House of Commons

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 4 February 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

1. What plans he has for reform of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What plans he has for reform of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Spending on council tax benefit doubled under the last Administration, and welfare reform is vital to tackle the budget deficit we inherited from the last Labour Government. Replacing council tax benefit with local support schemes gives councils control over how to achieve a 10% saving, and a direct incentive to help local people into work.

[Mr Watts]

At a time when the Government are giving massive tax cuts to the rich, will the Minister explain why council tax will increase for low-paid families, disabled people and single mums in St Helens?

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make the case clearly to his own local authority, which is looking at a scheme at the moment that would not necessarily do the most to help local people into work. The whole point of what we are doing is that it will give local councils the power to be part of their local economy, to drive economic growth and to get people back into work.

[Andy Sawford]

One council told the Communities and Local Government Select Committee that the reduction would create additional financial pressures through administration and debt collection, as well as having an effect on services such as debt advice, welfare support and housing advice, and a huge effect on homelessness. Given that that was Tory-controlled Croydon council, does the Minister accept that even his own friends recognise that this is an ill thought out cut that will hurt the poorest?

[Brandon Lewis]

Similarly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk to Corby council about coming up with a scheme that will help people back into work. Our scheme will give local authorities the power to look at what their communities need and to deliver for their communities. It will then be up to the communities to hold their councils to account, as I hope they will in Corby.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Manchester city council could more than make up the loss of council tax benefits from empty and second homes, but is instead planning to force thousands of people to pay extra council tax. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another example of Labour-run councils making the wrong choices and attacking the vulnerable?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Like the two Labour authorities that I have just mentioned, that is another that is not putting its local people first. It really needs to look at its schemes again and put local people first.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

In December, the Secretary of State tried to justify his plan to increase council tax bills for people on low incomes, including his own constituents. He assured the House that he had intervened to

“protect people and ensure that nobody has to pay more than 8.5%.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 559.]

Is it still the case that no one in Brentwood will have to pay more than 8.5%?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman gives me another chance to highlight that what we are doing is taking control of a situation in which council tax doubled under the last Government and council tax benefits rose from around £2 billion to £4.5 billion. That benefit has to be got under control as part of deficit reduction, and I wonder whether it would be part of the £52 billion of cuts from his own Government’s proposals that he has not yet even outlined.

[Hilary Benn]

Once again, we have no answer to a straight, factual question. The Minister is in denial. The answer is 20% in Brentwood. Why is that? It is because councils up and down the country, Tory and Labour, have been put in an impossible position by Ministers. Is it not the truth that

“the very lowest paid are going to be in a very difficult place”?

Those are not my words but those of the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association. While the Secretary of State has been travelling up and down the country lecturing councils about not increasing their council tax, he has all along been masterminding a council tax increase for those who can least afford it. Does he not understand that the public will see that happening in the very same month that the top rate of tax is cut, and that they will say, “This is unfair”?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman oversimplifies things. Local authorities have, as we have said, the right to look at their local communities and design schemes that they think are right for them, in contrast to the central diktat that the last Government used to impose. The authority that he has mentioned in Brentwood is a good example, because what he did not mention was the way it had changed the taper to ensure that it will pay to work.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to help small shops with business rates.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to help small shops with business rates.

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

The Government have taken significant steps to help small retailers, including doubling the level of small business rates relief for a further year until March 2014. This will benefit 500,000 small and medium-sized businesses.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful for that answer. Business rates for shops are a particular concern for small shops in my constituency. Has my hon. Friend’s Department carried out any analysis to ascertain how many local authorities are using the powers provided in the Localism Act 2011 to give discretionary rate relief to small businesses? If not, what can be done to encourage them to use them more extensively?

[Mr Prisk]

We are collecting that information right now, and we will present it to the House shortly. What I can say is that we have given new powers to councils to be able to provide further business rate discounts, and also the flexibility to be able to use them when and where they think is best. I would strongly encourage councils, whether they be in my hon. Friend’s constituency or elsewhere, to use those powers so they can better help their high streets.

[Mel Stride]

Small shops in Crediton, an important market town in my constituency, suffered greatly under the last Government’s planning guidelines, which pushed up car parking charges in the centre of town and pushed away trade. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that, under our planning guidelines, car parking charges will be pushed downwards, not up?

[Mr Prisk]

We have scrapped Labour’s red tape so that councils can be far more flexible about the way in which car parking charges and associated rules work. That will enable more people to be attracted into excellent towns such as Crediton in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Again, I urge councils to be more innovative in how they manage to make their charges for parking. I have seen a number of instances where simple changes can make a real difference to our local high streets.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Liz Peace, chief executive of the British Property Federation, said:

“The decision by Government to delay revaluation until 2017 is a real shot in the foot for the retail industry”.

Does the Minister agree?

[Mr Prisk]

No, I do not agree. As I have said to the British Property Federation on several occasions, we looked very carefully at the valuation office evidence that was presented to us. What it showed was that for every three businesses that might gain, eight could lose—including, potentially, a loss of £100 million to retailing in London. That is why we have taken what I think is the correct decision to defer that revaluation until 2017.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Undoubtedly, business rates can be a burden on many small shops, but has the Minister had any discussion with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions because, as a result of the freezing of the benefits uprating at 1%, £6 billion will be taken out of local economies the length and breadth of this country? That will hit small shops hardest, will it not?

[Mr Prisk]

Disposable income is very important—the hon. Gentleman is right—which is why I am proud that our Government are unlike the Labour party, which doubled council tax bills during its term in office. That hits the disposable pound, and it is a shame that the Labour party did not understand that while in government.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions in each fire and rescue service area.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions in each fire and rescue service area.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions in each fire and rescue service area.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Fire and rescue authorities have been protected by back-loading grant reductions into years 3 and 4 of the spending review period. That has provided time to meet the reductions without impacting on the quality of local services. There is scope for fire and rescue authorities to make sensible savings.

[Sarah Champion]

In South Yorkshire, we are losing 140 firefighters, and we are currently advertising for contract part-time reservists, not full-timers. Will the Minister assure us that these actions and the restrictions on growth will not affect response times, which could put lives at risk?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, local response times and decision making over local things like that are a matter for the local fire service. I am pleased to say, however, that the fire service has been protected; indeed, South Yorkshire will receive an extra £2.4 million in capital funding.

[Mr Cunningham]

Why are fire authority areas with higher incident rates suffering the largest cuts? The West Midlands fire service has been the hardest hit, with cuts of nearly 19%. Will the Government not have another look at that?

[Brandon Lewis]

The West Midlands fire service also benefits from the de minimis changes in this year’s settlement. It is also one of the authorities that has gained most from the capital grant funding of £11.5 million.

[Mrs Glindon]

Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service would have suffered a 16% reduction in grant funding over this coming year had it not been for the floor mechanism. Given the reliance on the floor, does the Minister believe that the formula accurately reflects the relevant needs and local risks? Will he review the formula now before it is locked in?

[Brandon Lewis]

I believe that a report from the House of Commons Library stated that this year’s formula and settlement were fair to north, south, east and west. However, to offer some extra support to fire and rescue authorities, I have asked the outgoing chief fire and rescue adviser, Sir Ken Knight, to look at ways in which they can deliver savings and improvements without reducing the quality of their lifesaving work.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the introduction by Kent fire and rescue service of a new system in Medway that helps to reduce damage caused by fire?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am happy to congratulate Kent fire and rescue service on its work. When I visited its headquarters recently, I observed some of the innovative work that it is doing in both protecting the front line and making savings by, for instance, sharing its call centre with the police. I hope that fire services across the country will learn from that innovative way of working.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The average spending power reductions are 14.5% for metropolitan fire authorities and 7.5% for combined fire authorities. That has resulted in fewer appliances, fire station closures, reductions in fire-prevention work, and an increased response time in certain areas. However, the fire Minister wrote to me last month that

“savings should be made without… affecting…frontline services.”

As Winston Churchill once said, “The truth is incontrovertible.” Will the Minister now accept the incontrovertible truth that his cuts are adversely affecting front-line fire and rescue services?

[Brandon Lewis]

In the interests of absolute truth, let me reconfirm that the reduction in spending power for fire and rescue authorities was 2.2% for 2011-12 and 0.5% for 2012-13. As was said earlier, that moves to 4.7% in 2013-14, with the back-loading, and to just 3.3% in 2014-15. Those figures are slightly different from the ones given by the hon. Gentleman.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the availability of accommodation for those who downsize as a result of the new under-occupancy rules for social housing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

I am sure that the 278,000 families in overcrowded social housing will welcome the increased availability of larger homes, given that some 390,000 families under-occupy their properties by two bedrooms or more.

[Kerry McCarthy]

According to the Department’s own impact assessment, more than 660,000 housing benefit claimants will be affected by these changes. It is ridiculous to assume that they will be able to find the money out of their own pockets, given all the other cuts that are being introduced. They will be forced to lose their homes. What assessment has the Minister made of the availability of smaller accommodation? Will those people not just be pushed into expensive private sector accommodation, meaning that the housing benefit bill will go up?

[Mr Foster]

I have already pointed out that a large number of properties are currently under-occupied. The position will be helped enormously by a policy that is identical to the one adopted by the Labour Government in respect of the payment of housing benefit in the private rented sector. We are taking the advice of the Labour party, which said a year ago that housing benefit was “simply too high” and that we needed “tough-minded” reform.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

In the light of the expected mid-term review statement on housing, will my right hon. Friend consider the capacity of councils to borrow—for example, to facilitate the building of one and two-bedroom properties where they are so much needed by councils and arm’s length management organisations?

[Mr Foster]

As my hon. Friend will know, as a result of changes made by this Government to deal with the borrowing pressures placed on local authorities, they have been more able to borrow. The review that we are currently undertaking will include the issues that she has raised.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

According to the Government’s impact assessment, most of the under-occupied properties are in the north of England and most of the overcrowded properties are in the south. Can the Minister confirm that part of his strategy is to move Londoners in overcrowded housing to the north?

[Mr Foster]

No, it certainly is not. Having recognised that in some parts of the country there will be problems with the introduction of this policy, the Government have provided councils with large sums of money to help them with their transitional arrangements and ensure that everyone can have a decent home over their heads—unlike the last Government, who reduced the amount of social housing by a staggering 421,000 properties.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Last week, the Tory deputy leader of Cheshire West and Chester council wrote to Ministers outlining the consequences of this policy. Can the Minister now tell him and us: where are the homes for families deemed to be over-occupying because they have a special room for a disabled child? Where are the homes for foster carers who are deemed to be over-occupying because they keep a spare room for emergency placements? Where are the homes for families who have a son or daughter in the armed forces who are deemed to be over-occupying because they keep a spare room for when those people are on leave? The Minister knows that the homes are not there, so why does he not abandon this vindictive policy?

[Mr Foster]

The Government are well aware of these issues, which is why we made an additional £25 million available to help in relation to the disabled people the hon. Lady talks about, and it is why we have made an additional £5 million available in relation to carers. While armed forces personnel are living at home, the home would have a £70 per week discount, whereas while the person is serving, the discount would be only 14%—a very much lower sum.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with Derby city council on its refuse collection policies.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I have had no discussions with Derby city council, but I am disappointed to hear of plans by the Labour council to charge residents for collecting their garden waste.

[Pauline Latham]

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of Labour-run Derby city council’s proposed £40 brown bin tax?

[Mr Pickles]

There is a very good case for comparing that bin tax with what the neighbouring Amber Valley borough council is doing. That Conservative authority is about to introduce a new recycling service, which will be more convenient for households and will reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfill, and includes a free garden waste collection service. That is good practice and I encourage other councils to follow suit.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

7. Whether his Department plans to review change-of-use planning regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

We have recently announced a significant package of improvements to support economic growth and the free school movement. We will continue to keep the use classes system under review.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister for that answer, although I was more after details on the regulations for changing a pub into a supermarket, a process for which there is absolutely no need for change-of-use planning permission. Does he have any plans to introduce planning permission for that, so that local people have a say in a change of use that significantly alters the communities in which they live?

[Nick Boles]

All local authorities have the possibility of resorting to an article 4 direction to restrict the application of a change-of-use permitted development right in their area, and they can do so if they are concerned about the loss of pubs in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend ensure that very clear planning guidelines are introduced for five-year housing supply, housing numbers and, above all, deliverability, because on the ground at the moment the methodology is arbitrarily decided on appeal? It is very unsatisfactory when local people and local authorities cannot make decisions that benefit their areas.

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend rightly says that it is important that local authorities take an objective approach to the assessment of their housing needs and of the five-year supply. Lord Taylor of Goss Moor is conducting a review of the complete set of planning guidance, and high on his list of priorities is producing new guidance on exactly that question, certainly before the end of July.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Local authorities that refuse permission for yet another betting shop in their high street find that at the moment the refusal is often overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. Is the Minister examining the possibility of a separate use class for betting shops?

[Nick Boles]

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the whole situation for betting shops, but we have no specific plans to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests at this time.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Minister is right to say that local authorities can, and indeed should, introduce local planning policies to deal with the kind of problems that we have heard about. Will he therefore join my condemnation and that of the all-party save the pub group of the extraordinary decision taken by the British Beer and Pub Association to seek to overturn Cambridge city council’s elected policy for pubs, given that that is what the council wants to do and the people want it as well?

[Nick Boles]

If the policy of the city of Cambridge is properly arrived at as an expression of local feeling, I am sure that it will be able to defend it from any challenge from whatever quarter.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

The local government settlement that we have confirmed today provides councils with an average of £2,216 per household, which will enable them to freeze council tax and deliver essential front-line services to their residents. The figure for Blackpool is £2,458, well above the national average.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. What role does deprivation play in reaching a local government finance settlement with individual councils, such as Blackpool, where deprivation is very high? Will the Secretary of State reassure me that those councils are not disproportionately penalised in reaching that settlement?

[Mr Pickles]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. The figures show that the scheme that gives the weighting for deprivation is essentially unchanged from Labour’s scheme, apart from one significant change. We have introduced banded floors—damping floors—that mean that those who are more dependent on grant receive more protection than those who are more prosperous. It is fair to say that the settlement is more progressive and gives greater weight to deprivation than Labour’s scheme.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State first announced the settlement for next year he referred to a cut in spending power of 1.7%. Will he confirm that that should have been 2.6%, as he double-counted the council tax support money? Will he also confirm that the cash handed over to local authorities in the start-up funding assessment next year will be 8.4% less than this year’s formula grant, which it replaces? Will the Secretary of State stop pretending that cuts of that magnitude can be managed without hitting front-line services?

[Mr Pickles]

I am delighted to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the reduction in spending power is not 1.7% but 1.3%. That represents good news. Figures tend to move about—[Laughter.] That is why we have a provisional settlement. I do not know why Opposition Members are laughing; I respectfully remind them that in several settlements things changed dramatically and that one year Labour was forced to go out to consultation again.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the £1.3 million new homes bonus paid to Worcestershire is being funded by a £3.5 million reduction in its baseline funding and that Wychavon district council’s new homes bonus of £1.2 million over the past three years has been matched by a £2.2 million reduction in its baseline funding? Does he understand the inexorable logic of the position that including the new homes bonus in spending power perverts the purpose of the new homes bonus, which is to incentivise communities to accept new development?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend must accept that we took more into consideration than the grant going in and that we have moved on to spending power, which is what the Local Government Association and the Labour Opposition wanted to see. The local government spend is £114 billion. That is twice the size of the defence budget and more than we spend on the national health service. Even his own authority must play a part in reducing public spending to deal with the deficit we were left by the Opposition. The new homes bonus gives the authority an opportunity to make money.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

I understand what the Secretary of State just said, but the obligation is not fairly spread across all local authorities in England. Will he reconsider central Government grant aid to local authorities and the relationship between that and the obligation to provide statutory social services, as the demand for such provision is steadily rising in inner-city areas while the grant is steadily being reduced?

[Mr Pickles]

That is of course why we have given additional sums to help those areas that are more reliant. That is why a place such as Newcastle will receive something like £600 per household more than somewhere like Wokingham. That is a sensible thing to do, and the right hon. Gentleman should support that, rather than decry it.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the effect of the local government finance settlement on local authorities in rural areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

We have confirmed the increase in the sparsity weighting and top-ups that we proposed at consultation. Further, we are providing an £8.5 million grant to support the delivery to sparsely populated areas of efficiencies in services.

[Mr Whittingdale]

May I welcome my hon. Friend’s recognition of the fact that the provision of services in rural communities such as Maldon district where populations are sparsely distributed often costs more, but does he accept the disappointment that the local government finance settlement appears to do little to reduce the rural penalty? In fact, it entrenches it for forthcoming years.

[Brandon Lewis]

We recognise the concerns of rural areas such as Maldon and similar areas where the costs that sparsity can bring are clear. The £8.5 million that we have announced in the statement today will go to 95 local authorities, all of which are rural. However, I would point out that in meetings that my officials and I have had with people from rural networks we have confirmed that the gap is narrowing thanks to changes that we made in the settlement. It is becoming smaller than it ever was under the previous Government, who put the finances in a situation that was detrimental to rural areas across the country.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Those newly announced funds are certainly welcome. Is the Minister aware that in his Department’s own analysis shire districts such as Watford borough council count as rural while unitaries, including Wiltshire council, are lumped in the urban category? Given that, how can he be sure of the boast that the proposed settlement is fair to urban and rural alike?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am quite happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to go through the situation. We have confirmed with rural networks that across all types of authorities the gap between rural and urban has narrowed as a result of the statement.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to help local authorities tackle illegal encampments.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Councils and the police have a range of strong powers to take action against illegal encampments and unauthorised development. We recently reminded councils of the extensive powers at their disposal to deal with the problems swiftly.

[Gavin Barwell]

Over the summer, a group of Travellers moved back and forth between several sites in Croydon, costing council tax payers and private landowners thousands of pounds. What else can the Government do to help councils tackle that antisocial behaviour, and in particular, will the Minister look at allowing councils to use their byelaws against encampments on private as well as public land?

[Mr Pickles]

Significant powers already exist, and the police have powers to deal with people who are causing a public nuisance by consistently making illegal encampments. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which gives the police considerable powers to deal with that. In addition, we are consulting on the introduction of a temporary stop notice with immediate effect, which will put considerable powers in the hands of the local council.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to increase the number of housing starts; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to increase the number of housing starts; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

Over the past 15 years or more, this country has been building half the number of homes that we need. This Government are determined to reverse that trend, by reforming the planning system, expanding the private rented sector and by building 170,000 more affordable homes.

[Simon Danczuk]

There are thousands on the housing waiting list in Rochdale, and homelessness is rising. Like Rochdale residents, does the Minister not regret his Government’s decision to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%?

[Mr Prisk]

In fact, the £19.5 million is an important investment, not least to try to reverse the fall in social housing under the previous Government of some 421,000 homes. We want to build those 170,000 homes, but there is a long way to go before we can clear up the mess that we have inherited.

[Mr Raynsford]

May I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register?

Over the past few weeks, the Minister has answered some very interesting questions, and has provided data about the new homes bonus. He will have looked at the figures as closely as I have, and will therefore know that it is not only very expensive but a complete failure. Does he accept that the 17 local authorities that are receiving the largest amount of new homes bonus are granting substantially fewer planning permissions than they were—37% below the levels of 2005-06, and 6% below the abysmal levels of last year?

[Mr Prisk]

Some of the questions were from the right hon. Gentleman, though whether they were interesting or not is another matter. I would say to him, if I may, that he needs to understand that the principle of the new homes bonus is very simple: “The more you build, the more you get.” That is why we see that Manchester, Sheffield and Bradford have shown the way. They are willing to do that, which is why we recognise that there will be at least 400,000 additional homes as a direct result of the bonus.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that more authorities should take the approach of authorities such as Rugby borough council, which has allocated land in its local plan, with two sites coming forward, to enable the development of 7,500 new homes?

[Mr Prisk]

I very much welcome that. It is important that some authorities are being proactive in the way in which they handle their planning system and engage with the new homes bonus. We have a shared ambition to overturn something that has happened for the past 15 or 20 years. I wish sometimes that Labour would be a little more positive about it.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In the context of housing starts, does the Minister agree that planners and developers of grotesque schemes such as the proposed 1,600-homes estate in my constituency to be accessed by a 1 mile cul-de-sac should be forced to live there for a minimum of five years as a condition of any planning consent?

[Mr Prisk]

The safest answer for me to give is that that is a novel idea. I will reflect on it in due course.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State told the BBC that on house building “signs are encouraging,” boasting of building 132,000 homes. “Encouraging”? Far from encouraging, housing completions have fallen in both financial years since Labour left office, and housing starts have fallen to 98,000. Does the Housing Minister recognise those figures? He should, because they come from his own Department. Will he take this opportunity of correcting the misleading impression given by the Secretary of State? Does he accept that no amount of massaging statistics can conceal the fact that this is a Government who are presiding over the biggest housing crisis in a generation?

[Mr Prisk]

Gosh! What a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of facts. The reality is that the net addition to the housing stock is up 11% on the last four figures that we have, at 135,000. That is the highest level in four years. Is there more to do? Absolutely. Do we want to make sure that we reverse the trend on affordable homes? Yes, but carping from the Opposition Benches will not help that process or the people whom the Opposition claim to represent.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to promote the right to buy.

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

Last year we reformed the right to buy both to increase the discounts for tenants and to ensure that the receipts from sales are recycled into building more affordable homes. We are now actively informing and helping thousands of tenants to turn their ambition into reality.

[David T. C. Davies]

I commend the Minister on the work that he is doing. Will he explain these benefits to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, who seem wedded to some sort of out-dated socialist-collectivist dogma which is denying the people of Wales the right to buy homes, which they could enjoy in England?

[Mr Prisk]

Unlike the Opposition, we believe that credit-worthy council tenants should be able to buy their home. That is why this spring in England we will have directly contacted 95% of the eligible families. These people have rights. We will make sure that they can put them into practice.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I notice in the Minister’s answer the absence of like-for-like, one-for-one replacements. Can he clarify that and give the House information—or put it in the Library—about the number of right-to-buy properties that have been sold and the number that have been built as replacement units?

[Mr Prisk]

I am happy to clarify the situation. In the last six months for which we have records, £86 million has been recycled from those sales back into affordable homes. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that fact.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to support local authorities in helping troubled families.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

We are providing local authorities with £448 million over three years, including funding for troubled families co-ordinators in all 152 upper- tier councils. My troubled families team works closely to support councils and has recently published reports on effective family intervention and the significant cost savings that this work can bring. This would not have been possible without the active encouragement of Members in all parts of the House.

[Mike Freer]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my local council has been doing excellent work and that Barnet council has identified one troubled family who are benefiting by £400,000 a year from the public sector? What additional help can the Department give to good councils such as Barnet in tackling this problem?

[Mr Pickles]

When my hon. Friend was leader of Barnet council he was a very early adopter of this intervention model. As he rightly points out, it is not as though that money is spent terribly wisely; the majority is simply spent on reacting to the troubled family rather than positively getting them on side. Thanks to the work of my hon. Friend and of hon. Members all around the Chamber, we can jointly say that we have made significant progress on troubled families.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, though, that those of us on both sides of the House who want this policy to come to fruition and to work well are finding it very difficult at the grass roots, especially in an area that I know well, education, with people in schools saying that it is still very difficult to get a link between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Work programme and the police—across the agencies and Ministries? Will he talk to colleagues in other Departments to try to help to make this a real success?

[Mr Pickles]

Absolutely. There is an intense understanding of the need for co-operation across Government. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular local authority in mind and would write to me or speak to me after questions, I will personally intervene.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

18. What his policy is on redundancy payments to senior local government officers; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Excessive payouts to senior local authority staff have been too frequent. Thanks to the Localism Act 2011, local taxpayers can now see and challenge how their money is being spent on pay and reward, including redundancies. We are also scrapping regulations that saw councils pay out inflated severance packages to chief executives in order to avoid a lengthy and costly review process.

[Mr Spellar]

When the chief executive of Tory Kent county council left after 16 months with a £420,000 pay- off, the then local government Minister, now Tory party chairman, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), described this as “disturbing” and said:

“I find dipping into the public purse to make such an eye-watering pay-off unacceptable”.

Yet shortly thereafter the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, hired this individual as director general of civil service reform. Does he think that this sets a good example?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman has outlined exactly why the changes we are making are so needed.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

19. What assessment he has made of the local government finance settlement 2013-14 and its effect on fire services in Devon and Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Grant reductions to the fire and rescue authorities are back-loaded in the spending review period, allowing them to make sensible savings without impacting on the quality of local services. Rightly, operational activities are decided by each authority, subject to local consultation.

[Alison Seabeck]

I declare an indirect interest in the interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). On 6 December, during a visit to Taunton, the Minister seemed impressed by Devon and Somerset fire service’s plan to make significant —I repeat, significant—savings through efficiencies and lower fuel costs by purchasing light rescue pumps, yet when push came to shove, the fire service, ravaged by cuts and trying to find innovative ways to reduce costs, was told, “Sorry, no, you can’t have those pumps.” Why did he change his mind in the space of a few weeks?

[Brandon Lewis]

As the hon. Lady outlined, I had a very good visit to Somerset and saw some of the plans that people have for how they want to take things forward to save money, which is exactly what many fire authorities across the country should be looking at. It is also why Devon and Somerset will be receiving £2.7 million of capital money in 2013-15.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to encourage sensible savings by local authorities.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I published a document called “50 Ways to Save” with, as the title suggests, no fewer than 50 great ideas for sensible savings that councils can adopt. Our fair funding deal and council tax freeze will give all councils time to put these ideas into practice.

[Graham Evans]

I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting God’s own county of Cheshire over the weekend. Will he share with the House what guidance his Department is giving to local authorities such as Cheshire West and Chester and Halton to help to identify wasteful spending?

[Mr Pickles]

It was indeed a pleasure to visit Cheshire over the weekend and see so many active Conservatives. We have set an example. My own Department’s procurement spend has come down by 54% and that of the Government’s procurement card has decreased by 87%, while spending on technology has dropped by 69%. We recognise that it is not our money, but the public’s money. Unlike the Labour spendthrifts, we have been prepared to deal with it face on.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

The cross-party Local Government Association estimates that, over a five-year period, it costs local authorities more than £200 million to publish statutory notices in local papers as the Government force them to do, instead of online, which would be more convenient for local people to access. Why will the Secretary of State not allow local authorities to make that sensible saving?

[Mr Pickles]

This is something that we are actively considering, but we need to bear in mind the importance to the local economy of local newspapers. We have made clear to local editors that the days of those statutory notices appearing in newspapers are numbered.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

A written statement has been laid detailing the final local government financial settlement. Despite the need to tackle Labour’s deficit, last year councils were still spending £114 billion. The overall reduction in spending power this April, taking into account the new health funding grant, is just 1.3%. Our decentralising reforms mean that an estimated 70% of council income will now be raised locally. Councils are now in the driving seat to help firms and support local jobs.

[Gordon Henderson]

My right hon. Friend has often said that planning laws should treat all applicants in the same way. That being the case, will he undertake to write to the planning department at Swale borough council to make clear its responsibilities to determine applications from both the settled and the Traveller communities in the same way, and to refer the planning officers to the document in which that policy is set out?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is responsible for planning, will have heard what has just been said. We have been clear that we want to ensure that the Traveller community gets a fair deal. Indeed, we have been doing all kinds of things relating to commercial dealings, education and health, and it is massively important that the community is treated with exactly the same level of respect as the rest of the population.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell the House how many additional affordable homes he expects communities to approve for a share of community infrastructure levy receipts? How many affordable homes are likely to be lost as a result of the changes that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will make to section 106 agreements? Will the Minister produce figures to show the net impact of these totally contradictory policies?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

The hon. Lady asked three questions, so I will not necessarily answer all of them in full. First, she will be well aware that the measures in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill tackle those affordable housing developments that will never happen in current market conditions. We believe that some homes are better than an unrealistic target of homes that will never come through. Secondly, she will also be aware that, as well as the Bill’s measures, we announced an additional £300 million to support further affordable housing. There is no question but that the combination of those measures will produce a net increase, both in market homes and affordable homes.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

T2. Last week Warwickshire county council unveiled Operation Footfall, an initiative that will give local business groups the opportunity to bid for up to £30,000 to develop ideas to encourage people to shop in our town centres. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the county council, and will he detail what support the Government are giving to improve our town centres?

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Warwickshire county council in that context. We have a settled programme looking at making sure that we strengthen the way in which the planning system works and ensuring that the business rates are reduced for the smallest of firms. However, I think that the key issue, rather than the individual programmes, is the question of how we ensure that high streets today adapt to the new world of online shopping. Consumer habits have changed. We are standing ready to work with our high streets to make sure that they can adapt in that new environment.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T4. On Saturday, I met the Newcastle youth council to discuss its report, which I shall pass to the Secretary of State, on the impacts of his £100 million of cuts to the council budget. Its members explained that many children cannot understand the magnitude of the cuts and have offered to give up sweets or donate their pocket money to save local libraries, swimming pools and youth services. Does the Secretary of State understand the magnitude of his cuts and their impact on young people in Newcastle? If so, what is he going to do about it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but perhaps she is not aware that the spending power reduction in Newcastle is lower than the national average and that there will be £2,516 per dwelling. I am sure that she will also welcome the additional £2 million of new homes bonus that has gone to her local authority.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T3. I expect that my right hon. Friend will agree that local authorities need to balance their budgets by making efficiency savings, rather than by imposing council tax rises on hard-pressed taxpayers. Does he also concur that billing residents in Lincoln for flights to China, external consultancy fees for possible Traveller sites and self-aggrandising pseudo-green energy summits will not inspire much sympathy if families in Lincoln see an increase in their rates?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. In these difficult times, when councils are expected to play their part in reducing Labour’s deficit, it is difficult to look electors in the eye and explain why councillors have been using this money for self-aggrandisement. I hope that the councils to which he referred will take heed.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T5. Some 8,000 families are on Luton borough council’s housing waiting and transfer lists, yet the Conservatives’ policies will force thousands of low-income Londoners to seek homes elsewhere, with Luton a primary target. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy is not only unjust, but a recipe for social chaos?

[Mr Prisk]

I do not accept that. We have made it clear to councils that out-of-borough changes are not desirable. It is not right, as happened in the ’70s, for large groups of people to be dumped a long way from their homes. That is why we changed the law last year so that councils have to take into account the suitability for each individual. Dumping is something that we will challenge. The law is clear and the hon. Gentleman has my support on the matter.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

T6. Given that the number of empty homes fell by more than 21,000 in 2011, which is the biggest drop since 2004, does my right hon. Friend agree that local solutions, supported by central Government, provide the best means of tackling the long-standing problem of empty homes?

[Mr Foster]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the success that our empty homes policy has already had. She is right that local decisions are the best way forward. That is why we have given local councils the ability to increase the council tax on empty properties, introduced the new homes bonus and increased the flexibility in a range of other areas to get even more empty properties back into use. Local decisions are undoubtedly the best way forward.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T8. During the inquiry of the Communities and Local Government Committee into welfare reform, a housing provider in one of the universal credit pilot schemes reported that it would lose one proposed new-build property a week from its development programme because of welfare reform. Has the Minister assessed the impact of welfare reform on the ability of social housing providers to build new homes, and can he tell us how many proposed new homes will now not be built?

[Mr Foster]

The hon. Lady is in a rather difficult position, given that she supported a Government who caused us to lose 421,000 social homes and who saw the benefits bill, the housing benefit bill and the council tax bill double. Labour Members now say that we need to take tough decisions. That is what we are having to do to sort out the mess created by the Labour Government.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T7. Recent figures reveal that councils have increased their reserves by £4.5 billion over the past five years and that those reserves now stand at almost £13 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that councils that have reserves should not be hoarding cash while complaining about the changes to Government grant, but should be using that cash to protect front-line services, keep council tax down and support the hard-pressed council tax payer?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, although the situation has moved on since he got that figure. It is now £16 billion, which represents the largest ever council reserves, not including schools, so it is difficult to say that local authorities are hard-pressed. We need them to use their balances sensibly while taking measures to get costs out of their base.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

T9. Two elderly constituents who live in a retirement complex recently received a bill for £200 from their managing agent completely out of the blue. Managing agents of leasehold housing are completely unregulated, so those elderly constituents have nowhere to turn either to appeal or to demand a review. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that managing agents of leasehold housing are brought under the regulation of the Financial Services Authority?

[Mr Foster]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important issue. Many Members of all parties are concerned about managing and letting agents. As she will know, a detailed investigation is being carried out, and as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government are listening. After we have seen that report, we will bring forward recommendations.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The iconic Silverstone circuit is adjacent to the village of Silverstone in my constituency. Silverstone has grown by several hundred houses over the past few years. A further application for more than 200 houses is being strongly fought by local people, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called it in for review. I appreciate that he cannot comment on individual cases, but will he take into account the real conflict between the development of that nationally important circuit and having yet more housing on its doorstep containing people who do not like the noise it generates?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend is quite right that I cannot comment on planning, but she has made her point most forcefully.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Government’s own research suggests that more than 42% of people affected by the bedroom tax will not be able to make up the financial difference and will instead go into arrears. I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this question last Monday and did not get an answer. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can answer instead. Given the Government’s own research, how many people does his Department expect will now lose their homes?

[Mr Pickles]

One would think that the Labour party had not been committed to doing precisely this when it was in government, and that it was not prepared to make such sensible decisions. A few moments ago the Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), clearly demonstrated the number of houses that have more than two bedrooms empty and rightly pointed out that exactly the same arrangements existed for the private sector under the Labour Government. We are introducing uniformity between the private and public sectors.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On the important issue of social cohesion, does the Secretary of State agree that there is no room in any community in the United Kingdom for sharia law-controlled zones?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course sharia law should not have control, but it is important for us to recognise the significant number of Muslim organisations that have rightly condemned the patrols in question. We need neighbours to feel that they can walk the British streets safely no matter what their background or sexual orientation.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Last year, the then Housing Minister proposed outlawing council tenants from sub-letting, with up to two years in prison or a £50,000 fine. Now the Government are advising people to sub-let to cover the bedroom tax. Do the Government actually know what they are doing?

[Mr Prisk]

I am sorry that the Labour party does not understand this issue. As the Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), rightly pointed out, a substantial number of households have two or more spare bedrooms. Is it right that the 250,000 people who are living in overcrowded accommodation should simply allow that to persist? Why did the Labour party not do anything about that in 13 years? That was an abject failure on its part.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

There is concern that the local government finance settlement penalises councils such as Bristol by using old data for the allocation of local authorities into damping bands. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that further?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

The short answer is yes, I am happy to.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

At the moment, people from some eastern European countries are entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit, but not to income-related jobseeker’s allowance. Following the localisation of council tax benefit, will those people be entitled to that benefit or will it be a matter of discretion for each local authority?

[Mr Pickles]

It is entirely localised; it is a matter for local councils to determine.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent Ofcom report that criticises the London borough of Tower Hamlets for what is described as political advertising? Under those circumstances, will he revisit the strength and effectiveness of the local authority publicity code?

[Mr Pickles]

I was shocked to read that report and I am very unhappy with what is going on in the borough. I will look as a matter of urgency at putting the publicity code on to a statutory basis.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

According to a recent survey, more than 500 families in social housing in my constituency would like to move to a smaller home when the bedroom tax is introduced. Given that those properties simply do not exist, does the Minister have any advice for my constituents, or will they simply have to join the 3,500 local families who face paying £12 or £22 extra in rent?

[Mr Foster]

The Government have already put in place a number of measures to help people such as those the right hon. Gentleman describes. HomeSwap Direct is now available, and there is additional funding in local authority budgets to assist those who wish to move into the privately rented sector, with still more money for areas where rents are increasing.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to me and the communities of south Worcestershire why the Planning Inspectorate measures the existence of a five-year supply of land for housing not on the basis of planning permissions granted, but on completions achieved?

[Nick Boles]

Planning permissions that have been granted and are still viable will count towards any local authority’s five-year housing supply. They are withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances when it is clear that they can never be fulfilled.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last month at the Come Together conference in Liverpool, political and faith leaders from across the country called on the Government to think again about the unfair distribution of local government cuts. Places such as Liverpool will lose £252 per head while the Prime Minister’s local authority of West Oxfordshire will lose just £34 per head. Will the Secretary of State listen to the message of the Come Together conference and look again at how the cuts can be redistributed fairly?

[Mr Pickles]

Liverpool has received a very generous settlement—far more generous than the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Lady must understand that the level of grant allocated to Liverpool far exceeds the money that is being taken away. She will recognise that under this system, with the city deal and the extra help and considerations, Liverpool has a far better deal than it would have had under Labour.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State share the dismay of the residents of Otley, where the Labour-controlled town council has introduced a record-breaking 14.5% increase in the precept to pay for swanky new town council offices?

[Mr Pickles]

The good people of Otley live very close to Harrogate but no one would describe them as moneyed folk. I suspect that they are feeling pretty angry about that increase, and that they will punish at the ballot box those councillors who put self-aggrandisement above the needs of the population.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Newport council, and Leicester council on which our friend the late David Taylor served, were selling council houses in a fair, sustainable way for more than a decade before the dawn of Thatcherism? Does he acknowledge his debt to those pioneering Labour authorities?

[Mr Pickles]

That interesting view no doubt has some weight in a parallel universe. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will support the Government’s push to increase the sale of council houses to their tenants. I look forward, for the first time ever, to hands across the Chamber.

Banking Reform

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Urgent Question: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to banking reform.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

The Government have today laid before the House the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill and their response to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards report, which was published on 21 December 2012 following the commission’s pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill.

I thank and pay tribute to the members of both the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The two commissions, whose membership comprises some of the most distinguished policy makers and formidable intellects in the world, have between them shaped a set of reforms to British banking that will lead the world and set an example to other countries in the seriousness, radicalism and meticulousness of the changes that are proposed.

The Bill published today reflects their painstaking work and the Government have accepted almost all their recommendations. The reforms address what the Chancellor has called the British dilemma—how Britain can be a leading global financial centre with more than its fair share of international trade in financial services while at the same time not exposing ordinary working people in this country to the catastrophic risks of banks failing.

The reforms were and are necessary because the previous regime was tested and failed. UK taxpayers had to bail out the banks with £65 billion of the hard-earned money of ordinary working people, while those who had taken a one-way bet with that money slunk away, losing nothing more than their jobs, and sometimes not even that. The anger that the country feels about what happened must be channelled into change to reset Britain’s banking system. The objective of the Bill—proposed by Vickers and endorsed by the commission—is that any failure of any bank in future should not impose a cost on the taxpayer and not interrupt for a second vital banking services. That is a high ambition, but one that is appropriate for a country with the reputation for financial stability and confidence, which has for centuries been one of Britain’s chief assets in the world.

As is well known, the Bill will erect a ring fence around the core operations of banks headquartered and regulated in the UK. Within that ring fence, banks must be completely insulated from activities such as using depositors’ funds to speculate for the banks’ own benefit in capital markets.

As a result of the commission’s recommendations, the Government are making a number of further changes to the Bill. First, in the acute phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), which will permanently enter the lexicon of banking, the ring fence will be “electrified”. The regulator will be given the power to order the full separation of any bank that attempts to undermine the ring fence. Directors of the banks will be personally responsible for ensuring that their banks comply with the ring-fencing rules, and the Prudential Regulatory Authority will conduct an annual review of the operation and adequacy of the ring-fence rules.

Secondly, there are explicit provisions on the face of the Bill for the principal aspects of ring-fencing, including that there should be separate boards of directors, remuneration arrangements, treasury management operations, balance sheet management and human resource management of ring-fenced banks.

Thirdly, the Bill gives us an opportunity to make an historic change in the competitive environment in UK banking. Competition is essential to ensure that customers benefit from innovation and from demanding customer service and efficiency from their banks. That has not always been customers’ experience in the past. As well as bringing in a seven-day automatic account switching service from September this year, the Government will take steps to tackle the cosy arrangement whereby the banks determine how payment systems will be run. Why should it be necessary in 2013 for a cheque to take six days to clear, with the banks and not the customers scooping up the interest on the balances during the delay? Why should a new bank have to beg an incumbent bank for permission to use their payment system? We will therefore require access to payment services that are fair, reasonable and transparent. The commission has rightly emphasised the importance of competition, and I am grateful to it for propelling that drive further, as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for what she has done on greater competition in banking, which has been a personal crusade of hers.

The fourth and final change is that more parliamentary scrutiny will be built into the secondary legislation that implements what is a high-level Bill. Drafts of the principal statutory instruments to be made will be made available to the House before Second Reading, and the Government accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the type of scrutiny each should receive.

These are historic reforms, but it is appropriate that, in our country—directly and indirectly, 2 million people work in the industry, it is our biggest export earner, and contributes £1 in every £8 of our tax revenue—we take the steps necessary to restore confidence in, and to, an industry that has fallen so far. There is much scrutiny of the Bill before us, both here and in the House of Lords, and I look forward very much to our discussions during the weeks and months ahead.

[Chris Leslie]

If the Government believed this issue was important, would the Chancellor have not made a statement to the House of Commons today? It should not take an urgent question for Parliament to hear why the Government are taking such a half-hearted approach to banking reform.

In a week when our national banks are facing record-breaking fines for LIBOR manipulation, when the Financial Services Authority is struggling to get a fair deal on payment protection insurance mis-selling for small businesses, whose customers have been mis-sold interest rate hedging products, when we see the bumper bonus season continuing to roll on and on for banking executives as if nothing had happened, and in a week when all this suggests we should be getting serious about real reform, what has the Chancellor said in his seaside speech today? He has fudged the tough stance recommended by the Vickers report, and has stopped short on backstop powers and legislation for the leverage ratio envisaged by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, a commission that the Chancellor himself agreed to set up last summer.

I have to ask the Minister: why then does it feel as though the Chancellor has to be dragged kicking and screaming towards serious reform? Is it because, despite all the rhetoric and feigned concern, the Government know they face certain defeat in the House of Lords on the sensible recommendations of the parliamentary commission, and so think it best to try to salvage something from what is in reality a strategic retreat? Why will the Minister not legislate for a full reserve power for total separation of retail and investment banking if ring-fencing does not work, something that we called for last year and the commission specifically recommended? Surely it would be sensible to legislate now, not just if one or two individual banks misbehave, but in case ring-fencing fails the sector as a whole. He may think he has found a cunning ploy, but stopping short with only half the backstop powers just means that they are unlikely to be used. Corporate lawyers across the City will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of taking on the regulator on a case-by-case basis. Worse still, why is he ducking the main conclusion of the Vickers report? Specifically, why is he refusing to adopt the commission’s recommendations on the leverage ratio and rein in the over-exposure of banks whose excessive risk-taking caused the problems in the first place?

Should there not be a clause in the Bill so that regulators can restrain such hazardous behaviour? Does the Minister agree that the implementation of the Bill needs a full parliamentary review on a regular basis, with genuine scrutiny of detailed secondary legislation on exactly how ring-fencing will work in practice? If the commission recommends a tougher code of conduct for bankers, proper professional qualifications and a fiduciary duty of care for customers, together with stronger controls on bonuses and remuneration, will he accept its judgment in the Bill?

With the economy flatlining and no plan for growth, why is there nothing in the Bill to improve the funding for lending scheme? We should not still be seeing lending to businesses falling further and further, month after month. The Minister has to realise that the public, the taxpayers and Parliament want to tackle this issue once and for all. The Bill needs further amendment, and if the Government do not have the courage to radically reform the banks, we will.

[Greg Clark]

I had rather hoped for a serious response to a serious matter. When the Bill has its Committee stage, I hope the hon. Gentleman, with whom I am happy to work on the details, will be able to make some more substantial reflections than those he has offered the House today. Frankly, the idea that the Opposition should have the brass neck to table an urgent question on banking reform is almost unbelievable. At no point in 13 years of power did they show a scintilla of urgency in facing up to, never mind solving, the catastrophic absence of banking reform that led to the financial crisis being particularly damaging to this country. The failure of the botched regulatory system they introduced in 1997 has played a large part in the burden that the ordinary working people of this country are still having to shoulder today to bail out the banks. They were in office after the crisis, too. Even then they did nothing urgent apart from hurriedly plunge their heads in the sand to hope that the nightmare would pass.

It has fallen to this Government—as it regularly does, I am afraid—urgently to clear up the chaos in which Labour left the country. It should not have taken so long, but since the Government have been elected—from the beginning of our tenure in 2010—we have set up the Independent Commission on Banking, which has done a superb job, and we have created a separate conduct regulator and a prudential regulator that are now on the statute book. Why did we need to wait for this Government to be elected to do that? Why did Labour not set up a parliamentary commission on banking standards? [Interruption.] Of course, I will answer the pitifully few points that the hon. Gentleman made.

The hon. Gentleman asked, perfectly reasonably, why we had not given the Bank of England the power to split up the whole banking system. One of the principal reasons for not doing so was that the Governor of the Bank of England, in evidence to the commission, said that he did not want that power. It would seem odd to foist on the Governor a power that he does not want. The hon. Gentleman also asked why we did not adopt the higher backstop ratio. One concern expressed was by building societies worried about being disadvantaged by that. That was a concern we had.

The hon. Gentleman asked about a full review. If he had read closely the statement we published in response to the commission’s report, he would have known that the PRA would conduct a full annual review of the ring-fencing rules, and we will obviously act on any recommendations that it makes. He also asked about further recommendations that might come from the commission, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. The hon. Gentleman seems surprised that, having set up the commission, we might be interested in taking seriously its recommendations. I hope it is apparent from our response today that we take its recommendations very seriously, and I look forward to its further recommendations, particularly on competition, which have a great deal to offer. I greatly respect the commission’s work and look forward to making time available when the next report is published to make the necessary changes to the Bill to accommodate the recommendations.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

The commission will look carefully at the detail that the Government have published today, but in the meantime I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of several of our key proposals, including on electrification of the ring fence.

Last night, journalists were briefed by the Treasury that the Government had also accepted our proposal that an external assessment should be made before the PRA could exercise its reserve power, but there is no mention of that in the Government’s response. Will the Minister confirm that such an assessment will be provided for in the Bill?

[Greg Clark]

Of course. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the other members of the commission. It might not be known just how many hours of the day they are working on it, but they are doing a service to the country in doing so. We accept his recommendation. This is a high-level Bill and we have said that we will introduce amendments to reflect the recommendations. When we do that, we will invite him to consider whether they appropriately address his recommendations.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the change of heart announced by the Chancellor today. It is in contrast to the dismissive noises that came from the Government when our report was published just before Christmas. I am sure that that change of heart had nothing to do with the vision of amendments in the other place being supported by one of the Chancellor’s predecessors, Lord Lawson, a former Cabinet permanent secretary and the new Archbishop of Canterbury.

I would like to ask the Minister why today’s response was silent on the commission’s recommendation for a general reserve power for the sector as a whole. I must correct him: if adopted, such a decision should not be left to the Bank of England, but be taken by the Chancellor.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question, to whom I extend my thanks for serving with distinction on the commission.

I said that the Bank of England did not want a general reserve power, but the right hon. Gentleman made the perfectly valid point that it might not necessarily be a choice for the Bank. It seems to me, however, that the power to break up any individual bank is a very strong one, and quite rightly, as the commission recommended, it would make the ring fence more impenetrable. Nevertheless, to provide for a reserve power in this Bill that would change the whole system would, in effect, be a different policy. I understand the reasons for wanting to do that, as many distinguished members of the commission do, but changing the whole policy would deserve the scrutiny of a Bill of its own—any future Government would be free to introduce such a Bill. To have it as a rider to a Bill designed to implement the Vickers report would be the wrong step forward.

Finally, as for accepting amendments, there are several Members of this House who have served on Bill Committees with me in the past. My demeanour, now and throughout the passage of the Bill, will be to listen to good and sensible suggestions from wherever they come—not to treat this as an exercise in partisanship, but to try to find consensus on the best system for financial regulation in this country.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend confident that the very welcome proposals he has announced will not be swept away by the tsunami of regulations bearing down on us from Europe under the Single Market Act, even though none of those regulations creates a single new opportunity for financial services businesses to trade on the continent and all of them result in the transfer of power from this country to Europe to regulate our most important industry?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is right when he talks about our most important industry—certainly in terms of exports and what it contributes to the taxes that pay for public services. It is significant that more euros are traded in this country than across the entire eurozone. For that reason, we need to continue to have access to the single market and to argue—as I and the Chancellor do in ECOFIN after ECOFIN—to ensure that we secure our interests there. That is a constant fight, but I know that I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will always take that view when we are in Brussels.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am a member of the commission, and we will of course examine the detail included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman’s reasons for not including a reserve power require further explanation. The Chancellor said that our commission ought not to unpick the consensus. We have taken evidence from a wide range of people—academics, bankers and others—who have all supported our recommendations on electrifying the ring fence. Will the Minister again give serious consideration to the recommendations that we have made?

[Greg Clark]

I do take seriously those recommendations, but this is not a difference between just the Government and the commission. The shadow Chancellor himself said only a little while ago that

“there is no need to break up institutions but there has got to be clear separation.”

I think people across all parts of the House have come to the same view on this, but I am respectful of the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman has reached.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If break-up and segregation may be necessary for a bank in a future crisis, why do the Government not understand that they may need those techniques to deal with the inherited, still very serious banking crisis that we are living through, which is preventing the financing of a full recovery? Will the Government look at what they can learn from their studies to sort out the problem of RBS today, which is our biggest obstacle to recovery?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes a forceful point. The legislation is about the future. It is quite right that it should proceed with consideration and that we should not introduce things that might have unintended consequences without adequate consideration in this House. The Government are obviously the major shareholder in RBS. It is important that RBS should be returned as swiftly as possible to private hands. The current situation is far from ideal, and I know that my right hon. Friend shares our ambition on that.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is right that the taxpayer should never again be on the hook for the bad decisions taken by investment banks or the bad regulation that allowed them to be taken. I therefore welcome the ring-fencing and the provision to separate a given bank if necessary. However, I am not yet convinced of the need for the reserve power to separate any bank. Does the Minister envisage any circumstances under which the Government might include the reserve provision to separate a bank in this or future legislation?

[Greg Clark]

I confess that I did not quite understand whether the hon. Gentleman’s point was that he objects to the power to separate any particular bank or the general point, but we can talk about it afterwards. It is important that the regulator—the Bank of England—should have the ability to address a bank that breaches the rules and that does not respect the integrity of the ring fence with consequences, those consequences being full separation.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers and businesses want the existing banking sector to receive the hot blast of competition and that, in order for that competition and choice to exist, we need a regulatory regime that will allow in new entrants, especially those that specialise in community-based banking and in lending to small businesses and social enterprises? Might not one such new entrant emerge from the break-up of the state-controlled RBS?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend and I completely agree about the need for more competition in the banking sector. It is one of the features of the banking crisis that it has resulted in a concentration in the number of banks. Frankly, there were never enough in the first place, and we need urgently to see more new entrant banks of all types coming in. We are working with the existing regulatory authorities and, through amendments to the Bill, we will transform the state of competition in the banking sector. I very much hope to see an infusion of new energy and talent into the banking system in this country.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Given that we have the highest high street lending rates in the European Union, along with the lowest high street saving rates, why is not the Minister proposing the break-up of Lloyds TSB in addition to that of RBS? That would immediately create proper competition in the banking sector.

[Greg Clark]

As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, the Government have promoted the sale of Northern Rock to Virgin, for example, to try to encourage new entrants, and he will see more of that in the future. On interest rates, those that are being paid on mortgages and small business loans at the moment are very much lower than they would have been had we not taken the necessary action on the economy to keep them competitive.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The British Bankers Association has said this morning that the electrification of the ring fence might cause some uncertainty in the City. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only banks that need to be worried about the future are those that game the ring fence and try to burrow underneath it?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any bank can have complete certainty that it will not be subject to being broken up if it respects the ring fence. Indeed, given the standing of the City of London, it is important that we all have confidence and trust in the British banking system, on which the credibility of that standing depends. The reforms recommended by Sir John Vickers and his commission will achieve precisely that.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Is not the truth that, by failing to take full reserve powers, the Chancellor has not so much electrified the ring fence as raised it by a mere millimetre? Why were the full recommendations of the commission not implemented?

[Greg Clark]

We have addressed that point. Obviously, it is the behaviour of any particular bank that will cause problems, and the sanctions against such behaviour are clear. If a bank breaches the ring fence that has been established, it will be split up. That is as clear as day to the directors of every bank, who, by the way, will now have a personal responsibility to respect the ring fence.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

About 650 people work for Lloyds TSB in Southend, with a similar number working for RBS. In addition, there are about 20 branches, each employing 10 individuals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this banking reform is just as much about helping the banking industry in the whole of the United Kingdom as it is about the square mile of the City or Canary Wharf?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the real tragedies, and one of the things that makes me most angry about the declining reputation of banking in recent years, is that the reputations of many hundreds of thousands of people who work in banks up and down the country and who have chosen banking as a career because of its associations with probity and respect in the community have been besmirched by the actions of a very small number of people. Our purpose in restoring the reputation of financial services in this country is also to allow those people to go to the pub without being teased and ribbed because they work in a bank, which is something that should never have happened to them.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

My constituents want banks to serve industry and our community, not themselves. May I try the Minister yet again on the question of full reserve powers? Why should the evidence of one institution hold sway over that expert commission?

[Greg Clark]

It is the hon. Lady’s objective that banks should serve businesses and their customers, and that is precisely what Sir John Vickers has in mind. That is the purpose of the exercise, and it is exactly what I want to achieve. Any ring-fenced bank that strays from that purpose and neglects its core customers—its retail depositors and the other people who bank with it—by taking their money and playing with it in the casino will be broken up.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I welcome the points the Chancellor made this morning on facilitating account switching, which I think will be most welcome to all our constituents. Will the Minister outline in a little more detail how this will work?

[Greg Clark]

I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. What we are saying when it comes to the regulation of payment systems is that, through the Bill, we will set up a regulatory responsibility to promote competition on the part of the regulator of payment systems. One thing regulators will want to look at is how they can quickly make accounts portable between customers. That, however, is only one of the innovations that could be made. I mentioned in my response to the urgent question the requirement to speed up the clearing of cheques. My hon. Friend will recall that the Payments Council once introduced a statement—almost ex cathedra—to the effect that cheques would be abolished in future. What kind of contempt for the consumer does that show? It should not happen again, and it will not happen again.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Why are we pussyfooting with these banks? Why not just nationalise them and make them into a good public service? After all, we own half of them.

[Greg Clark]

As a result of the chaos of the previous Government, we almost ended up nationalising the banks. I want to see our banks back in the private sector; I want to see them competitive; I want to see them making money, providing jobs and getting credit to businesses and consumers.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The Financial Services Authority says that one reason why RBS failed was the political pressure put on the regulator to ignore the risks banks were taking. It named the shadow Chancellor as one of the three politicians responsible for that. What checks and balances are in place now to ensure that that does not happen again, and has my right hon. Friend had an apology from the shadow Chancellor?

[Greg Clark]

One of the principal innovations was to get rid of the shadow Chancellor who was then in a position to interfere. The reason we are setting up the system and giving powers to the Bank of England and the regulator is to make it very clear that any bank that breaches the rules can forget about lobbying Ministers. The banks will be responsible to the Bank of England, which will enforce the law that I hope this House will see fit to pass.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

Let me take the Minister back to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is a member of the banking commission. In simple language, what possible reason do the Government have for not accepting the commission’s recommendation to take that reserve power? After all, only banks that do not conform with the Government’s wishes would have anything to fear from the reserve power. Why not go on and take that power?

[Greg Clark]

I have explained on a number of occasions why we have not done so. One reason is that the regulator does not want that power, and a second reason is that it seems to us more appropriate that individual banks feel the consequences of their breach. The system itself does not have a mind to breach the rules; it is individual banks that do so. It is thus appropriate for the sanctions to apply to individual banks.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In addition to the electrification of the ring fence, has the Minister considered adding a bit of barbed wire on top? We should look at depositor preference, so that deposits rank above the bondholders to give extra security. What are the Government’s thoughts on that at the moment?

[Greg Clark]

We agree with my hon. Friend, and that will form part of the Bill.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right to say that the reputation of our banks has never been lower. We hope that we will start to see the important changes we need. One reason for that reputation is the experience that many small businesses had with interest rate swap agreements. While many welcome the FSA announcement on that, there are still some concerns about whether people will really consider that they have had justice at the end of the process. Will the Minister confirm what representations he has made to the FSA about what it should find during the deliberations, and will he give us any assurances that the interest rate swap problems we have had in the past will not reappear in future?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I met the Federation of Small Businesses and the Bully-Banks organisation and I conveyed their concerns to the FSA, which the hon. Gentleman knows is set up to be the independent regulator. I think most people were relieved that the FSA proposals of last week will result in compensation for the affected businesses within a rapid time frame. What happened is totally unacceptable, and is another feature of the scandalous decline in reputation that the banks have suffered. Small businesses in particular have a right to regard their bank manager as someone who acts in their interests, rather than someone who flogs them dodgy products that they do not need in the first place. That is a breach of trust in banking. I am absolutely insistent that the FSA should conclude this process, giving full recompense to those who have been mis-sold products.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The retail ring fence is a good idea, but the real game-changer for banking will be the introduction of full bank account number portability, because it will break open the oligopoly banks. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also important for the Payments Council no longer to be controlled by the big banks? Breaking open competition and introducing new challenger banks is of key importance.

[Greg Clark]

I thank my hon. Friend for the effort that she has devoted to promoting this agenda. It seems to me that if there is to be genuine competition, people should have a choice of banks, and it should be easy, not difficult, for them to make changes. I hope that the work that my hon. Friend is doing will be reflected in the policies that we are enshrining in the Bill, and I look forward to detailed discussions with her about how that may be possible.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

If the public are to have confidence in the new system, they need to know that lawyers or bankers will not be able to circumvent the ring-fencing regime. Can the Minister come up with a better justification for the Government’s not taking a full reserve power for full separation, in order to protect the public, than those that he has produced so far?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is right: we need to protect the ring fence from the ingenuity of the lawyers who are sometimes in the vicinity. The history of financial regulation shows that banks have been able to discover ways of circumventing the rules, which is why we have given the regulator robust powers to insist on the full separation into retail and investment of any bank that makes any attempt to breach those rules.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that, under this Government, the taxpayer will never again be required to bail out the banks while a minority of bankers are picking up huge bonuses?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend’s question.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The Minister says that he wants to establish new bodies to set bonuses and pay in banks. Can he guarantee that on those boards will be ordinary customers and businesses, and that they will not be stacked with bankers’ friends?

[Greg Clark]

I think it important for the responsibility exercised by remuneration committees in particular to have regard to the experience of ordinary working people up and down the country. I see no reason why the way in which bonuses are thought about in boardrooms in the City should be any different from the way in which they are thought about in any other industry.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, which confirmed the Government’s policy on ring-fencing the banks and its extension to electrification. Does the Minister agree that some of the products or derivatives of investment banks—particularly fixed-rate mortgages—can offer certainty and security to retail customers, and that we need an intelligent debate about the issue?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right, but I think we have already had the intelligent debate. The Government asked the commission to look into that issue in particular and to make recommendations, and the commission expressed the interim view that it was reasonable—as my hon. Friend says—for simple derivatives to be provided from within a ring-fenced bank. However, it wants to reflect further on whether any of its inquiries into the culture of banking may have implications for that. We will await its conclusions.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Following the bank mergers, many regional banks and building societies have gone, and we have lost the investments that they would have made at local level. Will the Minister explain how the Bill will enable areas such as Yorkshire to benefit, and can he assure us that it will not be just the south-east that benefits from the increase in the number of banks?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I should like very much to see banks in our great regional cities, as used to be the case: banks that can take deposits from local people and, knowing what local investment opportunities they have in the area, can establish a connection. So far it has been very difficult for new banks to obtain banking licences within a reasonable period, and to satisfy the regulatory requirements. We are doing all that we can to lower the barriers to entry, so that we can achieve exactly what the hon. Lady has described.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I welcome the proposal, as well as the fact that we are taking on the bully banks on interest rate swaps and clearing up the big banks, which have had grave deficiencies for a considerable time. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will also make it easier to create the local, regional banks that we need to provide the competition, access to finance and community trust we are trying to establish in places such as the north-east, where we are proposing a bank for that region?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right about that, and it may interest the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to know of the example that he and I were discussing in Newcastle recently. We were looking at ways in which we can make it possible for there to be a north-eastern or Tyneside bank that can specialise in the north-eastern economy.

Syria (Humanitarian Response)

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

16:10

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the United Kingdom’s response to the humanitarian crisis in the Syrian region. On 30 January, I attended the UN high level humanitarian pledging conference on Syria in Kuwait. The conference was co-hosted by the Emir of Kuwait and the United Nations Secretary-General, and had two objectives. The first was to raise the international profile of the deepening humanitarian crisis unfolding across the Syrian region. The second was to secure $1.5 billion of urgently needed funding requested by the UN to meet the humanitarian needs it has seen until June 2013—that represents the largest ever short-term appeal by the UN.

The pledging conference took place at a critical point in the Syria crisis. The humanitarian needs across the region are immense and show no signs of decreasing while the fighting continues. I would like to set out some of the numbers for the House, which illustrate the severity of the situation: 743,000—nearly three quarters of a million—is the number of Syrians who have had to seek refuge outside their country; 4 million is the number of people still in need in Syria; 2 million is the number of people displaced in Syria; 60,000 is the number of Syrians killed in the conflict so far; and 26 is the number of aid workers who have been killed in Syria while helping those in desperate need.

During my visit to Jordan just over a week ago, I was able to meet some of the people affected by the crisis. Walking through the Za’atari refugee camp and meeting families who had welcomed refugees into their homes, I was heartened by the scope of the humanitarian response, and by the resilience of mind and spirit shown by the people I met. The people of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and now Egypt are showing tremendous generosity, supporting the hundreds of thousands of people who have fled the violence. It is essential that the Governments of those countries receive adequate support for their efforts from the international community.

I also commend the UN for its strong leadership of the international humanitarian response and the partnerships it has built. Its efforts have kept thousands of people sheltered and fed every month in contested, Government and opposition-held areas in Syria, and more than a million children protected against life-threatening diseases such as measles and polio. Those achievements are a reminder of the UN’s capacity and reach, if given adequate political and financial support, and demonstrate that the UK’s confidence in the multilateral aid system has not been misplaced.

At the Kuwait conference, I announced another £50 million of new UK aid towards the UN appeals. That was in addition to the £21 million that I announced on 26 January during my visit to Jordan—£10 million of which was specifically for Jordan— and brings the UK’s total humanitarian support for the response to the Syria crisis to £139.5 million. I am very pleased to report the successful outcome of the conference. As well as the UK, more than 60 countries participated in the pledging conference and raised over $1.5 billion, exceeding the UN’s target. I welcome the generosity that was shown by donors, particularly those from the Gulf region; Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates together pledged $900 million. I should take this opportunity again to thank the Emir of Kuwait for hosting such an important conference.

I also commend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the support provided by his Department in lobbying donor countries to attend and pledge funds at the Kuwait conference. The next priority for my Department is to see that those pledges are turned into tangible commitments so that the humanitarian agencies can scale up their activities and provide the food, shelter, health and medical care that are so urgently needed by the millions of men, women and children affected by the crisis. However, although the Kuwait conference was a success, we must be realistic. The more than $1.5 billion raised, although a great sum, will support the humanitarian response only until June. The Syrian people will still need help long after that, and the shocking level of human suffering inside and outside Syria will keep rising while the conflict continues.

A political settlement is sorely needed. The UK remains steadfast in our support for the joint UN and Arab League special representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, in his work towards a political settlement and transition process. It is also vital that the UN-led humanitarian response be given agreement for increased access to all areas of the country, including the ability to reach people in need across conflict lines and from neighbouring countries if necessary. Until this happens, pockets of need will persist despite the UN’s best efforts. The dire humanitarian situation deserves the continued attention and support of this Government, and I commit my Department to that effort. I commend the statement to the House.

16:16

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The right hon. Lady and I differ on many things, but I begin by paying tribute to her for the good and important work she has done to galvanise an international response to the grave humanitarian crisis arising from the conflict in Syria. She deserves support from both sides of the House for her efforts.

Although the international community has largely focused on the political and security aspects of the conflict, the scale of the humanitarian impact in Syria and across its borders has been enormous. As the right hon. Lady highlights, more than 700,000 people have fled unrelenting violence, 2 million Syrians are internally displaced and 4 million people are in desperate need of basic assistance.

The situation inside Syria is abysmal. One quarter of schools and one third of public hospitals are not functioning, there are shortages of bread and medicine, and critical infrastructure has been destroyed. The UN estimates that 2 million people who have fled their homes are living without the most basic services: clean water, sanitation and electricity. The harsh winter has compounded their suffering and many are living in shelters lacking adequate insulation with no winter clothes and no blankets. Even those who still have homes are suffering from the cold, unable to heat their houses owing to shortages of fuel and electricity. With the UN estimating that the number of refugees will surpass 1 million by June, no end to their suffering is in sight.

The success of the UN pledging conference in Kuwait last week will provide much needed support for the millions of Syrians affected by this growing crisis. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an additional £71 million of UK aid to Syria. Will she clarify where she expects those additional resources to be focused? As she has acknowledged, aid to Syria is a question of not only funding but humanitarian access and respect for international humanitarian law. Donors have repeatedly raised concerns about support reaching all areas of the country. There is limited capacity and expertise in both Government-held and opposition-held areas, with the conflict’s front lines constantly shifting.

The right hon. Lady has said that we must ensure that co-ordinated aid reaches people across Syria, including agreed cross-line and cross-border work. Will she elaborate on how the Government are assisting NGOs and UN agencies to provide humanitarian access in the area? Is she suggesting that the UK would be open to funding projects outside the UN’s direct response plans?

Questions are also being asked about a strategic response to refugees. As the right hon. Lady has acknowledged, thousands of Syrians are arriving in neighbouring countries every day, yet the humanitarian system does not have the capacity to keep up with the growing demands on registration, co-ordination or shelter. The UN estimates that only 20% of Syrian refugees are in camps. What steps is the Department taking to develop a strategic plan with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that ensures that the needs of all refugees are being met?

The conflict has taken a brutal toll on Syrians, more than 60,000 of whom have been killed. Those who have fled report stories of ongoing violence and human rights violations, including sexual abuse, arbitrary detention and indiscriminate shelling. A report by the International Rescue Committee identifies rape and sexual violence as primary factors in the decision of many Syrians to flee. Given that disturbing revelation, will the Secretary of State assure the House that UK aid will focus on the protection of women against sexual violence? Crucially, the humanitarian crisis will not be resolved until the conflict in Syria is resolved, and we must continue to push for a ceasefire.

On international efforts to bring about negotiations to stop the fighting, what assessment have the Government made of reports that the head of the major opposition coalition, Moaz al-Khatib, is willing to talk to Government representatives? Will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress the Government have made in encouraging the Syrian national coalition to accept the Geneva plan as the basis for transition? What were the objectives and impact of the reported recent Israeli air strikes in Syria?

The brutality of the Assad regime is clear for all to see, but as we seek change in Syria through a ceasefire and political process, it is essential that we do not forget the here and now suffering of the Syrian people. That is why I welcome today’s statement, and I hope that the Secretary of State will keep the House informed of developments on a regular basis.

[Justine Greening]

I very much appreciate the way in which the shadow Secretary of State approached his response. There was a huge effort across the international community to make sure that the donor conference was a success, and the UK certainly did as much as it could to try to make sure that that was the case. The hon. Gentleman asked how the funds would be spent. The £50 million that we donated at the conference will sit alongside the UN co-ordinated response to the humanitarian crisis. Of the requested $1.5 billion, about $1 billion goes to helping refugees outside Syria, and about half a billion dollars of that is planned to help people still suffering inside Syria. In relation to how we can make sure that we reach the many parts of Syria that are difficult to get to, we have to take the opportunities, and we work through humanitarian partners all the time. They are neutral and impartial but nevertheless have the ability to go into parts of Syria that are often contested. Some of them are Government-controlled, some opposition-controlled, but others are still contested, and as I said in my statement, they are dangerous places. We therefore support those humanitarian agencies. When I talk to the people who head up the World Food Programme, for example, they are clear that they have to take opportunities when they arise. They often find a contact whom they believe is trustworthy, and through them can gain access to a new area, and they will take that opportunity. They have to be prepared to act very quickly and flexibly. We support them in doing so, and the main concern for them in recent weeks has been funding, which is why the donor conference was so important.

As for what the UK has done directly in Syria, we have provided medical support. We have trained—I think I am right in saying—250 health workers, and we have helped open about 130 mobile medical units that provide care. We are also providing food and shelter wherever we can. The UN Security Council has called for the Syrian authorities to provide full, immediate and unimpeded access to all areas of Syria so that humanitarian support can get through. That is absolutely vital, and we urge the opposition forces to allow unimpeded access for humanitarian actors. It is critical, if we are to be able to use that $1.5 billion effectively, that we make sure that we have the routes to get through to the people who need our support.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic response, and he is quite right to flag up the fact that this humanitarian crisis is perhaps different from many others with which the Department deals. Often we are dealing with a natural disaster, and people act to tackle the aftermath. This is a humanitarian crisis that has unfolded over many months and seems likely to continue to unfold over a prolonged period. It may be that we have not seen the worst of the humanitarian crisis in relation to Syria, which is why it is vital that Assad goes, and goes now, so that the work to rebuild Syria can begin.

We are talking with the UNHCR and other humanitarian bodies about how we can make sure that we are set up to deal with a crisis that could become significantly worse in the coming months if the violence continues. As I said in my statement, there are 2 million internally displaced people within Syria. Many of the refugees with whom I spoke a couple of weekends ago had tried their best to stay in Syria. They had moved from Homs to a different place, to a different place again and so on, but were finally left with no choice but to leave Syria. If just a fraction of the 2 million internally displaced people end up having to leave Syria and become refugees, we will see a dramatic increase in the humanitarian problems outside Syria. That is why the donor conference was so important.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at how we can make sure that we are positioned to take care of those people. For neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey, the strain and the pressure put on them are immense. We should always bear that in mind when we are looking at the support that we provide. As he rightly pointed out, most of the refugees in Jordan, for example, are not in camps but in host communities. When I was in Jordan I was told that the local education system has had to absorb 22,000 children who arrived with refugee families. There are significant challenges ahead, which is why we need to continue to keep international attention focused on a very grave humanitarian situation.

The hon. Gentleman asked about women and girls, and he is right to do so. We have been particularly concerned to make sure that we have supported children. One in five of the people turning up at the Za’atari refugee camp that I visited was a child aged four or under. Nearly 60% of the refugees who have turned up at that camp were 30 or under. Alongside others, we are providing clinical care and counselling to women and we are helping to provide education to children. We are also providing specific support to about 1,800 women we believe are at risk of possibly being coerced into marriage. We are therefore providing support to them to ensure, wherever possible, that that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is raising on the international stage the broader issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict, and it will be one of the subjects that we try to push internationally at the G8.

The hon. Gentleman asked about coalition talks. There is a general recognition in the international community that the solution in Syria is a political one, which will involve talks, including between the coalition and the Government. It is clear from talking with the coalition that any future transitional Government must be one that has no Assad as part of it. I therefore come back to my earlier comments that for things to move forward, it is time for Assad to go so that the rebuilding of Syria can start.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Israeli air strikes. It is too early to speculate on exactly what happened, but we can see that ensuring stability in that region is critical. It is why the donor conference was so important, so that in the short term we have the funding in place at least to deal with the humanitarian crisis. More broadly, we need stability in the Syrian region. That will mean a political solution to the challenges and to the civil war that is under way in Syria.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Once before, in another crisis, we made the terrible mistake of arming rebels—in Afghanistan. Can the Secretary of State give an absolute commitment that in no way, either directly or indirectly or through surrogates, are we giving any aid to Syria that can be used for any offensive purposes, for military purposes or to take life?

[Justine Greening]

I can certainly be clear with my hon. Friend that DFID support is non-lethal: underpinning absolutely everything we do is the fact that it has to be humanitarian-focused. He is therefore right that we are not in the business of arming to perpetuate this violence. We want to see an end to it, and that will require a political solution.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the work that she has done in this regard. There are 150,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey. So far, 23,500 have claimed asylum in the EU, mostly crossing the border between Greece and Turkey, and that is the pressure point as far as the EU is concerned. She mentioned many countries in her statement, but what support is being given to the Greek Government to help them to deal with this problem, which will eventually become a problem for the United Kingdom?

[Justine Greening]

I will need to write to the right hon. Gentleman to give him further details on that. He is right to point out that a number of countries in the EU have taken in Syrian refugees, including Sweden, which has a substantial Syrian diaspora. We need to make sure that we deal with the totality of this humanitarian crisis, and that involves making sure that when refugees end up in the EU we provide the support they need.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly the confidence that she expressed in the UN-led multilateral response. She is right that this intolerable situation needs a regional political solution. Will she therefore tell us whether Russia attended the Kuwait conference and what constructive contributions it is making to the humanitarian and political processes?

[Justine Greening]

I can confirm that Russia was at the donor conference. We have pressed the Russians to work with us to get a UN Security Council resolution that will start to put in place the building blocks for a political settlement and a political solution to Syria. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that has proved to be beyond reach to date. We very much hope that through continued discussions with the Russians and, to a certain extent, with the Chinese, we will be able to make progress at some point, but thus far the signs have not been positive.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

In recent months I have been able to visit camps in Turkey and Jordan for people fleeing Syria. May I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the efforts of the Governments there and elsewhere and of the international agencies, but also mention the incredible generosity of ordinary people in taking Syrian refugees into their own homes? Last night it was estimated that over 2,000 Syrians crossed the border into Jordan. Winter is now coming on, and the Za’atari camp that she mentioned faces exposure. The donor conference decisions are great, but the UNHCR co-ordinator in Jordan makes it clear that it is not the pledges of money that make the difference but the money actually getting in and being translated into action. What can we do to ensure that aid gets in and that we do not just have pledges?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The UK will certainly be doing our bit to make sure that the pledges made at the donor conference translate into real money that can make a real difference on the ground. Probably about half the $1 billion set aside to help refugees will go to those who are in Jordan. It is worth pointing out that well over 200,000 refugees have arrived in Jordan, and the total population of that country is 6 million, so in the context of its overall population it is a significant influx. It is therefore right that we look at what we can do to help the Jordanian Government, but also the UN agencies there, to deal with that.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The savage brutality of the Assad regime is plain for the world to see. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on the work that they are doing to assist with much needed aid for people in the region. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that as a result of the conference, some of that aid that will now be coming from, and has been pledged by, the region itself, including from the Gulf states, which is particularly important in this crisis?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sensed at the conference that one of the most important aspects was not just the fact that the United Nations put out a call for funds that was met—it was its largest ever call for short-term funds—but, critically, that there had been real ownership of making sure that target was met by Gulf nations. Not only did Kuwait generously host the conference but key Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait itself made substantial donations. That was welcomed throughout the donor conference and I think it shows not only that the region itself recognises the gravity of the situation, but that it is prepared to step up to the plate and be a key partner in delivering the humanitarian aid.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has commented on the political stance that China and Russia have taken. May I press her to say whether China and Russia are now making significant contributions to the humanitarian aid required?

[Justine Greening]

I do not believe that Russia made a significant contribution at the donor conference. The most important thing that we would like to achieve with Russia and China is a breakthrough that would enable us to have a UN Security Council resolution, which would be similar to the approach taken in Mali, where it was possible to take action as a result of a consensus across the international spectrum. That UN Security Council resolution cannot be passed at the moment, which, critically, makes it much more complex for us to be able to reach people inside Syria with humanitarian aid. It also makes it much more complex to start the political and diplomatic dialogue needed to reach a long-term settlement. That is what is needed and I am absolutely clear that, although we are providing humanitarian support, the UK has not ruled out any action. Ultimately, however, we want to press forward on a political and diplomatic route.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I was at a conference over the weekend with both Turkish and Jordanian representatives, both of whom said, independently, that the international community could do more to help with the refugee problems in their respective countries. I say to my right hon. Friend that simple things, such as blankets to keep children warm, are needed now in the camps in Jordan. Could they not be delivered quicker bilaterally—that is, we give directly to the country rather than through the UN mechanism?

[Justine Greening]

That is something that I have also considered, but it is clear that the UN process and logistics are well set up. The road block over recent weeks has been in funding. The channels and the people are there, but we have not been able to scale up support because the money has not been in place. The donor conference means that that money is now in place and the scale-up can take place. My hon. Friend is right to say that basic shelter is one of the key aids that we have given many of the refugees. It is freezing over there and they need to be protected from the cold.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

The UNHCR estimates that there could be more than 430,000 refugees from Syria in Jordan by the end of this year. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the money provided by this Government will help the condition of children who have had to flee appalling conditions in Syria?

[Justine Greening]

One of the key things that can now happen is that the Za’atari camp itself can grow in a more structured way. That includes the establishment of a school and the development of education for children in that refugee camp. I can therefore provide the hon. Gentleman with some assurance that there is now a structure plan in place to grow the camp in order to accommodate more refugees as they turn up. That is about providing not just shelter but other things that they will need, such as education for the children and medical support.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly support the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative. Can my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary assure me that the UK Government are doing all they can to support women and girls affected by the violence, especially those affected by sexual violence?

[Justine Greening]

I certainly can. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has a long-standing interest in preventing sexual violence against women and girls during conflicts. It is right that he is now pursuing that issue on the international stage. As I said earlier, we have provided specific support to ensure that there is not only clinical care but counselling for the many women and children who have been through horrific experiences as they have fled the violence.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady deserves gratitude for her statement and for her work in relieving suffering in Syria. Is she concerned about reports that the most merciless slaughter of women and children has been carried out by the al-Nusra Front, which is linked to al-Qaeda? Given that that group is part of the opposition, will she do all she can to ensure that the al-Nusra Front does not receive arms, comfort or support from us?

[Justine Greening]

I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that reassurance. We have been careful to ensure that the humanitarian agencies with which we work that offer support within Syria go through the appropriate due diligence to ensure that they are working with non-extremist groups. That is one of the complex factors that have made delivering support within Syria even more challenging. As he is aware, the opposition have been quite fragmented, so humanitarian agencies have had to assess whether they can work with individual groups on a case-by-case basis.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Having visited the refugee camps, does my right hon. Friend agree, as she has just indicated, that the aid is getting through to the people who have fled Syria, but that the big challenge now facing the world community is getting aid through to Syria itself? Did Russia or China indicate that they would be willing to get humanitarian aid into Syria?

[Justine Greening]

I do not believe that Russia was explicit in saying that it supported humanitarian aid getting into Syria. However, we have been clear, as has the international community, that the Syrian authorities and opposition should ensure that humanitarian workers have totally unimpeded access to help the 4 million people who are still in Syria. Many of those people are in areas that are still contested. It has been very challenging to ensure that there is coverage across the entire country. There are times when the humanitarian agencies have made progress and then, owing to the conflict, have had to pull back. The situation is challenging, and we need the international community to speak with one voice to urge those actors in Syria to allow humanitarian support to get through.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The numbers that the Secretary of State read out in her statement are truly shocking. She is right to focus on the need to get aid in and on building respect for international humanitarian law, difficult though that is to achieve. What tentative plans does her Department have to promote the long-term reconstruction of Syria after the conflict?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in January we hosted a conference with the Syrian National Coalition to talk about how the political transition might work and the challenges that Syria will face when we get beyond the current crisis. It is vital that alongside the humanitarian work in which we are engaged, we put effort into planning for the day-after work that will have to be done. We are engaged in doing that.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Has any assessment been made of the relative effectiveness of the aid provided by different organisations on the ground in Syria?

[Justine Greening]

The short answer is yes. We want to use only agencies that we can absolutely rely on. Many of the agencies that we are using have done fantastic work around the world and we know them very well. Helping those agencies to scale up is our biggest challenge. I assure my hon. Friend that we will get the most out of every single pound that is spent because it is vital that we do so.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of Syrian refugees going into Iraq and how they are being treated compared with refugees in Jordan and Turkey? She will know that Iraq initially closed its border to refugees, but then opened it shortly afterwards.

[Justine Greening]

We know that several thousand refugees have fled across the border into Iraq. In fact, the British Government have directly provided about £2 million of support to refugees who have fled into Iraq. That is a good example of some of the challenges that we face. Iraq is itself in a reconstruction phase, yet it is now also having to cope with additional refugees fleeing from Syria. That is precisely why we should never forget just how important it is for the region to ensure that neighbouring countries that are having to take in refugees are provided with the support that they need to cope.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I understand the real dangers faced by people trying to get humanitarian aid to those inside Syria, which my right hon. Friend has mentioned. In my experience, the only way in which that can be done safely in such circumstances is for some kind of security organisation to be set up on the ground. I totally understand why a mandate from the Security Council is not possible, given the Chinese and Russian attitude, but would it be possible for a grouping from the region to get together and put troops on the ground, to provide security for the brave people who are trying to get to parts of Syria where others do not want them to get? Are we working towards that?

[Justine Greening]

The short answer is that we do not anticipate that at this point. We are focused on ensuring that the humanitarian agencies that we are using to help to get support into Syria have unimpeded access and channels to get support through. It is absolutely clear-cut in international law that humanitarian actors should be allowed access, and that is the route that we are using.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I welcome this international aid to Syria on a combined basis, but following on from the good colonel from Beckenham, may I invite the Secretary of State to address the issue of safe havens in Syria or on the edge of it? What prospect is there of such safe havens being established in the absence of support from Russia and China, which thus far have not been of assistance?

[Justine Greening]

In practice, the prospect of safe havens is virtually nil, because of course we do not have a request from the Syrian Government for any kind of military intervention. That is an incredibly important point. That country is at civil war, so it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to assure people of any kind of safe haven in a way that is realistically enforceable in practice. We must therefore ensure that the humanitarian channels are open to reach people where they are, and that when people flee Syria and seek refuge in neighbouring countries, we provide humanitarian support for them there.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that we need to consider as many options as we can to provide help to people in their home country of Syria, and that is what we are trying to do. There is no doubt that it will be incredibly difficult as the crisis unfolds, but we are all trying our level best.

Points of Order

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

16:49

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can help in any way. There have been reports of gruesome practices by the Metropolitan police, which have not been denied, whereby the names of dead children have been used by undercover police agents. I put it to you that this is not simply a matter of applying for an Adjournment debate or even going to the Home Affairs Committee, which I believe is looking into the matter. I would hope that the Home Secretary would come to the House and give an explanation. As I understand it, one of the children who died was a boy of four, and another died in a car crash. Again, I emphasise that the Metropolitan police have not denied that the practice took place, although they have not confirmed it. I believe that the House is due an explanation.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. As an experienced Member he knows that it is for Ministers to decide whether to come to the House to make a statement, but the Home Secretary will, I feel sure, be conscious of these matters and may feel that their seriousness warrants a statement sooner rather than later.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you champion Back Benchers and their role in holding the Government to account, but it is particularly difficult for Back Benchers such as me, whose constituency contains a proposed rail freight interchange, to find out what happened in the decision-making process. The Department for Transport has been fulsome in its answers, but the same questions to the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are answered either by referring me to websites or by saying that it would involve disproportionate cost.

Referring an hon. Member to a website does not always work and I have found out about private meetings that are not declared on websites. What more can be done to ensure that Departments do not hide behind evasive answers when Back Benchers are trying to find out about the decision-making process that has gone on?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for notice of it. The content of answers is not a matter of order for the Chair, and neither is inconsistency in the way Ministers reply to similar questions. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the answers she has received, she should draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee. Moreover, I add in passing that without regard to the particulars of the case, with which I cannot be expected to be familiar, I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady in so far as she is aggrieved by the tendency of some Departments simply to refer right hon. or hon. Members to a website. That is often unavailing, and the intention of Ministers should be to help Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties. In the best cases, that is what happens, but it ought to be the norm.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a great shock this morning to hear for the first time that the cost of maintaining nuclear waste in this country is an astonishing £67.5 billion. Last Thursday, I asked a question about another possible subsidy of £30 billion, but the Minister mysteriously concentrated on my attitude to the monarchy in his reply and did not mention the cost. Have you had any approach, Mr Speaker, from that Minister or any other Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to explain how in a time of austerity we can spend tens of billions of pounds on one energy source?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have received no such indication that a Minister is planning to come to the House to speak on those matters. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue his interests further in subsequent questions, in so far as he thinks he has not already done so to his satisfaction, and that of others, through the ruse of an attempted point of order.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The House is in a very inquisitive mood today.

[Robert Neill]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 16 January this year, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the operation of the local government standards regime. In the course of the debate, I and other hon. Members referred to the standards regime in the London borough of Tower Hamlets and there was subsequent reporting of that. On 23 January there was a meeting of the full council of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. On the same day, the chief executive sent a letter—I have sent it to your office, Mr Speaker—the effect of which, I contend, was an attempt to gag any conversation or discussion of what had been discussed in this House. I seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. Am I correct in thinking that the advice given by the chief executive of the London borough of Tower Hamlets is erroneous in using the phrase,

“the fact that those comments have been made in Parliament does not entitle Councillors to refer or repeat them in Council or elsewhere.”,

which ignores the fact that qualified privilege does attach to a bona fide and accurate report of proceedings in this House, made without improper notice?

Secondly, the advice is erroneous because it says that making such a report might be in breach of the member-officer code of the council, but the internal code of a council cannot override the right of qualified privilege in relation to a report of the House if all other necessary qualifications are met.

Thirdly, the attempt by a public body to gag discussion or criticism of it that has been raised in the House is at the very least a discourtesy to the House, if not verging on the contemptuous.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. With reference to the use of material outside the House being bona fide or not, that is a matter for the courts, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to occupy that territory. However, I can give what I hope is a substantive response to his point of order that is of value to him and the House.

I am quite clear that his contribution in Westminster Hall is protected entirely by article 9 of the Bill of Rights. What he said on that occasion may not be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. The protection of papers published under the direct authority of this House is also clear. However, the extent of the protection afforded under section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 or otherwise to the repetition in some other place of anything said in this House is, as I have indicated, a matter for the courts, as the Act makes clear—it would be quite wrong for me to offer any opinion on that question from the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take up any particular concerns he has on parliamentary freedom of speech with the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I hope that is helpful.

[Mr Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that one reason I admire you so much is that you are such a doughty defender of the rights of the House in scrutinising the Executive. You will recall that last week I raised with you the fact that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will not be committed to the whole House tomorrow. I have been advised by the Clerks—indeed, by a very polite gentleman sitting not a million miles from you—that, although I can table a motion to commit the Bill to the whole House, as I have done, it cannot be debated. Even if Her Majesty’s Opposition or a majority of Members table such a motion, the only people who can commit a Bill to the whole House are the Government. Is that not a democratic lacuna? Is there not something wrong with our procedures? We are faced with an important Bill and constitutional issues concerning the established Church, but nobody apart from the Government has the right to commit it to the whole House.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he has just said to the House is substantially correct: the Government’s motion takes precedence. My understanding is that, once the Government have tabled a motion on the matter he has in mind, another motion cannot be considered before or alongside it. The matter in question is catered for—albeit very unsatisfactorily in the mind of the hon. Gentleman—by the Standing Orders of the House. If he or others would like the Standing Orders to be revisited and revised, one possible course would be to approach the Procedure Committee and ask it to consider whether to do so. I accept, however, that that does not avail him tomorrow, and he has raised a serious point that he might wish to pursue.

So far as tomorrow’s debate is concerned—I know the hon. Gentleman has not raised this matter with regard to himself—a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members will be seeking to catch my eye. My surmise is that he will be one of them. The Chair will seek to be as helpful as time allows. We will have to leave it there for now.

bills presented

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, Greg Clark, Mr David Gauke and Sajid Javid presented a Bill to make further provision about banking and other financial services, including provision about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; to make provision for the amounts owed in respect of certain deposits to be treated as a preferential debt on insolvency; to make provision about the accounts of the Bank of England and its wholly owned subsidiaries; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 130) with explanatory notes (Bill 130-EN).

Children and Families Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Hunt, Steve Webb, Mr Edward Timpson, Jo Swinson and Elizabeth Truss presented a Bill to make provision about children, families, and people with special educational needs; to make provision about the right to request flexible working; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 131) with explanatory notes (Bill 131-EN).

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

17:00

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The European Union (Approvals) Bill simply provides for parliamentary approval of three draft EU decisions: the proposal to give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union; the proposal to agree the five-year work programme—the multi-annual framework—of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency; and the draft European Council decision to maintain the number of EU Commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. The Bill underlines the importance placed by the Government on Parliament’s role in scrutinising the work of the European Union, which is why we enacted the European Union Act 2011.

The Government have given full consideration to all three measures and are of the view that the UK should support them. We are satisfied that they are in the best interests of the UK, and are sensible and reasonable. None has a significant domestic impact and, in particular, none will result in any additional financial burdens being imposed on the UK. The provisions in the Bill are technical in nature but will, in their own way, play an important role in the future shape of the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently set out the need to examine the UK’s relationship with the EU. The provisions do not represent far-reaching changes, and there will be further opportunities to examine more fundamental changes in other debates.

The Bill seeks the approval of Parliament on two proposals brought forward under a legal base of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union: the proposal to give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union; and the proposal for the next the five-year work programme, the multi-annual framework, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Article 352 allows the Union to take action to attain one of the objectives set out in the treaties, but for which there is no specific power set out in those treaties. Any proposal brought forward under this legal base must be agreed unanimously by the Council and gain the consent of the European Parliament, so that at European level there is a high bar for such a proposal to meet.

For the UK to agree to this at Council, and for the required unanimity to be secured, Parliament must first give its approval. The Government have put in place further parliamentary controls for proposals brought forward under article 352 of the treaty. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 states that a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of, or otherwise support, an article 352 decision unless it is approved by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, without the agreement of Parliament a proposal brought forward under this legal base cannot be adopted.

The EU Commission currently comprises 27 commissioners, one from each member state. The Lisbon treaty provides for a reduction, by one third, in the size of the Commission from 1 November 2014. However, the treaty also allows the European Council to alter the number of commissioners, subject to unanimous agreement. To secure Ireland’s ratification of the treaty, it was agreed that a decision would be taken to maintain the number of EU commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. Section 7 of the European Union Act 2011 provides that a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of such a decision unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The previous Lord Chancellor thought that the second draft decision, on the multi-annual financial framework, did not require an Act of Parliament because it fell under article 308 of the previous treaties—now section 352 of the new treaties. Do the Government have a clear position on whether anything previously under article 308 will now always require an Act of Parliament?

[Damian Green]

That level has not been reached. My hon. Friend is right that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the previous Lord Chancellor, came to that opinion, but, as my hon. Friend will also be aware, the European Scrutiny Committee challenged the basis of the assessment, and it was found that, because the previous agreement had been made under a previous version of the EU treaties that was not specifically provided for in the 2011 Act, it did not fall within the exemption set out in the Act. That is the principle on which the Government will operate.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for that clarification. The Act clearly refers to article 352, so would it be fair for the House to assume that if it is not specifically under article 352, the exemptions will not apply?

[Damian Green]

It is fair for the House to assume that were it equivalently done on the basis of previous treaties, the precedent set by the decision would apply, but I would hesitate, off the top of my head, to take that any further.

I turn now to the detail, starting with the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union. The Official Journal is the gazette of record for the EU. It is published every working day and records the decisions made and legislative acts of the EU institutions. The electronic version of the Official Journal has existed in parallel with the print version for some years, but a European Court of Justice judgment found that only the printed version was authentic. EU legislation is necessary, therefore, to enable the electronic version to have legal effect.

The EU institutions believe that if publication of the electronic version is given legal effect, access to EU law would be faster and more economical. At the moment, anyone wishing to access the authentic version must order and pay for printed copies of the Official Journal. This proposal will not affect those who wish to continue to have access to the printed version. This is a sensible measure in a world in which electronic communications have revolutionised how information is distributed and accessed. It will have no significant impacts or effects on the UK.

The second proposal for which the Bill seeks to provide approval is the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency, established in 2007. Its role is to support the European institutions and member states—when they are acting within the scope of EU law—to take measures and actions that respect fundamental rights. The agency does this through the collection and analysis of information and data. It also has a role in communicating and raising awareness of fundamental rights.

The agency’s work is regulated by a five-year work programme setting out the thematic areas of the agency’s activity. These must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance and be in line with the European Union’s current priorities. The work programme, defined by the Council of Ministers, gives the member states control over where the agency undertakes its work.

The agency’s first work programme covered the period 2007 to 2012. In December 2011, the Commission brought forward a proposal for a new work programme to cover the period 2013 to 2017. The proposal was amended through negotiations. The measure for which approval is sought very much continues the themes set out in the previous work programme, although there are some adjustments in the terminology.

The agreement of a new work programme will not alter the tasks of the agency, and nor will it change the agency’s role or remit. The work programme does not set out or define these elements. Those are set out in a completely different instrument—the agency’s establishing regulation—and that instrument is not under review at this time. The work programme simply sets out the themes under which the agency will work. Failure to agree the work programme will deprive the Council of the opportunity to set the direction for the agency by defining these themes.

I turn now to the third element in the Bill: the draft decision to maintain the number of EU commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. The proposed reduction in the size of the commission and the subsequent loss of a guaranteed commissioner emerged as a concern of the Irish during the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. In order to secure Ireland’s ratification of the treaty, it was agreed that a decision would be taken to maintain the number of EU commissioners before the appointment of the next Commission in 2014. The European Council has put forward the draft decision to fulfil the commitment made to Ireland.

This Government are committed to creating a leaner, less bureaucratic European Union and to improving efficiency in the EU institutions, including the Commission. We believe there is significant room for savings in administration and will continue to push for substantial reductions in the EU’s administrative costs. However, it is also important that the UK maintains its EU commissioner. By agreeing to this draft decision, the UK will retain its guaranteed commissioner and be in a stronger position to influence the make-up of the next Commission. Furthermore, the draft decision states that it should be reviewed before a new Commission is appointed, in 2019, or when the number of EU member states reaches 30, whichever is earlier. The draft decision does not give the go-ahead for the Commission to continue expanding ad infinitum.

I hope the House will agree with our assessment that these measures, although necessary, are administrative in nature, improving the accessibility and legal certainty of the EU’s official record, providing an EU agency with a work programme and fulfilling a commitment to the Irish people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does this mean that we will be able to get an electronic version of what has happened in the European Union within, say, three hours, as we do for proceedings in this House, and that if one does not have that, it will take several days to get a printed version?

[Damian Green]

My understanding is that there will be no alteration to the accessibility of the printed version. The electronic version already exists; this Bill means that it can be taken as an authentic record of what has happened. The Bill simply changes the status of the electronic record, which—I am told—is published every day. I hope that will assuage my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I commend this Bill to the House.

17:11

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In the order of things, many hon. Members might think that this Bill is not particularly contentious. I can understand that; however, the Bill is important, in terms of policy content and its constitutional significance to our relationship with the European Union.

As we have heard, there are three elements to the Bill. The first gives legislative approval to the electronic version of the European Union’s Official Journal. A draft decision was arrived at by the Justice and Home Affairs Council last March. Parliament is now being asked to approve that decision. The second issue concerns another decision of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, about the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The European Union is required to make a decision to establish the thematic areas of the FRA’s work for the next five years. Political agreement was secured at the Council meeting in January last year. Now Parliament has to approve or reject that agreement.

Thirdly, there is the draft European Council decision on the number of European commissioners. The Lisbon treaty states that there will be one commissioner per member state until 1 November 2014, when the number of commissioners would be reduced to a number corresponding to two thirds of the member states. However, a concession was made to assuage Irish sentiments during the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The concession was that each member state would continue to have one commissioner. To enable that commitment to come into effect, it is necessary to have the conclusion of the European Council agreed by this Parliament.

The three draft decisions are the first such decisions to be brought before this House under the European Union Act 2011. I would like to make a few remarks about that legislation. We welcome the fact that the agreement of Parliament is being sought on these decisions. Although we had reservations during the passage of the 2011 Act about the possibility of referendums being held on a multiplicity of relatively small issues, we strongly supported referendums being held on issues of constitutional significance. We also strongly supported a bigger role for Parliament, both in scrutinising European legislation and actual decision making. That is why we did not oppose the European Union Bill or divide the House on it.

In a constitutional sense, the decisions before us are important because two of the three were made at European level under article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the so-called flexibility clause—which allows the EU to act on a subject for which there is no specific treaty base. The clause has understandably been a cause for concern among parliamentarians across the political spectrum, not only in this country. Indeed, I recall that, when I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, a great deal of time was spent deliberating on the issue, and a good report was produced on it.

Given that the Government support the two decisions made under article 352, I am pleased that we are having a full discussion on the Floor of the House and that parliamentary approval is being sought for a parliamentary Bill. I am especially pleased that such approval is being sought on the decision to extend the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency over the next five years. I say that because, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has pointed out, the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), initially took the view that there was no need for an Act of Parliament as the European decisions satisfied the exemption requirements of the 2011 EU Act. I am pleased to note that the Government changed their mind on that after the European Scrutiny Committee and its indomitable Chairman, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), pointed out the error of their ways.

I shall comment briefly on each of the draft decisions covered by the Bill. The first decision relates to the Official Journal of the European Union. The EU has produced the OJ in printed form since 1958, and it has been available in its electronic format since 1998. The journal is made up of two series and one supplement. It contains information about the treaties and about the judgments of the European Court of Justice. Crucially, its “S series” supplement also provides invitations to tender for contracts and is therefore an important part of the mechanism that enables the single market to function and develop. As we all know, the single market is vital to the British economy.

We also need to take into account a relatively recent court ruling to ensure that online electronic versions of the Official Journal of the European Union have parity with the paper versions. I refer Members to case C-161/06, which involved a company called Skoma-Lux in the Czech Republic. After being fined for infringing customs legislation, the company, which operated in the fine wine import sector, brought an action for the cancellation of the fine before the regional court in Ostrava. I am sure that Members will be fascinated to hear that the claimant was an importer of the red dessert wine, Kagor VK, into the Czech Republic. The wine was made from grape juice, with added sugar and corn spirit —[Interruption.] You have obviously not tried that delicacy yet, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that there is time to do so.

After the deliberations in the regional court, the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice, particularly in relation to the interpretation of article 58 of the 2003 Act of Accession, regarding whether that provision allowed the enforcement of a Community regulation that had not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of a member state. The Court went on to state that publication on the internet did not equate to proper publication. That is why we need clarification of that point today. In case there is concern about digitalisation, I am assured that it will be covered under heading 5 of a multi-annual financial framework budget allocation and that, as the Minister said, there will be no extra cost.

The second draft decision relates to the Fundamental Rights Agency. The previous multi-annual framework for the FRA expired at the end of last year. After consultation, the European Council proposed extending and developing the FRA’s work in a number of thematic areas. In May last year, the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached political agreement for there to be nine areas of work. These included access to justice, victims of crime and compensation for crime victims, children’s rights, racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. Opposition Members believe that the agency is extremely useful in assessing the impact of legislation not only in current EU member states, but in applicant countries. We therefore support the draft decision.

The third decision relates to the number of EU commissioners. This is perhaps the most significant of the proposals in the Bill. As I indicated a few moments ago, this draft decision maintains the number of commissioners at one per member state. I of course welcome the fact that the people of Ireland voted yes in 2009, and I am pleased that they felt able to do so. This change will, it has to be said, ensure that all member states will feel that they are fully represented in all the EU’s principal institutions, which can only be a good thing.

It would be wrong to give the impression, however, that there is no need to change the way in which the Commission functions. There is a need and a case for examining whether there should be a degree of seniority within the college of commissioners, and a case can be made for examining the allocation of portfolios within the Commission. As the shadow Foreign Secretary has argued, there needs to be a commissioner with the specific responsibility for stimulating growth and job creation.

Finally, in recent debates on the European Union, Members have referred to the need for national Parliaments to have a stronger voice and a stronger involvement. Despite its shortcomings, the European Union Act 2011 does to some extent address this issue, but let us not forget that one of the most positive aspects of the Lisbon treaty, which Labour secured, was the introduction of a so-called yellow card procedure. This needs to be strengthened so that this Parliament, along with other national Parliaments, really does fulfil a central role in EU decision making. Subsidiarity means that decisions ought to be taken at the most appropriate level—as close to the people as possible. That is a sound democratic principle, and it ought to be the cornerstone of how we approach the European Union. To make that vision a reality, it will be necessary to ensure that national Parliaments—and this Parliament in particular—play a central role in determining what should be decided and at what level of government.

This Bill, small though it is, has our support because it modestly points us in the right direction. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of other more important aspects of the Government’s policy towards the European Union.

17:23

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on a matter European where there is general agreement across the House and no time limit on the scoreboard. I shall go on for only a couple of hours, and I have already issued my press release saying I was “speaking to a packed Chamber.” As long as the few Members here keep quiet about it, I shall be fine.

I thought it might be wise to explain why it is important to discuss these matters. As the European Union Act 2011 has brought today’s debate forward on the basis that Parliament is required to pass an Act to approve the relatively low-level EU decisions in clause 1, it might look as though those decisions are of no consequence and do not need to be talked about. As both the Minister and the shadow Minister said, however, these are quite important matters, and some other member states find them amazingly important.

The German Federal Constitutional Court talked about article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the flexibility clause that has caused so much excitement in the past—on which these proposed decisions are based. It considered that article as part of its 2009 judgment on the constitutionality of German basic law and the Lisbon treaty when Germany was seeking to ratify the treaty. Specifically, it considered the question of whether the article, which gives the European Union sweeping legislative power, was compatible with democracy as enshrined within German basic law.

The court had already found that, to have democratic legitimacy, the powers of the EU must be rooted in a democratic decision of Germany’s national Parliament to confer those powers to the EU. The German court said:

“Article 352 TFEU not only establishes a competence of action for the European Union but at the same time relaxes the principle of conferral.”

That is the principle that powers must be conferred on the EU by member states under article 352. The court continued:

“action by the European Union in fields set out in the Treaties is intended to be possible if the Treaties have not provided the specific competence necessary…The provision can thus serve to create a competence which makes action on the European level possible in almost the entire area of application of the primary law”

across the EU treaties.

The court ruled that

“As regards the ban on transferring blanket empowerments or transferring Kompetenz”—

the competence for the EU to decide its own powers—

“the provision”—

that is, article 352—

“meets with constitutional objections because the newly worded provision makes it possible to substantially amend Treaty foundations of the European Union without the mandatory participation of legislative”—

national—

“bodies beyond the Member States’ executive powers”.

Essentially, the court said that the German Parliament would have to examine these matters again.

It is good that we are at least mimicking the German Parliament, albeit a few years later. We are here to discuss relatively important issues, as has the German Parliament. It could perhaps be argued that the German public may be a tiny tad less Eurosceptic, because their Parliament talks about these matters sensibly and regularly, and that they therefore may understand them slightly better.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I knew that I was going to provoke some reaction.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very concerned that our speaking about these matters will make the country more pro-European. I want to encourage people in their Euroscepticism, so I think that we should perhaps talk about them less.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think that all scepticism should be based on reality. We should talk about things with decent facts in front of us. This is a very good forum in which to discuss the facts, so let us do that.

The Bill has been produced as a result of the requirement of the excellent European Union Act 2011 to approve the three EU decisions that have already been mentioned. Under the Act, before a United Kingdom Minister can give final agreement in the Council of the European Union or the European Council to decisions proposed on the basis of the EU treaties being used in these cases, the proposed decisions must be approved by an Act of Parliament. That is what we are doing today. Although certain proposals based on the EU flexibility clause are exempt from the requirement for an approving Act of Parliament, those exemptions do not apply in these cases. I will happily go into the details if Members want to know what they are. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is obviously keen to discuss them; perhaps we will do so afterwards, over a beer.

Under the EU treaties, EU decisions of this kind require unanimity in the Council or the European Council, which means that without the UK’s support they cannot be adopted, at least to cover all member states.

Members have already listed what the proposals would achieve. There is an EU regulation enabling the electronic rather than the printed version of the Official Journal to take EU legal effect. There is an EU decision that would set out the broad areas of work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights between 2013 and 2017. There is also an EU decision on the number of European commissioners.

Although the first two proposals may not seem to be hugely important, they are based on the flexibility clause, which gives the EU sweeping powers to adopt laws when the treaties have not otherwise given it the power to legislate. It has been used to adopt significant EU measures in the past, such as the creation of the EU bail-out fund for non-eurozone member states. It was therefore thought to warrant parliamentary control, and that thoroughly good idea was introduced by the European Union Act.

The two proposals dealt with by clause 1 are being introduced under the flexibility clause: they are article 352 decisions—flexibility decisions. As I said, the flexibility clause has been used to co-ordinate national social security systems for the benefit of all member states’ nationals when moving within the EU; to provide for measures against the counterfeiting of euro coins that apply to member states outside the euro; and for the bail-out fund. We are talking about significant measures.

The Bill deals with the EU Official Journal, which is not exactly the most exciting document in the world but, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, it contains striking elements of importance to the functioning of the single market, and to EU business and UK business in general. I have a small problem with it, because everything has to be translated into each of the official languages of the European Union. This is not a debate for now, but that approach means that everything that is said in the Official Journal has to be translated into, for example, Gaelic, and that is perhaps not the best use of money.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I was recently at a European Union conference where the Irish did speak in Gaelic, and I applaud them for doing so. The great linguistic creations of humankind should be preserved, and I am glad that the Irish are speaking in their own language and insisting that it be translated.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I completely understand the cultural point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the European Central Bank uses only a couple of languages and many international institutions manage to cut down the number of languages they use, and they do so purely to keep costs down. The European Commission, the European Parliament and other European institutions do not do that and perhaps they should examine their approach. I merely wanted to make that point in relation to how difficult it is to produce the Official Journal for the very next day in written and electronic form. The Government have given political—not legally binding—agreement to the proposed regulation, with the Council supposedly ready to adopt it and the European Parliament having given its consent.

The Bill also deals with the proposed EU decision establishing a multi-annual work programme to cover 2013 to 2017 for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Again, one can give a parting shot, at least, about the growth in the number of these EU agencies; there is a huge number now and, as with commissioners, one at least has to go to each member state. In 2007, the EU adopted a regulation, based on the flexibility clause, establishing the agency, which is based in Vienna. Its objective has been outlined by the hon. Gentleman, but according to article 2 of its founding regulations it is to provide “assistance and expertise” to support member states in fully respecting fundamental rights. Under article 4 of its founding regulations, the agency’s activities include: gathering, analysing and disseminating information; publishing reports; and developing “a communication strategy” and a

“dialogue with civil society, in order to raise public awareness of fundamental rights”.

In 2013, the agency will receive a subsidy of €21.3 million from the EU budget, about half of which will be spent on staffing. According to article 5 of the agency’s founding regulation, the Council needs to adopt five-year multi-annual frameworks that set out

“thematic areas of the Agency’s activity, which must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”.

In addition to the multi-annual framework, the agency can respond to requests from the Council, the European Parliament or European Commission for it to conduct studies or produce conclusions on particular topics.

The draft Council decision before Parliament is the proposed multi-annual framework for the four years between 2013 and 2017, proposed by the European Commission on the basis of the flexibility clause. Under that decision, the thematic areas of the agency’s work in that time period will be: access to justice; victims of crime, including compensation for victims of crime; the information society, particularly respect for private life and the protection of personal data; Roma integration; judicial co-operation, except in criminal matters; the rights of the child; discrimination based on sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation; immigration and the integration of migrants, visa and border control and asylum; and racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Government have given political but not legally binding agreement to the proposed decision. The Council is apparently ready to adopt the proposal and the European Parliament has already given its consent.

That leaves us with the final measure, which is probably more controversial than was originally said: the retention of one European commissioner per member state under clause 2. The European commission consists of one national of each member state, so there are 27 commissioners and there will soon be 28 when Croatia comes in. Following great debate in the European Parliament and many other EU institutions and in the Parliaments of many member states, the treaty of Lisbon introduced the ratio of two thirds commissioners to member states. The logic was quite sensible: it was an attempt to stop bureaucracy growing out of control and to maintain some easier management of the bureaucracy from the top. The member states whose nationals would be commissioners would be decided

“on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States”.

The system would be agreed by unanimous decision at the European Council and each commissioner’s term would be five years.

Article 17(5) of the treaty on European Union states that the European Council, acting unanimously, can vary the size of the Commission from November 2014. As the Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill state in paragraph 12:

“when the Irish people voted ‘no’ in a referendum on Lisbon Treaty ratification in June 2008 the loss of a guaranteed”

Irish commissioner in every Commission

“emerged as a key concern. Without Irish ratification the Treaty could not enter into force, and as a result EU Heads of State and Government offered concessions to Ireland”.

One of the main concessions, offered in December 2008 and reiterated in June 2009, provided that when

“the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, a decision would be taken…to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State”.

Those concessions seemed enough for the Irish people, who voted in the second referendum in October 2009 and approved that treaty.

The draft European Council decision based on article 17(5) has now been introduced and provides that from November 2014 onwards that the number of commissioners will continue to equal the number of member states. The draft decision states that it will be reviewed in advance of the appointment of the Commission due to take office in 2019, but for the decision to be altered there will need to be unanimity in the European Council, meaning that any member state can veto such a change. Having a European commissioner is a big deal for many, if not all, of the countries of the European Union, so it is highly unlikely that the change will ever be made. We will therefore continue to build on the number of European Commissioners.

[Bob Stewart]

Does that mean that every European Commissioner will need a department to be built to support them or will there be commissioners without portfolio?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I shall address that point in a moment, but yes, no commissioner is merely in charge of paper clips. Every commissioner needs a cabinet—a group of people around them from the top of the civil service—and normally brings an extra language with them, so a huge amount of cost and bureaucracy is associated with it.

The Government have given political but not legally binding agreement to the proposed decision, which is scheduled to be formally adopted by the European Council some time this year. Agreeing with the decision sits slightly oddly with something that the Prime Minister said in his speech on EU policy last week under the theme of competitiveness:

“Can we justify a Commission that gets ever larger?”

That is a fair question, considering that many other European bodies—the European Court of Auditors, for example—have an appointee from each member state, and work by having so many cooks making this particular broth. Appointments to EU agencies, as I have said, seem to be farmed out nearly one per member state, and it has almost got to the point where we need to have a serious discussion about how, if the European Commission is to work effectively, that can be done.

It is a particularly thorny issue, and warrants much more discussion. It is amazingly political. As I have said, it was one of the more important assurances gained by the Irish to secure a yes vote in their referendum. Everyone in Parliament will remember that the UK, along with four other large countries, had two commissioners, but we gave up our second commissioner with the enlargement of the EU in 2004. It is de rigueur in the EU for each country that comes into the club to get a commissioner—a seat at the main decision-making table in Europe. While that is a fine principle, it brings with it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested, some powers to guide and oversee, but also a mass of bureaucracy. I believe that that is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that question in his excellent speech at Bloomberg the other week.

One does not have to be pro-European or Eurosceptic to see that the European Commission has become unwieldy in size, and while this might not be the time to sort out the issue for good, it would be a good opportunity to raise this thorny issue for discussion with our European counterparts. With many new accessions down the line, it seems that this is an opportunity missed. Certainly, it would be an interesting discussion to have at roughly the same time that the multi-annual financial framework is decided. I wonder, if we had a reasonable debate on the subject, whether proposals at least to trim the Commission’s total budget for the next seven years could be achieved, even if it is not possible to trim or cap the number of commissioners.

I conclude where I began. It is really good to see some proper scrutiny as a result of the European Union Act 2011. I thank the Government for introducing that excellent piece of legislation and for sticking to both the letter and the spirit of it.

17:42

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First, I apologise for not being here for the Front-Bench speeches. I was detained elsewhere, and I assure fellow Members that I shall not speak for long.

However, I have been provoked into speaking by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), with whom I frequently agree on European matters, but on this one I disagree. It is very important indeed to retain one member of the Commission for every member state, and I see a parallel in the American Senate, where states, however large or small, have two senators. If New York, California and Texas began to get together to say, “Well, Delaware and Rhode Island will no longer have senators,” there would be all sorts of problems. I am sure that there are other ways of overcoming the problems of inefficiency—perhaps with departmental arrangements for more than one commissioner in Departments that are particularly big, as we do in our own Government: we have more than one Minister per Department.

Proportionality exists with qualified majority voting, and on many voting issues, different countries have different weights. It is important that, at the highest level, every individual country has their say, just as in the American constitution, every state, however small, has a say at the top table. It is important, too, to have the occasional bit of grit in the oyster. Small states, as well as large states, can occasionally become disagreeable, and I think that being disagreeable is part of the essence of democracy. Having a machine dominated by bureaucracy and officials who just go along with it is not healthy for democracy. I have many criticisms of the European Union, and I have been very critical of the secrecy with which the Commission operates. I hope we will always preserve a single member per state as the method of composition of the Commission, even if we make some different arrangements for how it works.

Another factor in all this is who the commissioners are. I like to think that from time to time we as the British people might appoint a commissioner whose first loyalty is to the interests of British people, and who reflects their views as well as their interests. Their views may sometimes be awkward and may certainly be grit in the European oyster. That would be right.

Once the commissioners are appointed, which portfolio is allocated to which member state? I have been told by certain MEPs that from time to time conclaves of Commission officials get together to allocate dodgy portfolios, in particular the portfolio of Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, to weaker members. I know that there is always the worry that a commissioner might turn out to be a bit of a trade unionist, a bit of a leftist. That would be very dangerous. We must have someone who knows that the market and employers come first. Above all, we must make sure that profits come first, not the interests of working people.

Who is appointed as a commissioner for each member state and which portfolio they are given are very important matters. I hope we will see to it that at least Britain has commissioners for the foreseeable future—for as long as we are in the European Union—who truly represent the views of the British people, and not just the interests of the British people as they see them. I hope also that we get appropriate portfolios, and that the small countries that might be squeezed out also have their say.

17:46

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is great to see the European Union Act 2011 in action. It has certainly drawn in the crowds today, in just the way that we might have warned that it might not do when we discussed the Bill. During its passage through Parliament, we warned that the Bill might represent a slightly disproportionate response to concerns about scrutiny and democracy in relation to European affairs.

The fact that we have ended up spending parliamentary time on the Floor of the House discussing the publication in electronic format of the European Parliament record suggests that we might have had a point. I remember Ministers optimistically assuming that a debate such as this might assuage the Eurosceptic concerns about democracy and scrutiny in relation to Europe. I thought at the time that that might be optimistic.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which explained that the Germans have an exactly similar procedure in regard to article 352 on the treaty of the functioning of the European Union to ensure that those measures are legislated upon by their Parliament. Surely if it is good enough for the German people to have proper ratification procedures, it should be good enough for us.

[Martin Horwood]

Only yesterday the hon. Gentleman was declaring on Radio 4 that he was taking his lead from the Catholic hierarchy. Now he tells the House that he is taking a lead from the German Parliament. At this rate he might get a reputation for being a Europhile, which might not do his reputation within the Conservative party too much good.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman think the generous allocation of time by the Government has anything to do with the lack of any other Government business?

[Martin Horwood]

It is above my pay grade to judge, but I am sure that is not true.

The substance of the Bill relates to three measures, two of which are completely uncontentious—the e-publication of the Journal and the business plan, effectively, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Other hon. Members are right that the third measure is worth more substantial debate, as it adjusts a mechanism that was supposed to limit the size and endless growth of the Commission. There are a number of issues that that growth has raised. It was not simply the practicality of having an ever-increasing number of commissioners. Without being unkind to some of the smaller member states, we know that there is a bit of a capacity issue in terms of their ability to produce candidates of sufficient calibre for a portfolio that affects the entire continent. Moreover, in terms of public perception, it slightly muddies the whole idea of the Commission. The Commission should be, in essence, the equivalent of our civil service. It should be the servant of the Council of Ministers, the various European ministerial councils and the European Parliament, and not pretend to be a representative body.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with that sentiment, but the reality is that the Commission and its officials act like a Government rather than a civil service. Only this week, I was told by someone who knows about these matters that when Commission officials decide on something it generally happens.

[Martin Horwood]

I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but I do agree that there is a slight risk of that happening, as we have all been aware over many decades. We have to be careful about the level of democratic accountability in the European Union. I would always support increasing democratic reform and democratic accountability in the EU where we can do so.

There is the potential for endless growth in the number of commissioners, or at least for the number to be limited only by the number of European states that might join the EU. It was clear from the Irish referendum debate that, as any fan of the TV series “Borgen” will know, for smaller countries the appointment of a European commissioner is a major political issue to which people attach a great deal of importance, and we have to respect that. We are a community of many nations with many different priorities, and it is important that we acknowledge that. To that extent, I support the Government in backing this measure.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made a brave effort to make this debate sound like a very contentious one that demands this level of scrutiny. In the spirit of coalition unity, I recognise that the European Union Act 2011 has brought a greater level of accountability and scrutiny to European legislation in this place, and that process could go further. At the beginning of last year, Ministers announced that there would be a review of the way in which scrutiny of European legislation took place. Submissions were invited, and I found myself in rare agreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in suggesting that Select Committees should automatically and routinely vet European legislation that was relevant to their briefs. Will Ministers update us on the progress of that process and say how far down the path we are towards introducing such routine and automatic scrutiny by Select Committees?

[Damian Green]

In the interests of the many parliamentarians I see assembled on these Benches, I should point out that the procedures of Select Committees are very much not for the Government to decide but are a matter for this House.

[Martin Horwood]

The recommendations of the Government on scrutiny was the issue in contention, and many of us made submissions on that basis. In the end, Select Committees might be a better option for scrutinising such legislation, or there could be a greater use of statutory instrument Committees or European Committees.

I absolutely stand by the European Union Act, which was an important agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat wings of the coalition that, for a while, reassured many Eurosceptics on the Conservative Back Benches that we were going to give greater scrutiny to Europe. However, I suggest that we might in time reflect on whether it is a good use of parliamentary time to deal in the main Chamber with issues that are relatively uncontentious and, in many cases, relatively unimportant in the great scheme of things. With that major caveat, I am happy to give my support to the Bill.

17:53

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), with whom I disagree on almost every matter regarding Europe, this being no exception. I think it is fantastic that we are spending parliamentary time scrutinising what is being done in the European Union. So many laws come to our nation from the European Union practically rubber-stamped as an appendix to a report put out by the European Scrutiny Committee that is not even debated in a Committee upstairs. The percentage that we send through for debate in Committee is small, and that which comes to the Floor of the House smaller still.

Article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union allows the European Union very widespread powers to extend its abilities to legislate across its areas of competence, and it is important for us to scrutinise and control that.

[Martin Horwood]

How many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or lobbying organisations have contacted him with their concerns about the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am bombarded with messages from across the country, and probably internationally, from people who want to know that the laws that affect them are made clearly so that they know what they are and are not caught out by trickery and underhand practices. That is a fundamental principle of why they send me here. I would argue that everybody who voted at the last election wants to sleep securely in their beds knowing that the law is fairly and properly made.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I agree very strongly. I am perhaps alone in insisting on having hard copy in my Select Committee meetings rather than an iPad. I can operate an iPad but I want hard copy, and I still have it. Much as we know that we are in an electronic age, paper still has its place.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, is wise and right in this instance.

[Bob Stewart]

It might not be of much importance that the electronic publication of the Official Journal goes ahead, but I put it to my hon. Friend that it is pretty important how many commissioners are appointed, because that has a direct spin-off in cost terms.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are two parts to my hon. Friend’s point. On the first part, I disagree with him. The form in which instructions are sent out is important, and it is right that people should know about it. It is a long-standing principle of our law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If that is fair, it is also fair that knowledge of the law should be made available to people in a timely and efficient way, because it is something that might affect their lives, and that when a change to the method of notification takes place, that should be debated in this Chamber and passed into law. On the second part, I completely agree that the number of commissioners is significant.

The second point that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister is crucially important. It relates to the change from article 308 of the previous treaty to article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Article 352 is broader in scope. Had it been assumed that anything previously incorporated under article 308 could be transmuted under article 352, that could have allowed all sorts of laws—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) went through a number of them—to pass into the body of European Union powers without any further scrutiny by this House. As is often the case, something that is in itself minor has set an important precedent in protecting the rights of this House to scrutinise these matters and to ensure that the interests of our constituents are protected.

I wish briefly to discuss the number of commissioners. I do not have the confidence that some hon. Members have in our commissioners, and I do not feel happy that we have one representing us. Commissioners take an oath that they will act in the best interests of the European Union. Some have argued that that is directly contrary to the oath that they have taken as Privy Counsellors, and we should be concerned about that. They are there, by design, to represent the interests of Europe, not of the United Kingdom. Perhaps because of our history and our civic traditions, our commissioners tend to take that very seriously, whereas commissioners from some other countries may simply represent the nation state that has sent them. I do not have great confidence that the person representing the United Kingdom is waving the Union Jack; they could just as well be waving that awful European Union flag.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I am one of those who have been concerned for many years about our commissioners, not just because they do not represent my view, but because I do not think they represent the collective view of our people, if there is such a thing. One possibility might be for them to be elected. We have started to elect police commissioners, but European commissioners are much more important.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a brilliant idea. If they were elected, there would be less chance of their going native, because they might be able to stand for election again. At present, there is a fear that, when people go off to Europe, the moment they arrive they send out for Belgian dress so that they can appear to fit in with the ethos of the European Union.

I want to address the question of Ireland and the specifics of what it was given to persuade it—bully it, perhaps—to ratify the Lisbon treaty. That shows—I think that this strengthens the Prime Minister’s renegotiation position—that countries can renegotiate with the EU for things that they feel they need when discussions are being held in the European Councils. That is an important point. We have often heard people say, “The Prime Minister can go off to Europe, but they will not give him anything. It’s too bad: you’ve just got to like it or lump it.” Actually, the European Union, for all its many faults, is a fundamentally pragmatic body in how it gets agreement among member states. It does a lot of horse trading, one way or another, to get agreements. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) wants to intervene, but she seems to be nodding vaguely in response to that particular point.

The situation means that, if we go to the EU and say, “If you want X, you must give us Y,” or, “If you want X, you must give us A to Z in return,” that is a strong position for us to be in when the requirement is for unanimity. What Ireland has done, and what we are bringing into law, is very important and very encouraging for the United Kingdom and for the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his negotiations.

Finally, I praise the Government for the Bill, which has been proposed as a consequence of the 2011 Act. When the Act was going through Parliament, it was not universally welcomed, certainly not by those on the Opposition Benches, but even Eurosceptics on my side were sceptical about the effect that it would have. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) welcome the Bill and I am pleased that the Government have changed their view so that the multi-annual financial framework has to go through British law. That shows that the 2011 Act is working and acting as a proper check on what goes on in the European Union.

Without the Act, none of the three things under discussion today would have required legislation, but, because of it, they all do. As a result, crucial issues, such as the future number of European commissioners and renegotiations such as that which took place with Ireland to get it to support the Lisbon treaty, have come before this Chamber. Although in this instance the Bill has turned out to be uncontroversial, it could have been very controversial. I think that we are now secure, thanks to the Government, in having a better check on the accretion of powers to Europe. I might like to reverse them, but at least we are now checking them.

18:03

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I first want to refer, in the context of the Bill, to the referendum announced by the Prime Minister. We have heard much about the 2011 Act. I opposed it during many of its stages, because I believed that although it had a so-called referendum lock, in practice it would not deal with the kinds of things we are now besieged with, particularly those measures that are being introduced into the political core of Europe—the eurozone—that affect the United Kingdom but that, because they do not refer to the United Kingdom, do not require a referendum, however significant their impact on the United Kingdom. In fact, the European Scrutiny Committee, which I have the honour to chair, produced a report on that very question and we remain extremely concerned about the effect of allowing legislation to go through without a referendum on the specious grounds that a transfer of powers is not taking place. This is not just about a transfer of powers; a referendum is required when there is a fundamental change.

Interestingly, the referendum announced by the Prime Minister, which I think should take place during this Parliament, is a very good example—indeed, it is a perfect example—of something that does not fall under the 2011 Act. However, it is the opinion of the Prime Minister—it is certainly my opinion and that of many hon. Members present—that the proposals that are about to be announced, or that he thinks are likely to be announced, as well as what has already been transferred, the structure of the treaties and the impact of the provisions, past and present, on the United Kingdom, should be subject to a referendum, because of the unfortunate, aggregate effect that they continue to have on the United Kingdom.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is extremely kind, as ever, in giving way. Would he like a referendum on the Bill under discussion?

[Mr Cash]

I did not say that. What I said was that the referendum that the Prime Minister has announced goes outside the provisions of the 2011 Act, and I am glad to say that that demonstrates that, where there is fundamental change, he recognises—with some help from his friends— that a referendum is a requirement, even though it is not taking place as early as some of us would like.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my right hon. Friend—

[Mr Cash]

Not yet.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

He is not yet a right hon. Gentleman, but he might be soon. I thank him for giving way. Does he recognise that, while the 2011 Act was designed to stop powers being sucked away from the UK at the request of the European Union but without much say from this place, the Prime Minister’s referendum is about a new settlement that may require powers to be returned from the EU, so they are slightly different things?

[Mr Cash]

That is true, but I maintain that the key question is whether the requirements contained in the five principles, which include repatriation and the primacy of national Parliaments—on which the European Scrutiny Committee has insisted on a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House because of the implications for economic governance—are all part and parcel of what has been going wrong in the European Union. I welcome the idea of the referendum, but with the caveat that I do not think the timing is right, although that is a separate question.

Turning to article 352 of the treaty for the functioning of the European Union, my hon. Friend made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). They are all on the European Scrutiny Committee and very familiar with the intricacies of the arguments, although they are not that intricate. In fact, the provisions of article 352 derive, in effect, from article 308. I have now served on the ESC for 27 years, and those who have been around for as long as I have—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Not long enough.

[Mr Cash]

Not long enough, says my hon. Friend. The fact is that article 308 is and always has been a very contentious issue. It is reflected in provisions in our own domestic law that deal with whether or not, when something is enacted, anything that flows from it can be done without the need for further primary legislation. It so happens that article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has similar words:

“If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously…after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”

That means that there is already a big amber light in relation to the acquisition of these further powers, although there is no legal base for them.

That is, in a nutshell, the reason for the Bill. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2011 Act do not apply to the two draft decisions that were made under article 352. An Act of Parliament is therefore required. That is a safeguard. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is right that it is important that we have an Act of Parliament, despite what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, not because of the nature of the provision in question, but because the 2011 Act, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham was so keen to endorse, did not provide for circumstances of this kind.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Cash]

I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I always like to hear a contrary view.

[Martin Horwood]

I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the extraordinary assertion of the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that we do not discuss these matters in enough detail in this place. However, what I want to say to him is that I think he may have misquoted me. I did not say that we should not have legislation on these matters. I supported the European Union Act 2011 in that regard. I just suggested that we do not need primary legislation in every case.

[Mr Cash]

I do not want to be drawn too far down that route, but the simple reason for primary legislation is that, without it, there would not be adequate legislative authority, even for the questions that arise under this Bill.

I shall now turn to one or two issues relating to the Bill that required a considerable amount of consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee. I will give a tiny bit of history on the multi-annual framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, but I will try to be as brief as possible. The Justice Minister, Lord McNally, stated in an explanatory memorandum that was issued to the House and the European Scrutiny Committee in January 2012 that he thought that the proposal was justified. He said that the Government would have opposed the proposal to extend the multi-annual framework, but wanted to consider whether the technical issues that they disliked had been addressed.

The European Scrutiny Committee reported on the proposal on 1 February 2012. We asked the Government whether they accepted the view of the European Commission that

“with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Agency’s remit automatically extends, in principle, to all areas of EU competence under the TFEU, and that the Agency may therefore undertake activities within the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters without any further amendment to its founding Regulation”.

We questioned the Government’s view that this decision satisfied the exemption requirements under section 8(6)(a) of the 2011 Act and would not require an Act of Parliament. Our 10th report, which was published on 17 July 2012, set out our concerns in greater detail. The draft decision remained under scrutiny.

The former Lord Chancellor, who is now the Minister without Portfolio, told the European Scrutiny Committee in July 2012 that a political agreement had been reached on the draft decision which excluded any new activity covering EU policing and criminal law measures. In a letter that he sent on 22 November, he told the European Scrutiny Committee that, having heard what we had said, the Government were now—although they had not been before—of the opinion that the exemption did not apply in this case, and that primary legislation would be introduced.

That is why we have this Bill—the European Scrutiny Committee did its job and asked for further clarification. [Interruption.] I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), for nodding his head, because sometimes people wonder what all the detail is about and whether we have to be so intricate. The bottom line is that the European Scrutiny Committee, by pointing out the legal objections and having a dialogue with the Government, who in turn had a dialogue with the European Commission, helped to make the legislation better. We helped to guarantee that there would be primary legislation and that, in the absence of the authorisation through the 2011 Act that had been deemed to be appropriate, this House would have the opportunity to consider the matter in the way we are considering it today. Indeed, after this debate, there will be a Committee stage and a Report stage.

The European Scrutiny Committee reported on the proposal again on 28 November. We cleared the document, but in January 2013 we pointed out to Ministers that the Government’s uncertainty about whether the exemptions applied to this decision had prevented the new measure from being agreed in good time. That is the history of this matter and it is important to put it on the record.

The draft decision on the number of European Commissioners provides another example of the European Scrutiny Committee takings its findings to the Government and, thereby, to the Commission. We received an explanatory memorandum and a letter from the Minister for Europe on 27 September. He stated that the size and composition of the European Commission was a fraught subject. He went on to say that it was difficult to identify a solution that was equitable, legitimate in terms of the relative size and weight of different European countries, and efficient. That is all in our report.

The European Scrutiny Committee considered the draft decision in its 13th report, which was published on 2 November 2012. We noted that because of delays in the draft decision being communicated to member states and because Parliament was in recess, it was not possible for us to scrutinise the proposal before political agreement needed to be reached on the draft decision at the General Affairs Council on 16 October 2012.

I put that on the record because it is important that these matters have a proper legal base and that Parliament has an opportunity to debate them. We are having this debate on the Floor of the House, so it is open to any Member of Parliament to discuss these proposals, to oppose them, to examine them in Committee and to table amendments.

[Bob Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Cash]

I will give way in just a moment, if I may.

The problem is that when we provide for amendments to be made to matters that have been through the Council of Ministers, we are obliged under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to continue to pass that legislation through our Parliament. That poses the very questions regarding the role of national Parliaments that the Prime Minister raised in his recent speech. The European Scrutiny Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into scrutiny and that is among the matters that we are considering.

If the House of Commons—or indeed the House of Lords, although I will stick to the House of Commons for my purposes—were to take exception to a provision that was included in an Act of Parliament for lack of a legal base or for some other substantive reason and wanted to vote against it, that would raise the very question that was embedded in the White Paper of 1971, which led to the passing of the 1972 Act. Under section 2 of that Act, we must implement all decisions that have been decided in the Council of Ministers, irrespective of any other factors. Under section 3, we must agree to all decisions of the European Court.

In the context of the Prime Minister’s speech— I welcome his comments on the referendum, although I think it will come too late—we have to evaluate where the power lies in passing legislation. We need an Act of Parliament for the provisions contained in the Bill for the reasons that have already been given, which I endorse. However, could Parliament veto the provisions that it covers if we did not want them to go through? We should be allowed to do so, and that will be part of the inquiry that the European Scrutiny Committee is now conducting. It is difficult to justify to the British people the fact that if they vote in a general election to have certain legislation implemented, they can then find that it is all decided in the Council of Ministers, where 91.7% of votes go in favour of European proposals. That brings up the whole business of how UKRep advises, or even decides, on such legislation, which is a vital question that affects the daily lives of this country’s voters.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s Committee on bringing this matter before the House. Clause 2 of the Bill contains an important provision. How can it be right that a small country such as Luxembourg has equal representation on the Commission with a complex country such as ourselves? That surely makes no sense whatever. Furthermore, the clause seems to indicate that however many countries join the EU, they will each get a commissioner, so we could end up with 30 or more commissioners. How can that make sense?

[Mr Cash]

It is difficult to make sense of a lot of things that come out of the European Union, and I am reminded of what Alice said in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” about believing half a dozen impossible things before breakfast every day. That is possibly one example.

The reality is that there are 27 member states, and there was a lot of discussion about whether there should be an equivalent number of commissioners. It was decided that each member state would continue to have a commissioner. I understand well what my hon. Friend says, and it is quite difficult to justify given countries’ comparative size, geography, GDP and so on. On the other hand, if some countries were to be denied a European commissioner, I suppose some people would say that they were being treated unfairly. Finally on the number of commissioners, I have argued in the past that the European Commission should be relegated to the role of a secretariat rather than the role that it currently enjoys.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend has eloquently, and at some length, posed and answered the question that I was going to put to him earlier. I was going to say that whatever we do here, it will have no impact on the number of commissioners.

[Mr Cash]

That is correct, given that the veto that was promised to us has been taken away.

Right at the beginning, when the European Communities Act 1972 went through, the functions of the European Union were fairly restricted. Up to the Single European Act in 1986, which I voted for, there were a limited number of qualified majority voting arrangements. That Act greatly expanded them, and I tabled an amendment at the time suggesting, “Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament”. I was then advised by the Clerks—indeed, I went to the Speaker about it—that it was not possible to move such an amendment, because it would challenge the fabric of the 1972 Act. Time has moved on, and qualified majority voting is now used in a lot more cases.

There was a qualification in the 1971 White Paper, which led to the passing of the 1972 Act by a mere six votes. It stated that there would be no essential erosion of British sovereignty, and that we would have to retain the veto in our vital national interest, because doing otherwise would undermine and endanger the very fabric of the European Community itself. I repeated that point the other day and will do so again and again, for one reason—the mass of legislation that there has been since the referendum in 1975, including all the treaties, with some 35 million people in this country never having had an opportunity to express their view on that legislation. As I said in The Times the other day, treaty after treaty has gone through on a three-line Whip, without a referendum. There has been a vast accumulation of qualified majority voting, and all that legislation has been passed.

The Bill contains just one provision. Matters that would normally require a Bill have gone through both Houses of Parliament without one, but this one, which is based on a few lines in a directive or regulation, is in a Bill. There is a complete mismatch in proportionality in how we legislate.

There may well be no Division this evening, but that does not alter the fact that we have done our job, both in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the House, by examining a matter that would otherwise not have had a legal base under article 352. It is dangerous to legislate without having the power to do so. The rule of law is essential to the running of a stable Government and a stable European Union—if there is to be a European Union, it had better be stable and in accordance with the rule of law. Increasingly, the EU is demonstrating its lack of regard for the rule of law on matters such as the stability and growth pact. We also see it in the unlawful manner in which 25 member states went ahead after the Prime Minister had exercised the veto. There are many other examples. When a body that vaunts the rule of law as much as the EU is blatantly in breach of its own rules, there is trouble ahead.

18:27

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who does such sterling service to the House in his capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I think I am the first person to speak in this debate, apart from the Front Benchers, who is not a member of that Committee, and I pay tribute to its members, who have ensured that we have the opportunity to hold the Government and the European Union to account in tonight’s debate and on subsequent occasions.

I shall confine my remarks to the aspect of the Bill dealing with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the Lisbon treaty was being discussed, our Government said that they were against the Fundamental Rights Agency because they thought it completely superfluous and unnecessary. They said that all it would do would be to duplicate the work of the Council of Europe. That is exactly what it has set out to do—to usurp the Council of Europe and duplicate its work.

I am disappointed, given that the Government are newly playing hardball in Europe, that we are not taking on the agency and saying, “Hold on a minute, why are you expanding your ambit of activity? Why have you got a substantially increased budget?” My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) referred in his excellent contribution to the agency’s budget having risen to €21.3 million a year. Only a few years ago, it was hardly €100—it was a small, miniuscule budget. A lot of that budget is being wasted, and I will give the House an example.

About 18 months ago when I chaired the committee on migration, refugees and displaced persons at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I was lucky enough to be invited by the Fundamental Rights Agency to address a conference in the centre of Warsaw. To my incredulity, I found that a whole 40-storey hotel in the centre of Warsaw was taken up with guests of the Fundamental Rights Agency who, on inquiry, had all had their expenses paid by that agency and had come from all over Europe, and beyond, to discuss issues relating to fundamental rights. That seemed an unnecessarily extravagant way of getting information—the Fundamental Rights Agency is to provide expert advice and support to European Union institutions and member states, not to give jollies to people from non-governmental organisations who want an outing to Warsaw at the expense of the European taxpayer.

When I read the brilliant research paper from the House of Commons Library and saw some of the background on how the Commission reached its conclusion, I was a little dubious. It states that on 13 December,

“the Commission proposed a new Multiannual Framework…and consulted the Management Board of the Fundamental Rights Agency”.

In other words, it consulted the producer interests and received a preliminary contribution. The paper went on:

“The Management Board consulted the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Platform (a network of cooperation with civil society)”.

I suspect that most of those in the hotel I described were members of the agency’s fundamental rights platform. Unsurprisingly—such people are used to receiving that sort of indulgence at the expense of the European taxpayer—they were in favour of expanding the ambit of the Fundamental Rights Agency, as set out in the revised multi-annual framework. What an extraordinary state of affairs. I am surprised that the Government have not played a harder ball on the issue, although I am sure we will have the chance to focus on it by tabling an amendment to delete that provision when we discuss the Bill in Committee or on Report.

When commenting on the results of the consultation to which I have referred, the European Parliament stated:

“One hundred and eight organisations took part in the consultation process. Most organisations support the Agency’s work in the current areas, and would like it to continue…particularly in the areas of…asylum and migration.”

There was a lot of support for extending the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency, and I am not surprised.

If we must have such an agency, it would be better if it stopped duplicating the work of the Council of Europe. All members of the European Union are also members of the Council of Europe, but the Council of Europe’s budget is not going up because its European Union members say that we cannot afford to spend more money on it. The costs of the European Court of Human Rights continue to increase, but the Council of Europe’s budget is being squeezed in all other areas, including research. Meanwhile, such research is increasingly being done by the Fundamental Rights Agency with money that should rightfully be contributed to the Council of Europe.

In a sense, I am disappointed that the Government seem to go along with the expansion of the Fundamental Rights Agency. How does that fit with the policy of this Government and this Parliament of trying to reduce the size of the European Union budget? The challenge given to those of us who want a real-terms reduction in that budget is always: “What are you going to cut?” Well, expenditure on the Fundamental Rights Agency is one thing we could cut, and we could do it by cutting that agency’s wings in the multi-annual framework that started this January and continues for the next five years. If we had not agreed to the expansion of that framework and had instead insisted on it being reduced in scope, we would have secured real savings and contributed to the genuine reduction in the European Union budget that everybody—certainly on the Government Benches—wishes to see.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I praise my hon. Friend for his work in establishing the budget of this new organisation. Since the Council of Europe gives the European taxpayer such good value for money in having its budget reduced each year, instead of having a new agency, why not give all its functions to the Council of Europe? In that way, we could reduce the European budget.

[Mr Chope]

I think that is a brilliant idea, and for a long time I thought that was the policy supported by the Government. It is certainly supported by almost every member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including many from core European Union states who regard themselves as being Europhiles in the extreme, but even they ask what the point is of duplicating the functions of the Council of Europe with those of the Fundamental Rights Agency. I hope my hon. Friend will take that idea forward.

If we are to have a Fundamental Rights Agency with a multi-annual framework, as stated in the Bill, why not concentrate on one or two areas with an obvious need for further work? At the moment, the management board mentions “thematic areas”, which include:

“Immigration and integration of migrants; visa and border control; asylum”,

and the European Union is fundamentally failing in that area at the moment.

The week before last I was in Greece where I visited the Greece-Turkey border and received briefings from Greek Ministers and the Hellenic coastguard about the problem of illegal migrants coming into Greece, mainly from Turkey. One problem in Greece that contributes to the

“racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”—

that is thematic area (j)—is that it is virtually impossible for Greece to return illegal migrants to the countries from which they came.

Let me give the House an example. When visiting a detention centre in Athens, I went up to the wire fence and asked whether anybody spoke English. To cut a long story short, I started a conversation with a person who said that he had arrived in the detention centre having set out from Afghanistan—he is an Afghan national—and that he had paid smugglers $8,000 to get across Iran and Turkey. He wanted to go from Turkey across the Aegean sea and on to the Italian eastern seaboard so that he could make his way to the United Kingdom. I inquired about that and asked why he wanted to go to London. He replied that it was because he had been there for five years until a few months ago, and that he had lots of friends in London who had paid the $8,000 for his return trip. He had been deported from the United Kingdom after playing our system for about five years, and within a few weeks of getting back to Afghanistan this wholly undeserving case was presenting himself in a Greek detention centre.

Unfortunately for that man, the boat from Turkey foundered—I suppose it is fortunate that the Greek coastguard rescued him and he was not drowned—and he found himself in the detention centre, but the Greek authorities had no way of returning him back to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan does not accept anyone in Greece who emanated from Afghanistan. If he is detained in Greece for the maximum of 18 months, he will be released and will join all those other people in Greece—this also happens in Italy—who do not belong or do not necessarily wish to stay there, which contributes to feelings of racism and xenophobia on the part of the indigenous population. Something like 60% of people in Greek prisons are non-Greek nationals.

If there is a need for the Fundamental Rights Agency, it should deal with that sort of thing rather than mess around with the other expanded areas to which hon. Members have referred. For example, if the FRA looked at the inability of people to claim asylum in Turkey because it has opted out of many Geneva convention provisions, it might help to focus attention on the need to strengthen the Turkey-EU border.

[Mr Cash]

Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that, in the explanatory memorandum of 10 January 2012, Lord McNally, the Justice Minister, gave an example of a useful tool in measuring the impact of European legislation on fundamental rights in Europe? He cited

“a comparative legal analysis of the position for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people across EU States which has provided useful data in an area where there is little research”.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that criteria was chosen by the Justice Minister?

[Mr Chope]

I was not aware of that and am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out. As hon. Members often say, it is an issue of priorities. People and organisations must be judged on the priority they give to different issues. In the light of the enormous crisis in Europe and on European borders, it is odd that that should be a priority as opposed to the problems to which I have referred.

The debate gives us an opportunity to go into many other aspects of asylum and border control, but I will not do so. I have highlighted why they are important. If the organisation has to exist, it would be better if it got on with dealing with serious issues rather than trying to expand its remit.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

To whom will the FRA be accountable? Who will set its agenda and control its budget?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and normally addresses the Chair. This is not a private conversation between two Back Benchers. We have allowed the debate to drift, but I hope we will come back to having it through the Chair rather than having a private conversation.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sitting so close to my hon. Friend that it seems as if we are having a private conversation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We could always continue the debate in the Tea Room if we are getting frustrated with the rest of the Chamber. I am sure that is not the case.

[Mr Chope]

In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall raise my voice to make it obvious that this is not a private conversation. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) would like to have this conversation on the record—it certainly would not be on the record if it took place in the Tea Room. The short answer to his question is that we have a great opportunity, because the FRA has its multi-annual framework approved every five years. If we believe it has the wrong priorities, this is the moment to change it. The Bill could be amended to reflect the concerns of this Parliament.

[Bob Stewart]

I will talk directly to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but also to my hon. Friend on my right flank. It would be impossible to amend the framework. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, what hon. Members say will have little impact on the final decision.

[Mr Chope]

I hope that that is not correct. My hon. Friend is demonstrating pessimism—or realism.

[Mr Cash]

I assure my hon. Friend 100% that, if this House, in its sovereign right, decides to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—we entered on a voluntary basis in that year—or any provision that emanates from section 2, by, for example, using the “notwithstanding” formula, we are entitled to do so. Nobody can do anything to stop us doing so. Whether the Whips would allow it is another thing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to drift all over, but I am not going back to 1972. I want us to stick to Second Reading. We have a bit of time and a bit of latitude has been given, but I do not want to go to the complete ends of it.

[Mr Chope]

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact that time is available does not mean we have to use it all. Other hon. Members may wish to participate in the debate. Some might regret that they missed the opportunity to participate when they look at the record. Some of us hope we will catch Mr Speaker’s eye in tomorrow’s debate, and might do our prospects some damage if we speak in extenso this evening.

This is a worthwhile debate and it is fantastic that we have the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is no longer in his place. He said that the relatively low attendance shows a lack of interest, but many hon. Members have looked at the issue and we are discussing it, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

Obviously, most Europe debates from now on—for the next several years—will be preparatory to that great referendum. I would like the Government to start work on drawing up an audit of the costs and benefits of our EU membership. In the context of the Bill, they could do a lot worse than draw up an audit of the costs and benefits to this country of the work of the FRA compared with the work that is already being done in the Council of Europe—the Council of Europe’s work is being duplicated by the FRA.

I will not vote against the Bill, but I hope that, in due course, we have the opportunity to discuss amendments to it.

18:48

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to take part in this wide-ranging debate on the Bill. Two of the three measures we have considered are fairly uncontroversial. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has rightly said that the changes are not far-reaching and are largely technical. However, as was pointed out by the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), the third proposal—on the number of European commissioners—is more controversial and significant. I will come to that measure in due course.

The draft decision to give legally binding effect to the online version of the Official Journal of the European Union—notwithstanding the necessity to ensure that arrangements are in place for an electronic signature to be added to the online version to ensure authenticity—has come quite late in the day. Given that we are well into the 21st century—even if some hon. Members might wish to dispute this, or wish to go back in time—and given that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice reminded us, with a little help, that there are 27 member states of the EU and 23 official languages published on a daily basis, the proposal for an online legal version might have been made earlier. We welcome the decision and support the Government in signing up to it. We are sure that it will facilitate a more efficient and economical legal publication and communication of legislation, other adopted Acts, information and notices, European Court of Justice judgments and invitations to tender for contracts. Given the climate change legislation we passed in government and the EU targets we have signed up to, I hope that printing fewer paper versions of the Official Journal will go some way to contributing to reaching those targets.

Before I attended this debate, I thought the draft Council decision to establish a new multi-annual framework for the EU Fundamental Rights Agency for the period 2013-17 was relatively uncontroversial. Labour Members, at least, think it is a sensible way forward. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned the issues drawn out by the explanatory memorandum from the Justice Minister, Lord McNally—I tend to agree with him—who said that the agency

“provides a useful tool in measuring the impact of EU legislation on fundamental rights across Europe including, as appropriate, in candidate countries”.

The Council of Europe is not required to take on that role. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) cited the example of the FRA’s comparative legal analysis of the position for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people across EU states. This is a serious issue and a useful report. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not in agreement with either the hon. Member for Stone or for Christchurch.

[Mr Chope]

I do not know how familiar the hon. Lady is with the Council of Europe and the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, but it comprises 47 countries. All the applicant states for membership of the European Union are members of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe staff are currently dealing with all the issues she has described, but they do not have the extra resource that is now being put into the FRA.

[Emma Reynolds]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that as the shadow Minister for Europe I am well aware of the Council of Europe and its composition of 47 members, and I am well aware of its work. I will say again to the hon. Gentleman that I disagree with him. The Council of Europe does not have a role in measuring the impact of EU legislation, something I was just pointing out. If he checks the record, he will see that that is fact, not opinion.

The third draft decision is more controversial and relates to the number of European Commissioners. I agree with the hon. Member for Stone that this issue has been debated over and over again, not least during the most recent treaty change. It is an issue of great sensitivity for both small and large member states. The Lisbon treaty provided that from 2014—in other words, from the next European Commission—the number of European Commissioners should be two thirds the number of member states. That was the position we came to at the end of the negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. However, as we know, Ireland asked for a change to this provision, and a guarantee that each member state would keep its commissioner in the years to come.

As hon. Members have said, there are two sides to this argument. Some argue that it is too cumbersome, unwieldy and inefficient to have one commissioner per member state, especially given that the EU is now composed of 27 member states—soon to be 28 later this year. Arguments have been put forward, particularly powerfully by smaller member states, that having one commissioner for each member state is the only way to secure equality. That is the Republic of Ireland’s position. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said in his opening speech, there is a case for looking at the possibility of introducing some degree of seniority in the college of commissioners. We have also advocated the creation of a Growth commissioner in the Commission. As the explanatory notes set out—this relates to the intervention made by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—the draft decision will not apply beyond 2019, and will cease to apply if the EU reaches 30 or more member states, whichever comes earlier. My best guess is the former.

The issue is certainly still live, sensitive and controversial. I am sure it will be the subject of ongoing debate in years to come, so I do not think today’s debate in this House is the end of the matter. We will have to see which direction the debate takes. There are two sides of the argument and we want to respect the sensitivities of smaller member states. That being said, I met the Danish ambassador earlier. She reminded me that Denmark’s position during the Lisbon treaty negotiations was that although it preferred to have its own commissioner, it was willing to give that up—not permanently, but on a rotating basis—if that meant that the European Commission and its college of commissioners could operate in a more efficient manner. I therefore think that this will be considered before we get to the 30th member state or beyond, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

We support the Government’s intention to approve the three draft decisions, and we support the Bill’s Second Reading.

18:57

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

This has been perhaps a more thorough and detailed debate than one might have initially anticipated. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken and contributed to the debate. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said when he opened the debate with a typically eloquent and articulate introduction, the Prime Minister has recently set out the need to examine the UK’s relationship with the European Union. The debates held last week, both here and in the other place, provide an opportunity to start to discuss the broader issues of our relationship with Europe. There will be many opportunities further to examine that relationship. I would therefore like to limit my remarks to the specifics of the Bill.

I would first like to put on the record that it is because of the increased parliamentary control over EU decisions, which the Government delivered through the European Union Act 2011, that no UK Minister can vote in favour without first getting parliamentary approval—a very important point that a number of Members have made this afternoon.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I found the Bill interesting when I looked it up this morning on the internet. I read the explanatory notes, which refer to two draft decisions of the Council of the European Union and one draft decision of the European Council. Obviously, I know the Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU, but what is the difference between the Council of the European Union and the European Council?

[Mark Simmonds]

Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the whole debate, he would have heard about that. I am happy to give way to hon. Members who have participated in this debate rather than to those who have just wandered into the Chamber.

It is because of increased parliamentary control that we are debating the elements in the Bill. It gives the House an opportunity to consider several technical measures designed to make the EU more efficient and accessible. The Bill will give parliamentary approval for the Government to agree with three EU decisions. The European Union Act 2011 requires us to seek that approval before the Government can vote in favour of them at EU level.

As the House has heard, the first decision will give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union, which will make access to EU law faster and more economical. The second decision will agree the work of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency for the next five years, which will ensure that the Council directs the work of the agency into areas considered to be a priority by member states. The third decision will maintain the current arrangement of having one EU commissioner per member state, which will fulfil a commitment to the Irish and will guarantee that the UK retains its commissioner and is in a stronger position to influence the make-up of the next Commission.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for his support for the Bill. He rightly welcomed parliamentary scrutiny, but it was slightly perplexing that he also welcomed referendums, given his party’s position on not allowing the British people the right to decide on what relationship they wish to have with the EU. He also made an important point about the fundamental rights issue, to which I shall return in a minute.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who gave a typically knowledgeable and detailed contribution on the workings of the EU. He was right to highlight the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, the significant change that the Government made and how it was in the UK’s interest. I also welcome his support for these small, technical, but important, measures. He was correct to highlight the Lisbon treaty proposals and how they have since changed, particularly in how they relate to the Commission.

My hon. Friend will also be aware of the necessity, owing to the Irish position, of ensuring that each country has a commissioner, thus ensuring that the UK has a commissioner. He should be aware, however, that the draft decision states that that position should be reviewed when a new Commission is appointed in 2019 or when the number of EU member states exceeds 30, whichever is earliest. I reiterate to him that the Government are committed to having a leaner, less bureaucratic EU, to improving the efficiency of EU institutions, including the Commission, and to continuing to push for substantial reductions in the EU’s administration costs.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who forcefully argued for an EU commissioner for each country. Part of the Bill will ensure that the UK has the commissioner for the next Commission period. I reiterate to him what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry.

Then we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I am grateful to him for his support for the Bill. When he started speaking, I wondered where he was going on the lack of necessity for scrutiny of these important aspects emanating from the EU, but I think he came full circle and, in the end, supported scrutiny. He will no doubt intervene if I have misinterpreted his remarks. I was also slightly perplexed by his comments about the capacity of smaller EU countries to manage a commissioner. Many small EU countries’ commissioners have made a significant contribution to the EU, and I am sure they will do so in the next period.

We then heard a traditionally articulate and passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who was absolutely right, yet again, to highlight the importance of scrutiny, to recognise the vital role of the European Scrutiny Committee—a theme to which I shall return in a moment —and to highlight the significance of article 352, under which any powers brought forward must be agreed unanimously by the Council and EU Parliament. For the UK to agree that at the Council, however, and therefore for the required unanimity to be secured, the UK Parliament must first give its approval. That is what the Government have put in place under the 2011 Act. My hon. Friend was right to suggest that section 8 of the Act stated that a

“Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support an Article 352 decision unless”

it is approved by an Act of Parliament. That is why this level of detailed, forensic scrutiny is essential and in the UK’s interest. Without the agreement of Parliament, therefore, a proposal brought forward under this legal base cannot be adopted throughout the EU.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who gave a traditionally detailed, analytical speech. I was pleased that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement of the referendum, although I accept that perhaps he does not agree with the timing. I would also like to put on the record my congratulations to him on his chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee. He does a sterling job not only for the House, as was mentioned, but for the country.

[Wayne David]

Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister agrees with his glowing praise of the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, given that he did his utmost to prevent him from becoming its Chair?

[Mark Simmonds]

I am not sure I share that analysis, and I am quite sure that the Prime Minister thinks extremely highly of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who was right not only to underline the importance of scrutiny, as other Members did, but to point out that the Government reflected on his Committee’s suggestions —a good example of scrutiny working—and introduced proposals to pass primary legislation in the way that he and his Committee suggested.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who detailed his thoughts and criticisms of how the FRA worked. I want to put on the record one or two facts in order to add to the debate that he will clearly have in Committee. The proposals do not expand the agency’s remit, but agree to a plan without which we would have much less control over its work. His example of wasting EU taxpayers’ money in the way he alluded to is sadly not the only example he could have given. This is not a new agency, and the funds flow from the EU budget, which, as he will know, is under intense scrutiny and pressure from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in order to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and for the purposes for which it was intended—an ethos that I know he supports very strongly.

My hon. Friend also wanted to know whom the agency was accountable to. It is accountable to the Council of Ministers, which allocates the budgets. I know that he looks forward to delving in further detail into this matter in Committee.

Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). Again, I reiterate our thanks for the Opposition’s support. She was right again to highlight the issue of commissioners, although I will not repeat what I said about the position being reviewed when a new Commission is appointed in 2019 or when the number of EU member states exceeds 30, whichever is soonest.

[Emma Reynolds]

Will the Minister set out what the Government’s position will be when the time comes? As I said to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I think that 2019 will probably come before the 30th member joins. What will the Government argue for then? Will they argue to retain one commissioner per member state or to reduce their number, as originally set out in the Lisbon treaty?

[Mark Simmonds]

I very much hope that by 2019 the British people will have had a say on what relationship they want to have with the European Union, in the context that the Prime Minister has set out. Depending on the result of that referendum, we will have to assess the answer to those questions and many others at that time.

Let me conclude by quickly setting out the four key tenets of the Bill. It ensures that Parliament has a key role in agreeing three decisions relating to the future of the EU. The UK took a strong line in negotiations on the work plan for the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The electronic version of the Official Journal is faster and more economical than the current, print version. Agreeing to this decision backs the Government’s calls for a more efficient European Union. Agreeing to maintain the number of EU Commissioners will mean that the UK will be guaranteed a commissioner when the next EU Commission is appointed in 2014.

The Government have given full consideration to all three measures. We are satisfied that they are in the best interests of the UK and are sensible and reasonable proposals. None of them has a significant impact. In particular, none will result in any additional financial burdens being imposed on the United Kingdom. This debate is an excellent example of UK parliamentary scrutiny working to the United Kingdom’s benefit in the context of our relationship with the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and Third Reading

2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming committee

5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Mr Swayne.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (6 February)

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

19:11

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 6 February—

(1) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) (c) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), Opposition business may be proceeded with for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon at the conclusion of the Opposition business, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business; and the business may be entered upon after the moment of interruption.

The Government are facilitating the protection of both the Opposition half day allocated to the Democratic Unionist party and the opposed private business set down for Wednesday, with three hours each. Without this motion, any votes, statements, urgent questions or other business would curtail the amount of time available to Members for these important debates. I commend this motion to the House.

19:12

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Briefly, I see no reason at all why we cannot have the normal arrangements, whereby three hours is allocated to private business between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock on Wednesday. When such motions have been carried in the past, they have sometimes resulted in the private business continuing beyond 7 o’clock and the people promoting and speaking to that business being criticised by the Whips and colleagues for keeping the House late. The private business should be taken between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock, and if the business managers so arrange things that they cannot deal with the other business before 4 o’clock and the private business has to continue after 7 o’clock, so be it. Obviously I am not going to divide the House on this matter this evening, but I put people on notice that if on Wednesday the private business continues beyond 7 o’clock and people start bellyaching about it, I hope they will not bellyache against those of us who take a keen interest in private business, but will criticise the Government and the business managers.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

As it is private business, it is not whipped business, so hon. Members will be completely free to go home whenever they feel like it as the private Bill is going through. No one will think otherwise.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend so often articulates the traditional view—indeed, the correct view—but unfortunately it is not consistent with the document outlining the Whip that I saw on the internet over the weekend.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household was nodding vigorously as I was making my intervention, so I think I had authoritative support from the Whips.

[Mr Chope]

That puts a slightly different complexion on it. It means that if we approve this motion, all my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will be free immediately after the Opposition day business and will not need to stay for the private business. Following my hon. Friend’s useful contribution, I hope that the Whip will be altered accordingly to reflect the fact that people on this side of the House will be free to leave at 4 o’clock at the latest on Wednesday and that we can then have the private business in our time and under our own rules, with those who are interested in participating present in the House and others who are not so interested absent. On that basis—that the Government are changing the whipping, so that private business is not whipped business—I shall not push this matter to a vote.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will be staying for the private business, Mr Chope, and I can barely wait.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Home Affairs

Ordered,

That Karl Turner be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Chris Ruane be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

International Development

Ordered,

That Alison McGovern be discharged from the International Development Committee and Fabian Hamilton be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Science and Technology

Ordered,

That Caroline Dinenage be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and David Tredinnick be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Scottish Affairs

Ordered,

That Mike Freer be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Sir James Paice be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Hazara Community (Pakistan)

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

19:16

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and a number of others may be able to participate, given the time at which we are starting. I am also grateful that the Minister is in his place to respond on what is obviously a busy day for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, given the visit of President Hamid Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari. That visit makes this a timely debate—I will return to that point in a few moments.

On the Wednesday before last, I and a number of colleagues from across the House helped to organise a lobby of Parliament by members of the British Hazara community. That was the week in which many right hon. and hon. Members were signing the memorial book for Holocaust memorial day. That event asks us all each year to be aware that genocidal persecution on religious and ethnic grounds is not simply an appalling past event but an ever-present danger that we have to be aware of. The persecution of the Hazara community, in Quetta and other parts of Balochistan, is undoubtedly persecution for religious and ethnic reasons—it bears those strong hallmarks—and that is the issue I want to raise today.

The last time this matter was raised on the Adjournment was in a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on 1 March last year. The Minister responded to that debate too. I am sure that when he speaks the Minister will agree that things have not improved for the Hazaras in Quetta since that debate last March.

I do not want to pretend that I have long been aware of the history and plight of Hazaras; the truth is that I was not. Beyond some references to the community in novels such as “The Kite Runner” and an awareness of the small—about 150—but distinctive community in Southampton, of whom I had met a few, I had relatively little knowledge of the Hazara community. As a group, the Hazaras are physically quite distinctive, with somewhat Mongolian looks, and that distinctive appearance has helped to contribute to their vulnerability in Pakistan.

I did not know a great deal about the history and the plight of the Hazara community until a group of my constituents came to see me earlier this year. The story they told me truly appalled me. Theirs is a long history, and I will not attempt to rehearse it here tonight. Suffice it to say that the community originated in central Asia, in the Afghan central highlands. The Hazaras converted to Shi’a Islam in the 13th century, and while the majority remain Shi’a, there are now Sunnis, Ismailis and secular members of the community.

Persecution of the Hazara community by Afghan rulers started, I am afraid, under the British Empire, and it has been a consistent problem in Afghanistan ever since. Many Hazaras have left Afghanistan, and over 100 years ago many settled in and around Quetta, which in due course became part of Pakistan. We are all familiar with the recent waves of refugees from Afghanistan to Pakistan, some of whom have eventually made their way here, where they have sought and been granted asylum.

However, the Hazaras that I am talking about today are part of that much longer-established community in Quetta who are not refugees but Pakistani citizens. For a long time, they lived free from persecution in Quetta, thriving educationally and economically. As citizens, they are entitled to full support from the Pakistani state. Since the late 1990s, however, their situation has changed dramatically. The killings started in 1999. Since then, more than 1,000 Hazaras have been killed in Quetta, 3,000 or more have been injured, and 55,000 or so have been forced to flee to Europe or Australia. All of those came from a population of between 500,000 and 600,000.

The perpetrators are a banned Sunni militant al-Qaeda-affiliated group called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi—the LEJ. The Taliban and the LEJ have both issued fatwas against the Hazaras. After the recent violence, an LEJ spokesman was reported as saying that the Hazaras had been warned in 2012 that they should leave Balochistan, the province in which Quetta sits, and that as many had not done so, the LEJ will not allow Shi’as to leave alive in 2013.

That is the background to the dreadful bombing in Quetta on 10 January this year. The death toll was well above 100, and more than 120 people were injured. One of my reasons for seeking this debate is that although that incident was widely reported on television and radio and in the press, the reporting rarely gave any context to the violence, which was generally reported as simply another bomb attack in Pakistan. Some reports alluded to a generalised struggle between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. The few that even mentioned the Hazaras did not explain their history, the background to their situation or the agency of their persecution. One of the reasons for having this debate is to put on public record at least some of that background, and to challenge some of the myths.

One such myth is that the persecution is a manifestation of some generalised Sunni-Shi’a conflict that has manifested itself from time to time in regional tensions in other parts of the middle east. I do not believe that that is the case. It is clear from the targets of the violence and from the death toll that the violence is directed at just one distinctive community within the wider Shi’a community. I understand that the Hazaras of Quetta are 33 times more likely to be killed by political violence than members of the wider Shi’a community in Pakistan. That constitutes a focus on a particular religious and ethnic group.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As he has said, this constitutes not only religious but ethnic cleansing, and the figures that he has given the House are stark. Is he aware that, despite the 1,000 deaths, the local government in Pakistan—which, fortunately, has now been disbarred by the Pakistani Government—has not brought a single charge against anyone for the offences, and that not one member of that government has ever condemned any of the atrocities?

[Mr Denham]

One of the most serious problems is that there has been no acceptance of responsibility by the Pakistani authorities of the kind that we would expect in a serious situation such as this. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what representations Her Majesty’s Government have been able to make to the Pakistani authorities on this matter.

The problem with the ill-informed, shallow or sweeping reporting that we have seen is that it tends to obscure the real causes of the violence and to obscure the responsibilities. It allows the incidents to be shrugged off as though that is “just the way things are”. Since 1990, the violence has included ride-by and drive-by shootings, personal attacks, suicide bombings, rocket attacks and car bombs, as well as the ambushing of buses and taxis and the subsequent selection of Hazara passengers for execution.

This is not the first time that my constituents have alerted me to what has happened to their relatives. Under the last Government, I took constituents who had family in the Swat valley in Pakistan to meet Lord Malloch-Brown, then a Foreign Office Minister, to alert him to the violence being carried out by the Pakistan Taliban. My constituents had come to me with stark examples of what had happened to members of their families in the recent past. I shall not give the House details of names, as family members might suffer as a result, but I have received clear documentation of constituents who had seen family members—male breadwinners—singled out for murder in three separate incidents over the past three years. The effects of that are devastating for the entire family. In a country with little in the way of a social security system, the loss of a male breadwinner has an impact on every member of the extended family.

There are wider consequences too. The Hazaras in Quetta have to live in isolation from other Pakistani citizens, not least because those other citizens fear being caught up in the violence. They suffer travel restrictions, and virtually all the Hazara students in Quetta have dropped out of university, following attacks on student transport. Hazara people have also faced difficulty in accessing civil service jobs. As has already been pointed out, however, not a single terrorist has yet been prosecuted. On the rare occasions when individuals have been arrested, they have been released. The provincial governor has been replaced, but little action seems to have been taken as yet.

The failure of the Pakistan authorities to safeguard the Hazara community is surely beyond doubt, but concerns remain about a much more sinister involvement. It is alleged that the intelligence services, the Inter-Services Intelligence, sections of which have a history of involvement with extremist forces, have links in some ways to the LEJ. I want to put it on record that I do not know whether such links are documented or what the strength of the evidence is, but the concerns about those potential connections are widely shared among those I have spoken to.

There are complicated provincial politics in Balochistan, involving not only the movements I have mentioned. The province is also tied up in the wider regional conflict, and there have been separatist movements and movements calling for autonomy. Many Hazaras believe that they have been caught up as innocent victims in the wider geo-politics.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is describing the confusion and rumours that are spreading about this issue. There seems to be a real case for a proper judicial inquiry to expose what is happening and to call the Government of Pakistan to account. The chief justice of Pakistan has expressed his willingness to do that, and I believe that he is the right person to conduct such an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister to make representations to the Government of Pakistan to convince them that that might be a way forward that has not yet been tried?

[Mr Denham]

My hon. Friend has put forward an interesting proposal. I am about to put my specific points to the Minister on the action that could be taken, and I invite him to respond to my hon. Friend’s proposal about the chief justice as well.

The points I wish to put to the Minister are these. First, will he tell us whether the position of the Hazaras been raised with either the President of Pakistan or members of his delegation over the past two days when he was in this country on other matters? If not, when were these issues last raised by Ministers from Her Majesty’s Government with the Pakistani authorities, and what was the response?

Secondly, there are, of course, huge issues in this region that are currently under discussion—not least today between our own Prime Minister and the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that while these supra-regional questions are being settled, the position of those such as the Hazaras must not be overlooked, left on one side or seen as too small, too trivial or too local to be taken into account? Will the Minister give me an assurance about the Government’s efforts to ensure that the Hazara community—in Quetta, of course, but also in Afghanistan—are not left on one side?

Thirdly, will the Minister give us an undertaking that the plight of the Hazaras in Quetta will be an explicit issue to be raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed? Fourthly, what has the British high commissioner—and, indeed, Ministers—done to raise the profile of this persecution within Pakistan itself? Have Ministers or high commission officials visited Quetta to see the conditions faced by the Hazaras?

Fifthly, would the Minister be willing to facilitate a visit to Quetta by Members of this House? Sixthly, at UN level, will the Government ask the conflict prevention unit within the Bureau for Crisis Prevention of the UN Development Programme to assess whether the situation in Quetta is, or is tending towards, genocide, and in general to push for the engagement of the conflict prevention unit in this particular situation?

I have two further points. The Minister has in the past rightly expressed the truth that a range of minority groups have suffered and do suffer oppression and discrimination in Pakistan. In part, though, the Pakistan Government have tended to respond on the Hazara issue by questioning why a single group should be highlighted for attention. Does the Minister agree that although a number of groups face oppression, that is no good reason to lump them all together as part of a generalised concern for human rights, but makes it all the more essential to understand the history, the particularities and the nature of the oppressors in each case and to ensure appropriate action is taken in each case?

For the past two years, the position of the Hazaras has been referred to by name in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report. I welcome that, and I assume the same will happen again this year. In the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle last March, he quite rightly stressed the importance of our relationship with Pakistan and our friendship with that country. My own experience has been one of positive engagement with the high commissioner on a range of issues. The importance of this relationship makes it all the more vital that we are consistent and insistent on raising these issues, particularly for my constituents in those cases that are so intimately linked by family and history to communities in this country.

19:33

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to say a few words. He has comprehensively and eloquently set out the plight of the Hazara community in Pakistan. I am happy to endorse the points he made.

Like Southampton, Milton Keynes is home to a sizeable Hazara community. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and I have spent a considerable amount of time meeting members of that community and working with them. Last year, we had the great honour of attending their annual school prize-giving day—a warm and jolly occasion that served to underline the warmth and depth of community spirit among them in Milton Keynes. That makes it even more galling to learn about the stories of their kinsmen and loved ones being persecuted, injured and killed in Pakistan.

The numbers involved are quite shocking. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a list. The impact of the killings and of the injuries sustained among the community as a whole has been absolutely shocking. Let me provide a few other examples. A decade ago, there were 300 students at the main university in Quetta. After all the death threats and the persecutions, there are not any today. About 80% of Hazara businesses have either had to be sold or closed down. There are 3,000 orphans or children living in poverty because the main breadwinner has been killed. As we have heard, there is no semblance of a social security system there. Then there are the thousands killed or maimed—yet not one arrest of the perpetrators. Those figures are shocking, but it is only when we hear personal examples that the true scale of the horror comes home.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this enormously important debate. I was pleased to join the big meeting that the hon. Gentleman sponsored in the House of Commons, for which I thank him. Was it not deeply moving both to hear the testimony of the people there and to experience their confidence that making their representations through this House to the Government might produce real change in the interest of justice for the Hazaras?

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and he is absolutely right. That recent meeting was one of the most powerful I have ever attended in this place. It was heart warming to encounter the strength of feeling and the optimism among members of the community that we might be able to effect some positive influence or change. I will certainly continue to do all I can, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do the same.

In preparing for this debate, I spoke to some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North to get their personal stories about what has happened. A gentleman by the name of Nasir Abbas was a relative of my constituents Mokhtar and Shalia Ali. He was 34 and he was the main breadwinner of the family; the rest of the family depended on him, yet he was killed in a suicide attack. The family is now living in squalor, with no real way of supporting themselves. The family then suffered again, when the father-in-law received a death threat and not long afterwards suffered a fatal heart attack—yet another tragedy for the family. That is just one of many similar examples that go on today.

As the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen mentioned, we have not long since marked Holocaust memorial day. At the weekend, I attended a couple of plays in one of Milton Keynes’s theatres by a group called “voices of the holocaust”. The very powerful plays depicted the escalation of persecution in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. It was an historical reminder of what went on and of the fact that that same kind of persecution happens today, which places on us a great duty to stand up and speak out against it. I have done a lot of work with the community across the country, and I am happy to endorse the resolutions they passed in the conference on genocide.

I appreciate that this area is a dangerous and difficult part of the world, but that does not absolve us from taking action. I know that the Minister has taken a keen interest in the matter. I urge him, in addition to answering the specific questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, to do all he can to work bilaterally with the Pakistani authorities, but also multilaterally through the United Nations. I think that it, too, has a significant role to play.

Of all the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, the one I would particularly emphasise concerned the need to use the lever of British aid to bring about some positive action. As the conference has demonstrated during the past couple of days, we are not without influence in that part of the world. I owe it to my constituents to stand up and highlight the plight of their kinsmen, and this country owes it to those people to stand up for them, to speak out, and to use what influence we have to improve this dreadful situation.

19:40

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) for allowing me to trespass on his debate for what I hope will be only a couple of moments.

Hazaras do not stand out from the rest of the population of Hammersmith. I was not well acquainted with them until I was introduced to the local Hazara community, and before that I would not have distinguished them from the Afghanistan, Mongolian and south Asian minorities in my constituency. Sadly for them, however, they do stand out in Pakistan, and they have been victimised to an extent that cannot be overemphasised.

I want to make two points to the Minister. First, what is intended by the alliance between the LEJ, sections of the Taliban and, possibly, sections of the security services is nothing short of genocide. A threatening letter issued last year told Hazaras in Quetta:

“Just as our fighters have waged a successful jihad against the Shia-Hazaras in Afghanistan, our mission”

—in Pakistan—

“is the abolition of this impure sect and people”.

Last August, a report from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan stated:

“Hazaras have been…uprooted from Machh, Loralai and Zhob. It seems a campaign has been launched to terrorize the Hazara community so that they leave Quetta by selling their businesses and property at throwaway prices. Pamphlets have been left at their homes telling them to sell their houses and leave.”

That sustained and organised campaign of murder and aggression led to the appalling snooker hall bombings of 10 January—the second bomb was designed to kill those who had come to save the victims of the first—and the harrowing sight, which I think we all saw on the news, of the bodies of the dead remaining unburied, and of relatives waiting with the coffins for three days, in sub-zero temperatures, to make public the plight of the whole community. In the end, it was that, and only that, which embarrassed the Pakistani Government and the Prime Minister enough to make them step in and impose governor’s rule in the province over the—I do not think that this is an exaggeration—gimcrack Government who had behaved in the way I have described.

Yes, there is effective military rule at present, and yes—thank God—there have been no more atrocities; but no one believes that the security situation has been resolved. Military rule is not the solution in the longer term. The Hazaras do not want that any more than anyone else. They simply want to live in peace in their own country, with their neighbours, as they did for so many decades. That is an obligation for the Pakistani Government, and it is an obligation that I hope the Minister will address in his response to my right hon. Friend’s points. I hope the Minister will tell us how the British Government can help the Hazara population—the diaspora in this country and elsewhere, but principally those in Pakistan—to secure what they want, which is simply the ability to live in peace and security in their own homes.

19:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing the debate, and thank him for—with his usual courtesy—giving me his text in advance this afternoon. I thank other Members for attending and intervening, and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) for their speeches.

This has been a sobering half hour or so. Although it is a year since we last debated the issue, it remains as important and relevant as it was then, and probably more so. It is an issue in which I had an opportunity to take a personal interest when I met some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it again.

Since our last debate, my responsibilities in the Department have changed to some extent. I no longer have territorial responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are now the responsibility of my noble Friend Baroness Warsi. However, I still answer for those issues in the House of Commons, and one of the first things I will do is bring the debate and the comments of colleagues to the attention of my noble Friend.

[Iain Stewart]

I appreciate that there has been a reshuffle of responsibilities in the Department, but would my hon. Friend be able to arrange a meeting with Baroness Warsi and interested Members so that we can explore the issues with her directly?

[Alistair Burt]

That is a good idea. If my hon. Friend had asked me for such a meeting, I should have been able to say yes straight away. I can say, however— without committing my noble Friend—that I am sure I shall be able to convey to her both my hon. Friend’s comment and the general feeling of the House that a meeting with a group of colleagues who understand the issue well would be particularly welcome to them, and, no doubt, welcome to those whom they represent. I shall make that point very clearly.

Since our last debate, the position of the Hazara community in Pakistan has remained extremely difficult. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 320 members of the Shi’a community were killed in targeted attacks in 2012, including many from the Hazara community. As has was mentioned earlier, only last month—on 10 January—twin bomb attacks in Quetta tragically killed nearly 100 people and injured over 200 more in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Most of those who were killed were members of the Hazara community.

Those horrendous acts of sectarian violence showed an appalling contempt for human life. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi publicly expressed the UK’s strong condemnation of the attacks, and their concern about the persecution that had been suffered. My right hon. Friend said:

“I was extremely saddened to hear of the brutal terrorist and sectarian attacks in Quetta and Swat yesterday.”

He sent his sincere condolences to the bereaved families, and added:

“I wish all those injured in the attacks a swift recovery. The United Kingdom strongly condemns these senseless attacks and the persecution of the Shia population. It was a tragic day for Pakistan. We will continue to stand with the people of Pakistan in their fight against terror and violent extremism.”

The latest bombings, described as one of the worst attacks on the Shi’a community, resulted in nationwide protests. The families of the bomb victims refused to bury their dead until they were given assurances that the Army would take administrative control of the province. As the House will know, late in the evening on Sunday 13 January, Sardar Aslam Raisani, the Chief Minister of Balochistan, was dismissed by Prime Minister Ashraf for failing to prevent the escalating sectarian violence in the province. Zulfiqar Ali Magsi, the Governor of Balochistan and the most senior official in the province, has now been temporarily put in charge.

Balochistan’s problems are deep-rooted and require long-term solutions, which was well understood by those who spoke this evening. Although some members of the Hazara community have called for military rule to protect their rights, the position of the United Kingdom Government is that it is in Pakistan’s long-term interests for all groups to enjoy meaningful political representation to ensure effective political engagement and a peaceful means of protecting their interests. Any solution must stay within the parameters of Pakistan’s constitution.

We remain deeply concerned about the violent persecution faced by all minority groups in Pakistan. We raise their plight with the Government of Pakistan regularly. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi spoke about it with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar at the UN General Assembly in September, and, most recently, during her visit to Pakistan in November, when she urged Pakistani Ministers to protect and guarantee the fundamental rights of all Pakistani citizens.

Additionally, at Pakistan’s recent universal periodic review at the UN in October, the UK raised the importance of ensuring the ability of all minorities groups to vote freely in the upcoming elections. We also encouraged Pakistan to implement the international covenant on civil and political rights to ensure the equal and absolute rights of all its citizens.

The UK and Pakistan have a long history and a strong relationship founded on mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefit. Our respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is absolute. I must make it clear to the House that the security of Baluchistan is, as with all provinces of Pakistan, a matter for the people and Government of Pakistan. Persecution of the Shi’a Hazaras is not limited to Balochistan; across Pakistan, Sunni and Shi’a alike have suffered from the scourge of sectarian violence. In the past year, Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial nerve centre, has seen an increase in sectarianism, which has led to a 28% rise in violence-related deaths.

Before I make any more general remarks, let me deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen put, as he was good enough to give me some notice of them. The new question, however, was the one raised by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) relating to the chief justice and the possibility of a judicial inquiry, and I will draw Baroness Warsi’s attention to that as a potential idea. At the end of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman raised a point about recognising the importance of dealing with all groups that suffer persecution in Pakistan and elsewhere in a generic manner. That does not, however, mean that their individual histories or problems are not recognised as singular issues in the overall context of the importance of the rule of law being enforced everywhere, which is the best way of protecting everyone. Even within that, we should recognise that particular circumstances should be prominent and I will return to that important point in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the position of the Hazaras has been raised with the President of Pakistan or with members of the delegation over the past couple of days. It did not form part of the general conversation in the past couple of days in relation to the regional issue, but it is very much a part of a recognition of the overall settlement in Afghanistan that the rights of minorities, including those of the Hazara, need to be taken into account.

As we have been generously gifted a little more time by the time fairies of the Commons doing their work earlier today—I could name my hon. Friends, but I shall not on this occasion—let me say a bit about the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan. The UK Government are very aware of the challenging circumstances faced by the Hazaras in Afghanistan. Article 22 of the Afghan constitution makes clear provision for the equal rights of all Afghan citizens, and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure those rights. We have also made it clear that a political settlement should be inclusive and should address the needs of all Afghan citizens.

Since 2001, the situation has improved for Hazaras in Afghanistan, with Hazaras now in senior Afghan Government positions. They include the second vice-President, the acting higher education Minister and the governor of Bamiyan province—the first female provincial governor—Habiba Sarabi, whom I have met. We welcome that progress and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure the equal rights of all citizens. In the regional context, any settlement in Afghanistan that makes sense will have to include proper attention being given to human rights. That was a key part of what the international community stressed in the agreements signed last year and it will be a key part of what happens post-2014. As we all know, the need for the closest relationship possible between Afghanistan and Pakistan in a future settlement is emphasised by the trilateral meetings taking place today. Again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that although the specific position of the Hazaras is unlikely to constitute a specific part of those conversations, there is a recognition that the future of both Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be assured unless serious attention is paid to the rule of law and ensuring the enforcement of human rights protection right across both states. Without that, neither state will have security and stability, which is going to be of prime importance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would ensure that the plight of the Hazaras will be explicitly raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed. Taking advice from the Department for International Development, I would say that all UK aid to any country is based on three shared commitments with partner Governments: poverty reduction and meeting the millennium development goals; respecting human rights and other international obligations; and strengthening financial management and accountability. We do not use those conditions to impose specific policy choices on countries. In Pakistan, our aid will support the Pakistan authorities in making progress in the relevant areas, including through concrete measures to improve the economy, reform education and devote proper attention to human rights. So although these things are an important part of the bargain made with any particular country, we do not make our aid conditional on specific issues.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the remarks the Minister has made so far, and the way in which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and other hon. Members have educated me and the whole House about the plight of the Hazara community. Does the Minister agree that we should not extend that idea of conditionality too far in relation to British aid? Under both this Government and the previous Labour Government, aid has been focused on helping those in greatest need, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, including those in conflict-afflicted and fragile states such as Pakistan. It would be regrettable if we departed too far from that principle.

[Alistair Burt]

On balance, I share the view of my hon. Friend. The difficulty with making aid conditional is that the determination to withdraw aid is aimed at a Government, but there are many occasions when atrocities take place and the Government may not be totally in charge of a situation—equally, there are circumstances where Governments appear to be all too certain to be implicated. The process is difficult, but until now the situation has clearly been straightforward and aid has not been conditional. Despite that, it is important that countries receiving aid adhere to human rights.

[Mr Denham]

Having worked in development before I entered this House, I, too, have some sympathy with the idea that imposing crude conditionality is not a good use of aid. The question really is: when the discussions take place between DFID Ministers and officials, and the Pakistan Government, is the second of the three challenges that the Minister set out—human rights—raised in a general way? Alternatively, as a way of illustrating what needs to change, is the position of the Hazaras, for example, specifically raised as the sort of test of, and the sort of thing that we would have in mind in deciding, whether human rights were being properly protected? Part of the challenge is simply to make sure that in wanting to include all the issues in a general way we do not lose the ability to say, “This is one of the ways in which we measure progress.”

[Alistair Burt]

I absolutely take the point and understand fully how the right hon. Gentleman expresses it, which is absolutely in line with his experience. As a result of the debate, I shall write to the Secretary of State for International Development and make that point directly to her. We use examples in our report on countries of concern, as the right hon. Gentleman has picked out, and by using specific issues relating to the Hazaras and their situation I am seeking to demonstrate that they are not lost in the generality. He makes the point that they could be used as a specific examples—I do not know whether DFID does that but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his precise question.

On the question of the role of the British high commissioners and Ministers in raising the profile of the persecution in Pakistan, officials have not visited Quetta because of the security situation, although they have met Hazara representatives in the high commission in Islamabad. The same security situation that has made it impossible for us to visit in the past year would apply to facilitating visits for Members. Our travel advice is simply not to go because of the danger. It is never possible to prevent Members of Parliament from travelling wherever they wish, but my advice would be to recognise the travel advice offered by colleagues. As we advise all UK individuals not to go at this stage, I am not sure whether we could facilitate such a trip.

The right hon. Gentleman’s last question was to ask us to take matters up directly with the conflict prevention unit at the bureau of crisis prevention and recovery at the UNDP to assess whether the situation in Quetta is tending towards genocide. I do not know the answer to that question, so I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to allow other interested colleagues to see it. I did not have enough time to deal with that question before the debate.

As I mentioned earlier, the problems faced by the Hazaras are not limited to that group. That brings me back to the issue facing Pakistan in general, but notwithstanding the difficulties of Hazaras in Pakistan it is important to set them in the overall context of how difficult it is and what hopes there are of settling the situation in the near and medium term.

Minorities across Pakistan have at times endured terrible persecution and violence. There was the attack on Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old girl of whom we are all well aware from the pictures of her on the television today. I emphasise the joy we all feel at her recovery and the extraordinary bravery with which she faced those conditions and answered questions in the interviews today. The attack on Malala shocked everyone and was an example of the extraordinary and completely unjustified brutality of men against women in that part of the world. The UK Government strongly support the efforts of Malala and the Government of Pakistan to ensure that all children in Pakistan have access to education in a safe environment, free from the threat of terrorism. The only good thing that came out of that horror was the public demonstration in support of her and of education, with men and women in Pakistan saying that they had put up with enough. If only such demonstrations could also be seen on the streets of those places that have suffered the worst outbreaks of terrorism in Pakistan, more corners would be turned.

There is some light, occasionally, in these difficult situations, such as the case of Rimsha Masih, the young Christian girl who was arrested for blasphemy last August. The charges against her were dropped by the Supreme Court because of a lack of evidence and a certain amount of disquiet in the region about the charges brought against her. Again, she was a member of another minority suffering from persecution. There is hope in Pakistan that the case will be a catalyst for change and that future cases can be properly investigated and pursued.

In August, President Zardari publically acknowledged the problems faced by Pakistan’s minorities and emphasised his Government’s support for ending discrimination, which was a first step in the process of dealing with violence against minorities. Although Pakistan still has a long way to go in dealing with those issues, as a friend of Pakistan we offer our robust support in addressing the problems.

Sixty five years ago, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, shared his vision for the newly created nation with the first constituent assembly. He said there should be

“no discrimination between one caste or creed and another”

for Pakistan is founded with the

“fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state”.

We know many statesmen and women from Pakistan who believe in and support his words. Although Pakistan has yet to fulfil Jinnah’s dream of a nation made up of

“equal citizens of one state”,

I have been encouraged and inspired by the many Pakistanis I have met who are working tirelessly to realise that—none more so than my friend the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister of National Harmony and Minority Affairs, whose work towards peaceful, moderate change was met with such brutal violence and his death. His brother Paul Bhatti has taken up that cause with energy and commitment.

I am also heartened by the work that we are doing in the UK to promote the right to freedom of religion and of belief worldwide. Last month, my right hon. Friend the noble Baroness Warsi convened a ministerial level meeting to secure political support for the UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 to tackle religious intolerance and foster religious freedom and pluralism. It was encouraging to see Pakistan represented at that meeting and to hear its commitment to the agenda.

As hon. Members know, the human rights situation in Pakistan remains complex. Although the past 24 months have seen some positive political and legal developments on human rights issues, successful and fair implementation remains a huge challenge. As I mentioned in my speech last year, enhancing the rule of law in Pakistan is crucial to improving the plight of the Hazaras and other minority groups. I am pleased to say that, since our last debate, this Government have launched a programme to help to improve Pakistan’s ability successfully to investigate, prosecute, convict and detain terrorists in a human rights compliant manner. We are working with Pakistan and the international community to deliver a range of programmes, such as training and mentoring, in support of that long-term goal.

Looking to the future, the upcoming elections later this year will be a crucial milestone in Pakistan’s democratic history. Helping Pakistan to deliver credible elections that lead to a peaceful transfer of power will be a top priority for the UK in 2013. We will also encourage Pakistan and its new Government to step up their actions and implementation of international obligations on human rights. Essential changes will happen only with the political support of the authorities. We will continue to focus on the rights of minorities through frank senior level discussions.

The UK is committed to an enduring relationship with Pakistan and we will continue to work with the leaders of Pakistan and its people. At the universal periodic review of Pakistan last October, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar spoke of Pakistan’s aspiration to be a society that is based on equality, the rule of law, respect for diversity and justice. As a friend of Pakistan we have a distinctive role to play in supporting that aspiration. As the House has made clear this evening, how the Hazara community and its issues are treated will form part of the judgment on how Pakistan is responding to the challenges it is rightly setting itself.

I am grateful for the support of colleagues and to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

20:06

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 4th February 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 4 February 2013

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Monday 4th February 2013 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from a speech given by the Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), during the Westminster Hall debate on RSPCA prosecutions on 29 January 2013.

[The Attorney-General]

Another issue raised by hon. Members is that when the RSPCA prosecutes, a cause for concern is that if the RSPCA prosecution is unsuccessful, costs are awarded to the defendant from central funds, and not from the RSPCA. I want to make it clear that first, that will only happen on indictable offences, and secondly, exactly the same rules apply to any other public or private prosecutor.

[Official Report, 29 January 2013, Vol. 557, c. 204WH.]

Letter of correction from Dominic Grieve:

An error has been identified in part of the speech I gave during the Westminster Hall debate on RSPCA prosecutions.

The correct response should have been:

[The Attorney-General]

Another issue raised by hon. Members is that when the RSPCA prosecutes, a cause for concern is that if the RSPCA prosecution is unsuccessful, costs are awarded to the defendant from central funds, and not from the RSPCA. I want to make it clear that exactly the same rules apply to any other public or private prosecutor.

Petition

Monday 4th February 2013 Petitions

Monday 4 February 2013

Families Against Suicide Today

Monday 4th February 2013 Petitions

The Petition of Members of FAST (Families Against Suicide Today),

Declares that FAST was brought together by Patti Boyle whose son Kevin left home at 12.30 pm on 12 October 2011 after telling her he was going to work and that 101 days later his remains were found in a local area known as “Happy Valley”; further that Kevin had purchased an online suicide kit to complete his death from a website which described death as “Deliverance”; further that the Petitioners marched on 30 August 2012 from Kevin’s grave in Burren, Co. Down to Westminster to highlight Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the “Right to Life”.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to close down websites assisting suicide and to prosecute those who commit the crime of aiding and abetting suicide.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Ms Margaret Ritchie, Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 962.]

[P001142]

Observations from the Secretary of State for the Justice Department:

Every suicide is tragic and the impact of suicide can be devastating for all those affected especially family and friends. We have the deepest sympathy for those who have been bereaved in this way.

The Government are committed to suicide prevention. “Preventing suicide in England: A cross-Government outcomes strategy to save lives” was published on 10 September 2012. The new strategy—the first in more than 10 years—reflects concerns about misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods, and the Government’s commitment to continue working with the internet industry in the UK to keep young people safe online and to promote access to positive support for suicidal people. A similar strategy, “Protect Life—A Shared Vision” which was refreshed in June 2012, exists in Northern Ireland.

Misuse of the internet to encourage vulnerable people to take their own lives is rightly to be condemned absolutely. The internet, though, provides an opportunity to reach out to vulnerable individuals who may otherwise be reluctant to seek information, help or support from other agencies. It can develop and expand the availability of sources of support to vulnerable people online and can also encourage major organisations that provide content in the most popular parts of the internet (such as social networking sites and search engine providers) to develop responsible practices which reduce the availability of harmful content and promote sources of support.

The UK supports a self-regulatory model for the internet industry and any Government intervention has to be light touch, very fast, proportionate and effective. Legislation can rarely adapt and change quickly enough to respond to the constantly evolving online environment. But what is illegal offline is illegal online and there are specific laws in place. The Suicide Act 1961, for example, has been simplified and modernised with concerns about the links made between suicide and the internet very much in mind.

Under section 2(1) of the 1961 Act (as amended by section 59 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) it is an offence in England and Wales to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person with the intention to so encourage or assist. (There are equivalent provisions in section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 which was amended by section 60 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in the same terms as the Suicide Act 1961 was amended by section 59.) The person committing the offence need not know the other person or even be able to identify them which, in the context of the internet, is an important point. He may be prosecuted whether or not a suicide or attempted suicide takes place. Similarly, any person making a posting to an online chat room or a social networking site which intentionally encourages another person to commit or attempt to commit suicide may be guilty of an offence.

Prosecution of those who intentionally encourage or assist suicide is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. Under section 2(4) of the 1961 Act no prosecution for an offence under section 2(1) may be brought except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). As with all criminal offences, each case is reviewed individually in the light of all the available evidence and in accordance with the general “Code for Crown Prosecutors” before deciding whether or not a prosecution should be brought.

The DPP’s “Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide” (published in February 2010) sets out the factors which, in addition to those set out in the general Code, prosecutors in England and Wales will consider when deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide. One of the public interest factors tending in favour of prosecution is that

“the suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication”.

The law applies when the act that constitutes the encouragement or assistance is committed in England and Wales. However, most, if not all, of the websites causing concern are hosted outside the UK so there are significant issues of jurisdiction and enforcement which would prevent successful prosecution.

The vast majority of UK internet service providers take a responsible approach to what content they host, both of their own volition and in co-operation with law enforcement and Government agencies. They will readily take down any websites under their control when notified that the sites contain illegal material; and, even if the material is not illegal, they are free to restrict access to harmful or inappropriate material in accordance with their “acceptable use” policies and procedures. Search engines produce the Samaritans helpline number as the first return on suicide related searches. Moreover, as indicated above, most offending sites are based overseas and so outside the control of service providers here. There are also significant technological challenges and there is a difficult balance to be struck between reducing the availability of harmful material and permitting and promoting the positive contribution that the internet can provide for those seeking help and support to overcome suicidal feelings.

In short this is a complex issue and there is no easy or quick fix. But we will continue to work with industry and our partners to tackle the harms associated with the internet and do all that we can to protect vulnerable people online.

The industry has already worked on positive initiatives in this area. The Samaritans have, for example, worked with search engines and social media sites to ensure that ready access is provided to trusted suicide prevention and support services. And, in March 2011, Facebook launched a facility through which members can flag a friend’s profile if they are concerned that they may be at risk of attempting suicide. All of these reports are sent to a specialist team of Facebook moderators who review all such referrals as they are received. Where a person is in immediate danger, Facebook notifies both the police and the Samaritans who are able to respond rapidly.

The Minister for Care Services will shortly be hosting a roundtable meeting with industry representatives to explore what further progress industry-led initiatives can make in helping to prevent children and young people from accessing harmful suicide and self-harm related internet content. And the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) is making significant progress in increasing the availability and take-up of parental controls, aimed at restricting children’s access to all forms of harmful content.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 4th February 2013 Written Statements

Monday 4 February 2013

Local Government Finance

Monday 4th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I have today laid before the House the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2013-14 (HC 948)”. This report establishes the starting point for each local authority in England in the new business rates retention scheme and sets out individual start-up funding assessments, baseline funding levels, business rates baselines, tariffs and tops-ups, and the basis of their distributions. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 19 December 2012.

We received almost 200 written responses from local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, formal and informal groupings of authorities and others during the consultation. In addition Ministers met delegations from representative bodies including the Local Government Association and London councils as well as a large number of individual local authorities.

Having considered the views of all those who have commented on the provisional settlement, I have decided broadly to confirm the proposals for the settlement for 2013-14 as announced in December, after making some minor technical changes following representations made during consultation.

From 1 April councils will directly retain nearly £11 billion of business rates instead of returning it to the Government. The business rates retention incentive that this settlement introduces is a watershed in council financing, setting local authorities free to grow their income by building up new business rates revenue through supporting new firms and jobs. This could deliver around an extra £10 billion to the wider economy by 2020.

Councils account for around a quarter of all public expenditure. Last year budgeted to spend £114 billion—a bigger budget than the NHS or twice the entire defence budget or more than double the debt interest. It is only right that they play their part in driving down the deficit left us by the last Labour Government.

All councils have considerable total spending power. The overall reduction in spending power next year, taking into account the new public health grant, is just 1.3%.

The settlement is a fair one—fair to north and south, fair to rural and urban areas and fair to shires and metropolitan areas. For example Newcastle has a spending power per dwelling of £2,516, £700 more than Wokingham which has £1,815.

We have ensured again that no council will receive a revenue spending power reduction of more than 8.8% in 2013-14, thanks to the new efficiency support grant.

Despite the huge pressures on public finances, the Government have presented local government with a good deal in 2013-14. We continue to take steps to protect those councils most reliant on central Government funding and to freeze council tax. The settlement implements the autumn statement commitment that local government would be exempt from the 1% top slice in 2013-14. This important protection gives local authorities time to drive through further service redesign that will deliver the efficient and sustainable services that citizens expect.

Local government has shown great skill in reducing its budgets. Committed local authorities have protected front-line services. Our 50 ways to save, setting out practical ways for councils to save money, big and small, should help.

A dramatic shift in spending power from Whitehall to the town hall means an estimated 70% of council income will now be raised locally compared to 56% under the centrally distributed “begging-bowl” formula grant system.

Following consultation we have concluded that more needs to be done to further support rural areas. This statement confirms increases made in the provisional settlement to the sparsity weighting and top-ups in the calculation of formula funding to reflect the costs of those services which can be more expensive in highly rural areas. On top of that, we are providing £8.5 million additional funding in 2013-14 as a separate new transitional grant to help authorities secure efficiencies in services for sparsely populated areas.

The Government have set aside £450 million over the next two years to help local government in England to freeze its council tax in 2013-14, which will be the third successive year in which a freeze scheme applies. Authorities and police and crime commissioners which do not increase their basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 will receive a grant equivalent to the revenue they would have generated by increasing their basic amount of council tax by 1%.

I encourage all authorities and police and crime commissioners to take up the grant offer and freeze their element of the council tax. In doing so, they will be providing real help to families and those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, with their cost of living.

I have today laid before the House for approval “The Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2013-14” which sets a 2% referendum principle for all principal local authorities, police and crime commissioners and fire and rescue authorities. This would mean that if an authority wished to raise their relevant basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 by more than 2%, their local electorate will have the opportunity to approve or veto the increase in a binding referendum.

The exceptions to this excessiveness principle are shire districts, police and crime commissioners and fire and rescue authorities whose 2012-13 council tax was in the lower quartile of their category of authority. In the case of these authorities, a referendum must only be held where the authority increases its relevant basic amount of council tax for 2013-14 by more than 2%, and there is a cash increase that is more than £5 in the relevant basic amount.

The Secretary of State is not proposing principles for local precepting authorities for 2013-14. However, he intends to revisit this issue next year, having considered the extent to which local precepting authorities have exercised restraint in relation to council tax this year— 30 January, Official Report, columns 41-43WS.

I have also today laid before the House for approval “The Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2013-14” which a number of local authorities must use when determining whether the increase in their relevant basic amount of council tax in 2013-14 is excessive. These are required to reflect changes brought about by the localisation of council tax support.

I shall be making the local government finance report and the council tax reports available, with full supporting information, on our website at:

http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/1314/settle.htm.

Copies of the reports have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

Committee on Climate Change (Triennial Review)

Monday 4th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

I am announcing today that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has commenced the first triennial review of the Committee on Climate Change. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life. I will announce the findings of the review later this year.

Police Grant Report England and Wales (2013-14)

Monday 4th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has today laid before the House, the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2013-14” (HC 876). The report sets out my right hon. Friend’s, determination for 2013-14 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Mayor’s office for policing and crime.

This statement also includes details of other funding streams that the Home Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Government intend to provide to the police in 2013-14.

The Police Grant Settlement 2013-14

National Security in Northern Ireland

Monday 4th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Government have received and welcomed the annual report from Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of arrangements for handling national security matters in Northern Ireland for the period 22 November 2011 to 11 December 2012.

Lord Carlile is briefed by both the Police Service in Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Security Service for the purpose of his reports; he states that he is satisfied that the briefings he has received have been full and not selective. He states that the Security Service and the PSNI work well together and clearly in the national interest.

Lord Carlile reports that the level of terrorist activity appears broadly similar to that of the previous year; it remains a challenging and variable environment for the PSNI and Security Service. He notes the very serious incidents which took place in 2012, including the murder of David Black on 1 November, and states that the overall picture is of a very dangerous, unpredictable terrorist threat.

I welcome the content of this report and have made it available to the Home Secretary. Given its sensitive nature I do not however intend to place copies in the Library.

Grand Committee

Monday 4th February 2013 Grand Committee

Monday, 4 February 2013.

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)]

My Lords, I have to offer the usual reminder that if there were to be a Division in the House we would adjourn this Committee for 10 minutes.

Criminal Procedure Policy: EUC Report

Monday 4th February 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

15:30

Moved By

[Lord Bowness]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The European Union’s Policy on Criminal Procedure (30th Report, Session 2010-12, HL Paper 288).

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I thank the members of the European Union Select Committee who participated in the inquiry, in whose name the report is issued, but particularly the members of the Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection, which I chair. I thank all members for their assistance and, indeed, our legal advisers and our clerks. Perhaps other members of the committee will forgive me if I particularly mention one of our number who is no longer a member of the committee—namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, whose knowledge of Scottish procedure proved invaluable in our deliberations. We were sad that he left us but delighted that he did so to become a senator—not in terms of Lords reform but as a senator of the Scottish High Court of Justiciary.

I will refer to one other matter before I deal with the report; it is the elephant lurking in the corner of this room—that is, the Government’s current minded opt-out of the pre-Lisbon provisions, a decision which has to be made before May 2014. I should point out that the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee together with the Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee are jointly conducting an inquiry into that decision. Currently, that inquiry is proceeding; written evidence has been received and is on the website; witnesses are still being seen; and we shall be seeing the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary next week. When that report is produced it will, I presume, include observations on the merits or otherwise of a decision to opt out of the pre-Lisbon measures. It may well contain some comment about matters which should be, in the opinion of the committee, retained—if, indeed, that is the opinion of the committee—and an opinion on how the matter should proceed and the likelihood of success.

I want to make it abundantly clear, and put it on the record, that nothing I say today should be construed as expressing an opinion on any of those questions while that inquiry is proceeding. This report may well express opinions about particular measures, but they were opinions expressed at the time about the measures, not in the context of whether or not there should be an opt-out or whether or not there are practical alternatives to staying within those measures. It is very important that Sub-Committee E and Sub-Committee F, the two sub-committees involved, are not seen in any way to have pre-judged this issue before the report is prepared and submitted—at some time, I hope, before the end of the Session—to your Lordships’ House, although that, of course, depends upon the Government’s decisions as to when they bring a Motion to the House and the other place regarding the opt-in. At the moment we do not know what their decision is, what measures, if any, they want to retain, or whether we can meet the timescale. I hope that what I say can be taken in that context.

The report before the Committee this afternoon was undertaken by the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee in the light of the changes made in the Lisbon treaty in respect of criminal law. That certainly gave an impetus to EU legislation in this field and an impression, correct or otherwise, that the Commission was anxious to proceed further in this area.

The inquiry also coincided with our normal scrutiny of a proposal for a directive laying down minimum standards for access to a lawyer by a suspect or accused persons. This was used within the report as a case study. Access to lawyers was just one of a package or road map of proposals aimed at providing minimum rights for defendants across Europe. This road map, and a second aimed at providing minimum rights across Europe for the victims of crime, constituted the Commission’s legislative programme in the field of criminal procedure.

In the course of this inquiry, we took evidence from academics, police prosecutors, NGOs, practitioners and Ministers, as well as directly from members of the public, who gave evidence of their experiences—some distressing—as victims of crime in another member state. We are grateful to all our witnesses who assisted us in this way.

People are moving within the European Union in increasing numbers and, inevitably and regrettably, some get involved in the criminal justice systems of other member states either as perpetrators of crime or as victims. They find themselves having to deal with unfamiliar legal systems, probably in an unfamiliar language. Although I do not think we should always assume that everything we do is better than anything anybody else does, British citizens finding themselves in that situation in other member states may frequently find themselves with fewer rights than they could expect in similar circumstances in the United Kingdom. As I said, in any event, even if their rights are there, the procedures and language will be unfamiliar.

The Union’s counter to cross-border crime is to promote mutual recognition of the judicial decisions made in other member states—that is, the decision of a judge in one member state to be given effect in another with the minimum of formality. It is a form of co-operation based on our practice and it seeks to avoid the disruption of having very different criminal systems across Europe, as would happen if they had gone down the road of harmonisation. Perhaps the most well known example of mutual recognition is the European arrest warrant.

It is accepted, and the report accepts, that mutual recognition has its faults and is incomplete, but the evidence given to us for this inquiry suggested that it is largely successful. Mutual recognition requires trust between judges, and so a judge faced with a request for speedy extradition may be reluctant to agree if he or she thinks that this will result in the defendant spending long periods in poor prison conditions awaiting trial or if the trial is likely to be unfair. Equally, a refusal to extradite on such grounds is likely to be viewed in the member state making the request as an unwelcome criticism of its own criminal justice system. The road maps are intended to provide that trust by ensuring that minimum standards for defendants’ and victims’ rights are adhered to across the Union.

This report concludes that such legislation laying down minimum rights is in principle beneficial, and we supported the proposals. Why, we are sometimes asked, did we not consider the European Convention on Human Rights or other international legal instruments to be sufficient? Quite simply, as the Government acknowledge, the European Union legislation generally brings greater clarity and is usually capable of better enforcement, which is lacking in the case of these international instruments. Members of the Committee will recall, because it was mentioned on many occasions, that the backlog of cases in the European Court of Human Rights at the time of writing was more than 150,000, and it is still more than 100,000. Non-legislative measures such as better judicial training and better co-operation have a contribution to make but, in our view, they do not replace the need for legislation. We believe that the United Kingdom has little to fear or gain from legislation in this area because, as I said earlier, our standards are generally recognised as being among the better ones among the countries of Europe.

We have obviously had the opportunity to shape much of this legislation, which has enabled British citizens travelling abroad to benefit from improved standards in other states. We recognise, however, that this remains a sensitive area for European Union activity because of the very different legal traditions in the different member states. The case study on the proposal for access to a lawyer demonstrates how the proposal—or, I should say, a proposal—can be too ambitious. That led to a situation in which we were not able to support the idea that the United Kingdom should opt in; indeed, we supported the Government in their opt-out. I understand that we were not alone in our concerns. The matter has currently been taken to the European Parliament, which has submitted some 80 amendments to the general approach that was agreed in the Council. I understand that those 80 amendments take us back to square one, if not back further than that, so the negotiations are still continuing. Although we accept the motive behind this particular proposal, we hope that further negotiations will ultimately allow the UK to come to a decision, if this is still relevant at the time, to opt into that legislation.

Overall, the report sees the area of criminal procedure as one that has made slow but careful and steady progress. We would like the present measures in the road maps adopted and experience gained as to how they work before we go further. We are wary of road-map measures that might affect the admissibility of evidence. In practice, we support the Government’s positive approach to the road-map proposals, even in cases where they have not opted in but stayed involved with the negotiations. We welcome the fact that the Government have opted into the road-map measures, with the exception of this access to lawyers.

The opt-out from pre-Lisbon criminal measures is the subject of a further report. It does not apply to the road maps, and I re-emphasise that this report does not pre-empt the opt-out decision and the separate debate that the House will have in the light of the subsequent inquiry. Clearly the opt-in/opt-out uncertainty creates certain problems. There is a framework decision which we have already opted into and which was intended to allow the supervision order that is intended to allow those who are awaiting trial to spend time on remand in their own country. We participated in its adoption but we have not implemented it. Many people have commented in evidence published on the website that this will go some way to ameliorating the acknowledged problems that exist with the European arrest warrant.

However, these are matters that no doubt will be resolved by Her Majesty’s Government when they bring forward proposals and it is not appropriate for me to comment further. I beg to move.

15:45

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I was not a member of the sub-committee when this inquiry took place, so I am slightly surprised to find myself at the top of the speakers list. I was expecting to skulk along as tail-end Charlie. I have since joined the committee and, notwithstanding my non-presence during these proceedings, I very much welcome this report with its focus on victims’ and defendants’ rights. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bowness and the other members of the committee on the report. I also congratulate the staff of the sub-committee whose judgment, acumen and skill I have come to recognise since I joined their number.

My noble friend referred to both sections of the road-map proposals. The report endorses the proposals, which seem to me to pose three sets of challenges. The first is what I call the challenge of national amour proper—members states asking, “Who are you to tell us how to organise our internal criminal justice systems?”. I would like to turn to that in a minute. Secondly, there is a series of practical, technical challenges—again, I would like to come back to that. Thirdly, and for me the greatest challenge, is how to move further along this road map, building on the achievements of mutual recognition to date while continuing to encompass the two entirely different legal traditions, to which my noble friend also referred. The UK, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus have adopted an adversarial, common-law, precedent-driven system while the other EU states have adopted—to a greater or lesser degree—an inquisitorial, judge-led approach.

It is not just the inevitable practical difficulties, such as the lengthy pre-trial detention, although these can be considerable. I declare here an interest as a trustee of Fair Trials International. I do not speak for that organisation this afternoon but it has given me some background information on some of the practical issues here. One of the cases currently causing Fair Trials concern is that of Corinna Reid. She was extradited to Tenerife, which is Spanish territory, in 2009; her daughter was six months old then and being breastfed. Corinna’s trial is not expected to start until April 2013. After her extradition Corinna was kept in jail for about a year and then given bail on the basis that there was hardly sufficient evidence against her. However, she has not been allowed to leave Tenerife, has struggled to support herself and has now been separated from her daughter for more than three years. While adoption of the European supervision order may have helped in this case, this and other cases show how the different approaches lead to very different outcomes and illustrate the way trials are conducted.

As I said, however, it is not just the practical issues—it is also the impression left with the general public. Moving away from the familiar UK-EU issue and tensions, I want to remind the committee of the case of Amanda Knox, a US citizen, and Meredith Kercher, a UK citizen, in Perugia, Italy. It was a messy murder involving two students and perhaps drugs as well. The US follows the adversarial system that we have here. If you had looked at the US newspapers you would have been astonished to see the scale of incomprehension regarding the role and effectiveness of the Italian judicial system. In my view the vast majority of the UK population would suffer from the same incomprehension; and no doubt the reverse is true with the general public on the continent being unfamiliar with our legal proceedings.

There is therefore much to be done in terms of public impression. I particularly support the comments of Professor Spencer in paragraph 19. The report states that he,

“regarded the issue of mutual trust as being wider: ‘What is done in trans-border cases has to be acceptable to public opinion, not just prosecutors and people who work the system’”.

I turn now to the issue of national amour propre. The report contains several flattering references to the United Kingdom’s approach to justice and civil liberties and to the role that this country can play in raising standards across the EU. We need to be careful about what we can achieve in this regard. Our lawyers and judges are of course pleased to be regarded as representing the shining city upon the hill—flattery is always attractive. However, perhaps I might give an extreme example to illustrate the dangers of trying to be too accepting of this.

I happened to be in Rio the day that the unlucky Mr de Menezes was shot dead in the Tube by armed British policemen. The Rio newspapers were outraged; there were acres of newsprint on the scandal and an inquiry was requested. Yet my host, a senior and experienced Brazilian businessman, said to me, “This is because we expect those standards of the UK, but I estimate that the Rio police probably shoot about 1,000 people a year—and there is no fuss or commotion whatever”. He went on to say that they would go on shooting them and, despite what had been written about the incident in London, there would still be no fuss or commotion. My point is that we should not overestimate what can be achieved by example, especially in an area as sensitive as a country’s internal judicial system.

Finally, I want to underline some of the practical and technical challenges to the road-map proposals, in particular those concerned with the European arrest warrant. There can be no doubt that the European arrest warrant has played an important role in tackling cross-border crime over the past eight years. However, it is also widely recognised, including by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that there have been problems with the operation of the warrant and that some concrete reforms are needed to protect against overuse and abuse of the system. The problem most commonly highlighted is the use of the arrest warrant for minor crimes—that is, the issue of proportionality. The warrant was meant to be used to tackle serious crime and terrorism but thousands are being issued every year now and often for the most minor crimes; there are about 1,000 a year from the UK alone. This has a disproportionate effect on the people concerned and wastes vast amounts of time for the already overstretched police and courts.

Perhaps I may cite a recent FTI case. Last year Poland requested the extradition of 23 year-old Natalia Gorczowska to serve a nine-month sentence for possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use. The sentence was received when she was only 17. It was only a suspended sentence, but the sentence was reactivated because Natalia came to the UK and forgot to tell her probation officer. The sentence therefore became one of imprisonment. Since the incident six years ago, Natalia has ceased to use drugs and has found a job. She now has a home and a baby. Her extradition has been ordered, which has resulted in her losing all this and in her son now being taken into care by the UK authorities.

There are other problems with the arrest warrant that need to be addressed. They include: first, the power for the courts to refuse extradition or seek further information where they have sound reason to think that the person will be subject to mistreatment, arbitrary detention or an unfair trial in the country that they are sent to; secondly, a power to delay extradition where the case is not trial-ready to stop people being extradited long before any decision has been made even to prosecute, as where such decisions are made people are then held in prison for months under extremely difficult conditions awaiting trial; and, thirdly, a power to refuse extradition where the court believes that it would be more appropriate for the case to be heard in the UK—the so-called forum bar. Those kinds of changes could prevent the misuse of what is otherwise a valuable crime-fighting tool, and I hope that the Government are successful in their current efforts to persuade other member states to agree to these sensible reforms.

I end as I began by saying that this is a valuable report. As my noble friend said, this is, in a sense, an hors d’oeuvre for the bigger debate about opting in or out. However, the debate is none the less useful because it points the way ahead and underlines how much still needs to be done to give full effect to agreements already reached. The Euroagnostic among us, of whom I am one, have a concern that the EU’s legislative and theoretical bandwagon will roll on irrespective of what is happening practically on the ground. As such a disconnect can undermine the credibility of the institutions involved, I would conclude by endorsing strongly the recommendation in paragraph 107 of the report:

“We agree that no new proposal for mutual recognition should be brought forward until the current proposals for legislation under the two Roadmaps have been put in place and have had time to make an impact”.

15:54

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Bowness. His approach was careful, balanced and forward-looking. We heard from a wide range of witnesses, who gave not always complementary recommendations, but, under his chairmanship, the committee has distilled an approach to criminal procedure which not only ought in itself to be endorsed but is a model as to how we should approach changes in the law in the European Union—balanced, careful, studying it case by case. That has been cited by the Government as being their approach to criminal procedure, based on the coalition agreement.

It is not appropriate to have European Union-wide harmonised criminal procedural law. Our traditions are extraordinarily different, and it could create structural confusion and embarrassment if we were to attempt to move in that direction too quickly or other than step by step. It is clear that even within the United Kingdom, the criminal procedure laws are to some extent different. As our chairman pointed out, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, was helpful in drawing attention to some of those differences. It is certainly right that we should ensure that the European Union provides minimum rights for defendants and victims travelling or located in other countries. That is a common phenomenon because of greater mobility—perhaps too common. I read in the press the other day that London is the seventh largest French city. A very large number of British citizens live and, in many cases, work, not only in Spain, as is well known, but in France and a number of other countries.

Travellers who are unfortunately involved in criminal procedures need to be considered very carefully. They should enjoy the possibility of comprehending what is being done in court, so translation, interpretation and explanation of their rights on arrest clearly ought to be observed.

My noble friend Lord Bowness has carefully expanded the committee’s recommendations, and I suppose that there is some risk of my merely repeating what he said because I so fully agreed with the committee’s recommendations. In particular, he spoke about mutual recognition. It is important to build trust throughout the European Union through mutual recognition of decisions and judgments made in other member states, against the background provision for minimum standards in other European Union member states. The case-by-case approach of the coalition Government is certainly right. We must recognise the different individual criminal justice systems.

To my mind, it was right that the United Kingdom did not opt into the proposed directive providing for access to a lawyer at an early stage of a criminal investigation. We took a lot of evidence on this point, and it was made abundantly clear that investigations into criminal offences would not necessarily be successful if lawyers were provided in this country. I agree with the conclusion that the committee drew; it would be too disruptive and would defeat the purposes of the criminal law in our country.

We also emphasised the commitment to considering the compliance of the proposed European Union legislation with the principle of subsidiarity. That has been the hallmark of the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees. It is exceedingly important, as we move step by step in these areas to remove injustices and to ensure that human rights are observed, to reflect on whether the particular proposals are adding value and whether European legislation would add value in those respects. The European legislation can do that where it is evident that minimum standards conformable with fundamental rights need to be provided.

European Union legislation can undoubtedly add value to our own legislation by providing greater specificity than is provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the general application of those principles. It also enables affected individuals to test what is being done in the national courts, and that enhances the speed with which these matters can be determined and the certainty of the outcome.

I am glad that the Government are investigating, with other European Union member states, ways in which we could collectively ensure that the general rubrics of the European Convention on Human Rights are observed in investigating and prosecuting crime. That is permitted explicitly in our protocol on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, allowing us to opt into such proposals. That seems to be the proper approach that we should be taking, on a wider canvas, to the criminal justice system.

Although I wholly understood why my noble friend Lord Bowness was careful in his opening remarks not to prejudge the outcome of the consideration being given by his committee, and another sub-committee of the European Union Select Committee, to the pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs legislation, it is perhaps worth pointing out that when we considered the issue as an adjunct to the central questions that the committee was considering, we stated in paragraph 115 of our report that opting out of the pre-Lisbon treaty justice and home affairs legislation would have significant repercussions on United Kingdom criminal enforcement:

“We share the scepticism that it will be possible for the UK to ‘pick and mix’ by opting out of all the subsisting pre-Lisbon legislation and immediately opting back in to some only”.

That debate will have to be considered at greater length and in the context of the Government’s determinations, but it is right to recognise that the membership of this committee and the Select Committee took our preliminary view, which suggests that the proposal to opt out would go far too far to secure justice in this country.

16:05

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I have the honour to serve as a member of European Union Sub-Committee E under the noble Lord, Lord Bowness.

The questions coming before the House in relation to the European Union and our ongoing membership are many and varied. There can be no doubt that in any field of European law, as in any field of law, there will be many measures which could be improved, there will be measures which are redundant, and there will be measures which are critical to the functioning of particular parts of our national systems. It is therefore interesting to note that this 30th report of the EU Committee does not find any major stumbling blocks in the path of criminal justice in the UK consequential upon the activities of the European Union and its legislative process. Indeed, the report states:

“We find that there is significant benefit to be gained from EU legislation setting minimum rights for defendants and victims, particularly for British citizens travelling within the EU who, on the whole, enjoy a high standard of rights at home. However, those minimum rights must be firmly grounded in international law norms, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, to minimise the risk of disrupting the UK criminal law systems”.

The committee also states in paragraph 55 in relation to its scrutiny functions, to which noble Lords have already referred, that,

“we have not yet found it necessary to raise a subsidiarity objection”.

Of course, we have stated our ongoing commitment to scrutiny.

The case-by-case approach to opt in has resulted in the Government opting into all the proposals for criminal procedure legislation, with the exception of the proposal for access to a defence lawyer. That is not yet so formed that it would be viable and would not interfere with the operation of the criminal justice systems. It is just not clear enough. However, in other cases, my noble colleagues have indicated the range of protections available to United Kingdom citizens who find themselves, for whatever reason, as either victims of or witnesses to a crime, or indeed as perpetrators of a crime, in countries outside the United Kingdom. The overall tenor of this report therefore is that there are no significant problems and that the Government should take a positive approach in principle to exercising the UK opt-in in relation to road map legislation.

As my noble friends have said, the report concludes by drawing attention to the decision to be made next May in relation to whether the United Kingdom opts out of the pre-Lisbon EU legislation, including the European arrest warrant. We are conducting a separate inquiry into that matter. I make no statement as to whether the United Kingdom should or should not opt out of the pre-Lisbon measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, we are still hearing evidence. However, I should like to revert for a moment to the report—the subject of this debate—and I draw your Lordships’ attention to the comment by Professor Spencer in paragraph 113 that an “unthinkable mess” would ensue were we to opt out of the EAW.

The EAW of course is not a stand-alone measure. It has coherence with a number of other vital measures, and my question for the Government is whether they are now in a position to enlighten us as to their strategy for dealing with these matters. In June last, the Government responded that they were examining the issue. As noble Lords have said, mutual recognition has proved to be profoundly important for that trust, which is essential to the international fight against crime and terrorism.

However, the reality is that such is the nature of the world in which we live that crime, which has always had its international dimensions, is now in its cross-border dimensions—a major problem for Governments and for the protection of national interests, including national security, and of the public good. Over almost 10 years a series of measures has been agreed by the member states of the EU which has as its purpose the effective and efficient delivery of a coherent response to the threats of international crime and terrorism within and without EU borders. Those measures have included the EAW, a process through which member states may seek the co-operation of other member states in securing the arrest of individuals suspected of crime who are resident in that other state. The UK makes regular use of the EAW, and indeed, in its published evidence, ACPO recently stated that the EAW was the most important of all the measures.

Much is made by some of the fact that the UK receives a very significant number of requests for extradition of individuals to other member states and of the cost of the extradition process. The reality is important. Our ability to extradite rapidly persons who are a threat to public order and safety in the UK provides a protection for people in the United Kingdom. It is simply neither possible nor proportionate to screen every EU citizen coming across borders, yet ACPO statistics show that in 2011-12 the Metropolitan Police Service received 50 European arrest warrants for homicide, 20 for rape and 90 for robbery. The evidence is also available to demonstrate that criminals who take refuge in the UK do not invariably begin to live lives as model citizens. They may well reoffend. The EAW, or possibly a similar process, enables processes through which other states can secure their return, maybe before further crime has been committed in the UK. There is a significant public safety benefit to the existence of such mutual co-operation that is considered in this report—something that the United Kingdom has consistently supported.

The UK made 221 requests to other states in 2011-12 and 93 people were surrendered to us through that process, the existence of which has worked to our benefit. Looking back we know that an Algerian national, Ramda, was arrested in the UK in 1995 in relation to a terrorist attack on the Paris Metro. France sought extradition—a process that took 10 years. Mr Ramda spent those 10 years in custody in the United Kingdom at massive cost to the United Kingdom. When Osman was identified as a suspect in a failed bomb attack on Shepherd’s Bush Tube station in July 2005, his extradition under the new mutual co-operation processes saw him surrendered within three months. He was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to murder. There is a stark contrast between the 10 years and the few months that mutual co-operation has enabled. The capacity for mutual co-operation is a very strong crime prevention measure that has the ancillary benefit of significant financial savings when one takes into account the average cost of keeping a prisoner for a year, which is estimated by the Ministry of Justice to be in the region of £40,000.

Under analogous measures we can seek: orders freezing property or evidence; confiscation orders; and evidence warrants to obtain objects, documents and data for use in criminal proceedings. We can transfer prisoners to serve their sentences in their home country, which brings benefits not only to the prisoners themselves, who are being restrained in a language and culture they understand, but also to their families who can visit them more easily. Non-custodial sentences can be carried out in the home country, again reducing the cost to the UK taxpayer of such criminal sanctions. None of these measures is perfect, but the report shows that there have been significant improvements.

Many other relevant systems have been created over the years, including Eurojust and Europol. They include the Schengen information systems and the potential for joint investigations across Europe. Even if we take into account the effectiveness of a European arrest warrant, surrender can occur only when the home country knows that the suspects are in a particular host country. If the home country does not know where the suspects are it cannot seek them. The host country does not know that it has a potentially dangerous criminal on its territory. The system for the exchange of criminal records, which includes provisions enabling a court in this country to be informed about and to take into account similar crimes in respect of which the accused has been convicted in other member states, is useful. The provisions provide protection for public safety in respect of people who are identified for one crime here because, following an exchange of criminal records, decisions which need to be made about bail et cetera will be informed by the individual’s previous records, thus enabling individuals who are a serious threat to public safety to be detained. Sometimes people question the value of the co-operation and the European criminal procedure processes, but the report demonstrates that it is advantageous to the United Kingdom that we are engaged as we are.

The 30th report does, however, state:

“Opting out of this legislation would have significant repercussions on UK criminal enforcement”.

The former Lord Chancellor stated his scepticism, which noble Lords can find in paragraph 114 of the report. The 30th report also states—the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, referred to this—that:

“We share the scepticism that it will be possible for the UK to ‘pick and mix’ by opting out of all the subsisting pre-Lisbon legislation and immediately opting back in to some only”.

This report paints a picture of a process of co-operation in the European Union’s policy on criminal procedures which is generally positive and is operating according to the required standards in terms of compliance with the requirements of human rights law. In such circumstances the publication of the Government’s proposals for the protocol 36 arrangements should inform the debate which is now required on whether or not we should opt in. I would emphasise that there is no guarantee, as I understand it, that we would be able to opt back in: we can apply to opt back in. This has to be one of the more important decisions facing us at this time. It will rightfully be informed by the debate and the vote in both Houses and, indeed, by the report by the two sub-committees currently working on the issue. Mutual recognition and the trust which is consequential to it has proved, however, to be a significant protection for the people of the United Kingdom from both crime and terrorism.

16:16

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to be engaged in a debate again with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. We spent some happy years as leaders of our political groups in the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in doing that, and I even recall an occasion some 25 years ago when he and I were in Donegal at a conference of the Irish Republic’s local government association at which we were describing the delights of the poll tax to an enthralled if somewhat bemused Irish audience.

I confess to a minimal acquaintance with the EU criminal procedure in my 44 years as a solicitor, so I approach today’s debate with an open and somewhat ill-stocked mind. I am equally unfamiliar with the works of the European Union Committee—arguably a less pardonable admission—but it does strike me as odd that the committee’s report was published in April 2012, the Government’s essentially anodyne response in June 2012, and yet this debate comes to us some seven months later.

One preliminary question relates to the stress of the documents on the fact that British citizens travelling abroad would benefit from a common EU policy guaranteeing fair and due process in relation to criminal charges. That of course is right, but is there an implication that British citizens resident abroad would not be included in that category? I assume not, but would be grateful for confirmation.

The report dissents from the Commission’s proposal for suspects and accused persons to have access to a lawyer effectively “as soon as possible” in all cases—a recommendation going beyond the Council’s road map of 2009 which referred to this right “at the earliest stage of proceedings”, which is of course a very different position. Unsurprisingly the Government, along with several other nations’ Governments, share that view, and the committee subscribes to it, and indeed I endorse that reservation. The Government’s response welcomes the approach taken by the Justice and Home Affairs Council last June. Has this been agreed by the European Parliament in a form acceptable to the Government, and if so what is the position in relation to an opt-in?

Similarly, what progress has been made in relation to the draft victims directive, which should align the position of British citizens who become the victims of crime in the EU with the rights accorded here?

Of course, the major issue identified in the committee’s report is the question of opt-out decisions, now highlighted by the Prime Minister’s recent speech and the five-year process it has initiated. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, rightly referred to the committee voicing scepticism as to whether,

“it will be possible for the UK to ‘pick and mix’ by opting out of all the subsisting pre-Lisbon legislation and immediately opting back in to some only”.

The report goes on to say that opting out,

“would have significant repercussions on UK criminal enforcement”.

The government response refers to 133 potential opt-out measures which were being analysed and to their “careful” examination of the implications of all the options. Has that process concluded, at least in relation to the matters subject to this debate, and if so, with what result?

There is one particularly important issue to which, following others, I now turn. Appropriately enough in reports and a debate dealing with crime, we have another example of the Sherlock Holmes syndrome—once again the mystery is that of the dog barking at midnight, when, it will be recalled, the mystery was that the dog did not bark. In this case, the silent canine goes by the name of the European arrest warrant, which is barely mentioned in the committee’s report and is totally ignored in the government response, although noble Lords have referred to it in this afternoon’s debate.

This has become a live issue in recent months as the Government have threatened to withdraw from the system despite strong support from a wide range of organisations for a procedure which has proved to be of significant value in combating international crime, including terrorism and other serious offences, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. European arrest warrants are supported by the police, as one might expect, but also by organisations such as Fair Trials International and Justice Across Borders, with the former acknowledging that there may be problems but arguing for reform rather than abandonment of the system. It supported the approach of the Scott Baker report on extradition as a basis for reform. What are the Government doing to promote those recommendations?

In 2010-11, EU member states applied for 5,382 European arrest warrants in the UK, of which 1,149—somewhat under 20%—were granted. Significantly, however, only 7% of those affected British citizens; the vast majority were for citizens of other European countries. For our part, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we have sought 211 warrants and obtained 93.

In any event, it is as well to look at some of the cases. In addition to the Osman case, to which the noble Baroness referred, it is instructive to consider the case of Robbie Hughes, who suffered a life-threatening brain injury in a violent criminal assault. His attackers were eventually arrested, tried in Greece, convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Without the European arrest warrant, it is quite possible that they would have escaped justice altogether. Mr Hughes’ campaigning mother, Maggie, points out that the interests of victims are in danger of being lost by the Government’s approach. She noted in an interview in the Observer recently that whereas at one time she met Mr Cameron at his request, now, at this critical juncture in relation to policy on the European arrest warrants, she has been unable to do so. She said that,

“he seemed sincere. But he appears to have no idea, and I’m sorry to say that”.

So what is the Government’s rationale for the policy that they appear to be adopting, so markedly in contrast to the Lord Chancellor’s tub-thumping—not to mention child-smacking—approach to criminal justice and penal policy? Why are the Government threatening to relinquish a powerful tool to bring to justice suspected perpetrators of serious crime, some of it inherently cross-border in nature? Are they more concerned to throw a bone to the ravening Eurosceptics on their Back-Benches at the expense of the victims of crime, whether British or citizens of other EU countries?

If there are concerns about aspects of the EAW system—and indeed there are—why have the Government failed to implement the European supervision order allowing defendants to be bailed to their home country pending trial, thereby avoiding long periods in custody abroad of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, before they are dealt with? Admittedly, that has been a serious problem in some cases. In an age of mass travel and ever faster-developing internet communications, crime is becoming ever more international. It is in everyone’s interest that criminals be brought to justice, whether their crimes are economic, violent or take any other form.

Of course, within the different systems—adversarial or inquisitorial, based on common law or Roman law principles—basic human rights to a fair trial must be a pre-eminent feature of criminal procedure and the criminal justice system. The UK should be leading the way to achieve that, not sulking on the sidelines. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that this cannot be achieved simply by example. That is all the more reason to work with others in the EU to improve the system on the lines adumbrated by the committee, to a degree by the Government, and by the organisations to which I referred.

16:25

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, clearly the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, had got his Monday morning grumpy hat on in his final tirade against the Government. I will come back to the points that he made in a minute.

I know a little about the House’s European Union Committee and I pay tribute to it. This report is in the great tradition of a committee at this end of the building which has always produced evidence-based reports in a considered way. This inquiry has been helpful in that

I concede one point to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: the response and debate timetable seems to be leisurely, to put it mildly. I am not sure who takes the blame for that. Nevertheless, we have had the benefit of a good report.

I make no complaint that a number of references have been made to the Government’s decision to adopt an opt-out/opt-in approach to the 2014 decision. I shall take up the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, not to pre-empt that debate. I am aware that Sub-Committees E and F of the European Union Committee are looking at this matter and I look forward to the report. I suspect that it will be in the great tradition of the European Union Committee in terms of an evidence-based analysis and wise recommendations. I shall not pre-empt that debate today.

It was interesting that the contributions to the debate endorsed the findings of the report that co-operation in this area is not the great danger to our beloved criminal justice system that might be suggested. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made the point that, in practice, it has worked extremely well and to the benefit of British citizens to have a policy of co-operation and of trying to set minimum standards. I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about national amour propre. I always find in our papers there is always scepticism that any country could have a justice system as fair as ours and that foreigners are not to be trusted with such matters. However, the more serious reality is that we have different forms of systems and that that sometimes makes it difficult to get complete cohesion. However, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that it is important that we carry public opinion and understanding with us on these matters.

A number of references have been made to the European arrest warrant. Again it is a matter of balance. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made a number of telling points about the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant and the fact that it is an important weapon in the armoury against organised crime, cross-border crime and other matters in what the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, referred to as an increasingly mobile continent.

However, I do not think that it is fair to say that we have taken a negative view on that. We have pointed out, and a number of contributors have raised the fact, that there are issues about proportionality, dual-criminality and pre-trail detention that we wanted to discuss to try to get the arrest warrant improved. That has been our approach. The Home Secretary has responsibility for the European arrest warrant and it has been considered as part of the Scott Baker review. The Government’s response to that review is to take the opportunity of the 2014 opt-out decision to work with the European Commission and other member states to reform the European arrest warrant and to improve its operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, warned and underlined that, in these areas, we cannot have complete harmonisation and that the case-by-case approach that the Government have taken has been right but that EU legislation adds value. My experience in the Ministry of Justice over the past two and a half years, as the report itself reflects, is that we have taken a very pragmatic and positive view in decisions in this area. The idea that somehow we were sitting out European co-operation in this area simply is not true.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether we felt that existing limitations are sufficient to protect the criminal justice systems of member states. We believe that they are. There are a number of safeguards in the treaty to protect the criminal justice system of member states, including the existence of the emergency brake. The UK and Ireland have the additional safeguard of the opt-in. We agree that it is a difficult issue; that is why we scrutinise any new proposals to ensure the appropriate balance. Again, I take on board the noble Lord's argument that we must make sure that EU theory and its practice on the ground match up.

On the question of the directive on access to lawyers, it is too early to say what our final decision will be. We would want to consult Parliament were we minded to opt in and a series of further trialogue meetings is scheduled to take place in the next few months. However, we are participating in the negotiations. If the Government are satisfied that the final text represents an appropriate balance between the rights of defendants and the wider interests of justice, we will give serious consideration to applying an opt-in to it. We will consult Parliament about that before any decision is made.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether there was an assumption that UK citizens resident abroad could not benefit from these measures. The right should be afforded to all EU citizens resident in the relevant member state. He also asked what progress has been made on the victim directive. The directive was adopted on 4 October 2012 and is due to be implemented in 2015. The directive is aligned with the aims and objectives of our domestic criminal justice policies to ensure that the needs of the victim are put first.

[Lord Beecham]

Can the noble Lord enlighten me and other noble Lords as to why such a long time has elapsed between adopting the directive and implementing it? There may be a good reason for it but it would be interesting to hear what it is.

[Lord McNally]

No, I cannot give an explanation, but I will write to the noble Lord about that.

On the implementation of the European supervision order, we take our international obligations seriously and have implemented the vast majority of the measures, subject to the 2014 decision. Any further implementation of these measures will be considered on a case-by-case basis as part of the wider 2014 decision. In practice, the European supervision order is unlikely to help to avoid lengthy pre-trial custody in cases where an EAW has been used to secure the return of the suspect. That is for the simple reason that, the EAW having been needed to secure the return, the suspect has shown himself to be a flight risk, having already resisted voluntary return. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see the same suspect persuading the court to allow him to return home again.

The Government welcome the report. As I said, it shows the committee’s practice of employing detailed scrutiny and careful analysis. Criminal procedural rights reflect long traditions which have been developed carefully and with close consideration by both courts and Parliament, and now the devolved Assemblies. They reflect matters of considerable public policy concern, ensuring that offences can be properly and effectively investigated and prosecuted and that criminal proceedings are fair.

A number of safeguards are built into the treaty to ensure that the differing legal traditions of member states are respected. In addition, the UK opt-in applies in this area. We think that, in principle, minimum rules concerning the rights of individuals in certain areas of criminal procedure and the rights of victims of crime can help to facilitate judicial co-operation and mutual recognition—a point made by my noble friend Lord Maclennan. These measures are intended to build greater trust among the competent authorities of the EU member states which are charged with acting on decisions made in other member states by giving them greater confidence that the decisions were made against a background of minimum standards.

In order to ensure that all legislation in this area is appropriate and effective, we think that it is important that EU legislation is brought forward only in accordance with the treaties; where there is a convincing evidence-base for the need for such legislation; and where it is a proportionate response to an identified problem. This is an area in which there has been progress within the EU in recent years. The criminal procedural rights road map was agreed at the end of 2009 and subsequent legislative proposals have been brought forward by the European Commission. Furthermore, the Budapest road map, agreed in June last year, focuses on strengthening the rights and protection of victims of crime. So far, the Commission has brought forward six legislative proposals in this area and four directives have been adopted. We expect up to three further instruments to be proposed this year.

As the committee notes in its report, the UK already has a high standard of criminal procedural rights. This has been noted by the Commission, which has taken inspiration from our systems and procedures. The directive on the right to information clearly draws upon the PACE notice of rights and entitlements provided to suspects in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The directive on the rights of victims of crime was also inspired by our practice. We have found that we can participate in most proposals in this area without having to make substantial changes to UK law and practices. The changes that we need to make to implement the victims directive are largely aligned to our domestic reform objectives—that the needs of victims are put first across the criminal justice system. We welcome the committee’s consideration of the potential added value of EU legislation in this area. The committee notes that in certain areas the EU legislation can be of real practical benefit to UK nationals travelling abroad if they become subject to the criminal justice systems of other member states, either as victims or as suspects. My noble friend Lord Maclennan and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, made that point.

We also welcome the committee’s examination of the potential disadvantages of measures in this area: namely, the disruption to diverse and sensitive national criminal law systems. The Government have set out our approach to proposals for further EU legislation in the justice and home affairs area, including criminal procedural law, in the coalition agreement. The Government approach proposals on a case-by-case basis with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. This approach has been applied in respect of all criminal justice measures that have been brought forward since 2010 and we have opted in to all the criminal instruments in this area.

As I said at the very beginning, this has been an extremely useful debate on the basis of a very helpful report. Despite the rather intemperate rant of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, at the end of his remarks, I think that the way in which we have gone about these areas has been pragmatic and analysis-based—where the Government have been more in keeping with the traditions of your Lordships’ European Union Committee than the noble Lord suggested. We have a good practical record. Where we have questioned, looked for amendments or waited before making a final decision, those actions have been based on good policy grounds, not on any kind of ideological motivation or hostility to the process. In that respect, I look forward to further work with the European Union Committee.

16:42

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate upon the report. I have to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was thought to rant against the Government, I did not feel that he ranted against the committee, and for that I am grateful. However, although the European arrest warrant may not have attracted a great deal of attention within the report, we were trying to take stock of the road map proposals and look at their potential benefit, both in respect of victims of crime and in dealing with its perpetrators, and at how the principles of mutual recognition and trust are working—and are capable of working. We took the issue of access to lawyers in more detail only because we used it as a case study.

As I say, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and to the Minister for his reply. I apologise for failing to do what I am always instructed to do, although it is on the register and in the report—namely, to declare what may be deemed an interest as a solicitor and a notary.

Motion agreed.

Science and Heritage: S&T Committee Report

Monday 4th February 2013 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

16:45

Moved By

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Science and Heritage: a follow-up (5th Report, Session 2010–12, HL Paper 291).

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, I have pleasure in introducing this debate on the follow-up report on science and heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, apologises for not being able to be present today to introduce this debate. Since I chaired the original report on science and heritage, he asked me whether I would be prepared to lead the debate today, and I am more than delighted to do so.

There is a question that needs to be asked about why this rather obscure area of science merits two reports from the Science and Technology Select Committee of this House. The term used by English Heritage, which talked about this area of science as having the,

“hidden role of science in the protection and conservation of UK’s cultural heritage”,

is a very good description of it because it is very much a hidden role.

The answer to why it merits two reports lies at the beginning of this follow-up report that we have produced. The tourism industry in this country is worth £115 billion a year. That is somewhere in the region of 8% of GDP. It is a fast-growing industry; it is projected to grow by something like 2.6% in the course of the next 10 years or so, faster than the majority of other sectors in the UK. We know from surveys that something like 80% of those coming to this country do so because they want to see and experience our cultural heritage. Yet, as the news of Hadrian’s Wall illustrates, every extra footfall in these areas actually creates immense problems, whether it is dust in museums, turning the pages of books or what have you. We need a continuous programme of conservation and maintenance.

We need also to apply up-to-date techniques. We need to use all the ingenuity of our well regarded science base so that we can actually preserve and conserve our cultural heritage, not only for the millions of tourists who come to this country and bring all this income but for future generations. If we enjoy it and benefit from it, it is absolutely right that future generations should also be able to do so. Unless we conserve and preserve it, those generations are not going to be able to enjoy the heritage and culture that we do.

Our first report in 2006, which I chaired, coined the term “heritage science” as being that area where science and humanities overlap. It is a multidisciplinary area, affecting both what is termed movable and immovable heritage, from things such as Stonehenge, which is perhaps the ultimate in immovable heritage, to digital technologies such as blogs and websites—an example not just of a movable heritage but almost of a virtual heritage.

That report had three main areas where we made recommendations. In the first place, we put recommendations to universities and research councils. Largely by serendipity, Britain in the 1970s had taken the lead in this area of science and the application of new scientific ideas to the preservation of cultural heritage, but those scientists who entered the sector during the 1970s and the early 1980s were now ageing, and we needed badly to renew the seedcorn if we were to maintain our leading global position. So we called on the research councils, particularly the AHRC and the EPSRC, to put together a joint programme of research that would both help to develop new ideas and, most importantly, bring on new talent.

We were also conscious that the EU was developing the area within the framework programmes and that there was a need for Britain to play a strong hand within those programmes if we were to gain a reasonable share of the resources that were available through them.

Our first recommendation was that these two research councils should put together a joint programme of what we called directed research.

Our second area of recommendation was to DCMS, where we found a failure of leadership. Even though it was the department responsible for cultural heritage, we found that its published objectives made no reference whatever to conservation or sustainability. Our recommendations were that the department should write these objectives firmly into its mission statement and make its arm’s-length bodies—the big museums, galleries, English Heritage, the British Library, the National Archives—aware of the importance that is attached to these objectives. It should appoint a chief scientific officer who could provide the leadership that we felt was so lacking in the sector.

Thirdly, we made recommendations to the heritage science community. We found it much too fragmented between the large players—the big museums and galleries and so on—and the small museums and galleries; between the National Trust on the one hand and English Heritage on the other; and between individual conservators and the universities. Each group had its own agenda and was, if you like, singing from its own hymn sheet rather than singing in unison. We argued that they needed to sing in unison and, essentially, our message was for them to get their act together, develop a national strategy—which, in effect, becomes a single hymn sheet—and sing from that single hymn sheet.

The purpose of the follow-up inquiry was to review the implementation of the recommendations in the first report. During February/March last year we had seven sessions of evidence from both those who had given evidence to the first inquiry and the Ministers and research councils to whom the recommendations had been addressed. By and large it is a very good news story: there had been a positive response to those recommendations. The Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council had responded to the challenge of the report, and in 2007 had launched the science and heritage research programme. This was widely recognised as a shot in the arm for the sector: it brought new research and brought on new young researchers. Above all, it put Britain back on the global map as a research leader, which was instanced by the fact that Britain fairly rapidly took the leadership of the European joint programme initiative.

DCMS responded by rewriting its objectives. Its business plan has as its first objective to protect our nation’s cultural heritage and to ensure that the historic environment is properly protected and preserved for future generations. In 2008 it appointed a chief scientific officer. Admittedly, the person concerned was not, as we had hoped originally, a scientist but was an economist from the Treasury. However, she rose rapidly to the challenge, took a substantial interest in the area and, most importantly, established a new committee for DCMS—the Science and Research Advisory Committee—to advise the department and its Ministers and to identify the scientific issues that might impact upon them.

Anita Charlesworth, the person concerned, left the department in 2010 and had not been replaced when we took evidence from the department this time last year. At that point the department was somewhat vague about whether or not it was going to replace her. As we shall see in a moment, it has subsequently replaced her.

In her absence, the Science and Research Advisory Council had, as Rick Rylance, the director of RCUK and the chief executive of the AHRC, observed, somewhat lost its energy. By the time that we took evidence from it DCMS, having responded initially fairly positively, was not, we felt, completely on the ball, although I have to admit that Mr John Penrose, who was the Minister who responded at the time, took a positive line and clearly felt that the committee’s recommendations were good and wanted to co-operate to see what the department could do, although the department was at the time dominated by work on the Olympics.

Our third set of recommendations went to the community itself, the rather narrow community of scientists who work in the conservation and heritage sector. We found it to be a very fragmented community. We recommended that it come together to produce the strategy document. That took some time. English Heritage was extremely co-operative and provided the secretariat for it, but it was not until 2008 that we began to see the strategy taking form. It took its time over it. We put together a survey of different parts of the sector but eventually, by 2009, we had a form of strategy. Edward Impey from English Heritage, who had led its initiative, said that,

“getting people and ideas together and putting them down in coherent form”,

was in itself,

“quite a big achievement”.

The final report from the National Heritage Science Strategy group proposed the setting up of the National Heritage Science Forum. When we took evidence, the forum was being developed.

Although there were many good news stories arising from the implementation of the recommendations of the first report, we were left with a number of concerns. Interestingly enough, they revolve again about the protagonists of the previous report. The main areas of our recommendations fall to the same people. Our first area of concern was whether enough was being done to continue and sustain the real progress from the success of the joint AHRC-EPSRC joint programme.

We were somewhat reassured from the evidence that we received from the AHRC. Its 2011-15 delivery plan earmarked heritage for specific support and included the AHRC’s innovative training programme for postgraduates and early-career researchers. In the EU framework programme, Horizon 2020, we had seen both BIS and the research councils being extremely supportive of cultural heritage, making sure that in both Challenge 5 in that programme—climate change, resource efficiency and raw materials—and Challenge 6—Europe and the changing world, inclusive, innovative and reflective societies—heritage played a part.

The UK continues to take a leading role in the joint programme initiative, which is a joint initiative between countries of the EU. However, those answers have all come from the AHRC, which affirmed its position as the champion for heritage research. Where is the EPSRC? It continues to support the joint programme but has not supported the science and heritage bid put forward by 14 academic and 14 non-academic institutions to develop a multidisciplinary doctoral training centre. Again, where is the Natural Environment Research Council here? It declined to join the original programme on science and heritage back in 2008, in spite of its long-term support for research in archaeology, and it still remains aloof from any involvement.

This is a prime area of multidisciplinary research. The AHRC does not have the clout or the resources to remain the only champion in this area. There is a real risk that the UK could lose its leadership role in Europe unless resources can be found to participate in the Joint Programming Initiative follow-up. That programme comes under the European Research Area’s NET Plus initiative.

I therefore say to the Minister that, while many good things have emerged from the joint science and heritage research programme, research leadership cannot be maintained without investment and, in this multidisciplinary area, this investment has to come from collaboration among the research councils. I hope that he will bring these remarks to the attention of his colleagues in BIS. To date they have been highly supportive of this area and have rewarded its recognised high standing in Europe, but that high standing is at risk if the science-based research councils do not pull their weight in this multidisciplinary area.

Our second area of concern is the continuing failure of DCMS to grasp the nettle and demonstrate adequate leadership. Both in our 2006 report and in its update in 2007, we called on DCMS to include the conservation of cultural heritage in its departmental objectives and to provide “moral leadership” to the community. Since then, as I have already noted, DCMS has amended its objectives to include the protection and preservation of the nation’s cultural heritage. In his evidence to us, Mr John Penrose, the then Minister in DCMS, said that he saw his role as,

“to act as the spokesperson and champion for heritage issues across Whitehall”.

Yet, as our report shows, among those giving evidence to us there was widespread criticism of DCMS itself and, above all, of its failure to provide leadership in the sector. The department for its part has argued that it effectively delegates these responsibilities to its arm’s-length bodies—to the museums and galleries and to English Heritage—and, further, that it is not for government Ministers to determine how specific funds should be allocated to these bodies.

Nevertheless we noted that the funding agreements between DCMS and its major arm’s-length bodies did set out key performance indicators, and that these key performance indicators currently did not mention anything about science or research for heritage conservation but were due for renewal in 2012. We therefore recommended that these funding agreements explicitly reflect the departmental objective of protecting the nation’s cultural heritage.

In its response in July last year, DCMS admitted that it was in the process of discussing with the relevant arm’s-length bodies what performance indicators should be and whether,

“a specific indicator relating to heritage science is appropriate”.

I do not know the outcome of those discussions. What has happened and is there any reference to this in the departmental objectives?

In relation to the leadership issue there is the whole question of the chief scientific adviser. The department has now appointed a chief scientific adviser, who took up his post in September 2012. Again, he is an economist from the Treasury rather than a natural scientist but the hope is that, like his predecessor, he will prove sympathetic to the need to carry forward the research in this area. The Science and Research Advisory Committee will play an important part in this, yet to date it has failed to meet under the new CSA. A meeting was scheduled for September but was cancelled because he had only just arrived. The December meeting, again, was cancelled. Is it proposed to continue with the SRAC and, if so, what will its mandate be and how is it proposed to fit alongside the other scientific advice that the department might receive?

The third area of concern is the development of the national heritage science strategy and its successor, the national heritage science forum. While congratulating the sector on managing to co-ordinate its disparate parts in backing the strategy, the committee noted that, as a strategy, it failed to identify any clear targets or timings for actions to be taken. Rather, having willed the establishment of the forum, it passed the buck back to the forum without clearly identifying how it was to take this forward. The forum is moving forward quite nicely. At the moment it has five definite members, five people lined up to join and four who may be going to join. If the community is going to grasp the nettle and take forward the issues that it potentially can, it has to own this and take it up for itself. Therefore, I appeal to those who at the moment are pondering whether to become members of the forum to do so and to put their weight behind it.

I shall wind up by emphasising that in all three areas this is a multidisciplinary area and it is vital that all the research councils play their part. I say to DCMS, please recognise your leadership role in this sector. It is easy for such a fragmented community to play one sector off against another. Please, now that the Olympics are over, recognise the importance of cultural heritage to the economy and the nation as a whole, reinvigorate your advisory committee and encourage and support the development and integration of a strong research base.

To the science and heritage community, I say: when we gathered you together to discuss the developments in 2006 you willed the emergence of an institution that would unite your efforts. You now have this institution in the form of the national heritage science forum but it will not thrive unless you support it. Times are not easy and budgets are tight, but it is all the more necessary at such times to sing with one voice. Therefore, I urge the institutions that are still wavering in their support to get behind the forum and help to present a united front. I beg to move.

17:05

[Baroness Hilton of Eggardon]

My Lords, I had the privilege of being on the original committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the follow-up committee. As she has said, there has been a considerable improvement in the coherence of the heritage sector since our first report, particularly in craft training and greater opportunities for careers for young people. However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport still seems to be unwilling to have a more direct leadership role in the encouragement of heritage science, despite its importance to our flourishing tourist industry and to other sectors such as the arts and crafts industry. Moreover, it still does not seem to envisage a clear role for the chief scientific adviser and, while opting out of direct involvement in the sector, has also imposed a 30% cut on English Heritage.

My particular concern is about its lack of leadership in relation to the Government’s educational policy, where it seems to have exercised little influence in favour of a broader curriculum. The Government’s education policy is prescribing an ever-narrowing curriculum for schools, which is largely exam-based with a heavy emphasis on academic subjects. The proposed EBacc includes no room for creative subjects, which underpin not only the appreciation of music and art but also commercial success stories such as our flourishing fashion industry. Design studies, for example, which are exercises in problem-solving and lateral thinking and will be increasingly important in our rapidly changing technological society, are also excluded from the new curriculum. I wonder how the DCMS has been attempting to influence some of that rather narrow view of education. In its educational policies the Government are rapidly turning back not just to the 20th century but to the 19th century, with its emphasis on rote learning and the regurgitation of undigested lumps of information. I was fortunate enough to go to a school that was founded in the 1890s in direct opposition to the narrow education then available in the boys’ public schools. Bedales valued not only art and music but crafts and outdoor skills, such as farming and gardening, as being of equal validity to academic subjects. I still have a bookcase that I made there.

The other countervailing trend of the 19th century, of course, was the arts and crafts movement, with its emphasis on quality and design. Again, I declare a personal interest as one of my ancestors was a distinguished architect of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, the Horniman Museum and the Bishopsgate Institute. All three buildings were dedicated to increasing access to art and learning and crafts for all. The education policies of the Government appear to be narrowly directed at preparing a minority of pupils for university and not for any of the alternative careers that might be in the heritage sector, such as training in crafts and design, and without any appreciation of the technical skills that underpin engineering, architecture and our flourishing fashion industry.

To revert to the 19th century again, an interesting and well researched theory is that the great engineering and entrepreneurial successes of the Victorian era were specifically created by those excluded from universities, such as non-conformists and Quakers. Many talented people have skills that are not nurtured by a university education. The narrowing of the school curriculum will inhibit the creativity and flexibility that will be increasingly needed by the heritage sector and other sectors in our society if this country is to cope with the increasingly difficult times ahead. I urge the DCMS to take a more active role in influencing government policy, not only because heritage, science and the creative arts enrich individual lives but because they can underpin the future prosperity of this country. We should be fostering enterprise rather than educational stagnation. What influence does the Minister’s department have on government education policy

17:12

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, the Committee will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for introducing this debate, and for the way in which she chaired the original report, which was described at the time as something of a wake-up call. I am not convinced that it was a wake-up call for the DCMS but it was certainly a wake-up call for the heritage science community.

The results of that report have been impressive. If we look at the joint science and heritage programme of the AHRC and the EPSRC, we can see very positive results. There is now a national heritage science strategy, developed by a steering group, and, as we have heard, a National Heritage Science Forum is being set up. These are attributes arising directly from the first report. The follow-up report, as we have heard from my noble friend, was to review implementation, not just by the Government but by the research councils and the heritage science community—museums, galleries, libraries and those who look after historic buildings and archives.

The AHRC deserves many congratulations for the way in which it has carried the baton for research in this area. Like my noble friend, I have to say that I am less convinced that the performance of the EPSRC and the NERC has been quite so impressive. It is a concern that the EPSRC seems unwilling to provide opportunities for heritage science to compete for resources for doctoral training and capital equipment. That makes one wonder if research councils will not be working together in the way in which they did originally when they were facing the danger of fragmentation of this interdisciplinary research area, which after all was the problem identified in the original report of 2005-06. I agree with my noble friend that the AHRC as a small research council—indeed, the smallest—will find it hard to sustain sole responsibility.

The scope of science heritage suggested to us in the original report, and contended to be the case, is that DCMS must clearly be the appropriate department to provide what we described as moral leadership, and that continues to be the case. After all, the department leads on cultural heritage and it interacts with English Heritage and many national museums and galleries. There are of course some parts of our national cultural heritage for which DCMS is not the lead department. In the Chamber on Friday we debated the Antarctic Bill, one provision of which is to allow the Government to help with the conservation of the Antarctic huts—Scott’s, Shackleton’s and others. Admittedly, that is a very small part of our conservation heritage but it is the responsibility of the Foreign Office. Defra has responsibility for Kew, which has an enormous responsibility for cultural heritage. The herbarium, the library and the seed banks are very much part of our culture and that of other countries. You cannot enforce the Convention on Biological Diversity without going back to the specimens collected over many hundreds of years and held in our archives. Defra is, of course, fulfilling the responsibilities there.

When DCMS says that it is not for it to tell arm’s-length bodies how specific funds allocated to them should be spent, I agree. However, I have to say in parenthesis that that is precisely what Defra is doing at Kew now, where it seems to be requiring every item of capital expenditure, even of quite small sums, to be passed across it first. That is very frustrating for the trustees at Kew, of which I am no longer one. Going back to DCMS’s role as the promoter within the Government and champion of heritage science, while I recognise that it is not there to tell arm’s-length organisations what to do, it has a particular responsibility in helping to co-ordinate the approach to attracting EU funding and ensuring that future framework programmes meet our needs appropriately, as well as those of our partners in Europe. I believe objectives could be set for DCMS in this area without in any way getting in the way of the arm’s-length bodies.

The present framework programme, programme 7, has as one of its themes the adaptation of heritage to future challenges such as climate change, digitisation, resource efficiency, the use of raw materials, the development of new technologies and the dissemination of best practice. If we think about it, many of these areas require an input from the engineering discipline, as well as from many others. That brings us back to the requirement to make sure that there is a wide spread of input from the research base, including from the EPSRC. I understand that the existing joint programme initiative under framework programme 7, which is headed,

“Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe”,

is likely to have a follow-up strategic programme, Eranet Plus, to build on this joint programming initiative. I have asked the Minister to tell us whether the Arts and Humanities Research Council will be participating in this programme. Indeed, will the EPSRC and NERC also be participating?

In summary, I congratulate those members of the National Heritage Science Forum who have set up a transitional body to draw up a vision defining its strategic aims and potential impact. Looking at the organisations which we know will be joining this forum, such as English Heritage—of which I am sure we will hear more in a moment—the National Trust, the British Museum and the British Library, it gives a lot of encouragement that what the original report started is now being carried forward by the heritage science community with strength, and robustly too.

17:20

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the leading role that she has played in the first report and in the committee’s work essentially to make science and heritage more visible. That was the task and I believe that it has been and is being achieved.

This debate bridges two of my personal interests: first, I declare an interest as chair of English Heritage, in the conservation of our extraordinarily diverse heritage in this country; and, secondly, I have an interest in seeing that science serves every conceivable cultural and economic purpose. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I overlapped for a while as academics in the science policy research unit in Sussex, and she played a key role there in leading the design of research programmes.

However, English Heritage is not only an adviser to government: it is essentially a major contributor to the field of heritage science. We are therefore hugely indebted to the Select Committee for the consistent and relentless attention that it has focused on this relatively neglected critical area of work for the past six years. As we know, the work started in 2006 and the follow-up report today very usefully charts the progress made. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, set out comprehensively where progress has been made and referred to some of the issues that we still have to address.

I do not believe that it is possible to overemphasise the importance of science in the successful protection and public enjoyment of our heritage, covering everything from the conservation of the boots worn by sailors on the “Mary Rose”, which are on display in the Mary Rose museum, to the conservation of wartime airfields.

The first report of the Select Committee explained that science is an essential instrument and support for those who work with the portable remains of the past—in museums, libraries and galleries and their collections—and for those, such as English Heritage, who work with fixed remains such as historic buildings, archaeology on land and sea and historic townscapes and landscapes. In each respect, science helps us to detect and locate the evidence, and to analyse, conserve, interpret and understand it better. I am reminded that Pasteur once said:

“Science … is the torch which illuminates the world”.

Obviously, it illuminates the world that we have lost as well as the one we inhabit.

I shall give a couple of examples which reflect the way in which science and technology are opening up our knowledge and understanding of, for example, our pre-history. Last year, English Heritage funded a high-tech survey of the standing stones at Stonehenge. It is a monument that has been in the care of the nation since 1918 and one might therefore have thought that there were very few secrets left to reveal. However, the application of a new three-dimensional laser scanning technique revealed a plethora of previously unrecognised carvings on the stones, including 71 images of Bronze Age axe heads. Most importantly, it revealed significant differences in the way that particular stones were shaped and worked, leading archaeologists to suggest a far greater emphasis than had hitherto been placed on views through the monument during the winter solstice as well as the more familiar summer solstice.

Today we had an equally brilliant demonstration of the exceptional power of heritage science to write, or possibly rewrite, history. We have this morning learnt that, beyond all reasonable doubt, the skeletal remains uncovered last year in a modest Leicester car park are indeed those of Richard III, buried in the former Franciscan friary church. The evidential trail announced at a press conference this morning is compelling. Geophysical surveys helped fix the location of the excavation which uncovered the grave; radiocarbon assay provided a date of 1455-1540 for the bones; osteoarchaeological analysis suggested a male in his twenties or thirties, confirmed scoliosis—curvature of the spine—and revealed blade injuries at the base of the skull which were almost certainly fatal; and, finally, DNA analysis confirmed that the skeleton was related genetically to the last two direct descendants of the lost king. That is pretty effective and pretty convincing.

However, if anyone really wants to see science at the frontiers of knowledge, I can recommend no better place to visit than our own scientific laboratories at Fort Cumberland, run by English Heritage. There, you will see science at the geographical and intellectual frontiers, with analysis of DNA from Roman infanticides, the dates of the introduction of historical cereal and game species to England, and the development of X-radiographic dating of historic windows. It is an extraordinary place and I should be very happy to arrange a visit if anyone wanted to go.

Therefore, science and heritage are giving us ever greater insights into our ancestors. They are helping us to conserve monuments with far greater sensitivity than in the days when concrete was slapped on everything, and we are still digging out that concrete. They are also helping us to create greater wealth. All that is taken for granted in the importance that the Select Committee has attached to scientific knowledge and technology in terms of heritage. Its reports in 2006 and 2007 set out that economic and cultural importance.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the committee set out a raft of crucial recommendations for better leadership and better co-ordination of resources, and the need for a national strategy for science and heritage, as well as a forum. As she said, the current report acknowledges that there is a great deal of good news to be celebrated. However, as has also been made clear, there is some way to go. It is true that the AHRC has done some excellent and ground-breaking work with its successful science and heritage programme. It is, for example, looking at major research projects on conservation matters as diverse as flood resilience and renaissance sculpture. Very importantly, it has addressed the challenging issue of future capacity by encouraging post-doctoral studentships and collaborative awards. As the noble Baroness said, it is beginning to put us back on the map as a global leader. The national heritage science strategy is indeed a reality—the final report in 2010 set that out—as is the national heritage science forum, which is intended to implement the strategy by bringing these diverse organisations together.

There has been further action. We have heard about the DCMS and the very welcome appointment of the head of analysis. Incidentally, we hope that the holder of that post is going to act as an advocate and a champion for heritage science. The DCMS is committed to unlocking philanthropic funding. It is also committed to the fact that heritage is embedded in the objectives for Horizon 2020, the European framework funding programme. We also talked about the new programmes from the AHRC, such as Living with Environmental Change and Connected Communities. RCUK has provided welcome support for funded programmes and for the encouragement of bids from the independent research organisations. I am pleased to say that in our sector the heritage science communities are showing welcome signs of increasing partnership and collaboration. We have seen seed-core funding from the AHRC to support the national heritage science forum, and we welcome early sign-up by bodies , including the National Archives, the National Trust, ICON, University College London and English Heritage. All that is good news. In part, it is a response to the reduction in the resources available in many areas. There is a tangible increase in the appetite for working together.

However, the critical questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, deserve answers. I endorse the questions that she raised, as well as those asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in relation to the EPSRC and the role of the science research councils. There is clearly important work to be done in collaboration on the science base. There remain questions about the degree to which the momentum created by the science and heritage programme will be supported further. I think that there are also questions to be answered by the DCMS in its leadership capacity. As yet there is no central means of consistently measuring the health of the heritage science community itself. Again, I think that that comes back to the DCMS and its leadership role.

Crucially, the forum which should now be emerging from its formative stage will need to demonstrate leadership and secure long-term sustainable funding and membership support to ensure that it can deliver on its potential. There is work to be done here by the DCMS, the research councils and the heritage bodies. I believe that there is certainly the will to do that because of the knowledge that there is a great deal at stake here. We at English Heritage are fully committed to the recommendations of the report, and I can explain briefly how we are meeting the challenges that we face in terms of our own contribution.

We have taken significant steps to implement the strategy. It is a fundamental tenet of the national heritage protection plan, which guides the prioritisation of all our resources, and which we are optimistic will increasingly act as a framework for all organisations that protect our heritage. We take the need for collaboration extremely seriously. This lies at the heart of our post-CSR organisational restructuring, despite, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Hilton, a severe cut in our funding. Crucially, we have retained our science expertise almost untouched because we recognise its strategic value for capacity-building in the sector, as well as the leading research expertise, which represents unique expertise.

The strategy informed our decision to move away from the chief scientist model in favour of a fully integrated and regularly convened science network within English Heritage which is better able to co-ordinate information on foresight, knowledge and gaps in practice, in support of the national heritage protection plan—a much more diffuse model. Collaboration is also written into our own English Heritage strategy, which we have produced this year, and which is in part in response to the committee’s recommendations. It is driving our increasingly close work with the research councils: we have a concordat with the AHRC, joint workshops and a collaborative doctoral partnership. All that will help to build capacity.

We are now in a different and more challenging climate. Almost all the publicly funded bodies responsible for heritage science are working with reduced resources. That will impact on the speed and scope of what we can achieve. However, the committee is right to urge the forum to provide clear leadership to encourage wider membership and the right to exhort greater public engagement. However, I hope that that call will be heard beyond the forum to the funders and supporters who could enable the forum to achieve greater things. Increasing membership of the forum itself will respond to that because there is a will to do that.

I recognise that this is a personal aside but it is central to our understanding of the heritage of science in this country: I personally believe that it is essential that the Royal Institution continues its outstanding work in terms of scientific knowledge and understanding, which has been its unique role for two centuries. In my early days as an academic with Professor Roy MacLeod, I spent a lot of time in the archives of the Royal Institution working on the papers of John Tyndall, a physicist, and Thomas Archer Hirst, the mathematician. I have a deep affection for the place, its collections and its history. The scientific community, as it should, is rallying around with great distinction to help the RI find a solution to its current problems, not least in terms of the work that it does to spread the understanding of science among young and old alike. It is impossible to imagine our scientific heritage without the Royal Institution in place, and I sincerely hope that it will get the support and resources that it needs—not least, naturally, the support of the Government.

I thank the Select Committee again for the work that it is done in these reports. I commit again the goodwill and expertise of English Heritage not only to making our science heritage more visible but to maintaining our place as a global leader in this area.

17:33

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for introducing the report and, through her, I thank the committee for both its original report and its supplementary report, which have generated the interesting discussion that we are having today. I also thank my noble friends Lady Hilton and Lady Andrews and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for their comments.

It is quite rare for committees to invent things or coin phrases. One thinks about camels and horses, but it seems clear that the committee invented “heritage science” as a brand or an identifier for the sort of work that it wanted to see happen and where it had found gaps in the past, and we must be very grateful to it for doing that. Trying to identify a new area or new discipline is very difficult, but where science and heritage overlap is obviously a bit of a dark space, and it has been brought into the light and some work has been generated around that.

The common theme that has wound through all the contributions so far in this debate has been the way in which the speakers have come across the heritage sector and, more generally, the cultural sector because, although this debate is about heritage, it seems to be picked up in a number of different sectors, including museums and galleries, not necessarily of “heritage” in the physical sense. The common theme appears to be that this is a very fragmented sector and, although funding had been reasonably good until the recent downturn, it is now suffering badly from the fact that it is being underfunded and is seeing a number of its previous groups and supporters pull back because they themselves are also having trouble with their funding. This is obviously a problem. Therefore, it is good not only that we have this supplementary report but that we have an opportunity to discuss it, because there are important issues at stake here.

My noble friend Lady Andrews said, and I should like to repeat, that you cannot overstate the importance of science in relation to the work for which she is responsible and in relation to the sector in general. Her wonderful and very timeless example of Richard III, which brought us up to date on how science can help with the conservation, understanding and illumination of the history we are engaged in, as well as engaging audiences—both tourists and our own citizens, is a brilliant way of getting us into this topic.

I want to talk about four or five recommendations in the supplementary report and, in particular, the Government’s comment on it. I also want to ask the Minister some questions, some of which are quite detailed, and I understand that he may have to write to me if they are beyond the brief that he has today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned recommendation 1. This relates to the concern about the link across to the research councils—in particular, the AHRC, which has done a great job in developing a programme here. However, difficulties have been found in the EPSRC and now the NERC as well. The response provided by the department indicates that the Government have,

“demonstrated its strong commitment to science and research by protecting the programme budget with BIS with a flat-cash, ring-fenced settlement”.

Those are weasel words, perhaps, because inflation has eroded that settlement, so they cannot have protected the programme budget. Can the Minister tell us where the cuts have actually occurred in the areas for which he and his department have responsibility and what is going to happen? Can he also share with us the department’s response to try to reignite interest in the EPSRC and the NERC, without which this programme will suffer badly?

On recommendation 4, which concerns the relationship between the department and its arm’s-length bodies, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and others mentioned the great need in this fragmented sector for leadership from the department. The committee recommended that before the next round of funding negotiations with arm’s-length bodies, the DCMS should set specific departmental objectives for heritage science related to its departmental objectives to protect our nation’s cultural heritage. Similarly, the ALBs should set out how they will help to achieve these objectives in funding agreement negotiations with the department.

In the response, the DCMS appears to have watered down its approach to this by saying that it is setting out principles. Only one of them, as we have been reminded, deals with heritage science. Can the Minister give us more detail on why this has happened and the reasoning that led to the decisions that flowed from that; for example, limiting the cuts to the museums to 15%—they are still cuts—and restricting English Heritage’s activities to a rather narrower group? The response goes on to assert that,

“it is clear to the DCMS ALBs … that heritage science is an integral element of their responsibilities”.

It may be clear but can the Minister explain why the department has not taken up the committee’s suggestion that it requires ALBs to set out how they will help to achieve those objectives and why these aspirations are not included in the funding agreements? After all, if they are not in documentation and therefore not being measured, it is highly unlikely that the DCMS will be able to put any pressure at all on the ALBs, which, of course, are suffering financially.

In recommendation 5, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made a number of points about the chief scientific adviser role mentioned in the original report. Indeed, the supplementary report says that the failure to find the resources to enable the appointment of a CSA would amount to “negligent short-termism”, which is fairly tough phraseology. The committee is clearly of the view that the department should have a CSA and I think that the DCMS’s response here is very limp. Appointing an undergraded principal adviser and not a chief scientific adviser is not sufficient. To misquote Wilde, one economist might be forgiven but two in a row seems negligent in the extreme. They are supposed to be scientific officers and to lead with expertise and knowledge in this area. I have nothing against economists—many of my friends are economists—but they do not necessarily have this kind of expertise. Certainly they would have been at a bit of a loss in digging up Richard III from the concrete under which he was buried. These are trivial examples; nevertheless, if this is going to be done properly, surely the department must get a grip and find a position, and a budget to go with it, that will support the aspirations involved.

We are not only talking about this report today: the report of the Science and Technology Committee sets out what should be the role and functions of departmental chief scientific advisers. Now that we have a second appointment, can the Minister confirm that the scientific adviser is carrying out all or most of the functions outlined in that report—for example, policy involvement, including sign-off, access to Ministers, membership of key committees, access to a dedicated fund to commission research or to convene a group of experts and a formal role in decision-making about departmental spending on research? Does he or she—it is a he this time, I think—have staff to support his work and, if so, how many? Those are the minimum criteria required for chief scientific advisers and, if we are not going to get the full post—clearly there will be some reduction—I hope that the aspiration will be there to ensure that this post delivers what is required.

On recommendation 7, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, drew attention to the fact that the committee is keen for the DCMS to facilitate access to European funds, and he particularly mentioned programme 8. The response indicates what has been going on here. Obviously there has been some valuable work but it concludes that the Government believe that cultural heritage research can now expect strong support from EU funding through Horizon 2020. Can the Minister update us on what has happened? Has there been any strong support and, if so, what form does that take?

Recommendation 13 suggests that a forum should be set up to facilitate the development of a digitisation framework to promote and manage the overall digitisation in the sector. This is a complex and important area, as my noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned, and it plays into a number of points made by my noble friend Lady Hilton on education. Nothing will generate more interest and enthusiasm among our younger audiences than making sure that what is done is done at a level at which they will want to engage and understand. The Government’s response is, again, slightly disappointing. They said—this was picked up—that they do not wish to impose a top-down, centralised structure to any digitisation framework. We can sympathise with that, but that is not the recommendation. It was not to have a top-down direction but to have a facilitation role. Can the Minister explain why the department has chosen not to get involved in this or, if it has, to what extent it thinks it can facilitate the development of this very important work?

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, drew attention to the need to retain our lead in this area. As a country, we have a long and distinguished history of being the first in the field on this and of providing our heritage and other bodies with terrific support, both centrally and through collaboration with industry and the departments involved. In conclusion, can the Minister give us any hope that this future development has been spotted and will be supported?

17:43

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford for initiating this debate and I pay tribute to members of the committee for their continued focus on this important area, without which advances in science heritage would certainly not have been as extensive as they have been. I say to my noble friend Lady Sharp that this is a far from obscure area. It is in no small part due to the work of the committee and the reports it has produced that the crucial link between heritage and science is now better recognised and better understood. What impeccable timing today for the confirmation that it is Richard III, which was also referred to, and what advances have been made.

It was indeed as a direct response to the committee’s first report in 2006 that the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council established the science and heritage programme at University College London. It is because science requires specialist expertise that DCMS relies on the skills and talents of scientists within arm’s-length bodies. They develop and apply heritage science techniques across a wide range of fields.

The Government support the work of DCMS’s arm’s-length bodies with a remit for heritage and cultural preservation and the wider heritage community, including the national heritage science forum and Research Councils UK, in their work to disseminate good practice, to collaborate across institutions, to increase capacity across the community, to continue efforts to digitise our cultural heritage and to increase public engagement with heritage science. We will offer support where appropriate. The responsibility on the DCMS’s arm’s-length bodies to care for collections and heritage assets is enshrined through robust governance mechanisms. It is set out clearly in the funding agreements as a condition of government funding, and the protection of heritage is included in the governing legislation of the national museums and the wider heritage sector.

DCMS funding supports heritage science across its bodies, be it the digitisation of the British Film Institute’s collection, the high-tech storage facility for the British Library’s newspaper collection in Boston Spa, or the state-of-the-art conservation and science centre in the new British Museum development. I make particular mention of English Heritage as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has given such a powerful commentary on its work. However, I am sure she would agree that there are 23 further such bodies under DCMS, all immensely important in the work that they do for cultural heritage.

Turning to the committee’s report, the first recommendation of your Lordships was on research councils. The Government welcome the priority that the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have given to heritage. I am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said about difficult times. I replay to him that the Government have demonstrated our strong commitment to science and research by protecting its programme budget within BIS with a flat-cash, ring-fenced settlement of £4.6 billion per annum over this spending review period. Inflation may be a factor, but it is not huge as I remember inflation in other times.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I should like to rerun those figures for the Minister. Inflation has been running at between 2.5% and 3.5% since 2010—and, indeed, from slightly before that—so we are talking about a substantial compound reduction. That is not trivial but quite a big pressure point on all those budgets. I accept the Minister’s general point that it is a cash-limited and therefore substantial figure, but it is still certainly declining.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am glad that the noble Lord referred to it as being a substantial figure because, in the climate we are in, it was extremely good news that there was that ring-fenced settlement. A specific point for today is that the AHRC is receiving just under £100 million per annum over the spending review period, which is again a considerable sum of taxpayers’ money and is rightly being spent on that research area.

Research councils’ budgets are delegated, so it is for them to decide how best to allocate funding within the context of their overarching objectives. Building on progress made by the science and heritage programme, to which my noble friend Lady Sharp referred, and the increased research capacity it has brought, the AHRC is now also supporting heritage science through programmes developed in the current spending review period. Heritage is one of three key areas in the AHRC delivery plan for 2011-15. The AHRC will continue to work with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to ensure that the benefits of the science and heritage programme are maximised beyond the completion of the programme this year.

In turn, the AHRC, working with BIS, has been very actively involved with the consultation on European Commission framework programme 8, Horizon 2020, and has consistently made the case for the inclusion of heritage research in the Horizon 2020 societal challenges. I can tell my noble friends Lady Sharp and Lord Selborne, who raised the matter, that the Government consider that inclusion of heritage science is on track to be successfully achieved.

I say to my noble friend Lady Sharp that it is widely acknowledged in the sector that the science and heritage programme, for which she chairs the advisory council, has done excellent work, and that the body of knowledge that has been gained provides a springboard for further study and research. As has been mentioned, its work on conservation matters as diverse as flood resilience and renaissance sculpture is remarkable.

I turn to the national heritage science strategy and the national heritage science forum, which are referred to in the committee’s report. The Government fully support collaboration across the heritage science community, and we encourage all its bodies to increase their participation, as appropriate, in both the national heritage science strategy and the national heritage science forum. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned, English Heritage is playing an important part in continuing to support both the forum and the objectives of the national heritage science strategy, to which English Heritage is contributing directly through its own science strategy.

As has also been remarked, there has been an increase in collaboration between research councils, heritage institutions and individuals, and this is most welcome. The Government acknowledge the importance of public engagement with heritage science in stimulating interest in science, technology and engineering, and we support recommendations for the community to achieve this through the national heritage science forum.

I turn to the recommendations specifically directed at the Government. The committee expressed concern about the way in which DCMS monitors its bodies’ delivery of their heritage science responsibility and recommended that the department set specific departmental objectives for heritage science. DCMS has structures in place that enable it to ensure that its arm’s-length bodies fulfil their high-level strategic objectives and indicators, and achieve value for money. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, raised this issue, but performance against ministerial priorities and performance indicators is reviewed at regular ministerial and officials’ meetings with senior management of the arm’s-length bodies. The department does not wish to micromanage these bodies by imposing a large number of detailed objectives. The department is close to completing management agreements that cover the current spending review period to 2015. I think that it would be preferable if committee members knew once there had been a completion of those management agreements so that the detail is more readily available, with probably more time to consider.

The committee considered further the arrangements for scientific advice within DCMS, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Sharp. The challenge facing departments—we all understand this; in many cases it is not a party issue—is to deliver effective policy with fewer resources. There are cost implications for DCMS arising from some of the recommendations made in the report.

Picking up on the point about the work of the DCMS’s Science and Research Advisory Committee, I say to my noble friend Lady Sharp that, in considering its future, the Government Office for Science is now conducting a review with a view to improving and enhancing its work and making it more effective. The department now has a new deputy chief scientific, who is working with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and the Government Office for Science to fully integrate the department with the chief scientific adviser network in such a way that DCMS can draw on the advice of all other departmental chief scientific advisers as well.

The committee recommended that the department work with partners to ensure that there was no decline in senior heritage science posts. The Government support the recommendation to ensure the long-term health of the heritage community through attracting new scientists to heritage science, and we encourage its bodies to contribute to research and collaboration that could do more to achieve this goal.

The committee made recommendations about possible sources of funding for heritage science, which are entirely in tune with the department’s policy to support efforts by the heritage sector to broaden its range of funding sources, in particular through philanthropy. We agree that philanthropy has an important part to play in supporting heritage science. To support the fundraising efforts of the cultural sector, the DCMS, Arts Council England, and the Heritage Lottery Fund have set up the Catalyst programme, with more than £50 million going towards the establishment of endowments to be matched by a further £100 million from private donors. Among those receiving endowment grants is the Mary Rose Trust, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred, which was awarded £1 million last June. The Mary Rose was the first modern warship, but as important as the history of the Mary Rose is the science from the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose Trust is the world leader in specialised marine conservation and has Europe’s largest maritime archaeological conservation centre.

The Government recognise that digitisation has huge potential to facilitate wider and higher quality access to and understanding of future cultural collections and artefacts. Indeed, last summer, the Heritage Lottery Fund launched a new digital strategy and announced that funds can now be used for digital-only projects. As has been replayed to me, the Government do not wish to impose a top-down centralised structure to any digitisation framework, and have asked their arm’s-length bodies and the sector to collaborate together with the NHLF on a national or international framework for digitisation. The DCMS’s arm’s-length bodies are already taking the lead in attracting commercial funding for the digitisation of heritage collections, such as the partnership between the British Library and Google to digitise 250,000 out of copyright books from the library’s collection.

The committee’s work stands as an important touchstone against which work and progress in heritage science can be judged. It recognises the intrinsic value of our cultural heritage and the sector’s importance to the social, cultural and economic life of the UK and its role in attracting tourists from home and overseas. There are always areas where more could be done, and I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has set me some tasks and questions. Given that some of them are quite intricate, I beg leave to write to him, as he generously suggested, so that I can fully consider the implications of what he said. It is important that the department works with its arm’s-length bodies to ensure a wide variety of work where science and heritage meet.

A number of points have been made about leadership, and I can understand what is meant. Clearly, the department has, and should have, an leadership role because it is responsible for the arm’s-length bodies that do the work on the nation’s behalf. The department sees heritage as having a clear role to play in supporting growth and welcomes the emphasis in the follow-up report on the significance of the sector to the UK economy. The Government have recently championed the importance of heritage in their GREAT campaign and the department also recognises the importance of science and of caring for heritage collections now and for future generations. It is clear that preservation cannot be taken for granted.

It has been my privilege over the past few weeks to start meeting some of my ministerial colleagues in the department—I was at a ministerial meeting earlier today, referring to this debate, which is clearly very important. I thank your Lordships. I have learnt a great deal today.

I want reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, that I have taken on board the points she made about education. Announcements are due. I have been asked this question a number of times in debates. I know of the concern. There is a determination to raise standards for the children of this country but I am confident—and I am a passionate supporter of the creative sector—that the education required to make that sector prosper will be in place. As I said, further announcements will be made.

I also want to say, to the committee members in particular, that it really was a very valuable report. Like all these things there are disappointments that the Government could not accept the proposals in full. I suspect no Government at any time are ever in the luxurious position of agreeing with everything because they have other conflicting demands. However, I would like to confirm Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to heritage science in particular and to say that your Lordships’ work will be of benefit to all as we seek to preserve and understand better our rich and very valuable national heritage through science.

18:01

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

The Minister has reminded me that I should have, at the outset of this debate, declared my interest as chairman of the advisory group to the joint AHRC/EPSRC research programme that is under way. I apologise for that omission.

I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate—my fellow committee members and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, whose explanation of some of the work of English Heritage was extremely illuminating and provided us with a real insight into the work done in its science research area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for opening up and raising a number of questions others had not raised. Can I perhaps ask the Minister, who I also thank for his very sympathetic response, if he can make sure that when he replies in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that he copies it to other Members here?

It is clear from what the Minister said that it is left to the arm’s-length bodies to implement these policies and these new management agreements will be crucial to this. Once they are published I hope we shall see that the department is encouraging these bodies to give priority to research because that is vital. I thank other Members who have participated in this debate and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 6.03 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 4 February 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Shipping: International Maritime Law

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked By

[Lord James of Blackheath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will issue any guidance to ex-Navy personnel or independent commercial organisations offering security and escort convoy services to shipping off the coast of Somalia regarding their rules of engagement and their compliance with international maritime law.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, the Department for Transport issued interim guidance on the use of private maritime security companies in December 2011. This was updated in June 2012 and is periodically reviewed to ensure its relevance. The Government are working with industry to establish a national accreditation system for this industry; both stress the importance of compliance with international maritime law, including the principle of self-defence, which provides the only condition under which these privately contracted civilian guards may use force.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, but I am a little disappointed not to hear that it is possible for us to ban altogether this independent commercial activity. It is seriously prejudicial to the interests of, perhaps, formerly redundant members of our services who find deliverance from their predicament by joining, given the extreme hazard that they will represent under international law, both to themselves and to this country’s reputation.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, there are, of course, many members of the Armed Forces who take part in private security companies, including private maritime security companies: 90% of private maritime security companies are based in London. We have led the international community in providing the guidance and rules under which such companies can operate. My noble friend will be aware that these companies operated long before we issued the guidance; clearly, they now operate within a system for which there is guidance.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I declare an interest that I am involved with a maritime security company. I am glad to say that I do it not because I am desperate for things to do, but because I feel that it is an important thing to do. I am delighted to speak because, 710 years ago today, the first admiral was commissioned in our country. That is rather nice. However, I would point out to the Minister that we must really focus on, and produce, some clearer guidance. There is no doubt that a large number of companies are now doing things which are beyond the law, since it is quite difficult for them to meet the requirements that are meant to be met. For example, the whole issue of floating armouries is a very real problem. Could I ask the Minister to push this issue much faster, because there will be an occasion—as the noble Lord said—where people will be getting into serious difficulties as a result of unintentionally breaking our laws and international law?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord speaks to this matter with great experience, both in relation to his previous role and in terms of his current role. He will be aware that these companies were operating before we issued guidance; it was really a reaction and response to the fact that they were predominantly operating out of the United Kingdom that the guidance was issued. The guidance is quite detailed in terms of the plans that they must set out and being responsive to the necessary organisations that monitor this in the particular area that they are in. The noble Lord will be aware, too, that international law will apply in international waters. The law of the particular flagged ship will apply to that particular vessel. For the companies that operate in that specific area around Somalia and the Indian Ocean, there are specific rules on which we have led in the drafting.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, with new companies employing in the order of 2,700 armed guards to meet the surge in demand, costing the international shipping community over $1 billion a year, does my noble friend agree with the analysis that the current downturn in piracy is temporary and that it will in time re-emerge from the Somali clans unless irreversible progress is achieved in stability, security and the rule of law? In that regard, what progress has been made since last year’s Somalia conference in London?

[Baroness Warsi]

I can inform my noble friend that I have just come from a meeting. The president of Somalia is in the United Kingdom, having discussions about progress that has been made since the Somalia conference. My noble friend will be aware, too, that a follow-up conference has been planned for later on this year. I have the statistics somewhere in this great brief, but I can inform noble Lords that numbers of successful piracy attempts in that region have gone down dramatically. My noble friend is right that, ultimately, we need to keep working to keep those numbers down rather than providing security.

[Lord Boyce]

Could the Minister tell the House whether she feels that an increase in armed guards on board merchant vessels transiting that area has significantly improved security and, as a result, we see far less hostage taking so that lives are saved?

[Baroness Warsi]

I can inform the noble and gallant Lord that no vessel has been successfully pirated when it has had security on board.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Could the Minister answer the specific question raised by my noble friend in respect of floating armouries, which is approved by the Security Association for the Maritime Industry? By having these arms on board ships outside territorial waters, they will avoid the need to go into port, with the obvious legal and bureaucratic problems that might arise. When will the Government come to a decision in respect of floating armouries?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord refers to the issue of floating armouries. Noble Lords may not all be aware that these are, effectively, vessels that sit outside of immediate country waters with a view to providing a place where armed items can be transferred and reused. We are currently consulting across Whitehall as to the best way in which to operate. The noble Lord will be aware that Sri Lanka has a specific example, whereby a ship which is used as a floating armoury lies just outside their territory. I am sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that to have such a vessel also increases concerns about what may happen if it is taken over.

[Lord Naseby]

Is not the reality that the NATO navies cannot cope on their own? The reduction now has come about because of a combined effort from the navies of NATO plus the private sector. Therefore, are the Government not right in the way in which they have approached this, working with the private sector and the merchant marines? It is not the first time that that has happened—and godspeed to those who work together to ensure that this scourge on that part of the world is brought to an end.

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. I add that it is also important that we work in the region to make sure that these pirates are captured, properly prosecuted and subsequently sentenced. That would send out a strong method that there is not a culture of impunity in this matter.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

On that note, my Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the combined effect of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which is incorporated in statute, means that piracy in any sea in the whole world can be brought before the courts of this land and such persons prosecuted? Will she say whether there is any intention, in respect of the pirating of any British-registered vessel, for any such case to be brought into the courts of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord is right; universal jurisdiction applies in these matters and, in fact, these matters can be tried anywhere in the world. However, we firmly believe, as of course the region also believes, that it is right that those people are captured, prosecuted, tried, convicted and detained in the region in which they are found.

Housing: Rural Areas

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many affordable homes have been built in rural areas since 2010; and how many more are expected to be built in rural areas in the next two years.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, from April 2010 to September 2012, 7,519 affordable homes were built in rural communities of fewer than 3,000 people through the Homes and Communities Agency’s Affordable Homes Programme. We expect rural delivery in the next two years to account for nearly 10% of anticipated completions of the programme outside London.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Her figures do not compare well to the estimated rural housing need of at least 11,000 additional units per year. Housing affordability remains an urgent problem for the rural working poor, and this problem is getting worse, not better. Will the noble Baroness please tell us what the Government will do to protect the rural low-paid against the combined effect of housing benefit changes such as the bedroom tax, underfunded councils in rural areas cutting council tax benefit, and, if the Government go ahead and abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, farm workers in tied houses losing their protection on rents?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the question was about rural housing, but it seems to have spread a little wider than that. We recognise that affordable housing in the countryside is a problem. We are very clear that rural areas and the people in them require affordable housing, and that affordable housing should take into account welfare benefits as well as the other aspects raised.

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Northumberland, notwithstanding budgetary difficulties, has announced this week £20 million worth of building and £20 million worth of land for houses over the next three years? Is she further aware that it has taken the opportunity to use new powers, with the reorganisation of council benefit, to not allow any discount on second homes and empty homes?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Baroness has to say because we sometimes hear that nothing is happening in the north, while it is clear that it is, because we have had other examples in this House over the past few weeks. That, therefore, is extremely good news, and I am glad that Northumberland is making use of legislation, as it can, to best effect.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What is happening over affordable housing on the green belt?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we have made it clear, in the National Planning Policy Framework, that the green belt is virtually sacrosanct, but we recognise that occasionally green belt land needs to be used for affordable housing, although that will need to be replaced. Some green belt land, as the noble Lord knows, is not absolutely brilliant land, so where you can use that rather than going into real open space, it should be used. However, we need affordable housing, and we recognise that.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, the dearth of affordable social housing in rural communities impacts upon the mental, physical and spiritual health of such communities. Will the Minister agree that all new housing projects in rural areas should be mandated to include affordable housing?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we know that most affordable housing projects in rural areas tend to be small. Basically, they happen when the land or housing is protected for rural people. The projects may be small or larger, but they can be built under a number of systems; we know that there is shared ownership, social rent, affordable rent and intermediate rent, so there should be a reasonable spread across the country.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

What is the position regarding amenities such as a centre to help disabled people or handicapped children, which could be built in conjunction and is very necessary for some communities? The noble Baroness mentioned that communities will be able to put housing on green-belt land. Could that same permission be given for such adjuncts, which are an important part of any housing scheme?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, that would be for local decision, if the local authority believed that that was an appropriate use of land. Indeed, such amenities could be included in the neighbourhood plan. The more of those we can get up and running, the better. These sorts of facilities which are vital, as the noble Baroness said, can be included in those plans. I readily accept that communities need and want these essential facilities.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, the Minister was a bit dismissive of the broadening of the Question put by my noble friend Lord Knight. However, does she not realise that in rural areas particularly, affordability is a question of income as well as of the availability of housing? This is particularly true in areas such as the south-west, where the ratio between house prices and incomes is at its worst. Therefore, will she address holistically the problem of affordable housing in areas such as the south-west by having a coherent regional housing policy which allows people to live in the villages in which they were born?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, as I have said, it is important that people in rural areas are able to stay in rural areas. I hope that the Government’s policies will ensure that that happens.

Nuclear Research and Development

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked By

[Viscount Hanworth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to foster nuclear research and development in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)]

My Lords, over the past year, the Government have been working with industry, academia and other key stakeholders on a programme to help maintain, co-ordinate and further develop the UK’s nuclear research and development capabilities. We will publish details and outcomes from this work alongside a wider nuclear industrial sector strategy in the near future. Alongside this work, we are also engaged in positive discussions with international partners about joining an international research reactor programme. We have made a number of investments through the Skills Funding Agency and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in support of the nuclear skills agenda.

[Viscount Hanworth]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. She will have observed how closely the nuclear research agenda of the European Union is aligned with the interests of France’s nuclear industry. Does she not agree that it would be timely and appropriate to establish a British directorate of nuclear research to guide and co-ordinate our research efforts? Does she not also recognise the virtue of providing guaranteed long-term funding for research directly to our own National Nuclear Laboratory?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Viscount raises a number of key points. The UK is working very positively with its international partners and its partners in the EU. Alongside what I have already mentioned to the noble Viscount is our forthcoming strategy, which we are working on and will incorporate a number of streams, one of which will be a comprehensive landscape review of all our R&D activities. I am sure that when the noble Viscount sees that, he will be reassured that the UK is one of the leading hubs of nuclear research and development.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Will my noble friend accept my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his appointment of Dr Paul Howarth to the national nuclear council, because that seems to me an admirable demonstration of the importance which the Government attach to nuclear research? Dr Howarth is, of course, the managing director of the National Nuclear Laboratory. I take this opportunity to wish him well.

[Baroness Verma]

I will, of course, pass on my noble friend’s congratulations to the Secretary of State and to all at the National Nuclear Laboratory.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, would the Minister like to comment on how Her Majesty’s Government are supporting collaborative research with Japan? The UK is already working on research with Japan, following Fukushima. The Japanese have the largest computing facilities in the world and it is particularly important to maintain our collaboration with Japan.

[Baroness Verma]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. He will be aware that our own Dr Mike Weightman was very involved in the work going on after Fukushima. We remain closely involved with Japan’s nuclear work. I think that we meet about twice a year bilaterally, but we are always talking with Japan in international forums.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the UK currently ranks 15th out of 16 in its spend on nuclear fission research, spending one-tenth of what Belgium does and half of what Finland spends? What should the UK spend?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord would draw me into providing a figure but I am not prepared to do so at this stage. However, we take our research and development very seriously and we are investing an awful lot of money in research and development, but it is also about the quality of research, not just the quantity of money being spent.

[Lord Avebury]

When do the Government expect to see the report from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the disposal of the stocks of 100 tonnes of plutonium? Are the Government moving away from their formerly preferred solution of using this plutonium to create MOX fuel, bearing in mind that there are no customers on the horizon for that form of nuclear energy?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend’s interest in other forms of disposal of civil plutonium. I can reassure him that, while we still prefer MOX, we are considering proposals from GE Hitachi and Candu to determine whether their approaches need further consideration as credible alternatives for managing the UK stockpile of plutonium.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On a wider matter, with the refusal by Cumbria council to agree to the underground disposal of nuclear waste and the withdrawal of Centrica from the new nuclear programme, is the Government’s nuclear energy programme not in some disarray?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the two issues are completely separate. Centrica’s withdrawal has nothing to do with confidence in nuclear; its priorities are currently different. Cumbria County Council’s decision is, of course, disappointing but we welcome the very positive votes from the borough councillors of Copeland and Allerdale, which show that there are places that are willing to go on to the next phase. It is not an indicator that nuclear is dead: it is an indicator that much more thought needs to be put into the process of how we go forward.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy’s meeting, only about 10 days ago, with academics, people from industry and national nuclear laboratories? Encouragement was given at the meeting to using thorium for mixed fuels with uranium, which has the long term potential to allow nuclear waste to be used as an asset and a fuel and not just a liability.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise the work done on thorium. We maintain an interest in the global potential of thorium and have, for the longer term, commissioned a wider analysis of nuclear fuel cycle scenarios which are open to the UK, among which is the reactor design fuelled by molten thorium salts. However, previous studies show that there are still significant risks to resources to develop thorium fuel to commercial deployment. In these difficult economic times, we need to concentrate on potential technologies that compete for the same investment but may have a sounder outcome than thorium currently does.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to the previous two questions and I think she may have missed the point made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Centrica has withdrawn from the UK nuclear programme—the third company to do so, as E.ON and RWE have also pulled out. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to say, on the issue of thorium, that we should deal with more immediate problems, but if three companies have pulled out of the UK’s nuclear programme, what is the Government’s plan B to ensure we keep the lights on?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Baroness perhaps missed the first part of my response, in which I stated that the two questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, were two separate issues. Coming back to Centrica’s withdrawal, it has not withdrawn because it has no confidence in new nuclear but because of its own commercial priorities. However, significant progress is being made, and the noble Baroness will be aware that, in the last quarter of last year alone, the sale of Horizon to Hitachi and the granting of the first nuclear site in 25 years at Hinckley Point C happened. I would not be as pessimistic as the noble Baroness is being about nuclear, which is of course part of our low-carbon energy mix but not the only part.

EU: Legislation

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked By

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what derogations and opt-outs from European Union legislation they are seeking in negotiations with European Union partners.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, the Government always seek outcomes that are in the national interest when negotiating with other European Union member states. We work with a range of countries and our priorities include protecting the integrity of the single market and allowing fair competition for all members of the EU.

[Lord Dykes]

I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. The Government are rightly very keen indeed on the single market, which is not just a free trade area but much more. The strong apparatus of support and protection that the single market affords to all member states means, effectively, that you have to stay in the EU as well. Is it not therefore important for the Government to avoid needless opt-outs of a chauvinistic or nationalistic nature?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I am always impressed with the ever-increasing appetite for discussing Europe in this House. Many of these matters were raised in the debate that took place on Thursday of last week. Nobody in this House would argue that every time the United Kingdom goes to the European Union we should not always act in our national interest and make sure that we are continually putting a case forward that means that the European Union is improved but, within that, we also get a good deal.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, there has been much speculation about the Government wanting to withdraw from arrangements such as the European arrest warrant and other collaboration on criminal justice matters. What representations have been received by policing bodies about the wisdom of such a course of action and what representations have been received from victims’ organisations which may not get justice for the victims they represent?

[Baroness Warsi]

I am not aware of what specific representation has been received in relation to that matter, but I will make sure that I write to the noble Lord and give him a full answer.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I declare my interests as professor of surgery at UCL and a member of the General Medical Council. Despite assurances given at the time of its introduction that the imposition of the working-time regulation on junior doctors’ rotas would improve patient safety, we learnt last week from the president of the Royal College of Surgeons that the regulation has actually undermined the training of future generations of hospital consultants. Recently at least two coroners’ verdicts have cited the regulation as part of their narratives. What progress have Her Majesty’s Government made in the negotiations on this issue that were started in early 2011 by the then Health Secretary and the Business Secretary?

[Baroness Warsi]

It is exactly because of specific issues such as this that we believe improvements can be made and that we can negotiate with Europe on a way forward that is in our best interests and works clearly in terms of, for example, our hospitals—the example given by the noble Lord. It is for that reason that the Prime Minister has laid out that certainly in the next Conservative manifesto there will be a clear provision for us to go to Europe, to negotiate and to get that better deal.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, further to the Question of my noble friend Lord Dykes, would it not be better if, instead of having a list of things that we want to opt out of, we start with a list of things that we want to opt into?

[Baroness Warsi]

We should simply start with a single premise that we should work on what is in our national interest—whether that is opting in or opting out—but we must start that process, make sure that we fight hard for what is right for this country and make sure that, after having negotiated that outcome, we go to the people of this country and ask them to buy into it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, there is an enthusiasm for this issue in the House and I share it. During the debate last week the Minister and several other noble Lords said that they did not believe that these uncertainties would have any impact on inward investment. Last week—I repeat the declaration of interest I made at that time—I saw for the first time in a “due diligence” questionnaire from a potential inward investor questions about mitigating risk as a result of this whole episode. Can the Minister, whether on behalf of the Prime Minister or in her own right, say just what the red lines and issues are so that inward investors at this stage know what they are dealing with and which kind of country they are coming to?

[Baroness Warsi]

This is a very important relationship within the European Union. It is not the kind of thing that can be negotiated overnight. It is right, therefore, that the balance of competences review, which will take place between now and the end of 2014, starts to lay out and consult on those areas on which negotiations can be had. It is right that, if the Conservative Party were to win the next election, we would implement what we will put in our manifesto. We will go to Europe, negotiate and, thereafter, put that matter to the public of this country.

I understand what the noble Lord says about creating uncertainty. However, I am sure he will agree with me that the Europe debate is far and wide in this country. The concept that the British people are happy with the relationship that we have right now with the European Union is false. Therefore, any inward investor knows that this is a debate that is to be had in this country and, more than that, it is important that the people of this country buy into that relationship.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, has the time not come for Her Majesty’s Government to suggest to our European partners that we should all take back full national and monetary independence, that we should all help each other as appropriate and that Brussels should be closed down? If the Minister does not agree with me—I suppose that there is a chance that she may not—can she tell your Lordships what the European Union is now for? What useful things does it do which could not be done better and more cheaply by collaborating democratic governments?

[Baroness Warsi]

I congratulate the noble Lord on being consistent and predictable. I am sure that he will get the answer that I always give him. There are great benefits of our membership of the European Union, both in terms of jobs in relation to inward investment and, of course, the strong collective voice which the European Union provides us in relation to free trade agreements, sanctions and international action.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board) Order 2013

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the draft order laid before the House on 15 October 2012 be approved.

Relevant documents: 12th and 15th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Hallmarking) Order 2013

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved By

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That the draft order laid before the House on 26 November 2012 be approved.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 29 January

Motion agreed.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment Discharged

15:07

Moved By

[Lord Stevenson of Coddenham]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Lord Stevenson of Coddenham]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated the wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

15:07

Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 10th Report from the Constitution Committee

Amendment 71C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clauses 16 to 19 agreed.

Clause 20 : Variation and replacement of pre-Planning Act 2008 consents

Amendment 71D

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

71D: Clause 20, page 21, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
“(3) If the original consent, or a section 33 consent that replaces it, is varied or replaced, section 31 does not apply to the development to which the consent as varied, or the replacement consent, relates (and so development consent is not required for that development).”

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am afraid that this is a somewhat technical amendment, but I will do my best to explain what is intended in concise and accessible language. Clause 20 is about enabling projects that were authorised under the various major infrastructure consent regimes that preceded the Planning Act 2008 to go ahead without also requiring authorisation under the Planning Act in the form of a development consent order. It deals with cases where a developer’s plans for a project have changed and they need to have the original consent varied or replaced to take account of that change. We want to make it absolutely clear that in such a case, the variation or replacement of the original consent—for example, planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—is all that is needed. The developer will not need to start again from scratch and apply for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 if they already have a validly varied or replaced consent under the relevant pre-Planning Act regime.

The reason for making the amendment is that new Section 237A, which Clause 20 would insert into the Planning Act, would still potentially leave projects authorised under pre-Planning Act legislation having to apply in some cases for a development consent order under the Planning Act. For example, the new section would not remove the need for a development consent order in a situation where a project had been built and it was necessary to make changes to the conditions of its original planning permission relating to operational matters. This seems wrong. As an additional benefit, the amendment also simplifies the drafting of new Section 237A of the Planning Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the Minister’s explanation of the amendment was entirely persuasive, and we are content.

Amendment 71D agreed.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed.

Clause 21 : Removal of Planning Act 2008 consent and certification requirements

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

72: Clause 21, page 22, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 150(1) (removal of consent requirements), for the words “consented to the inclusion of the provision” substitute “been consulted by the applicant about the inclusion of the provision”.”

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 75ZA and 75ZAA in this group. I shall not speak to Amendment 75, which probably should not be there because it has been superseded. As an introduction to these amendments, I will say that Amendments 72 and 75ZAA have the support of the British Property Federation, the Confederation of British Industry, the National Infrastructure Planning Association and the Royal Town Planning Institute—so noble Lords will see where I am coming from. I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting we had a week or two ago to discuss all these amendments. It was extremely helpful. I hope that we have made progress and will continue to do so.

All the amendments that I am speaking to are attempts to learn from the experience of the Planning Act 2008 and to take account of how the process has changed with the introduction of the changes made by this Government. I hope that many of the suggestions will be useful in trying to streamline and simplify the regime in order to reduce the delay, cost, uncertainty and risk in delivering some of these big projects. After all these years, and having tried hard to simplify things—both Governments of the past 10 years have tried to do that—there is still a long way to go. Steven Norris, the chairman of the National Infrastructure Planning Association, recently wrote in the Times:

“A modern economy needs a planning system that doesn’t smother democracy, but makes reasoned decisions in a reasonable timescale”.

15:15

He then quotes the painful lessons of HS2, which we have talked about many times in this House. There is still some way to go on this. At the other end of the spectrum it is interesting that Sir Michael Pitt has gone public on what he calls the intimidating amount of paper that applicants are sending to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. New Civil Engineer of 31 January this year says that EDF, the new nuclear company about which we were talking in Question Time, submitted a 36,000-page environmental impact assessment as part of its planning application. IPC people are human like everybody else. Sir Michael is right; it is ridiculous to expect anybody to look at things that long.

Some of the amendments to which I will be speaking this afternoon suggest ways of simplifying and speeding things up. The last amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is very long because it all goes in one place, so we have agreed that we will split up the initial introduction, so that noble Lords do not hear either of us for too long. I hope that the Committee will find that helpful but of course we can intervene later if we want to.

Amendment 72 refers to the fact the Planning Act regime was supposed to give a one-stop shop for major projects. The problem is that there is still a large number of prescribed consents that may be disapplied only by a development consent order with the permission of the body that would otherwise be responsible for granting that consent. If that body’s permission cannot be obtained, one has to go for separate consents, which add to the time and cost of the application.

Sir Michael Pitt, who is chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate, said only two weeks ago at a conference that 40% of the required consents were outside the DCO regime. This is a very high percentage, as I think that the Committee will agree. This amendment removes the requirement in Section 150 to obtain a consenting body’s permission and replace it with an obligation to consult that body in any case where the promoter intends to include in the draft DCO a provision disapplying a consent for which that body is responsible. This would mean a case-by-case approach, and if the consenting body had concerns about the disapplication, it could object. This would be an interesting and useful way of simplifying the process for those bodies that are happy to do it. I hope that that is a sufficient introduction to this amendment.

Amendment 75ZA is not supported by the organisations that I mentioned earlier. This is not because they oppose it; they have not been asked to support it. I thought it might be useful to raise this issue, and it comes in this group. It comes out of a discussion that a number of colleagues have recently had about the increase in heavy goods vehicle movements to major construction sites. In so far as this affects rail, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. It also affects water. If you look big projects that have been built and that are being planned at the moment, some have done extremely well in reducing the amount of road traffic to and from the sites, and some have done pretty badly. The construction of terminal 5 was probably the best in terms of non-road movements; it had several consolidation centres away from the site and brought everything in by rail. The Olympics at Stratford were not bad: a lot of material went by rail and some of it went by water. The Thames tideway tunnel, which your Lordships have debated at some length and no doubt will debate again, started off by driving away by road all the spoil from the excavation of that enormous tunnel wherever the sites on the Thames were. That was about 500 trucks a day. When I suggested that it should be sent by water, I was told that the river was too congested. However, if you look outside today, you are lucky to see a ship going past every few minutes. There is more to it, sadly, because with some of the big developments that are now taking place, usually on the south bank of the Thames, a lot of work could be done to take the spoil away by river, with short road or conveyor-belt journeys if necessary.

Looking at a different project, and back on nuclear I am afraid, Sizewell is one of those which look likely to go ahead with EDF. The latest rough calculation of the number of trucks required to go in and out of that site every day is about 300. As some noble Lords will know, the roads around Sizewell are not very good for that number. In addition, if the promoter, EDF, was able instead to send more of the goods by water, sea and rail, it could also bring some of the workers in by rail by improving the railway lines. There are benefits there as well. The suggestion is to require those who are applying to those granting development consent to include in their applications a report on the feasibility of using water and rail transport. It may not always be possible, but it will at least make people think about it. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in his reply when we get there.

I will speak to the first few provisions of the last amendment in this group, Amendment 75ZAA. The new subsection (2) proposed in the amendment would insert new subsections into Section 4 of the Planning Act 2008 on fees. There is a bit of a problem over how the infrastructure planning commission calculates its fees. It is worrying for those who are making an application because if they do not pay the fees, they will not make any progress with their applications. You either pay it if you want this, or you do not pay it. The real problem here is that the fees are set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010, which provide that PINS may charge for each day in which the examining authority examines the application,

“in the period beginning with the start day … and ending with the completion of the examination”.

The problem is whether it charges five days a week from when it starts to when it finishes or charges only for the actual days worked by the examining authority, not by all the staff underneath, but just the examining authority. It makes quite a lot of difference to the fees. I do not know what the solution is, but there have been examples when one examining authority has been known to be examining two applications at the same time. If you are charging for what you are doing on a daily rate, that does not seem quite right. We have had discussions with the noble Baroness, and I know that this is something that the Government are looking at. However, it needs some pretty detailed investigation so that applicants know what they are going to be up to and have some confidence that the examining authority has been able to demonstrate that the money that has been spent, and the hours and days worked, are on their project.

The last part of the amendment concerns national policy statements. I am afraid that the amendment responds to the Department for Transport’s failure to bring forward the National Networks NPS, which is supposed to cover railways, the strategic road network and strategic rail freight interchanges. I am not going to go into why these are necessary. Given that the cost of applications for these facilities can go into tens of millions of pounds or more, the more comfort that these companies can have—especially when they are private sector companies—the better.

The NPS was first promised to be published for consultation in October 2009. That is over three years ago. It has been repeatedly delayed and it is not thought to be coming any time soon. In fact, at some stage applicants have been told that they may never see it. At a recent Enterprise Forum event, the Secretary of State for Transport said that an NPS covering roads and rail is “far from imminent”. I am not sure how many years “far from imminent” is in government-speak, but it is years not months, as the Department for Transport prefers to concentrate on specific projects. I find this depressing and discouraging. If the department is going to go back to its old ways of 10 or 20 years ago of keeping roads in one box and railways in another and then saying, “Oh dear, they don’t meet in the middle”, it is a step backwards. I hope when he responds the Minister can give us some comfort that I have got it all wrong and it is actually going to happen very quickly so we can all be excited and welcome it. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to carry on. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I will start by putting all this in context for the House. We are addressing the need for national infrastructure. This is now widely accepted. It is not sufficient to talk about it and to produce lists of things that could be done. One has got to get ahead with it. Much of the Bill—and I welcome this—is clearly directed to that end; to try to remove some of the barriers, speed up the timetables, reduce the bureaucracy that has been involved, and in every way help those who are contemplating substantial infrastructure investment to achieve their objectives, of course while protecting important environmental and other interests. The CBI wrote in response to these questions that:

“Infrastructure investment is critical for boosting the economic performance of the UK and it is important that the right conditions are set to encourage the private sector to bring forward projects to boost growth. Infrastructure UK has identified a pipeline of more than 550 projects requiring more than £330 billion of investment by 2015 and beyond, with over 85% of this coming from private sector sources. At the same time significant investment is needed in other forms of commercial and residential property to boost business productivity and ensure an adequate supply of housing”.

I quote those figures to demonstrate just how enormous is the task that faces this country in trying to catch up with what under successive Governments has been a neglect of infrastructure investment in keeping our essential infrastructure up to date.

15:30

Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in saying a word about consents given by other bodies. This has become a major obstacle, and I have tabled other amendments to deal with this when it is a matter of local planning authorities. Here we are discussing the system that was set up by the Planning Act 2008, which was originally the Infrastructure Planning Commission and now is part of the Planning Inspectorate. Sir Michael Pitt and his colleagues deserve our very warm thanks for the readiness with which they switched the commission’s role from being an independent agency, with the power to make decisions, to becoming part of the inspectorate, with the decisions having to be made by Ministers. The democratic legitimacy of that was very obvious but they accepted it without question and are working extremely hard in developing that.

Turning to the consents that are required, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred, guidance has been issued recently to those wanting development consent orders—DCOs—and a section on who should be consulted, titled “Statutory bodies and other relevant groups”, sets out a stronger onus on the consulting bodies to consider including consents in the DCO. Again, I quote:

“Where an applicant proposes to include non-planning consents within their Development Consent Order, the bodies that would normally be responsible for granting these consents should make every effort to facilitate this. They should only object to the inclusion of such non-planning consents with good reason, and after careful consideration of reasonable alternatives. It is therefore important that such bodies are consulted at an early stage”.

It sounds like common sense, but actually it has not been happening. The objective of a one-stop shop has proved extraordinarily difficult to achieve in reality. Some of the amendments in this group are intended to try to help this forward.

The noble Lord has referred to the payment of fees, and to national policy statements. I have one question for my noble friend: as the Government become keener on the development of shale gas, is it not now apparent that we are going to need a national policy statement for shale gas? A large number of different government departments are going to be involved if that industry is to move from the exploratory to the development phase, which is clearly envisaged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement.

Other national policy statements have been very successful; the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned some of them. On the whole, the national policy statement for nuclear is standing the test of time, but I share the anxiety about the sheer volume of paper that EDF had to submit for its development at Hinkley Point. It is a large, powerful company with a lot of expertise but I heard that it had to submit 45,000 pages—there must be ways of dealing with that.

One way of dealing with that could be to improve the pre-application process. There is a strict timetable once the application has been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate. The target is that an applicant should get a decision within 12 months. But it is in the pre-application stage that applicants are expected to consult very widely with a range of interests. Of course, with a big project such as Hinkley Point, this is of enormous importance. From my knowledge of the case, it has been conducted extremely thoroughly by EDF and its contractor Arriva, but it can drag on and on. Amendment 75ZAA suggests that there should be some oversight of the pre-application stage. The Planning Inspectorate—which is always knows as PINS—should be involved in that, to help and advise both the applicant and the consulted bodies and individuals on the best way of doing this, and to set a reasonable timetable of how it might be achieved. So far this has not happened. There may be some informal contacts, but what is looked for here is a legislative imprimatur for such a process, to keep the pre-application stage under control. I hope the Government will be prepared to consider this.

We debated the question of the national planning statements at great length during the passing of the Planning Act 2008. I always hoped that there would be national planning statements for all the main categories of major investment. I have to say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that it is disappointing that this has not happened so far, but I will not repeat the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

I can perhaps cover the other proposed new subsections more briefly. If we could achieve the pre-application programme management and oversight mentioned, there would be a shorter period and lower costs. Applications would not be over-egged or gold-plated, as I think happened with the Hinkley Point application and have been told also happened with others. It would improve the process of engagement by local authorities and other statutory consultees, and reduce the risk of applications having to be withdrawn or being long drawn out during subsequent stages. All this would help make the whole process more efficient.

Finally, there is the question of waivers. There should be a procedure whereby the Secretary of State may recognise that some of the processes or requirements are irrelevant to a particular application by an applicant, and can be waived. The applicant would then not have to go through the process of submitting documents and evidence for matters which are really quite irrelevant. It is perhaps strange that such a procedure does not exist already, but this amendment includes such a requirement. People have to put all sorts of things into application documents: a land plan, a works plan, an access plan, an ecological plan, a heritage plan and a Crown land plan, separately or in combination. However, the fact is that an application may already contain a full environmental statement covering all these matters; does this really have to be duplicated? It seems to me that in this case the system could again be improved. It has been a good system, and it has been widely admired and taken up. When I looked at the website over the weekend there were 101 applications currently under consideration by PINS using the new procedure, and there will be many more. However, it needs to be improved and speeded up, and this is an opportunity for us to do that. I hope Ministers will respond positively to some of these issues.

[Lord Snape]

I support the amendments so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. When the previous Government introduced what they said was a national planning agreement in 2008, many of us said, “About time, too”. The problem with major projects in this country is the length of time that they take. Any way of shortening that time taken, without withdrawing people’s democratic right to make proper objections, is to be welcomed. When the 2008 Act was passed, one of my perhaps more cynical colleagues said, “It’ll never happen”. Once you try to shorten the procedures, you immediately deprive the legal profession, to name but one group, of the opportunity—how does one put this as kindly as possible?—to spin out the process for as long as possible. It was said to me at the time that that profession would ensure that.

We have only to look at the inordinate time that all major projects in this country take. In my time as a transport spokesperson in the other place, I spent some time attending the Terminal 5 inquiry. The amount of time wasted, where lawyer after lawyer and group after group restated virtually the same matters day after day, month after month and, in the case of that project, year after year, was, to say the least, expensive and inordinate. Anything that can be done within the democratic process to shorten that period is to be welcomed.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned housing problems. I am sure that both sides of your Lordships’ House agree that it is very difficult to build anywhere in this country. All parties accept that there is a housing shortage, but circumventing that shortage is difficult under existing planning law.

On Amendment 75ZA, my noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke of the necessity of ensuring that construction materials for major projects are able to be transported using water and rail. Those of us who served four or five years ago on the Crossrail Bill were anxious to see proposals of this kind enacted for that project. We were anxious to see as much of the material for that enormous project taken in and out by rail and water. My noble friend mentioned various other projects; he did not mention Crossrail during his speech on the amendment. I am sure that he would agree with me that that is an area where the scope for restricting the number of heavy goods vehicles, particularly coming in and out of London, would be covered if the amendment was adopted.

I do not wish to sound any sort of controversial note in concluding my comments in support of the amendments, but I am always struck by how quickly former Secretaries of State are converted to the idea that perhaps a little urgency should be injected into these matters once they have left office. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who served as Secretary of State for the Environment, if my memory serves me right, for some years, but I suspect that it was that experience that leads him so enthusiastically to support the amendments standing in his name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I shall join him in that enthusiasm and refrain from any comment about wishing that he had behaved in the way envisaged in the amendments when he had had the opportunity to do so during his own distinguished career.

I hope that the Minister will look kindly on these amendments and agree with me and the other two speakers who were in favour of them that they have a great deal to commend them.

15:45

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the tribute made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to Sir Michael Pitt, who is doing an excellent job of public service as chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate—and did so in his previous work at the Infrastructure Planning Commission. However, in the present economic downturn where businesses are under so much pressure, the Planning Inspectorate, like other parts of the public service, should seek to keep its costs and charges down to an absolute minimum. That is the first important issue raised in the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.

The key issue in the first amendment in this group is to do with the basis on which PINS calculates fees for the processing of development consent order applications. The fees are set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations 2010, which provides that PINS may charge for each day on which the examining authority examines the application in the period beginning with the start date and ending with the completion date of the examination. This provision has given rise to uncertainty as to whether PINS is entitled to charge a fee only for the actual days worked on the development consent order by the examining authority or for each day of the examination period, irrespective of the days on which the examining authority may have worked on the application.

PINS has adopted the second of these interpretations, which is hardly surprising because that gives it a larger income and of course it is under great pressure from the Government to maximise its private income so that it is less dependent on the department. However, it seems that any reasonable interpretation of the fees that should be paid by promoters would lead one to conclude that they should pay only for the actual days worked on the development consent order by the examining authority. This is not a minor matter. I talked about the issue with the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which told me that for larger projects fees run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and that even for smaller projects, were the interpretation that fees would be payable only for actual days worked by the examining authority rather than the entire examining authority period, savings to developers of £20,000 or £30,000 might not be uncommon.

My understanding is that the Government are sympathetic to the case that has been made in respect of fees. When the Bill was before the Commons, the Planning Minister said:

“Although I would not want to fetter the Planning Inspectorate’s already constrained ability to charge fees for the valuable work that it does, I nevertheless take on board the concern about how such fees are charged. I have already had conversations with the Planning Inspectorate about how exactly it measures time and whether that time measurement relates to work done rather than just the clock ticking, and I will be sure to keep on the case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 4/12/12; col. 437.]

How far has the planning Minister been on the case since the matter was raised in the Commons? Can the Minister here today give any further comfort to developers that the fees charged to them by the Planning Inspectorate will be done on what appears to be a defensible basis, namely the days actually spent by planning inspectors in working on the DCO applications rather than, as I say, the entire period that they are before the examining authority?

The second issue raised by my noble friend is about consents that cannot be disapplied by a development consent order without the consent of the relevant body. My noble friend cited Sir Michael Pitt who said recently that 40% of the required consents were outside the development consent order regime, even though—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said—the Planning Act regime was intended to be a unified authorisation process and therefore a one-stop shop for the construction of major infrastructure. The issue here is whether to do as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, wish—that is, remove the requirement to obtain the consent of bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England in respect of their permissions and replace that simply with a right for them to be consulted—would lose essential safeguards for essential interests. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that issue because it seems to be the fundamental point at stake. My understanding is that a new consent service is being set up by the Planning Inspectorate which should help in this respect and that recently reissued guidance to promoters about development consent orders sets out a stronger onus on consenting bodies to consider including consents in the development consent order regime. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he thinks that is likely to be effective in meeting the concerns raised by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.

The third key issue raised by these amendments relates to the pre-application programme management system and the oversight by PINS. The proposition is that the PINS examining inspectors should perform a programme management or case oversight role, probably holding public hearings with the key parties to check on progress made and the next steps.

I know that PINS already does good work at the pre-application stage to help promoters. However, I simply report to the House that the CBI, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the National Infrastructure Planning Association all report that the support given by PINS is not sufficient at the pre-application stage. They cite a whole string of cases, with which I will not take the time of the House now, which appear to substantiate that point. Providing a greater degree of oversight by PINS could help to ensure greater success for the DCO regime.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns raised by the CBI and others in this respect because, if this is a blockage, it is completely within the control of the Government, since, of course, the Planning Inspectorate is a government agency.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for tabling these amendments. In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, apologised for the amount of detail as regards these amendments. I join him in that apology: I apologise in advance for the length of my response. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who had the benefit of riding tandem, while I have benefited greatly from riding tandem on this Bill with the noble Baroness, on this occasion I seek the Committee’s indulgence because my response to these amendments is very much a solo cycle. I also join my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in paying tribute to the work of Sir Michael Pitt in this respect.

As has been said, the amendments address a number of important issues in relation to reform of the major infrastructure planning regime. The importance of this was well expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. For the purposes of the Committee, I will address each amendment in turn. I recognise the intentions behind Amendment 72, which addresses the “one stop” element for major infrastructures. This amendment would mean that the Planning Inspectorate was likely to be required to deal with a much wider range of issues than it current deals with—issues which require detailed technical or specialist knowledge or relate to sensitive issues such as nuclear safety.

At present this expertise is held by a small number of departments and government agencies. It perhaps would be wasteful to replicate this wide range of expertise within the Planning Inspectorate, particularly on issues as sensitive and highly technical as, for example, nuclear safety. In addition, many of these consents require ongoing compliance activities and periodic review based on the results of the compliance work, and it would be undesirable to separate the permitting and compliance activities into different organisations.

That said, the Government certainly are sensitive to concerns about the challenge for developers, as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of effectively co-ordinating various application processes for a range of consents across a range of departments and government agencies, and are taking forward a range of actions to address this concern. Clause 21 and parts of Clause 22 remove the need for the five separate certificates or consents currently required and allow them to be dealt with under the single development consent order, a change which has been widely and strongly welcomed.

I am pleased to report that we have also recently consulted on proposals to establish new arrangements to improve co-ordination and communication between the Planning Inspectorate, applicants and consenting bodies. The proposals are intended to make the consents process more efficient, while retaining the technical and legal expertise in consenting bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.

We think that this approach provides developers with the additional support and service that they are looking for without, most importantly, watering down the protections which currently exist. While we recognise the appetite from some developers for the Government to let all consents be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate alone, other bodies have highlighted the important role that bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England play in ensuring that adequate environmental protections are delivered.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin also highlighted the recently updated guidance on pre-application. I welcome his positive comments in this regard, which, of course, make it clear that non-planning consents can be included within the development consent and that the bodies normally responsible for granting these consents should make every effort to facilitate this. They should only object to the inclusion of such a non-planning consent with good reason and after careful consideration of reasonable alternatives.

I turn to Amendment 75ZAA, which addresses four distinct and important issues in relation to the operation of the nationally significant infrastructure regime. I will seek to address each of the four issues raised in turn and hope that my comments will provide noble Lords with some reassurance.

I turn first to the issue of fees—this was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—addressed by proposed new subsection (1) of Amendment 75ZAA. This amendment would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to set appropriate fees for applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Planning Inspectorate’s fees are currently set out in regulations, which include provision for day-rate charges that depend on the make-up of the examining authority. There is a smaller charge for cases where a single inspector is the examining authority and larger charges for panels of inspectors. These fees are intended to cover the work of the Planning Inspectorate, which supports the examination, including staff working in case management, case administration, environmental services, legal services and other relevant costs of the inspectorate, including those incurred during the recommendation stage, for which no separate fee is charged. This amendment would narrow the ability of the Secretary of State to set appropriate fees to reflect the costs of the application. This would, in effect, mean that the taxpayer would have to further subsidise the service that the Planning Inspectorate provides for nationally significant infrastructure projects. I strongly support the “user pays” principle in relation to major infrastructure fees and see it as entirely appropriate that developers of nationally significant infrastructure pay a reasonable fee for their planning applications. I would not want to curtail the ability to charge reasonable fees.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed to the comments of my honourable friend the Planning Minister in the other place—specifically on the issue of fees. The Government recognise that some developers are questioning the current wording of the infrastructure fees regulations. The noble Lord asked whether the Planning Minister was on the case; knowing the Planning Minister as I do, I know that he is definitely on the case, has opened the case, and has investigated it fully. I can therefore update the noble Lord with the news that the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument later in the spring to make this position absolutely clear and remove any possible doubt.

[Lord Adonis]

It is not entirely clear to me what “this position” meant in what the noble Lord just said. What does it mean? Is it that the charges will now only be in respect of actual days devoted to the examination of the cases?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I mentioned earlier, we have already said that there are specific fees which are charged for specific projects, so if a single inspectorate is being asked to look at that, that will be clear in the fee structure. Similarly, if there is a bigger application where a range of inspectors are involved, that will also be transparent. I also highlighted the issue of the day rate, which I mentioned earlier in my speech. In effect, all we are doing is highlighting the issue of transparency, which was mentioned earlier. The statutory instrument will address that point: it will outline the Government’s policy clearly. Again, I refer the noble Lord to what I said earlier about day rates also being charged as part of this policy.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I seek further clarification on that. Will this statutory instrument clarify whether an inspector can charge two separate applicants for a day rate on the same day? Obviously, it is right that the applicants should pay the cost, but it would be wrong if two were paying the same costs on the same day for the same inspector. Let us hope that the statutory instrument would cover that as well, because I think that would be equitable.

16:00

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure that the noble Lord understands that I myself have yet to see the statutory instrument. I am sure that it will provide the clarity that he has requested. As it is published, it will be apparent to noble Lords, and I will take up the specific point that he has raised with my honourable friend.

The second part of Amendment 75ZAA addresses national policy statements. While I am afraid I will not be able to accept this amendment, I share noble Lords’ view that they are an important element of the nationally significant infrastructure regime. They provide the policy and decision-making frameworks for nationally significant infrastructure, giving certainty to developers by making clear the Government’s policy on different forms of infrastructure, helping to speed up the examination phase and guiding the decision-maker on the approach that should be taken on the main issues. Therefore, they remain central to the Government’s planning reforms, because they provide clarity of policy and predictability, as noble Lords have mentioned, for those wishing to invest in new infrastructure.

I assure noble Lords that there is no question of the Government moving away from their commitment to national policy statements as the bedrock of the nationally significant infrastructure regime. Thus far, the Government have designated the national policy statements on energy, ports, and waste water. We hope to designate the hazardous waste national policy statement in spring 2013.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, the Department for Transport has currently put on hold the roads and rail national policy statement to concentrate on other priorities, specifically the roads strategy, which will be published later in spring, and to support the work of the independent airports commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies. The Department for Communities and Local Government continues to work closely with colleagues in the Department for Transport to work towards roads and rail and aviation national policy statements in future.

I have been asked for a definition of “imminent”. I regret to say that my definition may not tie in with the noble Lord’s, and I hope that it is not envisaged in the way that he expressed. Nevertheless, I hope that I have underlined that the issue of national policy statements has been raised centrally. I am sure that our colleagues across government will follow the debate with keen interest.

The Government are also currently considering consultation responses on the question of whether to put in place a national policy statement or statements for proposed new business and commercial categories of development, and this is a subject we will come to later in the debate.

Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment, which would impose an obligation to publish all national policy statements by 31 March 2015 and to lay before Parliament, on or before 31 March 2014, a report explaining to Parliament what has been done and what will in future be done to comply with that requirement. The reasons are quite simple. I am sure that it is appreciated that much of this work taken forward cuts across the work of several departments, such as the Department for Transport on the transport strategy and the Davies commission on aviation, which is due to report in summer 2015. The aviation commission’s terms of reference make it clear that:

“As part of its final report in summer 2015, it should also provide materials, based on this detailed analysis, which will support the Government in preparing a national policy statement to accelerate the resolution of any future planning applications for major airports infrastructure”.

I understand the concerns raised about the potential impact of there not being a national policy statement in the meantime, but it is clear that the nationally significant infrastructure regime can operate effectively and quickly without the need for a national policy statement, as we have seen, for example, with the decision on the Ipswich rail chord.

I turn to the issues raised around pre-application oversight by the Planning Inspectorate—

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister. I thought that he might welcome a short rest during his very long speech, which is very interesting; he apologised for it, but it is no longer than our introductory speeches. Before we leave this subject of national policy statements, I also have an interest in the fracking debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked whether there would be a national policy statement on fracking. Dare we ask when this might come, if it does?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I also asked that question. First, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me a gulp of water to clear the throat somewhat. There are no current plans for an NPS on fracking. That is because it is very much at its early stages of development, it is not clear how or when it will happen, and some of the issues around commercial viability are unclear. However, again, the points that the noble Lord has made and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have been noted.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I recognise the problems that Ministers face on this, but they must realise that while DECC has restarted the exploration programme, attention is now totally focused on what may follow if the industry decides that commercial exploitation will become necessary. I beg Ministers to recognise that it is not too soon to start to think quite seriously as to what would go into that national planning statement. They will want to consult widely in advance, but it is not too soon to start now.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As ever, of course, I note with interest the comments made by my noble friend. These activities continue to be treated as kinds of oil and gas exploration, but he makes his point, as ever, based on his own experience of this field. I am sure that the points have been noted, and that we shall, as we look at other issues in this regard, return to this subject in the future.

I will now turn, with the permission of the Committee, to pre-application oversight by the Planning Inspectorate. Amendment 75ZA provides for the Planning Inspectorate to take on a more active oversight role during the pre-application phase of the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. The Planning Inspectorate already offers a pre-application service to developers and other interested bodies during the pre-application phase of a nationally significant infrastructure project application. This can include regular meetings with developers and other interested bodies to discuss the project; advice on specific questions and clarifications about policy and process; and support in understanding the pre-application consultation requirements.

As I have already said, the Government have consulted on our approach to expanding and improving the idea of the one-stop shop for major infrastructure, including proposals to streamline the current list of statutory consultees set out in regulations, to reduce consultation burdens and to make the pre-application phase of the infrastructure planning route more effective and efficient, which, as several noble Lords have highlighted, is the desire of many developers. This includes a proposal to establish new arrangements to improve co-ordination and communication between the Planning Inspectorate, applicants and other consenting bodies to make the overall consents process more efficient. The Government are now considering a range of views expressed as part of that consultation exercise.

In addition, my department has conducted a light-touch review of guidance for the major infrastructure planning regime earlier this year. Revised guidance published in January this year has been well received by developers, and we are confident that it will make it clear that consultation should be proportionate to the type and scale of the project being proposed. It should give developers the confidence and certainty they need during the pre-application phase.

I will now turn to waivers within the pre-application procedure. Subsection (4) raises similar issues and proposes to allow developers the option of obtaining a “waiver” of certain procedures in the major infrastructure regime, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State. I appreciate that the noble Lord has brought forward a more tightly drawn amendment in Amendment 75ZAA than the original proposition in Amendment 75. However, the amendment continues to capture a wide range of Planning Act 2008 requirements and would provide developers with an opportunity to seek waivers against many of the key elements of the major infrastructure planning process. This would potentially undermine the certainty and transparency of the regime. It is also not clear exactly what parts of the nationally significant infrastructure regime developers would want to see a waiver used for. As was indicated by my noble friend, while we remain in listening mode, thus far we have seen only limited evidence of a problem in this area.

As I have already highlighted, the Government are pressing ahead with a number of important changes to reduce bureaucracy and ensure that the major infrastructure regime is as efficient as possible, including work on the one-stop shop and the revised guidance on pre-application to make the major infrastructure process more user friendly. I therefore argue that this amendment is unnecessary.

The final amendment in this group relates to the use of rail and water transport for the movement of construction goods. I share the noble Lords’ commitment to ensuring that all sustainable modes of transport are maximized in major infrastructure developments and to encouraging better and more efficient transport of our goods and services, including construction materials, on transport services such as rail and shipping. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, also referred to this issue.

The Government are clear that sustainable transport is a crucial part of our vision for sustainable, long-term economic growth. Nationally significant infrastructure projects will almost always be subject to the requirements of the environmental impact assessment directive, which requires developers to prepare an environmental statement. One of the things that is expected in an environmental statement is a transport assessment setting out how the transport impacts of a development will be managed and any environmental impacts mitigated. The noble Lords’ amendment would therefore potentially duplicate requirements already in place.

In addition, decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects must be taken in accordance with national policy statements, where they exist. Other policy statements, such as the national planning policy framework or other government policy guidance, would be likely to be important and relevant considerations that the Secretary of State would also need to take into account in relation to a decision on a nationally significant infrastructure project, so the Government’s commitment to sustainable transport policies is already very clearly built into the framework for decision-making on nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The ports national policy statement, for example, sets out that applicants should carry out a transport assessment as part of their environmental statement and that,

“rail and coastal or inland shipping should be encouraged over road transport, where cost-effective”.

The national planning policy framework also makes clear:

“Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion”,

and is clear that plans and decisions should ensure that developments’,

“use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised”,

including for the efficient delivery of goods and supplies.

The Government’s policy guidance on strategic rail freight interchanges also sets out the benefits of transporting goods by rail, including reducing road congestion, reducing carbon emissions and supporting growth and creating employment. I argue, therefore, that this amendment is unnecessary and that the framework of national policy statements, the national planning policy framework and other government policy guidance make clear that the expectation is on developers to identify the most sustainable form of transport available.

A wide range of issues have been covered but I hope that with that rather detailed response I have at least given sufficient assurances for the noble Lord to deem it appropriate to withdraw his amendment.

16:15

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the marathon that he has run with such fortitude. I hope that I may return to the fees charged by PINS. Having reflected on what the noble Lord said, I think that he made a dramatic statement which did not contain a great policy shift. I understood the Minister to say that the order which will be prepared later this year will be transparent about the number of inspectors—I stress, the number of inspectors—who are engaged in examining a DCO application. I understand that there is not much difficulty in finding this out and that developers are well aware of the number of inspectors in respect of their application. The issue is not the number of inspectors, it is the number of days on which they are engaged on the application, which they are able to charge for. That is a distinctly different point. If the order simply requires transparency on the number of inspectors, there will be no effective change from the status quo. The essential issue is whether developers and applicants are being charged excessively for the work being undertaken by the inspectorate.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lord again for his question. The content of the statutory instrument is currently being looked at, and I do not want to pre-empt the detail of it. I refer the noble Lord back to my earlier point: Planning Inspectorate fees are currently set out in regulations which include provision for day-rate charges which depend on the make up of the examining authority—that was the point I was making—but there is something within them specific to day rates. Current practice and policy are not expected to change. There have been concerns about clarity and transparency, and they will be addressed by the statutory instrument.

[Lord Adonis]

The longer the noble Lord speaks, the more opaque it becomes as to what the actual change will be, if, indeed there will be any change whatever in the statutory instrument he refers to. If it simply re-expresses the status quo, what is the purpose of producing it in the first place? Will there be a change of practice on the part of the Planning Inspectorate? The noble Lord’s briefing may not enable him to answer that question now, but perhaps he could write to noble Lords after Committee.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I can assure the noble Lord that there is a statutory instrument due in this respect. I take his point about greater clarity, but my understanding is that the current policy position is not expected to change. The current fees regulations include day-rate charges.

[Lord Adonis]

Will the noble Lord write to us, between Committee and Report, so that noble Lords properly understand what is being proposed and have the opportunity to work out whether we need to return to this matter on Report? Given the feeling in the Committee, we may well return to this matter unless there is some movement.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We shall write to all noble Lords concerned.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this very long debate. Perhaps we should, in future, reflect whether amendments should be cut into bite-sized pieces to make it easier.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Snape who reminded me about Crossrail which I had, of course, forgotten. The Minister was right that there was lots of regulation about environmentally friendly transport on that particular issue. However, I do not see why something the size of the Thames Tideway tunnel, which claims to be complying with all the latest regulations, can be using road transport for all the spoil when there is a river there. We can explore that in the future. With so many different issues having been discussed and responded to, I will need to read the Minister’s response, for which I am very grateful, very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

Amendment 73

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

73: Clause 21, page 22, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 58 (certifying compliance with section 56), subsections (3) to (7) are repealed.”

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I tabled this probing amendment following discussions with the Compulsory Purchase Association. It sits as a singleton and does not relate to the amendments I moved previously in connection with compulsory purchase. I hope I can be brief and that it will be recognised as an attempt to free up the processes and will have general support as it actually removes something from the statute book rather than adding something.

The background to the amendment relates to the certification process when the infrastructure planning commission has accepted an application for an order granting development. Noble Lords will doubtless know of the procedure. Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that notice is to be given to persons of a particular category and in the form prescribed. Section 58 then deals with compliance with that general provision and, in particular, states at subsection (3):

“A person commits an offence if the person issues a certificate which … purports to be a certificate under subsection (2), and … contains a statement which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular”.

It relates to “knowingly” doing something that is offensive. Subsection (4) states:

“A person commits an offence if the person recklessly issues a certificate which … purports to be certificate under subsection (2), and … contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular”.

I have bit of a philosophical battle regarding the difference between the use of “knowingly” and “recklessly” in other matters. I should mention that “recklessly” is always a materially reduced standard of proof; however, the practicalities of this in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects are, of their very nature, complex and involve large numbers of interested persons. All such projects are listed in the 2008 Act, many of them under various headings. The very idea of attaching a criminal offence to something of that degree of complexity borders on the absurd.

My amendment seeks to remove subsections (3) to (7), which contain the provisions for this sanction. The Committee may feel that that is going a little too far and I am quite happy to hear from the Minister that that might be the case. However, while an infrastructure provider on a large and complex scheme, which perhaps covers a substantial geographical area and a lot of different interests, may be expected, not unreasonably, to use its best endeavours to notify to all interested parties, having a criminal sanction is going a step too far. The Compulsory Purchase Association certainly feels that the provision is an impediment and stands in the way of getting these things done in a timely manner, while everyone carries out their due diligence in order to try to make sure that there is nothing lurking there which, unbeknown to them, could give rise to this criminal sanction.

My argument pivots on the term “recklessly”, which indicates that the circumstances in which there might be some element of risk are known but that someone somewhere thinks that you have not done enough to take account of those risks. The standards of proof are not as robust in terms of a convicting authority as they would be otherwise. The amendment removes risk and possible abuse in the setting in place of various bear traps, tripwires and anything else that people might want. The amendment will shorten timescales and remove a sanction that ultimately is unnecessary. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has made a number of important points about the operation of the major infrastructure planning regime. Of course I share his concerns to ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy and, indeed, all such administrative burdens are removed wherever possible from the planning system.

Sections 56 and 57 of the Planning Act provide that an applicant for development must notify certain persons of an application for development consent, such as local authorities, environmental bodies or people with interests in land. This is a crucial part of the pre-examination phase of a nationally significant infrastructure project as it ensures that those bodies and individuals with an interest in the project are made aware of and are able to engage in the development consent order process. This is, of course, crucial for an effective, transparent and efficient examination process.

Section 58, to which this amendment pertains, provides that the applicant must certify that he has complied with these requirements. The noble Earl raised several concerns and, indeed, if an applicant issues a certificate containing false or misleading information, he may be guilty of an offence and liable for a fine. The Government consider that this position is appropriate given the nature of a nationally significant infrastructure project, being on such a scale and having considerable effects, both positive and negative, on not only the local area and local people but also on national and international infrastructure networks. It is vital that applicants comply with the notification and consultation requirements placed upon them so that interested people, organisations and authorities can exercise their right to be involved in the examination of the project. Since the onus is on the applicant to ensure that parties are informed that an application has been accepted, it is right that the Government have some sanctions at their disposal if it fails to comply.

However, the Government remain committed to listening to and addressing any future concerns raised about unnecessary bureaucracy or, indeed, barriers to growth. The Government are happy to discuss any further evidence of this particular provision which is cause for concern. Based on those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply. It is a little bit of a disappointment. I simply make the point that, given the provisions for publicity that are also embedded in the 2008 Act, it is scarcely appropriate to have on top of that a criminal sanction. However, he very kindly offers the opportunity to discuss it. In fact, the Compulsory Purchase Association and I already have an appointment with to discuss matters with the department. Although it forms a separate matter from that particular body, I think it is entirely appropriate to leave it to that. While I may return to this at some later stage in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

Amendment 74 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 75 to 75ZAA not moved.

Clause 21 agreed.

House resumed.

Banking Reform

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:29

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government have today laid before the House the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, and their response to the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards that was published on 21 December last year, following the commission’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I thank and pay tribute to the members of both the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The two commissions, whose membership comprises some of the most distinguished policymakers and formidable intellects in the world, have between them shaped a set of reforms to British banking that will lead the world and set an example to other countries in the seriousness, radicalism and meticulousness of the changes that are proposed. The Bill that is published today reflects their painstaking work, and the Government have accepted almost all their recommendations.

The reforms address what the Chancellor has called the British dilemma: how Britain can be a leading global financial centre, with more than its share of international trade in financial services, while at the same time not exposing the ordinary working people of this country to the catastrophic risks of banks failing. These reforms were, and are, necessary. The previous regime was tested and failed. UK taxpayers had to bail out the banks with £65 billion of the hard-earned money of ordinary working people, while those who had taken a one-way bet with their money slunk away, losing nothing more than their job—and sometimes not even that.

The anger that the country feels about what happened must be channelled into change, to reset Britain’s banking system. The objective of the Bill proposed by Vickers and endorsed by the commission is that any failure of any bank in future should not impose a cost on the taxpayer, and not interrupt for a second vital banking services. That is a high ambition, but one that is appropriate for a country with a reputation for financial stability and confidence that has for centuries been one of Britain’s chief assets in the world.

As is well known, the Bill will erect a ring-fence around the core operations of banks headquartered and regulated in the UK. Within that ring-fence, banks must be completely insulated from activities such as using depositors’ funds to speculate for the banks’ own benefit in capital markets. In the event of failure, depositors will be given preference in liquidation. As a result of the commission’s recommendations, the Government are making a number of further changes to the Bill. First, in the honourable Member for Chichester’s acute phrase, which will permanently enter the lexicon of banking, the ring-fence will be electrified. The regulator will be given the power to order the full separation of any bank that attempts to undermine the ring-fence. The directors of the banks will be personally responsible for ensuring that their banks comply with the ring-fencing rules, and the Prudential Regulation Authority will conduct an annual review of the operation and adequacy of the ring-fence rules.

Secondly, there are explicit provisions in the Bill for the principal aspects of ring-fencing, including that there should be separate boards of directors, remuneration arrangements and human resource management, for ring-fenced banks. Thirdly, the Bill gives us an opportunity to make an historic change in the competitive environment of UK banking. Competition is essential to ensure that customers benefit from innovation, extracting customer service and efficiency from their banks. That has not always been the experience of customers in the past. As well as bringing in a seven-day automatic account-switching service from September this year, the Government will take steps to tackle the cosy arrangement whereby the biggest banks determine how payment systems will be run. Why should it be necessary in 2013 for a cheque to take six days to clear, with banks and not customers scooping up the interest on balances during this delay? Why should a new bank have to beg an incumbent bank for permission to use the payments system? We will require access arrangements to payments systems that are fair, reasonable and transparent. The commission has, rightly, emphasised the importance of competition. I am grateful to it for propelling this drive further, as I am to my honourable friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, for whom greater competition in banking has been a personal crusade.

The fourth change is that more parliamentary scrutiny will be built into the secondary legislation that implements this high-level Bill. Drafts of the principal statutory instruments to be made will be available to the House before Second Reading. The Government accept the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the type of scrutiny each should receive.

These are historic reforms, but they are appropriate for our country, and for an industry in which, directly and indirectly, 2 million people work. It is our biggest export earner and contributes £1 in every £8 of our tax revenue. We should take the steps necessary to restore confidence in and to an industry in which it has fallen so far. There is much scrutiny of the Bill before us, both here and in the other place. I look forward very much to our discussions in the weeks and months ahead.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the response to the Urgent Question but I am appalled that this issue is being tackled as an Urgent Question. It means that this House has merely 10 minutes to consider the matter. Surely on this issue—the most significant piece of legislation that will go before the two Houses relating to an industry that has been at the centre of the greatest crisis in many years—there should have been a Statement in the other place. Why was it a junior Treasury Minister who made the Statement and not the Chancellor?

This is indicative that the Government would like to water things down. They have done that from the beginning. When the Vickers commission reported, the Government’s first reaction was to set about watering down its recommendations, by allowing, for instance, the reduction of the advised leverage ratio. When the Joint Committee of the two Houses proposed to electrify the ring-fence, the Government’s first reaction was to refuse to commit to it. As we see today, they have significant reservations about it. They have produced only a partial climbdown.

Does the Minister agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who is in her place? I apologise if am pre-empting what she might say but I will have no other opportunity in this debate. She is the economics spokesperson for the Minister’s party. She believes that attempting to limit the procedure to individual banks will effectively tie up the sanction in years of complex litigation. That is why we endorse her viewpoint; it is ours, too, that this should be legislation. The back-stop power should apply to all banks.

Is it not vital that the Government make up their mind shortly and include a reserve power in this Bill for full separation of retail and investment banking, in case ring-fencing does not work,? That is what the Opposition have asked for. I believe that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is asking for. It is certainly what the parliamentary commission indicated in its report and I fail to see why the Government are not more responsive in an area that they must know causes the greatest anxiety to the British people. The Government must look closely at this, and be determined, clear and effective, and not wishy-washy.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I smile with amusement when the noble Lord accuses the Government of not taking this issue seriously. When his party was in his power, and we and I suggested to it and him that they do exactly that, we were told that it was irrelevant to the problems that we were facing and that we should definitely not do it. I will certainly not take any lessons from him about the importance of this issue.

As for whether the legislation should include reserve powers to implement full separation across the sector, this was put to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said that he did not want such reserve powers. More importantly, general reserve powers would give huge power outwith Parliament to tear up the provisions of the Bill as we envisage it, and fundamentally change some of the ways that we see it working. The Government think that if you got to the point where that was a possibility, or you wanted those powers, the appropriate way to do it would be to come back to Parliament, rather than leaving it to the regulator to exercise what would be very sweeping powers indeed.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I will not repeat the question on reserve powers. I have a feeling that this House will take it on if the Government do not.

May I ask a question about the competition aspects of the Chancellor’s speech? His comments were welcome but to be able to change from one bank to another when all those banks are essentially alike is not real choice. Will the Government look seriously at splitting up some of the major banks, especially those in which we have ownership? I have not read the Statement but can he comment on whether Chancellor or the legislation will allow the FPC to set the level of the leverage back-stop so that it could be higher than the rather modest levels proposed under Basel III?

[Lord Newby]

On the second point, the Government’s view is that, as a general rule, we support the level proposed by Basel III and do not want the UK to be out of line with what is happening elsewhere in the global banking community. As my noble friend knows, the Government and I completely share her views about the importance of competition. As a first step, it is very important that we see rapid progress when it comes to those branches that, for example, RBS is supposed to be divesting itself of but which so far have not been divested. That is one step towards the greater competition that she seeks.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

Many of these big banks took over our friendly societies, which were excellent self-help groups and were able to ensure that young couples got a mortgage. In fact, the friendly- society legislation governed the trade union movement at one time. Will the Government look at the restoration of the friendly societies, which were gobbled up by these banks? There are far too many young couples out there who have to rent property when, like the rest of us, they would rather be in an owner-occupier situation.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government share the noble Lord’s support for the mutual sector. It is interesting that, over the past couple of years, the mutual sector has been doing very well: Nationwide and the Co-op have been growing rapidly, which we very much welcome. We also welcome some of the specific decisions that have been taken by banks such as Nationwide, under which people who want a mortgage will get preferential treatment if they have had an account with that mutual for some time before they asked for it. That situation was commonplace a generation ago.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, some aspects of this answer are certainly welcome, not least in respect of speeding up the clearing of cheques and so on. However, can my noble friend be a little clearer on precisely what the situation is? Are the Government coming down in favour of a ring-fenced arrangement, which will be electrified? If so, is it not important that we electrify the loopholes as well as the ring-fence? Can he make it clear, if the system really is effective, how the position of a bank operating under it will be any different from having a split between the two sides of the bank?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, on the first question, as to whether we are having full ring-fencing and whether we are electrifying the loopholes, I think, to take the analogy on, that if you have a proper, electrified ring-fence, there are no loopholes. First, the aim of the electrified ring-fence is to set up a very robust system. Secondly, the electrification not only allows the bank that has transgressed to be dealt with but will act as a very severe deterrent to prevent banks transgressing in the first place.

There is a rather long technical answer to his second question, which I am happy to give, but I suspect, given the time, that I will have to do it on another occasion.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

00:00

Amendment 75ZAB

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

75ZAB: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning Act 2008: further reform of highways
For section 144(3) of the Planning Act 2008 (provisions of development consent orders for highway projects) substitute—“(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to an order granting development consent which imposes charges in respect of the keeping or use of motor vehicles on roads by the application of Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 or Part III of the Transport Act 2000, in full or in part and with or without modifications.””

[Lord Berkeley]

Amendment 75ZAB stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. This amendment comes out of a fairly recent discovery about some new roads that have received permissions under development consent orders. If the developer wishes to put a charge or toll on them then, for some reason, it has to be a fixed-toll plaza, with lots of toll booths and the old fashioned things that one sees on motorways in France, on the M6 toll, and the Dartford crossing. It seems rather odd that a developer who seeks planning permission to build a toll road needs to be told as part of getting consent that if he is going to put a toll or a charge on it then it has to be a fixed-toll point. It seems to me that that has very little to do with planning—except for the planning permission of the site—and that the method of tolling should come out of a policy from the Department for Transport. I have had a useful meeting with officials on it.

It makes me recall the debate that we have in your Lordships’ House every now and then when the American embassy refuses to pay the congestion charge because it says it is a tax. One or two other embassies do the same thing. We all get a bit upset about that and the Foreign Office tries to make the embassies pay. It is an argument, but what is a toll, what is a charge and what is a tax? It is basically something you pay for going into a tunnel or across a bridge or up a road.

I have put down the amendment because I strongly believe that the Department for Transport should now have a policy on tolling. I do not mean which roads should be tolled and which ones should not be because that is a separate issue. We have the London congestion charge, we have tolls for the Dartford tunnel and for the Birmingham northern relief road, and we have lorry road-user charging coming in. The lorry road-user charging is going to be time-based rather than distance-based, which is odd. Nobody else in Europe is going time-based but that is probably why we are. Worse still, if these all move forward, you are going to have to have separate equipment in your car or lorry for each area, road, tunnel or bridge that you wish to use because I suspect that more and more of the crossings that now have toll booths will wish to convert to taking money while you are on the move because it is so much easier and cheaper and, of course, it is quicker for the person paying.

Cheapness comes into it. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong but the cost of collection of the congestion charge in London is something like 30% of the amount you pay. With some of the modern electronic systems used in other cities and some motorways on the continent, you are getting down to about 5%, which means that the developer keeps more of his money. One hopes that one day the Department for Transport, maybe in its new roads policy which we were told about earlier in the Committee stage, will come up with a policy on tolling. That should include one system for the whole country—one technical system—that you can have in your car. That means a common technology and it would be much better if it was common throughout Europe. Then it would be up to the developers, the Government or whoever to decide what rate should be charged for using whatever facility you need. We want to get away from the idea that if you are getting consent for a particular crossing or something with a development consent order, it has to specify the type of toll booth, which seems to be a rather retrograde step. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Valentine]

My Lords, Amendment 75ZAB stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I declare that I am chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation.

The demands on our roads are growing. In major urban centres such as London, there are severe physical limits to building more capacity, and congestion is a serious problem. I believe that road charging will be an important part of that solution as we seek to manage our resources more efficiently. A more sophisticated charging scheme will need to deliver reduced and more certain journey times. As the noble Lord mentioned, London is ahead of the pack: it already has a congestion charging zone, which is now widely accepted, including by all political parties.

This amendment would enable Transport for London to develop intelligent, barrier-free charging systems for new or existing roads or river crossings in response to the growing demand for road space. This is more than an academic point. Transport for London is currently consulting on a new tolled river crossing at Silvertown in east London. There is a real dearth of river crossings on the east side of London, in contrast to the west, and a new crossing here would help relieve the Blackwall tunnel and would support new jobs and growth in east London.

[Lord Berkeley]

Can the noble Baroness confirm that this should apply—and the amendment does apply—well outside London? There is a plan for a new road or motorway linking Felixstowe to Birmingham—of course, I would rather it was a railway, but that is irrelevant—and there is talk of it being tolled. There are lots of other plans for tolled motorways in the offing, so am I right in thinking it would be a national system?

[Baroness Valentine]

Yes, indeed, it would be a national system.

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, I support my noble friend and the noble Baroness in this amendment. It is something that I personally feel strongly about. I live near Birmingham in the West Midlands and I use the tolled section of the motorway quite frequently on my journeys north. It is a very convenient way of missing the congestion that can be found around spaghetti junction and the Ray Hall viaduct, the elevated section of the M6—until one reaches the toll booths, where we have this medieval concept of queuing to pay, the sort of thing one did with a horse and cart centuries ago. Invariably, I find myself behind someone who has got in the wrong lane, or someone who does not have the right money or cannot find their credit card, and a lot of the time saved by using the toll road is lost as one queues to get through this barrier. Surely there has to be a better way.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said, in this day and age it should surely be possible to have a more modern system of collecting revenue for toll roads. It is 25 years since I first went to Singapore. The authorities there managed to collect congestion charges electronically three decades ago in a way that is apparently beyond us on the Midlands motorway. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.

Perhaps I may test the patience of the Committee for two or three more minutes while I am on this hobby-horse of the Midlands motorway. At the moment it is comparatively lorry-free because the private owners—I understand that Macquarie, the Australian company, is the main shareholder in the Midlands motorway—deliberately, as a matter of policy, price off heavy goods vehicles. Those heavy goods vehicles then use the existing M6 over the elevated section at the Ray Hall viaduct and past spaghetti junction—a section of the M6 that is regularly and expensively under repair because of those very same heavy goods vehicles which, whatever the very effective road lobby says, do not pay their true track costs and do enormous damage.

Thanks to the generosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister in the 1980s, Macquarie was given the concession to run the Midlands motorway in perpetuity, and can charge what it likes. The last thing it wants is a non-stop procession of heavy goods vehicles, because that damages its motorway. It is no accident that the bit of motorway infrastructure regularly under repair anywhere in the country is the left-hand lane, because that is the one used by heavy goods vehicles. It is a nonsensical situation in which the British taxpayer has paid literally hundreds of millions of pounds. I know the Ray Hall viaduct quite well; it was in my former constituency of West Bromwich East. When the former Prime Minister John Major talked about the cones hotline he had the Ray Hall viaduct and the spaghetti junction interchange in mind. Miles of it are regularly coned off because of the damage done by heavy goods vehicles, which use that section of the M6 because they are deliberately priced off the Midlands motorway.

There are two matters here that I hope the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will address. The first is the nonsensical and medieval concept of stopping to pay a toll, having used a road on which I must confess to breaking the speed limit occasionally myself. I have rarely if ever seen a police vehicle on that privately-owned section of motorway, although having said that I have no doubt I can expect to see one in the very near future. The taxpayer had to pay literally hundreds of millions of pounds because of the pricing policy on that section of toll road, which keeps off heavy goods vehicles. Both of those matters are complete nonsense. No one blames the Minister personally, but can he do anything about it?

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I wish my noble friend Lord Snape well in his quest to abolish all medieval practices in this country. I would simply point out that your Lordships may be the first victims of such a policy, so I hope he does not progress too fast.

[Lord Snape]

If my noble friend will allow me to say so, at least some of us in this House have occasionally sought election.

[Lord Adonis]

Of course, in medieval times exit was not a permitted right. The issue here is a very simple and straightforward one, on which I hope the noble Lord can give the Committee comfort. It is as simple as whether it is possible to have a tolling regime without having to have toll booths. The reason the issue has come to the fore is the Silvertown tunnel proposal. TfL, quite rightly, does not want to have toll booths, but the legal position is unclear. TfL tells me the issue is whether the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 or the Greater London Authority Act is the relevant legal basis for tolling. If it is the one, then there is not a need for booths; if it is the other, then there might be. I think we all agree on what the public policy objective is here; we simply need the Government to give us comfort that it can be achieved.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this amendment and for raising this issue in the House. Of course, it is always a pleasure to listen to noble Lords when they get on their hobby-horses. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will be here on Thursday afternoon to discuss the HGV Road User Levy Bill that I will propose to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, makes a persuasive case in favour of amending Section 144(3) of the Planning Act 2008 in order to provide greater flexibility for developers wishing to include road charging provisions within the development consent order and to remove unnecessary additional processes and restrictions from the major infrastructure regime. While I cannot comment on the detail of individual cases, I share his commitment to ensuring the delivery of the crucial infrastructure that this country needs to support vital growth and jobs. I also agree with him that it is important that we take the opportunity to ensure that the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 are fit for purpose and are not inadvertently acting as a barrier to growth. This is therefore an area where I am able to consider further the case for an amendment to Section 144(3) of the Planning Act 2008.

On the noble Lord’s point about charges against diplomatic organisations, he will be aware that this is a long-running issue that we have debated many times. The Government pursue these charges vigorously with the organisations concerned. The noble Lord touched on the charging of road users, and of course on Thursday we will debate the HGV Road User Levy Bill, which partially addresses some of these problems.

I am happy to meet all noble Lords to discuss some of the wider issues relating to charging for roads. However, noble Lords will be well aware of the Government’s policy on wider road-user charging. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment and perhaps return to it on Report.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am very grateful to the Minister for what I felt was a positive response. I did not really need much on the poor old Foreign Office’s attempt to get the Americans to pay for parking their cars here, but, on the subject of the amendment, it was good to hear that he understands the problem. I look forward to sitting down with him between now and Report and possibly encouraging the Government to come back with their own amendment, which I am sure will be much better than the one that we have drafted. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75ZAB withdrawn.

17:00

Clause 22 : Special parliamentary procedure in cases under the Planning Act 2008

Amendment 75A

Moved by

[Lord Greenway]

75A: Clause 22, page 22, line 39, leave out “Sections 128 and 129” and insert “In section 128”

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 75B, 77ZA, 77ZB and 77ZC. The amendments are to do with safeguarding port land.

Amendments 75A and 75B to Clause 22 are intended to preserve the possibility of special parliamentary procedure in relation to compulsory acquisition of land of certain types of transport statutory undertakers. Clause 22 relates to Section 128 of the Planning Act 2008, which provides for development consent orders authorising the compulsory acquisition of land of local authorities and statutory undertakers to be subject to special parliamentary procedure. As currently drafted, Clause 22 would repeal the whole of Section 128. The amendments would instead remove the reference to local authorities and the general reference to statutory undertakers in that section and restrict its application to land of harbour and railway undertakers. These are providers of infrastructure for public benefit, and it is important that land required for these purposes should continue to enjoy the additional level of protection which this procedure confers. Since Section 128 is not to be repealed in its entirety, Section 129 of the Planning Act, which relates to the operation of Section 128, will continue to need to apply. Amendment 75A would also remove its repeal.

Amendment 77ZA would delete subsection (4) of Clause 22, which repeals provisions which also relate to Sections 128 and 129 of the Planning Act. The proposal that these provisions remain makes repeal unnecessary.

Amendments 77ZB and 77ZC follow on from the previous amendments. Clause 23 modifies and limits the scope of special parliamentary procedure in relation to compulsory acquisition of land in certain cases where the Bill is not removing the process altogether; that is, in cases where special parliamentary procedure is triggered under what the Bill describes as a “special-acquisition provision”. It is accepted that if special parliamentary procedure is still to apply under Section 128 of the Planning Act in relation to land of transport undertakers, it should be subject to the same limitations. These amendments would include Section 128 in the definition of special-acquisition provision. This means that the modifications to the procedures would apply to any case in which special parliamentary procedure was triggered by Section 128.

These are in the way of probing amendments. I am seeking assurance that the Government realise the importance of safeguarding port land. If the Minister can give me reassurance on this, and says that the amendments are unnecessary and that the Government are content with the status quo, I will be happy with that. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—for taking the time to see me with their officials last Thursday to talk about the amendments I have tabled to Clause 23 in the next group and also about my objections to the inclusion of Clause 22 in the Bill.

Your Lordships may recall that I spoke about special parliamentary procedure—SPP—at Second Reading. That was based on my experience of serving on the Rookery South Joint Committee. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used then, other than to repeat the point that SPP has been triggered very rarely—only three times since 1990. While the eventual majority decisions of the Rookery South Joint Committee were not ones I supported—both the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I felt that the promoters of the resource recovery facility had a case to answer in terms of demonstrating the need for such a large project—I believe that the public interest was served in our deliberating in a Joint Committee. Had this Bill been an Act last year, with Clauses 22 and 23 contained within it, the Rookery South Joint Committee would not have taken place.

Since Second Reading, I have been sent two pieces of briefing on why Clause 22 should be removed from the Bill. The first relates to a battle against road-builders in High Wycombe in 1965. The redoubtable Kate Ashbrook, general-secretary of the Open Spaces Society, has described what happened on her blog, from which I shall quote some extracts:

“Wycombe Rye is a stretch of public open space on the east side of High Wycombe, Bucks, extending alongside the River Wye … The rye is a treasured spot, 68 acres of land vested in Wycombe District Council and its predecessor body … since 1927 … Looking at it now you might think it had always been safe. Not so. In 1962 part of the land was threatened with a compulsory purchase order, to enable the inner-relief road to be built across it”.

That road had been approved following a public inquiry. She goes on:

“There was a further inquiry into the appropriation of 2.4 acres of open space, but on the inspector’s recommendation, the minister”—

of the day—

“confirmed the appropriation order, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, on 5 February 1965. Fortunately no land was offered in exchange, so the order was subject to special parliamentary procedure … That meant that objectors could petition parliament and present their case to a joint committee of both houses ... Magnificently, the committee ruled that the orders be annulled. The rye has remained intact to this day, saved by legislation which gives parliament the final say on the theft of open space where no suitable alternative is provided”.

However, that protection will disappear if Clause 22 remains in the Bill because,

“instead of such cases being referred to a parliamentary committee, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government himself can decide the fate of open space. In future, when compulsory purchase of open space is proposed for development which the government thinks should go ahead quickly, and there is no suitable exchange land or that land is considered to be too expensive, the minister can cast aside SPP and rule that the development proceeds without regard to the open space”.

Powerful arguments in favour of retaining SPP have also come from the Inland Waterways Association, which makes the point that the Canal & River Trust, the body set up following the passage of the Public Bodies Act, holds the waterways it cares for in trust on behalf of the nation in perpetuity. If the CRT is threatened by a compulsory purchase proposal, it has at present the option to go down the SPP route. This, says the Inland Waterways Association, makes the authority threatening compulsory purchase treat the CRT with greater respect and encourages constructive discussion. It claims that if the Bill is passed, the CRT will lose the right to request an SPP. Will the Minister confirm whether it is right in that assertion? If it is, how does he explain the anomaly whereby the National Trust retains the right to call for an SPP on its own land but the Canal & River Trust is denied that? It appears to be the case that the Government are, by their amendment to Clause 22, strengthening the position of the National Trust but at the same time doing nothing to give protection to other bodies with heritage responsibilities. As the Inland Waterways Association puts it, how can the Minister justify the situation where the River Wey Navigation, which is owned by the National Trust and dates back to the 17th century is protected, but the River Lee Navigation, which is five centuries older, is not?

Finally, if Clauses 22 and 23 stay in the Bill, a decision, which was vested in Parliament, will now be taken by the Executive. I caution the Minister to take care in what he wishes for. One advantage from the Government’s point of view about SPP is that it cannot be subject to judicial review and does not apply to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, which can be challenged by JR and will take far longer to resolve than SPP. Certainly, if the Government are threatening open space, they should anticipate the possibility of numerous judicial reviews. I suggest that the Government should now drop Clause 22, take it back for further consideration and perhaps come forward with fresh suggestions on Report.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, Amendments 76 and 77 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and myself, and this perhaps is the moment when I should make my contribution to the debate. I read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, at Second Reading and his reference to Rookery South. I approach this issue from a rather different angle. If one looks at the history of that energy-from-waste project in Bedfordshire, the SPP—a post-consent process; planning consent had already been given—simply allows the objectors a further opportunity to object. A lot of people feel strongly about energy-from-waste projects.

The noble Lord says that that gives rise to parliamentary accountability. I have to say that until I had studied the briefs on these two clauses, I had been entirely unaware as a Member of Parliament of the activities of the noble Lord and some of his colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was mentioned. I know that my noble friend Lord Brabazon has been involved in similar SPP processes and has regarded them as very long and drawn out.

This Bill is about encouraging growth and investment in the infrastructure. It really cannot make sense to continue with these, as it were, statutory procedures for delaying decisions and action on applications for which consent has already been given after the normal processes. I have to confess to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that I have not studied closely the condition of the waterways, as he obviously has, or, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the ports.

These two amendments are concerned about, as am I, the application of the special parliamentary procedure for what is called common land,

“open space, fuel or field garden allotment”.

The Planning Act currently provides that a development consent order which authorises compulsory purchase of open space land or a right over such land will be subject to the SPP unless the Secretary of State has issued a certificate confirming that certain prescribed circumstances will apply. I have already said that this is a post-consent approval stage that certainly has the potential to result in—and in some of the cases, not least that of Rookery South to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has referred, has actually resulted in—very considerable delays for a project that had already achieved planning consent. The procedure can be very costly for the applicants—and, I dare say, for some of the objectors—and hold back the provision of infrastructure projects that support economic growth.

17:15

Clause 22—I welcome it and want to make it perfectly clear that I support it—widens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can issue a certificate confirming that a DCO which authorises the compulsory purchase of open space land or a right over such land will not be subject to SPP. However—and this is the point I wish to make to my noble friend on the Front Bench—there remains significant scope for a DCO which authorises the compulsory acquisition of open space land or a right over that land to be subject to SPP. I believe that the clause could go further and remove what could be a rather tiresome—and, from the economic point of view, obstructive—process, while still retaining a proper balance between the interests of promoters and the users of open spaces.

The amendments are aimed at limiting the scope of what is meant by “open space”. They do this by a very simple process. An open space, for the purposes of this clause—and I am not referring to some of the earlier clauses that we discussed—would be limited to land which has been formally designated as open space by the responsible local authority. All important pieces of open land are officially and formally designated by the local authority, but they cannot cover every single piece of open land. For instance, where there is a road junction in a village with a triangle of open land in the middle of it and somebody wants to improve the road system and would require some of it, in theory that could be open to the SPP because it would belong to the local authority. However, it would never have been designated as open land in that way. There are pieces of open land where boys are accustomed to go and kick a football around, but no local authority has ever thought it necessary for that to be formally designated. It just happens to be there; but why should an important road or other development be held up simply because there happens to be a procedure which is triggered by the fact that there is a compulsory purchase of open land?

My noble friend the Planning Minister in the other place, Nick Boles, got this absolutely right when he said:

“The Government believe there is a strong argument for the special parliamentary procedure to be limited to situations where there is a real need for further scrutiny by Parliament: for example, where there is a genuine need to weigh up the public interests of allowing infrastructure development to take place at the expense of the loss of certain types of very specially protected land”.—[Official Report, Commons, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 4/12/12; col. 401.]

At another point, he referred to these as essentially our “most precious” open spaces. I am not challenging that, but, of course, all the most precious open spaces fall under designations that are already very clear and would be covered by the SPP. I am talking about the informal bits of land—land that happens to be open land but which no local authority has ever thought it worth while to designate because it seemed to be so trivial—that can somehow trigger the right of the objectors to a particular piece of development to ask the Secretary of State for a special parliamentary procedure.

It is a narrow point, but if this clause is to be effective, as I hope my noble friends in government expect it to be, this modest improvement in the situation would help the Government’s intention. I hope that Ministers feel able to agree to that. What Mr Boles said on that occasion absolutely reflects what is right, and this amendment is necessary to give effect to that.

[Lord Adonis]

Noble Lords have different views about the precise scope of the special parliamentary procedure, which we have heard expressed in Committee, but it is important that the scope is consistently applied. It is therefore important that the Minister answers the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. Why does Clause 22(5) preserve the application of the SP procedure to proposed compulsory purchase acquisition of National Trust land, which is held inalienably, but not provide equivalent protection for land held in trust for the nation by the Canal & River Trust? Since the land is held for precisely the same purpose in both cases, why should the same legal procedure not apply to both?

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I support the amendments and the stand part debate proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and express some concern about the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

We are talking about open space. The law relating to open space is quite complex and is nothing like as simple as might be suggested. The problem is that a little bit of this particular Bill intervenes on the law on open space in one or two instances, potentially causing considerable confusion, not least about the definition of “open space”. In Clause 22 is set out the proposal that in some circumstances where it is proposed to develop on and remove open space—it does not refer to commons; the position on commons will remain the same—the special parliamentary procedure will not apply. Those circumstances are when,

“it is strongly in the public interest for the development for which the order grants consent to be capable of being begun sooner than is likely to be possible if the order were to be subject (to any extent) to special parliamentary procedure”.

It is an important bit to read out. The crucial words are,

“it is strongly in the public interest”.

That decision will have to be made by the Secretary of State, which is why what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said about the threat of a relatively large number of delaying judicial reviews is so crucial. What is and is not in the public interest is clearly debatable, and the question of whether the Secretary of State is making a reasonable judgment on what is in the public interest is clearly judicially reviewable. That is the constraint in here which means that it is poor legislation; it is vague and not very clear about what it means. It might mean different things in identical circumstances to different Secretaries of State.

There are other reasons why Clause 22 is undesirable. As the noble Lord said, there have been very few references to or uses of special parliamentary procedure. Once again in this Bill, the Government come forward wanting to do something without providing any clear evidence of why it is necessary. The first thing that the Minister has to try to do is to give us some evidence of why this is necessary in the real world, not of why, in some theoretical future, there might be a problem or two, but evidence that it has been a serious problem in the past. If it has been only in one or two cases, then that does not add up.

The other rather vague and, I believe, judicially reviewable phrase is “long-lived”. These new provisions apply to circumstances in which the removal of the open space is temporary but possibly long-lived. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what “long-lived” means. I suspect that she cannot tell us very precisely because, again, it is a matter of judgment, and it may lead to more delays than even a special parliamentary procedure.

Has the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoken to his amendments? He has not. I thought that perhaps I had been asleep and had missed him when the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, jumped in. I will speak to them, with his permission, and then he can tell me why I am wrong.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I apologise, but my noble friend may have been asleep at the point when I spoke quite heavily to the amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indeed spoke to the amendments, and his name is on them, so I am justified in speaking to them. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

At the moment, open space is generally defined as any land used for the purposes of public recreation. When it is threatened with compulsory purchase, the developer must provide suitable exchange land. If no land is provided, or if it is thought to be inadequate, then the special parliamentary procedure comes in. It is true that open space is often already designated by local authorities. It includes all the land designated in local plans as open space. However, it surely includes a great deal more than that.

At the moment the protection of Parliament is afforded to all land used for public recreation, formal or informal. For example, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would remove this protection from the many thousands of acres of countryside, apart from the commons, which were mapped for access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and which are now clearly designated as access land and, therefore, open space. They would also remove this protection from many hundreds of sites which people enjoy by custom for informal recreation.

Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, produce a new definition of open space, which is that it has to be designated by local authorities in addition to, and over and above, land designated in local plans. I do not know what this means. It would produce considerable new duties on local authorities to make sure that they looked again at all their open space and, inevitably, it would exclude quite a large amount of open space.

There is a suggestion that the Government now only want to protect the most precious spaces and very specially protected land, which the noble Lord referred to in his speech. However, that would be a very substantial restriction on existing definitions of open space. I am sure that, overall, that is not the Government’s wish, but if it were to be their wish, they should come forward and apply that to everything, not just to this particular provision.

The provisions have existed in their present form since the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 and were intended to protect land which is valued by people for recreation. I suggest that to introduce some kind of arbitrary distinction, which results from a new kind of designation by local authorities, is not the way forward. It would be vague and confusing, and to put out a new definition of open space just for this purpose would not be desirable at all. It would be a great confusion and would lead also to lots of judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the normal processes, but the normal processes in relation to open space are different from the normal planning processes. They are part of that but they are different.

Clause 22 already restricts the application of special parliamentary procedure to open space. It is something that I would rather did not happen. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, to restrict it even further, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants, would be a very substantial step backwards.

17:30

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, invited me to speak to my amendment, which was very kind of him. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, gave a very good description of it, which I do not need to repeat, but there are a couple of issues on which we ought to reflect. First, the special parliamentary procedure, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner described at Second Reading and again today, is to my mind a second attempt to oppose planning permission if you fail on the first occasion. Is that worth having and, if so, what exceptions or types of development should be included? There is also the question of the scope of the SPP. I believe that it can be very wide: for example, looking at a complete planning application again; or it could be narrowed to apply to just the particular issue that is under consideration.

I found a very interesting example of this recently on Humberside where the established port operator there, Associated British Ports, got into a bit of debate with a new company, which I think was trying to develop a port complex next door for offshore windmills or something or other. A railway line runs through the middle of the proposed development which the developer was trying to purchase so that he could install level crossings rather than having the cost of a bridge. The detail does not really matter but the issue comes back to the fact that if you are opposed to a proposed development, the SPP gives you a second round of attack, if you like, in putting your case. If you want it to go forward as quickly as possible, you will argue that the consent order process is perfectly valid and, if you do not like the outcome, I suppose that you can go for judicial review.

I also worry when my noble friend Lord Faulkner says that there have been only two or three of these cases in the past goodness knows how long, because once people discover that there is this rather arcane procedure, a lot of people might try to use it. That is not a reason for not having it but it is a reason for considering whether one needs it, the scope it should have and how long it should last. I have tabled my amendment in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to test the waters and probe. We have had a good debate and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for the amendments they have tabled, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Greenway, Lord Jenkin and Lord Berkeley, for setting out their proposed amendments to Clause 22. Questions have been raised about the Government’s position in putting forward Clause 22. It may be helpful if I first set out the issues that the Government are trying to address through this clause.

Clause 22 amends the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 which set out when special parliamentary procedure will apply to a development consent order which authorises the acquisition of specially protected land. It also repeals the separate certification process required in certain cases. The Planning Act 2008 brought together a range of different consent regimes for nationally significant infrastructure into a single development consent order. The overall aim of this regime is to provide a more efficient and quicker consenting regime for very large infrastructure projects. Development consent orders can include authorisation for the compulsory acquisition of land, but when certain categories of specially protected land are acquired, special parliamentary procedure can be triggered. The decision by the Secretary of State that such land is to be compulsorily acquired is then transferred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for confirmation. While the special parliamentary procedure is undertaken, the development consent cannot come into effect and work on the infrastructure project cannot start.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about the reasoning behind such measures. Delays to infrastructure projects can have a significant knock-on impact in delaying benefits to the local and, indeed, national economy. In the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred—the Rookery South project in which he was involved—the special parliamentary procedure was triggered for an infrastructure project under the Planning Act. The special parliamentary procedure added more than a year to the consent process. I understand that during this period no work was possible on the project, delaying the creation of up to 300 construction jobs and 80 permanent jobs that would have resulted when the project was up and running.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he any estimate of how long it would have taken if the decision had been taken by the Secretary of State and been subjected to judicial review, which was the alternative to the SPP?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That would be speculating but I will come to the specific issue of judicial review in a moment and perhaps address the question at that time.

In more general terms, there is also the strong argument that has been made about the threat of delay, for whatever reason, impacting on the confidence of investors and developers. We are, after all, looking at infrastructure which is supporting the economic growth of our country. In total, new infrastructure creates thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of new investment, as we all know. Consents for such infrastructure must be provided as quickly and efficiently as possible. We cannot afford to lose those jobs and investment because of delays in finalising consents.

The Government are committed to reform of the SPP and want to ensure that in future SPP is used only in cases where there is a genuine need for further scrutiny by Parliament of a particular ministerial decision. We therefore consider that SPP under the Planning Act should be limited to cases where there is a need for further scrutiny, as I have said. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin rightly said, it should be invoked where there is a real need for further scrutiny based on public interest and, indeed, a general need to weigh up competing public interests of allowing infrastructure development and the protection of certain types of specially protected land.

[Lord Greaves]

Does my noble friend agree that what is set out in the Bill is not a balanced view of the public interest, as he is suggesting, but a one-sided view of it? New subsection (4A)(d) states that,

“it is strongly in the public interest for the development for which the order grants consent to be capable of being begun sooner than is likely to be possible if the order were to be subject (to any extent) to special parliamentary procedure”.

If the new subsection referred to a balance of public interest in having a development as opposed to retaining a public open space, it would achieve what the Minister says that it does. However, that is not the case. It is a very one-sided consideration of the public interest.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention, but I do not agree with him on this point. We are not seeking to do away with the procedure altogether: we are ensuring that the procedure is still in place and can be invoked where there is a genuine public interest. This is not about sweeping the procedure away, although perhaps, on this occasion, we have different ways of looking at what is in front of us.

Clause 22 would repeal those sections of the Act that require special parliamentary procedure where land belonging to a local authority or land acquired by a statutory undertaker is compulsorily acquired. Repeal of these provisions would bring the Planning Act into line with other, similar consent regimes, such as the Transport and Works Act 1992.

The Planning Act 2008 already provides extensive opportunities for representations from local people, local authorities and statutory undertakers to be made about the compulsory acquisition of land. There are also comprehensive requirements for pre-application consultation. Examination of an application provides opportunities for parties to make representations as to whether the proposed acquisition of the land should proceed. These include hearings as part of a public examination. Persons whose land is acquired can require such a hearing to take place and, importantly, relevant representations will continue to be taken into account in the recommendations made to the Secretary of State and will inform his subsequent decision. I stress that the requirement, under Section 122 of the Planning Act, for there to be a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be compulsorily acquired, will also remain unchanged. This will be a crucial factor for the Secretary of State when reaching a decision on whether to authorise the compulsory acquisition.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, very clearly set out the effect of his amendment. It would mean that transport undertakings would still see the compulsory acquisition of land acquired by them for the purposes of their undertaking being subject to SPP, but the land of other statutory undertakers and local authorities would not be. I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the removal of statutory undertakers’ land from those types of land which can give rise to SPP. It would, however, be wrong to think that such land can be compulsorily acquired without any opportunity for statutory undertakers to present their case against the acquisition before the decision is made. There are ample opportunities to do so. I therefore hope that noble Lords will understand why the Government consider there to be no need for an additional level of scrutiny for such land through special parliamentary procedure.

I move on to the other provisions in Clause 22 and will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. These would amend the definition of an open space used for the purposes of considering whether such land would trigger special parliamentary procedure under the Planning Act. Clause 22 also amends the provisions in the Planning Act 2008 which cover the compulsory acquisition of commons, open space land and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments” or the compulsory acquisition of rights over those types of land. The Government have considered carefully the extent to which SPP should apply when open space is compulsorily acquired or a right over such land is acquired in respect of nationally significant infrastructure projects. At present, the main situation where the Secretary of State can decide that SPP should not apply is when replacement land is given in exchange for the land subject to the compulsory acquisition. However, the Government consider that there could be a very limited number of cases where such exchange land may not be available or, if it were available, would be available only at a prohibitive cost.

Clause 22 therefore proposes extending the circumstances, under the Planning Act 2008, in which the Secretary of State can decide that the compulsory acquisition of open space or rights over such land should not trigger SPP. The proposals would allow the Secretary of State to decide that SPP should not apply where open space is compulsorily acquired and suitable replacement land for the land being acquired is not available or available only at prohibitive cost. This would, however, apply only where it is demonstrated to be strongly in the public interest for the development to start sooner than is likely to be the case if it were subject to SPP. We expect that, in most cases, developers will continue to provide suitable replacement land to avoid the need for SPP. However, there may be limited occasions, such as in heavily urbanised areas, when such land is not available. Given the importance of infrastructure to growth, there may be cases where development should be able to proceed promptly without going through SPP.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his general support for government proposals in the Bill on infrastructure. Turning to his amendment, the current definition of open space, used in the Planning Act is,

“any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground”.

The noble Lord’s amendment would have the effect of amending the definition of open space for the purposes of triggering SPP under the Planning Act. Such a distinction does not reflect the rationale for open space being given special status in terms of compulsory acquisition. The need for additional scrutiny through SPP in cases involving open space derives from the public use of such land and the wider public interest in its continued availability for such use. Whether such land is designated for such purposes is immaterial in this context.

17:47

Before I conclude, I will say a few brief words about the government amendments and pick up on a couple of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The Government are not making any changes to circumstances where compulsory acquisition of National Trust land and common land triggers SPP. These types of land are nationally and historically significant. The government amendments to Clause 22 are minor and will ensure that this remains the case. In particular, where land acquired is held both inalienably by the trust and is also a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, SPP will continue to apply under the provisions in the Planning Act governing National Trust land, even where the Secretary of State has reached a view that it should not apply under the provisions covering commons, open space or a fuel or field garden allotment.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised the issue of the Canal and River Trust against the issues with the National Trust. The Government recognise the points he has raised. There is a special status attached to the National Trust because of the extent of the land it owns. Therefore, it occupies a special position, including its benefit in relation to SPP. That said, I hear what the noble Lord has said and it would be useful to arrange to sit down with him and the Canal and River Trust to establish exactly what the issues are and discuss the matter further.

Clause 23(10) is a minor and technical amendment that the Government are making to clarify the effect of subsection (10). As amended, this provides that Clause 23, like Clause 22, may apply to any development consent order under the Planning Act made after the clause has commenced. The amendment removes reference to other compulsory purchase orders as it is not our intention to apply the changes in Clause 23 to such orders where proceedings have started prior to commencement.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, also raised the issue of judicial review and asked a specific question about whether decisions taken which were not subject to SPP would be subject to judicial review, and whether this was the Government’s intention. Our current view is that the 2008 Act provides for judicial review of decisions on development consent orders and it is right that errors of law or procedural failures should be subject to challenge where necessary. We are not seeking to alter this, but it is important to note that judicial review will not happen in respect of every order authorising the acquisition of special land, and someone wishing to bring such a challenge would need the specific permission of the court to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made a point about safeguarding of lands and ports. The specific matter of safeguarding policy has been taken up with Ministers in the Department for Transport. I know that my honourable friend Stephen Hammond has written specifically on this letter. I am not sure whether he has seen that particular letter but we can perhaps bring it to his attention as well.

In conclusion, the proposals set out in Clause 22 will help ensure that essential infrastructure projects are not delayed by the need for the additional scrutiny required through SPP where this is not considered necessary. Notwithstanding the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves, we have struck a fair balance between the protection of certain types of land and the need for new infrastructure to support growth. I therefore hope that, in view of my explanations and the Government’s amendments to Clauses 22 and 23, other noble Lords will be minded to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have just two points. First, the Minister said that it was important in the national interest to get big infrastructure projects going. Clause 24, which we will discuss shortly, relates to business and commercial developments that may or may not be thought to be infrastructure, but which many people will think are not. This new provision for fewer special parliamentary procedures will apply to that clause also.

Secondly, when we were discussing Clause 1 some time ago, the Government were adamant that it was necessary to have such provisions in the legislation in order to make sure that planning authorities that they thought were not performing got up to speed and organised themselves. The Government said that they hoped that no planning authorities would ever come under these provisions, but they were nevertheless a necessary back-stop. However, if there is to be no back-stop of special parliamentary procedure in these cases, is it not the case that the incentive for developers to provide alternative land or open space when necessary will be less because they can simply apply to the Secretary of State, who can say, “No, you do not need to do so”? They can then do absolutely nothing about it. Surely the fact that there have been so few examples of special parliamentary procedure is because applicants for development consent have done their business and found appropriate alternative open space to replace any that they are using. The current system is working and there is a danger that there will be far less of this happening, simply because the back-stop SPP procedure will not exist.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, there has been a fairly wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, covering ports, canals, plots of land and so on. As far as I am concerned, I am grateful for what the Minister said about ports—in particular, for his latter remark concerning the letter from the Shipping Minister in another place, which I very much look forward to seeing. I will take on board what the noble Lord said and ruminate on whether to take this matter any further but, in the mean time, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75A withdrawn.

Amendments 75B to 77ZA not moved.

Amendments 77ZAA and 77ZAB

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

77ZAA: Clause 22, page 24, line 26, leave out “To ensure that” and insert “In”

77ZAB: Clause 22, page 24, line 28, leave out from “objections)” to end of line 35 and insert “after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) In a case to which this section applies and to which section 131 or 132 also applies, special parliamentary procedure—
(a) may be required by subsection (2) whether or not also required by section 131(3) or 132(2), and(b) may be required by section 131(3) or 132(2) whether or not also required by subsection (2).””

Amendments 77ZAA and 77ZAB agreed.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed.

Clause 23 : Modifications of special parliamentary procedure in certain cases

Amendments 77ZB and 77ZC not moved.

Amendment 77ZD

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

77ZD: Clause 23, page 25, leave out lines 8 to 26

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 77ZE and 77ZF. I have also given notice that I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. This is, in a sense, a continuation of our previous debate on Clause 22. Perhaps I may first respond to the Minister’s generous offer to convene a meeting with the Canal & River Trust. I am delighted to accept, as, I am sure, the trust will be; I look forward to the meeting.

I shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward regarding Clause 22 but seek simply to state that what the Government propose in Clause 23 goes further than what the two chairmen—the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place and our Chairman of Committees—recommended in their special report on the Rookery South order, when they considered the promoters’ challenges to the locus standi of the petitioners against the order. In paragraph 28 of their report, the two chairmen concluded:

“We urge the Government to amend either the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 or the Planning Act 2008—or both—so as to ensure a consistent statutory framework for the consideration of future Development Consent Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure. In drawing up revised provisions, the Government will need to consult with the relevant authorities of the two Houses. In the meantime, no further orders of this type should be laid before Parliament until the statutory framework has been amended to resolve these inconsistencies”.

In its proceedings on Rookery South, the Joint Committee decided at the outset that it wished to hear evidence on the whole of each of the petitioners’ cases. The amendments proposed by Clause 23 would have prevented the Joint Committee from doing so. It is likely in future cases, once Clause 23 is in force, that any attempt to petition on issues that are not related to the acquisition of the special land are likely to be challenged at the preliminary stage before the two chairmen.

Despite that, it remains to be seen whether petitioners will be able to raise issues that are not directly related to the acquisition of the land. It has always been a central tenet of compulsory acquisition law that the applicant for the powers must demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily—a point made with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the previous debate. Those words are embodied in Section 122(3) of the Planning Act. In order for a petitioner to demonstrate that there is no compelling case in the public interest, he should be able to bring evidence to bear about the benefits of the proposals as a whole, compared with the injury that he will suffer when losing his land.

As I said, Clause 23 goes further than the request made by the two chairmen, who limited their remarks to the 2008 Act. No issue has been raised as regards the compatibility between the Acquisition of Land Act 1981—and other statutes that authorise compulsory acquisition—and the 1945 Act; yet the clause seeks to limit the scope of SPP in the 1981 Act and the other examples in the same way as it does for 2008 Act cases. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why the Government have decided that this should be the case. My amendments would have the effect of limiting the changes proposed to the SPP procedure so that they apply only to development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I wish to put on record that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for explaining the reasoning behind his amendments. I have also noted his opposition to the Question that Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. In my response, it might be helpful if I set out the reasons behind the approach that the Government have taken, how Clause 23 delivers that and take up some of the noble Lord’s questions.

Clause 23 amends the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945. That Act sets out the procedural requirements for any order that is subject to special parliamentary procedure. Clause 23 ensures that where a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 is subject to SPP, consideration will be limited to the order only in so far as it authorises the compulsory acquisition of special land. This is to reflect the wording and intention of the 2008 Act.

The clause also makes similar provision for certain other compulsory acquisition powers that require an order to be subject to SPP. It applies to any order involving the compulsory acquisition of specially protected land as a result of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. It also applies to the Harbours Act 1964, certain provisions of the New Towns Act 1981 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. The clause will ensure that SPP applies in the way originally intended, where legislation makes clear that an order is to be subject to this procedure to a limited extent.

The need for Clause 23 reflects an inconsistency between the 1945 Act and certain more recent legislation. This was drawn to the Government’s attention by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means in their initial joint report on the Rookery South order which, as the noble Lord Faulkner knows well, has been subject to SPP. The Planning Act 2008 provides that a development consent order which authorises the acquisition of special land is to be subject to SPP to the extent that the order authorises acquisition of such land. Consideration of that order should therefore be limited to that part of the consent order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land.

18:00

However, the 1945 Act does not currently make provision for Parliament to consider just part of an order. This means that decisions on matters such as whether consent for development should be granted, which have been properly decided by a Minister, are open for reconsideration by Parliament. This was not the original intention of the Planning Act 2008 or the other Acts that I have mentioned. Clause 23 seeks to resolve this inconsistency. It amends the 1945 Act so that it covers circumstances where SPP applies only to a limited extent.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, would limit the proposal in Clause 23 only to cases where authorisation for the compulsory acquisition of special land was granted under the provisions of the Planning Act. That would mean not addressing the inconsistency that currently exists between the 1945 Act and those other pieces of legislation which state that Special Parliamentary Procedure should apply to an order to a limited extent. Indeed, the amendment would create a new discrepancy in the way that similar compulsory acquisition provisions are handled. Given that this inconsistency has now been drawn to our attention, it is important to ensure that it is removed wherever it occurs.

It may be helpful to give a very brief summary of how the actual proposals in Clause 23 would work in practice. Clause 23 identifies a statutory provision that requires an order to be subject to SPP to be limited as a “special-acquisition provision”. New Section 1A of the 1945 Act provides that, where an order is subject to SPP under a special acquisition provision, that order is to be known as a “special authorisation”, in so far as it authorises the compulsory acquisition of special land or rights over such land. Paragraphs 3 to 18 of the new Section 1A set out modifications to the provisions of the 1945 Act. In many cases, these provide that references in the 1945 Act to the “order” are read as references to the “special authorisation”. The broad effect of this is that only petitions relating to the acquisition of special land may be considered by Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned at Second Reading, and he has again highlighted, the whole issue of petitioners bringing evidence to bear about the benefits of proposed projects as a whole where an order is subject to SPP. In response to that, I can say that the provisions in Clause 23 keep existing procedures in place regarding the handling of petitions. It will continue to be for the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide whether petitions can be certified as “proper to be received”.

However, under Clause 23, the provisions in the 1945 Act in respect of petitions against an order must be read so that petitions against an order are construed as petitions against a special authorisation. Petitions can only therefore be certified as being proper to be received if they are petitions against the elements of an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land. In any particular case, it is the two chairmen’s role to make a judgment as to whether a petition is proper to be received.

Although there has been detail, I have not gone into extended detail on the provisions in this clause. However, it does ensure that, where a provision makes clear that SPP is to be limited to the consideration of the compulsory acquisition of special land, that aim is achieved. Ensuring that such legislation operates as intended is crucial to getting in place the vital infrastructure that this country needs. I therefore hope, based on my reassurances and comments, that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I can start with the easy bit, which is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his support. What the Minister has said is incredibly complicated. I will need to read it with great care and, I suspect, take advice from people who are much cleverer in this area than I am. I am grateful for the trouble that he has gone to in explaining the Government’s position and, indeed, the whole approach of the Government on the SPP in Clauses 22 and 23. I think that I am in a minority in your Lordships’ House about the need to preserve the significant elements of the SPP operation. However, for the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment if the Committee agrees.

Amendment 77ZD withdrawn.

Amendments 77ZE and 77ZF not moved.

Amendment 77ZG

Moved by

[Baroness Hanham]

77ZG: Clause 23, page 29, line 25, leave out from “(5)” to “after” in line 27 and insert “, so far as it applies to orders granting development consent, applies to any such order made”

Amendment 77ZG agreed.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 77ZH

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

77ZH: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Appropriation or disposal of open space land by local authorities
(1) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 122(2)(b), substitute—
“(b) the council has complied with section 127A.”(3) In section 122(2A), for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(4) In section 123(2A), for the words after “disposing of the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(5) In section 126(4)(b), for the words “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(6) In section 126(4A), for the words after “appropriating the land” substitute “the council has complied with section 127A”.
(7) After section 127 insert—
“127A Conditions attaching to appropriation or disposal of certain lands
(1) When a local authority proposes to appropriate or dispose of land under this section—
(a) the authority shall give notice of its intention—(i) by advertisement in two consecutive weeks in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated,(ii) on the authority’s website,(iii) by notices in prominent positions on the land,(iv) by serving a copy of the notice on every other local authority and planning authority whose area includes or is adjacent to that area, and(v) by serving a copy of the notice on every voluntary body known to have a concern for the maintenance of the land or adjacent land for the benefit of the public, nature conservation or historic interest;(b) the notice shall indicate the location and boundaries of the land and of any land to be given in exchange and where further information and plans may be inspected or copies obtained;(c) subject to subsection (2), unless the land to be appropriated or disposed of does not exceed 250 square yards (209 square metres) land must be provided in exchange that is not less in area and is equally advantageous to the public, to be vested in the local authority subject to the like rights, trusts and incidents that attach to the land to be appropriated or disposed of;(d) the notice shall provide for a period of not less than 28 days from the date of publication of its first advertisement and display during which objections or representations can be made to the authority; and(e) if the authority decides to amend its proposal, this shall be subject to further notice in accordance with paragraphs (a) to (d).(2) If the local authority considers that land in exchange for that to be appropriated or disposed of under this section is wholly or partly unnecessary, the notice must state this and give the reasons for the statement.
(3) If a proposal under this section remains subject to objection and is not withdrawn after the local authority has considered the representations received, it shall be referred to the Secretary of State for decision.””

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Amendment 77ZH introduces a new clause to provide a new procedure for the appropriation and disposal of open space land by local authorities. This does not apply to common land, for which there is already a different and better system.

The proposed new clause is a slightly modified version of the amendment I moved during the Committee stage of the Localism Bill on 28 June 2011. It amends the present Local Government Act 1972 procedure for the appropriation or disposal of non-common land open space, which dates from amendments made in 1980 to simplify the previous procedure. A local authority has merely to publish its intention in a local newspaper in two consecutive weeks and invite objections for its consideration. This can be done in private—for example, by a cabinet member who is under no obligation to give reasons for, or even publish, the decision. There is no right of appeal by the objectors. The land can then be used, sold or let for other uses free of all existing open space trusts and without regard to the fact that a park or recreation ground may have been gifted to or acquired cheaply—often, perhaps, with major contributions from public appeals—by the council’s predecessor on trust for the perpetual enjoyment of the public.

The trust may have been imposed for a particular open space in a local Act of Parliament which authorised its acquisition, but most of these open spaces are now held under the general trust in Section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906. Others were acquired or appropriated under Acts which do not specify a trust. However, high judicial authority has decided that all are held on trust for the benefit of the public and are not simply council property easily available for any of its services or to sell off.

The leading judgment is known as the Brockwell Park case, which noble Lords will remember discussing during proceedings on the Localism Bill. The House of Lords decided Lambeth Overseers v London County Council in 1897. This was summarised by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, as follows:

“One sentence was sufficient to dispose of the case—namely, that the public, for whom the County Council were merely custodians or trustees, were not rateable occupiers, and that there was no beneficial occupation of the property whatever”.

In the fuller judgment, Lord Herschell drew a parallel with the then recent Court of Appeal decision in relation to Putney Bridge. In other words, what is applicable to a highway is equally applicable to a park. However, the procedure for extinguishing any type of highway, whether motorway or public footpath, is by no means simple.

In a further judgement, slightly more recently in October 2012, the Court of Appeal held in Barkas v North Yorkshire County Council that land laid out and maintained as a recreation ground under Housing Act powers was,

“appropriated for the purpose of public recreation”,

and therefore local inhabitants indulge in lawful sports and pastimes by right and not as of right, as would be necessary to prove for the creation of a town or village green. This decision confirms that, if land acquired under other Acts for regeneration or major development is allocated for recreational purposes, it becomes equated with land acquired specifically for those purposes.

The present wording in the Local Government Act positively encourages breaking a trust imposed by the Open Spaces Act, never mind one implied by other Acts. If the land had been owned privately subject to a similar trust, it would be deemed to be held for charitable purposes and its use could not be so easily changed. It is surely wrong for a public authority to be encouraged in this manner, often in contradiction to its own planning policies. The proposed new clause is intended to rectify the situation.

During the Committee stage of the Localism Bill, my noble friend Lady Hanham was rather anxious about the provision for land in exchange. However, this was a standard requirement before the Local Government Act was amended in 1980 and remains where Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies. This is when compulsory purchase powers are used and in certain other cases such as for the appropriation of commons under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is an important disincentive to choosing open space as a cheap and easy solution for obtaining other development requirements. Where major regeneration is proposed, it is accepted that compulsory powers should be used to obtain the full site required. This may include new or enlarged open space under the CPO.

This is a complicated matter. I am grateful to the Open Spaces Society for its assistance in proposing this amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for explaining his proposed new clause. He is of course greatly concerned with the protection of open spaces such as commons and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments”. I am sure that that sentiment resonates with many in the Committee. My noble friend also explained that when a local authority, including a parish or town council, wishes to appropriate this type of land for another purpose or to dispose of it, notification procedures should be beefed up and exchange land should be provided. His main point is that the present arrangements are inadequate and that more protection is required to prevent open space and other similar land from being lost to development.

The system that my noble friend seeks to amend concerns two types of land and two types of transaction. The types of land are commons, including town and village greens, and open space. The transactions are appropriation and disposal. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that the legislation that governs all of this is not confined to the Local Government Act 1972, which this amendment seeks to change. Significant elements are contained within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. For commons, I think that my noble friend already has most of what he wants. Appropriation of common land larger than 250 square yards requires an order to be made by the local authority and then confirmed by the Secretary of State. Exchange land must also be provided, on pain of special parliamentary procedure—which we have just debated extensively—in the same way as for compulsory purchase orders.

In many cases, disposals also need the consent of the Secretary of State. For open space, the publicity and related arrangements for the consideration of objections are the same for both appropriation and disposal. If local authorities fail to consider objections properly, they run the risk that their decision will be challenged in the courts. Although protection for open space may appear lacking in legislation, this is not the whole story. Open space has had strong protection in the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 74 states that existing open space should not be built on unless an assessment has been made to show that the land is clearly surplus and, moreover, that the loss should be replaced by the equivalent or better provision. It is therefore the Government’s view that the protection of open spaces should be through the planning system and not front-loaded on to the procedures for appropriating or disposing of land. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I might be persuaded to withdraw my amendment when I have said one or two more things. One difficulty we are having in this Committee is that the Government are trying to deal with issues such as open spaces just through the planning system when in practice, as the Minister said, there are different laws that relate to open space, commons and so on. This is precisely the problem that we had when we talked about the registration of town and village greens: trying to align two clearly separate systems. You cannot simply say that the planning system is the way to deal with this.

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us that the National Planning Policy Framework strongly proposes that, wherever possible, open spaces should not be built on, but that is not the purpose of this amendment. It is about buying and selling open space, not about the planning regime that refers to it. However, I am grateful for what the Minister said. I will carefully look at his response and again take advice. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 77ZH withdrawn.

18:15

Clause 24 : Bringing business and commercial projects within Planning Act 2008 regime

Amendment 77ZJ

Moved by

[Lord Adonis]

77ZJ: Clause 24, page 29, line 32, after “may” insert “, subject to regulations excluding sites of special environmental or historic importance,”

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I will speak to the six amendments in this group standing in my name. The question before us is what projects should be considered nationally significant and therefore subject to the Planning Act 2008, as amended in this Bill, and therefore subject to a national rather than a local planning consent regime. The 2008 Act permits this change to projects of national significance in respect of infrastructure. Clause 24 extends this to business and commercial schemes.

The thrust of my amendments is that Parliament should not give the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers without defining their extent carefully in the Bill. In the Bill, discretion as to what constitutes national significance is left almost entirely to the Secretary of State. The only substantial limitation is that regulations may not encompass projects that include residential dwellings. My amendments are all probing and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the substantial points underlying each.

Amendment 77ZJ would exclude from the new arrangements sites of special environmental or historic importance. Amendment 77AB would exclude developments that involve surface mineral extraction or quarrying. Such applications arouse especially strong local feeling, and to circumvent local planning entirely for such schemes is bound to give rise to acute concern. Amendments 77AA, 77AC and 77BA would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to define what is meant by business or commercial and to permit the bypassing of a local authority, because Amendment 77ZA and other amendments in my name specify the definition in the Bill.

Amendment 77ZA seeks to define business and commercial projects of national significance, rather than leaving it entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Under my amendments, these projects could be subject to the national process only if they are in specific areas—largely those set out in annexe A of the Government’s consultation on what should constitute nationally significant infrastructure projects in the business and commercial sphere.

That leads me to the Government’s consultation on those projects. The Government will no doubt respond to my amendment by saying that they have consulted both on categories of development and on thresholds within those categories in terms of the number of square metres that might apply in determining whether a commercial or business development application is of national significance. Last week, the Government published their analysis of the responses. However, they have not yet said how they intend to proceed. A key issue for us in this debate is to know what the Government’s response will be to the consultation that they carried out on types of development and thresholds. I will welcome the Minister’s response to the question of what the Government intend to do in respect of the types of development and thresholds set out in annexe A of the consultation. If the Minister is not able to give me a response now, I would be very grateful if he would write to noble Lords before Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 78 in this group, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is yet another attempt to change the definition of what type of project could be included in the extent of the Planning Act. It relates to commercial and business developments that require consent under the national significant infrastructure regime.

The issue that I would like to raise is that of mixed-use schemes that have some housing or retail element. They should be able to take advantage of the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Any retail element is excluded from the proposed list of development types set out in annexe A of the recent CLG consultation on extending the Planning Act regime. I imagine that this could always be reversed if the Government were minded to do so, but the Bill prevents any housing element being included in regulations.

I believe there is a large number of potentially significant business and commercial developments that will have some retail and certainly some housing element in them, even if it is only a caretaker. In theory, if there is just one property in a development, it cannot qualify for going down the nationally significant route. It is important for such developments to be able to include some housing element and to go for the nationally significant approach. An awful lot of time and cost could be saved if this were possible. The original prohibition of housing was well intentioned, and clearly big housing projects are not what the nationally significant definition is for, but it is a problem because if there were just one or two houses in a big development, it would be excluded.

That is what this probing amendment seeks to achieve. I hope that the Minister is willing to look at this again. Perhaps we can discuss whether there is some better wording that could be applied on Report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to set out in the Bill the types of development and development sites which can and cannot be considered nationally significant under Clause 24. A number of specific amendments have been moved, and I will attempt to address the issues in each.

As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of Clause 24 is to extend the existing powers within the Planning Act to direct sub-threshold forms of energy, waste, transport, water and waste-water schemes into the Planning Act regime, to new forms of business and commercial development. Our intention is not to bring new development into the regime automatically but to provide an alternative planning route where proposed development is of national significance. We have recently consulted on the types of business and commercial developments, and we are now in the process of considering the responses to that consultation.

Amendments 77ZJ and 77AB would rule out proposed schemes using the regime if they were on sites of special environmental or historic importance or if they involved minerals extraction, or quarrying. These amendments would apply equally to the existing types of infrastructure, such as energy, transport and water, as well as to new forms of business and commercial schemes.

An example of the effect of Amendment 77ZJ is that a sub-threshold energy scheme of national significance that might otherwise be considered via the Planning Act route could not be the subject of a direction if part of the site had an environmental designation. We do not consider this to be a sensible approach. If a scheme is of national significance and is directed into the regime, the Secretary of State will have to consider all the issues that are important and relevant, including any impacts on the historic or natural environment, before reaching his decision. To exclude large tracts of land without consideration of the planning merits or otherwise of the proposed development could discourage developers bringing forward much needed infrastructure or economic developments.

I will explain our thinking on minerals a little bit more. As we recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework, minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and quality of life. Without minerals, our building industry would grind to a halt. It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. We therefore consider that some minerals schemes could be capable of being of national significance, but again we wish to consider the consultation responses before we reach final conclusions about the forms of development.

Amendments 78ZA, 77AA, 77AC and 77BA seek to place the types of commercial and business development in the Bill. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, broadly agrees with the types of development on which the Government consulted recently in connection with the proposals to extend the infrastructure planning regime to business and commercial projects. Nevertheless, we consider that this amendment is premature. We believe that a broad range of types of development of national significance could benefit from using the infrastructure planning regime and that further public and parliamentary scrutiny on how this new power should be used is appropriate. That is why we are now considering the responses to this consultation and why the accompanying regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 78, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin, also seeks to remove the exclusion in the Bill on dwellings from being prescribed in regulations. I listened carefully to the remarks made on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Government have a clear position that planning for housing should remain a core responsibility of local councils. As the Government set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, local councils should be planning to deliver a wide choice of high-quality homes and wider opportunities for home ownership and creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

Many of the responses to the consultation exercise that we carried out recently supported the exclusion of housing from the infrastructure planning regime. Again, we are considering these responses, but we believe that housing should be and remain a core responsibility of local authorities.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I did not intervene in the debate, because the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point. When will the Government publish the full response to the consultation? It has been represented to me that there were quite a lot of objections to the exclusion of housing. Of course one agrees that housing cannot be a main purpose of an application that goes directly to the Planning Inspectorate, but there are a lot of mixed developments now that usefully and importantly will include a housing aspect. It ought to be possible for an applicant to use the new procedure to have his application referred directly to the inspectorate.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think that I made clear in my remarks that we are considering the results of the consultation that has just taken place. At present, the intention is to continue to have housing dealt with by local authorities. We are analysing the responses at the moment. While we already have a summary of the issues, we will publish a full response in due course. The summary of the issues may be helpful to us for the next stage.

I hope that noble Lords will agree the Government have set out a sensible approach that will enable new forms of nationally significant development to benefit from the Planning Act regime, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment, and that other noble Lords do not press the amendments in their names, mainly probing as I understand them to be.

18:30

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I did not quite catch what the Minister said. Will a published summary of the issues encompass a summary of the Government’s views and their response to the consultation, and did she say we would perhaps have that before Report? Some of us did not put down detailed amendments on Clause 24 because we were waiting for some clearer indication of exactly what it means in detail. If we do not get at least a summary or broad overview of the Government’s views on this before Report, we might be tempted to take up more time on Report by putting new amendments down than the Minister would perhaps prefer.

The other questions I wanted to ask were about minerals. Will Clause 24 make a difference, for example, to the way in which planning permission or development consent is given for things such as quarries in national parks—the quarrying of limestone in the Peak District, for example—which are highly controversial and at the moment are done by the local planning authority, the national park? Are decisions like that going to be moved to the Secretary of State and the infrastructure planning regime?

The other question was specifically about the development of fracking for unconventional gas, which is going ahead slowly in Lancashire. Lots of different consents have to be obtained for that, notably from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which takes place at a national level. However, the development that has taken place so far and the scale of it means that the planning permission, as I understand it, is the responsibility of the county council; in the case of the fracking that is taking place, or is about to resume, at the moment on an experimental basis in Lancashire, that will be Lancashire County Council.

It seems to me that with something like fracking, there are two crucial sets of decisions to be made. One is the question of whether the drilling, the fracking and the extraction of the gas should be allowed to take place. Then there are all the environmental issues related to that on the surface, such as the screening of developments and whether pipes from the different wellheads, which are quite close to each other, should be underground, overground or whatever, which is a matter of the local landscape and local planning. I would be quite appalled if the decisions over that kind of local planning were taken away from the local planning authority—in this case Lancashire County Council, as it is a minerals development—and put in the hands of a national authority, which I really do not think would have the local understanding or the ability to do the job properly. There are two separate issues there. Would it be possible for them to be separated, because they are dealing with quite different aspects, and for the decisions about whether the drilling and fracking goes ahead—and I should say that it seems to me that this is development which ought, at least on a pilot basis, to proceed as far as a viable commercial scheme—to be taken nationally through the infrastructure planning process but for the local details of the environmental protection and amelioration connected with it, and how that works on the surface, to be left with the local planning authority?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the summary of responses. We have that summary of responses, and I think it has already gone to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis; if not, it is on its way. We can make sure that Members of the Committee receive a copy and will put it in the Library, so that it will be available for consideration at the next stage.

We are thinking about the responses to the consultation and whether fracking should be included in the infrastructure planning regime or, as the noble Lord said, stay with the local planning authority. At the moment, a request will have to be made to the Secretary of State to use the major planning infrastructure regime, and the Secretary of State will be interested in it only if the whole proposal was going to raise issues of national rather than local significance. Fracking is a developing area and things may change but, as I understand it, that is the situation at the moment. I hope with those explanations that the noble Lord may be willing to withdraw his amendment and that noble Lords will not press the others when the time comes.

[Lord Greaves]

I will perhaps take up the question of fracking with the Minister outside the Chamber. However, the important thing before Report is not to get the summary of responses—although that would obviously be useful—but to get the Government’s view of the responses and their view of the way forward.

[Baroness Hanham]

I understood that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was getting at. I have committed to giving him the summary of the responses and have been told that the Government’s response will come in due course. That does not sound to me as if it will come before Report, but if it does, I will let noble Lords know that it is coming.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises a point of some substance. I have read the summary of responses which the noble Baroness very kindly sent to me a short while ago. It is supremely uninformative. Question 3 asks:

“Do you agree with our assessment of the factors that the Secretary of State would need to take into account when considering whether a project is nationally significant?”.

The summary of responses says:

“A number of respondents thought the assessment factors were broadly right whilst others commented that they were not detailed enough or were not supported at all”.

I could go through them, but it is a profound exercise in waffle and does not really help us very much. To be fair to the Government, in annexe A of their consultation paper, they set out both specific types of development and very specific criteria in terms of the square metreage for the thresholds that would need to be met before these projects are deemed to be of national significance. That is crucial in informing our view as to whether we think this clause should proceed without requiring further limitation, although I think there is quite a strong preference for seeking to put provisions in the Bill. It would be extremely helpful if the noble Baroness were able, before Report, to indicate whether the Government stick by their proposals in annexe A or are minded to amend them in any form. If that does not come before Report, we will of course have no chance to assess the Government’s intended course of action before this Bill becomes law.

[Baroness Hanham]

My instinct would say that if it is there, then the Government are going to introduce it and are probably not going to amend it. If there is any change to that, I will let the noble Lord and the Committee know.

[Lord Adonis]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 77ZJ withdrawn.

Amendment 77ZK

Moved by

[Lord Adonis]

77ZK: Clause 24, page 29, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must publish his reasons for giving a direction under this section.”

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the amendment standing in my name in this group is very simple. It would require the Secretary of State to publish the reason that a planning decision is to be made centrally, including why the application is regarded as nationally significant. This is a simple case of transparency and accountability. If the Secretary of State is to be granted the wide powers contained in this Bill, it is only right that their use should be open to scrutiny case by case. If the local authority is to have its planning role set aside, it seems only fair to tell it why. Just as planning inspectors have to give reasons for their decisions, it seems entirely consistent and transparent that the Secretary of State should have to give reasons for deeming a development proposal to be of national significance. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 77A, 77B and 78A, and to the question of whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill, which are down in the Marshalled List in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am afraid mine will not be quite as swift and simple as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, because I want to give a pretty full exposition of why Clause 24 should be deleted, or at least amended in a way that would remove the extension of the major infrastructure regime to business and commercial projects.

I am afraid that my subtext will be the same as for previous amendments I have put forward: this is another unnecessary clause in an unnecessary Bill. We still lack evidence of substantial numbers of large-scale projects being delayed under the current system. Using DCLG’s own statistics, local authorities are already determining and approving 87% of relevant, large-scale, major applications that might fall within the categories of Clause 24 within one year, which is the same period as the fast-track timetable that DCLG heralded when the Bill was published. Once again, we urge the Minister to present to the House the evidence for substantial delays or other reasons that would justify Clause 24.

The Minister Nick Boles, when briefing Peers, very kindly indicated that there would be only 10 to 20 applications to the Secretary of State each year under Clause 24. Therefore, one could take the view that it is hardly worth legislating for, especially as this is a centralising proposal that flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to localism. The Secretary of State has call-in powers if necessary. Indeed, if local authorities struggle with some of these larger-scale proposals, the Planning Advisory Service is available to support them. What additional benefits does the Minister believe are provided by the provisions in the clause beyond those already available?

Clause 24 is all the more unsatisfactory because of the point already raised by the noble Lords, Lord Adnois and Lord Greaves, about the consultation on how business and commercial developments will be defined in terms of type and scale. It has only just been completed. I, too, have read the summary of responses and, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, it was not hugely illuminating. Indeed, all the types of development that the consultation proposed would have major local impacts and need to be dealt with by local government. I add my voice to those who already urge the Minister that we see not only the summary of responses, but the Government’s reply and their intentions in terms of the clause, before Report. I ask the Minister to commit to producing the Government response before Report—otherwise we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

Of particular concern is that the proposals under Clause 24 also include the extractive industries: deep-mined coal, large onshore gas, oil and other mining and quarrying above certain thresholds. They would be brought within the major infrastructure planning system without robust guarantees that the considerable environmental impacts of these developments can be addressed through the planning system. They are usually dealt with through specific local, national park or county-level policies and procedures governing mineral planning issues. It is also unsatisfactory to propose that deep-mined coal be included in the proposed fast-track process because this seems at odds with the presumption against new coal that is included in the National Planning Policy Framework. It does not say much for commitment to addressing climate change if we regard these types of energy generation as sufficiently important to bypass the normal planning system.

One could say that there might be safeguards for decisions made under the national infrastructure procedure. National policy statements are the main basis on which nationally significant infrastructure projects on energy, transport, water or waste are decided. These have major advantages in that they are scrutinised by Parliament before being agreed. However, we do not yet know as a result of the consultation process whether Ministers will change their minds about formulating national policy statements for business or commercial schemes. The consultation was on the basis that there would be no national policy statements for these schemes, but I see from the consultation response summary that there has been some pressure to develop further national policy statements in these areas. Can the Minister give the House some clarification on the Government’s position on national policy statements for business and commercial schemes, and could we have that clarification before Report?

18:45

There is a fundamental problem with the clause because it tries to imply that there is national significance for business and commercial schemes that are intrinsically local. Concocting national policy statements for these areas of business and commerce will be pretty difficult because they are not really national in their significance. It seems that they are being artificially designated simply to enable developers to chance their luck with the Secretary of State rather than the local planning authority. Of course, the Minister will say in response that there are other safeguards surrounding the impacts of business and commercial projects decided under the major infrastructure proposals. These include local plans and the National Planning Policy Framework.

However, a letter that the Minister sent, clarifying the Government’s position on the local plan, still made it pretty clear that there is no legal requirement for the Secretary of State to give weight to the local plan. Therefore, in the absence of a national policy statement, the Secretary of State can legally give weight to almost anything. Even where there is a local plan, the Secretary of State’s consideration will take account of a whole range of factors, only one of which will be the local plan. That is a considerable departure from the principle of the planning system, which is of a plan-led approach. At the very minimum, will the Minister undertake to look at amending the clause to ensure that the local plan is afforded pre-eminence in the absence of a national policy statement?

The other safeguard that the Minister will no doubt want to put forward is the role of the NPPF. The Government made it clear in the consultation document that, in the absence of a national policy statement, the NPPF and other local policy and material consideration could form the policy framework for decision-making on these schemes. However, in practical terms, the NPPF does not lend itself to the national infrastructure planning process. It was written to inform the decisions of local planning authorities in their plan-making and development management functions under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Throughout the NPPF, the references to the planning system and planning law are really references to the Town and Country Planning Acts, not to the 2008 national infrastructure regime. The very wording of the NPPF says that local authorities should do this and should do that, not that the Secretary of State should do this and should do that. This makes the NPPF difficult to apply outside the specific context of local planning. To give one example, the presumption in favour of sustainable development could not be applied to the Secretary of State’s decisions under the national infrastructure procedure because the whole of this policy in the NPPF is set in the context of what local authorities will do in the local plan.

Therefore, the Secretary of State might not have a national policy statement to guide him, can choose to give as little or great weight to the local plan as he may, and the NPPF does not give him much help, if my analysis is correct. This does not exactly seem a policy and plan-led decision system, which gives certainty to developers, fairness to local interests and swiftness to decisions.

I could go on for hours about Clause 24—some might say I already have—but there are a few other things that I should like to put as weights in the scale. The process itself for national infrastructure planning is not particularly satisfactory in the absence of a national policy statement or a pre-eminent authoritative local plan for a number of reasons. Local authorities can be asked for a local impact statement but these are pretty expensive and complex, and there is no requirement on the local authority to produce one. Depending on the volume of these cases, we might well find that local authorities become less and less keen, as they are not the deciding authority, to produce these.

There is also a particular issue with developers making significant changes to their applications following the pre-application consultation. That is admirable in that developers are responding to local input, but the big problems with the national infrastructure procedural hearings are that they are very tightly timetabled and there are no formal rights to cross-examine developers. There are real questions about whether there is real community involvement when such changes are happening through the NSIP procedure. This is particularly so since the decisions will not be made by the democratically elected local planning authority.

I may be about to pre-empt something that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, may say—I am sorry for putting words into his mouth if he does not intend to say this—but I must admit that when he capitulated on Clause 1 and said it would not affect very many councils so it was probably not worth arguing against, I had a bad night afterwards. Just because a clause will not affect many people, that does not make bad law good law, so I encourage him not to capitulate in future.

Let us also look at volume. The Minister has said that this provision is not likely to involve more than 10 to 20 cases per year. I, too, am concerned about volume for a number of reasons; for example, the shale gas fracking issue, where we know that potentially 800 well-heads are predicted in the north-west. These are well-heads of a limited duration; they move on fairly rapidly after a few years, so multiple applications are likely to come up in the future. In the light of predictions—for example, Friends of the Earth believes that there is a potential pool of projects of all sorts that could well come within the criteria, which are currently being consulted on and might total between 300 and 500 per year—it would be useful to know whether Ministers are still of the view that only 10 to 20 applications per year would come through under this process.

My concern is that one might live with a very small number of projects if one were the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but one would not live with a very large number of projects if one believed that this clause was not a good clause. This would also raise the question, which I leave with the Minister, of whether sufficient resources and measures are being put in place to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate can cope.

I hope that noble Lords are totally convinced by my long exposition of why Clause 24 is pretty horrible and should be amended.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I was going to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her brilliant speech that meant that I did not have to say anything at all, really—until she started challenging me, as her supporter on this amendment, in her last few remarks. I do not think I did capitulate on Clause 1; I think it was on Clause 5 that I came to the view that it was not going to make any difference to anybody in practice. I will review that, but I certainly still feel fairly resolute about Clause 1, which I think is fundamentally wrong in principle no matter how many councils it affects.

As far as shale gas is concerned, my view is there should be a limited-scale commercial pilot, which inevitably would be in the west Lancashire plain, before anything else happens. I think that will take quite a few years to get under way. I certainly would not be in favour of the large-scale development of shale gas in this country until that pilot had taken place and we could assess whether or not some of the worst fears are true. I suspect that some of the worst fears are not true but equally, we must assess the environmental and landscape implications, which are perhaps not quite as important as the more fundamental questions about the effects of the drilling, but are nevertheless very important. That is my view on shale gas. As I said in the previous group, I am in favour of as much of that decision-making as possible remaining at a local, Lancashire level, even though the basic consents for the actual operation would be taken at national level by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and perhaps others.

I have one or two points to add to what the noble Baroness said. First, if there are 20 or 25 a year, the Government ought to come clean and tell us which commercial and business developments they believe have been stopped or significantly delayed in the past year or two years—or whatever period they choose—thus making this proposal necessary. Again, this would provide us with some hard evidence on the ground of ways in which the present system is preventing commercial and business developments taking place.

Of course, the Government would have to say which of those developments that have been delayed or, particularly, stopped they think ought to go ahead, and then people can judge this by outcomes. We can talk about processes until we are blue in the face but what most people are interested in are the actual outcomes of the planning process. Therefore, my question for the Government is: if this proposed new system had been in place for the past two years, what would have been different? If the answer is, “Not very much”, we are wasting our time here talking about it, quite frankly.

To underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the underlying planning policies that will guide the Secretary of State in his decisions, the whole infrastructure planning process, as set out in the 2008 Act, originally through the Infrastructure Planning Commission, was based on a series of national policy statements, which were government policy and were originally intended to guide the Infrastructure Planning Commission in its decisions. Just as local plans are there to guide local planning authorities in their decisions, the national policy statements were there, in different policy areas, to guide the Infrastructure Planning Commission in its work.

Now that the infrastructure planning process is being undertaken by the Secretary of State, the system has a fundamental fault at the heart of it, and I am increasingly of the view that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a mess by giving the powers of the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who will make the policies and then make the development control decisions—presumably on the basis of the policies he has determined. There is something fundamentally wrong with that system, not least in that a decision is produced and there is no appeal process other than judicial review.

If there are not to be any of these national policy statements in relation to commercial and business development, where is the underlying planning policy coming from? Is it made up on the hoof by the Secretary of State or does it genuinely come from local plans? If it genuinely comes from local plans, why do we need to nationalise the system? As the noble Baroness eloquently explained, it is clearly not in the National Planning Policy Framework. The framework is very clearly set out as planning guidance from the Secretary of State, as policy, to local planning authorities making the decisions. That is its legal basis. That is what it is, and it replaces what the Government will say was about three feet of planning policy guidance that came in the old PPSs and PPGs. That has all gone; we have now got the National Planning Policy Framework. It is not an adequate basis for making decisions on big, nationally significant projects, whether they are on infrastructure or whether they are these new business and commercial ones that have been made by the Secretary of State.

The Government are in a bit of a mess over this. It is not clear on what basis the Secretary of State is going to make his decisions, which again is an invitation to more judicial review of decisions that are made.

00:00

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his interesting excursion into these matters. The Government’s decision—which has of course now been accepted by Parliament—is that the NSIPs should not go to an IPA which is then able to make the decisions itself, because the IPA is not accountable to anybody. To have the IPA—or, as it is now, the inspectorate—simply making recommendations and the Secretary of State then making the decisions seems to me constitutionally very much better. I am not going to take this further.

When we were talking earlier about national policy statements, I stressed to my noble friend Lord Ahmad that I think the Government will quite soon have to think of a national policy statement for shale oil—for unconventional oil—because questions are now being raised in the House. They are being raised widely in the relevant community outside.

I do not know quite which world the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, lives in. I have been the recipient of a number of complaints about the difficulty firms have in making developments which seem to me to be absolutely essential, and indeed are so under the national policy. There was an incident in which I sought help for an electricity substation, for which it was absolutely necessary to bring ashore the product—the electricity— from what was intended to be a large offshore wind farm. I am not sure whether even that has yet been granted. I was the recipient of at least two complaints about the provision of underground gas storage. Again, people have an absurd idea of what these things may be. Those are the kind of big decisions, big applications, which have been seriously held up. I think therefore that it is absolutely right for an applicant to say that the application should be heard under the NSIP procedure.

There is also the different problem raised by Amendment 78B. This has been put to me by the National Grid, which obviously has very considerable experience of dealing with applications which may arouse a good deal of opposition. The case is a very simple one; it is in fact seeking consistency. Under the new proposals for commercial development, only the applicant is entitled to ask the Secretary of State to make a referral to the inspectorate, whereas for all previous applications the application can be made by anyone, in addition, of course, to the promoter. One must ask whether it is right that, concerning the new category of business and commercial project, only the applicant is able to refer. Why does this not apply to all the other bodies? The argument for consistency seems really quite overwhelming.

My noble friend Lord Attlee will remember that I raised exactly the same point when we were discussing the Localism Bill 18 months ago. He stated that,

“it may be that third parties with expertise in particular areas, such as environmental requirements, possess information which they think may elevate a proposed development from one of sub-national significance to one of national significance. It would not be right to prevent such bodies drawing this information to the attention of the Secretary of State”. – [Official Report, 17/10/11; col. 107.]

Well, that is an argument. However, he of course pointed out that that amendment would enable someone to draw key information to the Secretary of State’s attention if it has not already come to light. The Secretary of State can then of course direct that the matter goes direct to the inspectorate under the NSIP procedure. On that occasion I was trying to break new ground, but that is not the case under this Bill. As I said a few moments ago, under this Bill only the promoter can take that step in relation to business and commercial projects, and I am puzzled as to why. My amendment therefore simply seeks to bring all the existing applications into line with the new one for business and commercial projects. I hope that my noble friend will view this as a pretty reasonable request.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s contention that this clause do not stand part of the Bill. I will not repeat the questions raised by noble Lords, which I feel deserve an answer from my noble friend the Minister. I am sure that we will get answers, because she has shown herself throughout this process to be very open and willing to engage with us.

The one issue I would like to expand on a little further is that of fracking, and bringing that into the fast track process. The Minister rightly said that this is a developing area, and it is therefore important that this House has time to consider all the possible implications. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others, I think it is appropriate for the Government to introduce a national planning policy statement for this. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, this is an important new area with major implications, particularly in the north-west. Given the scale of fracking and the Government’s commitment to press ahead with it, it would seem illogical not to give the Planning Inspectorate further clarity as it takes this issue forward.

The Minister said that there will be between 10 and 20 cases a year, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She cited evidence given by Friends of the Earth; I choose instead to cite evidence given to the House of Lords inquiry into EU energy policy last month, when Professor Jonathan Stern of the Oxford Institute gave his assessment of the implications of fracking in the United Kingdom. In the committee’s evidence session, Professor Stern stated:

“The US drills 45,000 wells every year of which 80% are fracked... people in Europe just do not understand the scale on which the drilling has taken place. In the future, it may be possible to reduce the scale of that drilling but I think what you can say is, if in any specific country you have drilled 100 wells, you may know something about the resource base. If you are going to produce shale gas on any scale, you probably need to be drilling somewhere between 300 and 500 wells a year, every year”.

I quote those figures because I think it is beholden upon my noble friend to answer—and I am sure she will do her best to do so—why the Government seem to think there will only be 10 to 20 cases emerging through this fast-tracking process if fracking is brought forward. There is a disparity which needs urgent clarification. Yes, it is a developing area, but if the Government are going to proceed with fracking, and take it forward as part of the energy mix in the short to medium term, then not only is there a case for a national policy statement, but there needs to be far greater clarity about the implications—particularly the resource implications—that would accrue for the Planning Inspectorate.

[Baroness Hanham]

I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this rather interesting and short debate. I will try to pick up some of the matters raised, either as we go through or subsequently. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain the Government’s rationale for Clause 24 and the reforms within it. As we have said on many occasions, one of the Government’s top priorities is to get the economy growing by creating the right conditions for growth. This includes ensuring that the planning system is operating in the most efficient and effective way. Clause 24 will support this aim by allowing developers of nationally significant business and commercial development to request to use the streamlined planning regime set out in the Planning Act 2008.

The noble Baroness’s Amendments 77A, 77B and 78A would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to issue a direction for prescribed forms of business and commercial development in response to a request from a developer. I have listened to views expressed that business and commercial planning applications should be determined by the local planning authority, and we have no difficulty with that. The Government agree that that is the right approach in the vast majority of cases. However, there will also be a small number of projects that will be of national economic importance and, in certain circumstances, it will be right that a decision on such proposals is taken at the national level by democratically elected Ministers.

We are not proposing that that should be a mandatory route for developers; it is optional. Developers of major projects will choose to request to use the infrastructure planning regime only if it offers other benefits which the local authority cannot provide, such as statutory timetabling—the noble Baroness asked me what it would be—and the one-stop shop, which will be useful where multiple consents are required.

Any request made to use the infrastructure planning regime will also be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, who will have to be satisfied that the proposed project is of national significance. Under Section 35(10) of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State is required to give reasons for his decision when making a direction, and that requirement is carried forward in new Section 35ZA(10) in Clause 24. That is why we cannot accept Amendment 77ZK, which is unnecessary.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin spoke to Amendment 78B, which would limit who can make a request that an application or proposed application for energy, transport, waste, water or waste water projects below the Planning Act thresholds should be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. I understand why the amendment has been tabled and am sympathetic to its aims, but perhaps I may explain why we have set out a different approach in the Bill for business and commercial schemes.

The Planning Act sets specific thresholds for energy, transport, water, waste and waste water projects. Any proposal for a development which meets those thresholds must seek planning consent through the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows a request to be made to use the regime for projects which are below the thresholds. We have not sought to limit who can make a Section 35 request for infrastructure projects as we recognise that other parties may hold information which could indicate that the project was one of national significance and should be directed into the regime. However, for business and commercial schemes, the Government have been very clear that for developers of major schemes this is an optional route. Therefore, the limitation on who can make a request is not there. We believe that it should be for a developer or applicant to determine whether the advantages of using the infrastructure planning regime outweigh the usual route of making a planning application to the local planning authority. The Secretary of State will direct a project into the regime only if he considers that it is of national significance.

Concerns have been expressed that if we do not accept the amendment the Secretary of State will be inundated with requests from third parties, or that there will be delay to the application being submitted or to the local authority decision-making process. We think that this is unlikely. We are aware of only a very small number of such requests having been made to date. The impact assessment states that the figure is likely to be between 10 and 20 a year. We will have to see how that works out.

If an application or proposed application is directed into the nationally significant infrastructure regime, this does not mean that local opinions will be ignored. Developers will have to consult local communities, and local authorities will continue to play an important role. The consultation requirements of the Planning Act, as noble Lords will know, are rigorous. Local authorities will also be invited to prepare a local impact report. The Secretary of State must have regard to the report as well as to other matters that are both important and relevant in making his decision on the development consent order application. The local plan, for example, is likely to be both important and relevant, as indeed is the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is essential that sustainable development should go ahead with the minimum of delay. That is why we have brought forward this new power. We also think that it is appropriate to have further public and parliamentary scrutiny on how this new power should be used. That is why we have consulted recently on the types of development and why the regulations that follow and prescribe the types of development will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Other matters were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who tabled some of the amendments in this group, has had a letter from my honourable friend Nick Boles which I think addresses most of the questions that she raised, but I understand why she would want those responses on the record.

19:15

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

All the points that I made earlier were taken in the Minister’s letter. Having read it very carefully, I think that he confirmed that the local plan was just one weight in the scales and not pre-eminent and that the Secretary of State would take a whole range of other things that into account. That means that the local plan has been sidelined. I was therefore unconvinced.

[Lord Greaves]

If there are letters floating around which are being debated here, I wonder whether we might all have sight of them.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the letter in question was to the noble Baroness. If she is happy for it to be made available to the Committee, then, of course, I would be happy, too. I presume that my honourable friend at the other end was expecting at least most of it to be made public because it is a very public response to the questions asked. I do not think that there would be any disagreement with my saying that the local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework are both likely to be important and relevant in these matters. We have issued a consultation paper on extending the regime to business and commercial schemes, seeking views on whether one or more national policy statements should be prepared. These matters are relevant to today’s debate and the answers are the Government’s answers.

I do not think that moving business and commercial applications to the infrastructure regime will be a blow to local authorities. As I have said, we expect only a small number of applications to come forward and for most of them to be dealt with by local authorities.

I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, whether we had any evidence that change is necessary. Over the past four financial years, the proportion of large-scale major applications for commercial and industrial projects taking more than 52 weeks to be decided by local authorities has increased from 8% to 13%, which is quite a significant rise.

We are not proposing to make mandatory this route for developers—it is optional—and there will be a timetabled approach. Developers will have to decide for themselves whether to use the infrastructure regime.

As we set out in our recent consultation document on the new business and commercial category of development, the Government do not consider the case to be strong for one or more national policy statements for this category of development. The consultation closed in January and we are considering the responses to that, including on whether national policy statements should be prepared. I think that we will discuss those later during our consideration of the Bill.

I was asked whether there will be sufficient resources. We are discussing the resource implications with the Planning Inspectorate at the moment.

We also had a question on fracking, which has come up quite a bit through the course of the Bill. It is clearly a developing situation. The information that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, gave us was interesting and begins to put a scale on what the ultimate development could be. At present, fracking applications will not be taken out of the hands of local authorities. Any developer will have to consult the local community and local people and the local authority will have the right of determination. A request would have to be made to the Secretary of State to use the infrastructure regime and he would agree to such a request only where the proposal raised issues of national significance. It may be that national significance and fracking will be one and the same but that gives an indication that at present we would expect this to be dealt with locally and local people would have a big say in what was to happen.

I think that covers the questions I was asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also asked about fracking and, as I said, gave us very helpful figures from the report. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she would be happy for the letter from my honourable friend Nick Boles to be circulated. If so, I will make it available but if she does not wish that we will no doubt discuss the issues again at a later stage.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

Can the Minister respond to an issue raised by a number of noble Lords on the question of when we might hear the Government’s response to the consultation? It is very important for a variety of reasons that that happens before the Report stage. “In due course” does not seem a terribly firm timescale.

[Baroness Hanham]

We have a number of consultations coming through to fruition, so I am not able to stand here now and say that the Government’s response will be available by Report. I hope that we will have an indication of what more we can discuss on this. If the response can be made available then I will certainly see that it is but I am not in a position to say that it will be. I note what the noble Baroness said.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I listened with great care to what my noble friend said on the question of who can make an application to the Secretary of State for an NSIP treatment. I will read very carefully what she said but, having listened, I am still puzzled as to why there is a difference between the existing applications and the new ones for business and commercial. Perhaps I might leave that there. I will read very carefully what she said and decide how we should proceed after that.

[Lord Adonis]

On the question of proposed types of development and thresholds, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pressed the Minister, I took the Minister to have made a significant statement earlier when she said that if there was to be a notable departure from the proposals set out in annexe A of the consultation document she thought it likely the Government would come forward and tell the House that before we passed this legislation into law. I am sure we will study carefully in Hansard tomorrow what the noble Baroness said but that was quite a significant statement. We look forward to the noble Baroness coming forward and telling noble Lords of the Government’s intentions if they intend to depart from the proposed types of developments and thresholds set out in annexe A.

Unless I missed it, I do not think that the noble Baroness replied to my amendment at all, which would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons why a planning decision is to be decided centrally, including why the application is regarded as nationally significant. I thought that was a very reasonable and extremely constructive amendment and that she might even be able to accept it.

[Lord Greaves]

I would like to ask a question that the Minister might want to write to us about in some detail. She mentioned the figure of 13% of, I assume, major applications or perhaps some other kind of big applications that took more than 52 weeks. It would be a help to know whether they were major applications as defined at the moment. That is typical of the very general statistics that the Government give when we ask for evidence. How many of those applications would have gone to be decided at national level under the new system or how many would have been likely to go to that level? How many of the 87% of presumably major applications that were dealt with within 52 weeks would also have gone to national level? If we are expecting only an additional 20 or 25 in the commercial business categories, does that equate to 13% or what does it equate to? Some more detailed figures and statistics on these matters would be extremely helpful. I would also find it extremely helpful to have a list of just five or six applications dealt with in the past year which in future would come to national level, so that I can get my mind round what sort of developments they are and what sort of outcomes there might be.

[Baroness Hanham]

I hope I did not speed over the amendment or that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had not gone to sleep with excitement over it. I said that the Secretary of State is required to give reasons for his decision when making a direction. That requirement is carried forward in Clause 24. That is why I said I was not able to accept his amendment: it is not necessary.

[Lord Greaves]

Will my noble friend comment on my request for some more detailed statistical information on these matters?

[Baroness Hanham]

If I can get what my noble friend requires, I will make sure he and the Committee get that before Report.

[Lord Adonis]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 77ZK withdrawn.

Amendment 77A to 77BA not moved.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, just before I resume the House, I alert speakers in the debate that, as we now have a speaker in the gap, there are no spare minutes at all. Please would Back-Bench speakers ensure that they sit down as soon as the clock says “5”, and preferably while it still shows “4”, so that the Minister has his allocated time to respond?

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.28 pm.

Education: Academies and Free Schools

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:28

Asked By

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the contribution of academies and free schools to educational provision in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to address the contribution of academies and free schools to our national education provision. I look forward to the summing up of this short debate by my noble friend the Minister, as this is the first opportunity for him to make a substantial speech in this House. I begin by declaring an interest as the unpaid chair of a commission on academies and free schools for the London Borough of Wandsworth. The commission has met with many potential academy sponsors and free school providers, and I for one have been often inspired by the enthusiasm, expertise and deep commitment of those who seek to change the life chances of young people.

We are witnessing a revolution—the most important revolution in education for many decades. Beginning with the vision in the previous Administration of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I am pleased to see in his place, already more than half the secondary schools in the country have become academies. Most are converter academies by the choice of their governing bodies, and some are sponsored academies where schools failing to raise the performance of their pupils have, with the guidance and help of a sponsor, been made into academies where pupil success has followed. Such schools are often located in the most deprived and difficult areas, with generations of failure behind them. There are now 2,673 academies in England and 80 free schools are already open with more than 100 in the pipeline for this year.

Now primary schools are becoming academies and primary free schools are being established. There is an urgent need for action at this level. The DfE reports that 1,400 primary schools are below the minimum floor standard—800 of these for at least three years. This means that several thousand pupils are leaving the primary phase having failed to achieve even a minimum standard in basic English and maths. The weakest 200 of these schools have already become academies in this academic year and many more will follow. We rejoice to find that, since becoming academies, more than 40 of these primary schools have completely eliminated the gap in attainment between the children of the poorest and richest families.

Free schools, including the excellent university technical colleges, have allowed communities of parents, teachers, local people and a range of approved sponsors to bring their commitment and determination to set up new schools, to raise standards of teaching and to lift aspirations in places where all too often only acceptance of defeat and a lack of ambition had been before. Many bring innovative and exciting new ideas into educational provision, offering different and challenging forms of education which meet the special interests and needs of local children in ways no local authority would be able or likely to offer.

The providers of free schools are diverse. So far, 59 have been groups of teachers, existing schools or other educational organisations. This is indeed a policy endorsement by the professionals in education. Some 45 have come from parent groups; community, religious and local groups; and charities. Again, this is endorsement of the policy by the people who are most concerned and most likely to be the best judges of its success.

Not all academies have been or will be a total success, of course, although the overwhelming majority have achieved more than even their supporters would have dreamed. The British cup-half-empty media have seized on the occasional academy where standards have not been spectacular, although even these have often achieved more than their predecessor, but no one who truly cares about children and young people can fail to celebrate the life-changing opportunities which academies and free schools have already given to tens of thousands of young people who are lucky enough to attend them.

Some basic statistics demonstrate what great gifts have been given to young people by this programme. Overall, pupils in sponsored academies have increased their achievements by five times the national average for maintained schools. Years of failure in some local authority areas have been turned into success. My noble friend Lord Harris, in the wonderful work he has done in creating successful academies, can be proud of his Bermondsey academy, for example, where, with more than two-thirds of pupils receiving free school meals, 62%,—almost twice the national average—have achieved five A* to C grades in their GCSEs. However, statistics can only invite us to reflect on what this means in terms of young people whose lives have been turned around and whose aspirations have been raised beyond anything their predecessors had experienced.

Why do academies and free schools achieve where local authorities had failed? The answer is freedom. Academies are free from local authority control, which has not always been benign. They are free to deliver the curriculum which fits the needs of their pupils, not some centrally determined formula. However, their offering must be “broad and balanced”, and must include English, maths, science and religious education. They are free to set pay and conditions for their staff, enabling them to reward hard work and success, and to attract the best and brightest teachers. They are also free to determine the length of time pupils spend in school daily and termly: their curriculum is not subject to the time restraints which too often prevent local authority schools expanding their offerings to follow the needs and interests of their pupils.

Most importantly, these schools offer professional freedom to the head and teachers. Professional judgment always trumps bureaucratic prescription. Teachers really do know best. For the past 20 years or so we have cramped professionals—not only in education—with regulation, prescription, inspection, targets and league tables. None of this has worked to raise real standards. Indeed, we have been in danger of de-professionalising the best-ever generation of teachers. The system has forced them to teach to the requirements imposed from outside instead of to their own professional judgment. Removing these external constraints has resulted largely in the great success of academies and free schools: the proof is in the results.

Although the evidence is that the longer schools have enjoyed their academy and free school status, the greater their improvement, some have rightly expressed concern about how we can ensure that these standards are maintained in the longer term, especially when many of these schools will be exempt from regular inspection. It is my profound belief that the best form of accountability begins with the accountability of the individual to their own professional standards. I am however greatly reassured by the initiatives which have arisen voluntarily and spontaneously within the academies and free schools themselves. Many have formed “chains”, which are looser perhaps than a strict federation, although enjoying many of the financial and quality benefits of shared central services and shared governance, which others have adopted.

Whether they are a federation or a chain, these associations are proving to be a far better guardian of quality than many of the external official bodies which control community schools. The strong and successful schools in the chain offer support and help to their newer developing partners. This model is now widely adopted and provides excellent advantages for quality control. Again, it is a product of leaving the professionals to determine their own quality assurance. It will be important to ensure, however, that the chains do not become substitute local authorities with power again drifting away from the individual school—that “living cell of the body educational”, as it has been called.

In the Harris group, we see an outstanding model of this way of working. The Harris Federation has set up a complete system of raising teaching quality: first, in initial training, as a group of designated training schools, and then in offering a careful programme of teacher development, which takes the average teacher, through several steps, to excellence. The successful heads in the group are also involved in a leadership development programme for those with leadership potential, to ensure a supply of outstanding heads for the future. I cannot but feel that this is a more trustworthy and sustainable pattern for ensuring quality than an occasional visit from an Ofsted inspector with limited scope for development initiatives.

In 2010, my right honourable friend Michael Gove said:

“Teachers, not politicians, know best how to run schools”.

It has taken courage to put that belief into practice but the thousands of teachers, parents and young people who have benefited from that courage all say “thank you”.

19:37

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this debate. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Nash to the Front Bench. Although he has skirmished at Question Time, this is the first debate on which he has had to answer. This is an engagement and not a skirmish. I should like to make one major point. Michael Gove has imposed on the English education system an enormous revolution, which is irreversible, by expanding the academy programme very substantially and by introducing free schools. As far as I can see, it will not be reversed by any Government and will not be taken back under state control in the future.

That, of course, started with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who realised that some of the most successful schools, when he was responsible for this matter, were the original city technology colleges, which I established in the 1980s—16 of them. He used them as a model for the academies and persuaded Tony Blair to announce a target of 200. Now there are 600, so they are rolling on at a rapid pace. In fact, when Tony Blair becomes very eloquent about this, he not only speaks warmly of academies but rather implies that he was their creator. I am happy to share the parentage because it shows all-party support.

Why are these colleges so successful? They enflame and engage people at a local level—parents, teachers, local communities and businesses—to improve the basic schools in their community. That is an enormous release of energy, enthusiasm and commitment, which is quite striking across all the country in all communities and in all parties. That is to be immensely welcomed, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is to be congratulated on initiating that.

The university technology colleges, which I have been promoting, are free schools or academies—a rose by any other name—and are proving to be very successful. We have five university technical colleges open at the moment; 12 will open this year; and 14 will open in 2014. We are looking at another 20 or so to be announced by Easter. We need another application round to be announced by December of this year to start some in 2015 after the next election.

These colleges are popular because they deal with children aged from 14 to 18. This is another revolution in English education. The rest of the world is moving slowly to a transfer age of 14, which I have just recorded in a book that was published last week. I draw it to your Lordships’ attention, and it should be available in the Library. In this book, I argue that the right age of transfer is 14, not 11, that the national curriculum, of which I was one of the authors, should stop at 14 and that at that point there should be four types of colleges: university technical colleges; liberal arts colleges, a vastly expanded grammar school sector for the academic, which would probably be non-selective; then something my noble friend Lord Moynihan would welcome, a series of at least 30 or 40 creative arts, performing arts and sports colleges throughout the United Kingdom; and then there should be career colleges, which come out of the FE movement, covering the other subjects. All this is releasing energy at the right point. This revolution would really be very significant for the English education system.

The other revolution that is going on at the moment is the extension of the school leaving age to 17 this year and to 18 in 2015. This will have a profound effect on the English education system. Education will be a continuum from five to 18. It is irreversible. It is going to happen, and whenever it has happened in the past, when the school leaving age was moved from 10 in 1880, to 12 in 1890, and to 14 in 1921, there was a huge increase in the number of new schools and reorganisation of schools. There is a unique opportunity in this large continuum to look at the shape of education. The instruments to do that are essentially academies and free schools.

As I said before, I am very glad that the Labour Party now supports this movement. It is very effective. One of the university technical colleges completed two years last summer, so we had 16 and 18 year-old students leaving. A totally comprehensive selection went in, with 20% special educational needs. In that school, there were no NEETs last summer: every student either got a job or an apprenticeship or went on to college or university. There are not many schools with that particular mix that can say that in our country. We know, therefore, that we have a successful formula, and I hope that that formula can be extended on a much wider scale. I applaud this great change that is now sweeping through the English education system, and I will now finish.

19:42

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for securing this important debate.

“Our vision is for a highly educated society in which opportunity is more equal for children and young people no matter what their background or family circumstances”.

So proclaims the vision statement in the foyer of the Department for Education, and who could disagree with that? The sad fact is, however, that over the years, social mobility has hardly shifted.

To address the issue of low performance and poor pupil aspiration, particularly in the most deprived communities, the previous Government set up academies. These schools were given extra resources, extra responsibilities and extra freedoms. The coalition Government have accelerated that programme and, in so doing, dramatically increased the number of academies and changed the educational landscape. As a result, we now see a radical change in the English education system: more than half of secondary schools and a growing number of primary schools have become academies, free schools, university technical colleges, studio schools and, of course, local authority schools. In May 2010, there were 203 academies, and by November 2012, there were 2,456 academies. The scale and speed of change has been rapid and raises a number of questions and issues.

First, you can have all the different types of schools in the world, with all the best resources, but in the end, it is the quality of the school leadership and the quality of the teachers and their teaching that make the difference. A child cannot repeat a year if they have had a poor teacher; the pupil or student is the one who suffers. They cannot repeat that year or the study of that subject. That is why I was so pleased to read that the Academies Commission report, published in January this year, highlighted this point. It said, in referring to academies, that there needs to be,

“a forensic focus on teaching and its impact on pupils’ learning so that the gap between the vision for academies and practice in the classrooms is reduced and the words ‘academisation’ and ‘improvement’ become inextricably and demonstrably linked”.

The English education system has undergone continual change in the post-war period, with each incoming Government and Secretary of State wanting to leave their mark. If we have learnt anything about that 30-year change, it is that improvement is likely to be accelerated and sustained if there is broad ownership at local and classroom level. We need to consider carefully the management of schools: with freedom comes responsibility. The Secretary of State cannot and should not micromanage academies from the centre. In a successful academy system, we will see schools supporting and learning from each other. They will operate as a community of schools, each independent, but working best if connected to the rest of the system.

What of local authorities and their involvement in local schooling? As we have seen academies extend and more powers given to local schools, we have seen local authorities reduced considerably in their capacity and involvement. In the Education Bill, they were given a duty of care but, working with them, we need to consider carefully their role in a very different landscape.

I have drawn extensively on the work of the commission. I was delighted to see it raise the need for the establishment of an independent royal college of teachers. The college, pump-primed by the Department for Education, but completely independent of it, could help make the link between research and the classroom more explicit.

Academies are not the panacea for raising performance and pupils’ life chances. The Academies Commission report said that the evidence considered did not suggest that improvement across all academies has been strong enough to transform the life chances of children from the poorest families. There have been some stunning successes among individual sponsored academies and academy chains that have raised expectations of what can be achieved in the most deprived communities. However, it has to be about more: it has to be about the highest quality of teaching, with teachers who are well trained, highly motivated and—dare I say it—well rewarded. It has to be about inspections carried out in a fair and rigorous manner by qualified inspectors with classroom experience. It has to be about self-improvement: schools working together to develop their understanding and expertise and supporting each other. It has to be about all schools having equality of resources and equality of freedoms.

19:47

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced so well by my noble friend Lady Perry. I also welcome the Minister to his first short debate; we are quite civilised people here, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say. I understand that the Minister has form in this area of academies, having been involved in the very successful sponsorship of Pimlico Academy, which is one of the early ones helping to set the benchmark.

I will restrict my remarks largely to academies, rather than free schools. I want to emphasise now that I agree with what has been said already in the debate about the ways in which academies and other new forces in education are enriching the educational provision in this country, which is well needed and very important. Two consequences of academy status have been especially welcome. One is the very important freedom, referred to by my noble friend Lady Perry, to exercise professional judgment. It is marvellous that this is happening, and I hope that head teachers will not be too dirigiste, operating from the top of their own little pyramid, but will make sure that the freedom passes down to classroom level.

The second consequence is a promise by the Secretary of State that the reduction in bureaucracy which would follow would be to the benefit of academies. I agree with this: they have been a positive source, even if I now have a couple of questions to raise. One element of the way in which bureaucracy is being removed is the reduction in the requirement for outstanding academies to have an inspection every five years. I can see the point and the value of this, but they are exempt from that. Although it is sometimes an irksome discipline, I have to say that excellence and outstanding qualities in 2013 might not still be there in 2018. It is important that we have one way in which to moderate that, at least. I understand that Ofsted anticipated that that would be an issue and has now put in place for exempt schools the possibility of an exercise in which it will inspect, in paper form, at least what is happening in the school—a risk assessment, as it is called, will be carried out. It will be paper-based, it will achieve a lot and will help reassure parents and governors. That is good, but I suggest that one or two features of an outstanding school may not be able to be covered in a risk-based assessment of this kind. The first, for example, is the overall judgment about the effectiveness of a school; I am not sure how that can be done on the basis of a paper exercise. Yet it is highlighted in the Ofsted statement of intent as one of the most important judgments to be made. It is rather important that this can be done one way or another.

Secondly, I am not sure how a risk-based assessment that is effectively paper-based will deal with the spiritual, moral, social and cultural activities of a school. These are immensely important to a school’s character, and it is difficult to see that they could be accounted for in this type of assessment.

Thirdly—and this point follows on from the previous point and was of considerable interest to a number of noble Lords here this evening in previous debates on previous legislation—to be blunt, it will be difficult to reassure the wider community on the basis of a paper exercise that in one or other of the faith-based schools there has not been a straying from the boundaries of education into indoctrination. A few years ago, this would not, apparently, have been a real problem, but it is now. Some of our young people are suffering significant indoctrination—obviously in one faith, but in others too. One check on this in a faith-based academy, which may well do excellent work on the curriculum, pupil behaviour and all the other things, is whether there is a move towards indoctrination. It could take place, and it is essential that we are reassured that it would be picked up. There are other elements of the way in which Ofsted operates that might do this, but any reassurances that can be given would be very welcome.

19:52

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

I, too, thank my mentor, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for this debate. I offer my remarks particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to church schools. There are 140 primary and 97 secondary Church of England academies. Although that makes the Church of England the largest provider of academies, it still represents only 3% of our primary and 53% of our secondary schools. Within my own diocese, some 70% of secondary schools as a whole have moved to academy status, and that is quite remarkable. In respect of academies, two of our schools—one Church of England, one ecumenical—were indeed ground breakers. In the early days of academies, lack of understanding by the Department for Education of church school ownership and trusteeship led to too much problem solving on the hoof once the legislation had been passed.

Our concern is that, with so much attention and energy being devoted to this ideology about school structures, the risk is that we divert our attention from the needs of the vast majority of children in our schools, especially in the primary phase. We need to frame our debate as being about the effectiveness of schools and the ways in which to achieve greater levels of collaboration and effective partnerships that result in more good and outstanding schools, irrespective of their status as academies or maintained schools. For example, in Southwark diocese, 88% and, in Liverpool diocese, 85% of Church of England schools are rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted, with only a handful of those schools being academies. So the need to ensure that we learn the lessons of what makes for effective provision without limiting the debate to academies and free schools continues to matter a great deal.

In April, the work of the multi-academy trusts comes on stream. We welcome the Department for Education’s listening mode and are grateful for the sponsor capacity grant. However, it is regrettable that the grant is not really sufficient to fund adequately sponsored conversion. I hope that the Government take a look at that. Also, for many schools, anxiety has been increased as documentation is frequently changed at short notice, adding significantly and unnecessarily to work loads. As the local authorities gradually disappear and the academies and free schools have an increasing influence, if they are to succeed and if we are to achieve and ensure the quality that we are looking for, as the Government and all of us wish, it remains important that the department talks at a national and diocesan level with church schools and that both plan ahead and resource more effectively.

The Church of England approach in dioceses across the country is to recognise the need for real structural collaborations to bring about transformation in standards, resulting in effectiveness of schools. For many, this now includes setting up multi-academy trusts, but in doing so we must continue to find a way for schools of all categories to join the same MAT so that the expertise and capacities in our good and outstanding schools can be used for the benefit of weaker schools. I hope that Ministers continue to work with Church of England officials to enable that to happen.

Free schools often offer a good way in which to introduce new providers into the system and bring fresh ideas to the needs of the community, but there is a need to ensure that limited resources are focused on the need to provide much-needed pupil places in areas of population growth where there is a real lack of capacity rather than diverting resources to establish new schools in areas where there is no pressure for extra places.

I draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that there remains a continuing lack of engagement with BME communities in the free schools programme, particularly those that have been acutely disadvantaged in education, such as the African, Caribbean and Pakistani communities. Some such communities are attempting to seize the pre-school programmes as an opportunity to improve educational outcomes for BME and other pupils, but they face barriers to success. Other such communities remain largely unaware of the programme, and it is important that the Department for Education gives attention to the engagement of such underrepresented communities. Many free schools being established with the aim of improving education in deprived urban areas are enrolling people from disadvantaged backgrounds at much lower rates than other local schools. Barriers linked to financial expertise, financial resources and social capital all have implications in relation to this.

19:57

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, we have had a superb 25 years in British education, and the party opposite should get its full share of the credit for that. There has been a certain amount of “two steps forward, one step back”. They had their diplomas; we have our English baccalaureate certificate. I hope we get a step back on that, anyway. But generally the picture has been one of progress, and I remain immensely optimistic about the next 25 years. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who have been the foundations for that—and that my right honourable friend Michael Gove has chosen to continue it.

I am sure that we all remember what it was like before that and how difficult it was to get schools to change. Some local authorities—Hackney springs to mind—actively opposed school improvement, and many others were ineffective. We all remember how difficult it was to get individual schools to pay attention to what parents wanted; there simply was no mechanism. I had the pleasure of speaking at something organised by the British Council in Berlin earlier this year, and it was astonishing to be taken back to an era when schools did not indulge in self-improvement. Teachers were not observed, and there was no mechanism for individual teachers to improve. So much is better now than it was.

I look at the creation of academies as the key to the next 25 years. Michael Wilshaw was a great head of Ofsted, and is at last being recognised by schools as their friend and as someone who has shared their experiences and understands what they are going through. When he finds a school that has failed, he is now not lost for what to do; he has a whole host of places he can turn to. He has a whole collection of groups and associations, of academies and their sponsors, who stand ready and experienced to help schools improve. He has individual academies that will take on failing neighbours and make them better, and that is a proven way of improving schools. One of the great discoveries of the past 25 years is that we can make schools better; we do not have to tolerate underperformance. Through the academy movement, Ofsted has been provided with the means of continuing that process of spreading good practice—of picking up the schools that are not doing well enough.

There are a number of things to which we need to pay attention, to make sure that we get as far and as fast as we should. We need to deal with failing academies. Inevitably, not all academies will do well; sadly, the one closest to me has been a complete disaster. I would have loved to have sent my daughter there but I cannot face it. It is still in the hands of the sponsor who started it, and they are still doing badly by it. That is not tolerable. I know that there are problems with the original agreements with academies, but we simply must put that right. They must be as subject to Ofsted—probably rather more subject to Ofsted, and its ability to bring in new sponsors—as schools that are not already academies.

Secondly, there is the matter of telling parents what is going on in schools. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland: we need to look at how Ofsted can become better at that. My answer to that is to get someone who has been a good headmaster to look in on the school once a year and to write to parents. Good headmasters know within half a day what is going on in a school at the sort of level the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was talking about. That can be a friendly and understanding process, which will give parents so much more than they will ever get from a line in a league table.

We need to make sure that all this innovation that is happening because of freedom is properly evaluated so that we can share the benefits of it. We need, I hope, to get some really good curriculum changes, but I simply have my fingers crossed for them.

20:02

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, in speaking this evening I declare an interest as a patron of the Haberdashers’ Educational Foundation, and as a member of the Court of Assistants of the Haberdashers’ Company. The company has a deep and abiding relationship with education. To its academies it has brought educational experience, a strong and relevant brand, a long-term passion for education, a commitment to excellence and an apolitical approach, as evidenced by my fellow patron of the foundation, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

Its work is particularly important to me since it transformed Malory School, in my former constituency of Lewisham East, into an academy. Malory, now Knights Academy, went from being one of the worst failing schools in the country to the popular and successful academy it is today. It is, therefore, welcome that the aim of the academies programme was to challenge underachievement in the country’s poorest-performing schools. It was a development which had its roots in the earlier CTC programme, which was announced as long ago as 1986. While I was MP for the area, Hatcham College became a CTC after a long battle with Lewisham Council in 1991. Most of the original 15 CTCs have now converted to academy status.

The original purpose of the academies programme was to help struggling urban schools, as I have just mentioned. As noble Lords will recall, philanthropic sponsors promised £2 million and academies were given wide, necessary and welcome discretion over various aspects of the curriculum, admissions, teachers’ pay and conditions, independence from their local authority and, if necessary, multimillion-pound new buildings or refurbishments.

The Haberdashers’ Company first became involved in 2002. Hatcham College had for some time been seeking a partnership role with a local school, and at the same time Lewisham was looking for a sponsor to take over Malory School, whose GCSE results in 2004 were, as I have noted, the worst in the country. Conversion to an academy secured Malory government funding for a complete rebuild of the school.

Since 2007 both Hatcham, with its music specialism, and Knights, a specialist sports academy, have flourished. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking has alluded, sport is so important as a catalyst, capable of transforming many disenfranchised children into focused and successful young people. Hatcham College, due to its success as a CTC, was always oversubscribed, and remains one of the most successful academies in the country, with outstanding exam results at both GCSE and A-level, and with many students obtaining places at Russell group universities. In contrast, Malory School in the old days had a falling roll but, within one year of Knights Academy opening, the school was oversubscribed and in 2010 achieved an overall pass rate for all students, including in maths and English, of 40% at GCSE. I am delighted to say that many students now achieve places at university, as well as some significant sporting successes, both locally and nationally.

The Haberdashers’ Federation was innovative in being the first academies federation. The model, which has since been adopted elsewhere, was of an overarching single governing body made up of Haberdashers and Haberdasher nominees, parents, teachers and the local authority.

The success of Hatcham, Knights and the federation model pioneered by the governing body and SMT meant that the company was encouraged by the Department for Education to sponsor more academies. The company’s strategic vision, formulated by its education committee and endorsed by the court of assistants, was to provide “excellence in governance”. That meant that if the company was to be persuaded to open other academies, it would do so only if there were a Haberdashers’ school in the same area so that the skills of both the governing body and the SMT of the Haberdashers’ school could be brought to bear. If I could leave one key message with your Lordships this evening, it would be that excellence in governance is very important to the success of the academy and the pre-school programme.

The key differential between council-run schools and academies and free schools is that the latter can concentrate solely on the education of their pupils and operate responsively and quickly to ensure that the best education possible is made available to them. Therefore, important as independence in direction, the benefits of academy design, direct funding, reporting to central government, curriculum design and admissions are, independence in terms of governance and the freedom that comes with that is also critical.

20:07

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, today is serendipitous. I am proud to be a liveryman of the Drapers’ Company, and today I was privileged to visit the Drapers’ Academy, in Harold Hill in the London Borough of Havering. The academy is sponsored by the Drapers’ Company and Queen Mary, University of London, itself an institution founded by the Drapers. The academy was formally opened by Her Majesty the Queen, who herself is a Draper, in October last year. I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for initiating this important debate, and on her excellent speech.

I met today with the principal and staff and addressed some of the senior students. I was asked to inspire the students, but I came away inspired, and not only by the amazing transformation of what was a failing comprehensive school—a school that was the last choice of people in the local community, in an area where, at the bus stop outside the school, you saw children with other school uniforms going far afield. Now, thanks to a brand new building, new leadership and, most importantly, a new attitude, this school has been transformed. There are now many more applicants than there are places each year.

This has been achieved over two years, even before the amazing new building with state-of-the-art facilities was opened. It has been achieved because the academies system has unleashed the potential that is tied up in our state school system. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke about governance. The board of governors at the Drapers’ Academy is chaired by the former Master of the Drapers, a retired general from the Army, and includes a housemaster from Eton. This is the state sector, the third sector and the private sector coming together to transform the lives of children who were previously written off.

Children in the old school were regularly excluded; today there are no exclusions. Today, even the most difficult children are given their own area within the school and their own specialised tuition and care. No child is given up on. In 2012, even before the new building, 62% of its students achieved GCSE grades A* to C, including in English and maths. Just two years since opening, it is one of the fastest-improving schools in England and it places an emphasis on science and maths.

I met such impressive young teachers, including teachers from Teach First, who genuinely enjoyed being at the academy. I witnessed a school with a bright environment and a buzz—healthy food, and healthy, happy children. They have a principal with an open mind—we spoke about leadership—who wants to take things forward with a plan for a primary school and a boarding house, and a plan to bring in a house system to engender healthy competition. I was told that in the old school, the failing comprehensive, none of the children wanted to go to university. When I asked the children I was giving my talk to how many of them wanted to go to university, virtually every hand went up.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government will press ahead, with urgency, in converting all our comprehensive schools into academies or free schools? The academies are a Labour Government initiative. I give full credit to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, this Government and my old debating sparring partner, Michael Gove, in building on this initiative. This is not joined-up government, it is joined-up Governments. If only we could convert every school in Britain into an academy or free school, with leadership of the right ethos, inculcating discipline, where children are not excluded but included, where the environment inspires children to aspire and where failure is transformed into an overnight success.

To conclude, my visit to the Drapers’ Academy has given me more faith than ever before in our children being able to aspire to a “British dream” and keeping this country at the top table of the world for decades to come.

20:10

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for facilitating this debate this evening and very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to his new role. As he will know, his predecessor developed a reputation for listening and engaging and I very much hope that the noble Lord intends to build on that style. I look forward to debating with him in many months to come.

As has been well demonstrated by this debate, we share a common passion to drive up education standards. As we have heard, the previous Government played their part in this. They were restless in pursuit of innovation to ensure that every child received a stretching and enriching education. We took radical steps to tackle failing schools and narrow the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils. Our policies were firmly rooted in evidence-based initiatives rather than ideology; or, as it was said at the time, what matters is what works.

Sponsored academies were part of our reform agenda. They were set up to address persistently underperforming schools in areas of high deprivation, requiring a sponsor to assist with school improvement. They were, and are, a success story. I add my congratulations and acknowledgement to my noble friend Lord Adonis, who is sitting next to me and who has received much praise in this debate. He was very much an architect of that model, as we have heard.

Regrettably, this Government have taken the concept and redefined it to focus too much on school autonomy as a prize in itself. In doing so, it has lost some of the unique transformative power that characterised the early experience. The latest government research has shown that sponsored academies, building on the original concept of introducing new school leadership, continue to outperform other models. However, they are a small percentage of the whole and are now massively outnumbered by the so-called converter academies: that is, schools already judged outstanding or good by Ofsted which have chosen to become academies since 2010. This rush to convert all schools to academies highlights some of the essential differences between us and this Government. For example, we do not believe that there is just one model of success.

When I first took over as shadow Minister, I visited a number of schools involved in the London Challenge initiative introduced by the previous Government. Some were academies, some were maintained schools. All are now highly performing schools with strong and innovative school leaders. Indeed, Pimlico Academy, with which the Minister has been long connected, was a beneficiary of the scheme. The key success factor was the intervention and collaboration between schools, put in place to improve the quality of teaching. As a result of this initiative, London’s schools went from being among the worst to being among the best performing in the country. The success of such an approach is confirmed by a growing weight of national and international research which identifies that collaboration is the key to reform. However, meanwhile, the recent report from the Academies Commission showed that many of the converter academies which had been required to support a struggling school nearby in order to gain academy status have now broken that promise with no comeback. The same report identifies a growing trend towards complex admissions procedures which dissuade the less determined parents. As a result, it too often remains the case that poor children are served by a poor education. The research shows that children from a socially deprived background remain disproportionately more likely to attend a school that is classed as underperforming by Ofsted.

Therefore, we have concerns about the focus of the Government’s current academy programme. We are worried about the lack of emphasis on the power of partnership and collaboration. We fear that the early focus on underperforming schools in areas of high social and economic deprivation is being lost. We see a teaching profession demoralised and criticised when teachers are the key to improving teaching quality and we see parents struggling to navigate complex admissions policies. Therefore, I hope that the Minister is able to reassure the House that a more measured approach, addressing these issues and genuinely informed by existing evidence, will be adopted in the academy strategy of the future.

20:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)]

My Lords, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this important debate. In particular, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for raising this issue. Few know more about driving educational standards than my noble friend, a former teacher and Chief Inspector of Schools.

This is my maiden speech. I understand that it is customary for new Members of your Lordships’ House to make their maiden speech before conducting any business here. I have in fact already answered three Questions from the Dispatch Box. Indeed, at the beginning of the first Question, I was so nervous that I managed to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for welcoming me to the House before he had actually had a chance to do so. I hope that I am not going to earn a reputation in this House for doing things in the wrong order. I would like to thank all noble Lords and the staff here for being so welcoming and kind over the past couple of weeks.

Until about eight years ago, my life was focused on business—specifically the venture capital industry—but then I started to get interested in the care of children and young people, and in education. My wife, Caroline, and I set up a charity to support young people. We support a number of after-school clubs, supplementary schools and organisations like that, but it seemed all to come back to schooling. We decided to look at the academy programme and I was introduced to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, a truly great man. He appointed us to sponsor Pimlico Academy and, at that point, our lives changed completely.

The school was, by any definition, failing. It had been in special measures, had very poor behaviour—there was one famous fight outside the school involving 400 pupils—poor results, very low morale among the staff and students, low aspirations, very little for the pupils to do after hours, a building that was falling down, leaked and was infested with mice, and eight days of strikes in the year before we took over, over things any two Members of this House would have sorted out over a cup of tea. Thanks to our excellent team, led by our inspirational principal Jerry Collins, the school has completely turned around, students are happy, well behaved, engaged in school life, their heads are up and their aspirations are high. Teaching is much improved, the results are much improved, and we have only permanently excluded two pupils since we started over four years ago.

Although the academy achieved an “outstanding” Ofsted rating two years after it opened, we still have a long way to go if the school is to become the truly great school that we intend it to be. To help achieve this, my wife, Caroline, has led a project to develop a new key stage 3 curriculum which is now being taught in Year 7 and a new primary curriculum to go into our primary schools. This is a more content-rich and coherent curriculum which we believe will give our students the knowledge, skills, understanding and cultural literacy they need to be successful.

Our fundamental belief, which I believe is also the fundamental belief of this Government, is that our children and young people are capable of far more than we have hitherto asked of them. If you had seen, as I have, 11 year-olds in a charter school in the Bronx in New York, on an estate every bit as challenging as any here in London, seriously engaged in a lesson on the great philosophers, you could not doubt that. Nothing I have been involved in, in my business life, comes close to the experience of sponsoring an academy and I will be eternally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and to another wonderful man, the late Sir Simon Milton, for giving us the opportunity.

I was delighted when I was asked to be a non-executive director of the Department for Education. When we arrived as non-executives in 2010 there was no doubt that the senior civil servants thought we were people to be managed rather than engaged with, but over time we have worked increasingly well together and are now all working closely as a team. So when, rather surprisingly, my right honourable friend asked me to do this job, it was something that I just had to do because it seemed like a natural progression.

A society where 40% of our young people do not even get the basic qualifications, where we have 1 million NEETS, where it takes two years and seven months from entering care for a child to be adopted and a year longer for a black child, where many of our children who leave care rebound quickly into the criminal justice system, where children with SEN are sometimes misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all and where their parents have to fight every step of the way to get the provision they need, where children go missing from care and end up the victims of dreadful sexual exploitation and where gangs of our young people are committing vicious murders on each other in our streets as happened only a week ago to one of our former pupils in Pimlico, such a society struggles to call itself civilised. It is a great honour to be a Member of your Lordships’ House, which I know cares deeply about these issues.

Turning to the subject of the debate tonight, it has been delightful to hear such a consensus in favour of academies and free schools. All my best points have, of course, already been made. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her welcome and assure her that I intend to take a listening approach; I, too, look forward to debating with her on many future occasions. I would also like to thank the previous Government for taking the CTCs initiated by my noble friend Lord Baker and developing them under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, into the academy product, a product that this Government have unashamedly developed in terms of numbers and also across primary academies, free schools, UTCs, special academies and studio schools.

At the risk of repetition, I will give a few statistics. There are now 2,673 academies open in England, of which 618 are sponsored and 2,055 are converters. Over 50% of all secondary schools are academies and there are 505 sponsors. Some 25% of sponsored academies in chains have an “outstanding” Ofsted rating. Sponsored academies are improving their GCSE results five times faster than other schools. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells will be pleased to hear that 89 converter academies are now sponsoring other schools. There are 80 free schools open, with a total capacity of 34,000 pupils, and over 100 more are due to open later this year and beyond. Half of the free schools open are in the 30% most deprived communities and over half are in areas of severe basic need. Free schools are in great demand: 75 per cent of the schools which opened in September 2011 were oversubscribed for entry last year. However, I note the comments made by the right reverend Prelate about the need for more free schools in BAME communities.

My noble friend Lord Baker spoke somewhat passionately about UTCs. Five of these are now open and 26 more are planned. There are 17 studio schools open with 16 more planned, and 63 special academies open with 50 more planned. We have opened the first alternative-provision free school, and the first specialist maths school is due to open in 2014. I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that we intend to continue with the pace of reform. The Government understand, as several noble Lords have acknowledged, that parents know what is best for their children. They must have choices and if there are not the schools that they want in the area they must be free to create more.

I am delighted to hear what my noble friend Lady Perry said about professional judgment always trumping bureaucratic prescription, and what my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said about the importance of freedom for teachers. This Government believe that teachers, head teachers and governors, not politicians and bureaucrats, should decide how schools are run and should have the freedom to make a difference to the lives of their pupils. The best ideas in schools come from schools themselves. I have noticed that the best schools often have the same characteristics: a broad and balanced curriculum, high aspiration, a longer school day, plenty of extracurricular and sporting activities, and good engagement with the local business community. We are keen for all schools to emulate what the best schools do. The evidence from abroad shows that strong autonomy for teachers, combined with accountability, delivers results. On accountability, I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, about the Ofsted inspection regime, and his other concerns, which, I can assure him, the Government take seriously. Regarding what my noble friend Lord Lucas said, I can assure him that we will take a tough approach to academy failure.

Academies are having a dramatic effect on results, particularly where new sponsors have taken on formerly underperforming schools. These sponsors challenge traditional thinking and have no truck with a culture of low expectations. There are plenty of examples of schools that have improved their performance over the past year alone by over 20%. However, there is still much more to do. We have already turned 200 of the worst-performing primary schools into academies supported by a strong sponsor. However, too many children are still suffering from a mediocre education. We therefore want to go further, as my noble friend Lady Perry said, and tackle more underperforming primary schools and pair them up with a high-quality sponsor. My noble friend Lord Moynihan made the vital point about the importance of governors. I can assure him that this is something that we will focus on intensely.

After attempting to answer three Questions not on my specialist subject, it has been a delight to respond to this debate on the contribution of academies and free schools in this country. It has been a most excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

20:26

Sitting suspended.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

20:28

Clause 24 : Bringing business and commercial projects within Planning Act 2008 regime

Amendment 77C

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

77C: Clause 24, page 30, line 22, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to development in Greater London, the Secretary of State may only give a direction under subsection (1) if an application for planning permission for the development would be an application of potential strategic importance for the purposes of section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, the amendment seeks to avoid a potential inconsistency in Greater London between the concept of what is of “strategic importance” for the purposes of the Mayor of London’s powers to intervene in the local planning process, and what is of “national significance” for the purposes of the Planning Inspectorate’s role under the new scheme. The potential inconsistency is set to arise in the City of London in particular because the Government’s proposals in the Bill do not reflect the recognition given in the existing system to the special circumstances of the City.

Greater London provides a useful yardstick for the Government’s proposals because regulations have already laid down in some detail what sort of development might, because of its implications for the regional economy, require a wider look than that taken by the local planning authority alone. It is in the interests of certainty and consistency that this careful demarcation is not undercut by the new proposals, which have a similar aim only with a national rather than a regional scope. Of course I am not suggesting that every development deemed to be of regional importance should be regarded as nationally significant as well but the converse seems to me compelling. I struggle to see how a development could be said to be of national significance when it is not treated as regionally significant.

Let me make it clear at once that the Government’s current proposals generally reflect this view. The consultation indicates a threshold of 40,000 square metres of floor space, above which a development might be considered nationally significant. Of course that comes from annexe A in the consultation document. This considerably exceeds the thresholds laid down for potential strategic importance in most of Greater London—namely 20,000 square metres in central London and 15,000 square metres in outer London. This was provided by the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, which was made under the powers introduced by the Greater London Authority Act 2007.

I suggest that this is the right way round. Powers to determine matters on a regional level should, if I can put it this way, kick in before powers to determine matters on a national level are involved. However, in the City of London—as opposed to Greater London as a whole—a higher threshold is provided for when a development might be regarded as of potential strategic importance within Greater London. The threshold in the City is 100,000 square metres of floor space. It may seem strange to some of your Lordships to single out a particular area in this way. It is, however, a recognition of the markedly different planning environment in the City from anywhere else in Greater London and, I might suggest, from anywhere else in the country.

The question of thresholds was discussed at some length in this House when the Bill for the Greater London Authority Act 2007 was considered in Parliament. It came to be accepted, I think on all sides of this House, that it was appropriate to recognise the special circumstances of the City in this way. I have reason to hope that the Minister may be receptive of this argument today. My noble friend Lady Hanham may well remember that she was on the Front Bench for the Opposition at the time of that Bill and she appeared to be very appreciative of the City’s case. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Ahmad will be as well.

In terms of commercial development, what is significant in the City is not the same as what is significant elsewhere. The City is an area devoted to business in a manner unlike any other. Noble Lords who take an interest in these things will recall that it has fewer than 7,000 residents on the parliamentary roll, but more than 300,000 people work there. No global commercial centre can sustain itself without a substantial property stock capable of meeting the changing needs of international business. A principal objective of the planning system as it has been operated in the City is to ensure a plentiful supply of office buildings as one might say befits a world-leading business and financial district in the 21st century.

During the discussion about thresholds in 2007, I think that the House recognised that applying the same thresholds to the City as elsewhere would capture a whole raft of projects which, while of potential strategic importance in other London boroughs, were unexceptional so far as the City was concerned. This would have defeated the purpose of the new powers, which was to enable developments of special or unusual importance to receive the wider consideration that they merited, while leaving boroughs to perform tasks within their normal range of responsibility and expertise without undue disruption or uncertainty.

The application of this principle in the City led to the adaptation that I described. To apply the threshold of 40,000 square metres in the City would leave far more projects liable to be treated as nationally significant than would be treated as regionally significant for Greater London. This seems absurd. Of course the situation under this clause is not quite the same as that which exists with respect to the Mayor of London, because the exercise of the Planning Inspectorate’s powers will be triggered only on the application of the developer. However, this point of difference does not justify what seems to be a substantially different approach in respect of the City to the notion of what is of strategic importance.

The Government have been clear that they regard the new process as something to be used as an exceptional course. In the other place on 4 December, my honourable friend Nick Boles described it as a backstop where there were genuine reasons to bypass the normal role of local planning authorities. In my view, this requires thresholds for national significance that recognise the distinct position of the City, in the way that it is currently recognised in determining potential strategic importance at regional level. In that way, we would avoid the topsy-turvy situation where the City was the only part of Greater London where a development could fall within the nationally significant regime without being treated as of potential strategic importance at regional level. As I said, that would be absurd.

It may be that this should be dealt with in regulations rather than in the Bill. However, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give me some reassurance that the Government will be mindful of the need for a consistent approach. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as ever I am grateful to my noble friend for the thoughtful remarks he made about why London is a special case and why we should have a different planning approach. To put it simply, we agree. That is why we set out in Clause 24 that new Section 35(4) should require the Mayor of London’s consent before business and commercial projects in Greater London can be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. Therefore the amendment is not required.

I can reassure my noble friend on his final point about how best this can be taken forward. We will discuss with the mayor how the proposal will work in practice, to ensure that there is no conflict with the mayor’s responsibilities for projects of strategic importance.

My noble friend asked a few questions about the mayor’s role. I reiterate that we recognise that London has its own planning context, with the mayor taking responsibility for strategic planning across London. That is why we built into the legislation the requirement to obtain the mayor’s consent to issue a direction for any business and commercial project in Greater London that wants to use the nationally significant infrastructure regime. We also agree that it is hard to envisage a type of nationally significant scheme that the mayor did not have the ability to consider as being of strategic importance.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred also to the City of London—a place I know well—and to how different it is from other parts of London. He said that the threshold should be much higher to bring powers into line with those available to the mayor.

My noble friend alluded to the consultation. We are still considering the responses that we have received on the proposed thresholds; the intention behind them was to provide a gateway and give a clear indication that only schemes of national significance would be directed into the regime. Not every application above the thresholds will be directed into the regime and I come back to the point that the mayor’s consent will be central.

I will explain our position a little further. We do not think that the amendment will work from a technical standpoint, as the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, which refers to projects of potential strategic importance, goes much wider than the Government have proposed in their consultation paper on extending the infrastructure planning regime and commercial projects. For example, the order includes retail as part of strategic development which may affect the mayor’s strategic policy. The Government have already indicated in the consultation paper on extending the regime to business and commercial projects that they do not propose to include retail development as a prescribed project of potential national significance.

The 2008 order also includes types of transport infrastructure as development of potential strategic importance. Under the 2008 Planning Act certain forms of transport infrastructure that meet specific thresholds must be considered under the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime. Transport projects that fall beneath the thresholds have to make a request to use the regime should they wish to do so.

The amendment would add to the complexity of the legal picture, confronted with issues around London. I come back to the point that I made at the outset. We have built into Clause 24 a simple requirement to obtain the mayor’s consent so that this complexity is not necessary. For its implementation we are working with the mayor’s office and will continue to have discussions with him about how this can best be taken forward. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I will study my noble friend’s response carefully. I hope that I had made it clear that I was not considering the powers of the Mayor of London in this amendment but simply the question of the thresholds within the City area. My point was that a threshold of 40,000 square metres would be absurd within the City and for other purposes the threshold has been put at 100,000 square metres. Before I withdraw the amendment, can my noble friend confirm that his response takes into account what is seen by the City as an extremely important issue?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Specifically on the issue of the threshold, different thresholds for projects of strategic importance apply to different parts of London. I can confirm that the threshold includes development that comprises or includes the erection of buildings in the City of London with a total floor space of more than 100,000 square metres.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am most grateful. I have no doubt that the discussions will continue. I was really more concerned about the Guildhall than City Hall. My noble friend, who said that he was familiar with the City, will understand that. With that assurance, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 77C withdrawn.

Amendments 78 to 78ZA not moved.

Amendment 78ZB

Moved by

[Lord Adonis]

78ZB: Clause 24, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a proposal for a national policy statement, setting out national policy in relation to this section.”

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, as I said at Second Reading we are far from convinced that this Bill will do much to promote growth, or boost investment in infrastructure. The obstacle to infrastructure investment is not, largely, planning. It is funding, lack of clarity about government policy in key areas and the state of the economy. The National Infrastructure Plan does not meet this point, because it is simply a list of projects and not a blueprint for how they are to be funded, promoted and delivered.

My amendment in this group is simple. It attempts to provide greater policy certainty and impetus to taking projects forward. The Secretary of State should lay before Parliament a national policy statement to provide a framework for infrastructure decision-making, including in areas not addressed by the existing national policy statements, which cover energy, ports and waste water. As has been repeatedly noted in our debates today, there are still no national policy statements for airports, road, rail, water supply or hazardous waste. There is a big gap to be filled here and this amendment seeks to do that. I beg to move.

20:45

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have Amendment 79 in this group. I was going to say how much I support Amendment 79A, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I do not think he spoke to it but I am happy to support him on it.

My amendment is similar to one that I moved when we were talking about Clause 1. Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, among other things, provides that notification of planning applications is given to all town and parish councils within the area of the authority. This amendment would provide the same duty on the Secretary of State to notify town and parish councils when an application for development consent takes place within their area and when a significant amendment is made to it. It is as simple as that. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment, which places in the Town and Country Planning Act the same duty as already applies to local authorities.

[Lord Adonis]

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quite rightly points out that I did not speak to my second amendment, which I thought was in the next group. The amendment is designed to request that the local plan would have primacy in the event that the Government refuse to publish a national policy statement. Since it is the only plan which applies in that event, it seems to be perfectly reasonable that it should be the one that has primacy.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I stand briefly to support Amendments 78ZB and 79A. I will not re-rehearse the arguments that I made when talking about the previous group of amendments but will simply say that in my experience developers crave certainty. It is not always possible to give certainty, but if a firmer framework is put around the planning process, that would provide more certainty for developers. That is something they would welcome, and both these amendments would enhance that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 78ZB and 79A first, before then speaking to Amendment 79. The Government cannot agree to Amendments 78ZB and 79A. The first of these amendments would require the Secretary of State to,

“prepare and lay before Parliament … a national policy statement”,

for any development which would be the subject of a direction under Section 35 of the Planning Act. Amendment 79A would then require the Secretary of State to make decisions on development consent orders for business and commercial developments, where there is no national policy statement in place, in accordance with the relevant local plan. I will set out my reasons for not being totally in favour of this.

As we set out in our recent consultation document on the new business and commercial category of development, the Government do not think the case for one or more national policy statements is strong for this category of development. The consultation closed in January and we are considering the responses that we have received, including on the subject of whether or not a national policy statement for business and commercial development should be prepared. I should stress that, unlike nationally significant forms of infrastructure, this clause does not provide for a mandatory planning route. Developers may, as we discussed on previous amendments, make a request to the Secretary of State to use the Planning Act regime or they may continue to submit their planning application to the local council. Although there is a worrying trend of large-scale major applications taking longer to determine, we recognise that many councils do determine important applications quickly and that the majority of business and commercial applications will probably remain with the local council for decision. We expect the numbers of business and commercial applications to be determined via this route to be very small.

Without a national policy statement, the Secretary of State will determine applications having regard to any local impact report, any prescribed matters and any other matters he considers both important and relevant. This could include the local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, which of course itself places great importance on local plans. In those circumstances, Amendment 79A is clearly unnecessary. The effect of the amendment would be that the local plan potentially overrides other important considerations. For projects of national significance it is important that a wide range of matters are able to be given appropriate weight.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has, for example, issued decisions under the Planning Act regime without a national policy statement in place. In reaching his decision on the application for the north Doncaster rail chord, my right honourable friend agreed with the examining authority that the unitary development plan, the draft core strategy, key policies from the local plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and other policy documents were able to provide the necessary policy context.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

What happens in rail transport is very different from what happens in a heterogeneous collection of commercial and business applications. The whole policy framework, if not explicit in terms of railway planning, has been established for many years and the plans and proposals for most of the railway authorities and operating companies are very visible and transparent. Using a railway example does not test out that issue.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I sometimes think it is not a good idea to give examples so I will move on. The reason that I have said the national planning statement is not being looked at with favour for building commercial is simply because the expectation is that it will be of very little use and that there are other documents and evidence that will be good enough to help in this matter.

We support the intention behind Amendment 79 as we also believe in the important role that parish councils can and do play in the planning system but we are not happy to accept it for the following reasons. First and foremost, the Planning Act 2008 already places a requirement on the applicant to inform local authorities, communities and other prescribed bodies, which include relevant parish councils, about the proposed application and to engage them in pre-application consultation. In addition, should an application then be accepted for examination by the Secretary of State, the applicant must inform those bodies that the application has been accepted so they have an opportunity to make representations and register as interested parties for the purpose of the examination. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment simply because it is not necessary. Parish councils are already defined as a statutory party in the regulations that accompany the primary legislation. This means that parish councils must be consulted about proposed applications for a development consent order and if they wish to make representations, they are able to do so. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on my amendment. I am not sure I grasped all the details of the answer but I will read it carefully and if I have any further questions, I will come back. One question I have now relates to the pre-application consultations under the 2008 Act. Does that mean that an application for development consent for business and commercial purposes under the new provisions would not be accepted until those pre-application consultations by the applicants have taken place locally? Will that be the case in future?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, part of the whole system under the Localism Act in particular was that developers should carry out pre-application consultations on every application. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes, we would expect that pre-application consultation to take place with everybody who might be affected by the application. That, of course, might include parish councils.

[Lord Greaves]

I am not sure that the Minister has actually answered my question. I accept what the Minister has said that it is requested—as it is for ordinary planning applications. But in an ordinary planning application, if the pre-application consultations have not taken place, that is not a reason for refusing to accept and register an application. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to hear from the Minister but I do not think I am wrong. But in the case of an application for development consent that is to be dealt with nationally, is it actually a requirement and would the application not be accepted without it?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is, on both counts, yes. It is part of the regime that there must be pre-application consultation, whether it is going to be done by the local authority or under the major infrastructure plans.

[Lord Adonis]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 78ZB withdrawn.

Amendments 78A to 79A not moved.

Clause 24 agreed.

Amendment 80 not moved.

Amendment 81

Moved by

[Lord Tope]

81: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“Community Infrastructure Levy: Greater London
After section 222 of the Planning Act 2008 (regulations and orders: general) insert—“222A Greater London
CIL regulations may include provisions enabling the Mayor of London to ensure that charging authorities in Greater London have proper regard to the need to be consistent with the spatial development strategy prepared and published under Part VIII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.””

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, Amendment 81 stands in my name. We now return to the Mayor of London, as distinct from the lord mayor, and to Greater London, as distinct from the City of London. This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to include a requirement in the regulations for the community infrastructure levy—henceforth to be referred to as CIL—that in setting their CIL rates London boroughs should have regard to the policies of the London Plan. This simple addition to the mayor’s current powers to vet proposed CIL demands would give developers greater confidence in the CIL-setting process and that local and cross-London priorities are being effectively aligned. It would also ensure that the strategic priorities set out in the London Plan are the focus of localised spending for the good of the capital as a whole.

The mayor will continue to vet all local CIL charging schedules in London to ensure that they take the mayoral CIL rates into account. However, according to the mayor, many developers have expressed considerable concern about CIL, worried that substantial payments proposed by local planning authorities could make new and important developments unviable. According to the mayor, a handful of local CIL rates proposed by some London boroughs are now emerging that appear to be prohibitively high and could jeopardise London’s key developments coming forward, despite passing the regulatory tests of viability.

Therefore, the mayor strongly believes that it is vital that the risks to the delivery of strategic development objectives in London are minimised. He wants to ensure that he has strategic oversight over CIL payments that are being demanded from developers by boroughs and has the power to require amendments if payments would make an important strategic development potentially economically unviable. I beg to move.

20:59

[Lord Adonis]

Could the noble Lord give some examples of London boroughs with CIL rates he believes to be too high, given that he has used this as an argument for this amendment?

[Lord Tope]

No, my Lords, I cannot, which is why I quite deliberately said that the mayor believes this. Therefore if the mayor believes it, he must provide the evidence.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, is the noble Lord not moving this amendment?

[Lord Tope]

That was a statement of fact.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, mention of the community infrastructure levy in this amendment gives me an opportunity—of which I have given my noble friends on the Front Bench notice—to raise an issue that was discussed with my noble friend Lady Hanham when she met the representatives of a very interesting small company called Pocket Living Ltd. This company aims to provide housing that is within the reach of people who can currently only afford to rent, and yet are above the level to qualify for social housing. Pocket Living Ltd has recently published a very splendid brochure, Pocket: Powered by the Mayor of London. This concerns the mayor’s housing covenant fund, but the company is very much a thriving one that fills a hugely important gap in housing provision, not just in London but potentially elsewhere as well.

The question is: what is the definition of affordable housing that would qualify for relief from a community infrastructure levy? When we debated Clause 6 we had a new definition of the affordable housing requirement, and I am told this is the first time that the words “affordable housing” have appeared in any statutory definition. The definition as it stands serves the limited purposes of that clause, but it adds to a plethora of overlapping definitions in this area that have grown up over the years for different purposes. Not only are these confusing, they can sometimes be downright contradictory. This is important because, as we have discussed, the need for genuinely affordable housing has never been greater.

I support the Bill’s objective of ensuring that the new housing developments we need are not held back by unreasonable and unviable demands for affordable housing. However, we must do everything we can to ensure that those who want to deliver genuinely affordable housing—of which I gave a brief outline at the beginning of my speech—have every incentive to do so, and are not held back by the unforeseen consequences of statutory definitions that may have been fit for purpose at the time, but in retrospect turned out to be too restrictive. I am afraid this is what has happened in the case of the regulations implementing the CIL. The regulations quite rightly recognise that we should not increase the burden on those with low or modest incomes, who are already struggling to find a home they can afford, by adding what would be a sizeable additional tax. However, the definitions of relief are so tightly drawn that we now find they do not cover some of the new and inventive models of affordable housing that are emerging.

I have mentioned that I was recently approached by a young company that found a very clever way to build smart new flats in central parts of London that young singles and couples can buy outright, even if they are on a modest income. The company wanted to build a small block of flats in Wandsworth for sale at around £200,000 each. The council wanted them, the Mayor of London wanted them, and they had a waiting list of 13,000 would-be buyers who desperately wanted them. However, as noble Lords may know, Wandsworth was one of the first London boroughs to implement the new levy, and when these people did their sums, they worked out that this would add some £10,000 to the cost of each flat. For a young couple on perhaps £30,000 or £40,000 a year, who have already been saving for perhaps seven or eight years for a deposit and have to pay London rents, £10,000 is an awful lot of money. The company reluctantly had to conclude that the scheme was unviable, and the plans were dropped.

These were genuinely affordable homes. They were available only to people who could prove that their salary was below the mayor’s limit for affordable housing. They were for sale at 20% below the open-market value, with a maximum price of £225,000. They could only ever be sold to other buyers who qualified for affordable homes. They would remain affordable homes, however many hands they went through. In fact, they satisfied every condition that my noble friend’s department sets out in the National Planning Policy Framework to qualify for affordable housing. Council planners say that they are affordable houses. The company had built five blocks of them already before the CIL came into effect. The Mayor of London agrees that they are affordable houses. DCLG says that they qualify for the affordable housing enhancement for the new homes bonus—so one part of the department seems to recognise this while the other does not. However, when it comes to the community infrastructure levy, they are treated in exactly the same way as if they were homes for millionaires. That really cannot be right. The only reason for it is that, when the regulations were drawn up in 2008, that type of home did not exist, so it was not included within the narrow definition for affordable housing.

As I have said, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and my honourable friend Nick Boles who met with me and the representatives of this company. They listened very sympathetically as we put the problem to them. The company came away from that meeting encouraged by Ministers’ recognition of the problem. I know that Ministers have conceded that the CIL regulations are not perfect. One piece of sticking plaster was already applied just a couple of months ago, but I understand that a consultation paper will shortly be issued with some more proposals for change. Can my noble friend give the Committee some assurance that a priority will be to ensure that relief from CIL will be extended to cover all types of genuinely affordable housing, including the kind of housing scheme that was described to my noble friend and her honourable friend, and that the definition will be broad enough that we do not have to come back to it again within four or five years?

I was very struck by the story that this company told, and I think that Ministers were, too. I hope that we may get a sympathetic response to this plea.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I thank also my noble friend Lord Tope for tabling the amendment. I understand his desire to support the mayor in his efforts to secure London’s growth, but I remain to be convinced that the changes being proposed are necessary and I shall highlight why.

The mayor has sufficient powers under the existing legislation to achieve his objectives. He has powers to set a CIL charge in London. He introduced this charge in April 2012 to help fund Crossrail, an objective that the Government fully support.

The existing CIL regulations are clear that the London boroughs must take the mayoral CIL charge into account when setting their own CIL charges. They cannot set a CIL charge which, when combined with the mayoral charge, would make broad areas of development unviable.

We have recently reviewed the statutory guidance for CIL. It is now clearer about the relationship between the levy and the implementation of local plans. The mayor can use the statutory guidance to challenge councils if he feels that their rates could put implementation of the London Plan at risk. Perhaps I may dwell on this point a little further. The issues within the statutory guidance published in December 2012 make it clear that charging schedules should be consistent and support implementation of the London Plan. It is also clear that the ability to deliver viably the sites and scale of development identified in the local plan should not be threatened. I point the noble Lord specifically to paragraphs 32 and 33 of the guidance, which refer to charge-setting in London and confirm:

“The Government expects the Mayor and the Boroughs to work closely in setting and running the Community Infrastructure Levy in London, including through mutual co-operation and the sharing of relevant information”.

We have also encouraged charging authorities to consult for at least six weeks on their draft charging schedule. This also provides an opportunity for the mayor to review and challenge proposed rates if necessary. As I have already said, the challenge can be made, and the correct place for the challenge is at the consultation and examining stages, when the mayor can make representations on all borough CIL charges. An independent public examination stage is also key to CIL. Any representations can be made to an independent examiner, who must determine whether the proposed CIL charge is appropriate. We therefore strongly believe that the impartial role of the examiner is essential, and the mayor’s role should be to engage with the process rather than take on additional powers to direct. My noble friend talked specifically of several London boroughs that have raised concerns and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, also spoke specifically of where those matters have been raised. I am certainly not aware of which London boroughs have raised those issues but if that information is shared I am sure that can be looked at.

To pick up on a couple of points made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, he referred to Pocket, which met with my noble friend and my honourable friend Nick Boles. It raised the issue of CIL payments and discount market sale housing. That case is being looked at and the issues raised have struck a note with Ministers. My noble friend Lady Hanham mentioned to me that she was very impressed by the issues raised. On the definition of affordable housing for CIL, the CIL Regulations 2010 give such a definition, which was quite tightly drawn. That said, if there are continuing concerns about the operation of the levy, they will be listened to. I am sure that as the levy comes more into play and practice, both in the mayor’s office and at a borough level, we will continue to look at how best it can be improved. However, turning back to the specific nature of the amendment, with the points I have made I hope that my noble friend Lord Tope will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tope]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. I do not know what was in the mind of the mayor when he said that. It would probably be very interesting to know what was in the mind of the mayor. I do not know which London boroughs he had in mind. If I had known, I think I still would not have said so because inevitably we would then be discussing the examples and their merits, rather than the principle here. As the Minister knows, this is the last of a number of amendments that I have spoken to in Committee to consider the whole position of London in the context of the Bill. We have had some helpful replies and some less helpful replies to earlier amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for the reply to this particular amendment, which I hope will give some reassurance and save at least some of the mayor’s worries. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 81 withdrawn.

Amendment 81A

Moved by

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

81A: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement on Secretary of State to consider climate change when drawing up a national policy statement
(1) After section 5 of the Planning Act 2008 insert—
“5A Climate change
A statement may only be designated under section 5 if the Secretary of State is satisfied that (taken as a whole) the policy in the statement contributes to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.”(2) After section 13 of the 2008 Act insert—
“13A Cumulative effects
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish on 6 April each year a report setting out the cumulative effect of development consents granted under this Act on the mitigation of and adaptation to, climate change.
(2) A statement designated under section 5 must contain a statement to the effect that it is the Secretary of State’s view that the requirement of subsection (1) is satisfied.””

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

I rise to move Amendment 81A and shall speak also to Amendments 81B and 81C, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I hope to grasp the opportunity that the Bill provides to align the local planning regime and the national infrastructure planning regime with the objectives of the Climate Change Act to make sure that planning legislation plays a full part in taking us towards the very specific UK target of an 80% cut in CO₂ by 2050 and to foster a climate-change-resilient nation.

I believe that this amendment is not at odds with the title of the Bill, as UNEP has recently described the greening of economies as a “new engine of growth”. This may well be one of the few proposals in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill that is about growth. Spatial planning can be a real contributor towards tackling climate change because it fosters development which reduces carbon emissions. It also can help to improve the resilience to impacts of climate change, such as floods or heat.

21:15

Amendment 81A concerns, “Requirement on Secretary of State to consider climate change where drawing up a national policy statement”. The increased scope for the Secretary of State under the Planning Act 2008 in relation to nationally significant infrastructure projects means that there is an increased responsibility on the Secretary of State in decision-making on applications and in the preparation of national policy statements.

Proposed new Section 5A, under Amendment 81A, places an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that the national policy statements are prepared in line with the Climate Change Act 2008. The current obligations in the Planning Act are inadequate because they require the Secretary of State only to explain how the policy set out in the national policy statements takes into account climate change. It is retrospective rather than prospective. Proposed new Section 13A would ensure that information about the cumulative impacts of development consents on climate change are gathered and published. Often, the cumulative impact is the most important.

Amendment 81B, “Requirement of Secretary of State to consider climate change when making decisions”, places an obligation on the Secretary of State to take into account cumulative impacts on climate change when he is granting development consent under the Act where a national policy statement does not apply. It goes hand in hand with proposed new Section 13A on the duty to publish a report on cumulative effects.

Amendment 81C brings together planning law and the Climate Change Act 2008 and gives the requirements laid on planning authorities some teeth. Section 182 of the Planning Act 2008 created a new duty on planning authorities to contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. This applied only to development plan preparation defined in Part 2 of the Act. There is no linkage with the Climate Change Act 2008, which does not apply directly in law to local authority planning functions. Joining the Planning Act to the provisions of the Climate Change Act in plan making gives some teeth to the local planning authority actions in this area.

I believe that this would be a move that the Committee on Climate Change would support. In its report last May, it highlighted:

“There is currently no requirement for local authorities to take action on climate change. This coupled with limited funding means there is a significant risk that local authorities will not develop and implement sufficiently ambitious low-carbon plans … The Committee recommends that a statutory duty … is needed to ensure local authorities have stronger incentives to act”.

The last amendment, at least in the planning sphere for local authorities, would give that statutory duty. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I had prepared something to say but it would substantially duplicate what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said. Therefore, I will not say it, except to underline her amendments and what she has said. In the past few years, when we have been discussing planning matters, we have been around these arguments several times under both Governments. There has been continued resistance from government to put too much on the face of planning legislation about the need to tackle climate change. I have no doubt that we will get the same resistance today.

I shall ask the Minister some questions. First, do the Government still accept the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008? Do they apply that to their decisions, not least within the planning sphere? Secondly, is climate change and the need to tackle climate change one of the factors—whether or not it is in planning legislation—that the Secretary of State takes into account and will take into account when making planning decisions, both in the sphere of planning guidance and in making decisions about such things as applications for development control? Thirdly, is climate change something which the Government expect local planning authorities to take account of when they are making their own plans and their decisions on planning applications?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I start with the three questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. With regard to climate change, Section 10 of the Planning Act 2008 already requires the Secretary of State to,

“have regard to the desirability of … mitigating, and adapting to, climate change”,

when undertaking statutory functions in respect of national policy statements. I think and hope that that concludes that. Planning has an important role in tackling climate change and making the transition to a low-carbon economy. We want to ensure that new development is future-proofed against climate change as decisions are made. As far as I am aware, local authorities would have to take account of climate change where it is relevant under their planning guidance.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. As I hope I have indicated, the Government remain committed to tackling climate change. We recognise that it is one of the great challenges facing the nation and the planning system has an important role to play, both in mitigation and adaptation. The planning regime can co-ordinate and galvanise community action on renewable energy and help to deal with the growing risks of flooding from severe weather and sea level rise. Many nationally significant infrastructure projects consented to under the Planning Act 2008, such as those that produce renewable or low-carbon energy, are in themselves major contributors to reducing the impacts of climate change.

I will now respond to the noble Baroness on her amendments to the Planning Act 2008. I hope to demonstrate to her that these changes are not needed, given the requirements that are already in place under that Act to ensure that the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change are properly taken into account both for individual projects and in terms of their cumulative effects.

Amendment 81A would introduce a new clause which would allow designation of a national policy statement under the Planning Act 2008 if the Secretary of State were satisfied that the policy in the statement contributed to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. It is difficult to see how this adds anything to the existing Section 10 of the Planning Act. As I have already said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, this already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of mitigating, and adapting to, climate change when undertaking statutory functions.

The amendment then proposes that a report should be produced annually setting out the cumulative effects of development consents. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 81B, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the latest version of this report when taking decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects where no relevant national policy statement had been designated. I suggest that such annual reports would add a new legislative requirement with no discernable benefits. It is important to remember that a key factor in taking decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects is the framework set out in national policy statements. Where these statements are in place, the Secretary of State is generally required to make decisions on development consents in accordance with them. The statements include specific policies on the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. National policy statements are also subject to a sustainability appraisal before they are designated, and this appraisal will include consideration of impacts and benefits in terms of climate change. The appraisal of sustainability is also accompanied by a monitoring strategy, which ensures that a strategic-level assessment of the effects of implementation of national policy statements is properly considered.

In addition, most nationally significant infrastructure projects must be subject to detailed environmental impact assessment, and cumulative impacts must be considered as part of those assessments. I know that a number of noble Lords have expressed concern about those situations where no national policy statement may be in place that relates to a development requiring consent under the Planning Act 2008. But, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State must take account of factors that are both important and relevant when reaching a decision on development consent for a project. Such factors are very likely to include planning policies as set out in the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework. A core planning principle of the framework is for planning to support the transition to a low-carbon future in a changing climate. In short, I would argue that we already have structures in place that meet what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve through Amendments 81A and 81B.

On Amendment 81C, the National Planning Policy Framework already expects local councils to adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. We have set out clear policies in the framework on how local authorities should support the move to a low-carbon future. They should do this by planning new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by actively supporting energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings and by having a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low-carbon sources. We have also made it clear that local plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply, and changes to biodiversity and landscape. I am sure that all of this rings pretty hard with the noble Baroness, who has spent quite a lot of time on all these issues. I also recognise the work of the Planning and Climate Change Coalition in producing cross-sector guidance, which has already helped local authorities to deal with the detail of how to take action.

As local plans are already required by the framework to have climate change policies on mitigation and adaptation that are in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008, there is no need for this amendment. The framework achieves this in combination with the existing duty on local authorities: Section 19(1)(a) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the requirement in Section 19(2)(a) to have regard in preparing their plan to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Furthermore, the amendment raises the possibility of legal challenge if the local circumstances mean strict application of every provision of the Climate Change Act 2008 is not appropriate. Additionally, any future changes to legislation on climate change can be readily reflected in updates to national planning policy, whereas a requirement in primary legislation, linked directly to the Climate Change Act 2008, could not be updated quickly. If the Act of 2008 were to be updated, this could confuse and hinder the production of up-to-date local plans.

In conclusion, the Government remain committed to tackling climate change. Existing provisions in legislation and policy already achieve what the noble Baroness seeks to do through her amendments. Given these reassurances about how we believe that this is all being dealt with, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extensive response, which I shall have to pore over before I come to any conclusion. I have two issues in the mean time. The requirement of the Secretary of State to have regard to a general set of provisions about climate change is not the same as linking that clearly with the Climate Change Act and the suite of targets that flow from that. Getting that kind of numerical precision of the targets into the Secretary of State’s responsibilities is important. The Minister’s point about the importance of the national policy statements for setting the framework for decisions means that Amendment 81A becomes even more important in terms of making sure that the Secretary of State does have this duty when he draws up national policy statements.

21:32

I shall read very carefully the points made about local planning authorities, because they were extensive and I shall need to think about them. However, I was rather taken aback at the idea that some of these amendments would give rise to legal challenge, because they are couched in such a general way that they are pretty inoffensive, and are certainly not so explicit that they ought not to be in the Bill. I therefore look forward to reading Hansard and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81A withdrawn.

Amendments 81B and 81C not moved.

Amendment 81CA

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

81CA: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“Development control
In the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, after section 54 insert—“54A Power for local planning authorities to require payment of a fixed monetary penalty for late or non-response to statutory consultations
(1) A local planning authority is required by statute to consult the statutory consultee before deciding whether to grant planning permission and where it appears to the local planning authority that—
(a) the local planning authority has not received representations concerning the application from the consultee within the timeframe specified in the consultation; or(b) the consultee fails to give notice within the timescale specified in the consultation that it does not intend to make representations.(2) The local planning authority may charge a penalty fee if they consider it expedient to do so (within that timeframe).
(3) A local planning authority which proposes to charge a penalty fee must—
(a) issue a document (a “statutory consultee penalty fee schedule”) setting the amount of the penalty charge payable, and other criteria, by reference to which the amount is chargeable in respect of planning applications.(b) be mindful of relevant advice issued by Secretary of State.””

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, at this time of night I will try to deal with the amendment extremely briefly. As we discussed earlier, the problem with the planning system is that it involves more than one consent. In many planning applications there is an obligation to notify other statutory bodies of the application that has been made. One of the problems that has emerged from that is the time taken by those other bodies to respond. In the mean time, of course, until they have responded, the planning authority cannot get ahead, which is one of the reasons why planning decisions get delayed.

Amendment 81CA sets out a procedure by which in appropriate cases the local authority can charge the consultee for the delay. This, it is hoped, will never have to be used. Of course, if there is agreement with the authority that the consultee cannot reply within the 21 days or whatever is appropriate for that particular consultation, that is different. If they have agreed a different timetable, that is fine. However, in many cases they simply do not reply. A disincentive to delay of that sort, with the prospect of being fined, might in fact encourage the others.

One might ask the question, “Would it actually deliver?” The Killian Pretty review on planning applications, Planning applications: A faster and more responsive system, came to the conclusion that it has the potential considerably to reduce the delays due to consultation. It has been estimated that these delays cost the economy at least £35 million a year. This would therefore be a valuable extra piece of machinery that could encourage the acceleration of the decisions on planning applications.

We are also discussing Amendment 81CB. This is a rather more drastic amendment, which perhaps at this stage should be regarded as a probing amendment. Certain of the consultees, the statutory bodies, have the power to veto applications. Examples have been given—I will not quote them all—of where a highways authority has said, “You cannot possibly do that. We will veto it”, and it does so under a power that has been given by the Secretary of State. This amendment is intended to remove that power of the Secretary of State. It is not right that a highways authority or whoever should have the right to veto an application just like that. I can understand that there may have been a reason for it, but it is one of the reasons why planning applications run into difficulties and why applications then have to be turned down.

These are two ways in which we could achieve the Government’s objective of speeding up the planning system. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench may be able to give me an encouraging reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I understand the reasons behind these amendments but I am a little concerned about them. As regards the second amendment, there are very good reasons why a highways authority should be able to say no to a development in some circumstances if it considers that it would be unsafe and that to allow it to go ahead might cost lives or cause people to be injured. There are very good reasons for that power.

Of course, you can speed up the whole planning process very easily by abolishing it and letting people do what they want. The reason why the planning process exists and there are lots of obstructions in it to people doing exactly what they want as quickly as they want is because it is in the interests of society in general that planning should take place and that development should be controlled and organised in a way which is best for society. Nevertheless, it is perfectly proper to argue generally where the balance lies as regards the making of plans and individual applications.

The Environment Agency does not have a power of veto in relation to drainage but a lot of planning authorities will think very carefully indeed before going against the advice of that agency on matters relating to drainage. They will spend a lot of time talking to it to try to find an acceptable way through—a compromise—in a particular case.

I think that a lot of unintended consequences could flow from the first amendment in this group and that it has to be thought about very carefully indeed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we await the Minister’s response on these amendments. I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the second of the amendments and the need to have specific powers in some circumstances: for example, in the case of a highways authority. Presumably, that authority cannot exercise those powers in an arbitrary way. I should have thought that it had to be subject to a test of reasonableness.

The only point I would make on Amendment 81CA is that it seems to be a clear recognition of the fact that delays on the part of a local planning authority are not always or only the fault just of the local planning authority; it relies on others to play their part. That is why we will come back to Clause 1, which we wish to delete from the Bill.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the proposed new clauses in Amendments 81CA and 81CB seek to improve the performance of statutory consultees in the planning system. I am very sympathetic to this objective but I am not sure that these proposed new clauses are the way to achieve it.

It is important to recognise that statutory consultees have an important role in the planning system. The key statutory agencies have valuable expertise on a range of specialist areas such as heritage, highways and nature conservation, and their input helps local authorities ensure that the impacts of new development are comprehensively understood in planning decisions.

Where statutory consultees are consulted on planning applications, they are required by law to reply to the local authority within 21 days. In doing so, they must provide a substantive response, enabling the local authority to proceed with the determination of the application in question. Any extension to the 21-day deadline would need to be agreed with the local authority. Therefore, boundaries are already in place.

Statutory consultees are required to report annually on their performance in meeting these targets. The five main statutory consultees achieve between 96% and 99%. Taking this into account, we do not think that a system of fines could significantly improve performance and would be difficult to devise. However, we are aware of the need to improve the way statutory consultees engage with both local authorities and developers to foster a more positive approach to facilitating development and delivering growth. I am bound to say that the reply within 21 days cannot be just a holding reply; it has to be a full response.

We have also taken action to ensure that statutory consultees are more accountable for the advice that they give and we have changed the award of costs circular so that if an inspector considers that a statutory consultee has acted unreasonably during the determination of a planning application the consultee can become liable for an award of costs. Although I support the intentions behind the amendment, I do not think it is necessary, considering the steps we are taking.

The second amendment would repeal the general power in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the grant of planning permission by a local planning authority. The Planning Acts give the Secretary of State a wide range of default powers that can be used as a last resort in relation to both plan-making and decision-taking. The powers are there as a fall-back to protect the public interest. The powers set out in Section 74 of the Act are exercised through Article 25 of the Town and Country (Development Management Order) (England) 2010 and that provides that the Secretary of State may give directions restricting the grant of permission by a local authority either indefinitely or during such a period as may be specified.

Planning applications are called in only in exceptional circumstances and the ability to serve holding directions is essential to the smooth functioning of the call-in process. In the case of the power of direction exercised by the Highways Agency, this is exercised during the consultation period, where the agency considers that, were a local authority to approve a planning application, it could result in a dangerous increase in risk to users of motorways and strategic roads. I agree that the Highways Agency should be accountable for the way in which this power is used in order to ensure that it is used for the key purposes of facilitating growth, both in ensuring that proposed developments are not delayed without good reason and in ensuring that approved developments do not result in additional congestion on the strategic road network. If noble Lords agree, I will write with further details on the Department for Transport’s policy on the use of these directions and on any future plans it might have to review them.

I should like to reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we are also concerned that any direction is used in as open and transparent a way as possible. The Highways Agency is very keen to work with applicants in developing their schemes and welcomes pre-application discussions. It knows that early engagement with developers is vital to ensure that applications can progress without delay. The agency says that it responds to consultations within the prescribed limit in 99.9% of cases. In 2011-12, 9.4% of responses made by the agency were a holding direction. As already mentioned, the agency has published an improvement plan with actions to improve its performance, especially in reducing the time taken.

I have abbreviated slightly what I wanted to say and I hope that, having done so, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am grateful for the amount of trouble my noble friend has taken in responding to these two amendments. I recognise that the second one was pretty drastic and I described it as a probing amendment, but I am grateful for what she said about the need to improve the performance of the statutory consultees. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81CA withdrawn.

Amendment 81CB not moved.

Amendment 81CC

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

81CC: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“General duties with respect to water industry
(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2A(1) (guidance on social and environmental matters) after the words “in the guidance” insert “and about how in exercising its powers and duties, the Authority shall take into account aggregate population and housing growth projections relevant to water undertakers and sewerage undertakers”.
(3) After section 2A (general duties with respect to water industry) insert—
“2AA Duty on the Authority (Ofwat) to have regard to local population and housing growth projections in undertaking price reviews
In exercising and performing the powers and duties mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Authority (Ofwat) shall have regard to aggregate population and housing growth projections (which are agreed as part of an adopted local plan, relevant to the individual appointment area or areas of the water and sewerage undertaker).””

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I hope that Amendment 81CC will be seen by the Minister as a constructive one. It is supported by the Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president but it is also supported by the water industry, specifically its trade body, Water UK. The purpose of the amendment is to place a requirement on Ofwat to have regard to future housing projections and demographic growth in adopted local plans. This would give greater certainty for water companies to invest in the essential infrastructure needed to support growth. The benefit for local communities would be more consistent planning such as investment in new reservoirs, more flexibility between water supply zones and upgrades to outdated existing infrastructure to cope with more extreme weather conditions and the increased incidence of drought and flooding.

21:45

It has become increasingly clear that accelerated development to support economic growth, which the Government are committed to delivering, will stretch the capacity of our infrastructure. We therefore need to mobilise large-scale, long-term investment in repair, replacement and renewal of critical infrastructure across the country to provide the supply that we need. Demand for water is rising, supplies are more problematic, and flooding is more prevalent—partly as a consequence of too many of our drainage systems being unable to cope with the volume of water. I think we would all agree that an improved water infrastructure is needed to deal with that increasingly volatile weather, with more reservoirs to fight drought and more efficient pipe repair and replacement to conserve supplies.

Significant parts of the UK’s water infrastructure are becoming outdated. The average age of sewers in England and Wales is 63 years, 40% of London’s water mains are more than 100 years old, and the latest available total leakage level for the water companies in England and Wales, which I take from the 2009-10 Ofwat Service and Delivery report, shows supply pipe leakage as being 787 megalitres per day, out of a total of 3,281 megalitres per day. That is a loss of 24%—enough to fill more than 300 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Another key issue is the five-yearly price reviews, which are unhelpful to water companies’ ability to plan for the long term. In England and Wales, water companies determine their need for investment in infrastructure through their resource management plans, which take into account a wide range of supply-demand factors, including housing projections, to ensure security of supply in the future. The Water Services Regulation Authority, Ofwat, is the water industry’s economic regulator for England and Wales. Currently, it reviews prices every five years and sets the prices that water companies can charge and the investments that they can make over the period. The next five-year period begins in 2015.

Economic regulation is recognised as an important enabler of infrastructure investment. However, given the greater investment in water infrastructure needed now, it is vital to consider whether the existing regime remains fit to respond to the future investment challenges. The Institution of Civil Engineers concluded in its 2010 State of the Nation report that water investments planned for 2010-15,

“don’t adequately take into account future population growth”,

because the current framework focuses on short-term costs in place of long-term sustainability. The report concluded that the price review framework,

“simply can’t cope with issues that require investment beyond the five-year regulatory cycle”.

Long-term investments require confidence over the life of the investment. The current system of price reviews does not give water companies sufficient certainty over charging, which they need in order to undertake longer-term investment schemes.

The amendment would therefore place a new duty on Ofwat to take explicit consideration of local housing and demographic change projections in its role as economic regulator, which would translate into more certainty for water companies to invest in essential infrastructure needed to support growth. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving the amendment, which has crept into our Bill. While the aims behind the amendment are laudable and understandable, we consider that the proposed amendment to Ofwat’s duties is probably unnecessary. It duplicates Ofwat’s existing duties, which is not in keeping with the Government’s principles for economic regulation. Ofwat already has statutory duties requiring it to protect the interests of existing and future customers. It is already required to ensure that water and sewerage companies are able to finance their functions, which include a statutory requirement to provide an adequate water and sewerage service to all premises.

The statutory water resource management planning process requires water companies to set up plans for managing the supply-demand balance over the next 25 years. This must be submitted to the Secretary of State at Defra and must take explicit account of projected population on housing growth. In making price determinations, Ofwat must take account of the published water resources management plans. Furthermore, Ofwat is already under a statutory duty to carry out its functions in a manner best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

The requirement to provide guidance on these matters also duplicates existing provisions. The Government have already published in draft their new statutory guidance to Ofwat—the strategic policy statement. This makes it clear that, in assessing the costs and benefits of supply-demand options, the focus should be on the best overall value in terms of long-term resilience rather than a least cost approach for the short term. This guidance also emphasises the central role of the water industry in enabling the development required to support economic growth and to meet the housing needs of the growing population.

All investment in water and sewerage services is ultimately paid for by the customer through their bills. Since privatisation in 1989, the stable regulatory framework for the water sector has enabled companies to attract more than £108 billion in low-cost investment. This investment is used to upgrade water and sewerage infrastructure, to improve customer service and to improve environmental standards. As the noble Lord has said, between 2010 and 2015, £22 billion will be invested, including ensuring that supplies are available for new and existing customers.

I hope that I have provided the reassurance that the noble Lord seeks in his amendment that there is proper investment and proper consideration of future housing growth, in particular, in the plans of Ofwat and the water bodies.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall read what she says very carefully. I am not sure that I agree that the current system works as well as she indicates—we have ended up with an excess of water in some places and not enough in other places. In the end, we do not seem to be dealing with the leakages, the availability and the flooding that is currently prevalent. I will, however, consult further and think further about the need for an amendment on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81CC withdrawn.

Clause 25 : Postponement of compilation of English rating lists to 2017

Amendment 81CD

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

81CD: Clause 25, page 32, line 35, at end insert—
“(11) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has—
(a) published detailed up to date comparative estimates of the total numbers of those ratepayers who would be liable to pay more or less as the case may be if this section were or alternatively were not brought into force, and(b) consulted formally with those likely to be affected by the bringing into force of this section, after publishing the information required under paragraph (a).”

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, this is clearly not the time to go into great detail on a rather technical matter so I will be as brief as I can. I put down this amendment because I was dissatisfied with the explanations given by the department and dismayed somewhat at the claims made by Ministers.

Now, the noble Lords will realise that this amendment follows one moved in another place by the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, Mr Nick Raynsford. I should probably declare some particular interest here in the sense that I am professionally involved with matters of rating. Of course, in a private capacity, I am both a landlord of commercial premises where rates are paid and, indeed, a commercial ratepayer myself in another capacity. I want to pay special tribute to the work done in connection with this and the whole question of the deferral of the rating revaluation by rating surveyors Gerald Eve. They have certainly been enormously helpful to me.

The fundamental point here is that businesses need to feel that they are being treated fairly in all this. I have mentioned before that, in my opinion, the rating system badly needs some attention. It has great unfairnesses and anomalies. The treatment of exemptions and relief needs looking at. The mounting number of appeals shows that there is a problem. Along with planning and compulsory purchase, this is another administrative system covered by the Bill that is under critical stress.

Frequent revaluations have long been known as necessary. For more than 20 years, we have had five-yearly revaluations. The Lyons report made it clear that where there are major shifts in values, more frequent revaluations might be necessary. If ever there was a seismic shift in property values, the time between 2008—the antecedent year for the 2010 year—and now was surely it.

It is hard to identify the precise reason for the decision to defer the revaluation. There does not appear to have been any consultation or compelling independent assessment, certainly not one that stood the test of hard scrutiny from the likes of surveyors Gerald Eve when they presented their evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place. There does not appear to be any particular fiscal advantage because revaluations are tax neutral; the basket of values goes up and the non-domestic multiplier goes down, and vice versa. There does not appear to be any particular financial benefit to deferral.

Where was the quoted advantage? It was in the claim that 800,000 businesses would be better off. This simply was not correct. Even on a reworking of the Valuation Office Agency’s figures, one could not arrive at that figure; it just does not make sense. As I said, it was comprehensively demolished by the evidence submitted to the Public Bill Committee by Gerald Eve. The greater certainty claimed for the benefit of these businesses seemed to be the greater certainty of being saddled with, in many cases, an over-high base for the rating assessment.

Whatever the reasons, this has caused a considerable amount of dismay among many bodies associated with businesses, in particular the British Property Federation, the British Council of Shopping Centres and many others. Many of them have taken advice, and have in turn made representations, through rating surveyors. Today, two press releases were put out by a number of these bodies, many of them household names. They all know that the effect, based on the public statistics, will be that retailing in much of London and food superstores generally will gain by the process of deferral. However, almost everybody else will be a loser in all this. Of course, extending the revaluation from five years to seven, even on a one-off basis, will make the process of subsequent adjustment that much more difficult. It is in recognition of that that I tabled the amendment. One has to consider whether it is fair that this situation should be allowed to continue.

I noted in passing a comment that some of the Portas pilot towns in particular, about which we hear so much, are likely to suffer through this. The fact that they need the undivided attention of the likes of Mary Portas means that they have problems. Possibly there is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy here. However, one needs to recognise the message that is being sent to businesses. Perhaps because they do not have votes, they do not matter, and perhaps that is why the information fed back to me suggests that when the industry met Ministers and officials, the tone was entirely dismissive of the industry’s views.

The facts cannot be denied. Accounts abound of commercial ratepayers that are paying more in rates than in rent. Small business rate relief apart—which, of course, is financed by other ratepayers—the incidence of inflexibly high levels of rates stands in interesting comparison to the maligned upward-only commercial rent review. It is one of those areas where one simply cannot make progress, and something must be done about it.

22:00

A message that the voice of business ratepayers is being listened to and is important has to go out. It is not good enough for these toxic effects on retailing and investment and ultimately land-use decisions to be based on trying to avoid elements of excessive tax. They need fair treatment as much as consistency.

My amendment would not reverse the matter altogether but it would require proper review of the data and an impact assessment. It would require consultation with businesses in exactly the same way as consultations already take place, such as the consultation on transitional arrangements before the 2010 revaluation. It is interesting that this amendment is grouped with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh. My amendment would not delete Clause 25, but I could be persuaded that wholesale removal is ultimately the only practical option. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, says, mirrors that moved by my honourable friend Nick Raynsford in another place. Like the noble Earl, I am grateful to those who have briefed us on this matter, particularly Gerald Eve, who has given us some compelling data.

As the noble Earl has explained, the amendment would prevent the postponement of the business rate revaluation scheduled for 2015 until the Government have produced detailed, up-to-date estimates of those likely to pay more and those likely to pay less, depending on whether the revaluation is deferred for two years and, crucially, until there has been a proper consultation with those likely to be affected. Requiring proper analysis and consultation is hardly revolutionary. It is the very least that should be expected if such a significant step as postponing a revaluation is to be taken.

This is a hotchpotch of a Bill, but Clause 25 sits particularly oddly with the rest of its provisions. The lack of prior consultation points to a last-minute decision that by all accounts does not generate unanimity within the ranks of the coalition Government. Our suspicions about this are reinforced by the fact that no mention was made of a possible postponement when we were discussing the Local Government Finance Bill just a few months ago. This is strange, given that we spent some time discussing the VOA and its role in the business rate retention scheme, prompted, as I recall, by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Concerns were expressed about its capacity to cope, especially with the backlog of appeals from two prior revaluations, although they were brushed aside by the Minister.

Notwithstanding that, the impact assessment now states that postponement will,

“allow the Valuation Office Agency to focus more resources upon continuing to improve the valuation process and supporting local authorities with the rates retention system”.

In replying, perhaps the Minister will give us a clear update on the capacity of the VOA and the resources available to it, or we might be tempted to revert more directly to this matter when we reach Report.

We should be clear that the purpose of rating revaluations is to achieve fairness in the business rate system by ensuring that rateable values are based on up-to-date rental values. Given that aggregate business rates are kept whole in real terms, revaluation would redistribute resources to those areas and sectors that have fared relatively badly since the last revaluation from those that have fared relatively better. Clearly, the extent to which this fairness is maintained depends on how frequently rateable values are updated. Since 1990, this has been every five years, a period that is seen as the maximum interval between revaluations.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the Michael Lyons report, which suggested that more frequent revaluations are justified, particularly during the economic turbulence and downturn that we have experienced since 2008. If the Government are to change the frequency of revaluations, especially to lengthen it, there is surely an obligation on them to provide a robust rationale for the change from the practice that has been maintained since 1990 free of political interference. This, I suggest, has not been done.

The Government are overwhelmingly basing their case on the VOA estimates of winners and losers should the revaluation proceed—supposedly, 800,000 facing a real-terms tax increase and only some 300,000 facing a fall. However, as the VOA makes clear—and the noble Earl has touched on this point—these are “high level” estimates, not forecasts, they are based on limited rental data, and neither the rental data nor judgments have been subjected to moderation and validation. Moreover, even on the VOA data given, experts have questioned whether the data can be used to justify the figures used by the Government. This has been set out in the briefings we have received, which have specifically drawn attention to the 528,000 hereditaments classified as “other”—not retail, office or industrial—which have been assumed to be the subject of an increase in rates, where some would clearly fall into the category of those that will benefit from a reduction.

The Government’s analysis is at best crude. It does not seek to address the likely level of increases and decreases, and their distribution; nor is there any consideration of what the likely position might be two years hence. The overwhelming suspicion is that this is a political decision taken to avoid a revaluation operating in 2015, at the time of the general election. It is accepted that revaluations bring a degree of turbulence, but transitional relief has hitherto dampened the effects. If the Government are to refute this challenge, they can do what this amendment asks—produce a proper analysis and then consult with those affected.

One clear consequence of postponement will be that those areas and sectors which have done comparatively poorly since 2008 will be denied for an extra two years the reduction in tax they might have expected. Those that have performed comparatively well will have a postponement of the increase in tax. Of course, a reduction in rental values and rateable values will not necessarily generate a reduction in business rates because the tax rate—the multiplier—will rise to keep the aggregate business rates steady. However, if rental values have fallen across England by 14%, those areas and sectors which have done worse than this are the likely losers from the postponement. The issue cannot be seen just in terms of regions or cities, but information provided by the Investment Property Databank highlights that, between March 2008 and September 2012, rentals have fallen in Leeds by 31%, Nottingham by 27%, Bristol by 25%, Sheffield by 21%, Liverpool by 21%, Manchester by 19% and Newcastle by 18%. In terms of the sectors, although retail has held up in some areas, the situation in many high streets is grim. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, five out of six of the Portas pilot areas have seen rental falls greater than 14%, and news of major retail closures are all too familiar.

For those who are struggling and who had an expectation of some moderation in their business rates, the decision to postpone will prolong the agony. While “no change” may be good news for some, the undermining of a system for political ends is not conducive to building business confidence. This amendment asks for a proper analysis so the Government can justify the decision they are seeking to impose.

[Lord Smith of Leigh]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill and will try, at this time of night, to avoid repeating some of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. The significance of this clause is that it breaks the consensual approach to business rating that has been in place since the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Here we are, on the eve of the revaluation which would have taken place later this year, being asked to delay it. The process of revaluation seems to have been clearly explained in The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) (Amendment) Regulations, which the Government issued in 2012 and which say:

“All rateable values are reassessed every five years at a general revaluation. The current rating list is based on the 2010 revaluation. Five-yearly revaluations make sure each ratepayer pays their fair contribution and no more, by ensuring that the share of the national rates bill paid by any one ratepayer reflects changes over time in the value of their property relative to others”.

That seems a very clear statement of intent. Now the Government are delaying that process so, despite what they said only earlier last year about a commitment to fair share, that commitment has, presumably, been broken.

Noble Lords mentioned the Government’s case about volatility, but volatility has always occurred whenever we have had a rating revaluation and we can cope with that. The data we have from the Valuation Office Agency are pretty sketchy. I will not repeat the comment about the rather suspicious addition of the 500,000 others who make the balance of the case. Before that the balance was that there were more winners than losers. The various revaluations that we have seen—I got a briefing from Colliers International—show that in all parts of the country rateable values in the retail sector seem to have fallen by at least 19%. For the individual centres they looked at, well over 80% had shown considerable falls, with a third of them over 25%. By contrast, the West End had shown an increase of 26%. These figures come from what Colliers calls its midsummer review, which happened last year. If the Government go ahead with this delay, the retail sector might well refer to this as a midsummer murder.

Both the noble Earl and my noble friend mentioned the Lyons review, which is the most recent authoritative report on local government finance. To further my noble friend’s point, I quote directly from Lyons about more frequent revaluation:

“This would make the tax more responsive to the actual state of the property market and could have economic advantages by reducing the burden of taxation on businesses in economic downturns”.

Goodness me—we are in an economic downturn. Lyons has suggested what should happen, but the Government have taken the opposite conclusion to this evidence. We need to understand why this has happened.

Both noble Lords mentioned the Portas review so I will not go into that again. One briefing I read also said that a further unintended consequence of the review could be its impact on property prices over the next couple of years. In areas of decline, this will put further downward pressure on prices so that property values fall much further than they might have if the review had taken place. In areas where property prices have risen, the effect may be the opposite—property prices would rise to soak up the impact of the lack of change. By the time we get to the proposed revaluation two years hence, the amount of turbulence will be significantly higher than it would have been if we had gone ahead with it now. Therefore, it is going to take a Government some degree of courage in 2015 to go ahead with that review if we are going to implement it. As noble Lords have said, this is a really important step. The Government need to give us a lot more information, if they have it, about how they can justify doing this, or we will need to come back to this on Report.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am rather surprised by the amendment and the tone with which it has been introduced by noble Lords. The reasons for introducing the postponements were quite clear; we are in the middle of one of the most difficult economic situations we have ever had and businesses are suffering from that as well. Therefore, what we can do to help is not to make major changes at this time. I remind noble Lords that the Michael Lyons review was carried out under the previous Government, who decided not to implement any of it, so I do not think we need Michael Lyons quoted to us at the moment.

As noble Lords have said, Clause 25 postpones the 2015 revaluation of business rates. The clause amends some of the most important parts of the business rates legislation so it may be useful if I say a bit about those provisions first.

22:15

As noble Lords have said, business rates bills are found from the rateable value for the property, which is assessed by the Valuation Office Agency, and the multiplier, which is set by the Government. Rental values are set out on a rating list and are updated every five years at a general revaluation. Local rating lists are held by local authorities and contain all rating assessments in their areas. The central rating list is held by the Secretary of State and contains network properties such as the National Grid. For both types of rating lists, since 1990 rateable values have been updated every five years to reflect changes in the property market, as noble Lords have said. That requirement to revalue every five years is contained in Sections 41 and 52 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which this clause amends.

We have had many debates on this over the past few weeks. As we have said, revaluations do not raise any extra revenue. Therefore, postponing the revaluation will have no impact on the total revenue raised from business rates—I think everybody understands that—but revaluations redistribute the total rates burden so that some ratepayers see increases in bills and some see reductions. We recognise that regular revaluations are an important part of the rating system but certainty for business is also important. Of course, if the revaluation is delayed, the current situation pertains.

The Valuation Office Agency’s best estimates of revaluation in 2015, which have been published in full, suggest there will be sharp changes in bills in 2015. The agency believes that 800,000 ratepayers may face increases, compared to only 300,000 seeing reductions. The Valuation Office Agency provides pretty detailed and good valuations, so I think it can be relied upon to produce these sorts of figures. Some sectors such as petrol stations, hotels and pubs would see very significant increases.

Postponing the revaluation for two years to 2017 will give businesses extra certainty to concentrate on delivering growth and maintaining their own business requirements, but we remain committed to regular revaluations so we will also ensure that the five-yearly cycle is reinstated after 2017.

We have provided for both these commitments in Clause 25. It inserts a new subsection (2A) into both Section 41 of the 1988 Act, which deals with local lists, and Section 52, which deals with the central list. The new subsection (2A) removes the requirement for a list to be compiled on 1 April 2015 and then sets a new five-yearly cycle to run from 1 April 2017. Clause 25 also contains consequential provisions to ensure that the current local and central rating lists remain valid until 2017, and that they continue to be maintained as usual throughout that time. This reform will support local economic growth by removing doubt about future rate bills and giving stability for businesses to plan and invest. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

Amendment 81CD would require the Secretary of State to publish updated estimates of the effects of the 2015 revaluation and to consult formally with those affected before this clause is brought into force. The best available estimate of the number of ratepayers affected by this clause has already been published in full. As I have explained and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has pointed out, the Valuation Office Agency has produced initial estimates of the 2015 revaluation, which it published on 12 November. Its work suggests that 800,000 premises would have seen a real-terms increase in their rates, compared to only 300,000 seeing a reduction. The Valuation Office Agency’s report remains the only analysis we have seen that looks across all sectors and areas of the country. It is the only credible analysis of the impacts of a revaluation in 2015.

The noble Lord has asked in his amendment that we publish detailed up-to-date analysis. I understand the wish to know as much as possible about what would have happened to business rates bills in 2015, but the fact of the matter is that the only way to accurately provide such information would be to prepare the valuations. That would cost about £43 million of taxpayers’ money, which does not seem a particularly useful way of spending it.

The Valuation Office Agency’s analysis covers all sectors and locations. It has been published in full and is available. We know from that analysis that some sectors would have faced big increases: petrol stations would have seen an increase of 28%; the self-catering industry, such as caravan parks, 29%; hotels, 6%; theatres, 25%; and pubs, 11%. Retail overall would have seen a tax rise of 1% above inflation at the 2015 revaluation, with food retail and convenience stores facing significant tax increases. Shops in some regions would have seen much greater tax increases.

I know there have been concerns—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Smith—that 530,000 of the 800,000 losers at the 2015 revaluation fell within a single category of “other” in the Valuation Office Agency’s report. However, the fact is that the Valuation Office Agency has looked at some of the larger categories of property within the classes, and its evidence and professional judgment support the figure of 800,000 losers.

The amendment would also ensure that we consult those affected before the postponed revaluation. We recognise the importance of consultation with business rates payers. Both the Government and the Valuation Office Agency hold regular forums to discuss business rates, and in recent weeks the Department for Communities and Local Government held several meetings with representatives of those affected by the postponement. I do not know whether it is those meetings which are reported by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to have been dismissive, but I find that quite surprising. The meetings have included the British Retail Consortium, Energy UK, the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Council of Shopping Centres, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and the Retail Motor Industry Federation. There are more planned during the passage of the Bill, and the Standing Committee in the other place received evidence from some groups.

The reason for what we are doing is to give priority to businesses and give them extra certainty now, before the revaluation process starts to raise doubts about future rate bills. That is a revaluation as a statutory exercise. We need to take primary legislation to stop it, quickly, for 2015. That is why we have moved to include the measures in this Bill. By placing the date of the next revaluation in the Bill, as well as the requirement for five-yearly revaluations thereafter, we have also shown our commitment to keeping rateable values up to date. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we have spoken about this clause to representatives of rate payers, and will continue to do so.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness perhaps explain to us what stability this decision gives to businesses which have really been struggling? For these businesses, rental values and rateable values are sure to decline in any revaluation that took place when it should. What stability is there for those businesses that were looking forward to some relief from a reduction in business rates? Is it not traditionally the case that there is a period of transitional relief for businesses that might suffer or be subject to an increase, in order to spread and dampen it?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we believe that stability will be provided by not having a revaluation at the present time. The economic situation is such to make a sureness and security about whatever position people are in very valuable. This is what is required at the moment to ensure that businesses know where they are. We appreciate that businesses are actually going through a very tough time; we have seen that on the high streets and we know that it is happening. So for businesses to have one problem fewer would be valuable.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Given that what seems to be at the heart of this is a dispute over the interpretation of the VOA figures, would the Minister be prepared to set up a meeting which noble Lords could attend together with the VOA and those who have put to us a different analysis of the VOA’s data?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am not sure that a combative meeting, which I think that that would be, would be very valuable. Perhaps I may think about that and see whether it would be helpful; I am not certain that it would be.

The measure is designed to give businesses security, to enable them to know where they are and to help them through what is a very difficult time.

I was asked also about the capacity of the Valuation Office Agency. We believe that it does not make any difference; it is up to it. It will have to do the same estimates again in a couple of years.

We have discussed the impact of appeals on several previous occasions. I have already told noble Lords that headroom is created in the local government financial settlement to ensure that rating appeals are taken into account and that local authorities do not lose out as a result. I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will decide not to press their amendments.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving such a detailed reply at this time of night. I thank the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Smith of Leigh, for their contributions and for filling in a lot of the detail that it was not possible to give in my introduction.

My meeting with the Minister’s officials was entirely satisfactory, save for the fact that it did not give me the answer that I thought I should have derived from it—but that is par for the course; one accepts that. I understand that the particular meeting to which I referred took place last Wednesday. The Minister—it was not the noble Baroness but one of her colleagues from another place—who had originally been destined to be there for half an hour or so, was there for two minutes and 40 seconds. Just one of the representative bodies got a question in and was more or less told, “Well, it’s a done deal and that’s it”. That seemed to be the end of the conversation, which was not really satisfactory for people coming along and explaining the situation from a business standpoint.

It does not give businesses any comfort to know that the report by Sir Michael Lyons is to be left on the scrapheap because it was commissioned by a previous Government who did not implement it. These things are done with much fine intellect and great skill is applied to them, and they should be taken at face value. I say from these Benches that if businesses are just going to be subjected to the idea of the thing being of no consequence because it is politically inconvenient or political point-scoring, that does not do anything for growth or infrastructure. It does not do anything for businesses or business confidence because all this politicking switches businesses off; they do not operate on that basis.

The Valuation Office Agency’s data were fine in their own terms, but it was how they were interpreted thereafter and the claims made for them that were not substantiated. It would have been better if they had never been prayed in aid at all. The Gerald Eve analysis of the figures—produced by the Valuation Office Agency, not by Gerald Eve; it was a reworking of the Valuation Office Agency’s own figures—has to this day not been challenged or countermanded in any sense. The political overlay is a matter of dismay to many businesses.

The cost of occupation is directly related to jobs. If we are all in this together, and somebody in the Treasury or wherever in the Government is saying, “Well, we’re not going to have this thing, because, in fact, we don’t want any sort of wobbles on the transition to the Local Government Finance Act arrangements and the business rates retention scheme and all that sort of thing”, that is fine, but it would be just as well if that were said outright and then we would all know where we were.

There does not appear to be any other reason for that. With the greatest respect to what the noble Baroness said, I do not believe that the figures add up in the way that she said. I do not believe that there are 800,000 gainers. I do not see that in the figures there. It is an allocation of a large proportion of “don’t knows”, and that is not the same thing at all. Obviously the noble Baroness is entirely dependent in these things on the information that is provided by her department but there is a great deal of concern about the information, what it means and what is being claimed of it. Different interpretations are being attached to things that should have a straightforward meaning to everybody. This is a problem that we need to address.

22:30

The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said that it breaks with convention. Yes, it sets a precedent. If this goes through in the Bill, it will be something that is variable according to the whim or fancy of any subsequent Administration for whatever reason. It will accelerate the number of appeals, it will increase the mutterings of dissatisfaction and pressure for much more radical change, and it is likely to increase pressures in relation to investment, particularly in areas that are really struggling and have been hit quite badly both in terms of the turnover that they can generate and the values of the premises. The downward spiral is never at all comfortable for occupiers, landlords or anybody else. That needs to be recognised because this will produce further changes in our high streets and further challenges that we have to deal with. The hour is late and, while I may well return to this at a future date, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 81CD withdrawn.

Debate on whether Clause 25 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Smith of Leigh]

If I might just comment on the Minister’s reply, I thank the Minister for that long reply at the end of what has been a very long day for her—I am sure she is looking forward to the conclusion of today’s debate—but I thought that reply was somewhat disappointing. As the noble Earl said, the Valuation Office report was interesting in part but the other section, if you look at the detail, seemed to say that there were no data on which it could really base that finding. The incredible thing was that all 500,000 of these others were placed as potential gainers from non-implementing. Not a single one was regarded as a loser. The credibility of that is open to suggestion.

If Ministers want a confrontational meeting, a meeting with the Valuation Office to really understand the basis of those figures might be helpful for your Lordships. If the Minister would agree to arrange that, it might be helpful. As I said, the quotation from the regulations from last year talked about the fair contribution based upon property values. The Minister is saying that to avoid turbulence we are actually going away from that principle. Lots of people would have gained by a revaluation, mainly in the retail sector but in other sectors, too. In a sense, they have the certainty that they will pay rateable values but higher than they should. But with that, I will not move that Clause 25 should not stand part.

Clause 25 agreed.

Clause 26 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.34 pm.