions in the draft Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010 are an important part of the statutory framework for the financing of nuclear waste and decommissioning, and another of the facilitative actions necessary to enable new power stations to be built in the UK. I commend these regulations to the House.
Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the AP1000 Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 10th Report from the Merits Committee.
Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010
(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Marland
That the draft order laid before the House on 18 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 10th and 12th Reports from the Merits Committee.