House of Commons

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Monday 25 November 2013

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of trends in rent arrears in social housing.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of trends in rent arrears in social housing.

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

Housing association arrears at the end of 2011-12 were 4.8% in England—an improvement on performance in the previous year, when they were 5.1 %.

[Alex Cunningham]

Tristar Homes, which serves people in my Stockton North constituency, has 1,725 tenants classed as under-occupying their current property. Two thirds of those tenants have accrued rent arrears, many for the first time, and 85% are seeing their debt grow. What is the Minister’s estimate of the total arrears nationally in the first year of the bedroom tax—in other words, the spare room subsidy—as a direct result of it and the assault on some of the poorest people in our community? How much does he believe the measure will save his Government?

[Stephen Williams]

My information about Tristar is that the figures the hon. Gentleman quotes are a significant reduction on earlier in the year—that is the information the Department has. On financial savings, it is far too early to say. The Department for Work and Pensions will undertake a review in the early part of next year.

[Ian Mearns]

In the north-east of England, 39,000 households are affected by the bedroom tax—or, as the Government would like to call it, the spare room subsidy. In Gateshead, more than 3,000 households in the local authority’s housing or the housing associations’ housing are affected. The local authority alone has accrued £152,000 of additional arrears. When will the Government realise that the policy is hurting but certainly not working?

[Stephen Williams]

The figures I gave in the earlier answer were for the year before the spare room subsidy withdrawal—they are the most recent comprehensive, across-England figures we have. Through the Homes and Communities Agency, the Department has surveyed all the large housing associations. They tell us that, at the moment, rent collection levels are in excess of 95% and well within their published business plans.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that, of the £68 million of discretionary housing payments made available to councils last year, £11 million went unspent?

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on discretionary housing payments for last year. Of course, last year those payments were in place to deal with differences in the private rental sector. I wish Opposition Members would remember that the Labour Government introduced tight controls on the funding of spare bedrooms in the private rental sector. Some 43% of people in my constituency rent in the private rental sector. I do not recall much protest from Labour Members at that time.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Following on from that answer, am I right in thinking that the rules on housing benefit for those in social housing are now broadly the same as the rules on housing benefit for those in the private rented sector, and that the latter rules were introduced by the previous Government? Is there any reason why those on housing benefit in social housing should have different rules from those on housing benefit in the private rented sector?

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend has neatly followed the logic of what I said in my previous answer. There is a logic behind the reforms that this Government have introduced. Throughout the entire 13 years that the previous Government were in office, they had tight controls on the private rental sector and tightened them further. I do not recall a single Labour Member describing that as Labour’s bedroom tax on the majority of people, certainly in city centres like mine and that of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who rent in the private sector. The rules are now aligned.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Rehousing and eviction costs often dwarf the arrears built up as a result of the bedroom tax, so how surprised is the Minister that many councils in Wales—including my own in Carmarthenshire—refuse to operate a no-evictions policy for the most vulnerable?

[Stephen Williams]

As much as I would like to answer the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he of all hon. Members—he is a Plaid Cymru Member—will understand that I cannot answer for what the Welsh Government are doing in Wales.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

May I try to bring the Minister up to date and talk about this year, and give him another chance to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)? According to the National Housing Federation, more than half of all tenants affected by the bedroom tax were in rent arrears within three months. Does the Minister believe that those families went into arrears because they could not afford the rent, or because they simply were not bothered?

[Stephen Williams]

There could be many explanations of why people fall into arrears—they are not a new feature under this Government. Rent arrears, whether in the council or housing association sector, were a feature under the previous Labour Government too. Behind each individual case, there will be a reason why people have fallen into arrears. Perhaps people think that some Labour councils are adopting a policy of hoping this policy will go away. I think perhaps they are misleading their tenants on that basis. They should be helping their tenants to adapt to the change in circumstances.

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

2. What definition his Department uses for sustainable development.

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

The national planning policy framework, taken together, constitutes the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in planning.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the Minister for that brief answer. He visited north Leeds and Wharfedale—and we were pleased to have him—an area facing the prospect of hundreds of new homes at a time when there are already congested roads and not enough school places, doctors and dentists. What more will he and the Department do to ensure we have genuine sustainable development that includes all those things before houses are built?

[Nick Boles]

I understand that the local plan submitted by Leeds council is now under examination. That process will test whether the provisions for infrastructure are adequate to support the level of development the council has decided it needs. He and his constituents will have every opportunity to put their case as to why they need investment in more infrastructure to support proposed development.

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

I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the important principles for achieving sustainable development is the brownfield first policy contained in the core planning policies and principles of the NPPF. I think the Minister is also aware that developers are using paragraph 47 of the NPPF to claim that brownfield sites are not deliverable because they are not viable, which is causing authorities to look at more and more greenfield sites for their five-year housing supply. Does the Minister agree that that effectively undermines the brownfield first policy in the NPPF? What is he going to do about it?

[Nick Boles]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, who is knowledgeable about all these subjects, but I do not share his concern that the position is somehow being undermined. The NPPF is clear that brownfield land that is of low environmental quality should be preferred. That is a better policy than that of the Government he supported, which favoured all brownfield land, including back gardens, and led to garden grabbing on a scale we had never before seen.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given the Minister’s comments, does he agree that Telford and Wrekin council should not be building on greenfield sites in Wellington or Newport in my constituency, but should be building on the preferred brownfield sites in both those towns?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on particular proposals by a particular council, but I can say that every council will want to look at all brownfield land—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to face the House so we can all benefit from his eloquence.

[Nick Boles]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. I hope my hon. Friend will not mind having to look at the back of my head while I answer his question. His council will of course be looking at every brownfield site to identify those ready for development. It may be the case that in some circumstances some brownfield sites require huge investment in either infrastructure or decontamination and are therefore not appropriate for development, but the preference will always be to use brownfield sites.

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

May I press the Minister on that? Do his criteria for sustainable development include building hundreds if not thousands of one-bedroom apartments for students, as is the case in my constituency, and none for elderly people? What kind of policy is it when students are looked after, but elderly people have nowhere to go?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is the responsibility of his council to assess all housing needs for students and other people, and to make adequate provision. That is what councils should be doing through their local plans. I am sure he is influencing his council strongly on its plan.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

3. Whether parish councils are able to draw up a neighbourhood plan if they take a different view from their local planning authority on local planning issues.

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

Neighbourhood plans are not simply a re-statement of a local authority’s local plan. Neighbourhood planning gives parish councils, town councils and other community groups a real say over development they want to see in their area. Many communities across England are already developing planning policies on issues that are important to them.

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank the Minister’s colleague the Planning Minister for his recent visit to Broughton in my constituency. The village of Cranford finds itself next to the site on which 5,500 houses are to be built in an area called Kettering East. How might the parish council best protect its village by adopting a neighbourhood plan?

[Stephen Williams]

Obviously, we cannot comment on particular planning developments, but while a neighbourhood plan may deal with the housing issues, it cannot countermand the aspirations of the authority’s local plan. It can differ, however, on how those housing policies can be met.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

4. If he will take steps to reduce excessive parking charges and address aggressive parking enforcement.

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

7. If he will take steps to reduce excessive parking charges and address aggressive parking enforcement.

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

Yes, councils should be treating motorists fairly and promoting their town centres, not treating car parking charges and fines as a way of raising revenue. We will consult on a range of proposals later this year.

[Stephen McPartland]

Stevenage borough council is ripping off local people by taking more than £3 million a year in car parking charges, which is preventing the regeneration of Stevenage town centre. To make matters worse, it uses more than £1 million of profits for unrelated services, which I believe the High Court considers to be illegal. What actions will the Secretary of State take to protect local people from Stevenage borough council?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry to hear of the state of affairs in Stevenage. We shall certainly be looking at the rules on charging and the parking review grace periods in which parking offences can be ruled unacceptable. We shall be consulting on how this might be done appropriately and soon be laying orders on the collection of fines from closed circuit television.

[James Duddridge]

Health care professionals such as midwives provide an invaluable service and allow people to stay safe and independent in their own home. As part of the consultation he mentioned, does the Secretary of State agree that we should consider allowing them to park in all residential areas without fear of a parking fine?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. Of course, a number of local authorities already consult and have a working arrangement with the local national health service. Clearly, district nurses and doctors want to go about their business without the fear of fines, and I also think it appropriate that ambulances should be able to attend without the fear of parking fines. I think this should be done, and I will certainly include it in the consultation.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

In his consultation on parking fines, will the Secretary of State consider the work of Slough Labour council and its “free after three” parking plan, which I think is beginning to revive our high street?

[Mr Pickles]

I welcome that news from Slough council. It sounds very continental.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Hammersmith and Fulham has increased its take from moving vehicle penalty charge notices by 400% in four years. It raises £2.7 million from one box junction alone, and it says it does this to increase parking revenue, not to improve the movement of traffic. What will the Secretary of State do about Tory councils that rip off motorists?

[Mr Pickles]

I am shocked to hear this. Hammersmith and Fulham is an exemplary council: not many councils in this country have consistently reduced council tax by 3% every year. I do not think, therefore, that its population is being ripped off, but I shall certainly take a most careful look at the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

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

The Secretary of State should acknowledge that across the country Tory councils are charging more—[Interruption.] I know Conservative Members do not want to hear the information from councils themselves showing that the three highest in the country are Tory-run and that in London Tory councils take twice as much off residents for parking as Labour. May I invite him to join me in congratulating Labour councils on backing their town centres?

[Mr Pickles]

In his previous existence, the hon. Gentleman would not have had the temerity to cite that set of figures, which can be achieved only by counting off-street parking, which means the more off-street parking a council provides—the friendlier it makes it for motorists—the worse those figures appear, so frankly I regard them as bogus. They reflect the anti-car policies of the Labour party, which consistently cut the number of parking spaces and instructed local authorities to increase car parking charges.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of local authorities’ use of article 4 directions to limit excessive occurrence of particular use types on high streets.

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

Local authorities are required to notify my Department of article 4 directions before they are brought into force. In the year to 31 October 2013, 97 article 4 directions have been made by 43 local authorities.

[Stephen Timms]

Today the Treasury has finally moved on payday loans, which is welcome, so why is the Department making it easier for payday lenders, betting shops and fast-food takeaways to open up without planning permission? Does he recognise the concerns of the Local Government Association and others that article 4 directions are

“ineffective, inefficient and heavily bureaucratic”?

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has shown a consistent interest in this area. Article 4 directions apply to different parts of the sectors that he has outlined and local authorities can use licensing and a range of other powers to keep things under control. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with his Front-Bench team, which seems happy to be entertained by the gambling industry rather than do something productive about it for the benefit of our high streets.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that it should be the public’s demand for a particular product or service that determines the exact number of a particular type of outlet on the high street?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The high street will be driven by consumer use, but it is also quite right for local authorities to use the powers they have to make sure that their high street or town centre is vital and vibrant for the benefit of their communities.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

20. There are 40,000 empty shops on UK high streets, and the Minister and his Department are doing the best they can to stack them with payday loan companies, loan sharks and betting shops. What single policy has his Department implemented that has helped to reverse this trend and get proper shops in our high streets? Is there one single policy?

[Brandon Lewis]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider the fact that, unlike the previous Labour Government, we have trebled small business rate relief, as well as giving power to local authorities. I strongly suggest that authorities use the powers they have to discount business rates, as well as utilise the 333 town teams working hard for their communities around the country. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not want to give these people the credit for the hard work that they are putting in.

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

The Minister will no doubt be aware that the most recent issue of Planning magazine reported its survey results showing that a lack of resources in council planning departments was seriously holding up decision making. Why, then, is the Minister exacerbating the situation by forcing councils to bear the brunt of expensive article 4 directions time after time after time? Why will the Minister not give councils and local communities real powers to shape their town centres instead of burdening them with costly bureaucratic hoops to jump through?

[Brandon Lewis]

I would gently say to the hon. Lady that, as I said in response to the main question, 97 article 4 directions have gone through this year alone, while local authorities have their local plan as well as article 4. The clue is in the title: the planning should be plan-driven. There are also town teams, Portas pilots and, as I said, more than £900 million-worth of business rate relief for small businesses, as well as the power to discount more locally. I suggest the hon. Lady get behind the town teams that are working so hard instead of putting them down.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

6. What planning guidelines he has issued on the minimum distance required between wind turbines and housing.

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

We are not encouraging local councils to set fixed separation distances between turbines and housing. Distances play a part, but so does the local context, including factors such as topography.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for that answer. On Friday, Prince Charles visited the heritage village of Kirkleatham in my constituency, which, along with the lovely conservation villages of Wilton and Yearby, forms a triangle with sides between 700 metres and 1,400 metres. Does the Minister think it right that a London-based company wants to put two wind turbines bigger than the London Eye in the middle of this triangle? Will he give local communities power over such decisions, and will he issue guidelines similar to those in Scotland?

[Kris Hopkins]

I cannot comment on individual applications, but the national planning policy is clear that any application should be approved only if the impact is, or can be, made acceptable.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Do the Government intend to give local communities any new powers to block such developments if they consider them unwelcome?

[Kris Hopkins]

Regulations laid before the House this morning demand that developers have conversations with communities before applications are made. That is important, but having a strong local plan is also helpful.

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

There is best practice throughout Europe in this regard. The Danes, for instance, have an exclusion zone for dwellings that measures 10 times the radius of the blades. Surely there is some way of introducing localism-related legislation to deal with the position here.

[Kris Hopkins]

As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), it is important to have a local plan. Determining where renewable energy supply facilities are to be established will give some protection to communities.

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

8. When he expects to announce the provisional local government finance settlement for 2013-14.

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

We will announce the provisional local government finance settlement for 2014-15 and the consultation after the autumn statement and in line with our usual timetable.

[Luciana Berger]

Is the Minister aware of the devastating impact that his Department’s £329 million cuts are having on my local council in Liverpool? By 2016-17, there will be a £17 million shortfall in funds for services that the council is legally obliged to deliver, and zero spending on discretionary services. This is a crisis waiting to happen. Will the Minister please tell the House where Liverpool should find the money?

[Brandon Lewis]

I strongly suggest that the hon. Lady use her persuasive powers to make the council put its huge balances to good use. It receives one of the highest grants in the country and has a spending power of £2,700 per household, which is £500 per household more than the English average, and is even more than the metropolitan average. I suspect that the best thing that the hon. Lady can do is tell the council to be sensible about how it spends money, which means not increasing council tax to punish the hard-working people of Liverpool.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Council tax benefit support grant is a key part of the money that central Government give to parish councils. This year, Labour-run Northumberland county council has said that it will not pass the grant on to the local town and parish councils. Does the Minister agree that that is specifically wrong?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We made it clear this year that councils should pass the money down to parish councils, and my hon. Friend is right to put pressure on councils that do not do what they are supposed to do.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

17. Ministers have been saying the same thing since 2010, but what this Minister has not said is that the decisions made by him and his colleagues have been hitting the poorest areas hardest with the biggest cuts in council funding. Why must five years of a Tory Secretary of State mean that the cuts in the budgets of councils in the south-east will be half the size of the cuts in inner London or in the three northern regions?

[Brandon Lewis]

Our banding floors protect the councils that are in the greatest need. For example, funds for the right hon. Gentleman’s own council, which still has a spending power of about £2,100 per household, are being reduced by just 1.5%, the English average being 1.3%. That is line with what the Government expect local authorities—which take up 25% of public spending—to do to clear up the mess of the deficit and debt left by the last Labour Government.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

9. If he will review the operation of the new homes bonus.

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

The new homes bonus is already being evaluated, and a report will be published in the spring of 2014.

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Minister say something about why the scheme that his Prime Minister set up has been such a disaster? Just 1,427 homes have been built under this scheme, although we need 800,000 homes in London, because there is a huge demand problem. The average London deposit now costs our young people £100,000.

[Kris Hopkins]

I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the scheme. It has delivered some £1.3 billion to local authorities, including about £5.5 million for his own authority.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

May I put it to my hon. Friend that although I think everyone understands that there is an acute shortage of housing in many parts of this country because of the lamentable failure of the previous Government to build sufficient houses and because of what most people regard as excessive immigration, in the charming market towns of Louth and Horncastle in my Lincolnshire constituency there is the deepest cross-party concern about developers’ proposals to put up about 1,000 new houses in and around those two market towns? What everybody is asking is where are the jobs, the school places, the ambulances, the hospital beds and the policemen to be found for such a project, which will in fact destroy these happy communities?

[Kris Hopkins]

With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I am afraid the new homes bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes. The way to address the issues he raises is to get a strong local plan, and I suggest that he takes the challenge that he has just given to the House to his local council.

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

I am somewhat bewildered that the Housing Minister thinks the new homes bonus is not about incentivising councils to build new homes. In fact, contrary to that, his predecessor said at least 400,000 additional homes would be built as a direct result of the new homes bonus. The truth is there has been a 26% drop in the affordable homes supply and £1.3 billion has been spent by this Government under the new homes bonus to deliver fewer than 1,500 homes. Does the Minister think spending nearly £1 million per home is good value for taxpayers’ money?

[Kris Hopkins]

The bonus itself is not for building homes. This Government have built 400,000 houses. This Government are absolutely committed to building affordable houses and have already reached 50% of our affordable housing target—over 99,000 houses—and will deliver 170,000 by the end of this period.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes in the level of his Department’s grant on the operations of Calderdale council.

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

Calderdale has had a reduction in spending power of 1.5% this year, which is only slightly above the England average. Like all councils, Calderdale can now benefit from increases in local growth through business rates retention and the new homes bonus.

[Mrs Riordan]

There are many areas in Calderdale that are suffering as a result of this Government’s cuts. Will the Minister meet me and a delegation from Calderdale council to listen to our concerns about the funding shortfalls and look at ways to address the problems, to the benefit of the people of Halifax?

[Brandon Lewis]

When we do the finance settlement statement we have a consultation, but I am very happy to meet at a time that suits both the hon. Lady and the council to discuss the situation, and hopefully we can touch on why it is putting up council tax by 2% and punishing hard-working people by raising their cost of living. This Government have worked hard to freeze council tax and we are proud of doing so.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

11. What recent guidance he has given to local authorities on tackling unauthorised development. [R]

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

Councils should take swift enforcement action to tackle unauthorised development. Previously, some councils have been unclear about the powers available to deal with this issue. In August, we sent all councils a guide on the full range of power available to tackle unauthorised occupation on private and public land.

[Nigel Adams]

I am very grateful for that response. On the subject of authorised sites, local residents, including Travellers, in the village of Burn in Selby recently fought a successful campaign to prevent the expansion of an extremely large site in the village. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he would not recommend that any Traveller site should dominate in size any neighbouring community?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on a particular site. However, it is immensely important to ensure that where a Traveller site is placed next to a village, the numbers there should not dominate the area. The coalition Government have made a number of changes to policies, and we may be bringing forward further policies to make it easier for local communities to be able to live side by side.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

In May 2012, the Government allocated an additional £1.8 million to local councils to deal with the growing problem of beds in sheds. Can the Secretary of State outline how this relationship is working with the Home Office and how many beds in sheds have been discovered?

[Mr Pickles]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the numbers, because they are constantly changing. As he is aware, this issue relates to four or five specific London boroughs, and in conjunction with the Home Office we have taken enforcement action. It is important to emphasise that the people occupying such places are often very vulnerable, are often being abused by employers and often have dubious immigration status. Part of the process is to offer some help and assistance to them. As I say, on the numbers, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him separately.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

13. How many people in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency have been accepted to be considered in principle for a Help to Buy mortgage to date.

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

Up to September, Help to Buy had already helped 44 households to complete their purchase of a new home in Plymouth. Across England, it has generated more than 18,000 reservations for new homes.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. How does his Department propose to promote the Help to Buy initiative with those council and housing association tenants who qualify to buy their homes under Mrs Thatcher’s excellent right to buy scheme?

[Kris Hopkins]

We have increased the discount available to those exercising their right to buy, and I am delighted with the results. Since April 2012, almost 13,500 families have been helped to buy their own home through the scheme. The level of discount assists potential buyers outside the Help to Buy scheme, which is designed to help those with lower deposits.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the supply of one-bedroom social homes; and if he will make a statement.

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

There are more than 1 million one-bedroom social homes in England. In the last three years, this Government have delivered more than 150,000 new affordable homes. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Administration, the supply of social homes shrank by 420,000.

[Nic Dakin]

I want to look forward, Mr Speaker. In north Lincolnshire, at the current rate of availability it will take six years to re-house everybody who is currently liable to the bedroom tax. Does the Minister agree that Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire council should make sure that everybody who has indicated they want to move but cannot do so is eligible for a discretionary housing payment?

[Stephen Williams]

The key is in the title—it is a discretionary housing payment, so it will be up to each local authority to assess who should be eligible. This Government are on course to deliver 170,000 new social homes by the end of this Parliament, and this will be the first Administration in decades to leave more social housing in stock at the end of their first period in office.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My understanding is that the discretionary housing payment expires next year. In addition to the lack of housing build over a number of years, there is a chronic shortage of one-bedroom and two-bedroom houses in rural areas. This issue needs to be addressed, and the recent “Rural Communities” report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee asks for a stay and a continuation of the discretionary payment until such time as there is a housing supply in rural areas.

[Stephen Williams]

As is customary when a Select Committee makes a report, the Government consider it and respond. As that report is from the EFRA Committee and it involves policies that are partly under the remit of this Department, but also the Department for Work and Pensions, I am sure there will be a comprehensive reply to it in due course.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In advising local authorities on how they should bring forward plans for new housing, would the Minister advise them to follow the guidance in the national planning policy framework on meeting the identified needs of their area, whatever those needs might be, or would he advise them to give priority to one-bedroom housing because of the demand for it as a consequence of the bedroom tax?

[Stephen Williams]

I would expect every local plan, whether in Greenwich, Bristol or elsewhere, to take local needs into account. Yes, changes might well be needed in housing stock as a result of welfare reform changes, but we all know that there is a shortage of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties as a result of our ageing society and of more people living on their own. That shortage needs to be met right across society.

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

16. How many planning applications opposed by local authorities and local communities have been approved on appeal since the coming into force of the Localism Act 2011.

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

In both of the past two years, 35% of planning appeals were allowed. Funnily enough, in 2009 under the last Labour Government, 34% of planning appeals were allowed.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but my question was specifically about the situation since the introduction of the Localism Act. Developers are putting in large-scale planning applications in rural areas such as mine, and the local residents campaign against them. The council then rejects an application but, on appeal, it is given the go-ahead. What account is taken of local people’s wishes when such appeals are heard?

[Nick Boles]

I am sorry if I have not made this clear. Since the Localism Act, 35% of all such appeals to the Planning Inspectorate have been allowed, compared with 34% under the Labour Government before the Act, so there has been no substantial change. It is a fact that, under the Act, local opinion is extremely important. There has been almost no change in the percentage of appeals that succeed, and only 1% of all planning applications are allowed on appeal, so there has been no substantial change in the role of local opinion in determining planning applications since the Localism Act.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

24. But does not the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) have a point? I spent Saturday morning with residents of the conservation village of Norton St Philip, who are feeling absolutely besieged by up to seven planning applications for large-scale developments in the village, all because Mendip district council has failed to secure a local plan. If those applications are rejected because Mendip summons the nerve to do so—particularly those on a site that includes the historic site of the battle of Philip’s Norton—will the appeals process back them or attack them?

[Nick Boles]

I shall try again to explain this, because I have clearly failed to do so. I apologise for not being clear. If the hon. Gentleman’s local authority rejects a planning application and the decision is appealed, and if the authority does not have a local plan in place with a robust five-year land supply, the planning inspector will consider whether the application meets the requirements in the national planning policy framework. I reiterate that planning inspectors are backing local authority decisions just as often as they did before the Localism Act was passed.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

The Minister will know the intensity of feeling among local people when an application is approved on appeal. Even more worrying is that some local authorities are now rolling over to some applications because they cannot afford the expensive appeal procedure. Will he therefore consider giving extra support to small local authorities that are inundated with planning applications?

[Nick Boles]

Local authorities should be making the decisions that they feel are right for their local communities and that meet their local policies and those in the national planning policy framework. An appeal might be lodged following their refusal of an application, but if they feel that their decision was right in the first place, they will be able to ask for costs against the developer that has submitted the appeal. They should not feel too worried about the cost of fighting an appeal if they are certain that their decision is good in law.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to encourage the delivery of more private rented sector accommodation.

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

This Government are committed to a bigger and better private rented sector which is why, following the Montague review, we have put in place the £1 billion build to rent fund and the £10 billion housing guarantee schemes, to deliver the rented sector that my hon. Friend supports.

[Mark Pawsey]

Many of my constituents enjoy the flexibility of living in the private rented sector, but if we are to keep the cost of renting down and ensure that those who want to rent a home can do so, action needs to be taken to increase supply. Does the Minister agree that initiatives from this Government, such as the Build to Rent fund and the Montague report, will ensure the provision of much-needed private rented homes?

[Kris Hopkins]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. It is important that we expand the rented housing sector, and we are doing so. The huge amount of money that we have put in—bearing in mind the limited resources that this Government have to spend—is bringing dividends. We have 14 applications at the moment, which will deliver 2,800 extra houses. I look forward to visiting his constituency in the near future, where I hope to see some of those new houses.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

19. What recent assessment he has made of levels of business rates for small and medium-sized businesses.

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

Thanks to this Government’s tax cuts, small business rate relief has been trebled—it was worth about £900 million in the past year—and more than a third of a million small firms also now pay no business rates bill at all.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

That is interesting, as business rates have risen by an average of nearly £2,000 this Parliament. A future Labour Government would give small firms and businesses a rates cut and would then freeze rates the following year. Will the Minister inform the House how much business rates are set to rise by in 2014 under this Government’s plans?

[Brandon Lewis]

Let me give a slight correction, because obviously business rates have only moved with inflation; there has been no real-terms increase in business rates at all under this Government. We have also trebled small business rate relief, so helping small businesses in a way that the previous Government simply did not do. As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt realise, there will be a decision on the business rates for next year in the Chancellor’s autumn statement in December.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

22. Labour Members welcome the fact that the Government followed our lead on payday loans, but will they follow us on another policy and give 1.5 million small businesses a cut in business rates?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said, we have trebled small business rate relief, providing £900 million of help this year, with a third of a million businesses paying no business rates at all. That is an awful lot more than the previous Labour Government did.

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

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

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

I would like to bring the House up to date on the progress my Department has made on the issue of troubled families, and in doing so I recognise the support that this work has received from Members from right across the House. Our dedicated programme is on track and is working, with the lives of 22,000 families already turned around and councils continuing to work with 62,000 other families to reduce youth crime, tackle truancy and help to get jobless adults back to work. Those results show that these problems can be dealt with through a no-nonsense, common-sense approach, bringing down the cost to the taxpayer at the same time.

[Diana Johnson]

People buying homes in Kingswood in Hull under the coalition’s Help to Buy scheme, advertising for which is plastered all over the area, were shocked to hear the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister with responsibility for tackling flooding, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), confirm to me last week that the Government’s new flood insurance scheme excludes homes built after 2009 to discourage home building in flood-risk areas such as Hull. Does this Secretary of State think that it is advisable for my constituents to buy homes under the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, given that they will not be able to get affordable flood insurance?

[Mr Pickles]

In terms of building houses and the Help to Buy scheme, it has to be a viable proposition. I will certainly liaise with the hon. Lady, because I know Hull very well, and will look specifically into her worries about this matter and liaise with my colleagues in DEFRA.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

T2. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has visited Mid Suffolk district council and seen the huge efficiency savings it has generated by sharing services and cutting management by 50%. Will great performance on saving money be recognised in the coming financial settlement and will particular regard be paid to rural district councils in respect of that?

[Mr Pickles]

Having reduced my own Department’s spending by 60%, I regard 50% as a good start. The advantage of that is seen not just in the settlement but in the good running of the authority, so I commend my hon. Friend’s authority for its magnificent work.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has rightly talked about the importance of local authorities keeping down council tax in these tough times for many people—although he has imposed an increase on those on the very lowest incomes—but when it comes to business rates, which he set, he pursues a completely different policy. In the past two years, he has been quite happy to see struggling businesses hit by increases in business rates of 5.6% and 2.7%. What does the Minister say to owners of small businesses who feel that that is both damaging and unfair?

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

The right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me a chance once again to re-establish the fact that the Government have made no real-terms increase in business rates; there has only been an inflationary change. Moreover, we have helped small businesses by trebling the small business rate relief from £300 million to £900 million a year.

[Hilary Benn]

That answer will not reassure the owners of small businesses. The Minister talks casually about an increase in line with inflation, but the takings of many of those businesses have not gone up in line with inflation because of the state of the economy. They will also not be reassured because, as things stand, next April will see a further rise of 3.2%. Since he has not been able to tell the House what further help he will give to small businesses, is it not time that the Government looked at our plan, which is a commitment to cut and then freeze business rates over a two-year period? That could help 1.5 million small businesses, which is many more than he is helping at the moment, and save them an average of £450.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the fact that the Opposition are talking about business rates, but they have not mentioned that they plan to put up corporation tax, which this Government have reduced to its lowest level to make us more competitive than at any time under Labour. The right hon. Gentleman also still misses the point. Small businesses benefit from small business rate relief, which we trebled from £300 million under Labour to £900 million. Furthermore, a third of a million businesses do not pay business rates under this Government and have not seen the increase that he outlined.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

T3. Today marks the 15th anniversary of the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities. Will the Minister update the House on when the Cornish, with our own language and distinct identity, history and culture, can expect to be included within the framework?

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

As a Welshman, I entirely sympathise with what my hon. Friend says about our Celtic cousins. We had a good meeting on the Cornish language and I have written to colleagues reminding them of the Government’s responsibilities in that area. As for the Council of Europe framework, the UK will make a submission in May 2014 and will invite Cornwall council and others to contribute to it.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. A recent survey by Community Care has found that many local authorities are raising their thresholds for intervention in cases of child protection, and many social workers fear that they are not able to provide the appropriate level of support and intervention to children in need. Given that we are continually concerned about cases of child abuse, and that every Government have rightly said that they are committed to ensuring that such cases do not occur again, will the Government look seriously at providing extra funding to local authorities, which will have to make cuts next year and the year after, so that we do not see more child deaths?

[Mr Pickles]

Even in difficult times, the Government have managed to increase funding to vulnerable areas. If the hon. Lady has an authority specifically in mind—[Interruption.] I do not call £3.8 billion from the health budget to deal with vulnerable people a trivial sum. I am surprised that Labour Front Benchers mock that. I know that this is a reality, but if the hon. Lady has specific authorities in mind that are increasing the threshold, given the effect that that has had on a number of authorities where things have gone terribly wrong, I will look into it for her.

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

T7. What steps is the Minister taking to implement existing planning permissions, particularly on brownfield sites?

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

I have good news for my hon. Friend. Of those units that already have planning permission, building has started on 49% of them. Now, 72% of the rest are moving towards making a start, up from 58% at the end of 2011. That means that only 23% are now on hold. We have made funds available through the Get Britain Building investment fund and the local infrastructure investment fund to help get stalled sites moving.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

T6. Some moments ago, the Housing Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that the new homes bonus is not a payment for building new houses. Will he explain what it is for?

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

One way it could be used it is to reduce council tax.

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

T8. It has been widely reported in the press that Ministers have been instructed by a higher authority to get rid of the green nonsense, or words to that effect. Could that welcome advice be imparted to the local authority leaders who insist on employing an army of climate change and sustainable development advisers at great expense to council tax payers?

[Mr Pickles]

The Government do not keep a register of unusual posts in local authorities. Although we are committed to sustainability and reducing our carbon footprint, and although it is up to local authorities who they employ, I would expect them to be sensible about that in these difficult times.

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

Let me tell the Secretary of State that since April the arrears of those tenants in Wythenshawe in my constituency who are affected by the bedroom tax have increased by £500,000 and that more than 1,000 families have fallen behind with their rent for the very first time. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents for the hardship that policy has created?

[Mr Pickles]

Why did the right hon. Gentleman never raise that question when the problem affected private tenants in his constituency? Why was he so callous about their plight? We have put aside sums of money to deal with the hardship, but only a handful of local authorities have applied for it as they are more content to use the poor as a battering ram against this Government. He should be ashamed.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T9. Houses in multiple occupation can play a vital role in helping hard-working young people who are just starting out on their own. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that there is discretion so that council tax is levied on the entire houses that these young people live in rather than on the individual rooms they occupy?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend’s arguments are very persuasive. Indeed, he has spoken to me about this subject. I am prepared to consider the technicalities of it.

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

I am sure that the Secretary of State expects all councils to secure the best return for asset sales. Will he therefore condemn Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council, which, in July, flogged off the listed North Reddish schools for a paltry £205,000 only for the new owners to have put the same buildings on the open market in recent weeks for £750,000?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Gentleman sounds like a shareholder in the Co-operative society.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

T10. Given that large numbers of local authorities, such as Plymouth city council, have transferred their housing stock to housing associations, how does my hon. Friend the Minister propose to make those housing associations more accountable to their tenants rather than just being answerable to their board and to the Homes and Communities Agency?

[Kris Hopkins]

We have done it already. In the Localism Act 2011, we changed how housing associations were regulated, giving back power to tenants to hold their landlords to account.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State reassure local authorities that they will not need to spend millions of pounds of much-needed funds on duplicating IT equipment because of the end user devices security guidance issued by CESG? Will he look into that and reassure local authorities that they will not need to spend that money?

[Brandon Lewis]

This is something that we are looking at, and I am happy to keep the hon. Gentleman up to date with progress.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

My constituents are rightly concerned about opportunistic developers. Does my hon. Friend agree that if a local authority’s core strategy has passed its examination hearings and its site allocations process is out to consultation, at this advanced stage it would fly in the face of localism for a planning application to be approved at appeal?

[Nick Boles]

After a local plan in draft form has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination, it is clear in planning guidance that the policies in it can carry weight in decisions on applications that come forward.

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

Earlier the Minister said that the bedroom tax was about aligning rules in the social and the private sector, and the Secretary of State indicated the same. Do they not understand that the demographics of the social and private sectors are very different, and that social housing houses some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including the 400,000 disabled people affected by this? Does the Secretary of State not think the policy should be aligned with fairness by abolishing the tax?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady needs to look at the matter carefully. Exactly those kinds of people are housed in the private rented sector.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that there appears to be a growing desire on the part of developers to carpet rural Lincolnshire with wind turbines, most recently at Temple Hill in my constituency. What advice can he give those of my constituents who for very good reasons properly oppose the siting of these turbines in their local communities?

[Kris Hopkins]

Although I cannot comment on individual cases, we have put regulations before the House today which demand that developers speak to local communities. Also, as I have said before, communities should make sure that their local council has a robust local plan.

Iran

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

15:31

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about our negotiations with Iran. Two weeks ago I reported to the House on the negotiations in Geneva between 8 and 10 November. I explained then that our aim was to produce an interim first-step agreement with Iran that could then create the confidence and time to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement addressing all concerns about its nuclear programme.

We have always been clear that because Iran’s programme is so extensive and crucial aspects of it have been concealed in the past, any agreement would have to be detailed and give assurance to the whole world that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran would be properly addressed. I said that we believed that such a deal was on the table, and that we would do our utmost to bridge the narrow gaps between the parties and conclude a strong agreement.

On Wednesday last week the E3 plus 3 and Iranian negotiators resumed their work in Geneva, and on Saturday morning I and the other E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers joined the talks. At 4 am yesterday we concluded the negotiations successfully, agreeing with Iran a thorough and detailed first-stage agreement that is a significant step towards enhancing the security of the middle east and preventing nuclear proliferation worldwide. In this statement I will cover the extensive commitments that Iran has made, the sanctions relief that it has been offered in return, and the steps we will now take to implement and build on what was agreed.

First, we have agreed a joint plan of action with Iran, with the end goal of a comprehensive settlement that ensures that its nuclear programme will be for exclusively peaceful purposes. The agreement has a duration of six months, renewable by mutual consent, and it sets out actions to be taken by both sides as a first step, as well as the elements to be negotiated in a final comprehensive settlement. I have placed a copy of the agreement in the Library of the House, but I wish now to highlight its most important aspects.

Iran has made a number of very significant commitments. Over the next six months Iran will cease enriching uranium above 5%, the level beyond which it becomes much easier to produce weapons-grade uranium. Furthermore, it has undertaken to eradicate its stockpile of the most concerning form of uranium enriched above 5%, by diluting half of it to a level of less than 5%, and converting the remaining half to oxide.

Iran will not install further centrifuges in its nuclear facilities or start operating installed centrifuges that have not yet been switched on. It will replace existing centrifuges only with centrifuges of the same type and produce centrifuges only to replace damaged existing machines, on a like-for-like basis. In other words, Iran will not install or bring into operation advanced centrifuges that could enable it to produce a dangerous level of enriched uranium more quickly. Iran will cap its stockpile of up to 5% enriched uranium in the highest-risk UF6 form by converting any newly enriched uranium into oxide, and it will not set up any new locations for enrichment or establish a reprocessing or reconversion facility.

Iran has agreed to enhanced monitoring of its nuclear programme, going beyond existing International Atomic Energy Agency inspections in Iran, including access to centrifuge assembly workshops and to uranium mines and mills. Iran will also provide the IAEA with additional information, including about its plans for nuclear facilities. At the heavy water research reactor at Arak, which offers Iran a potential route to a nuclear weapon through the production of plutonium rather than uranium, Iran will not commission the reactor, transfer fuel or heavy water to the reactor site, test additional fuel, produce more fuel for the reactor, or install any remaining components.

This agreement means that the elements of Iran’s nuclear programme that are thought to present the greatest risk cannot make progress during the period of the interim agreement. In other words, if Iran implements the deal in good faith, as it has undertaken to do, it cannot use those routes to move closer towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability. Moreover, some of the most dangerous elements of Iran’s programme are not only frozen, but actually rolled back. For instance, the agreement involves the eradication of around 200 kg of 20% enriched uranium that Iran has been stockpiling for several years.

Secondly, in return for those commitments Iran will receive proportionate and limited sanctions relief from the United States and the European Union. For its part, the US will pause efforts to reduce crude oil sales to Iran’s oil customers, repatriate to Iran some of its oil revenue held abroad, suspend sanctions on the Iranian auto industry, allow licensing of safety-related repairs and inspections for certain Iranian airlines and establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian and legitimate trade, including for payments to international organisations and Iranians studying abroad.

It is proposed that the EU and the US together will suspend sanctions on oil-related insurance and transport costs, which will allow the provision of such services to third states for the import of Iranian oil. We will also suspend the prohibition on the import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products and suspend sanctions on Iranian imports of gold and precious metals. But core sanctions on Iranian oil and gas will remain in place.

It is intended that the EU will also increase by an agreed amount the authorisation thresholds for financial transactions for humanitarian and non-sanctioned trade with Iran. The EU’s Council of Ministers will be asked to adopt legislation necessary to amend those sanctions and the new provisions would then apply to all EU member states. The total value of the sanctions relief is estimated at $7 billion over the six-month period. There will be no new nuclear-related sanctions adopted by the UN, EU and US during that period.

However, the bulk of international sanctions on Iran will remain in place. That includes the EU and US oil embargo, which restricts oil purchases from Iran globally, and sanctions on nuclear, military-related or ballistic missile-related goods and technology. It includes all frozen revenue and foreign exchange reserves held in accounts outside Iran and sanctions on many Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran, which means all Iranian assets in the US and EU remain frozen, apart from the limited repatriation of revenue agreed under this agreement. Iranian leaders and key individuals and entities will still have their assets in the EU and US frozen and be banned from travelling to the EU and US, and tough financial measures, including a ban on using financial messaging services and transactions with European and US banks, also remain in place. Those sanctions will not be lifted until a comprehensive settlement is reached, and we will enforce them robustly. That ensures that Iran still has a powerful incentive to reach a comprehensive solution, which is the third aspect of the agreement on which I wish to update the House today.

The agreement sets out the elements of a comprehensive solution, which we would aim to conclude within one year. These elements include Iran’s rights and obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and IAEA safeguards; the full resolution of concerns related to the heavy water research reactor at Arak; agreed transparency and monitoring, including the additional protocol; and co-operation on Iran’s civilian nuclear programme.

In return for the international community’s full confidence that Iran’s programme is solely peaceful, the plan of action envisages a mutually defined enrichment programme with agreed parameters and limits, but only as part of a comprehensive agreement where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This comprehensive solution, if and when agreed, would lead to the lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Reaching this interim agreement was a difficult and painstaking process, and there is a huge amount of work to be done to implement it. Implementation will begin following technical discussions with Iran and the IAEA, and EU preparations to suspend the relevant sanctions, which we hope will all be concluded by the end of January. A joint commission of the E3 plus 3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of these first-step measures, and it will work with the IAEA to resolve outstanding issues. The fact that we have achieved, for the first time in nearly a decade, an agreement that halts and rolls back Iran’s nuclear programme should give us heart that this work can be done and that a comprehensive agreement can be attained.

On an issue of such complexity, and given the fact that to make any diplomatic agreement worthwhile to both sides it has to involve compromises, such an agreement is bound to have its critics and opponents. However, we are right to test to the full Iran’s readiness to act in good faith, to work with the rest of the international community, and to enter into international agreements. If the Iranians do not abide by their commitments, they will bear a heavy responsibility, but if we did not take the opportunity to attempt such an agreement, then we ourselves would have been guilty of a grave error. It is true that if we did not have this agreement the pressure of sanctions on Iran would not be alleviated at all, but it is also true that there would be no restraint on advances to their programme—no check on their enrichment activity and stockpiles, no block on their addition of centrifuges, no barrier to prevent their bringing into operation their heavy water reactor at Arak, and no limitation on the many actions that could take them closer to a nuclear weapons capability.

The bringing together of this agreement with all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council united behind it sends a powerful signal in itself. While it is only a beginning, there is no doubt that this is an important, necessary and completely justified step, which through its restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme gives us the time to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. I pay tribute to Baroness Ashton, to my Foreign Minister colleagues and to our Foreign Office staff who played an indispensable role. We will apply the same rigour and determination we have shown in these negotiations to the implementation of the agreement and to the search for a comprehensive settlement. At the same time, we will continue to be open to improvements in our bilateral relationship on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis, and our new chargé d’affaires will visit Iran shortly.

This agreement has shown that the combination of pressure expressed through sanctions coupled with a readiness to negotiate is the right policy. For a long time, that has been the united approach of this country, from the efforts of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to pursue negotiations a decade ago to the cross-party support in this House for the wide-ranging sanctions that we have adopted in recent years. We have been steadfast in pursuing that twin-track policy and seeking a peaceful solution. This agreement is true to that approach and to that sheer persistence in Britain and among our allies. This will remain our policy over the coming months as we build on and implement this first step on the long journey to making the middle east—and the whole world—safer from nuclear proliferation.

15:44

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? He was generous to end his remarks by recognising the reality of the bipartisan approach that has been characteristic of this House and, indeed, this country to these issues over recent years, including the approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he was Foreign Secretary. Let me echo that and add that all those involved in the Geneva negotiations, including the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office officials, deserve real credit for their role in helping secure this deal.

In particular, the work of the European Union High Representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton, has been fundamental. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement—a little late, I would argue—she was “indispensable” to ensuring that agreement was finally reached. We on this side of the House feel a particular pride in the role that Baroness Ashton has played and the determination, skill and diplomatic perseverance she has shown, and we offer her our sincere congratulations.

The international community stands united in believing that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, that would make the world less safe, so the deal agreed in Geneva was a necessary and important first step. Iran has, of course, over recent years proceeded apace with its enrichment programme despite repeated calls by the international community for it to stop.

This is not a perfect deal, nor is it guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive resolution, but, based on the Foreign Secretary’s statement, it appears to address a number of central concerns. First, it caps every aspect of Iran’s nuclear programme. Secondly, it includes strong verification mechanisms and measures. Thirdly, its text does not concede that Iran has an inalienable right to enrich. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary about each of those three points.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the agreement does not call for the dismantlement of the Fordow plant, so will he set out what steps are envisaged to help ensure that that deeply buried facility will ultimately be decommissioned?

The Foreign Secretary referred to the heavy water research reactor at Arak. Although the deal specifies daily access for the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to Natanz and Fordow, it does not set out the frequency with which inspectors will have access to Arak, so will the Foreign Secretary give us further details of how they will gain access?

The Foreign Secretary did not mention Parchin in his statement, and neither did the final text of the agreement agreed yesterday, so will he now clarify whether the deal requires Iran to grant IAEA inspectors access to the Parchin military base, where Iran is suspected of carrying out tests related to the detonating of a nuclear weapon?

There has been much speculation over the past 24 hours about the absence from the final agreement of the phrase “right to enrich”. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the British Government’s understanding of whether that absence reflects a continuing point of difference between the P5 plus 1 and Iran, or whether the omission reflects a shared understanding on the issue?

Although an interim deal seeks to prevent Iran from developing its enrichment programme while talks are ongoing, it could also ease the pressure on Iran and, in fact, undermine the urgency with which a comprehensive resolution may be sought. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary set out how he intends to prevent that outcome and what steps he will take with others to continue negotiations on a comprehensive deal within the time frame that has been set out?

The announcement of $7 billion of sanctions relief, effective immediately, will be seen as a necessary step to secure the concessions agreed by Iran as part of the interim deal, but pressure must still be maintained. Will the Foreign Secretary offer the House assurances that the net effect of that sanctions relief will not exceed the projected amount?

As of yesterday, Iran’s so-called critical capability will be extended. That, of course, is welcomed by everyone in this House, but while the interim agreement sets Iran back, it does not prevent future progress. It would, of course, be far better to secure the end of all enrichment and to see the dismantling of all relevant facilities.

One key test of the interim agreement will be whether what has now been agreed in principle can be implemented in practice. That means keeping sanctions tight, verification intrusive and all options on the table. A second key test will be whether the interim agreement can, in the months ahead, be translated into a comprehensive agreement. That means building on this weekend’s agreement through urgent and sustained negotiations on a final resolution.

The interim agreement reached over the weekend will give us the time and flexibility to negotiate the much more difficult and complex final agreement to dismantle much of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Government can be assured that they will have our support in pursuit of that objective in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the shadow Foreign Secretary for his clear support. There has indeed been a bipartisan approach for a long time, and it is clearly continuing in relation to this agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say, as he did at the end of his remarks, that it is very important to keep sanctions tight and verification intrusive to maintain the confidence and the pressure needed to reach a comprehensive agreement. He is also right that no such agreement can be perfect—it is the product of negotiations and compromise—or guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive agreement, but in my judgment it is the only route to a comprehensive agreement.

Some have made the criticism that we should have concentrated on moving straight to a final and comprehensive agreement, but from everything that I have seen, I know that that would not have been possible, and while we negotiated such a comprehensive agreement, the progress of the Iranian programme, which has now been brought to a stop in many ways, would have continued. This is therefore a crucial step on the way to a comprehensive agreement and makes it possible to set about negotiating one.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. He asked about how the agreement relates to the plant at Fordow. The agreement specifically refers to that:

“Iran announces that it will not make any further advances of its activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant…, Fordow…or the Arak reactor”.

Footnote 2 on the second page of the agreement states in relation to Fordow that there should be

“no further enrichment over 5% at 4 cascades now enriching uranium”,

and no feeding of uranium hexafluoride into the other 12 cascades and so on. There are therefore specific requirements on that plant. As for each of the plants, its longer-term future, including whether it operates at all, will be up to the final and comprehensive agreement and must be addressed at that stage.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about inspections at Parchin. That remains a point of difference between the IAEA and Iran, including in their latest talks, and it is another aspect of the Iranian programme that must be addressed as part of a comprehensive and final settlement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the urgency. On that, it is important to put the $7 billion of sanctions relief into perspective, because he referred to it as being effective immediately. The $7 billion of sanctions relief is actually available to Iran over the six-month period once that period has begun, which we hope will be by the end of January. A good deal of the $7 billion involves the unfreezing of assets, so those assets will be unfrozen in stages. Iran will not therefore receive $7 billion on the first day, and then decide whether to implement its side of the agreement.

It is also important to see that $7 billion in perspective. In January, Iran’s Oil Minister acknowledged that the fall in oil exports as a result of sanctions was costing Iran between $4 billion and $8 billion every month. Reports suggest that Iran currently has between $60 billion and $100 billion of assets frozen overseas that it cannot access. The $7 billion of relief is therefore a very small proportion of the total frozen assets and of the total effect of sanctions applied to Iran.

That is why I have said that how we apply sanctions relief leaves Iran with a huge incentive, since it wants wider relief from sanctions, to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement. That will help to maintain the urgency, but of course all our diplomatic activity—seeking to maintain the momentum behind the agreement, and to ensure that it is implemented and that we can go on to negotiate a comprehensive settlement—will also convey that urgency. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will leave no stone unturned to try to bring that about.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I briefly add my tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? It is fair to say that the initiative he took all those years ago was not met with universal approval throughout the House.

In the light of Mr Netanyahu’s public response to this agreement, what assessment has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made of the risk of Israel taking some unilateral action that might undermine the agreement, and what representations has he made to the Israeli Government against taking any such action?

[Mr Hague]

We are in constant touch with the Israeli Government. The Prime Minister discussed matters with Prime Minister Netanyahu during the negotiation of the agreement over the past few weeks. It is important to understand the concerns of those who are sceptical about any agreement on the grounds of Iran’s past deceptions. It is also important to ask those people what the alternative to the agreement would be. The alternatives would involve Iran getting to nuclear weapons threshold capability, Iran having a nuclear weapon, a conflict with Iran or all those things. We have to be clear that there are compelling arguments for the agreement. We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking any steps that would undermine the agreement. We will make that very clear to all concerned.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) for their generous remarks? May I also, in turn, express my great appreciation and congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on the personal effort that he has put in to this negotiation? I recognise that the Iranians are among the toughest negotiators in the world and extract every last ounce from negotiations.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary accepts that it is crucial that the momentum is kept up. The agreements that we made between 2003 and 2006 were undermined not only by the difficulties in Tehran, but by a desperate Faustian pact that was developed between hard-liners in Tehran and hard-liners in Washington who fed off each other. That ended up with President Khatami being replaced by President Ahmadinejad. The United States helped to produce that situation.

Lastly, may I ask a question that follows on from the previous question? Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Americans that if Prime Minister Netanyahu’s efforts at the United States Congress prevent President Obama from continuing with the negotiations, the UK, Germany, France and the EU will have to detach themselves from America and reach their own conclusions, along with other members of the P5?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and I agree very much about the importance of maintaining momentum. It was possible to see that even over the past two weeks. The 10-day gap between the negotiations that took place two weeks ago and those this weekend brought forth a great deal of criticism in Iran, in the US Congress and elsewhere in the world that could easily have fatally complicated the efforts to reach agreement. Considering the months of work that need to go into the implementation of this agreement and into attaining a comprehensive and final agreement, it is vital to maintain the momentum all the way.

The agreements that the United States has made can all be implemented by Executive order. That does not mean that the debates in Congress are over. What happens in the US Congress is up to the United States. However, the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the United States Administration are extremely strongly committed to this process. The leadership and persistence of Secretary Kerry were crucial in bringing about the agreement and the clarity of President Obama on the matter is clear. I do not think that we need, at this point, to start looking at the other scenarios that the right hon. Gentleman brought in of acting separately from the United States.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that we have got through only two questions in five minutes, which by normal standards would be very slow. We need to speed up. We will be led in that important exercise by an immediate past Minister of great experience and versatility.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The wealth of detail that has been offered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicates that this is no casual agreement, but one that has been carefully thought through. I pay tribute to his persistence and that of Cathy Ashton in holding the P5 plus 1 together. Does he agree that for Israel to be assured, every dot and comma of the interim agreement must be held to; that for the Arab world to be reassured, we must make serious progress on a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the middle east; and that for the world to be reassured, the Iranians must stop their murderous activities in Syria immediately and contribute to an end to that conflict as quickly as possible?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. On a day of tributes—we must not have too many tributes because I think there are many troubles ahead—I pay tribute to work done by my right hon. Friend on these issues in the Foreign Office over the past three and half years. He is right about all those things. This wealth of detail, as he put it, must be implemented in detail. It will also be helpful in the debates that take place in this country and the world over the next few days for that wealth of detail to be examined in detail by everybody who comments on it, and I hope they will take the trouble to do that. The extent to which the agreement means a change in any of Iran’s other policies, such as that on Syria, remains to be determined. Of course, we also encourage Iran to play a more responsible role more broadly in world affairs.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The European Union, the Government and the United States are to be congratulated on this brave and bold step towards reducing tension in the middle east. Would it be right for the Government now to approach Israel and ask for a reciprocal gesture and for it to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection, in order to denuclearise the whole middle east?

[Mr Hague]

Politics is the art of the possible, as I think we all know in this House, and it has turned out that this agreement is possible. The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me into something that it would probably not be possible for us to obtain.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a most welcome moment for a world that has grown weary of conflict to see the great achievements of diplomacy and engagement? Does he agree that a full and comprehensive agreement would not be possible without a proper interim agreement of this type, and that the key to confidence in the future will be verification and inspection?

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is vital to build trust and confidence in the habit of working together to get to a comprehensive agreement. It is also vital to have time to create that comprehensive agreement. Time was running short for any agreement, given what was happening in Iran’s nuclear programme, so for all those reasons, this is an essential step on the way to a comprehensive agreement. Anyone who fancies that, alternatively, we could have just jumped to a comprehensive agreement, needs to revise that judgment.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his role in this, but may I urge him to be a bit more effusive in his praise for Baroness Ashton for the simple reason that I think the agreement shows that where the European Union can combine, it can achieve far more than individual countries working on their own?

[Mr Hague]

I am never lacking in effusion for the role of Baroness Ashton. She has handled things brilliantly, particularly in creating confidence between the Iranian negotiators and the E3 plus 3 team. Over the past three and a half years I dare say that I have praised her and worked with her a great deal more than the hon. Gentleman has experience of doing.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

We have the very unusual scenario of Saudi Arabia and Israel agreeing with each other in publicly criticising the agreement. That is understandable: elements in both countries believe they have an existential fight on their hands that will only get tougher with a more confident Iran. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we have a duty of care to those allies, and that there is a long way to go in persuading them that the agreement is in their best interests?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we do have a duty to understand those concerns. As I said, given past history on this matter we should never be surprised that some people are sceptical about the agreement, and we should understand those concerns. It is therefore incumbent on us to explain the detail and say how we will keep up this work, and to maintain the confidence of as many nations as possible in this work. That will include discussing the issue in detail and extensively with both countries mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), Secretary Kerry, and all others involved on achieving this exceptionally important agreement. It must be hoped that not only will it lead to Iran re-entering the international community, but that it will ameliorate oppressive aspects of its internal policies. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Prime Minister of Israel, who yesterday said that nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons in the world—he should know because he has a stockpile of several hundred nuclear warheads and the missiles with which to deliver them—and who in addition refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that any attempt to damage or attack the agreement in any way will be unacceptable and will be opposed?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, we would strongly discourage any country from seeking to undermine the agreement, but I have not seen any sign that any country will do so in any practical way. Every country in the world understands how serious that would be. Some may disapprove of the agreement, but they know it has been made by, among others, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and that it must be given its chance. I believe it will be given its chance.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who has often backed what Israel has had to say about Iran, and who has concluded that:

“Seeking to undermine the deal would bring benefit to no party except those who prefer war”?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I heard some of Mark Fitzpatrick’s comments yesterday in the media. I thought they were well informed and balanced in coming to the conclusion that it was a good deal. He did so on the basis of the analysis carried out in the IISS. Anyone who goes through the detailed examples I have given to the House and who sees the range of activities of the Iranian nuclear programme that are covered, how specifically they are covered, and the importance attached in the agreement to obtaining a comprehensive agreement, will be very reassured.

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

Those who mocked Lady Ashton’s appointment—they certainly do not include the Foreign Secretary—may wish to apologise accordingly.

Is there not a kind of unholy alliance, certainly including Israel but also including Saudi Arabia and possibly elements within the Iranian regime, that would want to undermine or destroy the agreement? Should we not be very much on our guard against that?

[Mr Hague]

We will be on our guard against any attempt to undermine the agreement, but it has the backing of the US Government, Russia, China, France and Britain—the five permanent members of the Security Council—and it has clearly received widespread support around the world. Therefore, as I have said, we would discourage anyone from undermining it, but I believe the world will give the agreement the chance to succeed.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to be cautious if not sceptical. To persuade us of the genuineness of Iran’s intentions, would it not help if it were to end its involvement in terrorism in that region of the world, including in Syria, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has rightly said; and end its involvement in the repression of religious minorities, including Christians and Jewish people, in Iran? Would it also not help if Iran stopped the hate speech against Israel, a recent example of which came from the Supreme Leader, who just a few days ago referred to Israel as

“the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region”?

That seems to have escaped the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

[Mr Hague]

I agree on the importance of those issues and of Iran changing its approach to them. Clearly, the negotiations were solely on the nuclear programme. It is right that they were, because in order to make progress, we must focus exclusively on that. However, in our wider discussions with Iran, which have become possible with the upgrading of our diplomatic relations that I have announced, we will want to address the full range of issues, including the sponsorship of terrorism in other countries and the hate speech to which my hon. Friend refers. We will go on to discuss those other issues with Iran.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and all those engaged in the negotiations, not least the Iranians, on this major step forward in international diplomacy, and indeed thank them for it. However, to reiterate the comments of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is not now the time to urge Iran to do everything in her power to bring an end to the desperate civil war in Syria? There are millions of refugees, and we have learned today that 11,000 children have been deliberately killed in Syria, some at the hands of torturers.

[Mr Hague]

It is time to do that. It is too early to say whether the agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme foreshadows any other changes in its foreign policy. We would of course like to see such changes, particularly in relation to Syria. We, with other countries, have worked hard to assemble the Geneva II peace conference and in the past two hours, the date of the conference has been announced: it will take place on 22 January. I urge Iran to play a constructive and helpful role in the peace process.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Following on from the excellent question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on verification and inspection, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the IAEA will perhaps need more resources to ensure that the interim agreement is fulfilled?

[Mr Hague]

The IAEA will need to devote more resources to this from within its budget. On page two of the agreement, there is quite a long list of additional things it will be expected to do, including agreement on the safeguards approach from the reactor in Iraq, daily inspector access for various purposes, managed access to centrifuge assembly workshops and so on. The IAEA has applied itself extremely well in trying to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme in recent years, and it will be well up to those tasks.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the agreement, but given Iran’s history of concealment will the Foreign Secretary say a little more on the monitoring and verification process, and the oversight of that process by the international community?

[Mr Hague]

That is an important point, which links to the previous question. I was giving examples of some of the additional IAEA inspection work that will result from the agreement. In addition, a joint commission will be formed from the E3 plus 3 countries and Iran to work on implementing and monitoring the deal. That means that there will be constant discussion between the E3 plus 3 countries and Iran, which will require the Iranians to respond to any concerns we have about inspection and verification. This is a big step forward in inspection, including intrusive inspection and verification, and we must keep up our determination to do that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Over the years, several thousand Iranian students have studied in the UK, with many paying full fees, renting properties and spending very large sums of money while resident here. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify what consideration he has given to lifting the sanctions that prevent their families and sponsors from transferring money to the UK during their stay? Will he at least consider nominating a single bank in the UK as a conduit for student support, much as the United States has done during the whole period of its sanctions against Iran?

[Mr Hague]

I will look at those points as part of the step-by-step upgrading of our bilateral relations. It is possible that in some cases students could benefit from the new authorisation rules in the European Union that I mentioned. While Iran cannot operate the embassy with Iranian staff, we are considering it being able to increase the number of locally engaged staff who can help with such issues. There may be things that help people in that situation, but I will look at the issue in more detail.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and draw his attention to what he said about momentum in the process in the region. I obviously hope that a detailed agreement is reached within six months. Will he now turn his attention to the need for a nuclear weapons-free middle east, and the importance of reconstituting the conference, which Finland was supposed to have held, involving all countries in the region? Without an agreement on a nuclear-free middle east, somebody will develop nuclear weapons or Israel will go on being unchallenged as the only nuclear weapons state in the region. This is urgent.

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are keeping our focus on that. I pay tribute to him for keeping his focus—relentlessly—in his questions in Parliament, but we are also keeping our focus and continuing our work to bring the conference together. If we can carry our success on this agreement through to the success of a comprehensive and final settlement, it will be a big advance towards what he has been campaigning for and remove more of the excuses of other nations against such discussions. I think, therefore, that he can view this as a step forward in that regard.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Many people regard Iran as the Soviet Union of the middle east, because it practises repression at home, it exports terrorism abroad and it says it wants to wipe Israel off the map. How will my right hon. Friend judge whether this is genuine perestroika and glasnost or whether it is deception by Iran, and what steps can he take to ensure that over the six months it not only stops work on nuclear enrichment, but stops supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and the Assad regime?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend raises a wide range of wholly legitimate issues. We have many differences with Iran, including on many of those issues and on its appalling human rights record. This agreement does not make any of those differences go away. I do not want to mislead the House. The agreement does not mean there is necessarily a change in its other policies, but it must be judged on its own merits and on whether it is operated in good faith and succeeds in dealing with the nuclear issue. Of course, however, we will use the opportunity for dialogue with Iran to raise the sorts of issues he describes.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on all their work.

The Foreign Secretary previously announced the appointment of Ajay Sharma as the chargé d’affaires in Tehran, but our embassy remains closed. Bearing in mind the 81,000 British Iranians resident in this country who wish to see their relatives, what progress can be made to ensure the embassy is opened as quickly as possible?

[Mr Hague]

We will take a step-by-step approach. Ajay Sharma, who, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is the new non-resident chargé d’affaires, has been closely involved in the talks and will visit Iran shortly. If visits in both directions by officials go well, we will contemplate other steps that could lead ultimately to the reopening of embassies, but I judge it better to take a step-by-step approach. In a different way from the nuclear programme, that, too, requires the building up of trust, confidence and, above all, clarity that a reopened embassy could operate properly and with all the normal functions of an embassy. We would have to get clarity from the Iranians on that before we could reopen an embassy, so we will continue to take a step-by-step approach.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given that Syria and Iran are joined at the hip, is it not clear that no such agreement would have been reached had the plan for an Anglo-American military attack on Syria gone ahead? So while we are busy conferring praise on Governments past and present, can we at least have a pat on the back for Parliament for its role in preventing such an ill-considered move?

[Mr Hague]

I always want to pat Parliament on the back, even when I disagree with it, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. I agree—not with him, but with others—that the contemplation by the United States of military action produced a very important breakthrough on the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary, alongside Baroness Ashton and Secretary of State Kerry, on his role in this matter. Does the agreement not show the effectiveness of united, co-ordinated EU action, just as the agreement did on normalisation between Serbia and Kosovo, which was also brought about by the efforts of Baroness Ashton seven months ago? Does he agree that we need effective co-operation between EU partners to get results?

[Mr Hague]

I do not regard it as a revolutionary thing to say that it is desirable to have good co-operation between European nations in foreign policy. Indeed, that often helps to produce results. The scale and effectiveness of EU sanctions, agreed by all EU countries, has made a big difference on this issue. It is important to add, though—this is something of a qualification to the hon. Gentleman’s question—that here the work with the United States has been absolutely indispensable. Such an agreement cannot be made without the United States. Indeed, the assistance of Russia and China has been important, too. So this is something that includes European unity, but goes beyond that, which is why it is so powerful.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was sighing loudly from his seat; he may now speak forcefully on his feet.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

How can we trust the Iranians—a terrorist regime that poses a grave danger to the Arab world and to Israel and has a long history of lying and duplicity? This is from their own chief nuclear negotiator:

“While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipments in parts of the nuclear conversion facility in Isfahan... By creating a calm environment…we were able to complete”.

So now they keep their centrifuges; they go on enriching uranium by up to 5%; and they pocket $7 billion. What is to stop them doing a North Korea and subjecting us to more blackmail in six months’ time?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend asks how we can trust people with whom we have many differences—we certainly have them—and who have concealed aspects of their programme in the past. The answer is that this agreement is so specific and so extensive that we will soon be able to see whether they can be trusted or not. We will all be able to judge whether these commitments are being entered into or not. If we are to take the approach that, whatever we agree, the Iranians cannot be trusted to deliver it, we can, of course, never have an agreement on this issue. That would not even allow us to test whether an agreement could be made and implemented. That would be a disastrous course to embark upon.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

These welcome developments are due in no small part to the election of the moderate President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, who stood on a platform of improving relations with the west and achieved a landslide victory. Considering that he had been in post only for a few weeks when we had a debate on the proposed military attack on Syria in August, does the Foreign Secretary think that military action by the west in Syria would have strengthened his position with the Iranian President or destabilised it?

[Mr Hague]

This is a similar question to the one from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It is, of course, a hypothetical question, because such action did not take place. The debate about such action did, however, produce a change of policy by Russia and the Assad regime, and we are now seeing the dismantling of Syria’s chemical warfare programme. It is idle to speculate what might have happened in many different scenarios. Relations with Iran on this issue should be viewed on their own merits and on their own terms, and they are not necessarily related to Iran’s other policies and to its involvement in, or opinion about, Syria. We should be careful about making those linkages.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Iran’s enrichment programme has cast a terrible shadow over the middle east and beyond for over a decade, so I very much welcome this landmark agreement—even if it is only for an interim period. I know that my right hon. Friend hoped to be here to make this statement last week, and its being made today is a tribute to his determination to see this through. Can he confirm that the IAEA will have full and free access to all Iran’s nuclear facilities, so that Iran’s commitment to the agreement can be properly measured?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. To give him a flavour of what is in the agreement on this, it requires the

“Provision of specified information to the IAEA, including information on Iran’s plans for nuclear facilities, a description of each building on each nuclear site, a description of the scale of operations for each location engaged in nuclear activities, information on uranium mines and mills, and information on source material”

all to be produced

“within three months of the adoption of these measures.”

If the agreement is implemented in good faith, it will involve the provision of a lot more openness and information to the IAEA.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

At the risk of sounding like the ugly fairy godmother at the christening—[Hon. Members: “Never!]—may I ask the Foreign Secretary to tell us what discussions would take place if the reintroduction of sanctions were required, and how speedily does he think that could proceed?

[Mr Hague]

That is a perfectly legitimate question. We are talking about either sanctions that will be suspended—not lifted or abolished—or about the unfreezing of a specified amount of frozen assets on a one-off basis. The sanctions relief that is being offered to Iran can easily be reversed if it does not abide by the commitments into which it has entered.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Of course we thank the Foreign Secretary and his Security Council and European Union colleagues for a very successful agreement, but we are mindful that the proof of Iran’s sincerity lies in inspection and verification in the next six months. Does he think that, while that is proceeding, Iran might be encouraged to participate in the other conversations in the middle east that must happen—the discussions on Syria that he has announced will take place in January, and discussions on other issues further down the track relating to Israel and Palestine?

[Mr Hague]

I hope so. There have been several questions about that topic. As I have said, it is too early to conclude from this agreement that other aspects of Iranian foreign policy will change, but of course we should like that to happen. I have said to Foreign Minister Zarif that if Iran—along with nearly all the rest of the world—were to accept last year’s Geneva communiqué on Syria as the basis for future discussions on the subject, many countries would be much more open to its involvement in those discussions. That is up to the Iranians, and I hope that they will respond positively to such suggestions.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome this breakthrough. The Foreign Secretary has referred to Iran’s appalling human rights record and to the prospect of future bilateral discussions about it. What prospect does he see of some movement on issues such as the Iranian Government’s practice of imprisoning church pastors?

[Mr Hague]

I think that we all hope that there will be movement on those issues, irrespective of anything relating to the nuclear issue. The right hon. Gentleman gives just one example of a truly appalling human rights record. Of course we will wish to discuss human rights with Iran as part of our bilateral discussions, and we will impress on the Iranians not only the importance, in our opinion, of universal human rights, but the positive impression that they would make on the world if they were to deal with those issues as well. Let me stress again, however, that it is much too early to say that we can read from this agreement a change in Iranian policy on other matters.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I add my support for the agreement? Given how long it has taken to reach this very limited stage of progress and given that the track record of the Iranian regime makes constructive dialogue with it so difficult, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perverse to turn our backs on this agreement and that the operative phrase in his statement is “if Iran implements the deal in good faith”? How confident is he that Iran will implement it in good faith?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support and for his wise words. Only Iran can determine whether it implements the deal in good faith, but I will say that, on the basis of our dealings with Foreign Minister Zarif—who has conducted all the negotiations from the Iranian side—I believe in his sincerity about reaching the deal and about implementing it. I hope that he will continue to have the necessary support in Iran—where there is, to put it mildly, a quite opaque and complex power structure—to ensure that the agreement is fully implemented.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talked about the need for Iran to operate in good faith, but that is not what we have seen from Iran in recent decades. Is there a plan for action in six months’ time if we find that it has not operated in good faith and has not complied with this interim agreement?

[Mr Hague]

In that eventuality, we would not be able to renew the agreement. As I pointed out earlier, all the sanctions relief that we have signed up to here is reversible or is one-off, so it would not be repeated if Iran does not implement this agreement, but I think the Iranians have a clear understanding of that and that is part of the pressure on them to make sure that they do it.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his ability to function without sleep, seemingly. One of the issues is the interpretation of any agreement that has been reached. The interpretation that seems to be coming out of Iran is that the world has accepted its right to enrich uranium and to retain all the facilities that could enrich uranium if the agreement falls apart. What can my right hon. Friend say to the House and the world about Iran sticking to what we believe has been agreed?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but all of us who were in the House in the 1990s, before the procedures of the House were changed, are entirely used to functioning without sleep, including speaking without sleep. Just to be clear, this is not a recognition of the right to enrich, which we do not believe exists under the non-proliferation treaty. The agreement envisages that if we agree a comprehensive solution, that would enable Iran to enjoy its basic rights of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, with a mutually defined enrichment programme limited to practical needs; but to get to that point, Iran needs to implement all the detailed measures—there is more detail than I have been able to give the House in the statement—that I described earlier.

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

As the person who had the interesting privilege of being the first British Minister to visit Iran after a 21-year gap following its 1979 revolution, may I warmly welcome the progress made by the Foreign Secretary, Baroness Ashton and everyone else who has been responsible for the advances that have been made leading to this agreement, but at the same time echo the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about the risks of agreement being frustrated by those both in Iran and elsewhere who do not want this to lead on to a more permanent agreement? Remembering the frustration of the hopes that were placed at that time in the Khatami presidency opening the door for greater understanding, may I urge the Foreign Secretary and all concerned to do everything possible over the next six months to not let this opportunity drift out of our reach?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely; I am fully conscious, as are the Government and our allies, of the importance of that. That is one of the reasons why it has been important to respond quickly to Iran’s readiness to make such an agreement—so people in Iran can see that it is possible to make an agreement, that there are compromises that can be made and that it is in the interests of everyone, including the people of Iran, to do so. Showing that quickly gives the opportunity to those in Iran who want to be able to carry that on for the future.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the hard work and effort he and the other P5 plus 1 nations have put into getting this interim agreement, often in the face of vested-interest opposition both here and in Iran? Of course, as many colleagues have mentioned, verification and inspection will be the best way to put aside those who oppose this deal. When President Rouhani was part of the nuclear negotiation teams in the past, he was instrumental in getting Iran to sign up to, or commit to, the additional protocol of the nuclear proliferation treaty. Was that discussed and should we seek that in future, because surely the best way to achieve this is through international law and UN verification?

[Mr Hague]

Of course we would want Iran to observe the additional protocol. This is an issue that will have to be addressed in the discussions on a comprehensive agreement, and my hon. Friend will be aware from his knowledge of Iran that Iran’s ratification and observance of the additional protocol would be dependent on the Majlis. It would have to have a vote about that, in the Iranian system. That could introduce an additional complexity, but it is something we would certainly want it to do.

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

We welcome this agreement, although it is a first step in a long process. I remind the Foreign Secretary that President Obama and the American Congress postponed a decision as a result of this Parliament stopping the Foreign Secretary and the Americans having an attack on Iran. More importantly, if it is sufficient to sit down with the Iranians to discuss what is a very serious issue, why are we not facilitating talks on Syria? Are we going to wait another six months, allowing that carnage to go on?

[Mr Hague]

The debates that we had, whatever side people were on, about military action in August were about military action relating to Syria, not Iran. It is very much part of our policy, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to promote a political solution in Syria, including supporting a peace conference on Syria, and I hosted the Friends of Syria core group in London last month to agree our approach to that. I met the Syrian opposition in Istanbul last week to encourage their participation in a peace conference; that has now been announced for 22 January. Of course, we will do everything that we can to bring about progress in finding a peaceful solution on Syria, just as we have on the Iranian nuclear programme.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, for missing the first few moments of the Foreign Secretary’s statement—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that is a very, very significant admission. On this occasion—[Interruption]—honesty should be rewarded, as somebody is kindly suggesting. But I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding his immense distinction, I am afraid that it will not be allowed again. On this occasion, we will let him; he has been very candid.

[Mr O'Brien]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Given the question that I am about to put, I thought that transparency was the better decision.

This will all depend on the transparency of the monitoring and verification processes, and how much trust can be placed in efforts to remove the drivers of instability to gain greater security—an issue that is wider than just the nuclear issue. Can the Foreign Secretary comment on the expectations?

[Mr Hague]

If everyone involved is as honest and transparent as my right hon. Friend, there will be no problem in the implementation of this agreement, and I would strongly encourage that. Of course, in addition to all this inspection, all the monitoring and the joint commission, in the end any agreement is going to require good faith and commitment from the other side, and that has to come from political will. So we will do everything that we can to make sure that there is rigorous inspection, but it will only work if there is a real commitment from Iran as well.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has spoken about the appointment of a new British chargé d’affaires to Tehran, but an Iranian Government mob smashed up the British embassy only a relatively short time ago and did millions of pounds-worth of damage which, under the Geneva diplomatic protocols, they now owe in compensation to the British taxpayer. Is any progress being made with Iran in securing that compensation before diplomatic progress is made?

[Mr Hague]

This is a good question. Indeed, the United Kingdom should be entitled—is entitled—to compensation for the damage done, and compensation will be one of the issues that we need to discuss in this step-by-step upgrading of diplomatic relations. As I mentioned earlier, the most important consideration will be whether an embassy is allowed to operate with all the normal functions of an embassy, but we will address compensation as well.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Back in 1994, an agreement was signed to curtail the development of nuclear weapon capacity in North Korea. At the time, President Clinton stated that the agreement

“will make the United States, the Korean peninsula and the world safer”.

We all know how that ended, so how confident is the Foreign Secretary that history will not repeat itself and, on this occasion, the monitoring of the agreement will be sufficient to ensure transparency in the process?

[Mr Hague]

The provision for monitoring, as my hon. Friend can gather, is very extensive and very detailed—to a much greater degree than on any comparable agreement made in the past. How confident can we be that all these things will be abided by? Time will tell. I have spoken about the sincerity, I believe, of the Iranian negotiators; but implementing this is another matter. Our confidence must be based on what actually happens. I would only say, as I said earlier, that the provisions are sufficiently detailed about a sufficient range of sites and activities in Iran that we will be able to see whether confidence is justified or not.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I commend the Foreign Secretary’s role in the negotiations, but does he agree that the concession to the Iranians on uranium enrichment in this deal is quite remarkable, given that all previous United Nations resolutions have explicitly stated that Iran should stop all such enrichment at its plants?

[Mr Hague]

It is true that this is different from past UN Security Council resolutions, although it is also true that it would not be possible to reach any agreement with Iran without this aspect to such an agreement. It is also true that this will go along with the other parts of the preamble to the agreement, which talks about the transparency measures, and that Iran has reaffirmed that in no circumstances will it ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. When the world can be satisfied with that last sentence, it will be possible to make an agreement on the enrichment provisions of which I spoke earlier.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Many of my constituents are concerned about the vagueness of the deal in relation to addressing further uranium enrichment. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give us, particularly when President Rouhani has stated:

“No matter what interpretations are given, Iran’s right to enrichment has been recognised”?

[Mr Hague]

I mentioned earlier the interpretation of the so-called right to enrich. The E3 plus 3 countries do not recognise a right to enrich, but we have referred to enrichment in the way that I read out earlier. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing vague about the agreement. It includes these words, at the bottom of page 1:

“Iran announces that it will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of the 6 months.”

The agreement goes on to make other detailed provisions.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to securing the interim agreement that was arranged over the weekend. I am also pleased to hear that any sanctions relief will be phased. Will he confirm that any release of oil revenues held in frozen foreign bank accounts will happen only if Iran lives up to the commitments that it made at the weekend, month in, month out, and to its ongoing commitment to a comprehensive agreement?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. This will happen on a phased basis over a six-month period, and as I mentioned, it involves the release of frozen assets on a one-off basis. That can therefore be stopped at any time, so it will be important for all sides to see that Iran is really fulfilling the agreement for confidence to be maintained. The position is therefore as my hon. Friend has set out.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

“Past actions best predict future actions, and Iran has defied the United Nations Security Council… Simply put: Iran has not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Canadian Foreign Minister yesterday following the announcement of this deal. There is no doubting the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to the agreement, but many of our closest allies and friends in the region and elsewhere are deeply concerned about it. Over the next six months, will he commit to working with those allies and friends, so that their views on the final deal can be taken into account?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point about the need to work with other countries, including some whose scepticism about such agreements we should understand, given Iran’s past record. It is important to understand their natural scepticism, but it is also important to think about what on earth the alternatives to reaching a workable agreement would be. My judgment is that this is a good enough agreement, because the alternatives could involve Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability, or getting to the threshold of that, in the not-too-distant future, or a conflict with Iran. We will, however, work with other countries and reassure them along the way.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is it not the case that Iran is the biggest and nastiest bully in the middle east playground and that despite having been kept after class to complete its lines, it has failed to do so and yet has been given its catapult back? If I am wrong, can the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that, as a result of this agreement, Iran is not in a position to complete a nuclear weapon?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, that is right; all the aspects of the Iranian programme that I have listed are prevented from going forward over this six-month period, and some of them, as I have set out, are rolled back. The comprehensive agreement that we are seeking after this first step will make it clear that, as I was just quoting, in no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons. So this is not so much a case of giving the Iranians the catapult back as of ensuring that they will never have a catapult.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The election of President Rouhani last summer, not least its landslide nature, came as a surprise to many people. I believe firmly that it happened because he was the only candidate to say that the direction of Iran had to change because the sanctions were so crippling. With that in mind, may I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to outline to the House the efforts that will be gone through to tighten the grip of sanctions if Iran does not stick to its side of the deal, rather than looking at military options?

[Mr Hague]

I have no doubt that if Iran does not stick to its side of the deal, first, the limited sanctions relief of which I have spoken, which comes from the suspension of sanctions and one-off unfreezing of assets, would certainly come to an end. I have also no doubt that, in those circumstances of a breakdown of an agreement that we and our partners have entered into in good faith, there would be very strong pressure for an increase in sanctions on Iran. That is what Iran would have to expect in those circumstances.

Points of Order

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

16:47

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the growing concern that exists about the conduct of G4S and Serco, and whether they should be allowed to continue with their bids to run probation services. Last Wednesday, I asked you whether the Justice Secretary intended to make a statement following the admission by G4S that it had been overcharging for electronic tagging services. On Friday, the Justice Secretary announced his decision that he would not award the contract to run three prisons in Yorkshire—again, this was for reasons that appear to be linked to the investigation into overcharging. It appears that the Justice Secretary is making this up as he goes along, and I wonder whether he had, even now, indicated that he intended to make a statement.

[Mr Speaker]

No Minister from the Department has given any indication to me of an intention to make a statement to the House. I may misrecollect, but I thought there were going to be scrutiny opportunities in relation to legislation before very long, which might allow this issue to be aired. Whether that would include the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) or, in any case, is an avenue satisfactory to him, I cannot say. I recognise that he is being persistent on this point, but the straight answer to his question is that no such notification has been given to me and he will have to use the resources available to him further and better to flag the issue up with Ministers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for having come here at the first opportunity to brief the House on what happened in relation to Iran. I know that when he went to the Conservative Friends of Israel meeting at 1.30 this afternoon, he was religious in not saying anything there before he had said it to the House of Commons. Unfortunately, his officials were tweeting throughout his statement—while he was still making his opening remarks—the content of what he was about to say. The rules are very clear, as I am sure you are aware: nothing shall be said by the Department until such time as the Minister has sat down. I afraid that we now have a different set of officials with us, but I wonder whether it might not be a good idea to write to Departments just to remind them of the rules.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. Let me say to him, and to the House, what the position is. My predecessor ruled on 9 June 2008, at column 21, that the text of statements should be released simultaneously to Members of the House and to the media, and that that should happen when the Minister giving the statement sits down. That ruling still applies, and it applies equally to electronic release as it does to the circulation of hard copies so far as I am concerned. The hon. Gentleman has referred to people to whom we do not ordinarily refer in the Chamber. Whichever particular individuals might have undertaken this activity, the principle is very clear: Ministers are responsible for everything that happens in their Departments. That is a fundamental feature of our constitution, so I am sure that the point will have been noted by the Leader of the House and elsewhere, as necessary. I hope we will not need to return to it, because it is breathtakingly clear.

Bill Presented

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Secretary McLoughlin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary Paterson, Mr Secretary Davey and Mr Robert Goodwill, presented a Bill to make provision for a railway between Euston in London and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre in Staffordshire, with a spur from Old Oak Common in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to a junction with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at York Way in the London Borough of Islington and a spur from Water Orton in Warwickshire to Curzon Street in Birmingham; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 132) with explanatory notes (Bill 132-EN).

Water Bill

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Draft Water Bill, Session 2012-13, HC 674 and Government Response, Cm 864.]

Second Reading

16:50

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

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

I am delighted to present a Bill that reflects my twin priorities of growing the economy and improving the environment. The Bill will promote growth for the long term, improve the resilience of our water supplies and the environment and increase choice for customers. Our White Paper on water sets out a vision for the future of the water sector. We need continued investment in our water and sewerage systems. We need investment in storing water and moving it to where it is needed; investment in maintaining our sewerage network and improving drainage, including through sustainable drainage options; investment that will protect our rivers through improvements to water quality; action to address over-abstraction; and investment in greater water efficiency.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given that the Secretary of State says that it is designed to protect the environment, will he agree to amend the Bill to require fracking companies to have a full liability guarantee to cover a range of eventualities before an environmental permit is allocated? He will know that even if liability is proven, if the companies go bust the costs will still be passed on to the taxpayer, or to the water companies, which in turn will pass them on to the customer.

[Mr Paterson]

On the issue of fracking, I have made it absolutely clear that we will in no way dilute or diminish any of the existing regulations relating to the extraction of hydrocarbons from underground. A whole framework of different regulations is already laid down by European legislation, and we intend to respect them, but there is great merit in developing fracking, as we have seen in the dramatic reduction in gas prices in the States, with huge benefit to the US economy. We think we will see similar merits in our economy.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My constituency has a place called Barton Moss, which is to be explored for shale gas. It is next to a raised peat bog, which is one of the rarest and most precious resources in the country that has not been ruined by over-extraction. There are real concerns among my constituents about dewatering those precious mosslands. They see a real need for reform in the Bill to ensure that explorers or exploiters of shale gas do not dewater areas and that if there are any pollution incidents, there is a financial guarantee that they will be made to pay for what they do.

[Mr Paterson]

I have sympathy with the hon. Lady’s question; I have mosses in my own constituency. Let me reassure her that there is absolutely no intention to dilute or reduce in any way the rigour of our environmental regulation. I also remind her that on a visit to Washington, I spoke to the Environmental Protection Agency, which could not name a single case of water pollution from any of the 2 million wells that have been sunk in the United States. I think we should look at fracking with open eyes—we should recognise that oil has been extracted at Wytch Farm, for example, for decades almost within sight of a site of special scientific interest and a bird reserve—and, done properly, it is a thoroughly meritorious and worthwhile activity that will bring jobs and prosperity to this country.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mr Paterson]

I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind if I carry on, as the debate is about the Water Bill rather than fracking.

Earlier this year, we announced that the Bill would also include measures to deal with the availability and affordability of flood insurance. That is an important issue for many Members of the House and their constituents and I am glad that we are making progress on it.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know, as a fellow Shropshire MP, that there is significant flooding in areas such as Shifnal and Albrighton in the east of the county in my constituency. What discussions has he had with the Association of British Insurers to ensure that people have access to affordable flood insurance?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. I shall come on to that in a minute, but we have had exhaustive and extensive discussions with the ABI to ensure that the statement of principles is succeeded by a new regime, on which I shall elaborate in a few minutes.

The main focus of the Bill is reform of the water industry. Reform will provide more choice for non-household customers and bring new entrants into the market. It will use the power of competition to drive efficiency, innovation and benefits to the environment.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As somebody who strongly welcomes the introduction of competition, why will not the Secretary of State allow competition for everybody? If it is really a natural monopoly, nothing will happen and no harm will be done, but if it is not, we could all get the benefit of competition with lower prices and the quality of water we want.

[Mr Paterson]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have total sympathy with that position. I am quite clear that as an aspiration universal competition is worth while. Our problem is that we want to take the first step and take the wholesale route, which will bring immediate benefits and real efficiencies to major businesses, but it is hard to move down to a household level, where the gains are much smaller because of the narrow margins, until we have universal metering. At the moment, metering is at about 40% and we need to move closer to universal metering before we can reach the position with which he and I have much sympathy.

Privatisation of the UK water industry has seen the sector attract £116 billion in low-cost investment, enabling our infrastructure to be upgraded and environmental standards to be improved. I saw that for myself when I visited Northumbrian Water’s waste treatment site in Howdon. Its investment in anaerobic digestion is enabling it to process 500,000 tonnes of sewage every day that was previously dumped untreated in the North sea.

Our rivers are now cleaner than they have been for decades. Rivers that were previously classified as sterile or biologically dead are now supporting otters and salmon. A substantial programme of investment has also led to more than 82% of our bathing waters meeting the highest EU standard this year. That is a great example of improving the environment and growing the economy.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will know that there has obviously been general support for a clean Thames, but the proposals for the Thames tunnel are still controversial. Will he update the House on whether the Government have concluded their discussions and negotiations with Thames Water about the mechanism to ensure, if we are to have a tunnel after the planning inquiry, that people in the Thames area do not pay through the nose for the privilege?

[Mr Paterson]

I am fully aware that that is a matter of enormous interest to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. To put it bluntly, it is not acceptable that we continue to put 20 million tonnes of untreated sewage in the Thames every year. We have considered a range of alternatives—I know that he has been advising on this—and have concluded, as did the previous Government, that the tunnel is the best solution. We continue to negotiate in detail with Thames Water on the arrangements that will lead to the conclusion of the project.

We now need to build on our success. The Bill will shape the way the industry develops over the next decade and beyond. It will build on the strengths of the regime and use increased competition to drive greater innovation and efficiency, which will benefit customers and make sure that our water supplies and natural environment are resilient.

The Bill shows that we are tackling affordability for the long term.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that we are going to improve the nation’s ability to capture and store water, thereby reducing abstraction. Will he be telling us later in his speech where the new reservoirs are to be built?

[Mr Paterson]

I will be moving on to that. I cannot tell my hon. Friend exactly where the new reservoirs will be because that will be down to the individual companies, according to local circumstances, but I can categorically assure him that I hope that the measures in the Bill will release a floodtide of new investment, potentially in new reservoirs, use of aquifers and transfer of water between water companies, to maximise use of the water that lands on this country. I remind him that 95% of that water ends up in the sea. We need to manage the water better before it gets there.

The Bill shows that we are tackling affordability for the long term. The package of reforms is designed to exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills and ensure affordable flood insurance for households in areas at high risk of flooding. We are well aware of the financial challenges that hard-working households are facing.

Earlier this month I wrote to water companies asking them to consider whether to apply the full price increases next year that were planned for in the 2009 price review. I asked them to share the benefits of historically low financing costs with their customers. Ofwat is with me on this. It estimates that by taking account of lower financing costs, the next price review could reduce pressure on bills by between £120 million and £750 million a year from 2015, while still enabling companies to invest in high-quality services and the environment. This demonstrates once again how critical financing costs are to the bills that customers pay: 1% on finance costs leads to about a £20 increase in bills to customers. We must not undermine in any way the stable regulatory system which gives confidence to investors.

This Bills means that all business, charity and public sector customers in England will be able to choose their water supplier and, for the first time, their sewerage supplier. They will be able to shop around for the best deal and a package that suits them. Large water users could make savings by switching to a water supplier that offers them water efficiency advice and smart metering. We have seen how competition in Scotland is delivering real benefits to customers and to the environment. The public sector in Scotland is forecast to save £36 million over four years, thanks to better water efficiency and discounts. Customers in England deserve the same opportunities. Multi-site customers such as hospitals and supermarkets could save thousands of pounds in administration costs by dealing with only one water company.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I am fully aware that in the south-west we have significantly higher water rates—probably the highest in the country. The Government have noted that and uniquely have given customers of South West Water £50. Does my right hon. Friend think that competition will drive down bills in the south-west as well?

[Mr Paterson]

I have no doubt at all that we want more efficient water companies with more investment, which undoubtedly will lead to a cheaper product.

We are already seeing the first signs of a competitive market. In September, to answer my hon. Friend’s question directly, First Milk became the first multi-site customer to switch to Severn Trent Costain. The two companies are working together to improve First Milk’s water efficiency and lower its environmental impact, but these opportunities are limited at present because they are open only to the largest water users. The Bill will simplify the existing regime, providing clear rules of access and non-discriminatory pricing to attract new entrants to the market. We expect this expanded retail market to open in 2017.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about expanding the market and the smaller companies. However, the Canal & River Trust, a body supported on both sides of the House, is concerned that clause 12 will impact negatively not just on its ability to deliver its charitable objectives, but on its navigation functions and income. Will he have a close look at that and agree to meet representatives of the Canal & River Trust to discuss their concerns?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. We would be happy to meet the Canal & River Trust—it would be appropriate for the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), to do so, as he is taking the Bill through the House—but I think that it is being negative. With its wonderful and virtually national network, it has a real opportunity, because if we open up more upstream providers we will need a vehicle for moving water around. I take a very positive view of this for the Canal & River Trust. We are definitely happy to meet it.

We are not at this point offering choice to household customers. We are taking a step-by-step approach, gaining experience from a competitive business retail market first and reducing any risk to investment in the sector. We have seen in Scotland that competition tends to be around value-added services, rather than price, making the case for household competition less attractive. The conditions need to be right. For example, we would need much higher levels of metering before household competition was practical. Although household customers will not be able to choose their supplier, they will benefit from a framework that encourages water companies to put customers at the centre of decision making or risk losing market share. Ofwat will ensure that household customers do not subsidise the costs of increased competition.

I know that some water companies have asked for the option of exiting the retail market. The problem with that approach is that household customers could lose out because they would not have the ability to move to a new supplier, and if the incumbent water company keeps its household customers but disposes of its business customers, the householder is stranded with a company that has little incentive to provide a decent service. We are not prepared to risk that.

The Bill will also make it much easier for new businesses to enter the water market to provide new sources of water or sewage treatment services, known as upstream services.

[Mr Charles Walker]

On that point, will my right hon. Friend clarify something for me? What is a new source of water?

[Mr Paterson]

A new source of water is one that is not currently being used, so that could mean opening up old boreholes, or farmers building new reservoirs, or water companies building new reservoirs—we have not built a new reservoir in this country for over 30 years. There are all sorts of new sources of water. Around 95% of the water that lands on this country ends up in the sea. We want to manage it better before it gets there.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Secretary of State has just referred, as he did earlier in his speech, to “this country”. Which country does he mean?

[Mr Paterson]

Well, water lands on the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the Welsh aspect of the Bill, and I think that he knows that the Bill’s competition elements will not apply to customers in Wales.

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way once again—we are teasing out important points. Does he agree that there are quite a lot of rising water tables under the big towns and cities of this country, because they used to be tapped but no longer are? Is not that a good source of new water that competition could deploy?

[Mr Paterson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We used to have heavy industries in our cities that used large amounts of water, as I know well, having worked on Merseyside for 25 years. Merseyrail has had problems with water because so many of the extractive industries have gone. There is no problem with the volume of water; it is about getting it to the right place at the right time and by the right means. That is what I hope the Bill will facilitate.

Our reforms will increase water supplies by making it more attractive for landowners to develop new sources of water, or for innovative businesses to treat and dispose of waste water. Let me take a hypothetical example. If a brewery with its own borehole has spare capacity, it might be able to supply its pubs in the area more cheaply than they could be supplied by the local water company. The brewery could put its spare water into the water company’s supply system or work with a retailer providing broader services to those businesses.

We also want to make it easier for our farmers and land managers to develop new sources of water, such as on-farm reservoirs, and to hold water back. For example, a farmer with an on-site reservoir that more than meets the farm’s water needs could make an arrangement with either a licensee or the incumbent water company to enable it to put water into the supply system. The water could be supplied regularly or only at times of high demand. Either way, the farmer would have a new product that he could sell.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I applaud the Secretary of State’s notification that Northumbrian Water is doing great work at Howdon. On the creation of future reservoirs, how will we provide financial incentives for the farmers and other providers of such future reservoirs, whether big or small, to go ahead and do the necessary infrastructure planning for such operations?

[Mr Paterson]

It is known as the market; where there is demand, people will invest. We are hoping to create a new market for this product, and I am absolutely confident, given the freedoms we are releasing in this Bill, that there will be significant investment. We should not forget that £116 billion is an extraordinarily large amount of money that we would never usually have got from the Treasury under any Government of any colour. This is a great success. We want that investment to keep flowing in for exactly the sort of projects that my hon. Friend discusses.

For the first time, we are opening a market for businesses to recycle and reuse waste water as a new water resource. They will also be able to purchase sewage sludge that might otherwise have been sent to landfill—for example, for use in anaerobic digestion plants.

We need to increase the number of options that water companies can use to store and supply water to their customers. The solutions will vary across the country, reflecting different levels of water demand and availability, geography, and geology. For some, storing more water in new reservoirs or in recharged aquifers will help. Others, particularly in water-stressed areas, may need more action to cut demand, including through greater water metering. For others, improving interconnection to move water around between their supply systems will help. Companies such as Severn Trent, Anglian and Yorkshire Water collaborated on practical solutions during last year’s drought. This Bill will make such supply arrangements much easier to put in place. It will enable water resources to be used more flexibly and efficiently, reducing the need for expensive new solutions that customers would have to pay for.

The Bill provides flexibility for the regulator to work with the industry on shaping and introducing these new markets. It also includes checks and balances so that the Government can ensure consistency with our policy framework. We will be issuing guidance to Ofwat on how it must set the rules of the game. We have already published charging principles so that people can see how Government policy will shape the new regime. Since the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, we have strengthened the role of Government, with a power to veto Ofwat’s charging rules, and the new market codes. I am extremely grateful to Members of this House, especially those on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who scrutinised the draft Bill. The Bill is stronger as a result of that scrutiny.

Governments do not create successful markets. Well-functioning markets are created by participating businesses and are allowed to evolve over time. That is why the detailed work to develop these new markets is being delivered by the experts. Through the Open Water programme, we are working with the water industry, Ofwat, the Scottish Government, regulators and customers on the detailed work required to prepare for implementation of these new markets. We are committed to reforming the abstraction regime so that it is fit to face the challenges of the future.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point, because it is such an interesting topic that I think he will have a lot to offer?

[Mr Paterson]

indicated assent.

[Mr Walker]

Over the past 30 years, these so-called experts, particularly the water companies, have destroyed many of the chalk streams in my part of the country and in Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset—the list is almost endless. I therefore do not have a lot of confidence in them. They are very good at looking after their own interests but not the interests of the environment.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. I assure him that I take on board the damage that has been done by over-abstraction. However, this is extremely complicated and it is going to take time; we could make a real mess of things if we blunder into it. I am absolutely confident that through the upstream reforms that I mentioned, by holding more water back in various forms, which might be the reservoirs my hon. Friend wants, putting down aquifers, or SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—schemes, we will have water available for these rivers when they run dry. I totally sympathise with his worries about the chalk streams. It is very much our intention that this Bill will provide more water to keep these rivers flowing.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I want to take my right hon. Friend back to his example of the brewery. He says that we will benefit from these upstream reforms and that water will be held back. Does he agree that when he is considering the regulatory framework it will be important to ensure that resources that have been used in one way previously and will be subject to change—for example, by the brewery drawing more water than it would have done in totality before—are assessed by various agencies to make sure that the strain on resources is not overbearing on the system in its entirety?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no point in over-abstracting from a new source. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, because of the reduction in heavy industry there are significant amounts of water in various parts of the country, and this is all a question of moving it around according to local circumstances. I know that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have a real interest in abstraction. Our clear view is that the Bill will lead to a greater supply of water, which will help the rivers, about which my hon. Friends rightly worry, not to run dry.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to give way.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, although he does not look overly happy to be doing so. He kindly answered my earlier question about pollution, which is a real concern to my constituents. I am very concerned about mosslands in my constituency and the Secretary of State has said that he shares my concern. Lancashire Wildlife Trust and other organisations that protect the mosslands are very concerned about the possibility of de-watering, given that shale gas exploration is happening very close to our mosslands. Will the Secretary of State address that point?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to answer the hon. Lady. We are completely clear that we will not allow the procedure to go ahead if it is going to cause environmental damage. We have to respect a whole range of directives pertaining to water. We are absolutely clear that we will not weaken or dilute—to use a watery phrase—the robustness of our regulation. We will completely lose public confidence if we do that. This has to be done in a robust manner.

The hon. Lady should look at examples that I have cited, such as Wytch Farm, which has been extracting hydrocarbons for decades without any environmental damage at all and which is very close to some very sensitive environmental sites. If this is done professionally and regulated properly, the hon. Lady should have nothing to fear. I am as keen as she is to protect our wetlands, including mosses, and I am clear that we will not dilute in any way the rigour of our regulation.

To return to abstraction, I know that some people—we have heard from some of them—think that we are not moving fast enough. Reform of the regime is complex. It has been in place for 50 years and the changes will affect the businesses of abstractors up and down the country—businesses that require water for public supply, electricity generation, manufacturing and irrigation. We must get this right. Shaping a new regime involving up to 30,000 abstractions is complicated, so we will consult on our proposals soon.

Reform of the abstraction regime is only part of the story. We are taking action now to reduce the damage to rivers, such as the chalk streams that support some of Europe’s unique habitats. We are using and improving the tools we have now to vary and remove damaging abstraction licences. For example, we have already made changes to protect the River Darent and the River Itchen.

In this Bill we are making it easier to tackle damaging abstractions in advance of our wider reform by making funding of schemes to restore sustainable abstraction quicker and easier. We will not take any risks with the introduction of upstream reform. We have looked carefully, with both Ofwat and the Environment Agency, at the concerns that have been raised. I am satisfied that there are robust regulatory safeguards in place to prevent upstream competition from leading to environmental damage. We will also co-ordinate implementation. The new upstream markets will not open before 2019 and we expect to implement abstraction reform in the early 2020s so that we can make sure that these reforms are carefully co-ordinated.

Resilience was a central theme of our water White Paper and it is a central theme of this Bill. We listened to calls in pre-legislative scrutiny to make sure that it is also central to the way in which the sector is regulated. We have strengthened Ofwat’s role in safeguarding long-term resilience. The Bill includes a new primary duty to take account of environmental pressures, population growth and demand on our essential services. I know that some are keen for Ofwat’s existing sustainable development duty to become a primary duty. We have looked at the arguments for that change. People want Ofwat and water companies to address longer-term challenges and deliver a better deal for customers and the environment. We want to achieve that, too.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

If we really want to improve environmental stewardship, I would argue, as others have done to the Select Committee, that the statutory duty on sustainable development will put the Government in a better place than resilience.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Committee Chair for all her hard work. We have looked at the issue and believe that resilience means a stronger focus on longer-term planning and investment. By creating a new overarching duty specifically designed to increase the focus on long-term resilience, I think we will deliver what the Committee has been looking for. Resilience also means protecting the water resources that are so critical to current and future supplies. As I have said, ultimately 95% of water runs out to the sea, and the Bill will help to manage it more effectively.

Just as water reform measures will help our supply systems and environment to deal with water shortages, we must also be prepared for flooding. I have seen for myself how devastating it is to be flooded. This time last year, I visited Exeter and Kennford and saw the impact of the floods on people’s homes, lives and families.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, because the Help to Buy scheme operates in areas where his proposed flood insurance scheme will not operate? It seems to me that one hand of the Government does not know what the other hand is doing.

[Mr Paterson]

Our planning guidance is absolutely clear that there should be no building on areas that are subject to flooding.

We know perfectly well that the priority must be to avoid flooding in the first place. That is why we will spend £2.3 billion over this Parliament on protecting households and businesses against flooding. In practical terms, that means that 165,000 properties will be better protected in 2015 than they were in 2010. It is also why we will make record levels of capital investment over the six years from 2015-16: the level will rise to more than £400 million per annum by 2020-21.

We need to give people at high risk of flooding the certainty that they can continue to get affordable flood insurance, as was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). We consulted on draft flood insurance proposals over the summer, and I know that hon. Members agree that a solution is essential for the continuing protection of people at high risk of flooding. We are still in intensive and constructive discussion with the insurance industry on some of the finer points of detail, but we plan to table new clauses in time for consideration in Committee. The powers in the Bill will help to ensure that affordable flood insurance is available for households in high-risk areas.

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way, as is his custom. In addition to those comments, he will know that there is often run-off from motorways and roads, so what discussions has he had with the Highways Agency and local government on that issue?

[Mr Paterson]

That issue is really for the Environment Agency, which works closely with the Highways Agency and local government to ensure that there is no pollution from water that runs off public roads.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Paterson]

I think that this will be the last time that I give way.

[Nia Griffith]

The Secretary of State rightly says that we have discussed flood insurance for a considerable time. I very much welcome the Flood Re programme, but why is there not more detail in the Bill, and why will so much of it be pushed aside and dealt with as statutory instruments, when so many hon. Members want to discuss the detail more fully?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady takes rather a churlish attitude, as her Government did absolutely nothing to replace the statement of principles, despite knowing perfectly well that it would run out in June 2013. We have been involved in extremely detailed negotiations but, as she knows, the subject is very complex. I entirely agree that it would have been ideal to have detailed clauses ready in time for the Bill; sadly, they are not ready. She is, however, rather critical of those who may be members of the Committee. If she is lucky, she might get on to the Committee, because it will be able to debate those clauses in exhaustive detail.

Our preferred approach, which is known as Flood Re, will limit the amount that high-risk households have to pay on the flood insurance element of their premiums and excesses. The effective limit on the premium would vary according to council tax band, rising for more expensive properties, which means that benefits will be targeted towards lower-income households. Insurers have agreed to continue to meet their commitments under the 2008 statement of principles until the Bill has passed through Parliament and Flood Re has been set up.

Although Flood Re remains our preferred approach, we are seeking reserve powers to provide affordable cover if it should prove unworkable or prices in a free market prove unacceptable. Having a fall-back means that customers can have confidence that the issue is being addressed. All Government policies go through a rigorous economic impact assessment, but that cannot always represent the full range of benefits, such as the value of reducing the uncertainty for households over whether they will be able to afford flood insurance. Our preferred option, Flood Re, may require me to provide a ministerial direction. If that is the case, I will be happy to do so.

I am pleased that there is cross-party support for our proposed approach. There will be a fair deal for householders and taxpayers, and better choice for flood insurance customers. I am particularly grateful to the Association of British Insurers and the rest of the insurance industry for their co-operation and work in developing a sensible solution for homes that are at flood risk.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My constituency is at massive risk of flooding because it is below sea level in many places. We require pumping 24 hours a day to keep us dry. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about Flood Re because getting flood insurance has been a problem for my constituents. However, there is concern among people who live in houses that were built after 2009 and there is concern about the development of our town, given that we are so susceptible to flood risk. Will he set out the Government’s thinking on properties that were built after 2009? Will any solution be offered for them in the future?

[Mr Paterson]

It is not our proposal to include those whose houses were built after 2009 if they were built on areas that are subject to flood risk.

In the Bill, the Government are seeking to put in place the long-term conditions for sustainable economic growth and the improved resilience of our water supplies and environment. We are also seeking to increase choice for the consumer, exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills and ensure that there is affordable flood insurance. The approach under the Bill is one of partnership —partnership between the Government, business, regulators, environmental organisations and the public. I look forward to working with colleagues and each and every one of those groups to make that a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.

17:26

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Despite the sensible measures that are contained in the Bill, this is a wasted opportunity to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on stretched household budgets. Water bills have increased by almost 50% in real terms since privatisation. With wages not keeping pace with inflation, that is adding to the cost of living crisis. Prices have risen faster than wages in 40 of the 41 months in which the Prime Minister has been in Downing street. People are more than £1,600 a year worse off on average under this Government.

The rising cost of water is adding to that pressure. However, the Bill fails to provide Ofwat with tougher powers to bring down prices and it fails to require water companies to help those who are struggling to pay their bills. Despite the promises from the Prime Minister that we would see action, the Secretary of State has not brought forward a single new measure. All that we have seen is one weakly worded letter to water bosses, begging them not to hike bills next year. There was not even a threat of action if they take no notice—no threat of a tougher regulatory regime and no threat to impose an affordability scheme.

[Mr Paterson]

I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. It might rather spoil her argument if I pointed out that all the current prices were set by her Government in the last price review in 2009. Between 1999 and 2009—between the first and last price reviews under the last Government—water bills rose in real terms by £65, from £324 to £389, which is an increase of more than 20% in the average household bill. Today, under this Government, the price of the average bill is £388.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be making a second speech. The previous Government were the only Government to see water bills cut during their time in office. We need to see a determination in the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that Ofwat has the proper powers to deal with water companies. He ought to remember, even if he is technically in favour—

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will finish dealing with the Secretary of State’s point before I give way to anybody else. He needs to ensure that Ofwat has the power to deal with water companies that have a captive market. Even if he gets to increasing competition and extending it to householders, as he said himself, that will not happen for some time.

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way until I have finished answering the point the right hon. Gentleman has already made. Even if we get to such a point, there will be a significant period in which householders are subject to a monopoly. He must ensure that Ofwat has the relevant powers.

During our exchanges in the House in questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last Thursday, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what steps he had taken between meeting the water companies in July, which he referred to in his letter, and his follow-up letter to them this month. He was not able to list a single action because the truth is that he did nothing for four months until he began acting under orders from No. 10. That was after the Prime Minister decided that he had no choice but to appear interested in the issue, following an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition.

The right hon. Gentleman made it clear in his letter to the water companies that he favours a voluntary approach, with companies deciding for themselves if and how to help those who are struggling. He does not propose any new powers to widen Ofwat’s scope to reopen pricing settlements between reviews, yet while customers pay among the highest bills in Europe, water companies are doing well from their monopoly position.

Last year, regional water companies made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, but paid out a staggering £1.8 billion to shareholders. We know they do that and that it is achieved through financial engineering designed to maximise their debt and minimise tax liabilities. That is unacceptable and morally wrong when people are struggling, and I believe people across the country will agree.

[Caroline Lucas]

With 40% of low-income households paying some of the highest bills, and three-quarters of our rivers being degraded through abstraction, does the hon. Lady agree that a privatised monopoly industry is failing our environment and consumers? Does she also agree that we need to move the Bill towards greater public ownership and public control of our water resources?

[Maria Eagle]

I have some sympathy with the first part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, but perhaps less so in practical terms with her latter point.

[Mr Redwood]

I am interested in the Opposition’s argument. What reduction in bills could the extra powers that the hon. Lady wants the regulator to have produce for the average consumer, and how much should companies put into helping those who have a problem with affordability?

[Maria Eagle]

I will say a little more about what extra powers I think the regulator should have, and perhaps at that point I will deal with some of the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Opposition will seek to amend the Government’s legislation and address its central weakness, which is the lack of measures to tackle the contribution that rising water bills are having on household budgets. First, we will seek to grant Ofwat more wide-ranging powers to reopen price reviews between the current five-year periods. In his answer to me last Thursday the Secretary of State said:

“I have written to water companies to call on them to consider the pressure on household incomes when making future bill decisions and, in particular, to consider whether they need to apply the full price increases next year allowed for in the 2009 price review.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1350.]

However, it should not be for water companies simply to “consider” limiting price rises; the regulator needs much greater powers of intervention when those companies are making far more than anticipated at the time of the review.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The fact is that the previous Government let Ofwat go to sleep. They did not have a proper regulator but we have a robust new regulator in Jonson Cox. Only last week he turned down a proposed price increase by Thames Water, which would have put 8% on bills. That is what a proper regulator does, backed by a proper Government who have a real interest in keeping bills down for our hard-working families.

[Ms Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly has great faith in Mr Cox, and we will see in due course whether he is correct in that respect. My point is that Ofwat’s powers—rather than the personality running it at any given time—are limited to acting when revenues are at least 10% higher than expected. That does not adequately address the high dividend payments, particularly relating to gearing, which happen across the industry. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State referred to Ofwat as “a vigorous independent regulator”. I have no doubt that, under its current leadership, it would wish to be so, but it needs to be strengthened to be more effective. The Government’s Bill is a wasted opportunity to strengthen Ofwat.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has been on her feet for some time and I am looking forward to hearing her vision for the water sector for the years ahead. I hope she gives the House a view on how we can encourage more investment to tackle the problems described by hon. Members on both sides of the House. She is talking about the very important question of prices for our households, but will she extend that to talk about the great need for greater investment in our water sector?

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman is slightly more patient, he will hear what I have to say in the rest of my speech on those and other matters, but the Secretary of State was on his feet for 35-plus minutes, so the hon. Gentleman has not been waiting too long yet.

It is time for a wider review of whether we have the right balance between Ofwat’s regulatory role and the need for a powerful champion for consumers. The review should consider the future relationship between, and roles of, Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water. I believe there is a need for a proper ombudsman role because adequate powers of redress for customers do not currently exist. The Bill should have established such an arrangement rather than simply arranging for it to be possible at some undefined point in the future.

The Government should also consider accepting the Consumer Council for Water proposal for it to be given enhanced rights to be consulted on each water company’s charging scheme and any changes to it, and a continual scrutiny role to “find and fix issues”, as it puts it, as they arise. I believe there is merit in those proposals and hope Ministers agree.

The second major change the Opposition want during the passage of the Bill is the introduction of a clear legal requirement on water companies to sign up to a new national affordability scheme. When I raised that with the Secretary of State last Thursday, he responded:

“The Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable consumers and to reduce bad debt.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1350.]

However, it is absolutely clear that his encouragement is not enough. Just three companies have introduced social tariffs, with fewer than 25,000 customers receiving assistance. Considering that Ofwat estimates that 2.6 million households, or 11%, currently spend more than 5% of their income on water, it is clear that only a tiny fraction of those struggling are being helped.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Lady will recall that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 contained provisions for social tariffs, but the Department for Work and Pensions refused, as it continues to refuse, to allow the information relating to benefits to be released. I cannot understand why that is the case, but why did Labour Members not push harder for that information to be released when Labour was in government?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Lady has a point, and I will shortly say something about what I believe we ought to do about it.

It is not good enough that so few customers can benefit or receive assistance when they have genuine hardship in paying. It is time to replace voluntary social tariffs with a national affordability scheme, funded by the water companies from their excess profits. We need to end the postcode lottery that means that the help one can get depends on where one lives, and we need the Government to set clear eligibility criteria.

In response to my question last week, the Secretary of State said:

“The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that the schemes that help some water bill payers are paid for by others.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1352.]

Of course, that is the Government’s approach because he is not willing to stand up to vested interests. He is not willing to say to the water companies that they cannot continue to pay out almost every pound they make in dividend payments—£1.8 billion last year—and leave it solely to other customers to fund measures to help those in need. The Government should finally drop their opposition to a national affordability scheme and require the water companies to step up and meet their social obligations.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the former Secretary of State.

[Mrs Spelman]

For the benefit of the House, it is only fair to explain that there are two ways that the most vulnerable people in society can be helped. The hon. Lady mentioned social tariffs, but the WaterSure scheme, which is funded centrally from Government and does not require cross-transfer between water consumers in any one company, helps households that consume large quantities of water through no fault of their own.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is correct. I was about to mention WaterSure in my next breath, if she had waited a moment.

WaterSure was introduced by Labour as a targeted payment to households with three or more children or to households that demand a high use of water owing to a medical condition, yet only a third of eligible households access the scheme. Ministers should set a target and work with the water industry to ensure it is achieved, and use existing data on benefits to ensure that everyone eligible is on the lowest tariff. It is essential that the cost to households of non-payment, by others who can afford to pay—

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

It is essential that the cost to households of non-payment by others, who can afford to pay but who choose not to, is finally tackled. Failing to address this matter is unacceptable when it adds £15 to the average bill and households are struggling with rising bills. It is time to require landlords to provide tenants’ details to water companies, something the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), has demanded.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 on bad debt without further delay.

On the financial practices of water companies, I urge the Secretary of State to press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to use the autumn statement next week to set out measures to crack down on the tax avoidance that we know goes on in the water industry. We cannot have a situation where water companies are taking strategic decisions with the clear purpose of structuring their financial affairs in a way that leads to worrying—

[Sheryll Murray]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State was generous with his time. I cannot understand why the shadow Secretary of State is not being as generous.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. The hon. Lady knows full well that it is up to the person speaking to decide whether they will give way. There have been interventions. We will have to wait and see if there will be any more.

[Maria Eagle]

We cannot have a situation where water companies are taking strategic decisions, with the clear purpose of structuring their financial affairs in a way that leads to worrying debt and hinders their ability to invest, when their sole purpose is to minimise their tax liability. Ofwat said in March that

“the overall proportion of equity has diminished from 42.5% in 2006 to 30% of regulatory capital value today with several companies at 80% gearing, thus obtaining only one fifth of their financing from equity. This reduction is a serious concern.”

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes an important point about the behaviour of the water companies. Will she explain why, under the previous Government, the water companies’ combined debt of £939 million in 2004 had increased by 70% by 2010, when her party left office? Perhaps she could provide us with some context.

[Maria Eagle]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not believe the Labour Government did enough during our time in office to ensure that that was correctly handled, but that is not a reason to allow the water companies off the hook now.

Under Ofwat’s current powers, capital structure and consequent risk are matters for the boards and shareholders of those companies, so any action must come from the Government. We have seen from briefings to the Financial Times that Ministers are considering reducing the interest payments that can be deducted from a company’s tax bill, especially for larger and more highly indebted companies—as many water companies now are—or even putting a levy on the debt held by highly leveraged water companies. Whichever solution—if any—that the Government decide on, it must happen quickly.

Despite the gaping hole left by the Government’s failure to introduce in the Bill measures on water affordability for households, there are measures that we support. That should not be a surprise, given that they arose from three important reviews taken forward by the last Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability and the Cave review on competition.

[George Hollingbery]

The hon. Lady has made some candid remarks about the last Government’s failure and some sensible points about what might be changed in the Bill. She also makes much of the Government’s admission of certain issues that she now thinks are terribly important, but nowhere in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, published only eight or nine months ago, is there a record of any Labour Member making any of the suggestions that she is making now. Is this not just a transparent device to bring a certain topic in a certain context to the Chamber today?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinions.

The three reviews built on the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which we enacted before the last election. We support the measures to increase competition and enable non-household customers to choose their water supplier, and we want new entrants into the sector and so support measures to encourage that development. We also support the regulatory reforms designed to place a greater focus on the long-term resilience of water supplies and the measures to provide, at long last, the statutory basis for agreement on reinsurance.

We have concerns about several areas, however, many of which are shared by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. First, we agree with the Government’s decision to open up non-residential competition, as there is increasing evidence of a successful market emerging in Scotland. The introduction of competition for business customers is intended to provide choice, drive down costs and improve water efficiency, and we hope that it is successful, but the Government should listen to the Select Committee, which has said:

“We believe that protecting householders from subsidising competition in the non-household sector is a fundamental principle that should be enshrined in primary legislation.”

The Consumer Council for Water has rightly said:

“It is a vital principle that customers who are not eligible to switch retailer should not be disadvantaged. This should ideally be reflected in legislation.”

The statement in the recently published charging principles that household customers will not subsidise the development of competitive markets for business customers is a step forward, but not enough. We agree with the Select Committee and the Consumer Council for Water that it should be included in the Bill, and if Ministers refuse to reconsider their decision, we will seek to amend it.

Secondly, we do not understand why Ministers are being stubborn over enabling water companies to exit the retail market, which seems a perfectly non-contentious but important principle for the effectiveness of a market. The Select Committee is also clear on that point, and I think that the Government should rethink it. Thirdly, the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision not to require the separation of company wholesale and retail arms as part of his package of reforms. The Select Committee has called for a

“requirement for the functional separation of incumbent companies’ wholesale and retail arms. We further recommend that the principle of non-discrimination be included on the face of the Bill.”

We agree with the Select Committee.

Fourthly, we believe that the Government’s concerns about agreeing to the wide-ranging calls to elevate Ofwat’s sustainable development duty to a primary duty are misplaced. The Select Committee said:

“We are persuaded that the increasing pressures on our water resources, highlighted in the Water White Paper, justify such a change.”

The change is also supported by the 15 environmental non-governmental organisations that make up the Blueprint for Water coalition, including the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts and the Marine Conservation Society. Without the change, Ofwat could, for example, be forced to strike out investment to deliver demand management in over-abstracted areas by having to place significant financial implications for companies above the principles of sustainable development.

[Richard Benyon]

May I take the hon. Lady back to the question of exits? We looked carefully at this, and I believe that the kind of structure our water industry should have is a matter for this House and this Parliament. If she is saying that we should allow exits, she is effectively saying we should allow water companies no longer to be integrated, when it is the Government’s belief—and perhaps that of the Opposition—that they should be. If we were to allow exits, it would say that water companies could change their structure, but does she not agree that that should be a matter for Parliament, not for the water companies to decide on a whim?

[Maria Eagle]

I am of course interested to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman who was, until recently, a well-liked Minister in the Department. [Interruption.] Well, he is still well liked, but no longer a Minister. I am not wishing to rub it in, but he decided to return to the Back Benches. [Interruption.] I am trying to be nice to him, although I know that that is unusual. It is interesting to hear his point of view. Water companies have changed their structures since privatisation, and I view it as normal in a functioning market for organisations to be able to exit it. I am sure that this can be considered in greater detail in Committee. I do not know whether he will have the honour of serving on the Committee—we will wait to see—but we will have an opportunity, as I say, to debate the issue in more detail in Committee. It is odd to open up a market and then to prevent certain companies from leaving it.

I was moving on to my fifth point about the detail of the Bill. We have serious concerns about the Government’s disjointed and, frankly, botched plans to introduce upstream competition. We support the principle of upstream competition and acknowledge the benefits that it could bring, but even a slimmed-down version of the Government’s plans would not adequately address the potential consequences of not taking forward abstraction reform in parallel.

The Government’s White Paper “Water for Life” set out a strong case for abstraction reform, yet the target date for a new regime is now 2022. The fact is that, historically, we have seen the over-allocation of water resources. Competition in advance of abstraction reform risks increasing the total amount of water taken from the environment—not least as those with unused or part-used abstraction licences seek new ways to realise their value.

The Government are asking the House to support these reforms, although their sustainability is dependent on a further piece of legislation. The Secretary of State knows full well that this is a promise that he cannot guarantee to deliver. Regretfully, I have to say that, unless he is able to offer some very convincing remedies on this issue, our instinct will be to seek to remove this entire part of the legislation. It would be better for the Government to bring back a properly integrated set of reforms in the future.

We support the measures on flood reinsurance—however belated they may be. It was disappointing that the Government were adding clauses to the Bill at such a late stage, but they are welcome, and we will scrutinise them carefully in Committee. The Government’s climate change risk assessment states that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State should take the issue far more seriously, and why it is, frankly, incredible that he has talked of the benefits that could come to the UK from climate change.

There are real risks and far-reaching consequences for the UK from climate change, yet the Secretary of State’s complacent approach, combined with severe cuts to investment in flood defences, is deeply worrying. I hope that he has seen the letter that he has been sent in the past week by Professor Lord Krebs, chairman of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change. In that letter, Professor Krebs raises serious concerns about the failure of the Government’s proposals to strengthen incentives for the uptake of household flood protection measures. He warns that the consequences will be

“that Flood Re costs will be higher than they need to be, at the expense of householders funding the programme through the industry levy.”

The Committee on Climate Change has therefore made five proposals that it believes believe would reduce Flood Re costs and improve value for money, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider those proposals carefully.

The Bill contains a number of important measures that the Opposition will support. On the back of three important reviews commissioned and published by the previous Government, it builds on the reforms and legislation that we introduced when in office. However, the weakness that lies at its heart is the Government’s inability to stand up to vested interests and their failure to take anything approaching a tough approach to the water companies.

Ministers continue to defend the need for a voluntary approach—a voluntary approach to whether help should be provided to those who struggle with their bills, and a voluntary approach to whether customers are offered relief from rising bills, even where companies are benefiting from financial circumstances beyond their control. Let me tell the Secretary of State that it is now 20 years since privatisation, and the voluntary approach has had more than enough time to be tried and tested. It has failed, so it is time not for more letters from him, but for action.

It is time for a new deal with the water companies: a new deal on the contribution that the water companies make through taxation and investment; a new deal on the steps that the water companies must take to tackle the affordability of water for households that are struggling; and a new deal on the extent to which the water companies are regulated. The Bill could and should have been an important step forward in delivering such a new deal. Instead, it is a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Secretary of State will work with us to improve the Bill, particularly in respect of the need to tackle the rising cost of water for struggling households. If he continues to refuse to act, I can assure him that the next Labour Government will act.

17:56

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and would like to thank both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for their kind words about the work that my colleagues and I have done on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We must have done something right, as no fewer than four of our erstwhile colleagues serve on either the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. We shall obviously continue to maintain our rule of scrutiny with ever-increasing vigilance.

Today is the anniversary of the floods in Malton, Old Malton, Norton, Brawby and elsewhere in my constituency. In fact, I had to take a 10-mile detour because there was a lake outside my office, which I could not access as I normally would. The floods started in November and went on, intermixed with snow, until about March or April. It is therefore timely that we debate the Water Bill today. There is much in it to commend. It has been a long time in progress and, as the hon. Lady said, there remains a great deal of unfinished business from the Pitt review, the Walker review and the Cave review and, indeed, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The largest and most significant recent development since 2007 has been surface water flooding. It is a new threat, particularly with water running off the road in just about every constituency of every Member who has spoken in the debate thus far.

[Nia Griffith]

Given that the Flood Re scheme does not apply to properties built after 1 January 2009, does the hon. Lady agree that planning authorities need to be ever more vigilant not only in refusing to build on floodplains but in avoiding the knock-on effects of building in certain places that can have devastating effects on existing properties?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for the intervention, but I think the hon. Lady misses the point that so many other people do. Water running off the road in this way is a new development. While the water is on the surface of the road, it is the responsibility of the highways authorities, whether it be the Highways Agency, the county council or the unitary council. As soon as that water runs off the road and goes into a combined sewer, it most frequently becomes the responsibility of the water company.

I believe that the Government should look at the possibility of creating a statutory responsibility on highways authorities—and should be supported by the whole House in this—for surface water while it is on the road. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) mutters under his breath, “What will the cost be?” I do not care what it will be: if we are to have sustainable drainage systems, we have to look at creating a system that will retain the surface water on the road and stop it going into the combined drains and sewers. That has been happening since 2007, for nearly seven years. Surface water has been mixing with sewage and coming into homes, such as the home of Mr and Mrs Hinds, causing health-related and very antisocial problems. Successive Governments have failed to deal with the issue, but I believe that the Bill presents us with a unique opportunity to sort it out.

According to the Environment Agency, 2.4 million properties in England are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea, 1 million of those properties are at risk of surface water flooding, and a further 2.8 million properties are at risk of surface water alone. The agency estimated that the cost of the 2012 floods was £600 million. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need not just to grow the economy, but to limit the damage caused to it by floods.

It is regrettable that the sustainable drainage system that was envisaged in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has still not been implemented. I understand that discussions are taking place and that it is all very difficult, but we must get our heads around this. It is not impossible, although the difficult aspects may take a little longer to address. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to rise to the challenge, and to introduce SUDS before April next year. It is unacceptable for my constituency and others elsewhere in the country to face a possible flood threat this very week because we have not put secondary legislation on to the statute book.

I am at my wits’ end because we have still not implemented the Pitt recommendation that the automatic right to connect should be removed. Sustainable drains are a significant aspect of that. The Environment Agency is already a statutory consultee, but we have not accepted that water companies should have the same status. I believe that they should be able to say, frankly and honestly, that in the case of major developments, there should be no ability to connect without a significant new investment.

[Andrew Percy]

Proposals for new housing in Goole pose the double threat of river and surface water flooding, and are therefore unacceptable to local communities. Goole has been flooded for about five of the last eight years. We want sustainable drainage systems, so that if the new housing development proceeds, it will have no further impact on our already creaking drainage system.

[Miss McIntosh]

I hope that we will all continue to press the Government to proceed with SUDS.

As for abstraction, I can only support what other Members have already said. Abstraction has an important part to play in resilience in times of drought and, potentially, in times of floods, when there are competing demands for the water supply. I urge the Government to show a greater sense of urgency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that they would be consulting shortly, and it would be helpful to know when that consultation might take place.

The water White Paper, which we also scrutinised, placed great emphasis on the importance of resilience and the need for innovation to improve it, but I think that the Bill has toned down that emphasis slightly. I hope that the Government will find renewed enthusiasm for resilience. There will always be competing claims from the farming industry and angling, but we must not forget jam-makers such as those whom I visited in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as brewers and other industrial users.

The role of the Environment Agency has been extremely positive, and fewer properties have been built on functional floodplains since it became a statutory consultee. However, I believe that it could do much more to share information, particularly mapping information. It is extremely frustrating for constituents not to be able to access a single map. Sir Michael Pitt—from east Yorkshire—was very clear in that regard, and I think that we owe him a great debt of gratitude for the work that he has done. I believe that there should be a one-stop shop for our constituents, and that they should be able to know exactly where to go.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is mapping important, but it is important for maps to be updated quickly? Following the completion of a £3 million flood defence scheme in the village of Burstwick, in my constituency, it took more than a year for maps to be updated, and during that time residents were still being asked for higher insurance premiums because the insurance companies did not have access to the information.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend has eloquently re-emphasised the point that I was making.

[Diana Johnson]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern about the fact that the Environment Agency will not be producing its compound risk maps until the end of 2015? It is taking far too long to convey the necessary information to insurance companies and to constituents.

[Miss McIntosh]

I do regret the amount of time that it is taking.

The Select Committee was very disappointed to hear how little maintenance and dredging of watercourses has been taking place. While it is always pleasing to see capital expenditure increase, the evidence that we heard was more than anecdotal: it is an absolute fact that, were there to be regular maintenance and dredging of the main and even the minor watercourses, floods could be prevented. I urge the Government to spend more than just £20 million per annum in England for that purpose. I also urge them to allow the drainage boards, which do such excellent work, to keep the money rather than passing it to the Environment Agency, and to agree a work programme with the agency but use their own drainage board engineers for the maintenance and dredging.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I agree wholeheartedly that drainage boards could do much more work. The money that they spend often goes a great deal further than the excessive amount spent by some public bodies. As the Secretary of State is aware, the Parrett and Tone rivers in Somerset are completely silted up and they need to be dredged quickly.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am sure that the whole House, including the Secretary of State, has heard what my hon. Friend said. Dredging little and often can prevent floods. The drainage boards have an army of volunteers, a huge fount of knowledge and, probably, more engineers than the Environment Agency.

I am delighted that the Government have authorised the pilot schemes, and the Select Committee will observe the outcome very closely. I commend the Pickering pilot project, which is one of those schemes at which this country excels. It has already slowed the flow, it is creating new peat bogs, and it is holding water back so that it cannot flood Pickering. If we can succeed with a combination of slowing the flow and building a reservoir, not only will Pickering be safe from flooding, but the benefits of the pilot can be used elsewhere, and resilience to flooding and possible water shortages can be improved.

I believe that the 2014 price review gives us an opportunity to invite Ofwat to reward innovation, which it is not doing at the moment. Ofwat should invite water companies to show that they can bring positive benefits to consumers by creating innovative flood defence and water supply schemes like the Pickering project, and to include such proposals in their business plans. I regret that that did not happen in earlier price reviews and this is a unique opportunity to do that.

I also invite the Government to engage much earlier with EU directives. I yield to no one in respect of the benefits they can bring, but they can be very costly. If we sign up to very short-term, tight timetables, that adds to the costs. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the EU water framework directive, the bathing water directive, the drinking water directive, the urban waste water treatment directive and others. We have to get in there early and put our views across. Their aims and objectives are laudable, but they must be affordable and done on a realistic timetable.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend made an important point about dredging. It is essential to ensure that unnecessary costs are not imposed on those who try to carry it out. South Holderness drainage board raised money locally to dredge Stone creek and Hedon haven, but then found that the Marine Management Organisation —which, as on previous occasions, would not have charged the EA anything—imposed a cost of several thousand pounds on the drainage board and then at the end more than doubled that amount, imposing a crippling cost on local people raising local money to try to do the right thing.

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I want to mention briefly some new aspects of the Bill and some omissions. On the omissions, bad debt costs each and every household approximately £14 a year. That is unacceptable. We need secondary legislation to progress this matter, and I urge the Government to bring that forward as swiftly as possible.

On social tariffs, I fail to understand why successive Governments have had difficulty in releasing information on benefits. In response to a recent question to the Department for Work and Pensions, the following answer came back from the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning):

“There is no legislation in place currently”—

well, I knew that and I told him that, but it is always good to know I was right—

“that would permit the release of benefits information to water utility companies: it is likely that new legislation would be required to enable the sharing of benefits data with water utility companies on this scale.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 681W.]

I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to put pressure on the DWP to release that information so that we can make the best possible tariff available to the appropriate customers at the earliest possible time.

On insurance, the Select Committee came down in favour of Flood Re, but there are a lot of unknowns, and I do not believe we know any more about the known unknowns than we did before this debate started. For example, under Flood Re, why have we chosen household bands as the basis for insurance levy scales? If there is a database, where is it? What is the definition of uninsurable properties? Are small businesses excluded? If they are to be excluded, why are they excluded? It has been put to me that farms might be excluded. Obviously, that would not go down well in my area. I would quite like to know before the end of the evening whether farms and small businesses are going to be excluded.

The memorandum of understanding between the Government and the insurance industry commits the Government to take primary responsibility as an insurer of last resort in an extreme flood event while the fund is growing. We need greater clarity this evening, before the Bill goes on to Committee, on precisely where we are in that regard. The House would also like to know whether the Bill achieves the normal historical value for money requirement in respect of such proposals.

The Select Committee welcomes the commitment to open up the retail market to competition by 2017, but we believe the case for upstream reform needs to be made more vigorously. We need to know precisely what the implications are for customer bills. It has been put to us that there might be de-averaging of household bills. We also need to know the implications for national resilience of upstream reforms, including in respect of climate change and population growth. We note that the start date is two years later, but the House would like to know whether it is feasible at all and whether we even need primary legislation.

It is true that the Select Committee came down in favour of functional separation between the wholesale and retail arms and in favour of a voluntary exit strategy. We would like to hear a little more when the Minister winds up about why the Government are against that.

Members on both sides of the House are interested in cost of living issues, of course, and we need greater assurances on the impact on householders. The Flood Re levy has been set at £180 million per annum, which is £10.50 per customer, for the first years. We also need to know the timetable for the application for state aid. It would be helpful to know that we are going to be in a position to have signed off on state aid before this Bill leaves the House and achieves Royal Assent and, more importantly, by the start date of 2017. Concerns have been expressed about stranded assets and the impact on household customers generally, particularly from the Flood Re insurance levy, and the formalising of the cross-subsidy that has existed under the statement of principles.

To conclude, the potential risks of de-averaging prices in respect of household customers and upstream competition must be addressed. On the comparative merits of the Ofwat duty, we would prefer sustainable development as opposed to the Government’s proposal of resilience. That needs to be explored. We also need to look at possible greater resilience in terms of both water supply and the use of abstraction, and we need the review of abstraction policy sooner rather than later. We applaud the sustainable development and wider environmental aims of biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation, but I personally would argue that this should be addressed through Ofwat’s primary duty of sustainable development. The Government need to explain how the transition in the insurance sector from the cross-subsidy being formalised in Flood Re to an eventual free market will be managed. I believe this is too important to leave to secondary legislation and we need more details in the Bill.

I give the Bill a warm welcome. I have highlighted a number of concerns which I hope will be addressed and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

18:18

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). As Chair of the Select Committee that has conducted detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, she speaks with great knowledge of and authority on these matters. The Secretary of State would have been well advised to listen carefully to her comments, particularly in view of the greater role and scope there now is for Select Committees, especially in speaking in favour of amendments. The Government must urgently reflect on, and respond to, her points in respect of how surface water mixes with sewage in flooding situations. The cross-cutting issues that she raised in relation to water—not least highways and expenditure on highways, which are matters for the Department for Communities and Local Government and other Departments—need to be looked at in a holistic way. I hope that, in the winding-up speech tonight and in Committee, Ministers will take the Select Committee recommendations seriously.

Today’s debate takes me back to the first Committee of this House that I was a member of, which considered the paving Bill for the legislation that led to water privatisation. It was very divisive at the time and was rightly opposed by the Opposition and by many of the environmental groups that believed water to be a natural eco-service, and that the concept of paying large dividends to shareholders at a time when investment was needed in the water infrastructure was simply the wrong way of addressing how to secure investment and manage our water supply. A quarter of a century later, the private companies that were created—and indeed Ofwat, the regulatory body—have had mixed fortunes and mixed success. However, where we are now and the current structure has to be our starting point for taking the Water Bill forward. Today, the challenges we face are greater than ever, particularly, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), given that we are getting close to the finalisation of the next price review in 2015. It is absolutely critical that as much pressure as possible be applied in order to get this right.

Top of my list of questions is, how do we ensure a safe, affordable water supply for domestic use, for industry, for farming, for all areas of the UK, particularly given that different administrative arrangements apply, which does not make matters easy? There are parts of the Bill I do welcome, not least the one dealing with flooding and insurance, but like many of the Members who intervened earlier, I feel that the flooding issue must be dealt with urgently and in detail. A statement of intent is not quite the same as a measure on the statute book.

[Oliver Colvile]

Is the hon. Lady aware that last autumn in the south-west, we had a massive amount of rain that affected our entire transport network and cut off our railway lines for a very long time?

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and that is exactly the point I am making: our water policy needs to take into account the whole issue of mitigation to prevent such situations, but it also needs to be adaptable. The adaptation that we need requires huge amounts of investment and a whole new, collaborative approach to planning. The Bill has been brought forward by DEFRA, but as the Energy and Climate Change Committee has pointed out, it is the problems associated with climate change that are bringing about flooding, and we have to find new ways of dealing with them urgently. It has taken much too long to deal with outstanding flooding insurance claims. Importantly, it is a question not just of how we deal with individual claims and of having an insurance system in place, but of how we deal with all the associated disruption.

As we approach the European elections—I am sure that many of us here will be thinking about what Europe has done for us—how do we ensure that water supply and management fits within the context of the European water framework directive? We have a fundamental disconnect at the heart of water policy which the Bill could actually put right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. The water companies, regulated by Ofwat, supply water, but at a local level there is little meaningful collaboration, accountability, transparency or resource, as has been mentioned, to ensure that we have in place what is needed to meet the requirements of the water framework directive.

The directive has two key objectives: an environmental objective, based on the premise of preventing further deterioration and achieving “good status” in all waters; and a managerial objective aimed at creating integrated water management at the river basin level to ensure overall co-ordination of water policy. Here, I want to make a plea to the Government and to DEFRA on behalf of the Environment Agency. The agency needs to be fully resourced for its task of leading the framework directive, in order to enable it to identify significant water management issues, to develop measures to address these at the river basin district level, and to develop and publish the plans for implementing these measures, known as the river basin management plans.

Given the length of time it takes to get legislation on to the statute book, equipping the Environment Agency to work within the framework to carry out its responsibilities needs to be looked at in parallel with the Water Bill before us. Let me give an example of the current unsatisfactory position. When the Government set up the Canal & River Trust in 2012, they committed to a new structure for the canal network which included the navigational waters—some 2,000 miles of canals and river navigations in England and Wales. These rivers were to be handed over to the trust to ensure certainty and long-term funding through the trust arrangements. However, we now know that the Chancellor has reneged on this commitment, and the plans have been put on hold. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for agreeing to meet me to discuss this issue, as I believe it is vital that this transfer take place and be fully funded.

There is a further concern, which was touched on in an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). Through clause 12, Ofwat is to be given the power to intervene in private supplier agreements with water undertakers, with the apparent intent of assisting smaller private water suppliers in their commercial relations with undertakers. Not surprisingly, the Canal & River Trust is alarmed that Ofwat will therefore be able to vary or terminate water sales agreements at the request of the undertaker and without the agreement of the trust. I heard the Secretary of State’s rather complacent reply to my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies, he will tell us what specific, constructive discussions he will have with the trust on this issue, so that we can make amendments to the Bill that will safeguard delivery of the trust’s charitable objectives when the Bill’s legislative passage is completed.

There is uncertainty about other aspects of the Bill, as well. The Bill is all about the economics of, and very little about the environmental and social aspects of, water policy. It mirrors the assumptions that lay behind the changes to the water industry proposed back in 1987, rather than looking at the assumptions we need to make today for the future. Here, I would like to give credit to the former Environment Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who only last week in the press disclosed how close we were to drought just before the 2012 Olympics. There are also many other factors that point to the need for long-term planning.

We need to take account of the work of the Natural Capital Committee, which is looking to embed the value of natural capital in the national accounts and policy making as soon as possible. We must also recognise the need to look for a credible long-term plan to restore our natural capital, and recognise the work of the Committee on Climate Change. Reference was made earlier to the adaptation sub-committee report, which highlights the need to incentivise efficient water management and to have a price for water that better reflects its scarcity. Of course, there are also the risks associated with water flooding. All these factors point to the need for a much wider, all-encompassing approach to water than the one the Bill provides for.

We should also address the issue of Ofwat having a primary sustainability duty. Its role of granting new water supply licences and overseeing bulky supply agreements should include consideration of the sustainability of water sources. There is common agreement that, without such a duty, we will see over-abstraction, over-licensing and greater environmental damage to our already overstressed river systems. We have heard the Secretary of State’s response to concerns about fracking. He has stated that all the protection and regulation that we need is already in place. However, the proposal for financial guarantees in relation to pollution that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood outlined will be vital, and I hope that they will be incorporated in the Bill as it completes its passage through both Houses. I know from the initial meeting that the Minister kindly organised recently that there is widespread concern among many organisations, including the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Angling Trust, about the need for a primary sustainability duty, not only on resilience, to be incorporated in the Bill. Will the Government table an amendment on sustainable development? Will the Minister tell us how he intends to deal with this issue?

I want briefly to broaden the debate. Following the discussions that I have had with many different experts in the industry, I do not believe that we should be carrying on with business as usual. Instead, we should be gearing up to a different set of policies designed for the 21st century. The confluence of the various factors I have mentioned means that we should be taking a more fundamental step change in how we invest in improving the environment and safeguarding our water supplies.

I would like to see far more local governance arrangements that would fit with the river basin concept, involving not just water companies but local councils, farmers and other organisations working together on a risk-based approach. I should mention that some water companies are starting to think outside the box. I refer the House to a recent document published by Severn Trent Water, “Changing Course through the sustainable implementation of the Water Framework Directive”. We need much more collaboration of that kind, but the Bill does not really give it to us.

I want to mention the work that I have been doing in my constituency to bring all the different partners together. This has culminated in an application for European funding under the Life Plus programme, which would enable us to implement measures that would prevent pollution in the River Trent. We need to see much more of that kind of approach. Water efficiency should also be promoted.

The Bill will promote greater competition, but what will it do to challenge traditional kinds of capital investment? We should be looking into different kinds of investment. Expensive engineering solutions are not always the way forward, even though the water companies depend on capital value for the returns that they make. If the Government can be persuaded to introduce an obligation for sustainability into Ofwat’s powers, Ofwat could look at a return on revenue expenditure, too. We need to look at the kind of investments involved. The Bill could enable Ofwat to take a much more proactive role in vetting companies’ proposals for investment.

I would also like to see the dividends paid out to water company shareholders managed differently. Yes, money is needed for investment in water management, but it would be so much better if the profits could stay in the business and be reinvested, rather than global private equity companies that do not necessarily have a long-term commitment to our river basins paying out massive returns—well above what we can earn in interest from our bank account—to shareholders.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is describing the model used by Welsh Water, a not-for-profit company that is responsible to its customers, rather than to shareholders.

[Joan Walley]

Indeed. One difficulty is that we are looking at the provision of water for the whole of the United Kingdom, despite the different administrative arrangements that have been put in place by the Parliaments in the different Administrations. The way in which the money is reinvested in Wales is hugely beneficial. As I have said, we should be thinking outside the box in regard to how we incentivise the necessary investment in our water industry.

[Hywel Williams]

We are talking about non-distributable profit. Any profit that is made is reinvested in the system and in creating lower prices. I am not here to praise Dwr Cymru Welsh Water in particular, but its price rise next year will be 1%. Given that that is lower than inflation, it will effectively be a price cut.

[Joan Walley]

That just shows that there are all kinds of different ways of looking at this, and that we do not have to depend on the present traditional arrangements. The Bill should really be looking at the challenges that we face, rather than promoting business as usual.

With more than 2 million households in England and Wales being forced to spend more than 5% of their income on water, it is clear that the Government’s approach is not working. The Bill should do something about that. We need a national affordability scheme to help those struggling to pay their bills, and it should be funded by the water companies themselves. The fact that water bills are rising by 1.8% above the rate of inflation when we are seeing investor returns of 17.5% across all the companies demonstrates just how unfair the whole structure is.

Given the challenges of climate change and the likelihood of increased flooding, balancing affordability with our wider environmental commitments to mitigate and adapt to flooding will involve ever-greater calls for the right kind of investment in the water industry. This will require a cross-cutting response from the Government, and detailed policy measures that will require the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government to be equally committed to the measures coming out of DEFRA. As we approach future challenges, and the final implementation date of the water framework directive, households and businesses will need to access affordable water supplies. Key changes will be needed throughout the passage of the Bill.

The Government will need to make a step change in regulatory, social, environmental and fiscal policy, but the water companies, businesses, farmers, householders, local authorities and the regulator will also need to refocus on their long-term objectives and on delivery mechanisms if we are truly to value water as a natural resource and a vital component of everyday life.

18:38

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), for whom I have the greatest respect. She will be a loss to the House when she stands down. I listened to her remarks with great interest, and I will comment on a number of them in due course.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I start by quoting from the water White Paper, about which I feel a sense of propriety. If I say so myself, it was a very good document. It is a rare occurrence in Parliament for such a document to be well received not only by those on both sides of the House but by green non-governmental organisations, by the water industry and by people throughout the sector who are involved in this important subject.

The White Paper asks:

“How do we protect the environment and take less water from our rivers, while meeting the demands of a growing population? How do we encourage innovation and dynamism in the water sector while ensuring it remains a low-risk choice for investors? How do we incentivise less wasteful use of water while keeping water affordable for everyone?”

That encompasses, in a short paragraph, what we are seeking to achieve, not only in tonight’s discussion of the Bill, but across the much wider platform of restoring sustainability in this sector. This is about the balance between the environment and the demands of a growing population; the need for innovation and a new type of investment, which the hon. Lady was right to talk about, without spooking the investor, whose money we need; and stopping waste yet keeping water affordable. The water White Paper was a call to action and a vision for the management of this sector and its theme will, I hope, run and not only through this Bill. As hon. Members on both sides of the House understand, the Bill is just a work in progress in respect of delivering that ambition; it delivers an element, and I particularly wish to discuss the importance of abstraction.

Let me make an obvious point: water comes from nature. It is vital that we understand that we are talking about not just an environmental factor, but a key economic matter. The hon. Lady talked about the Natural Capital Committee. When we discuss natural capital, we need to understand its importance for the economy. We need to consider how we manage water resources in parts of the country with a level of rainfall lower than that in some sub-Saharan African countries. When we talk about development and the needs of the economy in the years ahead, we must address that through the prism of natural capital. I am grateful to people such as Dieter Helm, who guided me in this relatively new—for me and for many other hon. Members—approach to economic thinking. I am proud that this Government have hard-wired natural capital into their economic thinking.

It is a shaming statistic for this country that only 27% of our rivers and lakes are fully functioning ecosystems. I am pleased that we have set about addressing that, through a catchment management approach and targeting our resources in as meaningful a way as possible. We are talking about not only an environmental imperative, but an economic one. We have to comply with the water framework directive. If by 2027 we have not got our house in order and our act together, we will get a slapped wrist and a stonking great fine from the European Union. If we are talking about improving the quality of our environment just so that we comply with a European directive, what a pathetic ambition that would be. We should want to restore the quality of our natural environment because we want to restore the quality of our natural environment and feel proud about this country’s natural systems.

We have what some would call the “God-given” advantage of having 80% of the world’s chalk streams in this country, but in many cases they are failing ecological systems. We have to set about putting that right and making sure that we do not just suck water out of the top of aquifers, such as those of the River Kennet, to provide water for excellent and much-needed households in places such as Swindon; we must set about getting reforms that can address that problem. I really welcome the Bill’s means of ending the very bureaucratic system involved in closing down unsustainable abstractions and of getting this into the five-yearly price review. That is a major step forward, which came about through a proper process of pre-legislative scrutiny. I congratulate everyone, including the Select Committee, on the work that was done in trying to draw that to our attention. Let us make it clear that our ambitions for getting our act together require a new piece of legislation in a new Parliament. It would be a great help if the Minister could assure us in his wind-up that we have a continuing and dynamic ambition to legislate in the next Parliament to make sure that the increase to about 30,000 abstraction licences in England will be properly managed in a fit-for-purpose system that recognises the demands of a growing population and the economic growth potential that that will bring.

On economic potential, let me relate to the House my last experience as a Minister, which was to take a trade mission of water companies and others in the environmental sector—the green growth sector—to Brazil. That BRIC country—the group made up of Brazil, Russia, India and China—is wrestling with the problems that make ours appear small fry. Sao Paulo, the largest conurbation in the southern hemisphere, is trying to address the demands for water and for dealing with waste, and it is desperate for new technologies. British companies from our supply chain sector have achieved great things in the delivery of the greenest Olympics ever and are ready to give work to other British companies and to create British jobs in that green technology sector. So the water sector has a lot to give, not just in this country, but around the world. Understanding that economic driver is as important as the environmental and social dimension to our policies.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done in this area and for his expertise. I hesitate to interrupt his flow—to use a water analogy—but he just mentioned the social aspect. Does he agree that volunteers play an important part in managing all this country’s waterways, particularly through the Canal & River Trust? In my constituency, where the waterways play a hugely important historical and heritage role, I have set up the Erewash rangers scheme to try to recruit more volunteers along the waterways.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. If I felt a degree of paternalism towards the water White Paper, I feel one even more towards the Canal & River Trust, which is one of the great successes. It has seen volunteer numbers rocket since it went from being a government organisation—as British Waterways —to being in the charitable sector, and Members on both sides of the House should take pleasure in its success. Will the Minister respond, if not tonight, at some point, to the real concerns that the CWT has about clause 12? I hope that we can allay its fears because, as the Secretary of State rightly said, the CWT will be an important player in delivering the kind of connectivity we want in our water sector. The CWT will also be a huge resource, in terms of the economic regeneration of our cities, the potential for tourism and the social dimension of volunteer numbers. So I hope that the Minister is able to address the CWT’s concerns, which have been eloquently voiced to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

A debate is rightly taking place about the affordability of water. That was of primary importance in the Government’s mind as we developed the vision in the water White Paper and in the Bill, and I know that it is a great concern of the Minister as he steers the Bill through. Those who believe in price caps can relax about water, because we have a price cap for water—the five-yearly price review. Ofwat provides a price cap for customers, albeit one that is done by negotiation. It has been an effective way of keeping water relatively affordable, although I know that some of my colleagues from the south-west have views on that—we have partly addressed those. Obviously, there are ongoing concerns about water prices, so it is also important to recognise what the Walker review said. It found that the rateable value of a property bears no relation to a customer’s ability to pay and it discovered that 40% of low-income households live in the top rateable value properties.

The concerns and fears that people have about increased metering do not necessarily correlate with the idea that we should leave as many households as we can paying for water through a rateable system. In the next price review period, possibly with the aid of some legislative stimulus, we could see a much higher rate of metering. Knowledge is power for households. We will not be having this debate in 20 years’ time, because we will all be managing our utilities on our laptops at work. We will be able to see that a rocketing in our water usage could be down to a leak in the system. We will be able to manage our household bills more effectively. The high level of metering in the south-west and the work that Southern Water and Thames Water are doing to increase the level of metering should be applauded and supported.

The WaterSure scheme and other social tariffs are important tools, but we should consider the whole question of affordability in a much more holistic way. The effect of a freeze in council tax, of getting more families on low incomes out of paying tax altogether and of other measures will have infinitely more impact on the total expenditure of those households than will tinkering around the schemes with some of these points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Select Committee, made an important point about bad debt, but I refer her to her own local water company, Yorkshire Water, which is an exemplar in dealing with bad debt. The money we all pay on our bills for bad debt varies around the country. Some are paying £14 or £15 and some are paying a lot more, because our water companies might be bad at dealing with bad debt. I was impressed to hear that, at Yorkshire, a resolve scheme negotiates repayment terms for customers with arrears of more than £500. A couple years ago, some 5,000 customers paid back £650,000 of bad debt, and the water company wrote off £1 million of bad debt. It is that kind of partnership approach that is delivering a much lower figure of bad debt, which should be seen in the context of affordability. Ofwat estimates that the next year’s price review could reduce bills by between £120 million and £750 million, which seems an awfully wide difference.

Of course we all want to keep water bills low and as many people as possible out of water poverty, but we concentrate on that at the risk of reducing investment. I have spoken about that matter recently in the House and I will continue to do so. A high level of investment is better for customers. It is about stimulating innovation and resilience and reducing the impact on the quality of people’s lives and ultimately on the bills they pay.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned my comments about the drought. In the spring of 2012, the Environment Agency said to me that there was a 3% chance of us having enough rain through that summer to refill the reservoirs and depleted aquifers. We were fortunate because it started to rain in May. It rained right through the jubilee and stopped just as the first athletes started arriving in the Olympic village. We all thought, “Thank goodness”, although we did have a number of flooding incidents in certain areas. That rainfall might have caused us a problem that summer, but we were planning very seriously for a third dry winter. I put to the House this question: are we really content to see people in the most economically active part of the UK, which is sixth largest economy in the world, reduced to collecting their water from standpipes in the street? That is the sort of image that brings down Governments and causes wholesale, serious and endemic problems in society, and we must use this Bill to avoid that.

[Guy Opperman]

I represent Northumberland—probably the wettest county in England—and we should probably have held the Olympics, as there would then have been no such fears. The Secretary of State referred to water supply earlier, when he called on business men, farmers and other people to get involved and create smaller reservoirs. As my hon. Friend drafted the White Paper on water and knows so much about the subject, can he say what assistance will come from DEFRA and the Bill to incentivise and assist such people to create those reservoirs?

[Richard Benyon]

There is provision in the Bill to establish an inset regime and allow new entrants to design innovative infrastructure, which can link into the water system. Moreover, under the capital allowance system, farmers can invest in new reservoirs and have the right to give the surplus of that water to their water companies. In dire circumstances, the Environment Agency can purchase that water to keep rivers flowing. Real opportunity exists for people. I am not saying that that will resolve our water resilience issues; many farmers will need to build many reservoirs for that to happen. None the less, there is a genuine opportunity.

I have one plea. Yes, we can get involved in lengthy debates about whether we should have a primary or a secondary sustainability duty, or whether the robust new resilience duty—I urge hon. Members to read about that—will provide an added incentive; but if the rivers do not flow, our reservoirs are empty and our economy suffers, we should be absolutely determined to concentrate on the outcomes. I appeal to Members in this Chamber and in the other place not to get stuck on the tokenism of any duty, but to consider the outcome that it can deliver. I am relatively agnostic about whether Ofwat should have a primary or secondary duty to deliver sustainability. I am much more concerned about the outcomes, and I have yet to be convinced that just changing the wording will make a huge amount of difference. A really important gain in all this is the resilience duty on Ofwat.

[Neil Parish]

Like other Members, I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he did on the Bill when he was Minister. Does he not feel that the one thing we are missing in this country is the recycling of water? It would be good to use recycled water to grow crops, as it contains a huge amount of nutrients. When we get a wet year, we forget about all the dry years that we have had or may have in the future.

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is right. I see this in household terms: my simple view is that if a builder wants to build 1,000 houses in the Test valley—I do not know why I am picking on the Test valley; I could pick on any number of catchments in the south or east of England—for that to be considered sustainable development, he should have to prove to his local authority that he is hardwiring into his thinking recycling rain water, greywater systems and permeable membranes outside the houses. In fact, he should think of everything to ensure that the development’s water demands are as low as possible.

An important change is being made that will assist investment in our water sector, by cracking the problem with the investment cycle that we have faced for years. I am grateful to British Water—the organisation that represents supply chain companies—for drawing my attention to how investment fell off a cliff edge a year or so before the end of a price review period. That is a problem. Britain is losing jobs, losing skills to abroad and losing much-needed infrastructure investment. Three changes will make a difference in that regard. The first is the resilience duty, which I have already mentioned. The second is the requirement on water companies to invest for the long term, particularly through the 20-year reviews of their water needs. The third is the need for a six-year investment programme, which is a major step forward. Over time, the cycle of investment will level out rather than fall off that cliff.

We need to think beyond the Bill on sustainability. I am pleased, for example, that improvements to the building regulations include a standard daily usage of 125 litres per head. The code for sustainable homes refers to 105 litres per head. We use 155 litres per head in this country—a figure higher than almost anywhere in Europe. We must consider the demand side as well as the supply side.

I hope that that clause on flood insurance goes through with the support of all parties. All Members with constituents who live at risk of floods feel strongly that the statement of principles, worthy though it might have been when it was drawn up, was full of faults. There was no affordability element. Our constituents face excess charges that are at times more than £10,000—an impossible situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

I have the scars of the negotiations on Flood Re on my back—I pay full tribute to the ABI for the constructive way in which it negotiated—but I think we have reached a point at which we can address the needs of the 500,000 households that are at the highest risk. It will limit the cost, and as best it can, it will link that limit to people’s ability to pay. Linking the scheme to council tax banding is the right way to do that. Excess charges will be capped at somewhere between £250 and £500. That is a major win for those people who come to see us in our surgeries and tell us that every time it rains their stress levels rise considerably.

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

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, given his experience. Does he have any concerns at all that linking the scheme to council tax banding, which is based on property values from back in the 1990s, could still be problematic for some households, as those figures are skewed?

[Richard Benyon]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, which is justifiable, but if she is involved further in the machinations on the Bill, I urge her not to try to unpick that one. The scheme is not perfect, and she is right to have concerns. Band H has been cut out, so millionaires are not covered. Only bands A to G are included, and I think that this is probably the best way to do things. Obviously, it can be reviewed in the future.

The key question is how we make the transition from a system under which a subsidy supports the change to a much more risk-reflective form of insurance, which reflects betterment, such as when a household spends money from the scheme to improve resilience to flooding in the future. For example, sockets would no longer be placed at the skirting board but a metre above it. Other household measures could be reflected. We should encourage households to see the process as a transition under which they will be rewarded when they take responsibility. If they take measures to reduce the flood risk to their property, they will benefit.

[Diana Johnson]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he did on the flood insurance scheme. Does he agree that in areas such as mine, Hull, where 90% of the city is below sea level, home owners and home builders can do all they can, but we will always be at risk of flooding? That must be taken into account in any scheme, and I hope that the scheme that we end up with will not just disappear after the 25 years planned for Flood Re.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely accept that. It will be the job of future Governments to see where this all goes, but we need to think about it as a transition. I am pleased that, through the partnership funding scheme, we could ensure that the system was skewed in favour of those with the least ability to pay, including many of the hon. Lady’s constituents on low incomes. The Government can do their bit by ensuring that more flood defences are built, that those with the least capacity to contribute to such schemes are protected and supported through central funding and that an insurance scheme reflects the needs of those who are on the lowest incomes.

The Bill is an opportunity to change how we approach the management of water in a changing climate. We forget at our peril that a drought in 2012 was followed by floods in 2012. The words in the Water White Paper, which were written at a time when that was fresh in our minds, are as relevant today as they were yesterday and will be more relevant in the years to come, as floods such as those that happened in Cornwall and other places happen more frequently. Droughts such as those that we experienced in 2012 might possibly be followed by a third dry winter. I do not want to be part of a House of Commons or a society in this country that has not grasped the risk that we could face. The Bill is part of the process of facing up to that risk, creating more resilience in our water sector and incentivising new much-needed investment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will show in his concluding speech how that is all just work in progress and that much more is needed to address the environmental, economic and social problems that will accrue if we do not address the problem for the long term.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that a significant number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate and there is not a long time left before the Front Benchers will conclude it. If hon. Members were to limit their speeches to approximately 10 minutes, everyone who wished to speak would have the opportunity to do so. If hon. Members do not do that, in the near future I will have to impose a time limit on speeches.

19:08

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I will certainly bear your comments in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). His beat as a Minister did not really include Wales, of course, but I came across him in the Science and Technology Committee. His sincerity and commitment were manifest in those meetings. Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and say how much I agreed with her remarks about sustainability and fracking, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would also have endorsed had she not had to leave.

Water has a huge significance for people in Wales. Our way of looking at water must be framed by Tryweryn and the other valleys that were drowned to provide water, largely for conurbations in England. I am also aware that I am standing on the shoulders of others who came before me, such as Cynog Dafis, the Member for Ceredigion and, with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, the first Green MP —although he was a Green-Plaid Cymru coalition MP.

[Joan Walley]

I cannot help pointing out that the former Member for Ceredigion served with great distinction on the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Hywel Williams]

Indeed. I was aware of that. He is a friend of mine and I think highly of him.

My party’s stance has always been that it is up to the people of Wales to decide on the sustainable use of its natural resources. As scarcity bites, the economic case for Wales exporting water is growing. If so, Wales should be compensated fairly and the benefits should go to the people of Wales.

There is a point which has not yet been made— the territorial significance for Wales of the current water companies. Labour in government, through the Government of Wales Act 2006, failed to act on that. Much of mid-Wales is served by Severn Trent Water. Part of north-east Wales is served by Dee Valley Water. As a consequence, perhaps, part of Herefordshire is served by Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. One of the aims of my party is to regularise that situation. The lines should be redrawn. That is something that I will talk about in Committee if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to it.

As for the current arrangements in Wales, to paraphrase L P Hartley, Wales is another country: they do things differently there. That is a slightly over-used phrase, but in Wales we have a different situation. We have a water company, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, which is a third sector company, as I mentioned earlier, with a non-distributable profits model. The previous company, Hyder —or Hi-dere, as the BBC used to insist on calling it —was run on conventional commercial lines. Glas Cymru reinvests its profits in a better system and in lower prices. As I said, its current price rises are below inflation.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman will know that price rises since Glas Cymru was formed in 2001 and up to the present day are below the rate of inflation. It is the long-term situation.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Provision of water in Wales is a difficult matter. The geography is against us, but Glas Cymru has done a fine job.

There have been concerns about large profits in the industry, overcharging and a lack of investment, alongside high gearing and a low tax take. I read a report to that effect in the Financial Times on 27 October. Hence the need for greater competition. A water industry insider put it to me thus: some water companies are over-geared, they are over-reliant on cheap finance, which is not going to be there for ever, and they are run as cash cows. This is not a sustainable model. Dwr Cymru has the lowest gearing in the industry and, as I said, all its profits are ploughed back. Unsurprisingly, this third sector company has reported customer satisfaction levels of well over 90%.

Another way in which things are different in Wales is the Welsh Government’s stance on competition, which essentially is against it. Under the Bill, businesses and non-householder customers will be able to switch their water and sewerage suppliers, but the Bill’s provisions on competition are confined to England. I refer the House to the report by the Welsh Assembly Environment and Sustainability Committee chaired by Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas. When questioned, 113 large-scale users—using over 50 megalitres per annum—said that a price differential of 10% to 15% would be required to tempt them to switch. By the way, that was also the stance of small and medium-sized enterprises.

A price differential of 10% to 15% is substantial, and it is significant that none of the large users that have the ability to switch in Wales have done so. Customer service is important and that is a central element of the water service that we have in Wales. Either Dwr Cymru is doing a cracking job, or switching is unlikely to hold much appeal other than, perhaps in theory, to Ministers.

Competition could be extended to Wales if the Welsh Government so wished. Dee Valley Water’s evidence to the Welsh Assembly Committee noted that competition in the non-domestic sector might be cross-subsidised by the domestic sector—that is, the public would be paying. That point was made earlier, and the answer, I think, is transparency. I understand that the Government in Cardiff do not wish competition to be extended to Wales. Can the Minister, when he winds up the debate or later in writing, clarify whether under the 2006 Act the Government in London have a veto on Welsh decisions on water? Will that continue to be the case, or is the Cardiff Government’s right to choose not to introduce competition an absolute right? I would be grateful to hear from him on that matter.

Other Members have posed the question of how we can incentivise companies to alter the way they manage their systems and water and sewerage networks to improve efficiency and to encourage the development and deployment of innovative technologies that can cut costs and lower the sector’s electricity usage and its carbon footprint. The point has not yet been made that water companies are heavy users of electricity. I am not sure whether competition and the price instrument will achieve all these aims. I hope we will able to discuss this further in Committee.

Lastly, on affordability, the question is how the bottom 1% of the population pays for its utilities. Overall, the Bill is a missed opportunity. It has no specifics on sustainability or the decarbonisation of the water sector. The point about fracking has already been made. There is no legal obligation on people to pay their bills. In other countries, there is a voucher system for vulnerable groups. The Bill is also lacking in specifics on water management. The current UK system is luxurious in that there is no separation of clean and grey water, which could be achieved in the future. That is a formidable list and I hope we will have the opportunity to address these matters in Committee.

19:17

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

It may please you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the rest of the House to know that I do not intend to take 10 minutes for my remarks, let alone an extended period of time. Other colleagues will, I hope, be able to get in and make valid points on this important Bill.

I begin by continuing a theme established by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams)—extending competition. He was talking, of course, about extending competition in Wales. Although the extension of competition in the water industry allowed for in the Bill is welcome, it is a missed opportunity because it could go further. It is welcome that businesses, charities and public sector organisations will be able to switch suppliers in pursuit of the best deal, but it is regrettable that that does not extend to household residential supplies and consumers.

I note what the Secretary of State said about the need to increase metering before such a transition can be put in place. It strikes me that offering the ability to switch to those households that already have meters would be a driver for greater take-up of metering. As we know from our experience in the south-west and in Cornwall, where we have particularly high levels of metering, that can help households to bear down on water use and improve affordability. The incentive of being able to shop around for the best deal if the household has a meter may produce a double whammy. Consumers would shop around for better water tariffs and metering would increase, enabling households better to control their water usage and its affordability. It is a thought that I leave with my hon. Friend the Minister.

However, it is clear that the introduction of competition into the market is long overdue. The fact that the previous Conservative Government essentially created a number of monopolies across the country has been a key failing of that privatisation. I have always felt that it was a privatisation too far, and precisely because it did not allow choice in the way that other privatisations of state industries did. There was no competition in the market and therefore no real driver for improved conditions. We see that in my constituency, much to our pain, as we still suffer from the highest water bills in the country. I am therefore pleased that the coalition Government have taken a step towards tackling that through the £50-a-year rebate.

I must say to Opposition Front Benchers, in relation to the earlier comments from the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) about this being part of a cost of living crisis, that in Labour’s 13 years in office there were three reviews and one Act of Parliament, but not a penny came off water bills in Cornwall as a result.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has misled the House inadvertently, because he will know that Labour’s first price review led to a real-terms cut in water bills.

[Stephen Gilbert]

And the hon. Gentleman will know that the coalition Government acted to take £50 off bills in the south-west, which has made a real difference to affordability for my constituents and others who have suffered for a very long time.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his party, which represented all six seats in Cornwall under the previous Government, fought for a long time to get something done about increased water bills and that it took the Conservative-led coalition to do something about it?

[Stephen Gilbert]

As with everything my hon. Friend says, her question was good in part—the first part was very good, but on the second part I am afraid I must disagree. The Liberal Democrats in Cornwall have certainly fought for many decades to redress the unfair water bills that my constituents and others in Cornwall suffer, and thanks to both parties coming together we were able to do that.

[Alison Seabeck]

rose—

[Stephen Gilbert]

At the risk of breaking my earlier promise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way once more.

[Alison Seabeck]

This rewriting of history is wonderful. The effort to get bills down in the south-west, led in no small part by my former colleague Linda Gilroy when she chaired the all-party group on water, was an all- party effort. The groundwork that enabled the coalition Government to introduce the £50 rebate was all done under the previous Labour Government, particularly through the Walker review.

[Stephen Gilbert]

The hon. Lady and I know each other well, and I certainly would not be so churlish as to deny the all-party effort in Cornwall and Devon to drive the issue forward, but unfortunately in Westminster for 13 years the Labour Government did nothing. It was the coalition Government who delivered that change.

To finish my points on the introduction of competition, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about charities. It strikes me that charities can be run from people’s domestic residences. Many charities are small, as he will know from his constituency as much as I do from mine. Are there going to be size restrictions and criteria for qualifying for the introduction of competition in the market for charities? How big will they have to be, for example? I would appreciate some clarity on that, as would others across the country.

Finally, I want to mention Flood Re, following some of the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), whom I congratulate on his hard work to secure the renegotiation with the Association of British Insurers and the National Flood Forum. He and I crossed swords here when I tried to push him to accept a deal to ensure that flood insurance remained affordable and available for my constituents. I am delighted to welcome a deal that I think takes a huge step in that direction. I suspect that he and his colleagues played the Government’s hand as best they possibly could. Hopefully we have the rudiments of a deal that will be in place for the long term.

Three years ago this week parts of my constituency were under water and hundreds of businesses and homes had been damaged by flood water. I think that it is timely and right that the Government have brought forward these proposals, which will mean that people will still be able to insure their homes, sell their homes and, if disaster strikes, barring the loss of life, rebuild their homes and reassemble their lives.

However, some key issues remain. I seek assurance from the Minister that premiums for those people in flood risk areas will not be dissimilar to those for people in non-flood risk areas and that there will be some equivalent of the premium element on the household insurance policy that flood insurance will cover. In particular, I support the calls from other right hon. and hon. Members on excesses. I have constituents who were hit by the flood three years ago and had a £15,000 excess on their flood insurance. Clearly, if they do not have £15,000 in the bank, having insurance that requires them to pay £15,000 before being able to make a claim is nonsense. We must ensure that we drive down those excesses as far as possible. I welcome the figure of £250 to £500 that has been proposed.

I have one final question. The Secretary of State said that homes built after 2009 would not be included—I quote, I hope—“if built on floodplains.” Does that mean that homes built after 2009 which are not built on floodplains will be included? We need some clarification on that.

Overall, I think the Bill introduces long-overdue competition into the water market, driving down costs for business and, ultimately, I hope, for consumers. It delivers on one of my pledges to my constituents, which is that flood insurance will remain affordable and available.

19:26

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

This is one of those occasions when there are Members with enormous experience of the subject under discussion sitting on both sides of the House. As a result, the discussion we are having is extremely useful. I draw attention to the contributions from the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who said that he has scars on his back from this, which I quite understand, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—she is no longer in her place—who has contributed significantly over the years, and it is years, to bringing forward the Bill.

It is ironic that we are surrounded by water in this country—certainly in the south-west, which has some of the highest levels of rainfall, because of the prevailing winds—yet we are in need of additional powers to protect us against drought. Such measures are important, so there is a lot of sympathy with the general thrust of the Bill, but the issue is with the detail and with what is not there. I was concerned to hear the Secretary of State say that he hoped to bring forward—not that he would do so for certain—the clauses to Committee. It would be helpful if the Minister, when winding up the debate, confirmed whether all the clauses specific to the insurance elements, and any other key elements, will be dealt with by a Commons Committee and not left to a Committee in the House of Lords.

Flood insurance is desperately needed to protect domestic properties. A number of Members have seen their constituents flooded regularly, or indeed have been flooded themselves. In Plymouth we are relatively fortunate, but we have small areas that flood regularly. Our biggest problem is the railway, which is regularly cut off. The organisations involved seem incapable of coming up with a solution that does anything other than cut off the far south-west every time there is flooding at Exeter, which is desperately bad news for business. I am not sure how the insurance companies view claims for loss of business, but without doubt there is a loss of business. That is a separate issue, but it is very specific to our region.

Another point that concerns me is that so much of this is being done by order and by statutory instruments—that is, secondary legislation. Indeed, the EFRA Committee, which has done sterling work in this area, felt that the draft Bill relied heavily on secondary legislation in a number of key areas. The Government have obviously not listened with regard to this aspect of the Bill. I am absolutely confident that in Committee my Front-Bench colleagues will press for some of those key issues to be firmly and clearly included in the Bill.

The Bill seeks to extend competition, which most people would say is a worthy aim, but not to extend it to domestic bill payers—a point well made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). That is another missed opportunity. The Government are failing yet again to get a grip on the things that could make a significant difference to the cost of living that all my constituents are facing. Despite the welcome £50 rebate, the south-west still has some of the highest water bills in the country. The amount paid by people on relatively low incomes is extremely high, and about 200,000 households are described as being under water stress.

[Sheryll Murray]

Can the hon. Lady tell us exactly what her Government did, in the 12 years when they had the chance, to help the hard-pressed, hard-working people of the south-west with their water bills?

[Alison Seabeck]

Their first review cut water bills, even in the south-west, and then, admittedly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) explained, there was a constant battle and a need to bring something forward. I fully accept that it was a slow process. I personally went to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make exactly that point—to say that we needed, frankly, to get our fingers out and do something about bill payers in the south-west. I do not think that anybody argued that as vehemently as I and Linda Gilroy, my colleague in Plymouth, Sutton at the time. Even the hon. Lady, in all fairness, will be aware of the work that went on.

In the south-west we have a high percentage of people, including pensioners and families, with high and essential water needs. In fact, there are more than in any other English area, and some of them are being supported through the WaterSure scheme.

South West Water bill payers are the victims of a botched privatisation process. We have too large an area, with a massive need for capital investment, including cleaning up our shoreline, and very few bill payers to meet those costs. It is a dreadful situation, and one that was not thought through but driven through purely for ideological reasons. This Bill develops the market in water further, with a new retail market. The proposed changes are interesting, but they are not embraced entirely by the water companies, which are asking questions about the need for a provision to allow for retail exits, about why the system is voluntary, and about whether there will be a level playing field for all retailers.

South West Water has expressed concerns about the Government’s ill-considered and risky-to-implement proposals on the relaxation of the selling of licences without reforming abstraction methods, and says that it can foresee problems for rivers. During this debate, people have been tweeting me about the importance of the chalk streams. Indeed, several hon. Members on both sides of the House have touched on that point. The Secretary of State talked about new sources of water. However, if my local water company is saying that it has concerns, I have to be concerned. Equally, if the general public and Members of this House have concerns, the Minister must respond to them when he winds up.

Water companies across the UK, many of them based overseas, are making significant and increasing profits, with soaring dividends for shareholders. I am sure that they would say that the picture of their accounts is much more complicated than that which appears in the headlines, and that, in some cases, they hold significant debts, but that just means we need greater transparency so that we can fully understand where the pressures exist. The new chair of Ofwat has suggested that some of the financial arrangements that these companies pursue are complex, or perhaps they could be otherwise described as hidden, and that they are running a debt in order to minimise tax payments in the UK, but—surprise, surprise—they are still managing to pay out huge dividends. As we have heard, they have announced £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits and given £1.8 billion back to the shareholders. This is a system for the few, not the many. People in Plymouth have been paying through the nose for a basic commodity while shareholders seem to be benefiting. No one denies that shareholders are people who have backed a company for a decent return, but we need to understand that it is a decent return and not an excessive one.

Water is a commodity that needs to be valued because it will potentially become even more scarce as climate change kicks in further. If we do not prepare well for the decades and century ahead, we could be left with water in short supply or prices rising further for the taxpayer. At a time of soaring utility bills, high inflation and stagnant wages, water customers really do need to feel that they are getting a fair deal from their supplier. South West Water has invested in new technology in Plymouth—I recently saw it for myself at its treatment works in my constituency—and there are, at last, some improvements to the local sewage works, but it needs to offset that capital expenditure and the benefits to customers against its profit and dividend levels.

The Bill does not put in place measures that achieve transparency or affordability. The notion of a national scheme to assist with affordability, which has been discussed over very many years, and in depth by the Walker review, needs to be implemented. This Bill could have been the vehicle to do that—another wasted opportunity. Some companies are doing some of the work on a voluntary basis, including, in all fairness, South West Water, but it makes much more sense to bring them all together into some sort of national scheme—to get them all signed up and have a level playing field where good companies feel that everybody else is pulling their weight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a very important point about access to data, particularly in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions. I urge the Minister to do all he can to press the DWP to sort itself out on this one; it is almost a no-brainer.

My constituents find it impossible to understand why the regulator seems to have no teeth and simply rubber-stamps increases in bills. I am sure that the Minister will say that is not the case, but that is how it is viewed by my constituents. We know that the regulator has to perform a complex balancing act, with requests for increases from companies because they need to develop major schemes such as new ring sewers, new reservoirs, and so on, but my constituents are not convinced that anybody is listening to them. No one would argue against the vital work on infrastructure, protection against flooding and drought plans, which the Bill champions, but what is missing is the fairness agenda. The Government fail to understand that if my constituents feel they are being unfairly penalised while shareholders, perhaps overseas, are benefiting, this legislation will have failed and this Government will have failed them.

19:38

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

The Government are to be commended for all they have done with regard to securing our water supply and trying to help our resilience in relation to flooding. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who in his time as a Minister was a great supporter of such work. I am pleased to say that as a result I had three flood defence schemes supported locally, and I am grateful for that. The Bill is very welcome as part of a series of across-the-House measures to try to address this problem. Introducing competition in water supply is an excellent move forward. The fact that the Government have managed to negotiate the Flood Re deal is very much to their credit.

The challenge, inevitably, is in the detail. The Minister, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might remember that in 2005, when there was deregulation of the industry, there was a review of the so-called cost principle, which had been put in place to ensure the protection of water authorities in areas where, because of their rural nature and the distances involved, water would be very expensive to supply. It meant that rural customers did not have to bear a disproportionately high price for their water supply. That has now been removed and responsibility for overseeing the issue has been transferred to Ofwat. I am concerned that that control has been removed from the Government and politicians, so will the Minister assure me that it will work?

On flood insurance, flooding is a very key issue in my constituency and I think that a fantastic deal has been brokered, but there are challenges. The Minister will probably agree that prevention is undoubtedly better than cure. Our planning process has a number of statutory consultees, but after speaking to my local district council and the Environment Agency I understand that neither the Environment Agency nor the water companies are statutory consultees with regard to planning or connection. That means that a disaster is waiting to happen. Such consultation happens on a voluntary basis from time to time, but not regularly.

What happens, therefore, is that connections are made and the water companies have no power to make any recommendations—they certainly have no power to object—and yet, when the rain comes down, the sewers are flooded and the playing fields get covered in sewage, as has happened in my constituency, it is the water companies that have to take up the challenge of remedying the problem. I urge the Minister to consider making those bodies statutory consultees or to put in place another measure that ensures a holistic, joined-up approach so that the different bodies involved work together.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. As chairman of the Truro and Kenwyn neighbourhood plan, I can absolutely say that this is a problem and that it would be enormously beneficial if there was a statutory obligation to consult on plans.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is always nice to get support.

The Bill singularly fails to address the issue of tidying up the fantastic Government initiative to help South West Water bill payers with a subsidy of £50. That was incredibly welcome and it has been incredibly well received, but unfortunately, as with many such things, the challenge is in the detail. The Government proposed that, when domestic users were billed through commercial intermediaries, the benefit would, in effect, pass down the line. For example, if the owner of a park home with a number of plots applies to South West Water for the rebate, the intention is for that rebate to get passed down to local users. Unfortunately, there is no obligation on commercial intermediaries—which include not just park home owners, but housing associations and Ministry of Defence premises—and the consequence, as I have discovered in my constituency, is that a number of local residents are not benefiting. Park homes represent 2.5% of the housing stock in my district council area of Teignbridge, so this is not a small problem; it is a significant problem.

Will the Minister consider some changes that I think might resolve the problem? First, on the obligation, one of the reasons why park home owners and others are not claiming is that they say that the claim process is complex and time-consuming and that they get no compensation, so let us simplify the process. Secondly, it seems that any claim has to be validated by the district council, so why not give the opportunity to a tenant whose commercial intermediary does not claim to ask the district council—which will have the records and will know whether they are a domestic individual—to apply on their behalf to the water company and then the subsidy could simply flow through?

There is another issue: I am afraid to say that some unscrupulous commercial intermediaries will take the money and not pass it on to the individual resident. At present, the only recourse for the resident is to bring a civil action—a small claims court action—which costs, on average, £1,000. To be frank, that is completely inappropriate given the amount of money involved. From my days studying law, I remember learning that if someone takes something with the intention of permanently depriving someone else of the use of it, that is theft, which, in my book, is a crime. If not passing on the subsidy were to result in criminal rather than civil liability, that would be a measure with teeth and I suspect that those who are not minded to pass on the subsidy at present would do so.

I hope that the Minister will find those suggestions helpful. This is a good Bill. I have used up my time, but I hope that I have made my point and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

19:45

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

I want to speak specifically to clause 47, which is 11 lines long and introduces the new flood insurance schemes. This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss them on the Floor of the House. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has said, the Flood Re scheme still raises many questions that need to be answered. I also share her concerns about a lot of it being left to secondary legislation.

The Flood Re scheme follows on from the statement of principles, which was first agreed in 2000, was renewed in 2008 and ran until this summer. Flood insurance has been of particular interest to me since the very bad floods in Hull in 2007. Since then, I have questioned and lobbied Ministers and secured Adjournment debates on the issue, because I am concerned about my constituents and want whatever scheme that is put in place to meet their needs.

In 2012, the then Secretary of State told me on the Floor of the House that she was

“proud that we have found a way forward with the insurance industry that, above all, guarantees that universal and affordable insurance remains available to all”.—[Official Report, 25 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 30.]

She said that that included my constituents, but all we have 18 months on is this very short clause outlining the Flood Re scheme. I want to set out why I am so concerned about this.

Ninety per cent. of my home city of Hull is low-lying—below sea level—and prone to floods from the River Hull and the Humber estuary. In 2007 we had a deluge of surface water. June of that year was the wettest month recorded in Yorkshire since 1882. The rain that came down on that day was a once-in-250-years event. One in five properties in Hull were flooded, including 7,208 residential properties and 1,300 businesses.

Flooding causes misery. Any MP who has constituents who have been flooded or who has been flooded themselves will know that it is a miserable experience. Homes are disrupted for weeks and months and dehumidifiers and dryers are needed. Having had secondary flooding in my home in Hull, I know that it is horrible. We want to do everything we can to protect people so that they do not have to go through that.

Part of the deal under the statement of principles was that if someone who did not have insurance in 2007 got flooded, they would never get insurance. People also had to stick with the provider they had in 2007. I had to stick with Aviva—I could not move anywhere else—and my premiums and excesses went up just like those of my constituents have since 2007.

The Government have promised a new scheme and, as I have said, the former Secretary of State made out that it would be affordable and available to all. I have three problems with what is being proposed, as I understand it, although it has not yet been suggested as part of primary legislation. First, I have a big problem with the 2009 cut-off. Secondly, I have a problem with the fact that small businesses are not included in the Flood Re scheme. My third problem is that reviews will take place every five years and that, as I understand it, the scheme is transitional and is planned to move to a full open market approach by the end of 25 years.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

On the hon. Lady’s first two points, she might like to know that the all-party group on insurance and financial services made exactly those points to the Government as part of the consultation.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think there is widespread concern about those two points in particular.

When I asked the House of Commons Library to give me figures for homes built since 2009, I was told that 444,300 private dwellings had been built between 2009 and 2012, and that 1,850 permanent dwellings had been built in Hull between 2009 and the second quarter of 2013, of which 1,720 were private homes. Therefore, more than 1,700 properties will not be part of the Flood Re scheme, despite the fact that the city is prone to flooding and that, with 90% of it below sea level, people may have real problems.

As I understand it, the Government are telling people who bought their homes after 2009 that their properties should have been properly assessed for flood risk under PPS25—planning policy statement 25—and the national planning policy framework, and that they can therefore get insurance on the open market. However, the National Flood Forum has pointed out that an unknown number of people will be at significant flood risk, but unable to get insurance under Flood Re or on the free market.

I accept that the Government’s approach appears sensible, but they have to acknowledge, first, that lots of properties built since 2009 have flooded in various parts of the country and, secondly, that they have caused other properties to flood, particularly from surface water problems. The extent of the problem is not clear, but many communities will raise that issue with the Minister over the coming months, as will hon. Members in Committee.

At Kingswood in my constituency, houses have been built over many years: it is a major area of house building as part of a development for the city. Outline planning permission was first given in 1994 and was renewed in 2004. Like areas all over the UK that were given planning permission before 2009, some properties built since 2009 will not be covered by the Flood Re scheme. A key issue about phased developments is whether standards from an earlier period are applied to houses built post-2009, and I want the Minister to address what will happen to such properties.

When the statement of principles was first set out, the cut-off date for houses not to be covered—2008—was in the future, but the Bill actually has a retrospective date of 2009. Why do the Government not accept that it would be better to give everyone proper warning and make the cut-off date 2015, for example, so that we all know what will happen?

I have concerns about the surface water maps that are available. I understand that local authorities will publish their maps next week, but insurance companies have their own ones. I also have concerns about the fact that the Environment Agency will not produce its compound risk maps until the end of 2015. That will leave house purchasers, community activists and insurance companies, now and in future, with different sorts of information available to them. How can they make good and sensible choices on that basis?

I am really concerned that when I asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the House this afternoon about what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he did not seem to know that there was a problem. Yet his Department is at the moment promoting the Help to Buy scheme extremely heavily in Kingswood to get people to buy new homes in an area that another Department says will be completely excluded from the Flood Re scheme. There is a mis-selling issue there, with people not being fully aware of what this Government are doing. Will the Minister address that point about whether other Ministers know what this scheme means for their Departments?

Last Wednesday, it was announced that Hull would be the city of culture for 2017, but on Thursday in DEFRA questions the Minister told me that the cut-off date of 2009 stood and would send “a very clear message” against building on areas that were likely to flood. The problem is that 90% of Hull is below sea level, so it is prone to flooding. The Government cannot have it both ways. They must accept that issues in different geographical areas of this country have to be addressed.

I want to make three more points. The first is about the role of the Environment Agency. I understand that of 455,500 applications for planning permission, the Environment Agency has commented on only 6.6%. The vast majority do not require it to comment because they are too small or do not meet the requirements set out in legislation. If we want the Environment Agency to play more of a role, we must make it clear that its advice on where houses are built must be taken. I say to the Minister that it is wholly unfair and arbitrary to choose 2009 as the cut-off date for Flood Re; 2015 would be much better. If he is not willing to go that far, perhaps he should consider mitigation for Hull and similar areas.

My second point is that the Government should look at what is happening to small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that one in five small firms was affected by flooding last year alone. Small firms will end up paying exorbitantly high costs to be insured against the threat of flooding. I hope that amendments will be tabled on that point.

My final point is about the 25-year transitional element of the Flood Re scheme. Will the Minister set out what the five-year reviews are about, because we need more details? Will he address what will happen to areas such as Hull in the longer term? If the free market is just opened up, we will be left with no insurance companies that want to offer insurance in those areas, because the risks are too high. I hope that he will give us more information about the Flood Re scheme.

19:56

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

What a surprise to be called so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am delighted to have the chance to speak.

As I was preparing in the Tea Room, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) said, “I suspect you’ll go into the debate and just shout a lot.” He was very accurate in his analysis: I am going to shout a lot. There is nothing like a good shout to get things off your chest. I will try not to shout too loudly, but I want to shout about water because it is very important to me.

I congratulate the new Minister on his elevation to the Front Bench. I also lament the passing of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). He was a wonderful Minister, and it is a great shame that he is not still one, because he will be much missed and knew a great deal about water.

I want to pay one final tribute during my 10 minutes. It is to the former Member of Parliament for Reading West, Mr Martin Salter, who has been a great champion of fishing and of the conservation of rivers for many years. I am sure that wherever he is today, he is watching this debate fondly.

I listened to the Secretary of State, and I am afraid that my heart did not leap with joy. I fear that, in reality, we will not build the reservoirs that we need. In 10 or 15 years, we will be in this place once again talking about the continued decimation of our waterways and, in particular, but not exclusively, of our chalk streams. A few years ago, Thames Water had the great idea of building a reservoir in Oxfordshire near Abingdon. It was a spade-ready project in 2010, with everything ready to go, but it has not yet taken off because of planning issues and people who are not too keen on its construction.

I must be a really rubbish politician because when it comes to water, I have only one speech, which most hon. Members will have heard at least three times in this place.

Since 1973-74, we have not built a reservoir of any note in east and south-east England. We have added to the population by quite a few millions and we have built many hundreds of thousands if not millions of new homes, but we have somehow decided that we do not need reservoirs. I have looked at the Bill, and I do not see any concrete plans for new reservoirs. I have talked to many water companies and, apart from Thames Water, they seem to have a marked reluctance to build new reservoirs, but without them, we are going to continue to abstract.

I am afraid that the trading of abstraction licences leaves me cold. Initially, licences were not awarded on any scientific basis; water companies were told: “Here are a few thousand. Now go off and enjoy yourselves.” The truth is that if all the abstraction licences on the River Lea were used, it would not exist. That is not a far-fetched scenario because there are quite a few rivers in my constituency and elsewhere in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire that do not exist any more. They have been sucked dry and are now empty river beds. When it rains in the winter, clean water might flow through them, but it does not flow for long.

The Environment Agency has a new trick. That is to reclassify a river that dries up for the first time in 30 or 40 years as a winterbourne. I understand that one of those winterbournes might be the Upper Kennet around Manton and Marlborough. I know that the Upper Kennet is not a winterbourne because over my lifetime, I have caught well over 400 trout and 400 grayling in that stream. I understand that there is a move in the EA to reclassify it as a winterbourne. That is total and utter nonsense.

Let me return to abstraction licences. I fear that if there is unrestricted trading in abstraction licences, we will see more and more water sucked out of already stressed environments. That thought gives me sleepless nights because, as I have said, one could walk across many streams in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire in one’s bedroom slippers and not get wet. I think of rivers such as the Mimram, the Chess, the Beane and many others that are too numerous to name in this debate. Some of those rivers flow some of the time, some of them flow none of the time and some of them flow all of the time, but the one thing that they have in common is that they are under great stress.

It would be easy to lash the water companies, as I am sort of lashing those on the Government Front Bench. It is a very gentle lashing—indeed, it is almost a licking. I have taken the trouble to meet my water company. I met the chief executive of Affinity Water, who seems to be a switched-on individual. I have invited him to go fishing on the River Chess, so that we are on someone else’s water. He has accepted that invitation and we hope to go in May. Hopefully we will have a wet winter, so that beautiful river will have something near a proper flow, and he will walk down the river and see what a wonderful environment it is. However, such environments are becoming all too rare.

As I say, Mr Deputy Speaker—what a magical change in the Chair—there are parts of the Bill that I am sure I will welcome when I have found them. I have yet to find them, but I will welcome them when I do. What has distressed me most about aspects of this debate is that there has been a lack of willingness to focus on the fact that water, because of the way in which we manage it, is a rare resource in this country. Quite a lot of it falls out of the sky but, as the Secretary of State said, we wave 95% of it goodbye in the winter months, as it rushes down into the North sea and the English channel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, we have to get much better at capturing and storing that water.

Although I am hugely attracted to the idea of farmers building small reservoirs, it simply is not the answer. The idea that a farmer will build a reservoir of sufficient capacity to sell water to major water companies is, I am afraid, as near to nonsense as one can get without it becoming nonsense. What we need to do—again, it is the broken record—is to build some reservoirs. There needs to be a consensus about building reservoirs.

Of course, there are parts of the country where water is abundant. People say airily, “Let’s transport it from the north of England to the south of England or from Wales to other parts of the country.” I am sure that the Welsh do not like the idea of having their water pinched any more than the people of Northumberland do.

[Jonathan Evans]

They could sell it.

[Mr Walker]

They could sell the water, but the truth is that it is extremely expensive to cart water around the country. I do not know whether anybody has noticed, but water tends to weigh quite a lot. Yes, gravity can be used, but there needs to be gravity for that to work. We could ship water around the United Kingdom, but that is not the answer. It is talked about by people who want to deflect attention from the real issue, which—again, I am afraid—is building reservoirs.

Before I get too boring, I would like to say that I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). That is a big mouthful, but I got my mouth around it—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are a lot of mouth analogies. I would like to hear the view of the Opposition on conservation. Of course it is important that we try to keep people’s water bills as low as is possible. However, the Walker household, which is metered, gets a fairly good deal. We can have loads of baths, use the facilities and have showers every day and it costs us about £2 to have pharmaceutical-grade water pumped into our house. Of course price is important, but so is conservation because we live in a lovely country and we need to keep it beautiful.

I am about to overrun my allotted time, so I will conclude by saying one more thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said that he led a delegation of water companies to Brazil. Having drained my rivers, they are going to drain the Amazon. I hope that they are not as successful with the Amazon. However, the point that was made by my hon. Friend and that will be made again by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley, who is a courageous campaigner on all matters water, is that this country has 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Funnily enough, they are not making them any more. If there is another ice age, we might get a few more, but they are not making any more right now.

We have been disastrous at protecting our natural environment. Indeed, a press release from the Salmon and Trout Association just flashed before my eyes, saying that we are not even going to reach the target of getting 32% of our rivers up to an acceptable level and that it is going to be pushed further into the future. That is ridiculous nonsense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, we should want to reach that target ourselves as a sovereign nation and should not need the European Union to require it of us. This country is so good at lecturing parts of the developing world about their environmental responsibilities—particularly Brazil and Indonesia about the rain forests. They should take no lessons from us. Until we manage our own environment more effectively, there is very little that we can teach Brazil.

With that final flourish, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall sit down. I have been very naughty and taken 12 minutes. I see the Whip looking at me aggressively, so I am sitting down.

20:07

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Bill does not excite people or generate much interest outside the House. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been involved in previous debates on this issue have shown that they have a depth of knowledge that spans time frames that go back much longer than I have been in the House. However, my constituents have concerns about their rising water bills, and because of their worries and sleepless nights, I am speaking in this debate.

The Bill provides an opportunity to introduce measures to help those who are struggling to pay their water bills and measures to toughen the regulatory regime under Ofwat. In announcing the draft Bill, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said that it would ensure

“that the water industry continues to provide an affordable and clean water supply”.

Earlier this month, a spokesperson for No. 10 said that the Prime Minister takes the price of household bills seriously:

“The Prime Minister wants to see household costs across the piece being reduced as low as possible. The intention is to try to reduce the burdens on hard-pressed families.”

It is therefore reasonable to ask why the Bill delivers so little for those people. It will not help families who are faced with rising water costs; nor will it empower Ofwat to become the champion for the consumer that it needs to be.

For those who, like me, are new to Parliament, I will remind the House of some of the history of water affordability. The only time when water charges have been reduced was under the last Labour Government. The average water bill in my constituency is now £359 per year and has increased nationally by almost 50% since privatisation was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1989. At the same time, regional water companies made £1.9 billion profit last year. I and my colleagues in the Labour party have been campaigning hard on energy prices, but the situation with water bills is no better—indeed, some would say that it is worse.

Although households spend less on water as a flat figure, the proportion of a water bill that goes towards company profits is three times higher than for an energy bill. As with energy prices, the rising cost of water far outstrips both earnings and inflation. Water is a natural resource; it is essentially free; and it is essential for our survival. Management of that natural resource therefore needs to be conducted with some kind of social responsibility.

During a cost of living crisis, affordability must be the absolute priority, and the Bill must do more to ensure that water companies’ profits are not put before the needs of consumers. The coalition agreement clearly stated that the Government would

“examine the conclusions of the Cave and Walker Reviews, and reform the water industry to ensure more efficient use of water and the protection of poorer households”.

That is one statement that they have not been able to delete.

In 2009, the Consumer Council for Water stated that

“many low income customers continue to pay their water bills even where it becomes unaffordable to do so”.

It claimed that people tend to

“cut back on water usage or sacrifice other essentials such as food or heating in order to ensure their bill is paid”.

The problem now in my constituency is that people are already cutting back on food, heating and water. Since the Government continue to legislate in a way that exacerbates poverty, what are my constituents supposed to do? What should they cut back on next—fresh air perhaps? They have nowhere left to go.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am following the hon. Lady’s contribution with great interest, and she is a leading member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Water, however, is not free. Drinking water must be processed, as must the foul water that comes from every home. I hope that she will take the opportunity to go to a waste water treatment plant and see the full gamut of where a lot of the costs come from.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I will take up that offer. I was being glib when I said that water is free. I meant that to most people, including my constituents, water falls from the sky and is therefore free, but I understand the hon. Lady’s point.

People in my constituency are clear in the knowledge that water bills are likely to rise in the future due to a growing population, climate change, the replacement of water infrastructure and additional environmental standards. Under the previous Labour Government, the Walker review, which was published in 2009, advocated affordability and made a number of recommendations to ensure that water remains affordable for all. Two years later, the current Government published a consultation on those proposals and rejected universal discounts, which they cited as “unaffordable”, for people on low incomes and minimum discounts for low-income households with children. Instead, the Government opted for WaterSure and social tariffs, and repeated that intention in the “Water for Life” White Paper.

WaterSure intends to cut costs for households that have a water meter and more than three children under 19 years old and that claim a range of benefits including council tax benefit, housing benefit and employment and support allowance. The scheme ensures that those families pay only the average for their region, so adding approximately 40p to the bills of those customers not on the scheme. Water Direct is another scheme whereby the Department for Work and Pensions subtracts money from the benefits of those who are in debt to their regional water company and sends it direct to that water company. What is not clear, however, is how such schemes are likely to be affected by the introduction of universal credit, and that creates uncertainty for a number of families.

Social tariffs allow water companies to develop tariffs in consultation with customers, with the intention of helping the most vulnerable. However, the Government’s implementation of those tariffs falls a long way short of dealing with the scale of the problem. In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Consumer Council for Water estimated that to “effectively address the problem” of affordability would cost anywhere between £162 million and £447 million. The Walker review’s estimate was £340 million, yet it predicted that social tariffs would generate only £36 million a year, adding that that was

“significantly short of what is needed to address affordability”.

Even that limited impact may not be felt in the majority of regions.

Rather than take strong action to ensure that companies have a duty of affordability, the Government introduced tariffs on a voluntary basis from April this year. So far, only three companies have taken that up. Northumbrian Water—my local provider—certainly found little appetite among customers for the implementation of a social tariff. That is hardly surprising when so many people are already struggling to afford bills with stagnating wages. In constituencies such as mine, such a tariff would make water less affordable for even more people.

It is no surprise that the Government’s light-touch solutions have done little to help consumers. Citizens Advice has expressed disappointment that the Government’s guidance for social tariffs is “lacking in detail” and that water companies have been given freedom to ignore it completely with little or no justification. It is no coincidence that Citizens Advice has reported increasing numbers of people coming to it with inquiries about water debt. It is not only Citizens Advice that recognises the problem. This afternoon, I spoke with Northumbrian Water, which is anticipating a rise in debt over the next year, linked to the severity of public sector cuts in our region. It now works closely with Citizens Advice, recognising that if someone is struggling with their water bill, they are likely to be struggling with other bills as well. In short, it is a wider problem than just water bills—it is a cost of living crisis.

The Government clearly do not recognise the need for decisive action. Last week at DEFRA questions, the Secretary of State said that he had written to water companies, calling on them to consider the pressure on household incomes and advising that the Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs. As Secretary of State, should he not be doing more than just encouraging and advising? Is simply writing to the water companies the best he can do?

The United Nations recognises water as a basic human right that should be

“available, accessible, safe, acceptable and affordable for all without discrimination”.

Why then are the Government not committed to ensuring just that—that water is affordable for all?

20:17

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I declare an interest as the riparian owner of a small stretch of the headwaters of the River Itchen in Hampshire and as a small part-owner of similar rights on the River Spey in Scotland. I am also chairman of the all-party angling group.

In an ideal water world, we would have cheap bills for all, plentiful and clean drinking water and sparklingly clean rivers and watercourses, stuffed with myriad fish, leaping with baby otters and surrounded by clouds of fly-life with beds of iris and crow’s foot—okay, this is the bit where we hear the needle being ripped off the Enigma Variations, because unfortunately, that dreamy picture does not match reality.

To be clear, things are not all bad. The industry has invested some £110 billion in the 25 years since privatisation, and much has been achieved in restoring antiquated infrastructure. Let us not forget the scale of the task: the industry looks after 414,000 km of water pipes; 1,380 treatment works; 6,000 reservoirs; 392,000 km of sewers and so forth. In 2012-13 alone, £4.5 billion of investment has been made. A great deal of good work is being done; things are improving in tackling water quality in the environment; and the health of rivers has improved. Point sources of pollution have been tackled, and whole catchment management plans promise improvements in diffuse pollution. However, as the water White Paper so tellingly pointed out, only 27% of our rivers and lakes are fully functioning ecosystems. We surely have a great deal more to do.

What does the Bill contribute? Hon. Members know that we face difficult financial times and that consumers must be protected in a monopolistic market. The Bill will help. The opening of certain retail markets to competition, with the prospect of that widening to all consumers of water, must surely be a crucial step in keeping downward pressure on end-user pricing. That and many other measures in the Bill, such as the change in the byzantine regime that compensated companies for the removal or change in abstraction licences, will help to solve a number of problems that the industry faces and that directly impact on pricing.

We face a problem, however. We must not throw the proverbial baby out with the tap water and get into the position in which the energy sector finds itself. A lack of long-term investment has left us all vulnerable to power outages, as old capacity is closed down and new capacity has yet to come on stream. The few hon. Members who are in the Chamber might think that the two sectors are wholly different. They might think, “Surely, the raw materials of water fall freely out of the sky regularly, sometimes on a prodigious scale.” That is true in part, but it is the how much, how often and where that matters.

As was pointed out to me in an excellent briefing from the Angling Trust, the UK has less rainfall per person than our northern European neighbours. London is drier than Istanbul. In the UK, every person uses approximately 150 litres of water a day, which is one of the highest usages in Europe. The UK—believe it or not—has less available water per person than most other European countries.

Last summer demonstrated how precarious our position has become. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is in his place, has painted a compelling picture of the crisis that we faced. It is not an exaggeration to say that many parts of the country would have faced severe shortages. Many people in the south and east of the country would have relied on standpipes, and there might have been an absolute disaster for our natural environment. Rivers had begun to run dry, as their natural sources dried up and as water companies abstracted yet more to meet demand.

We need to understand that the three-year scenario will happen—it is not a matter of if, but truly a matter of when. We should remember that it does not matter how cheap water is if there is none. I therefore want to make a few comments on resilience. More can and is being done on leakage. There is some success on consumption through metering, through the advent of modern technologies that use less water for the same tasks and through education, but we face a potential structural problem in the regulatory environment.

Resilience necessarily means building infrastructure. Ofwat rightly has a primary duty to protect customers, but it therefore has a perverse incentive not to sanction investment in what is, by definition, redundant capacity. That is why I am particularly pleased by clause 22, which promotes resilience to being a primary duty for Ofwat. The measure is very much helped by the explicit guidance published in May by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and the Department, “Strategic policy statement to Ofwat: incorporating social and environmental guidance”. Paragraphs 3.6 to 3.9 explicitly set out the Government’s expectation that Ofwat should ensure long-term resilience and, crucially, sustainability in the system.

It is important to recognise that resilience is not the same as sustainability. None of us wants a system that creates resiliency in the water supply that relies on sources that are environmentally damaging. In the round, however, I am glad that we now seem to have a regulatory environment that recognises that protecting customers also means protecting a sustainable supply of water. However, I wonder whether we might go a step further. Hon. Members know that one of the biggest problems faced by large-scale infrastructure projects, such as those likely to be needed by the water industry, is delays in the planning system. To that end, I wonder whether the Minister has considered a national policy statement for water. After all, we have one for waste water, so why not have one for water? Such a statement would go a further step towards allowing Ofwat’s two conflicting duties to be resolved in a timely and structured manner. It should ensure that the necessary infrastructure is introduced in a way that is controlled by the Government, at a reasonable pace, and as the economy and consumers’ wallets allow.

As we have heard, one of the most urgent but complex areas of change that is needed is in abstraction. Hon. Members know that over-abstraction is damaging our environment and that the governing regime is antiquated and not fit for purpose. Licences granted in an entirely different social and historical context are still in force and in urgent need of change. I accept that that is a complex matter, but I remain somewhat disappointed that the necessary reform is not tackled in the Bill. I am reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks this evening on our intentions in that regard, and I hope we hear similar commitments from the Opposition.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I agree with my hon. Friend that water abstraction is complex and that it does obvious damage—that obvious damage is dried up river beds.

[George Hollingbery]

Who could possibly disagree? That is clearly one consequence that we need to reform shortly. I will come to that in a moment.

Those of us who hold our natural environment dear, particularly those rivers and streams across the country that are fed by chalk aquifers, cannot wait for ever for change. Too many of our chalk streams, such as the Chess, the Beane, the Kennet and many others, have been irreparably damaged by over-abstraction. That simply cannot be allowed to continue, as my hon. Friend says. How can we possibly continue to lecture countries such as Brazil and Indonesia on environmental damage when we, the custodians of 85% of chalk streams—unique ecosystems—are complacent and allow them to be degraded over time, doing nothing about it? That simply will not do. We must change the system, and do so soon.

I understand why the Government have delayed reform, but the fact that the Bill does not change abstraction licensing at the same time as allowing new upstream supplies may well present a problem. One of the proposed resilience reforms is that those with unused abstraction licences for purposes other than general water supply and those with water surplus to their needs can sell water on. I welcome that in principle, but one concern is that, if proposals to reactivate old licences or sell bulk water across borders are not very carefully assessed in respect of their impact in source areas—in terms both of the environment and of local pricing incentives and competition—unanticipated damage could easily be done. I am glad to note that the Government have partially recognised that and committed to introducing changes to the Bill in Committee to ensure that permission must be obtained from the Environment Agency before any changes of use of water abstraction rights are made. May I suggest that a similar assessment of the impact on local pricing and competition in source areas also be made?

The same rules must surely apply to the bulk transfers proposed by the Bill. The Government have said that they are considering that, and I hope that similar changes will be introduced. It is worth noting we will need to consider how permitting would apply across the border into Scotland and Wales. No doubt, the ministerial team have that under review. Furthermore, it would be reassuring if the Government considered allowing such arrangements to be terminated on advice from the relevant assessor if it is clear that they are contributing to over-abstraction, causing environmental damage or skewing the competitive environment.

Finally, on water metering, as undertakers have made more progress on leak reduction, measures to reduce demand will become more important. Measures in building regulations and the advent of new technologies that reduce the amount of water needed to perform certain tasks have a part to play, but so does water metering. That is another complex matter. Hon. Members know that water metering increases costs for some people and reduces them for others. We should never allow companies to cut off supply to those who cannot pay their bills. However, water metering reduces consumption and allows householders and undertakers more accurately to identify local leakage, which can then be dealt with.

The Water Industry (Prescribed Conditions) Regulations 1999 allow universal water metering to be introduced in areas of water stress. I wonder whether it is time to take that a step further. We should consider not standing in the way of rolling out water metering schemes throughout all areas, water stressed or not, if an undertaker can demonstrate that they have a clear, deliverable plan to help customers to deal with the change; that they have similar, robust plans to deal with the difficulties faced by those who are least likely to be able to deal with increased bills; that their request for the roll-out forms part of a long-term strategy to reduce demand; and that the Secretary of State retains the power to remove the scheme if those things are not delivered. All I ask is that the Minister and his team consider such a change.

In conclusion, the Bill is a step in the right direction towards reform of the water industry. Its measures will help to increase competition and so keep down prices. It clearly recognises the need to guarantee long-term supply, but does so in the context of other measures and proposed changes that acknowledge that sustainability of the source of supply is as important as resilience. It would have been hugely preferable if abstraction reform were followed by changes to upstream competition in that order, but, when taken with the licensing requirements that Government are contemplating, the dangers posed can be mitigated. I look forward to joining colleagues in the Aye Lobby should a Division be called.

20:29

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) to the Front Bench, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who led on the Bill from the beginning.

We often take water for granted. Not everyone in the world is so lucky. Indeed, I have walked, with some of my staff, along the beautiful coastal path between Looe and Polperro to raise money for WaterAid.

I have done in-depth research into the job that South West Water does in my constituency. I thank Chris Loughlin and his staff for taking the time to show me around Restormel treatment works, which is the biggest treatment works in Cornwall—it does not supply my constituency, but it is based there—and the Torpoint waste water treatment works. I now understand more about what happens to the water that falls out of the sky. During these visits, at either end of my constituency, I was fascinated by the work undertaken and have a much better understanding of the level of investment being carried out to ensure that our water is clean and our waste water properly treated. That investment does not come cheap, of course. While water bills in South East Cornwall and the far south-west reflect that investment, they have been unusually high for a number of years. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for showing a clear understanding of the matter, and the Chancellor for the contribution of £50 to each household towards that higher than average cost in Cornwall.

I want to highlight two concerns. First, we should not put in place legislation that will further increase the cost of our water. It is imperative that we monitor water quality without putting an expensive burden of regulation on our water companies. I am thinking in particular about our beaches and coastal water. We must remember that the south-west is a tourist area, and it is vital that local hard-working families do not have to pick up the cost burden of further European legislation. We must not become the Government of red tape. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments have done much to reduce the burden on industry following the mess left by the previous Labour Administration.

Secondly, any legislation must allow water companies to be able to react quickly to circumstance. We do not need legislation that says that everyone must be consulted in triplicate. There is no point in putting sandbags out once a town has been flooded. When the need arises, water companies must be able to do what is necessary to save lives, homes and businesses. Tragically, my constituency has been hit more than most by the weather and by flooding—it is a key problem. I thank the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for visiting it on a number of occasions to see the situation on the ground for themselves.

[Mr Charles Walker]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is it not the case that if homeowners cannot get insurance their homes become, in essence, worthless, because nobody will give them a mortgage on them?

[Sheryll Murray]

Many of my constituents who live in the areas affected by flooding have a particular problem getting insurance. I speak as someone who, many years ago, worked in the insurance industry and dealt with domestic insurance. One constituent was told that she could get insurance after 10 flood-free years, and was flooded after nine-and-a-half years. My constituents cannot afford to pay repair costs every time it floods. Will the Minister consider ways to mitigate the causes of flooding and to help people to get the insurance they desperately need? Some of my constituents have been caught in a flooding trap: they cannot get insurance to be able to recover from floods and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, they cannot sell their home at a reasonable rate because the flooding has caused a type of blight.

South East Cornwall is not rich. Wages are frequently below average, with many people relying on seasonal tourist work. The Bill must not place an extra burden on them. It is not just the Opposition’s constituents who are hard pressed. The Opposition must accept that they need to look at solutions, rather than sitting and sniping from the sidelines about increasing bills, and making cheap political points.

[Mr Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this subject. She has worked with Members across the House to bring this important matter to the attention of the Government and she deserves to be thanked for it.

[Sheryll Murray]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.

I ask the Minister to look at South East Cornwall as an example. As my neighbour, he knows my constituency well. I am happy to meet him to discuss the many individual stories I have heard about flood insurance, if that would be helpful.

20:37

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my chairmanship of the all-party group on insurance and financial services.

My remarks will be limited entirely to that part of the Bill that deals with flood insurance. Since 2010, the all-party group has met on four occasions to consider the issue in great detail. It has met the British Insurance Brokers Association and the Association of British Insurers, and has frequently met the National Flood Forum. The group had the pleasure of meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—I am not sure it was a pleasure for him—who kept us up to date with the progress of his deliberations. I join other Members in thanking him for his contribution.

My remarks will focus entirely on the all-party group’s opinion of the Government’s proposals and the representations it made as part of the consultation. The concept of Flood Re is generally supported by the group, but its members have a number of concerns. Many of those were raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). She reminded us of the dreadful experience in Hull and highlighted some of the issues we need to examine in the context of the Flood Re proposal.

There is concern regarding small businesses. The Bill proposes to cover residential property, but under the statement of principles some small businesses were covered too. It is easy to see in Hull many corner shops and things of that nature where it is difficult to distinguish between the residential and business elements. The Federation of Small Businesses, the British Insurance Brokers Association and the British Property Federation have urged the Government to reconsider their exclusion of small businesses under the scheme. We do not want major businesses covered, but perhaps a turnover of £1 million would be an appropriate cut-off point when covering smaller businesses. The cost would not be prohibitive.

On another contentious area, the Government say, “Come what may, we must have the flood insurance obligation.” That is clearly desirable, but it cannot be a blank cheque. Under the one-in-200-years principle, insurance is supposed to cover all circumstances likely to arise, but it is difficult to assess what a one-in-200-years risk might be, given, for example, that the six wettest years on record have all been since 2000. As we have heard, climate change is happening and it is difficult to make those assessments. Just this year, there have been major floods in Alberta, Canada that might count as a one-in-200-years event: total estimated damage was more than 5 billion Canadian dollars, 100,000 people were displaced, several people died and 2,200 troops were deployed. In the next few years, we could suffer such a calamity, yet it is not clear from the Flood Re proposal what the Government would bring to the party. It is unrealistic to think the insurance industry could cover the costs of such a calamitous event. The Government have been sending signals about what they might do, but they have not been much more than signals. We would like a bit more than that.

It is proposed that Flood Re be based on council tax bands. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, the former Minister, that we do not want to unpick this, but I would like it to go a bit further. The measure is a sort of rating by proxy, not risk, but band H properties have been excluded, which is something that the all-party group is concerned about. As he said, the reason for the exclusion is that we do not want subsidies for the rich, but I wonder whether that has been thought through. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) will be able to remind the House, as I can, of the council tax revaluation in Wales. Our top band is no longer H, but I. Band H properties are not occupied by millionaires, yet would not be covered by this proposal. Has that been taken into account?

The reason we do not want band H properties excluded is that historically all bands have been based on valuations of no relevance today. At some point, there is likely to be a revaluation, and who is to say that new bands will not be added, as happened in Wales? For that reason, it would be much better not to exclude band H properties. Against the claim that it would help the wealthy, I would simply say that the wealthiest occupiers probably use brokers to arrange their insurance. It is the people who cannot do that—people in what I would term “middle class-ish” properties—who might find themselves in difficulty. I make that case on behalf of not one political party, but the all-party group, and I urge the Government to reconsider.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North drew our attention to the distinct position of properties built after 2009. Yet again, I share that concern. That year was chosen because it was when the statement of principles was renewed, and the view, therefore, was, “Well, everyone knew that from that year onwards they would be excluded, so let’s not have them covered,” but we know that there is already much better mapping data. I would like us to make use of the mapping data, rather than simply not covering post-2009 properties.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Should we not be ensuring that we do not build new properties in flood risk areas?

[Jonathan Evans]

That is a much better proposition than telling someone in a property built in 2010, “Flood Re is not for you.” If it is to be a solution to the difficulties of insurance, as many properties as possible should be covered. That includes what are termed “genuinely uninsurable” properties. They are excluded as well, yet they might be occupied or habitable properties with a council tax rating. Why are we not to include them? In my judgment, their number is not so considerable as to make the scheme impossible to operate. As the Minister knows, the all-party group made that representation to him during the consultation, and we hope he will take it on board as he considers his amendments in Committee.

I already know of one area where the Minister has accepted our recommendation. We suggested giving regulatory responsibility to the Financial Conduct Authority, and that is now in the Bill. The all-party group welcomes that inclusion, but hopes that the Minister will give further consideration to the other points we have made in support of what in our judgment is a proper solution to a difficulty that has taken too long to resolve.

20:46

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans). In a different incarnation, he was my Member of Parliament, and indeed my tenant, so our relationship goes back a long way. His expertise in insurance, which he brings to this debate, is well known. We have heard many other contributions tonight, including from the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has great experience and knowledge of these matters. Had he been introducing the Bill, he would have had three years to prepare, whereas my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am pleased to see here, has had about three weeks. Nevertheless, he was a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill and will be aware of the detail and some of our concerns about things that are not in the Bill.

I broadly welcome the Bill. One of the vital challenges facing the UK is the need to protect the health of our rivers and lakes, while keeping water available and affordable. Water resources are currently under considerable pressure, and it is predicted that water constraints will become more severe in the future. There is limited competition in the current system, so I welcome the competition clauses, which will open the sector up to more competition and encourage the construction of more connections between water company areas. The introduction of retail competition among water companies could support greater water efficiency in the non-domestic sector.

Although I welcome the idea that businesses and local authorities can switch water suppliers, I recognise that individual consumers will not have that opportunity. The regulator must ensure that bills remain affordable, while expecting water companies to have the ability to invest in the infrastructure. We need consumer bills to be affordable now, but we must also recognise that water supplies are needed for the future, so I hope that we can amend the Bill in Committee to make it better for consumers and for the environment. There has been concern that, as companies compete for customers in the commercial sector, domestic customers may carry more of the costs of supply. We will need to hear from the Minister in Committee how that will be prevented.

The system for abstraction licences is not fit for purpose and is long overdue for reform. The Government have said that the work will have to wait until the mid-2020s, but it is important to address it much earlier than that. We need a system of licensing abstraction that balances resilience with the state of the environment.

One of Ofwat’s secondary duties is to promote sustainable development. Liberal Democrats would like to see that duty elevated to a primary level. For that reason, I intend to table an amendment in Committee to give Ofwat a primary duty to promote sustainability. I agreed with the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, in a debate on the Gracious Address in the other place, that a thorough examination is needed of the effect of the water industry on the environment now and in the longer term.

Ofwat seems to have a rather confused approach to sustainability. Let me quote from the supplementary written evidence submitted by Ofwat to the EFRA Committee in respect of the draft Water Bill:

“I provide further written evidence on specifically why we consider that our duty to contribute to sustainable development should not be elevated to a primary duty”,

yet it also said:

“Indeed, the core vision of our strategy is: ‘A sustainable water cycle in which we are able to meet the needs of water and sewerage services while enabling future generations to meet their own needs”,

It calls this “sustainable water”—it seems to me that its thinking is rather confused. My understanding of sustainability is that it is about balance, not conflict, and Ofwat should be well aware that its decision making can affect the environment as well as economic and social matters. I believe that Ofwat has accepted the need for sustainability as a primary duty and that the Government should legislate to establish it.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency not far away from mine, makes some very good points. Does he agree that in his opening remarks the Secretary of State seemed to be arguing for that duty of sustainability and, indeed, that his rhetoric fitted exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests should be on the face of the Bill?

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. There is widespread acceptance that sustainability should be a core feature of Ofwat’s work, yet it seems that some people are setting their face against having that on the face of the Bill.

The UK has been faced with an increase in the number and severity of flood events, and it is vital for the Government to provide widespread and affordable household insurance in at-risk areas. I thus welcome the proposed new legal framework that seeks to establish Flood Re—a levy-funded reinsurance pool for high-risk individuals. If that is introduced, insurance companies must make their customers aware of the scheme and the opportunities it provides. A number of my constituents in Llangammarch Wells were really frightened by some press releases put out by the Environment Agency in Wales—now called Natural Resources Wales—about restricted insurance. After further consultation with Natural Resources Wales, we have been able to sort that matter out.

Water bills set a particular challenge for low-income families. There are no specific benefits such as housing benefit or council tax benefit to help with these costs, but the Government have stated that they will continue to support the WaterSure initiative, even though take-up has been rather poor. Other water companies can bring forward their own schemes, and Welsh Water provides a good example of how that can be done in practice.

The water industry is responsible for the most essential public services. Few things are more important for public health—or indeed for normal day-to-day living—than a safe and reliable supply of drinking water, and the efficient collection and treatment of waste water. More than 90% of health improvements over the last two centuries have resulted from the provision of safe-to-drink tap water and proper sanitation.

The water industry everywhere is very capital-intensive. Many of its assets—reservoirs, treatment works, water pipes and sewers—have very long lives, but, even when we allow for that and for the fact that investment doubled after privatisation in 1989, the average age of water company networks is increasing every day. The rate of renewal of sewers, for example, gives an average assumed age of more than 600 years. Investment levels are agreed with regulators every five years, and investment decisions are based on the priorities for the years ahead.

The water industry invests and spends more than it receives from its customers through bills. It finances its expenditure by raising money from investors in the capital markets, and so far that money has come almost entirely from bonds and other borrowing. In other words, the industry is cash-flow negative, and that will persist, partly because of the backlog of asset renewal but mainly because of the new standards that must be met. As a result of that cash-flow negativity and continuing high and necessary levels of investment, the cost of capital and funds raised from the capital markets is key, and will become more and more important. The cost of capital on money raised since privatisation already absorbs a third of the bill, and relatively small changes in the allowed or achieved cost of funding. Every 1% saving on the cost of financing the industry’s “regulated capital value” reduces customer bills by 5%.

Given that so much of the value chain is represented by the network of assets, both the raw material and the retail element represent a very small part of the overall bill. The Water Bill proposes that business customers in England should be allowed to choose their water retailers, but the Welsh Government have decided not to go down that route. As Professor Dieter Helm has said, large business customers will argue that they should pay only marginal costs, and if water companies succumb to the pressure, it will mean higher bills for household customers.

The true cost per customer varies enormously, and the rural customer costs many times more than the urban customer. Averaging the cost in that way is good public policy. “De-averaging” poses a real risk by giving business customers choice, thus causing water companies to reduce their tariffs locally to satisfy demands from big customers and to recover the lost income from household customers who cannot exert the same pressure.

The water industry should be owned, managed and operated in the interests of customers. I do not believe that it should be re-nationalised, but this long-term industry provides us all with the most essential of public services. Few things are more important to public health, and indeed to modern life, than a safe and reliable supply of tap water.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

At the risk of being slightly parochial, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman finds it odd, given the rush to privatisation all those aeons ago, that we have only one mutual water company? In a week in which we have heard bad news about co-operative movements and so on, we should bear it in mind that that one mutual company has achieved very high levels of customer satisfaction, has invested massively over the last couple of decades, and manages to keep its bills pretty low despite having no profits, no shareholders and no dividends.

[Roger Williams]

I think that it will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I am not only a customer of Welsh Water, but a great fan of the model. Welsh Water is just about the only public utility company which receives letters of support that outnumber its letters of complaint, and its credit rating is higher than those of all the other water companies. It can borrow at almost the same rate as the Government.

The water company that serves Wales, and much of Herefordshire and Deeside, is owned, financed and managed on behalf of its customers. Glas Cymru has a strong board with a majority of non-executive directors, all of whom are individuals of high standing. It complies with corporate governance best practice, although it has no shares listed on the Stock Exchange. It accounts for its performance to its members and other stakeholders and measures its performance against things that really matter to customers: drinking water, reliability of service, protecting our rivers and coastal waters from pollution, and customer satisfaction. The pay of everybody who works for Glas Cymru is linked to performance against those measures, and because Glas Cymru is one of 10 large water and sewerage companies in England and Wales everyone can judge whether it has done a good, bad or middling job on the measures that matter to customers and the environment. Welsh Water is unique in the water industry. Its employees are rewarded on the basis of customer satisfaction rather than shareholder value. The Bill does not address the structure of the water industry—that may be for another day—but I welcome its broad thrust and look forward to working on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister.

21:00

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), whose speech was comprehensive.

In my constituency, 5 September was a bright, sunny day, as was 7 September. In between, on 6 September, we had 10% of our annual rainfall in a single day. There was heavy flooding all around my constituency. That was not isolated at all; many communities were affected, including both homes and businesses, and some of the affected homes had been completed within the last two years. For some of the people affected, this was the third or fourth time they had been flooded in the last few years, and it was heartbreaking to go around hearing all the stories. There was the story of the 20-year relationship that had finally been broken by yet another flooding incident, and that of John and Margaret Cone, whose house I went to in 2008 to see the watermarks 2-feet up their walls just before they moved out. They had to move out again, now aged over 80, and watch builders taking down part of the outside skin of their house to try to dry out the cavity.

I know that many other Members have similar constituency stories, but Redcar is on the coast and is flanked by the tidal part of the river Tees, yet this flood was not caused by the sea. Just a few months ago we were celebrating the completion of the £30 million sea defences in Redcar, but this incident was all about rainfall on the land.

We might think that being on the coast would help because water can run to the beach and away, but we have problems with natural watercourses and culverts. Some of those natural watercourses are commemorated in current street names: the Fleet, Long Beck and West Dyke. Culverts, sewers and house building have together created environments in which the water cannot get away as it should, the most absurd example being in the village of New Marske, which is halfway up a hill yet has serious flooding problems. Northumbrian Water has been investing heavily in tanks around the town and they are there to hold up excess surface water, to avoid inundating the sewerage system and putting raw sewage into the sea. Of course, given the golden beaches from Redcar down to Saltburn, which are a Mecca for surfers, I very much welcome that I and attended the “Surfers against Sewage” reception in the House just a few weeks ago. However, I also have to say that I support householders against sewage and many householders in my constituency had raw sewage in their house that day. An investigation is going on into the role of these tanks, and it is concerning that a lot of the major flooding was in the area of these tanks—so-called hydro-break tanks. I therefore think they may well be part of the problem, and I am not convinced that their overflow arrangements work sufficiently well in times of very high rainfall.

My area is suffering from a set of man-made problems. It is by the sea and it is not in a valley, so drainage should be no problem. We need radical solutions. I think of the city of Valencia in Spain where, after serious flooding in the 1950s, the entire river was taken out of the city. If anyone watches the Formula 1 race at Valencia, they can see the cars racing around where the new river is now, and the old river is a very strange-looking park in the middle of the city. It is a nice green area, but with bridges all the way across it. We may need similarly radical solutions to help divert flooding away from towns and villages, and I hope that, once the needs assessment is made, DEFRA will look sympathetically at the possible solutions.

On the wider issues, one of the problems the water industry has is that the benefits of investment are not necessarily aligned with the costs. For example, councils and builders continue to build on flood plains because they benefit from that and do not bear the costs when things go wrong. Who pays if watercourses are not properly kept clear? The people responsible for keeping them clear do not pay the costs if they are not clear. Do developers pay for all the new infrastructure costs of water and sewerage when they do developments? One of the things the Government should therefore look at is the alignment of costs and benefits.

There is no doubt that in the current system, water companies play a very big role in paying for the costs of the whole infrastructure—and so they should. It is not acceptable that they come running to the taxpayer to meet extra costs, particularly when many of them are clever at avoiding taxes. Water companies must be made to pay the full investment and infrastructure costs of the areas they are responsible for.

I very much welcome the part of the Bill dealing with flood insurance. The Bill’s aims and the Flood Re proposals are an excellent way of addressing the issues. I note that clause 47 is going to be fleshed out in Committee, and the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said that she would like to see more included in the Bill in this regard. I certainly support that, because we should all be concerned that the devil might be in the detail. I hope the Minister will say something about how he sees clause 47 being fleshed out.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

On making flood insurance available for properties most at risk, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we drill down to the details, such as the excess arrangements in the policies that are made available to those in need?

[Ian Swales]

I certainly agree and the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I will cover in the next few minutes. We have heard from other Members today examples of great excesses being charged. Some, but not many, of my constituents are being refused insurance on any terms at all. However, the ones who do get insurance are reporting high premiums and high excesses; some excesses are so high that they are effectively insured only for an Armageddon situation. I therefore urge the Minister not just to concentrate on the availability of insurance but to make the premium levels and excess levels stick with the industry.

I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who made some very good points about houses completed since 2009. I hope the Minister will define what he means by houses built on a flood plain. What will happen to houses not deemed to have been so built, but which have nevertheless been flooded recently, like some in my constituency? What will happen to houses built since 2009 that have yet to be flooded but will flood in future? Will the insurance industry take the opportunity to withdraw insurance? The planning systems need looking at. Building regulations would help a lot in dealing with water consumption, and a lot more attention needs to be paid in the planning system to the issue of building on flood plains.

Some of the measures in the Bill are undoubtedly designed essentially to deal with water shortages, particularly in the south-east. This is yet another capacity issue for the south-east, to add to those of housing, schools, transport and many others. Water is plentiful in the north-east and, I understand, in the north-west too. I therefore hope that DEFRA Ministers will lend their full weight to the Government’s efforts to rebalance the economy away from the south-east.

21:09

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I apologise for not being present for the opening of the debate; this was because I was attending a Committee elsewhere in the House.

I want to address three areas: fracking, flooding on farmland and flood insurance. I shall start with flood insurance. Much of the patch that I represent is at or below sea level, and it is prone to flooding. Many planning permissions on land in areas that have already flooded are in existence now, but I want to concentrate on future developments. In large parts of my constituency, it would be hard to build any sort of home or business without it being on the flood plain. Would the Minister consider encouraging local authorities to look at the townhouse model? Homes should be built on stilts in flood areas, or at least with garages at ground floor level so that people are not put at risk through flooding and so that goods and property can be moved to upper floors more easily to avoid damage.

I have a minor suggestion for the Minister. It was suggested earlier that the water companies should be a statutory consultee, but would it also be possible for representatives of the Association of British Insurers to clarify the insurance situation on new property proposals being put before development committees, when they involve developments in areas of flood risk? In that way, developers would be forced to use design to mitigate the risk, and purchasers would understand the risks and insurance costs involved, as well as knowing that they would be able to get insurance for their home or business.

Turning to flooding on farmland, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who took the trouble to visit my constituency when he was the Minister with responsibility for this issue. He visited the Axe and Brue valleys in April this year and met more than 100 farmers and smallholders whose homes, stock and businesses had been severely affected by months of flooding. The farmers made it clear that the rivers, rhynes and waterways had suffered over the past 13 to 15 years because they had not been cleared or maintained. They had been neglected in the areas served by the Axe and the Brue rivers. There were problems with silt, blockages and overgrowing. In Somerset, money usually goes to the areas surrounding the Tone and Parrett rivers, but it is important that all our waterways should be maintained and improved.

The Environment Agency’s six aims and objectives recognise wildlife, flora and fauna, but there is no recognition whatever of the value of productive land. There should be, particularly at a time when food production is so important and we desire to be self-sufficient, or at least self-supplying. That point was also highlighted regularly. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to ensure that the residents and businesspeople in my part of Somerset get the dredging that they need and the ongoing maintenance that they deserve from the Environment Agency. I also hope that the agency and the Government will recognise the value of productive land, and that there is a response to the need to protect agricultural interests as well.

[Ian Swales]

Does my hon. Friend agree that failure to dredge does not often result in a cost to those who should be dredging, and that it mainly results in a cost to the insurance industry? Does she think that something should be done about that?

[Tessa Munt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be so much better if we could get the dredging programme sorted out, because it would get rid of the need for massive insurance claims. In my area, if water can reach the pumps, it can be pumped away. Because of the lack of dredging, however, it cannot reach the pumps. It is possible to see the pumps from the flooded areas, but the water cannot reach them and therefore cannot be taken away. Dredging would cure that problem.

My final area of concern is the risk that fracking for shale gas poses to our rivers and groundwater in terms of pollution and water stress. The Bill already amends the 2010 environmental permitting regulations that cover fracking activities, making it an excellent opportunity to address these concerns and strengthen the existing regulatory framework. The House has heard repeatedly that our regulatory regime for fracking is the most stringent in the world, and it is true that, if properly implemented and enforced, the existing regulations could mitigate many of the risks posed by fracking. However, although fracking has been taking place for years, this particular new technology that is planned for the UK brings more serious risks that we cannot properly assess at this early stage. Even the best regulatory regime can only mitigate risk; it cannot eliminate it. That means that a water pollution incident cannot be ruled out. It is therefore of considerable concern that it is not clear who would be liable if something does go wrong. One of the main risks from fracking is pollution of groundwater, which can occur because of faults in production wells. Groundwater clean-up is very costly and can take decades. For example, the contamination of a chalk aquifer near St Albans in Hertfordshire in 2000 led to an extensive contamination of the public drinking water supply, and the cost of the clean-up, which took a decade, was about £16 million.

Even if liability for pollution can be proven, there remains a risk that fracking companies could go bankrupt, leaving taxpayers or water companies with the costs. That has been a major issue in the case of Scottish Coal, whose liquidators have been given permission to abandon coal mines and polluted land without carrying out restoration or in any way controlling pollution from the sites. Instead of identifying and addressing these risks, it appears that the opposite direction of travel is being taken. Not only is there pressure to simplify and streamline regulation, with the Environment Agency committing to, for example, a dramatic reduction in the time it takes to issue permits to fracking operators, but there is evidence to suggest that existing regulations are not being adequately enforced. For example, at Preese Hall, the Environment Agency did not issue environmental permits for the disposal and management of flow-back waste water; it only discovered after the site had been hydraulically fractured that the flow-back fluid should be classified as radioactive waste.

If experiences in the United States have taught us anything, it would be that we need a strict regulatory regime. We cannot rely on putting our faith in the industry behaving well on a voluntary basis. In a groundbreaking peer-reviewed study of aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales in Pennsylvania and New York, Osborn et al, 2011, uncovered systematic evidence of methane contamination of drinking water linked to shale gas extraction.

In England, a third of all our domestic water supply comes from groundwater reserves, which are also essential for industry and farming. It is vital that we go as far as possible to mitigate risks in advance and ensure that we make provision to cover the full costs of clean-ups. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to ensure the Bill addresses these issues by implementing a liability guarantee. Such a guarantee would ensure the public purse and the taxpayer are not hit when anything goes wrong.

My next big concern is the amount of water that is required for the production of shale gas. Shale gas exploration and production is a highly water-intensive industry, and the process of fracking requires enormous volumes of water. At Preese Hall up to 8,400 cubic metres—about the equivalent of three and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools—is required per well. The fracking process may have to be repeated several times over the life of the well to keep the gas flowing. With proposals for thousands of sites, each with multiple wells, the potential drain on our already stressed rivers and groundwater could be huge.

I ask the Minister and his Department to consider the Bill as an opportunity to address these concerns by reforming the abstraction regime for taking water from the environment. That should go a long way to ensuring that additional pressure on water resources from fracking does not result in the over-abstraction of water from areas already under water stress. If the Government choose to exploit this new resource, we can make sure that we do so in a way that does not place unacceptable risks on the environment or on the public purse. Such an approach will also guard against unnecessary resource risks to our communities, our countryside and our businesses.

21:19

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. We have had a good and lively discussion this evening, with a number of thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions. I hope to address in turn each issue raised by Members.

I am disappointed that in about five hours of debate we heard little from Government Members about how they propose to deal with the cost of living crisis. Some of them scoffed when Labour Members talked about the pressures facing households up and down the country. The cold, hard reality is that families are struggling today. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who serves with such distinction on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, made an excellent and thoughtful speech about the pressures on household budgets.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on cost of living issues. We also accept that they are important. Does he not accept that, if we look at the increase in average water and sewerage costs, we saw the greatest spike from about 2005 to the end of the period in which the Labour Government were in office?

[Thomas Docherty]

I will come on to that point in just one moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned, the latest figures show that more than 80,000 households have sought advice from citizens advice bureaux about water bill debts in the past year, which is almost exactly the same as the figure for how many sought help because they could not pay their energy bills.

The hon. Gentleman asks what the previous Government did. As we have heard today, we took decisive action to help families. We were the only Government to have forced a real-terms cut in a price review. He joined the House in 2005, which is interesting because it was the previous price review in which there was a real-term cut. The previous Government introduced WaterSure—the first social tariff scheme.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on his proposals? We have heard an awful lot about the problems but not much about his or his party’s solution.

[Thomas Docherty]

If the hon. Lady shows a bit of patience, she might hear more detail from us than we heard today from the Secretary of State.

The previous Labour Government passed legislation that allowed the water companies to introduce their own schemes. Those companies had assured the country that they were keen to do so, yet almost four years after that legislation was passed, how many of them have kept their promises? How many water companies have developed a scheme within their region? How many of those fat-cat boards have put even a fraction of their obscene profits into the pockets of the hardest hit households? Just three out of 20 of the most successful and profitable companies in the country have lifted a finger to help their customers. It is no wonder that the most charitable description of the system, as offered by Citizens Advice, is “ad hoc”.

What did we hear from the Secretary of State today? What was his response to corporate failure and what was his proposal to help customers? He has written a second letter to his friends, the water bosses, not to demand real action but to make a helpful suggestion. He does not believe in Government intervention. No matter how much the market fails and the companies drag their feet and how many customers cannot afford the inflation-busting prices, this is a Government who do not believe that they should act. We on the Labour Benches do not share that belief. We believe that when fat-cat bosses will not act, the Government must.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, we will introduce a national affordability scheme. I welcome the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who has been a constant champion of hard-pressed customers in the south-west region. Along with other Members, she raised the subject of flooding and flood insurance, which is an important issue. We share the concerns of many Members from across the House about both flood defences and how households can secure affordable insurance. The latest figures from the Environment Agency put the cost of damage to property in the past year at £277 million, almost £200 million of which was household damage.

We heard an excellent speech from the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who highlighted the problem eloquently. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), highlighted the important and often overlooked issue of surface water run-off. The Opposition welcome the principle behind the proposed new scheme, Flood Re, but like the Select Committee we have serious and legitimate concerns about the fact that the Bill contains only one clause on that matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) spoke from the heart about the problem of flooding. I am sure that the House would acknowledge that she has been a champion for her city, and I hope the Minister will provide real answers to the important issues that she raised.

I understand that Ministers are hastily drafting new clauses even now, but they must be adequately scrutinised. The issue has been raised by Members on both sides of the House, so will the Minister give a firm undertaking that the new clauses will be tabled in time to be reviewed adequately in Committee? Will he assure the House that such crucial amendments will not be rushed out at the last minute without due scrutiny?

We also heard from Members on both sides of the House about the tax paid by the water companies. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has already said, it is simply unacceptable for water companies to make £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits and pay out £1.8 billion to shareholders. That is why we need to give the regulator broader powers to step in to protect customers and to ensure that fat-cat companies play by the same rules as other businesses. We want to ensure that excess profits, rather than heading to shareholders’ pockets, are used responsibly to reduce bills and improve infrastructure such as the Thames tunnel.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) mentioned abstraction. Not for the first time, he raised his concerns about the damage to chalk streams and asked whether I would set out our party’s position on the environmental impact issue. I am always keen to oblige him, so let me set out clearly our view of the crucial need for environmental mitigation. Even when the Government have tried to introduce reform, they have failed to follow through. As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has warned repeatedly, a half-baked proposal to introduce upstream competition without proper abstract reform is worse than the status quo. As the WWF warned today,

“The licence system is completely broken, unsustainable and out of date”.

Why have the Government ended up in that mess? As in so many other cases where the Government have decided that something is difficult, tricky or requires them to act, they have just pushed this off. It should be no surprise that the Secretary of State ideologically opposes any Government action, but I wonder why the Minister responsible for water, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), has simply gone along with his boss’s laissez-faire attitude to our natural environment. Simply to promise, as Ministers apparently have, that the Department will do something in the next Parliament shows a lack of credibility.

Let me be clear: if Ministers have found thinking of solutions too hard, they should postpone all upstream reform until we have Ministers and officials who will stand up to the vested interests who are damaging our rivers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I look forward to debating many of these issues with him in Committee over the coming weeks. I am struggling to follow his argument. He says that there is an issue with abstraction reform and that we should press ahead and do something now, but his solution otherwise is to delay the whole process and not to consider any kind of reform of the industry. That seems to be his argument.

[Thomas Docherty]

Oh dear me; the Minister has obviously forgotten his own position. He will still be a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for a little longer, so perhaps he can set out which side of the argument he agrees with—that expressed by the Select Committee of which he is a member or that in his new role as a Minister.

The hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Newbury (Richard Benyon) mentioned retail competition, and the Opposition support non-domestic competition. It has been a success in Scotland, and like the Select Committee of which the Minister is still a member, we believe that, implemented properly, it will work in England. Like the Committee, however, we think there are technical improvements that we intend to explore further in Committee.

[Hywel Williams]

Has the hon. Gentleman any estimate of the cost of introducing competition in Scotland, where it is already under way, or in England? How much does he reckon that it will cost?

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman indicated that he is looking forward to serving on the Bill Committee, so we can discuss the matter further there. I refer him to the Select Committee’s report. The estimate of the first decade of competition in Scotland is that it will save the public sector £100 million. I think that the Department has produced figures for the savings in England, but the key point is that competition must be introduced properly.

Clearly, a range of important issues will require greater scrutiny and debate in Committee. The Bill is contentious not because of what it proposes—after all, the coalition has taken three and a half years to introduce measures that Labour developed in government—but because of what it does not deal with. It contains nothing on helping households struggling to pay their bills, nothing to make water companies pay their fair share of taxes, nothing to give the regulator real teeth to take on the fat cats, and nothing on reforming water abstraction.

I can assure the House that we will table amendments in Committee that will help households, give the regulators new powers, tackle tax avoidance and protect our natural environment. In conclusion, we will work constructively with the Government, and in that spirit, we will vote the Bill on Second Reading.

21:31

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

I particularly welcome that last comment from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and I look forward to discussing some of these issues in Committee. I thank all hon. Members for their participation in this interesting debate, which has been well informed. Hon. Members have covered a number of aspects of the Bill and, as it is a debate on Second Reading, some things that they would like added to the Bill. I will try to cover as many of those issues as I can.

I start by responding to the closing remarks from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. He dangled the prospect of something to do with affordability and helping people with their bills. I was in the House in the previous Parliament when constituents throughout the country and particularly in areas such as mine in the south-west were facing a real challenge, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) pointed out. I had meetings with the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague who is no longer in his place, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and we debated these issues. It was felt that nothing could be done. It was a very difficult problem. What we had from the previous Government was a series of reviews, some of which were good, well informed reviews that made a number of suggestions, but it has taken this Government to act upon them. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife says that he will not oppose the Bill today. That is encouraging, and I look forward to working at that level of consensus to deliver the aspects of the Bill that will assist many of our constituents around the country, as well as updating the framework around the water industry for the future and dealing with the flood insurance issues, to which I shall return in a little while. These are hugely important issues. As a Member for an area where water issues have been a live topic of debate and as a member of the Select Committee, as the hon. Gentleman helpfully pointed out, I am all too aware of the range of challenges that we face, from the cost of living for hard-pressed families to future pressures on water resources and flooding. We heard many contributions about those issues.

I have witnessed at first hand the environmental benefits that investment in the water sector have delivered over the past 24 years since the industry was privatised. I could raise some issues about how that occurred at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) sought to give us a history lesson about the political balance in Cornwall and what that may or may not have delivered. There were no proposals to deal with the lack of affordability in the south-west until the coalition Government came in. Single-party Governments of both stripes did not deal with the problem, so I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions on what might have led to the change.

[Ian Swales]

We heard about the real-terms cut applied by the previous Government. Do we know the average annual value of that cut?

[Dan Rogerson]

We saw bills cut for a period, but then they went back up again. If we talk to our constituents about their memories of water bills over the past few years, both in the run-up to the general election and since in the price review period presided over by the previous Government, we will hear that their experience was that bills were rising.

On the environmental benefits since privatisation, we have seen huge improvements—for example, in bathing water quality—and that is very much to be welcomed and something that we should dwell on. We have had the opportunity to consider how that progress has been made. Of course, we will see further challenging regulation on bathing water quality in future, so it is absolutely vital that the industry, along with everyone else in the community who can influence water quality, is ready for the challenge, to make it even better.

The Bill seeks to look at market reform, because we need water supplies that are resilient to future pressures, while keeping bills affordable and, indeed, minimising the impact on the environment. That is competition not for the sake of it, but to drive greater efficiencies in the water industry and encourage more innovation. The benefits to business customers are obvious: more choice, better customer service and packages tailored to their needs.

All customers, including householders, will benefit from an industry that is incentivised to look for the most efficient way to meet future demand. We know that that works in practice. Last week, I visited a housing development in Rissington in Gloucestershire, where Albion Water—a new entrant—is supplying water and sewerage services. With its innovative solutions, it can provide separate supplies of drinking water and recycled greywater to houses in the development. It can therefore compete successfully against the incumbent water company on price, while reducing daily drinking water consumption by nearly half. That is evolution, rather than a radical overhaul.

Since privatisation, the industry has been successful in bringing in investment, which has delivered huge improvements, as I have mentioned. We have a strong and stable regulatory regime and no intention of disrupting it. That is why we are working closely with the industry to develop future markets.

Market reform is understandably of great interest to hon. Members. They want to know about it from both perspectives: they are concerned in some cases that we might be going too far, and in others that we might not be going far enough. Some Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), are keen to see competition in the residential sector, but we want to ensure that the change that we introduce is proportionate and that we proceed on a good evidence base. We can learn from the experience of Scotland, where business customers and non-domestic customers increasingly benefit from competition, so we know that the system can work. Competition in the residential sector would be a huge change, so we would have to come to anything that we wanted to do in that area at a later date. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s comments and am reassured that he is observing that.

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

At least half my constituency is supplied by Thames Water. There are consistent rumours that it is thinking about forcing all its customers on to water meters. Will the Bill make it easier for Thames Water to do that?

[Dan Rogerson]

Companies in water-stressed areas will be able to push people towards meters. Of course, new properties are customarily metered now, as a result of existing legislation. As we have heard today, there is a range of views on whether metering is desirable. Certainly, with regard to managing a scarce resource, it is desirable, but we must carefully examine the implications, such as the cost of the investment needed to install meters and the impact on bills, because there are always winners and losers. We need to look at that closely, as we move forward.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The population of this country is forecast to grow by 8 million or 9 million, and most of that growth will be in the east and the south-east. The problem is that the Bill simply does not address what we are going to do with these people and how we are going to provide them with water. We need more reservoirs.

[Dan Rogerson]

I agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need to capture more of this water and make it work for us in such a way that we can improve environmental outcomes as well as resilience. That is very much what we want to happen.

[Miss McIntosh]

In terms of capturing water, is my hon. Friend going to deal with SUDS and surface water, because I know that he will care as passionately about this in his new position as he did when he was a member of the Select Committee?

[Dan Rogerson]

I had a premonition that I might get such an intervention from my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I know she is pleased that we are, as a Government, making progress towards implementing this process in April 2014. She would like it to be sooner, but we have to make sure that we get it right. The views of the Select Committee have been very useful in making sure that we get it brought in adequately.

We heard a couple of very specific questions on market reforms. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay asked about small charities that operate from residential properties. The reform would affect non-domestic properties, so if a charity is operating from a property that is primarily residential, it will not have access to it, but it will be open to it if it is operating from other premises.

On abstraction reform, I entirely agree with Members’ comments about the need to tackle abstraction, which is damaging our rivers. We are tackling this in two ways. First, we are taking action using the tools already available to address over-abstraction. The Environment Agency has reviewed thousands of abstraction licences and has changed about 80 of them, returning 75 billion litres of water per year to the environment in England. That is equivalent to the annual average water use of a city larger than Birmingham. There is clearly a lot more to do in the individual catchments that have been mentioned, and we have to take account of the stress that is put on them.

The Bill will also help by removing water companies’ right to compensation to ensure that the funding of these schemes moves into Ofwat’s price review process, which is a far better way of tackling over-abstraction. In the longer term, we need a reformed regime fit to face the future challenges, and we will publish a consultation on possible options in December. [Interruption.] These reforms will affect a range of businesses, so we need to get them right.

[George Hollingbery]

An awful lot of gibbering and jabbering and yibbering and yabbering is going on on the Opposition Front Bench. Will the Minister please remind us of how much abstraction reform occurred in the 13 years of the Labour Government just past?

[Dan Rogerson]

Very little, I think is the answer. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Dealing with abstraction gives me an opportunity to welcome the contribution by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), not only because of all the work that he put in and how he has informed our debate, but because by seemingly being very popular across the House he will make it much harder for anyone to oppose what is in the Bill, as it was his work that got us to this stage. I am sure that that will help to develop the consensus, because everyone agrees with the conclusions he drew and the position we are in. The Government are clear that any moves on abstraction and upstream reform must work together, so what we are establishing in the Bill will come into effect alongside the abstraction reform that we are moving towards. We have to get this right because it is crucial that we have the water resources to deliver the growth and environmental outcomes that we want to see.

Many Members covered flood insurance. I am all too aware of the devastation caused by flooding and its financial and emotional impact. I recall the destruction in Boscastle in my constituency. I became the Member of Parliament for North Cornwall a year after that tragedy, where fortunately no lives were lost. It also affected other nearby communities such as Crackington and Canworthy Water. The problem was that flood insurance companies were not up to the task. Fortunately, the Association of British Insurers was able to step in to offer advice and to help resolve the issues. As we have heard, other Members have similar recollections from their constituencies.

Flood risk management remains a top priority for this Government. We have committed record levels of capital spend and more than quadrupled contributions from other sources. As a result, we will have improved defences for 165,000 households by March 2015 and an extra 300,000 by 2021. I recently visited South Zeal in Devon, where residents shared with me their harrowing experiences of flooding. They also showed me the actions the community is taking to become more resilient to flooding, to keep down their insurance premiums in the long term. This Government are committed to providing access to affordable insurance for households at high risk.

We will table new clauses in Committee. Draft clauses have been available for some time and much of our work in Committee will be based on them. Were we to delay the Bill after this Second Reading debate, we would not be able to deliver our programme in a timely fashion. That is our objective. Yes, it is regrettable that those clauses are not in the Bill as drafted, but these are very complicated negotiations to ensure that an industry-led solution works not only for the industry, but fundamentally for communities and residents who need support.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister has given an undertaking that those new clauses will be available for scrutiny by the Bill Committee next week. Will he say, once and for all, whether those 20-odd clauses will be available in time for the Committee adequately to review them next week?

[Dan Rogerson]

It is my intention that they will be available for the Committee to look at as soon as possible, but we have to get them right and make sure that they deliver what the Government and my predecessor agreed with the industry, so that we deliver effectively.

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very decent with his time. Will he confirm that the new clauses will be available for the witness sitting, which will take place before the Committee considers the Bill? Will he make it clear that they will be available for the witnesses and not just the Committee?

[Dan Rogerson]

We would be much further forward had the previous Government done some of this work before they left office, but we have had to act on what we inherited, which, sadly, was very little.

Members have raised a number of other issues, including the use of council tax banding. I hope that all Members accept that that is a way forward. It may have some problems around the edges, but fundamentally it is the right approach. It is not my intention to move away from what was originally agreed, although the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) has made a case on behalf of his all-party group and Members who have an interest in issues such as band H and the 2009 cut-off.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made an impassioned plea, understandably, for her constituents and the issues faced by communities such as Hull, which is constructed in such a way that it has historically been subject to flooding. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) pointed out similar issues with her rural constituency. The agreement takes forward the work that was already in place. The hon. Lady set out the argument—although she came to a different conclusion from ours—that we do not wish to incentivise more building in areas prone to flooding, which explains the 2009 cut-off. The Government will respond to any argument for change, but our current view and, indeed, our agreement with the industry—which is, crucially, at the heart of this—is that that is the right way to proceed.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady has not been present for most of the debate and I need to make progress.

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee raised the issue of state aid. We have made it clear that aspects of Flood Re will count as state aid, so under competition rules we will need to seek approval from the Commission. We have been in communication with it and will start, along with the ABI, the formal notification process in 2014.

As we have heard, the aspiration of all this is to move to a free market over the next 25 years. Part of that involves seeking to continue to invest in flood defences and their maintenance, which I have already talked about, and looking at property-level protection schemes to ensure that they can be insured.

Hon. Members have mentioned uninsurable properties. I want to make it clear that no property will be seen as uninsurable initially, but if a property is repeatedly flooded, issues may arise that the scheme will have to take into account as we move forward. Certainly, the expectation is that all properties will initially be covered.

In relation to the impact on bills, a crucial part of the agreement was to get a limit on the proposed industry levy of £10.50 for a combined policy. The ABI thinks that that reflects existing levels of cross-subsidy for high flood risk, but it can of course be set out far more transparently. As I have said, I hope to table the flood clauses as early as we can in Committee, but we have to make sure that they are ready for debate.

We have sought to be as helpful as we can on the issues raised by members of the all-party group. I hope that consensus on a solution that works for those under threat of flooding and that is affordable and deliverable for the industry means there will be support for the proposals as a whole.

[Richard Benyon]

Before the Bill goes into Committee, may we lay one myth to rest? We can probably all point to developments in our constituencies that should never have taken place, but the fact is that in 97% of the times that the Environment Agency has objected on flood risk grounds in recent years, developments have not gone ahead. If hon. Members are honestly saying that no developments should ever take place in flood risk areas, there would be no more developments in Hull, London and York. We have to make sure that such developments are the right ones.

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. House building has not been at its fastest recently, so the vast majority of properties in this country were built before the cut-off date, which ensures that there is affordable coverage for those who need it.

The Chair of the Select Committee made a point about sharing benefits data with water companies, as did the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. We have to be careful because those data are very sensitive, and sharing them with the industry would currently be illegal. We can look at that, and the Select Committee has made recommendations, but we must get it right.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is obviously talking about bits of the Bill that do not yet exist and which the House has not seen. A few moments ago, he said that capital expenditure had gone up. It might help him if I point out that there has been a drop of £96 million this year compared with the situation that the Government inherited in 2010. We want to place on the record the accurate figures, rather than those given to him by his civil servants.

[Dan Rogerson]

Over the spending review period as a whole, the investment will be bigger, and we will see the numbers climbing over the coming spending review period as well, by up to £400 million a year by 2021.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of bad debt, and rightly pointed out that some companies are better than others. We of course want all companies to aspire to do better. To return to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we now have a far more vocal and effective regulator than we have had for some time. On issues of bad debt, affordability and company transparency, which matters to many right hon. and hon. Members, the expectation on companies to deliver is now much greater. I want to make it clear that many companies are doing a good job, investing money and delivering for customers, but where there are problems, the regulator will tackle them. My right hon. Friend set out absolutely clearly in his letter to the companies his expectations for the industry. The Government are supporting the regulator to carry out the work that is necessary.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I will give way for a final time.

[Joan Walley]

In the remaining six minutes, will the Minister say whether he is minded to consider that the regulator should have a duty in respect of sustainability as a primary function, which has been raised by many Members?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to consider that. The case for such a duty has been made by Members on both sides of the House. The clear gain that we want is for Ofwat to have an additional duty in respect of resilience, for all the reasons that we have given. We want to incentivise the water industry to have long-term solutions to the problems that face it, rather than moving from price review period to price review period. We want to encourage continued investment in solutions that involve retaining water for use, rather than abstraction-based solutions. We want to incentivise investment in the best environmental solutions.

Ofwat already has a duty in respect of sustainable development. We have received legal advice that, regardless of whether that is a primary duty, there is a duty on Ofwat to take sustainability into account. Were we to make that a primary duty, we would perhaps not be able to bring in the resilience duty that we want. We will consider that issue and I am sure we will return to it in Committee, because a number of hon. Members have said that they will raise it. At the moment, we think that there are dangers in elevating the sustainability duty above the resilience duty. If I can be convinced that there is a way to deliver both, I will be happy to listen, but I want to ensure that we have resilience.

A number of other detailed issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) spoke about park homes and I am meeting her this week to discuss the matter. I will be pleased if we can make progress on it, but there are issues with the way in which they take their water from an intermediary, as she pointed out. Canals were mentioned. We have discussed the Canal & River Trust on the Floor of the House in Question Time. I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and other hon. Members to discuss that issue.

I am grateful that we have had so much time to discuss the issues and to get them out in the open. We have talked about the need to keep water available and affordable, and to continue to improve the environment. We have also mentioned the uncertainties in our water supply and the pressures on it, such as unpredictable weather and the growing population. We have a responsibility to ensure that we use our water wisely, to protect it and to ensure that there is enough for future generations. That is why we are taking action now. I am grateful for the support of Members from all parts of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Water Bill (Programme)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Water Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2013.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) 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.

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

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Water Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Competition and Markets Authority; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Water Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the inclusion in sewerage licences of conditions requiring the payment of sums to the Water Services Regulation Authority,

(2) an extension of the cases in which a penalty may be imposed under section 22A of the Water Industry Act 1991,

(3) an extension of the cases in which a penalty may be imposed under section 111 of the Enterprise Act 2002 as applied by section 17M or 17Q of the Water Industry Act 1991,

(4) the charging of fees for providing copies of, or data comprising, all or part of the main river map for England,

(5) the conferring of powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring insurers to pay levies or make contributions for purposes relating to flood insurance, and

(6) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Age-related Payments

That the draft Age-Related Payments Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (2 December)

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That at the sitting on Monday 2 December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to select committee statements and the Motion in the name of Mr Charles Walker relating to backbench business (amendment of standing orders) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Lansley.)

21:59

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I hope that we have enough time to debate this motion, which will effectively suspend our Standing Orders. Given that the subject matter that we will be debating on 2 December is amending the Standing Orders, it seems to me that it is wrong to limit the debate because, as we know, in the absence of a written constitution, the Standing Orders are the constitution of our country. I do not think that we should take changing the Standing Orders lightly. That is why I hope that in the course of this debate we will hear from the Leader of the House about why he thinks it reasonable for the Standing Orders to be altered, and for the time limit for debate to be as short as set out in the motion. When one looks at the detail of the motion, one can see that effectively—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman off in his prime.

22:00

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Ordered, That the debate be resumed tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

committees

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who I am sure is in his prime, I suggest that with the leave of the House we will take motions 8 to 14 together.

Ordered,

Defence

That Thomas Docherty be discharged from the Defence Committee and John Woodcock be added.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

That Dan Rogerson be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Roger Williams be added.

Environmental Audit

That Richard Benyon be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Dan Rogerson be added.

European Scrutiny

That Tim Farron and Ian Swales be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Stephen Gilbert and Mr Michael Thornton be added.

Justice

That Seema Malhotra be discharged from the Justice Committee and John McDonnell be added.

Public Accounts

That Sajid Javid be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee and Nicky Morgan be added.

Science and Technology

That Roger Williams be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr David Heath be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Fire Services (Derbyshire)

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

22:01

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Derbyshire fire and rescue service provides the people of Derbyshire with stellar service and protection, and we depend on it in fire, accident and flood. It works in a county that has huge variances, from the busy city of Derby and the largest town of Chesterfield—considered by many the jewel in Derbyshire’s crown—to other smaller urban bases and large swathes of rural, hilly and remote parts of the Peak district.

Firefighters enjoy the respect and admiration of us all, not just for their untold bravery that sees them run towards burning buildings while the rest of us urgently back away, but because of their amazing life-saving work and the horrors we know they witness during fire, flood and road traffic accidents. Firefighters everywhere are admired, but in Derbyshire, alongside the geographical challenges that face our force, there are many causes for pride. Firefighters in Derbyshire have won awards for the standard of care they provide to citizens, and they have worked to identify individuals at greatest risk and provided additional measures to protect them. Numbers of fires have reduced in recent years due to their tremendously proactive approach to fire prevention, made possible by their outreach work fitting smoke detectors and educating citizens.

However, Derbyshire faces an unusually high level of fire deaths compared with other counties. In 2012-13, 10 people were killed in fires in Derbyshire—one of the highest levels in the country. In Derbyshire there have been five fires in the past three and a half years in which children have died.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in this important debate. The latest of those fire deaths occurred last week in North Wingfield in North East Derbyshire, and four people tragically lost their lives—Claire James, Josie Leighton, and two young boys, Tyler and Jordan Green. I hope my hon. Friend will not mind me taking the opportunity to express the condolences of the whole House, and sympathy towards the families and the surviving little girl.

[Toby Perkins]

Of course, and that entirely reinforces the statistic to which I was alluding.

We know that Derbyshire fire authority—indeed, all services in Derbyshire—are operating in the most extreme and difficult financial circumstances imaginable. The Minister represents a Department that we could argue—in fact, I would argue—has been the most cowardly in the whole Government. Of all the big spending Departments, it is the one that devolves most of its funding, and meanwhile it has taken the largest share of cuts. At a time when other departmental budgets have been squeezed, Department for Communities and Local Government budgets have been crushed, passing tough choices of austerity to council leaders and fire authorities around the country. It has been left to council leaders to decide whether to cut libraries or social care, whether to leave potholes in the road or cut community safety budgets, and for fire chiefs to decide whether to cut back on firefighters or reduce fire prevention work.

I find it nauseating to hear the Secretary of State praised by the Chancellor for agreeing to take on the largest cuts when he faces so few of the tough decisions and leaves others to face the petitions and campaigns against closures and service reductions.

Let us look at what that means for Derbyshire fire authority, which has delivered £3 million in efficiency measures from a programme started in 2010. The authority faced a 40% reduction in funding between 2011 and 2015-16 to a 24/7 service that will have 60 full-time firefighters on duty at any one time. We must scrutinise the changes proposed to the fire service by Derbyshire’s “Fit to respond” document in that appalling context.

The true architects of those cuts are the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who has chosen that cuts to the fire authority should outstrip the cuts faced by almost any other public service budget. They could have made different choices, but they chose to reduce the tax bill of £1 million earners and to waste billions with their botched Royal Mail privatisation. Their £3 billion NHS reorganisation has resulted in service levels falling while budgets remain constant. I could go on.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

To return to the fire and rescue service, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the document would have more merit if it were based on correct statistics? It mis-estimates the future growth of the south Derbyshire district by at least 6,000 houses and takes no account of future industrial growth, which is why I object to the proposals—they are not based on facts.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. It is important that we consider it in the broader context of the report, which has many other flaws that I will describe.

It is important to focus on the context of the choices the Government have made because we hear so often from them that their policies are based on the financial situation they inherited. Policy is all about choices and they will have to answer for theirs when the day comes.

The impact on Derbyshire is stark. The report states that the service will deliver “less for less”. The Derbyshire Fire Brigades Union believes that the

“proposals can in no way give the service to the same level of resilience”

it currently has. Currently, a fire engine will be at a life-risk incident within 10 minutes three quarters of the time. A fire engine will be at an incident deemed as most vulnerable in more than 80% of cases. The plans mean that that will drop to 66%. Last year, the service responded to 565 life-risk incidents. Under the plans, at about a third of such incidents—about 190 incidents—there will not be a fire engine within 10 minutes. Can hon. Members imagine lives in danger and a one in three chance of the engine failing to turn up within 10 minutes?

The campaigns are starting up across Derbyshire to send the strongest message imaginable to the fire authority about the views of people in Derbyshire. In Staveley, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), people are campaigning to save the station, which was built just three years ago. I received an e-mail today from Catherine Atkinson about the campaign that she and people in Long Eaton are waging to halt the closure of their station. People in Chesterfield are mystified and concerned about the plans for our town.

I was a councillor for the Rother ward in Chesterfield in 2009 when the old Whittington Moor fire station was closed and the new one was built at the Donkins roundabout, at a cost of £4.5 million. We were told that it was a better venue for the service, closer to the motorway and to the area that had the most fires. When the Chesterfield retained unit was disbanded, the public were assured that they would still be provided for by the two fire engines at Staveley and back-up from Dronfield and Clay Cross. Under the new plans, Dronfield and Staveley will disappear. To allow the service to respond to those closures, the brand new fire station will be moved a mile back up the road—I am not making this up—to Whittington Moor, precisely where the original station was. The fire authority tells us that it wants to spend £4.3 million replacing the £4.5 million station that still has its first coat of paint. Unsurprisingly, it will take a hit on the resale value. It estimates that the used fire station might get them £1 million, but who wants a used fire station? That might be optimistic.

Where do these plans come from? Council papers show that a variety of tough decisions were ducked by Derbyshire county council in the dying embers of its first Tory administration for 28 years. It left the council sitting on a financial time bomb and left the tough choices until after the election.

Was the consultation always designed to lead to the report? It was certainly ready at the first meeting of the new Derbyshire fire authority and presented as the solution to the funding crisis it faced. The fire authority quotes as its justification the response to the 2012-13 consultation launched by the Conservative fire authority shortly before the historic and huge Labour victory in Derbyshire in 2013. This masterpiece of push polling included the question:

“If the service continues to face restrictions on its budget would you support the principle of matching the service’s resources to the level of risk in each area?”

Unsurprisingly, 80% of the public responded to that extremely leading question by saying yes. That is the sort of question we expect in a Liberal Democrat Focus survey questionnaire, not in the Derbyshire fire authority’s proposals. For the authority to then consider that to be a valid reason to go ahead with these actions is ludicrous. Maybe if it had asked, “Do you support us digging into the reserves to spend £4.3 million on a new station to replace the £4.5 million station we built just four years ago and move back to precisely where we were before we started this nonsense?” we might have got a different response.

Frankly, I do not care where the report came from. I only care where it goes now. It is not just Chesterfield and north Derbyshire that have a major problem. The Ascot Drive fire station had a £3 million refurbishment in March 2012—that will be closed. Buxton fire station was opened in 2011 at a cost of £3.5 million—that will go. Ilkeston was opened in only 2009—that will go. The merger of the three stations in Derby will cost £1 million. It has been stated that the overall outcome of building a new station and closing three will be cost neutral, but at what cost to the service?

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend might not be aware that two of the three fire stations earmarked for closure in Derby were built in the past four or five years. I have been petitioning on the streets of Derby with the Fire Brigades Union, and the people of Derby are alarmed about the impact the closures will have on response times. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister were to give Derbyshire a fair deal, none of these ridiculous cuts, which put the people of Derby at risk, would be necessary and we could have a fire and rescue service to be proud of?

[Toby Perkins]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his knowledge and the tremendous work he has done on this issue.

The publication of the desired locations for new stations enables the current owners of the land to increase the sale price significantly. That will cost the taxpayer yet more cash. If we let the people who sit on the land know that we want to buy it, that will obviously push the price up. Similarly, a fire authority sitting with a used fire station asking, “Who wants to buy it?” will lead to a financial catastrophe.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my bemusement that the Amber Valley proposals will cost £3 million in capital and have an extra running cost every year of £150,000? If the proposals are motivated by a funding problem, that seems to be a strange way to fix it.

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly do, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The proposals are financially illogical, while being dangerous to the people in the community. In service terms they are inadequate and will mean 108 fewer full-time firefighters overall, and more reliance on retained firefighters and 30 operational community safety officers.

Where will all the retained firefighters come from? On average, it takes six months from the day of recruitment for retained firefighters to be fully trained and ready to fulfil their role. Working as a retained firefighter requires individuals to be within five minutes of the fire station’s location for 120 hours a week, and the allowance received for that equates to approximately 50p an hour. There are already difficulties in recruiting and the changes will require a significant increase in recruitment. The proposal does not seem to have taken into account the impact on retaining existing retained firefighters or the cost of recruiting replacements.

I have worked with the FBU to assess the impact on existing retained firefighters and the conclusions make sobering reading. For the current 13 staff who work at Duffield fire station, only two can make the five minute “turn in” time for the new proposed station at Milford—the other 11 staff would need to relocate to keep their jobs. None of the Dronfield retained firefighters are able or willing to be within the five-minute perimeter of Eckington fire station. Chapel-en-le-Frith has 11 staff, none of whom can make the “turn in” time. None are willing to relocate nearer to Furness Vale. There is a similar story in New Mills, Alfreton and Ripley. Derbyshire fire service says it is offering a relocation package, but the FBU expects many firefighters not to take it because of family or personal commitments.

In just 2011, the emergency cover review undertaken by Derbyshire fire and rescue service stated that the current fire stations were in the right locations. Why would retained firefighters move their family away from schools and work, when it is not their main job and decisions about the future locations of fire stations seem to change so arbitrarily and so quickly? If implemented, these changes would effectively mean a 10-year recruitment freeze for full-time firefighters—a huge deskilling as a whole generation is told: “No vacancies here”.

The location of stations, appliances and firefighters is crucial to response times. The weight and speed of response are crucial to saving lives and preventing serious injury for the public and firefighters. The fewer fire stations there are, the longer it will take firefighters to attend incidents and the worse the fire will be. There is also the risk of flooding, as we know from the great floods of Chesterfield in 2007, when more than 500 homes were flooded but mercifully no lives were lost. Precisely that sort of extreme weather requires help in numerous places at once over a wide area of the county but it is centred on one service.

On the “Sunday Politics” show, the Prime Minister responded to a copy of the Derbyshire Times showing the scale of cuts facing us in Derbyshire by saying:

“I praise local councils for what they have done so far to make efficiencies without hitting front line services.”

That was, to put it kindly, a factual inexactitude of breathtaking audacity. The front line is being hit—in the police, social services, libraries, Sure Start centres, accident and emergency departments, and most certainly the fire service. No wonder the Conservatives have chosen to delete their “no front-line cuts” pledge from their website—but they will not remove it from the memory of people in Derbyshire so easily. Could anyone claim that the closure of 11 fire stations and the loss of 16 fire engines and 108 full-time firefighters is protecting front-line services? This plan does not just mean millions being spent upfront on the basis of future savings; it does not just mean the millions spent a few years ago going up in smoke; it does not just mean dedicated firefighters being thrown out of work; it does not just mean years of experience lost and thousands spent in recruitment costs; it means people in Derbyshire being less safe tomorrow than they are today.

In his response to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, the chief fire officer admitted that the huge capital outlays were early action and would be funded by raiding the reserves to spend money today to save tomorrow. With the Labour party committed to a fairer funding formula for the fire service, Derbyshire should rethink its plans and Members across the House should send the Minister the strongest possible message that these plans would reduce the service and increase the likelihood of loss of life.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I hesitate to interrupt, because my hon. Friend is making a powerful case and getting many of the statements on the record. This has echoes of the past, because for 18 dire years, when we were in opposition, Tory MPs were happy to cut Derbyshire’s money year after year. This almost has the same feel, except that this story will have a different ending, because they are dealing with the Fire Brigades Union, whose battles I have been involved in since 1977. It has not lost a single one of these battles, and that will continue. We need to use our voice here, and the Minister and his acolytes have to understand that the FBU will not give in. It will fight this battle to the end, and what’s more, it has the majority of the public on its side.

[Toby Perkins]

It most certainly does have the majority of the public on its side, because we all know how heroic members of the fire service are and how bravely they work on our behalf. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Misjudged as its proposals are, the blame lies not with Derbyshire fire authority, which is doing its best under difficult circumstances, but with the appalling cuts it is facing from the Government.

In summary, these plans will reduce the service, increase the likelihood of loss of life and make Derbyshire people less safe. They are illogical in financial and service terms. The people of Derbyshire and our heroes in the fire service deserve better than the cuts imposed on them by the Government and better than the vision for our service envisioned by the document. It is time to start again.

22:19

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

Before coming to the crux of the debate, I wish to say a few words about the tragic house fire in North Wingfield, Chesterfield in the early hours of last Wednesday morning, which the hon. Members for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) mentioned. As noted, it resulted in the tragic deaths of Claire James, Josie Leighton, nine-year-old Tyler Green and 12-year-old Jordan Green. Our heartfelt sympathies are with the family and friends at this most difficult of times, as the hon. Lady said. A joint police and fire investigation into the cause of the fire is currently being conducted.

I would like to commend widely the incredibly important work that fire and rescue authorities such as Derbyshire’s undertake, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, across the country in keeping our local communities safe. In particular, I want to thank Derbyshire fire and rescue authority for the excellent contingency arrangements put in place during the recent strike action.

I have made a clear commitment to ensuring the ongoing effectiveness of front-line fire and rescue services despite the need to tackle the deficit inherited from the last Administration. Reductions for the fire and rescue service have been backloaded, giving protection and more time to make sensible savings without impacting on the quality and breadth of service offered to communities. As we go forward, we will continue to protect fire authorities overall.

Derbyshire fire and rescue has been protected. Overall, its spending power has reduced by 2.9% between 2011 and 2013 and 5.4% in 2013-14, with an even smaller reduction of 3% anticipated for 2014-15—I shall come back to this—in terms of the indicative figures that we published in last year’s settlement. Derbyshire has been proactive in planning its spending not just for the current spending round, but for the 2013 spending round. Its risk management plan stated that, in addition to the £3 million of savings Derbyshire has already delivered, it will find another £4.3 million saving by 2016-17. As the authority says in its plan,

“through sensible forward management and intelligent long-term planning, the Service is in a strong position and is able to proactively meet those challenges ‘head on’ and create sustainable and manageable plans for 2022 and beyond”.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister speaks blithely about savings, but the £4.3 million he talks about means 108 firefighters. Will he be a bit clearer on what he is talking about?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will go further in a few moments.

Over the last couple of years alone, Derbyshire fire and rescue has managed to move from having reserves of just over £10 million to having in the region of £15.8 million, so it has managed to save a considerable amount of money, which I know it is looking to invest for savings in the future.

Operational front-line matters, such as the deployment of firefighters and the stations themselves, are best assessed at the local level. It is for each fire and rescue authority to determine the operational activities of its fire and rescue service through its integrated risk management plans—something that the community has a chance to look at and have its say on—in such a way that the particular fire and rescue authority is budgeting to risk, not just budgeting to budget. I know that part of Derbyshire’s strategy is a move towards the greater deployment of retained rather than whole-time firefighters. Members will know that this model works well in a number of areas—my own county of Norfolk, for example, has a high proportion of on-call firefighters—and that the move towards greater use of the retained firefighter is the kind of change identified by Sir Ken Knight for fire and rescue authorities to consider to increase their overall efficiency and effectiveness.

It is also important to note that there are other funding streams for fire and rescue authorities. Funding is provided for resilience, for example, including specialist equipment for flooding and other emergencies. In Derbyshire alone, from 2013 through to 2015, approximately half a million pounds of funding has been provided for resilience. Capital grant funding for fire and rescue authorities overall has been significantly increased from £45 million in 2010 to £70 million in 2013 through to 2015. In Derbyshire, the total amount received has been over £2 million. The Government have provided wider funding in support of our belief that there is scope to drive out waste and inefficiency through well-planned efficiency measures, while ensuring that local communities continue to receive an excellent service.

[Natascha Engel]

I am still grappling with the Minister’s figures about spending almost £15 million in order to make savings. Will he expand a little on how exactly these savings are going to work by spending more rather than less money?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady has misunderstood my point, which was that despite the claim of the hon. Member for Chesterfield that the fire authority does not have enough money, it has managed to go from having £10 million in reserve to nearly £16 million over the last two years. That is a substantial increase, bearing in mind that the entire budget is only £40 million. My understanding is that Derbyshire wants to invest some of that money to save for the future. That comes back to the local fire authority deciding what it spends itself. It is important to note, as I say, that while some Members are saying that the Derbyshire authority, on a £40 million budget, does not have enough money, it has managed to increase its savings from £10 million to nearly £16 million.

Derbyshire, working with Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, has recently received a £5.4 million grant in support of their joint project for a new resilient call-handling system. That will produce savings of nearly £8 million for the authorities.

Thankfully, as the hon. Gentleman noted, the number of injuries and fatalities caused by fire in general—notwithstanding the recent tragedy—is falling. Thanks to the efforts of fire and rescue authorities, the impact of the Fire Kills campaign and changes in technology, the number of accidental fire deaths has decreased nationally. The number of non-fatal hospital casualties has fallen by more than 54%, and the number of fire attendance call-outs in Derbyshire has fallen by about 15% over the last 10 years. That is a real achievement, in which fire and rescue authorities should take great pride. However, as the tragic fire last week has shown us, they must continue to put prevention and protection first in all that they do. Fire prevention is the front line for them.

Although Members will appreciate that I cannot speculate at this stage about final funding beyond 2013-14, it is clear that all fire and rescue authorities should be seeking to increase efficiency and reform. It is not just a question of managing in accordance with a budget; it is about managing in accordance with risk, and ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent well and wisely.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) made a powerful case in regard to response times and what would appear to be the inefficient handling of stations in Derbyshire. Does the Minister agree that we should respond to the reduced incidence of fires by seeking new revenue streams to go through the fire stations that we have? What conversations has he had with other Departments about ways in which emergency responses can be co-ordinated among fire and rescue services in Derbyshire and elsewhere?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, which tempts me to respond to the Knight review a little earlier than I am ready to do. I can tell him that we are having discussions, and that fire authorities are discussing with other emergency services the possibility of sharing services to increase efficiency. They are also discussing the possibility that children’s centres and other public service organisations could work through fire service centres. Some excellent work is being done on the ground locally.

As I said earlier, fire and rescue authorities should be seeking to increase efficiency and reform to ensure that taxpayers’ hard-earned money is used properly, efficiently and effectively. It is for individual authorities to plan and decide how to make savings locally, in consultation with their local communities.

Question put and agreed to.

22:27

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 25th November 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 25 November 2013

Defence

Monday 25th November 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Pay

[Priti Patel]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid to officials in (a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each of the last five years; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary value was of the 20 largest payments made in each year.

[Official Report, 25 April 2013, Vol. 561, c. 1272-276W.]

Letter of correction from Anna Soubry:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on 25 April 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Robathan]

It continues to be a fundamental principle of Government policy that reward in the public sector should be linked to performance. The Ministry of Defence (MOD), in line with other Government Departments, rewards performance through the use of non-consolidated payments which reflect outputs, results and performance. These payments are colloquially known as ‘bonuses', although this is a misleading description because the performance-related element of pay is part of the Departmental pay bill rather than being an additional cost. In addition, the MOD operates a special bonus scheme (SBS) to reward civilian staff below the senior civil service (SCS) for exceptional performance in a specific task or for the achievement of professional qualifications which benefit the MOD and the individual. Both types of payments are non-pensionable and are a cost effective way of rewarding performance since they do not count towards pension costs, and so reduce the overall cost of employing civil servants.

Since 2010-11, the Government has restricted performance related payments for the SCS to the top 25% of performers (from 65% in previous years), saving the taxpayer around £15 million. They are only paid to reward excellence, for example to recognise and incentivise those responsible for delivering high quality public services and savings to the taxpayer. Pay decisions for non-senior staff are delegated to individual departments, enabling them to tailor reward packages that meet their own work force and business needs. Payments made since 1 April 2011 are detailed in Departmental transparency data which is available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-consolidated-performance-awards--2

Details of how much has been paid in non-consolidated awards in financial years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are reproduced in the following tables.

Table 1: Details how much was paid to permanent members of the SCS in non-consolidated awards.

[Mr Robathan]

It continues to be a fundamental principle of Government policy that reward in the public sector should be linked to performance. The Ministry of Defence (MOD), in line with other Government Departments, rewards performance through the use of non-consolidated payments which reflect outputs, results and performance. These payments are colloquially known as 'bonuses', although this is a misleading description because the performance-related element of pay is part of the Departmental pay bill rather than being an additional cost. In addition, the MOD operates a special bonus scheme (SBS) to reward civilian staff below the senior civil service (SCS) for exceptional performance in a specific task or for the achievement of professional qualifications which benefit the MOD and the individual. Both types of payments are non-pensionable and are a cost effective way of rewarding performance since they do not count towards pension costs, and so reduce the overall cost of employing civil servants.

Since 2010-11, the Government has restricted performance related payments for the SCS to the top 25% of performers (from 65% in previous years), saving the taxpayer around £15 million. They are only paid to reward excellence, for example to recognise and incentivise those responsible for delivering high quality public services and savings to the taxpayer. Pay decisions for non-senior staff are delegated to individual departments, enabling them to tailor reward packages that meet their own work force and business needs. Payments made since 1 April 2011 are detailed in Departmental transparency data which is available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-consolidated-performance-awards--2

Details of how much has been paid in non-consolidated awards in financial years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are reproduced in the following tables.

Table 1: Details how much was paid to permanent members of the SCS in non-consolidated awards.

Petition

Monday 25th November 2013 Petitions

Monday 25 November 2013

Replacement of Blaxhall Post Box (Suffolk)

Monday 25th November 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Blaxhall,

Declares that Royal Mail has declined to replace the stolen post box in the village despite Ofcom’s recent measures to protect rural post boxes from removal.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to support residents of Blaxhall in their request to Royal Mail to replace the post box.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Dr Thérèse Coffey, Official Report, 15 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 703.]

[P001227]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills:

This is an operational matter which rests with Royal Mail’s management.

Royal Mail points out that the post box formerly located at the junction of Station Road and Church Road in Blaxhall was not well-used and on average only five items of mail were collected from it in any given week.

Ofcom, as the independent regulator for postal services, recently published a statement introducing new protections for consumers in rural areas regarding Royal Mail’s provision of post boxes. Under the new framework, Royal Mail must ensure that, for 98% of the 29 million addresses in the UK, there is a post box within 0.5 miles. For the remaining 2% of addresses. Royal Mail must provide sufficient access points or other means of access to the universal service to meet the reasonable needs of users. These new requirements have extended regulatory protection to all addresses in the UK, including rural addresses for the first time.

Ofcom monitors Royal Mail’s compliance with the 98% requirement on a national basis (currently 98.4% in the UK and 99% in England) and in the case of Blaxhall Ofcom has noted that the nearest alternative post box to the site of the stolen post box is 0.7 miles away and there are four other post boxes within 1.5 miles.

Although some addresses within Blaxhall may now be further than 0.5 miles from a post box, Ofcom consider that Royal Mail is meeting its national obligation and is providing sufficient access points locally to meet the reasonable needs of Blaxhall residents.

Written Statements

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

Monday 25 November 2013

EU Competitiveness Council

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

The European Competitiveness Council will take place in Brussels on 2 and 3 December 2013. The UK will be represented by Shan Morgan, Deputy Permanent Representative.

The internal market and industry substantive agenda items on 2 December will be: a general approach on electronic invoicing in public procurement; a general approach on the directive for rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of competition law; a progress report on the revision of the European trade mark system; a presentation by the Commission on the annual growth survey; and adoption of Council conclusions on industrial policy, single market policy and smart regulation.

Four “any other business” points will be discussed: information from the presidency on the collective rights management directive; information from the presidency on the European patent and the unified patent court; information from the Commission on the general block exemption regulation; and information from the Greek delegation regarding the work programme for the upcoming presidency.

The substantive space items for day two will be: general approach on the regulation establishing the Copernicus programme and repealing regulation (EU) No. 911/2010; and progress report on establishing a space surveillance and tracking support programme.

The substantive research items for day two will be: general approach on Commission proposals to establish public-public partnerships with member states for the joint implementation of national research programmes; political agreement on amending the council decision establishing the European joint undertaking for international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) and the development of fusion energy; general approach on Commission proposals for joint technological initiatives; and a policy debate on public sector innovation.

The Government objectives for the Council are to:

Ensure that the general approach on the electric invoicing in public procurement is consistent with the Government’s negotiating position;

Support the objectives of the trade mark reforms to improve the well-functioning system so that it delivers even better solutions for users;

Support the directive for rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of competition law and ensure that the mandate is consistent with UK priorities;

Endorse the conclusions on the industrial policy, single market policy and better regulation;

Ensure that the regulation establishing the Copernicus programme and repealing (EU) No. 911/2010 is agreed without further modification. Secure political agreement on the ITER proposal which will enable Euratom to make the European contribution to costs of ITER construction over 2014-20.

Student Support

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

On 26 March 2013 a statement was tabled announcing that the remaining publicly owned mortgage-style (MS) student loan book was to be offered for sale by the Government under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 as amended by the Education (Student Loans) Act 1998.

Today, the Government are announcing the completion of that sale process. The purchaser is Erudio Student Loans Ltd, backed by a consortium composed of CarVal Investors and Arrow Global Ltd. Loans issued on behalf of the Scottish Government and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland are also included in this sale, which my Department has undertaken in conjunction with the Student Loans Company (SLC).

The sold loans will continue to be administered by the SLC until they transfer to the purchaser in a few months’ time.

MS loans were available to eligible higher education students who were enrolled between 1990 and 1998. Borrowers are required to repay in fixed monthly instalments over a set period, typically five or seven years. Interest is charged at a rate equivalent to the retail prices index. Repayments can be deferred for a year at a time if a borrower’s income is below the threshold, which is 85% of the national average earnings. From 1 September 2013 the threshold is £28,775. There will be no change to borrowers’ terms and conditions (including interest rates) as a result of the sale; these are set down in regulations and borrowers’ credit agreements.

As a result of a competitive bidding process, Erudio Student Loans Ltd has agreed to pay £160 million for the portfolio of loans. Of this, approximately £43 million will be paid on migration of administration to Erudio. The price paid is greater than the estimated value to Government of retaining the loan book. The terms of the sale transfers the financial risks associated with loan repayments to the purchaser. Any impacts on the public finances will be decided by the Office for National Statistics. However, we would expect there to be a reduction of public sector net debt (PSND). The sale is in line with wider efforts to maximise the value of Government assets.

The sale process assessed all potential bidders against a strict set of criteria, including ensuring that they would provide suitable protections for borrowers upon taking over administration of the loans. Members of the consortium have a great deal of experience managing consumer debt and a history of treating customers fairly and I am content that they are a fit and proper owner of the loan book. They will have to adhere to strict Office of Fair Trading guidance about the treatment of borrowers which includes particular protections for vulnerable borrowers and those in financial difficulty. They have also committed to adhere to best practice guidance issued by the Credit Services Association.

As envisaged in the 26 March statement, the price received is below the £890 million face value of the loans. The price paid for the loan book reflects the fact that the MS loan book is an old, closed portfolio whose value is deteriorating.

Most borrowers repaying their loans on schedule should have fully repaid by now according to the original loan terms. The vast majority of the remaining loans belong to borrowers who are earning below the deferment threshold and so at present have no obligation to repay under the terms of the loans, or who are currently not meeting their obligations under the terms of the loan agreement.

The amount the Student Loans Company (SLC) has been collecting from the portfolio has been reducing year-on-year and the private sector is better placed to maximise returns from the loan book. The SLC would require significant additional investment to increase collection rates, and even then the SLC would be unlikely to achieve the same levels of repayment as specialist private sector collectors. I therefore believe this sale represents good value for money for the taxpayer.

There were two previous sales of mortgage style loans in 1998 and 1999 which passed the majority of the performing MS loans to the private sector. The SLC has successfully ensured that 69% of the approximately 1 million borrowers retained after the previous sales have repaid in full by collecting £2.9 billion in repayments.

The sale allows the SLC to focus on its core business of supplying income contingent loans to current students and collecting repayments from these loans.

Income contingent repayment (ICR) loans, offered to students after 1998, have not been included in this sale. The Government are in the process of exploring options for the potential future sale of the ICR loan book.

Community Amateur Sports Clubs

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

The Government are committed to delivering and maintaining a real sporting legacy after the success of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. An important part of this commitment is to encourage greater participation in sport at a community level and local amateur sports clubs have an essential role to play here, making sport accessible and getting people involved.

The Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC) scheme provides a number of tax reliefs, similar to those available to charities, to support grassroots amateur sports clubs. After a review of the scheme it became clear that some of the original legislation was unclear.

As a result, the Government introduced new eligibility conditions for CASCs in the Finance Act 2013. These included provisions to make detailed rules in regulations once a consultation had taken place.



A public consultation on the proposed changes to the CASC scheme ran from 3 June to 12 August. The Government are pleased to say that there were over 140 written responses to the consultation. The Government will today publish a summary of responses to that consultation and will also outline the package of reforms they will be taking forward to make the CASC qualifying conditions clearer and more transparent.

The consultation responses document will be published at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/community-amateur-sports-clubs-casc-scheme.

The Government have decided to keep the rules as simple as possible for community sports clubs, which are mainly run by volunteers. These changes will make it easier for them to understand the CASC rules and will encourage other clubs to apply for the benefits of CASC status. These new rules will:

encourage participation in local sport by ensuring that clubs are open to anyone who wants to take part in grassroots sport;

encourage local donations by extending corporate gift aid to CASCs;

increase the corporation tax exemption thresholds for CASCs so that they align with those given to charities;

support promising individuals who may not otherwise be able to afford to play by allowing clubs to make limited payments to players; and

ensure that clubs can generate modest amounts of income and still be considered an amateur sports clubs for the purposes of the CASC scheme.

The Government expect draft regulations to be published early next year.

These measures demonstrate the Government’s commitment to supporting and encouraging grassroots sport as part of the Olympic legacy. The Government strongly believe that as many eligible amateur sports clubs as possible should benefit from the available tax reliefs. Therefore the rules governing CASC status are vital to the health of grassroots sport. The package of changes announced will increase participation in these sports clubs.

British Intergovernment Services Authority

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Other countries are increasingly seeking support from the British Government to help them to design and deliver better civil infrastructure. Britain, with a combination of Government expertise and industrial capability, is well-placed to provide this support. And we are establishing Government to Government (G2G) arrangements with other countries to do so. These G2G arrangements offer significant benefits to the countries with which we are working. They also offer valuable benefits to Britain. They can open new export opportunities for British companies; help foreign countries to develop infrastructure we would like them to have; and build stronger bilateral relationships. They particularly support our prosperity agenda.

As with any major contract, these G2G deals can carry commercial risk, and they require specialist private sector commercial skills. To manage risk and to enable the Government to bring in the skills needed for successful delivery of G2G programmes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is establishing a new Government-owned company, the British Intergovernment Services Authority Ltd, or BISA.

BISA is already established as a private limited company. It is not yet trading. But over the coming months, and as G2G business flow requires, we intend that it will grow into a fully operational company. In my official capacity I hold BISA’s shares. The shareholding will pass automatically to my successors. BISA will have its own chief executive and board. The chief executive and board members will between them have the range of business, programme and international political skills required for success. The chief executive will be accountable to Parliament. The work of BISA will be overseen by a cross-Whitehall panel, which will provide advice to me as shareholder. BISA will be wholly funded by revenue from work it does for foreign Governments. BISA will establish subsidiary companies to deliver individual G2G programmes.

BISA is established under the Companies Act 2006. As a limited liability company it will contain its own legal and financial liabilities. So these liabilities will not be underwritten by the British Government. It will apply corporate best practice, in particular in the areas of risk management, financial management, transparency, recruitment, bribery and corruption and human rights.

We expect BISA to operate across a range of different sectors. If BISA works on programmes involving export of licensable goods it will be subject to the same export controls as any other company exporting from the United Kingdom.

BISA is a resource for the whole of Government. It can support other Government Departments’ export efforts through: assisting the development of G2G opportunities; structuring G2G deals; developing and managing G2G contracts; and provision of specialist staff.

Domestic Violence

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am announcing today my intention to roll out nationally both domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) and the domestic violence disclosure scheme (DVDS) across England and Wales from March 2014. This follows the successful conclusion of two pilots to test these provisions. Tackling domestic violence and abuse is one of my key priorities. I am determined to see reductions in domestic violence and abuse and the Government’s updated violence against women and girls (VAWG) action plan sets out our approach for achieving that. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police and other agencies have the tools necessary to tackle domestic violence, to bring offenders to justice, and to ensure victims have the support they need to rebuild their lives.

Domestic violence protection orders are a new power introduced by the Crime and Security Act 2010, and enable the police to put in place protection for the victim in the immediate aftermath of a domestic violence incident. Under DVPOs, the perpetrator can be prevented from returning to a residence and from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days, allowing the victim a level of breathing space to consider their options, with the help of a support agency. This provides the victim with immediate protection. If appropriate, the process can be run in tandem with criminal proceedings.

The domestic violence disclosure scheme introduces a framework with recognised and consistent processes to enable the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner where this may help protect them from further violent offending. The DVDS introduces two types of process for disclosing this information. The first is triggered by a request by a member of the public (“right to ask”). The second is triggered by the police where they make a proactive decision to disclose the information in order to protect a potential victim (“right to know”). Both processes can be implemented within existing legal powers.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Later today the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill will receive its First Reading. This is a significant step forward in the Government’s strategy for a high-speed rail network that will address the critical capacity constraints that we face and improve connectivity between our great cities. This is vital to ensure that the country is equipped to compete economically in the 21st century.

The Bill includes the powers necessary to construct and operate phase 1 of HS2 between London and the west midlands. Alongside the Bill I will also be publishing several other related documents.

As required by Standing Orders I will publish an environmental statement (ES) alongside the Bill. This ES describes the railway, the alternatives considered to it, the significant environmental effects that are likely to arise from its construction and operation, and the measures proposed to avoid or reduce these effects. It has been informed by the consultation on the draft environmental statement held earlier this year and includes HS2 Ltd’s response to that consultation.

Following publication of the ES a public consultation will be held that will close on 24 January 2014. A report summarising the responses will be produced by an independent assessor appointed by the House authorities.

I will also publish the Command Paper “The Government response to the HS2 Design Refinement Consultation”. In October I announced my decisions in relation to the proposals for tunnels at Northolt and Bromford, and this document sets out my decisions in relation to the remaining 12 design proposals that were consulted on between May and July this year.

I will also publish two Command Papers addressing issues outstanding from the October 2012 property and compensation consultation. “HS2 Property and Compensation for London-West Midlands Decision document—Impact on Social Rented Housing” sets out the Government’s approach to the replacement of lost social rented housing. It affirms our commitment to working with key stakeholders in order to ensure that where social rented housing is lost as a result of HS2, it is replaced in a manner sympathetic to local needs and reflective of the relevant local authority’s strategy for social housing.

“HS2 Property and Compensation for London-West Midlands Decision document—Properties above Tunnels” addresses our policies relating to properties above tunnels and other underground excavations, providing clarity and reassurance for property owners and the wider market.

Copies of these Command Papers and the ES will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The documents can also be found on: www.gov.uk/dft.

2012 Statutory Child Maintenance Scheme

Monday 25th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Today the Government will open the 2012 statutory child maintenance scheme, delivered by the Child Maintenance Service, to all new applicants. We will no longer be accepting new applications to the 2003 scheme, delivered by the Child Support Agency.

The flat rate of child maintenance will also increase from £5 to £7 for 2012 scheme cases only. This change will increase the amount of money flowing to children and restore approximately the value of the flat rate in real terms, compared with what it was when introduced in 2003.

Those wishing to make an application to the 2012 scheme will first need to go through a gateway conversation, delivered by the Child Maintenance Options service. This will ensure that applicants consider their alternatives before turning to the statutory scheme. This will be a tailored conversation appropriate to individual circumstances. For example, those who have been victims of domestic violence will be fast-tracked through the gateway.

The Government aim to ensure that parents who are able to make their own family-based arrangements are supported and encouraged to do so, while an efficient and effective statutory service is still available as a backstop for those who really need it.

Today’s changes to the statutory service represent a key milestone in our progress to reform child maintenance. But we are also aiming wider: our starting point is that children tend to do better when they have a positive relationship with both parents and we want to make working together the norm across all parenting issues, not just child maintenance. We are supporting separated parents to do this through the Help and Support for Separated Families (HSSF) initiative. As part of this, we have launched the Sorting out Separation web app; an HSSF mark; the HSSF Telephony Network; and an Innovation Fund to test and evaluate new interventions to help separated parents work together.

House of Lords

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Monday, 25 November 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Introduction: Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

14:38

The Right Honourable Sir Roger John Laugharne Thomas, Knight, having been created Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd, of Cwmgiedd in the County of Powys, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Judge, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Death of a Member: Lord Kingsdown

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:44

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, on 24 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Crime: Clare’s Law

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked by

[Baroness Gale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will report on the pilot schemes relating to “Clare’s Law” in Greater Manchester, Gwent, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire; and when a decision will be taken on the results of the evaluation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, to mark International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, my right honourable friend Mrs Theresa May this morning announced the rollout of the domestic violence disclosure scheme, also known as Clare’s law, across England and Wales from March 2014. This follows the successful conclusion of the pilot in September, which found that it encouraged effective local multi-agency working around domestic violence and abuse. The Home Secretary also announced her intention to roll out domestic violence protection orders.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much and I am pleased to hear that Clare’s law will be rolled out nationally. Will he join me in congratulating Michael Brown—the father of Clare Wood, who was killed by her partner—who has campaigned relentlessly for Clare’s law? Can the Minister confirm that resources will be put in place so that women will know that they have the right to ask and the right to know under Clare’s law? Does he agree that there should be a national campaign to publicise this? Furthermore, does he agree with the hope that the number of women who die at the hands of their partner or former partner—which is estimated at about 100 a year, in addition to the 1.2 million it is estimated will suffer domestic abuse at some time in their lives—will be reduced by this additional aid?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am aware of the figures that the noble Baroness has produced. They are indeed horrendous. I willingly pay tribute to Michael Brown. I hope that the actions the Home Secretary has taken today are a worthy tribute to the suffering that Clare Wood endured. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s commitment to this issue and share her interest in ensuring that these projects are a success. The Government have ring-fenced £40 million of funding over the lifetime of this Parliament to help front-line organisations tackle violence against women and girls. We see this resource being available to fund both these initiatives and I hope that we all join in wishing them great success.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are taking part in a study, which this morning had a meeting in the House of Commons and heard from many witnesses? In particular, I mention Professor Liz Kelly, who has written a paper on this very important subject. It brought out that one of the worst situations is coercive control, which is the type of thing we have had with the slavery issue recently. Apparently the most dangerous point with coercive control is when the person who has been intimidated or brainwashed—all sorts of possible things have been used—says that she is going to go. That is apparently when the police record quite a number of deaths. Will my noble friend ensure that Professor Liz Kelly’s paper is taken into consideration in any further studies?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I happily give my noble friend that assurance. Indeed, I look forward to hearing more from her on this issue. Violence against women is often a matter of revenge. I believe in a society where people should be free to enter into emotional commitments to others and equally free to leave them. Violence should never be used to enforce a relationship.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what plans have been put in place for training to help the police, prosecutors, the judiciary and others so that they better understand the nature of domestic violence and how Clare’s law can best be implemented?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble and learned Baroness will probably know that there are multi-agency risk assessment conferences at which these matters are discussed at grassroots implementation level. We are well aware that a broad spread of people has an interest in making sure that these policies are effectively delivered on the ground. The Government are ensuring that all those involved are properly informed of the most effective way of dealing with this. So much of this has lain undercover—almost under the carpet. What we in this Government—and indeed, I think, in this House—are seeking to do is bring it out into the open.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the particular harm caused by domestic violence to children living in families? My understanding is that children’s centres are not included in those agencies which are informed about domestic violence in the family. In order that they can target those families for support, will he check to see that they are kept informed in this area?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I shall certainly attempt to do so. We work with the Department for Education on this issue. The policy is designed to look at the family as a holistic unit and find out ways in which by intervening in early stages of violence we can stop it developing into a situation where children, too, can be affected.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that there has been a call for a much wider look at the issue, particularly at how the police and state agencies respond, coming both from Refuge and Women’s Aid—organisations which know a lot about the subject. I have heard today comments in response to the announcement that welcome the putting of responsibility on to the abused person. That is a very dangerous attitude. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is unrealistic to create the expectation that somebody should check on a partner’s background. Control and abuse may grow very gradually.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

On the other hand, my noble friend will recognise that much of Clare’s law is about authorities being open with a perpetrator’s possible history of abuse. Alongside this, HMIC also has a role in setting up a special group to check on capacity at police level to make sure that the police, who are key to a lot of this, operate effectively in this area.

Business Rates

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take in response to calls from the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the British Retail Consortium for a reduction in and reform of business rates, particularly in relation to high street retailers.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I give notice that a member of my family works in the retail trade.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government keep all taxes, including business rates, under review and in doing so take account of all views expressed by representative bodies and the retail industry. While I am not privy to any measures that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be considering ahead of the Autumn Statement, noble Lords might wish to be reminded that this Government have taken significant steps to support business, including, for example, doubling small business rate relief.

[Lord Naseby]

My noble friend is right to remind the House of what the Government have done so far. Nevertheless, is she not aware that the broader high street, often owned by individuals or families, has faced the most difficult four years certainly in this century and probably since the last war? Is she further aware that the one element that does not seem to change is the business rates, which each year go up and up and are now well above rentals, which is the first time in history that that has happened? Will she therefore look at some short-term action, perhaps freezing the business rate for the year 2014-15, otherwise I fear that shops, particularly in the north and the Midlands, will shut up shop? If action is taken, that will probably mean more investment, more recruitment into the retail trade and will probably be cost-neutral.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter. Of course I recognise the difficulties faced by retailers around the country. I regret that I am not able to announce any new tax cuts today—my right honourable friend the Chancellor might have something to say if I did. He has a proven record in supporting business. It is worth reminding noble Lords that by 2015 corporation tax will have fallen eight percentage points to 20%. I also know that he is listening hard and considering all options before deciding what steps to take next towards reducing the deficit and stimulating growth.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that small businesses are the driving force behind future jobs and growth. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, we know that many small business owners face a cost of living crisis as high streets struggle, and that many are under the pressures of rising business rates and energy bills. There are some 40,000 empty shops in the UK and more than one in 10 small businesses say they spend the same or more on business rates as on rents. While it is right that the UK has a competitive corporation tax rate, does the Minister not accept that the priority now is to direct more help to small and medium-sized businesses, as Ed Miliband proposed, by cutting the 2015 business rate on 1.5 million properties below the value of £50,000 and freezing it for 2016? This would be paid for by not cutting further in 2015 corporation tax for 80,000 larger companies and multinationals.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think the Institute of Directors has already disagreed with that approach. We consider that it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul because all businesses benefit from a reduction in corporation tax. It is also worth reminding the noble Lord that this Government have given local authorities powers to grant their own business rate discounts. The local government sector now retains 50% of the business rates that are collected. If local authorities decide to reduce business rates further in their area, since April of this year the Government have been funding 50% of those costs.

[Baroness Hanham (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that while business rates may be one factor in the decline of the high streets, there are a number of others? Does she further agree that this Government have already frozen the revaluation of rates, which was a help? Finally, does she agree that other factors in the high street include rents, the mix of shops, the support of local people and, perhaps most importantly, online shopping, which it is now estimated will account for 30% of all business transacted over the Christmas period?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

This Government have done a lot to support local communities in adapting their high streets to the changing behaviour of consumers. My noble friend is right to highlight the increase in online trade. The other point worth making about things we are doing differently is that we changed some of the previous Government’s planning guidance which pushed up parking charges and had quite a negative effect on town centres. We are looking to do more in this area and will consult on that soon.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that rates in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and will be included in a document produced tomorrow, which the Scottish Government mistakenly call a White Paper? Will she take the opportunity—along with all Ministers, including, particularly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—to remind the Scottish Government that the title “White Paper” should only be used for proposals which the Government are able to bring in, and that the proposals included in this document can only be brought in with the agreement of the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I can only imagine that the noble Lord has chosen to ask a question about process because the substance of my replies have disappointed him. This Government have done an awful lot to support businesses and, for me, today is not the moment to start talking about the way in which different Parliaments operate.

[Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in UK Land Estates. Is my noble friend aware that the burden of rates on businesses is three times that of corporation tax? Will she consider approaching the Chancellor to seek to alleviate the burden on some businesses through a one-year rebate for empty premises that would give an incentive to firms to move in, and thereby fill some of the empty shops on our high streets?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

We have already introduced some changes on empty premises to support local authorities. New builds which remain empty have a reduction in business rate for up to 18 months; and that is having a positive effect.

Economy: Women’s Incomes

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have carried out an economic impact assessment of the effects on women’s incomes and standard of living of their economic policy since May 2010.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, departments take full account of the impact of their policies on women. In spending round 2013, the Government published an analysis of how their decisions impacted on different groups, including by gender. This was a first for any UK Government. The economy is growing, the deficit is falling and jobs are being created. The only sustainable way to raise living standards for both men and women is to stick to our current economic plans.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I have to say that it does not coincide with the information that I have, which was produced by the House of Commons Library. Its analysis tells us that, of the £14.4 billion George Osborne has raised through additional net direct tax and benefit changes, about £11.4 billion—79%—is coming from women. This includes low-paid new mums, who have lost nearly £3,000 in support during their pregnancy and their baby’s first year; couples with children, who have lost 9.7% of their disposable income; and single mothers, who have lost the most—15.6%? Does the noble Lord think that that is fair, and how does it reflect, “We are all in this together”?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think that those figures are in some respects significantly misleading. For example, 98% of all child benefit goes to women, but it is the whole household that benefits. The single biggest improvement in the position of women under this Government has come from the fact that there are 450,000 women now in work who were not in work in 2010. This is as a result of the Government’s economic policies, which have kept interest rates down so that we have not seen the high unemployment peak that we had in the previous recession.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, with women three times more likely than men to be in part-time work, does the Minister agree that a gender divide still exists in the labour market that forces many women to compromise their careers in order to care for children, and that this inequality can best be addressed by further increasing the provision of affordable childcare?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The Government are increasing the amount of free childcare that they are providing, most noticeably from the age of two, for 15 weeks a year, in addition to the existing provision for three and four year-olds. I agree with my noble friend’s comments about pay. It is noticeable, however, that, on most measures, the pay gap between men and women has fallen by between 0.5% and 1% in the past year.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are using the question of women’s employment rather incorrectly. They must stop hiding behind that. Rather, I should like an explanation of why the figures cited by my noble friend are misleading and why the House of Commons Library has got them wrong.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I said, one of the big elements in that overall figure is child benefit, which goes to women. It is paid to women in 98% of cases, but child benefit affects the whole family. Therefore, to include child benefit as a benefit for women, as it were, is completely misleading; it is a benefit for the whole household.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that members of the minority community who are also British citizens are tending to do worse in the pay structure? Is he also aware that about 75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are not a factor at all in the economic circumstances of Britain? How does that square with the so well supported and so beloved economic strategy of this Government?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, we would like to see—as no doubt the noble Baroness would—a higher proportion of women from those communities being economically active. We are seeing that a much higher proportion of young women in those communities are economically active than their parents were. However, one of the positive things about the rise in the number of women in employment, which I mentioned earlier, is that there is now a higher proportion of women in the labour market than ever before. That is very much to the benefit of women overall.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise that proposals regarding economic policy are to be included in the paper to be produced by the Scottish Government tomorrow? Since the Minister’s noble friend was unable to answer my supplementary question, could he take some advice from the Advocate-General and answer it? A Government can call something a White Paper only if they have the power to implement what is included—and, if the Scottish people were, unfortunately, to vote yes, the Scottish Government’s proposals could be implemented only with the full agreement of the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, perhaps I could refer the noble Lord to the speech made by my noble and learned friend at Aberdeen University last Friday, which very adequately answers his question.

Violence against Women and Girls

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent rape and violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, as we have already said, this Government are committed to preventing these appalling crimes. Earlier this year we published, and we continue to deliver, a cross-government strategy called Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, and a supporting action plan that goes with it. This includes our successful national campaigns particularly targeted at teenagers to prevent rapes and abuse, which we will be rebuilding with a relaunch early next month.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I refer specifically to the rape crisis centres that I know the Government have given some support and funding to, which of course is appreciated. However, the money which has been given is short-term money. What plans do the Government have, and what is in their strategy, to guarantee that they will give the funding to ensure that these rape crisis centres can continue—not least because local commissioning has changed, which has put them in jeopardy? The Government really have to take some responsibility for ensuring that these rape crisis centres can stay open. Alongside that, are they giving any support for the training of the specialists who provide support services within the rape crisis centres?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s interests and to the way in which she is pursuing these matters. It is true to say that the Government want to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system wherever they interface with it, and to assure victims of these terrible crimes that they will get the support that they need. That is why the Government are currently providing £4 million for 77 rape crisis centres across England and Wales. We hope that we are helping to build the support which the noble Baroness seeks for the victims of sexual assault and rape.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, as millions of people seem very reluctant to believe that millions of women are being brutalised in this country, have the Government considered adopting the policy of the Spanish Government, who have distributed notices throughout Spain which simply state, “If you’ve hit a woman, you’re not a man”?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I concur with the message that my noble friend suggests, although I have to say that we have not considered that particular campaign. None the less, it will be interesting to see how it works in Spain.

[Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that perhaps what we really ought to focus on is prevention? By prevention, I mean that we should educate young men and boys not to use violence against women and to learn how to honour and respect women. Could not our national curriculum possibly be improved by having such lessons?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

A lot can be done in schools and, of course, a lot can be done outside schools by those people fortunate to live in parental custody, and by parents themselves treating each other with mutual respect. The Home Office has had—and I alluded to it earlier—a very successful national teenage rape prevention campaign, which was extended into a teenage relationship abuse campaign, because it was recognised that rape was only one aspect of the abuse that young females might suffer from young men. The figures and responses show that these campaigns have struck home and have had a real impact on young people’s relationships. That is why we are intending to relaunch the campaign on, I think, 5 December. We feel that that is the right way in which to go about it.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

Would the Minister not acknowledge that, while we have campaigns, they are not a replacement for education? This is a cultural problem. We hear on the radio that women cyclists are being harassed by men, not only for being cyclists but for being women. We know that young men brought up in difficult households are more likely to see domestic abuse, and that those who see domestic abuse are, according to the research programme from Arnon Bentovim, more likely to be engaged in rape and the harm of women. Surely it goes back to the noble Baroness’s point that, unless we tackle this in the school curriculum at the educational level, no amount of campaigns will make any difference.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s commitment to making sure that professionals are properly oriented towards dealing with this. She rightly draws attention to an answer which I think that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, earlier, and I hope that she agrees that I recognise the important role of schools.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

Would the Minister agree that creating a safe atmosphere whereby women are encouraged to report to the police violence and rape within the home in the knowledge that they will be taken seriously and treated sympathetically is key to tackling the problem and reducing the incidence?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, indeed. One feature of the current scene post-Savile is that women are much more confident now about going to the police and knowing that these things will be taken seriously. So I could not agree more with my noble friend.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, following a debate that I was able to secure on a related issue back in March, more than 60 bishops around the country are today supporting the campaign to end gender-based violence, and are visiting on this day a large number of projects up and down the country to support the cause. I apologise that, in the rush to get here, I have no white ribbon. Could the Minister inform the House what additional action the Government are taking to implement the agreed conclusion from this year’s UN Commission on the Status of Women, which focused on the ending of violence against women?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on his role in ensuring that 135 countries have signed up to the agreement on the use of rape as a weapon of war. This is a significant development, and shows that these arguments are not just confined to this country. Discussions that we are having here have raised awareness throughout the world.

Health and Social Care (Amendment) (Food Standards) Bill [HL]

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment Discharged

15:14

Moved by

[Baroness Cumberlege]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a 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.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

15:15

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Clause 44: Remedial action by local authority

Amendment 22QG had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 44 agreed.

Clause 45: Offence of failing to comply with notice

Amendment 22QH not moved.

Clause 45 agreed.

Clause 46 agreed.

Clause 47: Forfeiture of item used in commission of offence

Amendment 22QJ not moved.

Amendments 22QK to 22QS had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 47 agreed.

Clause 48 agreed.

Clause 49: Fixed penalty notices

Amendment 22QT

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

22QT: Clause 49, page 28, line 30, leave out “14” insert “28”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this will make me popular, as noble Lords are now able to leave the Chamber.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I ask all noble Lords to leave the Chamber quietly out of respect for my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I hope that my amendments live up to that. I speak also to Amendments 22QU and 22QV, and Amendments 56ZBA and 56ZBB. These amendments are all about fixed-penalty notices for failure to comply, in the case of the first pair of amendments with a community protection order, and in the second pair of amendments with a public spaces protection order. The Bill allows 14 days to pay the fixed penalty, which may be reduced in amount it if is paid within a shorter period; I imagine that it is anticipated that that would be seven days. It seems to me that 14 days is a very short period. I am not in this amendment seeking to argue the merits or otherwise of either of the orders but we do not want them to come into disrepute through there being difficulties in their application. Some people go away on holidays, not realising that a notice may have become payable, because they might not actually have been handed it. There are a number of reasons why 14 days for payment is in many areas regarded as on the short side.

My amendments would provide in both cases a period of 28 days with a discount if payment is made, say, within 14 days—or, at any rate, an earlier period—which is comparable with penalties under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Amendment 22QV, also to Clause 49, would replace a certificate being one that,

“purports to be signed by or on behalf of the chief finance officer of the local authority”,

with one that is simply “signed on behalf of”. I will probably be told that this is language used in many other Acts of Parliament, but it seemed to me a curious provision. More importantly, however, there would be no scope for challenge to it if the local authority got its procedures wrong. I have therefore tabled the amendment not as a frivolous matter but as a serious one. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for explaining the purpose of these amendments. I suppose I could say that I had a vested interest in asking other noble Lords to leave quietly, as I had to respond to this amendment.

This amendment relates to the amount of time that an individual issued with a fixed penalty notice should be given to pay. Where breach of a community protection notice or of a condition of a public spaces protection order has occurred, the offender could be issued with a fixed penalty notice. Payment of this penalty notice discharges the perpetrator from any other proceedings for that breach and so they are, quite rightly, given a period of grace in which to pay the amount specified. Different fixed penalty notice schemes have different periods during which recipients are expected to pay the penalty; for example, littering is set at 14 days whereas others have a longer time. In this case we believe that 14 days is sufficient time for a perpetrator to pay that amount and that it provides the right balance between giving the offender enough time to pay the fine and ensuring that the process for collecting such money is both timely and efficient.

In terms of Amendment 22QV, I have listened to the case made by my noble friend, who highlighted certain instances of concern. However, the language used in the Bill is, of course, commonly used elsewhere on the statute book. For example, this terminology is also used in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to fixed penalty notices under that Act. In effect it avoids the chief finance officer having to come to court to give evidence personally that he or she had signed the certificate. Despite that provision, it remains a matter for the court to decide what weight to place upon the document as evidence, although in practice it is highly unlikely that whether the document is genuine will ever be an issue. I have heard the case that my noble friend has made, but the Government feel that on balance the 14 days and, as has been stated, the signature of the chief finance officer as stands in what the Government have tabled is the right way forward. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend is minded to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, of course I will withdraw them, given that this is Committee stage. The last of my amendments would not impose any requirement to give evidence any more than would the words in the Bill, but I can see that I will not get anywhere with that. On the 14 days, is it just a question of the Government saying, “We think this is right”, or is it something more detailed than that? We have different views. I have said that I am concerned that the timing may too easily be missed, and that it could bring the penalties regime into disrepute. If the noble Lord has any more to say in support, I would be glad to hear it. Will he tell the Committee whether the shorter period envisaged is indeed seven days, which I rather guessed at? I do not know whether his notes give him that information.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It would be appropriate if I wrote to the noble Baroness; I will come back to her specifically on whether it is seven or 10 days. However, on the 14 days, that is the Government’s position as it stands.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22QT withdrawn.

Amendments 22QU and 22QV not moved.

Clause 49 agreed.

Clause 50: Authorised persons

Amendment 22QW

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

22QW: Clause 50, page 29, line 21, leave out paragraph (c)

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 22QYB, 22QYC and 22QYD.

Clause 50 states who may issue a community protection notice or a fixed penalty notice. Amendment 22QW queries whether paragraph (c) of Clause 50(1) is necessary. It provides that a community protection notice or fixed penalty notice may be issued by,

“a person designated by the relevant local authority”.

Paragraph (b) refers to the notices being issued by, “the relevant local authority”. The authority will have to designate a signatory because whatever it does must be done by someone acting in its name. Therefore, I am puzzled as to what paragraph (c) adds.

I have added my name to Amendment 22QY standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves—he got there first—because my real objection concerns subsection (4) of Clause 50, which provides that only someone in a post,

“specified in an order made by the Secretary of State”,

can be designated. Surely, designation must be a matter for the local authority. Does the Secretary of State have to intervene at this level?

Amendments 22QYB and 22QYC probe whether all police community support officers have the relevant technical knowledge to deal with community protection notices. On previous Committee days we discussed some of the difficulties that may arise in using the existing statutory powers that environmental health officers have, for example, as opposed to using the new mechanisms provided in the Bill. A lot of technical knowledge needs to be applied in deciding whether an infringement has occurred, especially in respect of noise.

My last amendment in this group concerns serving a notice. A fixed penalty notice can be handed over to the individual or be delivered to that person’s address either by hand or by post. If it is to be delivered by post, I am concerned to know when it is deemed to have been issued. If it is issued when the notice is put in the post, it will reduce, by at least a day and possibly more, the time that the recipient of the notice has to pay. I have already said that I am concerned about how short that time is. I beg to move Amendment 22QW.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, the point I am about to make has been made in connection with a great deal of other legislation and concerns the abilities of those with learning difficulties and disabilities to understand the content and implications of notices such as those we are discussing. It is important to ensure that the legislation includes reference to the provision of appropriate adults or advocates or whatever sources are used to make certain that the full implications are explained to those who may have such difficulties to avoid them getting into yet further trouble, completely inappropriately.

15:28

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, which have to some extent been covered already by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Clause 50 states that authorised persons who may issue a community protection notice or a fixed penalty notice are “a constable” or “the relevant local authority”—a lower-tier district or unitary authority in this case—or,

“a person designated by the relevant local authority”.

These amendments largely probe the intentions of the Government as to which persons might be designated by the relevant authority.

Subsection (4) states:

“Only a person of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State … may be designated”.

Along with my noble friend, I wonder why the Secretary of State requires this power in this instance. By and large, all the anti-social behaviour parts of the Bill are remarkably free of powers under which the Secretary of State can issue orders and regulations. Those of us who ploughed through Bills such as the Localism Bill and the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, now Acts of Parliament, felt that they were plagued with powers under which the Secretary of State could tell local authorities in great detail what to do through statutory instruments. This Bill is mercifully free of such provisions, except here and there. Yet here, for some reason, one such provision crops up, and it is not clear why it should be required in this instance.

I therefore tabled Amendment 22QY only to probe the Government’s intention regarding what class of people ought to be involved. However, we want to take out the ability of the Government to instruct local authorities. Specifically, Amendment 22QX probes the question of whether a parish council—or perhaps a larger parish or town council—could be designated by the relevant local authority, the district council, to carry out some of these functions. I should make it clear that if the amendment were agreed it would be entirely permissive and would require the agreement of both the district and the town or parish council. However, town councils and some parish councils already do a huge amount of work on tackling local issues such as litter. It seems sensible, at least in a restricted way when dealing with appropriate issues, for those councils to have powers to serve community protection notices.

My question is: as the Bill stands, would parish councils, or perhaps a specified person on or employed by a parish council, be eligible for designation? Is it the Government’s intention that if they are going to designate such people, parish councils would be available to be designated if they wished to do this work? Clearly, there would be no question of compulsion.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I ought to reiterate my declaration of interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and president of the National Association of Local Councils, the parent body of parish and town councils.

I will direct my attention to Amendment 22QX in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am extremely grateful to him for raising this point because it is perfectly true that many parish and town councils across England and Wales have aspirations to take on addition roles. He will be aware from a note that I sent him and copied to the Minister that I was a bit doubtful as to whether a generic provision for parish councils to be designated in this way was necessarily wise or appropriate, because it will be clear to Members of this Committee that parish councils, by their very nature, come in all shapes and sizes and with all manner of abilities and resources available to them—from next to nothing to those that would put some principal authorities in the shade. Therefore, it is very important to understand the criteria whereby such a designation could be made. Otherwise, were a parish or town council to be so designated in a situation where ultimately it could not manage this particular obligation, it would potentially be a hostage to the fortunes of circumstance.

I should add that I inquired of a number of other bodies, such as the Ramblers and the Open Spaces Society, what they felt about the business of parish and town councils having this sort of power. I did not refer specifically to this type of power but to more general powers, but they were doubtful that it would be appropriate. They may have had their own reasons for being doubtful, and of course noble Lords will have their own take on this; none the less, it should be clear—and I hope that the Minister will clarify—that what is intended here is that designation will occur when there is clearly the desire and the capacity—in other words, a two-way street of designation, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, outlined. I hope that this is essentially understood on all sides of the Committee that that is a necessary ingredient.

[Lord Greaves]

Does the noble Earl agree that the concerns about the Bill from the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers and such organisations really refer to the next chapter of the Bill on public spaces protection orders rather than CPNs? He may be interested to know that only this morning I discussed this matter in some detail with the National Association of Local Councils. On the basis that it will be a two-way voluntary agreement, the association can see a great deal of justification for parish and town councils taking part in this.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, the noble Lord is well ahead of the curve on this. I tried to contact the National Association of Local Councils without success earlier today, so he has stolen a march on me. I am extremely glad about that, because one of the great merits of this House is the collaborative way in which these things are dealt with. I am particularly glad that he has made contact with the association and that he has that very common-sense steer on the matter.

With regard to the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers and such organisations, I entirely take his point that the issue is probably more specific to the next chapter of the Bill. However, their concerns underline that there will be doubts about the capacity of parish and town councils to undertake certain things and about whether that is an appropriate level at which to deal with the issue. Whether the Minister feels that it is appropriate to accept this amendment or whether he will suggest that there is another way in which the Government’s thinking caters for it, I will leave to his response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments raise a number of interesting points. Amendments 22QW and 22QY relate to the provisions in the Bill which would allow local authorities to designate others with the ability to use the new community protection notice. The aim behind this provision is to ensure that the burden of dealing with certain types of anti-social behaviour does not fall on just one agency.

However, it is important that we strike a balance between the new flexibility and the fact that this new notice incurs a criminal sanction on breach. While subsection (1)(c) allows for the local authority to designate the power, as a safeguard subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to say who this may include. As we have made clear over the past few years, we believe that social landlords should have a role in dealing with this type of anti-social behaviour. At present, they are the only group that would be included in the order. With regard to who else is going to be on the Home Secretary’s list, at present social landlords are the only category of person but, over time, other groups or bodies may express an interest and we will consider them on a case-by-case basis.

The draft guidance makes clear the importance of partnership working, and ultimately the local authority will be able to set the ground rules if it decides to give a social landlord access to the new power. However, as many of those landlords are already dealing with these issues and making judgment calls daily on what is reasonable or not, it seems sensible to give them a formal role in their own communities. I hope that I have explained the need for other bodies to have access to the new notice and for the safeguards and reasoning behind those safeguards to have been included. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendments.

Amendment 22QX would add parish councils and Welsh community councils to the list of bodies that can be designated by the relevant local authority to issue CPNs. CPNs are a powerful tool and, as such, there needs to be some control over the number of organisations that can issue them in order to maintain consistency. As I said, a breach of a CPN is a criminal offence and one needs experienced practitioners in their use. We believe that local authorities, as defined in Clause 53, are the right bodies to undertake this role. As with public spaces protection orders, we do not believe that parish councils should be able to hear them. However, I have been interested in the debate that has gone on between the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Greaves on this issue. If we are to extend the role to include parish councils, we need evidence to effect such a change, and we would need to be absolutely certain that it was in the best interests of making effective use of these new powers.

Amendment 22QYA would allow the local authority to restrict the use of community protection notices where it designates the power to another person or body. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that this is already possible as the provisions are drafted, and we shall seek further to clarify that in the guidance. We would expect that, in designating the power to social landlords, local authorities would use a memorandum of understanding to agree boundaries on the use of the notice and local guidelines on matters such as the enforcement of notices and the recording of data on their use.

I understand the point raised by my noble friend on Amendments 22QYB and 22QYC relating to the level of training that those issuing the notice will receive, including police community support officers. I have made it clear that this is a highly responsible activity and that training is important. I assure my noble friend that the kind of judgment calls being made here, and being made daily by social landlords, PCSOs, council staff and police officers, are a feature of current implementation of anti-social behaviour measures. What is unreasonable is how behaviour affects victims and communities and when it is right to go down the formal intervention route. However, we would expect there to be training on the new powers and the impact assessments that we have published include the cost of training. That covers the police, including all PCSOs, social landlords and local authority staff. It is not for Ministers in Whitehall—this is a theme going through the whole Bill—to mandate what levels of training are required to deal with local issues. As such I cannot guarantee exactly what training officers will receive, but I expect that police forces, social landlords and local authorities will see the benefits of the effective use of this new power and train their staff accordingly. I hope that I have given my noble friend the assurances she needs to withdraw her amendment.

I was interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who asked to be reassured that learning disabilities would be considered in the enforcement of this part of the Bill and indeed other parts, too, We can make that absolutely clear in guidance. It is good practice in any event, but I will look at ways of trying to make it clear in the guidance that we issue.

I turn now to the service of documents by post. This is governed by Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Under this, service is deemed to have been effected when the letter is posted but actually effected at the time the letter would have been received in the ordinary course of post unless the contrary is proven. There is allowance for the time of delivery under normal events but, should that notice not be received within a reasonable time to enable the person to effect the action that is required, they are required to put forward evidence of not having received the notice. As my noble friend will know, many notices of this type are sent by tracker post or recorded delivery of some description so that the service of the notice can be noted by the issuing authority.

I hope that I have given assurances on these matters and that, on that basis, my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

15:45

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

Did I hear my noble friend correctly? Did he say that people have to produce evidence of not having received documents? I do not see how they could do so.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am quoting from the information I have received, which is the interpretation of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. When I received it, it sounded slightly topsy-turvy, but nevertheless this has been in use for some time and I expect that there are precedents for the use of this Act. As I say, my noble friend can be reassured that the majority of notices of this type are served either by a visit or by recorded delivery. I shall seek to elaborate further on this and write to my noble friend.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, on behalf of parish and town councils I thank the Minister for his slightly helpful comments at the end of his remarks. Perhaps, before the Bill is implemented, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I and the NALC might get together to see whether we can put forward a clear, evidence-based proposal to the Government which they might consider seriously.

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply to my Amendment 22QYA, which I had forgotten to speak to.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, last week I, too, had a long reply to an amendment to which I had not spoken. Perhaps that is the way to go.

On the last of my amendments on the power to issue CPOs, I asked whether everyone falling within the description of what will be the new paragraph 1ZB in the schedule to the Police Reform Act would have the power. I think that the Minister is saying that everyone who falls within that description will have the power and not only particular individuals who have received training. Am I right in understanding that?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There may be certain circumstances in which people are specifically trained for this function; there may be others where the work they undertake would include training in this function; and there may be others who operate under the guidance of other individuals who have been trained as to how it should be effectively done. It will depend on the circumstances.

No authority acting under this provision will wish to make a mistake. They will want to do it properly because it is in their interests that the CPN should be enforceable.

[Baroness Hamwee]

It shows how naive I am, but I have to say that it simply had not occurred to me that the designation under subsection (1)(c) would be of an organisation which is not a public body in the way that we would normally understand it, such as a local authority. As the Minister says, the notice is very powerful and there are criminal consequences. I would certainly like to think about that a little more but of course, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22QW withdrawn.

Amendments 22QX to 22QYC not moved.

Clause 50 agreed.

Clause 51 agreed.

Clause 52: Issuing of notices

Amendment 22QYD not moved.

Clause 52 agreed.

Clauses 53 and 54 agreed.

House resumed.

Iran

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:52

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made to the Commons.

“Two weeks ago, I reported to the House on the Iranian nuclear negotiations in Geneva between 8 and 10 November. I explained that our aim was to produce an interim first-step agreement with Iran that could then create the confidence and time to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement addressing all concerns about its nuclear programme. We have always been clear that because Iran’s programme is so extensive, and because crucial aspects of it have been concealed in the past, any agreement would have to be detailed and give assurance to the whole world that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran would be properly addressed. I said that we believed that such a deal was on the table and that we would do our utmost to bridge the narrow gaps between the parties and conclude a strong agreement.

On Wednesday last week, the E3+3 and Iranian negotiators resumed their work in Geneva, and on Saturday morning I and the other E3+3 Foreign Ministers joined the talks. At 4 am yesterday we concluded the negotiations successfully, agreeing a thorough and detailed first-stage agreement with Iran, which is a significant step towards enhancing the security of the Middle East and preventing nuclear proliferation worldwide. In this Statement I will cover the extensive commitments that Iran has made, the sanctions relief that it has been offered in return and the steps we will now take to implement and build on what was agreed.

First, we have agreed a joint plan of action with Iran, with the end goal of a comprehensive settlement that ensures its nuclear programme will be for exclusively peaceful purposes. The agreement has a duration of six months, renewable by mutual consent, and it sets out actions to be taken by both sides as a first step, as well as the elements to be negotiated in a final comprehensive settlement. I have placed a copy of the agreement in the Library of the House, but I wish now to highlight its most important aspects.

Iran has made a number of very significant commitments. Over the next six months, Iran will cease enriching uranium above 5%, the level beyond which it becomes much easier to produce weapons-grade uranium. Furthermore, it has undertaken to eradicate its stockpile of the most concerning form of uranium enriched above 5%, by diluting half of it to a level of less than 5% and converting the other half to oxide. Iran will not install further centrifuges in its nuclear facilities or start operating installed centrifuges that have not yet been switched on. It will replace existing centrifuges only with centrifuges of the same type, and produce centrifuges only to replace damaged existing machines on a like-for-like basis. In other words, Iran will not install or bring into operation advanced centrifuges that could enable it to produce a dangerous level of enriched uranium more quickly. Iran will cap its stockpile of up to 5% enriched uranium in the highest risk UF6 form by converting any newly enriched uranium into oxide. It will not set up any new locations for enrichment or establish a reprocessing or reconversion facility.

Iran has agreed to enhanced monitoring of its nuclear programme going beyond existing IAEA inspections in Iran, including access to centrifuge assembly workshops and to uranium mines and mills. Iran will also provide the IAEA with additional information, including about its plans for nuclear facilities. At the heavy water research reactor at Arak, which offers Iran a potential route to a nuclear weapon through the production of plutonium rather than uranium, Iran will not commission the reactor, or transfer fuel or heavy water to the reactor site, or test additional fuel, or produce more fuel for the reactor, or install any remaining components.

This agreement means that the elements of Iran’s nuclear programme that are thought to present the greatest risk cannot make progress during the six-month period of the interim agreement. In other words, if Iran implements the deal in good faith, as it has undertaken to do, it cannot use these routes to move closer to obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Moreover, some of the most dangerous elements of Iran’s programme are not only frozen but actually rolled back; for instance, the agreement involves the eradication of around 200 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium in UF6 form that Iran has been building up and stockpiling for several years.

Secondly, in return for these commitments Iran will receive proportionate, limited sanctions relief from the United States and the European Union. For its part, the United States will pause efforts to reduce crude oil sales to Iran’s oil customers, repatriate to Iran some of its oil revenue held abroad, suspend sanctions on the Iranian auto industry, allow the licensing of safety-related repairs and inspections for certain Iranian airlines, and establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian and legitimate trade, including for payments to international organisations and for Iranians studying abroad.

It is proposed that the EU and US together will suspend sanctions on oil-related insurance and transport costs, which will allow the provision of such services to third states for the import of Iranian oil. We will also suspend the prohibition of the import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products, and suspend sanctions on Iranian imports of gold and precious metals. But core sanctions on Iranian oil and gas will remain in place. It is intended that the EU will also increase by an agreed amount the authorisation thresholds for financial transactions for humanitarian and non-sanctioned trade with Iran. The Council of Ministers of the European Union will be asked to adopt legislation necessary to amend these sanctions, and the new provisions would then apply to all EU member states.

The total value of the sanctions relief is estimated at $7 billion over the six-month period. There will be no new nuclear-related sanctions adopted by the UN, EU and US during this six-month period. However, the bulk of international sanctions on Iran will remain in place. This includes the EU and US oil embargo which restricts globally oil purchases from Iran, and sanctions on nuclear, military or ballistic missile-related goods and technology. It includes all frozen revenue and foreign exchange reserves held in accounts outside Iran and sanctions on many Iranian banks, such as the Central Bank of Iran, which means that all Iranian assets in the US and EU remain frozen apart from the limited repatriation of revenue under this agreement. Iranian leaders and key individuals and entities will still have their assets in the EU and US frozen and be banned from travelling to the EU and US, and tough financial measures, including a ban from using financial messaging services and transactions with European and US banks, also remain in place. These sanctions will not be lifted until a comprehensive settlement is reached, and we will enforce them robustly. This ensures that Iran still has a powerful incentive to continue to negotiate to reach a comprehensive settlement—which is the third aspect of the agreement on which I wish to update the House today.

The agreement sets out the elements of a comprehensive solution which we would aim to conclude within one year. These elements include Iran’s rights and obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards; the full resolution of concerns related to the heavy water research reactor at Arak; agreed transparency and monitoring including the additional protocol; and co-operation on Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. In return for full confidence on the part of the international community that Iran’s programme is solely peaceful, the plan of action envisages a mutually defined enrichment programme with agreed parameters and limits, but only as part of a comprehensive agreement where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This comprehensive solution, if and when agreed, would lead to the lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Reaching this interim agreement was a difficult and painstaking process, and there is a huge amount of work to be done to implement it. Implementation will begin following technical discussions with Iran and the IAEA and EU preparations to suspend the relevant sanctions, which we hope will all be concluded by the end of January 2014. A joint commission of the E3+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of these first-step measures, and it will work with the IAEA to resolve outstanding issues of concern.

However, the fact that we have achieved for the first time in nearly a decade an agreement that halts and rolls back Iran’s nuclear programme should give us heart that this work can be done and that a comprehensive agreement can be attained. On an issue of such complexity, and given the fact that to make any diplomatic agreement worth while to both sides has to involve compromises, such an agreement is bound to have its critics and opponents. But we are right to test to the full Iran’s readiness to act in good faith to work with the rest of the international community and to enter into international agreements. If it does not abide by its commitments, it will bear a heavy responsibility, but if we did not take the opportunity to attempt such an agreement, then we ourselves would have been guilty of a grave error. It is true that if we did not have this agreement, the pressure of sanctions on Iran would not be alleviated at all. But it is also true that there would be no restraint on advances to its programme, no check on its enrichment activity and stockpiles, no block on its addition of centrifuges, no barrier to prevent it bringing into operation its heavy water research reactor at Arak and no limitation on the many actions which could take it closer to a nuclear weapons capability.

The bringing together of this agreement with all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council united behind it in itself sends a powerful signal. While it is only a beginning, there is no doubt that this is an important, necessary and completely justified step which, through its restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme, gives us the time to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to my Foreign Ministerial colleagues and to our Foreign Office staff, who have played an indispensable role. We will apply the same rigour and determination we have shown in these negotiations to the implementation of the agreement and to the search for a comprehensive settlement. At the same time we will continue to be open to improvements in our bilateral relationship on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis, and our new chargé d’affaires will visit Iran shortly. This agreement has shown that the combination of pressure expressed through sanctions coupled with a readiness to negotiate is the right policy.

For a long time that has been the united approach of this country, from the efforts of the right honourable Member for Blackburn to pursue negotiations a decade ago to the cross-party support in this House for the wide-ranging sanctions we have adopted in recent years. We have been steadfast in pursuing this twin-track policy and seeking a peaceful solution. This agreement is true to that approach and the sheer persistence of the United Kingdom and our allies. This will remain our policy over the coming months as we build on and implement the first step on the long journey to making the Middle East and the whole world safer from nuclear proliferation”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

16:05

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place. I believe that the agreement between Iran and the western powers, increasing the likelihood that Iran will not build a nuclear weapon in the near future, is of genuine significance. The next six months are, then, of the utmost importance.

We congratulate those who have been closely involved, especially Secretary of State John Kerry, on what appear to have been months of discreet diplomacy even before the events of this last few days, and my noble friend Lady Ashton on her remarkable lead role in negotiations. She is entitled to the warm thanks of this Parliament and this nation. Her Majesty’s Government have plainly played a substantive part—a part which I straightforwardly acknowledge, including the role of the Foreign Secretary. I also join him in congratulating officials in the FCO, of whom I have great memories, and my right honourable friend Jack Straw, whose role in initiating some of these steps was so important.

It is clear that what we have here are steps along a road. The whole journey is very far from complete, and there is no guarantee that the journey will be completed. None the less, the political momentum to secure this interim deal is extremely important. I echo the Foreign Secretary’s words about how we should approach the next part of the process—that,

“nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

The agreement has manifest limits. It results from a co-ordinated approach, including the use of sanctions if real progress is not made for any reason. Should we find that progress is not made, we must conclude that those arrangements should continue—co-ordination, sustained negotiation and sanctions would have to be deployed again.

The agreement places constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme, in return for which we ease financial sanctions. It sets limits on nuclear aspirations and makes provision for serious inspections. It does not halt the nuclear programme, and although the inspectors are obviously to be more intrusive, their rights to intrusion are not exhaustive. It does not dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability. It cannot therefore guarantee to bridle all future developments. I know that many will argue that it should not, but I can see the basis of the anxieties in Israel and the Gulf about this. It is important for us to encourage them to give this process a chance, whatever those anxieties might be.

To give it a chance, it is essential to keep up pressure for a full, comprehensive agreement. John Kerry’s sense of urgency in the last couple of days is well placed: momentum in this is vital. Next, the ground rules for the next steps need to be expressed. The Iranian nuclear ambitions must be capped. The international community must have total, unrestricted confidence in verification. No part of the programme can remain hidden. There can be no “inalienable rights” to enrich. These issues must form the bedrock of the work to come. To achieve these bases, it would be helpful if Her Majesty’s Government could answer some questions that I think may be of genuine significance.

Although the agreement concedes daily access for the IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordo, there is no clarity about access to the heavy water research reactor or other facilities at Arak. How often will inspectors be allowed to see Arak? I note the Foreign Secretary’s statement of reservation, which was quite rightly included in his Statement. What steps will be taken to dismantle Fordo? That is not specifically covered by the agreement, but is likely to prove vital if the world, and in particular the region, is to feel confident about the most deeply buried facility and the one that potentially offers the most unrestrained danger. Does the agreement achieve IAEA inspector access to Parchin, where it is generally thought that tests have been conducted on the detonation mechanisms of a nuclear weapon?

How will Iran be required to meet the full obligations of the IAEA under the non-proliferation treaty? After all, these go far further than the interim agreement. Is there a real understanding between the P5+1 and Iran on what is meant by those words “right to enrich”?

What steps will the United Kingdom take—as I believe we can—to engage regional allies and friends, including Israel and the Gulf states, to provide the confidence which I suspect they genuinely seek as we go through the process of the remaining talks?

What measures will we and others take to sustain pressure? I note what the Foreign Secretary said. The relief of $7 billion with immediate effect is obviously very important, but are the measures set out in the Statement really likely to be adequate if the process does not go forward as we wish it to? It needs continuous progress, not least because of the issues of Syria and Geneva II. The engagement of Iran in the process of sorting out the appalling problems of Syria seems to us of the highest importance, as we have shared in this House many a time.

This has been a setback in nuclear terms for Iran, but it is not the end of the task. What are the benchmarks that we should expect for progress in reaching the comprehensive agreement? How should we make an assessment? I know that talks are often private and confidential, but those around the world will ask that question.

I do not say any of that to be churlish; I have a fair measure of optimism in my heart today. However, we need urgent and sustained progress. We have made what is a very good start, but it needs to be drawn to a great conclusion. I conclude by saying that, in this process, we have had a bipartisan approach and the Government have our support.

16:13

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very warmly for his very constructive and bipartisan comments. I think it is extremely important that this is seen as something to which the entire political community within Britain is committed, that we take it forward together and that we make sure that we are all well informed as we go forward together on the dangers, but also the possibilities.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his compliments to the Foreign Office team and the Foreign Secretary himself. There have been occasions in the past few months when I have felt like saying to the Foreign Secretary, when I meet him, “Is this a short visit to Britain or are you here for two days?”. As we all know, he has been travelling a great deal in pursuing this issue. The noble Lord is also absolutely right to give strong compliments to the American Secretary of State and the State Department team—and, of course, the other European diplomats, not least at all our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who have also worked flat out on all this.

I stress that this is only an interim agreement for six months. There is a lot more still to be done. On the question of how often inspectors will be allowed to visit, the agreement as signed provides some details on enhanced monitoring including,

“Daily IAEA inspector access when inspectors are not present for the purpose of Design Information Verification”,

et cetera, with relevance to Fordo and Natanz. However, the details on the exact degree of access are part of what needs to be sorted out between now and January, when we hope the six-month clock will start ticking.

As the noble Lord will know, there is not yet agreement between the two sides on the right to enrich. We are clear that every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful nuclear purposes, but we have not yet reached a full agreement with Iran on how that fits in with the full and detailed IAEA obligations.

Lastly, the noble Lord talked about the potential overlap with the Syrian conflict and the Geneva II talks. Let me stress that this is a negotiation with Iran about the nuclear issue; it does not have a direct overlap into other issues. Of course we may hope, however, that if we are successful in achieving a comprehensive settlement, it will have wider impacts on relations across the Middle East as a whole.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I understand about the daily inspections in two sites, but I was very particular in asking what the inspection regime for Arak will be.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I see here that the agreement also refers to a,

“Submission of an updated … design information questionnaire … for the reactor at Arak”.

However, the exact details of the inspection regime on an interim basis are part of the detail that has to be negotiated and agreed between the parties between now and when the interim agreement comes into implementation in, we hope, late January.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions for my noble friend the Minister in order that all noble Lords who wish to contribute may have a decent chance of doing so.

16:16

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might briefly ask the noble Lord to say a bit more, if he can, about the part played by our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in brokering this very welcome agreement.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, my understanding is that under a UN Security Council resolution, the noble Baroness was designated as the co-ordinator for these negotiations. This has been an EU exercise with the three largest Governments within the European Union, in effect, representing the EU. The noble Baroness has to some extent represented the interests of the other 25 member states and I know that she has put an enormous amount of effort into this as well.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement and, if I may say so, for his own contribution to the work of the Foreign Office team, for the outstanding work of the Foreign Secretary and Mr Kerry and, not least, for the really great steps taken—one has to add this—by the Iranian Foreign Secretary in trying to bring about an agreement, with what was perhaps the significant support of the supreme ruler in Iran. It is the outbreak of common-sense discussion, real wisdom and a real desire to avoid war which has driven this remarkable agreement. I say to my noble friend that this is a remarkable moment in history. Of course, it is not the end but the beginning of a crucial set of steps towards bringing Iran back into the comity of nations and enabling us to produce a new structure that will give both the IAEA and the protection from nuclear proliferation an extremely important new impetus.

Perhaps I may say one other word, which is that I hope that the naysayers of this world—those who are likely to oppose this agreement—will recognise that the alternatives are terrible ones. They are in either military action or going back to absolute chaos in the Middle East. At a time when many of us are grieving over the terrible cost of the invasion of Iraq and, for that matter, the long war in Afghanistan, this is a moment when we should recognise the achievement of diplomacy and sensible discussion, as distinct from attempts to threaten other countries.

I have two questions. First, I do not in any way disagree with the questions asked so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, but it is crucial to recognise as well that we need to build on the elements coming out of this agreement that would so massively strengthen the battle against proliferation of nuclear weapons. I ask my noble friend whether the addition of the concept of enhanced monitoring that has come out of this agreement is one that, in his own view, could be extended more readily throughout the whole nuclear proliferation issue, along with the remarkable steps taken by the IAEA towards a much more powerful regime, including in effect the additional protocol, which up till now Iran has not been willing to sign.

My second question is whether the creation of the so-called committee of the E3 plus 3 with Iran might enable us to begin to build the first of new relationships with this isolated but intensely important country, which will enable it to make a serious contribution to the Syrian civil war. In that context, there are cultural, religious and economic links that could be made with Iran that would help to bring it in from the cold and build on the hopeful measures towards a more open and democratic Iran, as we have seen in the past few months.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Baroness for her compliments to the Foreign Secretary and others. We hope that this will prove to have been a remarkable moment in history, but we do not yet know; the test will be in the negotiations that take place over the next year. There is no doubt that sanctions and the extent to which they were biting in Iran have played a major part in shifting opinions in the Iranian regime in all its complexity, and certainly among the Iranian public.

In response to the noble Baroness’s questions, of course we would like to see a tougher, enhanced IAEA regime that spreads to others. I suspect that the noble Baroness knows a great deal more about this than I do, since I know that she has been involved in a lot of international discussions on this matter. That is one of the things that could grow out of these negotiations. The joint commission will, of course, be concerned with implementing the agreement. The first visit of the chargé already appointed is likely to take place in the next few weeks, and we may hope that, from that, other relationships may grow—but that will be something that we all have to work for as we work through these still complex and delicate negotiations.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I add my congratulations to the Government on the conclusion of this interim agreement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I hope that the Minister will find some way of conveying to her the views that have been warmly expressed in this House this afternoon. She has put in a huge effort.

This is the first step, as the Minister says, away from this conflict and others in the Middle East. Does he agree that, while it is clearly right that Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program should be treated seriously, attempts by the Prime Minister of Israel to prevent or perhaps now to wreck this agreement would be counterproductive and, in fact, against Israel’s long-term interests? Does he also agree that Saudi Arabia and our other friends in the Gulf ought to be brought to understand that a non-nuclear weapon state Iran could and should be a genuine regional player in the Gulf region? Finally, does he agree that the British Government should urge those points and use their influence in Washington with those who are most critical of the agreement to explain why the British Government believe that this is the right way forward?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are all conscious of nervousness in a number of other states in the Middle East about this agreement. We are persuaded that this enhances the security of Israel. The alternative, which might have led to a military attack on Iran, would have jeopardised a whole range of issues about the long-term security of the Middle East. We have said that to our Israeli friends. The Prime Minister spoke to Mr Netanyahu in the middle of the previous round of negotiations on 9 November and will no doubt be talking to him again. We have been saying the same to our friends in Saudi Arabia and the various Gulf states. We have many active diplomats and friends in Washington who will be saying the same to the American Congress; but the noble Lord knows that American politics are even more complex than those of most other states.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to everyone involved and echo the sentiments that have been expressed about the role played by my noble friend Lady Ashton. She has been subjected to what I consider to be much unwarranted criticism despite the fact that she has, unheralded and unsung, had some singular successes, not least in Kosovo. This is an occasion on which the feelings of this House should be sent to our colleague.

I have two questions. First, while we approach this with a degree of elation—it is only a step, but it is a significant first step—we can nevertheless understand why such an apparently sudden turn of events should have perhaps caused some confusion and worry among some of our traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. What steps are being taken to reassure and persuade them, if necessary, that the normalisation of relationships with Iran is in everyone’s interest, not least that of the region itself?

Secondly, while we are right to temper our feelings of elation with a degree of caution, will the Minister bear in mind that each step that is taken, however singular it might be, opens up other opportunities? I am persuaded that some of the decisions to proceed as we did on Syria, rather than taking the alternative route, opened—as some in this House including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, predicted—a gateway to further compromise and discussion with Iran. Similarly, although there is a long way to go on this, I urge the Minister to seek to use this gateway for further exploration of work in the area, including in Syria, involving Iran as the great nation it has been historically. It will surely return to the realms of the United Nations and international influence if it proceeds along the path it is taking at present.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will be happy to convey the thoughts of this House to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton; I may be able to do so to her husband in the next few days. While compliments are going around, I remark that I have been immensely impressed, as a Liberal Democrat, in working with William Hague over the past three years. He works exceptionally hard and has travelled extensively on this. His relationship with his Russian counterpart has been quite a significant factor in building trust and co-operation across the P5. It is also worth marking that this is a triumph of European co-operation: the British working with our German and French counterparts. Perhaps even the Daily Mail might like to note that.

On the wider region, with this deeply unstable region, with jihadists of different hues threatening even more brutal civil conflict spilling over different borders, anything which perhaps begins to reverse that potential spiral downhill is immensely worth while. We very much hope that this will help to turn that corner. We are also of course conscious that Iran is a great country with a long history, and that it has a complicated history with the United Kingdom which it has not forgotten quite as easily as we have. That is one of the many things which we need to overcome.

16:29

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend continue to make the point that this is a real contribution by the European Union and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton? There has been a good deal of misstatement by the British press over these arrangements. This shows just what Europe can do, is doing and ought to do at a time when people sometimes try to suggest otherwise. Will the Minister say to the nay-sayers that to refuse to make this step would mean that there would be no steps? You have to make a first step. If you always say, “Well, it might go wrong”, nothing will ever go right. To hear some people, they are condemning us to a situation in which no one will ever try to do anything. That has to be the message to Mr Netanyahu and to the Saudis—that if they maintain their position, they are saying to the rest of the world that this will be an area of conflict for ever. That is not something that any of us should accept.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments and agree entirely with them. We recognise that diplomats spend an awful lot of their time working on negotiations that do not lead anywhere and trying to support compromises that are attacked on all sides. This is one happy example—we hope—of when diplomacy will have succeeded.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to all who have been involved in this development. I will ask two short questions. First, is there a mismatch between the time at which sanctions may be partially released on the one hand and the nuclear inspections on the other? Is there a problem with starting this programme only in January, which would give time for the Iranians perhaps to do more mischief in the interim period? On the question of the percentage at which enrichment is to be allowed, I have heard figures of 5% and 20%. Can the noble Lord clarify which of these is correct?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the timing of sanctions release is very carefully calibrated. The sanctions that will be lifted are extremely limited—the majority of them will remain in place. Incidentally, I asked the briefing team how far humanitarian sanctions would include some relief of the controls on medicines and medical supplies for Iran. I know that that is one of the things that has hit Iran particularly hard. I, personally, welcome the provision of repairs and spare parts for Iranian airlines, because it has become increasingly unsafe to fly within Iran, as the noble Lord will know. On the gap between now and January, we cannot put that immediately into operation. However, the sanctions relief does not go into immediate operation either. We need to work through the details. On 5% and 20%, the latter is the point at which it becomes dangerous and relatively easy to carry through the further enrichment to weapons-grade uranium. Therefore the Iranians have agreed to dilute half of their current, rather large stockpile of 20% uranium back down to 5%, which is the point at which it is useful for civil nuclear power but not for very much else, and to convert the other half into uranium oxide, which also makes it useful for civil nuclear power but not for weapons.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself very strongly with the words of my noble friend Lord Deben about the contribution made by the European Union and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I also associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who praised the Iranian negotiators. It is often forgotten, when one looks at the position of Iran on these matters, that it is one of the countries that have been on the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction, namely from Iraq. When a country has been on the receiving end of such weapons, that makes it very sensitive to its own ability to protect itself against all eventualities. When one looks at the Iranian nuclear programme, it is important to bear that in mind. Therefore, the concessions that the Iranians have made and the apparent good will with which they have entered into these negotiations must have required a very considerable effort on their part. We should certainly pay tribute to them and we hope very much that they, with the West, will be able to bring this to a conclusion.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. We have negotiated this agreement with the Government of Iran. As all noble Lords will know, Iran is an extremely complex country with an extremely complex political system. We hope that the Government of Iran will make this stick. Nevertheless, we know that there are elements within the political system of Iran who may not be quite as happy with it as the Government are. That is part of what we will test out in the coming months.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with all the congratulations that have been offered to those who we can name because of their pre-eminent role in what has happened but also to those many diplomats whose names we do not know. One of the facilities that has caused most concern is the underground nuclear facility where uranium enrichment has not been carried out at a nuclear level but has certainly been produced in quantities that have given great cause for concern. Will the noble Lord assure the House that the underground facilities will be inspected by the IAEA, as my noble friend Lord Triesman asked?

In asking my next question, I declare an unremunerated interest as the chairman of the British side of the Saudi-British Business Council. I returned from Saudi Arabia early this morning. A considerable job will obviously have to be done to convince many of our friends in the Gulf states of the wisdom of the agreement that has been made. Will the Minister tell the House a little more about what is intended to be done now—not what has been done in the past because that has still left a lot of questions in the minds of colleagues, particularly in Saudi Arabia—to give assurance to the Gulf states about the agreement that has been reached?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, a great many officials have worked long hours and have spent a long time on planes going back and forth. It so happens that the State Department official I know best has led the State Department delegation at official level. According to everything I have heard, she has done extremely well. However, there is still a great deal of work to be done. On the underground facilities at Fordo, the exact details of the inspection regime remain to be negotiated and agreed, and then enforced, between now and the end of January. However, it is clear that we expect to have access to all these facilities. Of course, there are Saudi and Gulf state concerns, as there are concerns in Israel, and we are in active dialogue with the Saudis and others about them. It would be disastrous for the Middle East if this were to descend into a sectarian Sunni/Shia conflict. Let us hope that one of the outcomes of the agreement will be to reverse what some of us feared might be taking us in that direction.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

16:38

Amendment 22R

Moved by

[Lord Deben]

22R: Before Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of “the controlled area of Parliament Square” to the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1) Section 142 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) the footways of Bridge Street, St Margaret’s Street, Abingdon Street, and so much of the footway of Great College Street as immediately adjoins Abingdon Green,(d) Old Palace Yard,(e) Abingdon Green, and(f) the northern end of Victoria Tower Gardens.”(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) before the definition of “the central garden of Parliament Square” insert—““Abingdon Green” means the garden constructed on the sites of properties formerly known as 17-28 (both inclusive) Abingdon Street, London SW1, and the garden surrounding the adjoining Jewel Tower;”
(b) after the definition of “footway” insert—““the northern end of Victoria Tower Gardens” means that part of Victoria Tower Gardens which lies within 100 metres of the metal railings which mark is northern boundary;
“Old Palace Yard” includes the King George V Memorial and the surrounding lawns and paving.””

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial concept. The other House introduced legislation to deal with the twin issues of enabling access for those who wish to protest or state their case to the Houses of Parliament, but in a way that does not inconvenience unduly the work of the Houses of Parliament and, indeed, other people who wish to use Parliament Square. Parliament took some time to get the right balance. I think it would be true to say that to start with we did not have proper protection; we then moved to a position in which many felt that there was not enough freedom for people to demonstrate; and then to the present arrangement, which I think now has all-party support, which states that people can properly demonstrate but that they must have permission to use equipment that amplifies the words they say. That is a not unreasonable request, and that is the balance that has been reached. Unfortunately, the present rule refers only to Parliament Square itself and the part closest to the House of Commons.

It was always thought that if there were movement in any other direction, the police would be happy to take action. However, without blaming anyone, it seems that that is not the case. The police would prefer not to intervene. The problem that arises is that this means that on an increasing number of occasions, part of this House is almost impossible to work in. I came to terms with this when I was trying to have a detailed discussion with one of the officers of the House and we had to move out of his office into the corridor because we could not have a conversation, so loud was the noise from outside. It also did not help that one could not hear what the noise outside was about, because the trouble with much of the amplification used is that it obscures the sense while increasing the noise. I fear that this is one aspect of human life today in any case, but it is particularly notable in this case.

The difficulty is merely geographical. The law at the moment stops before you get to the House of Lords—and those who protest have discovered that. They feel that it is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to do within the curtilage of the House of Lords precisely what they used to do, to the concern of the public, in the area immediately in front of the House of Commons. All my amendment therefore does is increase the geographical area by the minimum necessary to provide the House of Lords with the same protection and opening that the House of Commons already has, without the intervention of the police.

There is an additional reason about which the House should know. On Sunday, for example, when the House of Lords was not sitting, a large collection of people gathered outside the House of Lords to address us. Of course, the only people whom they addressed were those attempting to worship in Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s, Westminster. I received no direct complaint about that, but there is no doubt that the noise made the worshippers’ activities, which were perfectly proper for a Sunday, almost impossible if one was close enough to the noise.

I hope that no one in this House would accuse me of being anything other than usually entirely on the side of freedom. I have a long history of doing that and I do not want to restrict anyone from protesting. Indeed, I can think of few happier occasions than when many of us went out to join those who had come to celebrate the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. It was a happy and cheerful activity, and not something that one would have wanted in any way to stop. However, what has to be stopped is the kind of behaviour that made it impossible for the House of Commons to continue and that caused it to pass legislation that protected it and—I am sure by some oversight—failed to move just far enough to protect this House.

I therefore very much hope that we will be able to have this protection. The convenience of the Bill is that such a provision is clearly within the remit of the Long Title, and therefore that we can pop in the new clause to no one’s detriment. We will still ensure that Her Majesty’s subjects who wish to complain to us about any subject under the sun will continue to be able to do so but, we hope, with a voice that is clear but not so loud as to be impossible. I beg to move.

16:44

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in his amendment. I have no objection to people who wish to exercise their democratic right by demonstrating. However, while they have that right, I believe that those of us who work in the Palace of Westminster, and particularly those who work in offices on the West Front, have an equal right to work in an environment that is not polluted by electronically enhanced voices and music at volumes which, at times, become unbearable.

On one occasion during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, my noble friend Lady Finlay and I were trying to write speeches on behalf of those who were bellowing through a loudspeaker outside our window. We put on our coats and went to ask, politely, the young lady who was making the noise if she would kindly modulate it. Her response was to ask why we could not wear ear-plugs. After we had spent some time trying to explain to those involved that they were defeating their objective, they finally conceded and stood or sat quietly for the rest of the afternoon. I have no objection to that sort of demonstration.

Without doubt, those demonstrating for several days while we were debating the same-sex marriage Bill excelled themselves. I will never again hear “I’m Getting Married in the Morning”, or the rival “Amazing Grace”, without cringing. After several days of torment, I tried the noise pollution officer at Westminster City Council. He said that it was not his responsibility but was a police matter. I was told to dial 111. The police said that they could do nothing as the demonstrators were acting within their rights. Unfortunately, noble Lords and officials who work in the West Front offices cannot simply pick up a pen and pad and move to a quieter location; we are somewhat tied to our desks by computers, phones and files—a captive audience, in other words.

The amendment does not stop those who wish to demonstrate, nor would I wish that to happen. Members of another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, told us, successfully moved the noise from their environs. We have only this amendment between us and our sanity.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I refer back to two previous contributions that I made on this subject over recent years and, in particular, to correspondence from Councillor Colin Barrow of Westminster City Council. When the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was going through Parliament, he wrote to the department expressing concern about how it would operate. This was at a time when, as the noble Lord may recall, the square was inhabited—if I may use that term—by a lot of protesters who were setting up tents and making a lot of noise. At that time, I did not make the proposal that I want to make today. I am using this amendment as a peg on which to promote a principle.

We all believe in the right to demonstrate but we are concerned about noise. We know that people on the West Front—particularly officials of the political parties who work in offices there—have a lot of problems when demonstrations take place, especially during the summer months when they wish to open their windows and, of course, the noise becomes even more prevalent. As Colin Barrow proposed in his correspondence of some years ago, it may be possible to manage the whole square or the green areas in front of Parliament in a better way.

I propose that we establish a centre on one of those pieces of land where people can apply to put up their stands on behalf of various campaigns, perhaps on a rotational basis, months in advance. It would be a lobbying building for Parliament and it would give people the opportunity to recognise that we want to help them protest, but in an organised way. In doing so, we would support the principles set out by Councillor Colin Barrow of Westminster City Council when he asked for a more properly managed square-control arrangement.

I know that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is more tightly defined—he is dealing with a narrower area—but I believe that we should think in terms of something more organised whereby organisations throughout the country can apply to demonstrate. At the moment, in the Upper Committee Corridor we effectively have a more organised arrangement which people can apply to use, but they cannot demonstrate. I want something a little more aggressive than what is available with the displays there, so that people can put their case. Instead of MPs simply driving past and not being able to read the signs or hear what is being said because the noise is overwhelming, there would be a place where MPs or Peers could stroll over, walk through the centre, see who had their stands there, talk to the lobbyists and then leave. That would be a far more sensible operation. I am not asking for it to be set up tomorrow, but in the longer term, it would be wise if we were to set off down that road. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)]

My Lords, the loud-hailing which took place in Parliament Square was a disgrace. Most of us who have fought elections at council and parliamentary level have used loud-hailing equipment. When that equipment goes above a certain noise level, it becomes a breach of the peace. It is not the first time. When we have been out on the hustings, we have been reminded of that.

That strange character sat in Parliament Square for 10 years, and all sorts of organisations tried to help: the Greater London Council, Westminster Council, the police, Parliament and even the Home Office. Legislation went through both Houses, but it was not strong enough, and the judges said, “No. The chap who is there”—I forget his name—“can use the pavement because it is not really a pavement in the proper sense of the word”. All I can say is that if somebody were sitting outside their house, they would find good legal cause to get rid of him after 10 years.

The other place found arrangements to prevent loud-hailing at that end, but it cannot speak for this autonomous body. That is why the demonstrators have moved up. However, if anyone uses a loud-hailer that gets above a certain level, they are being a nuisance. Even the media agreed with that. The people who had been aggravated most by the person who was on the loud-hailer all day and every day, the character who stood there for 10 years, were those in the Press Gallery. When Parliament went into Recess, people from the Press Gallery went out and told the person concerned in no uncertain terms, “Please stop”.

I support the amendment. An overall body should get control of this situation because the difficulty that Westminster Council had was that its only way of stopping the noise was if the sound level went above a certain decibel level. It had to come along with its testing equipment, and it could have been that the wind was in a different direction or whatever. I know that this amendment is tight. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested we should have a stall where people could come and demonstrate. No one is stopping demonstrations, but this is my understanding of a demonstration: the first time I had a demonstration at Parliament, I was a young trade unionist; I had a day off work; we travelled down in the morning by train; and at night we went back on the train and were away. It was not permanent.

Parliament Square is like a park. It is a lovely place where people should be able to take their family. There should not be a stall there. The place should be enjoyed by everyone. Millions have been spent on Westminster Abbey; millions have been spent on St Margaret’s Church, with which we have a close connection; and, of course, millions have been spent on both Houses, Portcullis House and the other extensions. If it is not already the case, the whole area should be a world heritage site. We should not have someone coming along with a loud-hailer that is so loud that people cannot get on with their proper business in the offices.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

There was a campaign for a long time—much too long—to remove the most unsatisfactory arrangement under which certain individual protestors hogged the space in Parliament Square, to which the noble Lord, Lord Martin, has just referred. It was eventually ended and the square is infinitely better from every point of view. We were all strongly in favour of having protests, but not permanent protests. I am not absolutely clear where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is suggesting his hut should be. I believe that the area, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said, is very much a world heritage site, and it would be difficult to accommodate a permanent building in any of those spaces without intruding on the area. I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Deben.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I support the notion, if not necessarily the detail of finding a way of using what is at the heart of our democracy and an area that has Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the Supreme Court, around it, and which is indeed a world heritage site—I shall not get into the issue of whether traffic should be using it—to provide a means of public expression. I mean expression by the public, not those of us who are in the buildings. That is something in which the Hansard Society is interested as well.

My noble friend’s speech was about the amplification of noise and his amendment would extend the prohibitions to the other prohibited activities, which are about putting up tents, having what is called sleeping equipment, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, may have referred to this, but other noble Lords have focused on noise. If there is to be an extension—I agree that the fewest extensions or prohibitions the better—I wonder whether it is necessary to deal with both aspects.

[Lord Deben]

Yes, it parallels exactly what is already enacted for Parliament Square. The reason for that is: when people look at the present situation they could easily duplicate what was the major problem in Parliament Square, which was people living there week in, week out. It excludes that, but it does not exclude the normal arrival to speak or to put forward views, or indeed to ask permission for loudspeakers, which is also possible. It would merely put us in the same position as the House of Commons, which seems to be a not unreasonable proposition.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I accept that, of course, and the possibility of seeking permission. But we have not experienced the problem of people moving into Abingdon Green, and so on. I think that my noble friend will understand my slight caution about that part of the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I realise that when the House is in a mood of almost unanimity the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can be relied on to inject a notion of something or other into the discussion. It is therefore very dangerous to say that perhaps this amendment is not quite right, but I do so as somebody with an office in Millbank House. I notice that the boundaries that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has created would effectively mean that Millbank House could be completely surrounded by demonstrators, which would be entirely consistent with what has been said.

I am not sure that if they were to use loud-hailing equipment it would make a substantial difference. I wonder whether the boundaries are set quite right to cover the full extremities of the parliamentary estate, bearing in mind the way in which sound carries. If the Government are going to take away this amendment—as I hope they are—and think about it carefully and positively, I suggest that they look at precisely those boundaries to make sure that the whole of the parliamentary estate is covered.

17:00

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

My Lords, I also have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, not least because the gentleman to whom we have referred was there for so long; he seemed to live in a tent and would hang out his washing from time to time. We should remember that people from all over the world come to see this site and that that vista was ruined for a long time because it was so dirty and untidy.

What is now before us is perhaps not understood by Members who do not have offices in the front row, as it were, of this House. If your office is in the middle or towards the back of the House of Lords, you will not hear anything. Indeed, during the previous campaign we fought on this matter, I found that this was very much so; people did not understand always if their office was a fair distance from the front. Reference to this has been made by the mover of the amendment, which I strongly support, and by others: if you live in that particular part of the building, all the papers you should read, all the briefings you should attempt to gain, and all the speeches you might plan to make are deeply affected, to say nothing of the letters you are expected to write to those who write to you telling you of a problem that they have or of a problem that exists elsewhere.

There was a campaign last week which went on for a long time. It was for the Ghurkhas—for whom I have great sympathy and normally would support very strongly—but by the time they had finished I wanted to go out and tell them that I would never support them again after what they had done to my work programme for hours and hours on end. Those of us who live in these offices—and we do live in them for the time we are here—have not only a job to do but a duty to fulfil. It always worries me that one person’s human rights seem to be contrary to another person’s human rights.

Of course I acknowledge completely that everyone should have a right to campaign if they feel strongly about an issue. That is not what we are arguing about. I cannot go along with my long-term colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because Members of Parliament would not go to another building across the road to hear what people were thinking. Nor would many members of the public go in because they are not the people the demonstrators are trying to reach anyway—they are trying to reach us. The fact of the matter is that they are annoying us all too often. A recent campaign, which involved raucous and entirely unmelodic singing, went on and on and I defy anyone to have done their work during that time.

We do not want to stop anyone trying to put their views across to us and asking for a change. We are saying that we have rights too. We have a right and a duty to fulfil all the things that we have to do here and at the moment we are not enabled to. I support the amendment and I hope it will go through in the spirit that so many people displayed when they made their speeches.

[Baroness Trumpington (Con)]

My Lords, I listened to the debate on my old boss’s amendment with great interest and pleasure. This is what could be called “Bella Figura”. The Italians, Germans and French would never put up with these parades we have had in front of us or the noise we have endured—they would have been gone in no time at all. Much as I sympathise with many of their objectives, I very much deplore the way they try to attain them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very good small debate on what I consider to be a very important subject. My noble friend has done the House a great favour by raising this important matter for us to debate. I will not mention all those who have spoken but, without exception, all noble Lords have recognised the issue that we have to deal with. I hope I can demonstrate that the Government are looking for a positive way forward on this.

I am sure that many other noble Lords besides those who have spoken will have strong views on the noise generated by the demonstrations that take place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. We have, of course, been here before. As noble Lords have pointed out, legislation to deal with such demonstrations was first passed in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We should not forget just how contentious that legislation was, which is why it was repealed and replaced with more proportionate measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to which my noble friend referred.

My noble friend and the Committee will be sensitive to the need, before passing further legislation, to be very careful about taking any action that may impact disproportionately on people’s right to protest and their freedom of speech. However, I recognise the gross disturbance which amplified sound is now bringing to otherwise legitimate demonstrations. The proximity to the working offices of the House of Lords makes it difficult for Peers, officers of the House and staff to conduct their parliamentary duties. A number of noble Lords have referred to that.

With the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 having addressed the problems in Parliament Square, noble Lords may feel that some of those problems have been displaced, particularly to the small area around the George V Memorial and the surrounding lawns and paving, as referred to in the amendment. Perhaps it would help noble Lords if I describe the law as it applies for areas away from Parliament Square. The 2011 Act strengthened local authorities’ by-law-making powers, in particular by including a power to seize items used in connection with the contravention of a by-law. Westminster City Council and the Royal Parks authority updated their by-laws immediately after the relevant provisions of the 2011 Act were brought into force. The by-laws include measures to deal with tents, structures and excess noise.

These by-laws, in many ways, already have the effect intended by this amendment. Westminster City Council by-laws and the Royal Parks by-laws contain strict noise control provisions covering Old Palace Yard and surrounding areas such as Abingdon Green. The by-laws state that a person should not make or allow to be caused any noise which is so loud or so continuous as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to others in the area. But here is the rub: the enforcement of by-laws is a matter for Westminster City Council and, ultimately, the police. Suspected breach of a by-law could lead to arrest and prosecution. In taking any enforcement decisions, the authorised officers or the police would take into account the need to allow a right to protest outside Parliament. Achieving a balance seems to be part of the difficulty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested an idea that recognises this to try to avoid the gross disruption experienced currently. I do not know. Some noble Lords have questioned what he has proposed, but I thank him for giving us a possible solution.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

There is a precedent for building on sensitive land within the area of Westminster; that is, the proposal being made by both Houses to build an educational centre of 6,000 square feet on Victoria Tower Gardens, which is the subject of a lot of debate at the moment. The proposal I am making is not that it would be one exhibitor; there might be a dozen exhibitors on rotation, drawing on different organisations, coming in nationally. Members of Parliament and Peers would visit in those circumstances because it would be a lobbying centre, and it would set a precedent that I think might be mirrored by other parliaments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for elaborating on what he is thinking. I thank him, genuinely, for trying to think positively about how to handle the rightful expression and the disruption to which Members, staff and officers of this House are currently subject because of the excessive noise.

Of course, there are further provisions. The Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on static protests or demonstrations. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows the police to deal with noise issues. But enforcement lies at the bottom of all these measures at present, and the police need to balance the management of disruption caused by any protest against people’s right to protest—I think we would all accept that.

The police have sufficient powers under the Public Order Act, and the police and Westminster City Council can enforce by-laws that cater for noise issues around the Palace of Westminster. The issue, therefore, is how the existing by-laws are enforced. One would have to say that this is an operational matter for the police and Westminster City Council. That said, I fully recognise the degree of distress caused by the repeated use of musical instruments, loud-hailers and amplifiers in the areas adjoining your Lordships’ House and the disruptive effect that can have. I have been told—and we have heard today—of Peers evacuating their offices to work elsewhere, and of another who has been made to feel physically ill as a result of the noise. This cannot be tolerated.

I propose to my noble friend that he and I meet the Metropolitan Police and Westminster City Council to discuss this issue ahead of Report to examine a way forward in dealing with this problem. I suggest that we also include the Dean of Westminster Abbey. As my noble friend has pointed out, the abbey is also subject to the gross disturbance that amplified sound is now bringing to some demonstrations.

[Lord Marlesford]

Before my noble friend leaves this point, I remind him—the trouble is, he was not particularly involved in it—of when we were campaigning against what was happening in Parliament Square, which brought such discredit to the whole area and did not add to the credit of Parliament. I had a Private Member’s Bill on this and the argument that was always used was, “Oh, there are lots of powers”, and they quoted quite a number of the Acts of Parliament that my noble friend has just been quoting. It did not work. It was much too complicated for the individual authorities—whether it was the Met, Westminster City Council or the health and safety people—to do anything about it. The Act which was introduced to deal with Parliament Square appears to have been very successful. I suggest to the Minister that, much better than trying to play around with existing legislation which might be relevant to dealing with the problem, let us build on what has dealt with the problem in Parliament Square.

17:15

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I explained that I had been in touch with Westminster City Council and the police. I know what the law is and I spent a whole afternoon trying to point it out to them, but they said, “No, it’s not us. Not me, guv”, so I was left frustrated. I hope that the Minister will therefore take notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do absolutely. I need to satisfy myself, before we move on, that the existing provisions are not being enforced by Westminster City Council and the police, because they are both involved in enforcing them. I want a meeting to make sure that we have thoroughly thought through any provisions before we put them in legislation; I think that the House would expect that. We of course have an interest: we work here; we live here; we suffer the noise and disruption ourselves. We need to be able to justify in the wider Parliament other than this Chamber and even in the big parliament of the people outside any action that we choose to take. I am very mindful of what my noble friend says. Enforcement has not been successful.

[Baroness Trumpington]

Has the Minister left out Marble Arch, the obvious place being Speakers’ Corner, to go on existing?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There are certain places where there has been a tradition of people being able to assemble to speak. The last time I went to Speakers’ Corner, I cannot remember loud-hailers or blast-master amplification being used as part and parcel of that process. It is the amplification of the message, seeking almost to penetrate this very Chamber, which I think is causing the difficulty.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

Perhaps I may ask one further short question. In the many cases up and down the country where raucous parties have taken place, all it seems to need to get the police in action, on the spot and stopping the trouble, is for one or two people to complain. If one or two Members of Parliament, be they Peers or from another place, had the courage to go and complain to the police about the noise, does the Minister think that, under present rules, that might stop it?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have to hold out that possibility but, on the other hand, it might not. If the latter is the case, it is perfectly proper for this House to seek a remedy which enables it to perform its function and for its Members to carry out their duties without the gross disturbance which they have otherwise been subject to.

We need to progress with a certain amount of caution here. We have to justify anything that we do by way of legislation with our friends in another place and with the greater public opinion outside. I advocate that as a matter of caution. However, we need to seek a way forward. I am looking to work with others to find a solution. We need to make sure that it is a sensitive and effective solution. I hope that with that and all that I have said my noble friend will be ready to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the consideration with which he approached my amendment. The truth is that the laws and by-laws to which he referred exist but are not enforced. He made that point. That was precisely what happened in Parliament Square. Parliament and the House of Commons decided that the square would need a special arrangement because that was the only way to make sure it was enforced. It has now been enforced in the new, much more elegant form brought in by the 2011 Act, about which I have heard no complaints, even from the most extreme of campaigners. They see that the balance is roughly there. It seems odd that what is sauce for the elected goose should not be sauce for the unelected, but happily continuing, gander. I have difficulty in understanding why there should be a difficulty, if I may put it as elegantly as that.

I am very happy to meet my noble friend and all the other people he spoke of, but I suspect that the House will want to come back to this at a later stage. However much conversation we have with the same people who failed to regulate the matters in Parliament Square before the law was changed, I suspect that we will want to come back to this House and propose again the simple concept of moving what is now limited to Parliament Square further along the road. Of course, I undertake that, in those discussions, the actual boundaries will be looked at again in case we have not quite got them right. I do not want to go further than is absolutely necessary because I do not want this to be different from, or impinge upon, other jurisdictions. This is about the Houses of Parliament. At the moment, it is about one House of Parliament—all I want to do is make sure that it is about both Houses. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment but hope that our discussions will end up with an amendment that is acceptable to the Government when we come to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22R withdrawn.

Clause 55: Power to make orders

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

23: Clause 55, page 32, line 8, leave out “two” and insert “three”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, your Lordships may be satisfied that we are moving back to stuff that is in the Bill as opposed to perfectly legitimate discussions about things that noble Lords have taken the opportunity to raise. In moving Amendment 23, I will speak also to the other 12 amendments in the group. In fact, I will speak to the first eight or nine amendments on the basis that my noble friend the Minister has kindly agreed to write to me about the others—unless other noble Lords raise them.

We move on to Part 4, Chapter 2 of the Bill, which is about public spaces protection orders—a new form of order that district or unitary councils will be able to make to tackle anti-social behaviour in their area. Rather than speaking in detail to each of these amendments, it would help at this stage if I made a few general comments to introduce public spaces protection orders.

Clause 55 is the defining clause. It says that the local authority—the district council—can make a public spaces protection order in response to circumstances in which,

“activities carried on in a public place … have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”.

“Public place” is defined quite widely. It does not have to be owned by the public sector. The test here, of a

“detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”,

is essentially the same test as for community protection notices.

There is one fundamental distinction between this order, the PSPO, and the other measures we have been discussing so far, such as IPNAs, criminal behaviour orders and community protection notices, which are all about the control of individuals, of people acting either individually or in a group. Public spaces protection orders are different because they are about public spaces and controls over those spaces—in other words, controls on land and what people can do on that land—so they affect everyone, or everyone in a category of persons. That has civil liberties implications, because clearly they will capture innocent people who may then be penalised and, if they breach the order, could end up facing criminal charges.

I should say that I am not against public spaces protection orders. I think that they will be extremely useful devices for local authorities, as long as they are used sensibly and proportionately. The amendments in this group and some of my other amendments are not, therefore, against PSPOs; they are probing how they will work, what safeguards are already in the Bill and what further safeguards may be needed.

There are three main concerns about PSPOs. The first is the one that I have already raised: they may remove liberties of the citizen in public spaces from the vast majority of people who have done nothing wrong and do not intend to do anything wrong, or at least nothing significant. The Bill states that the orders can be levied for up to three years—the assumption is that that will be standard—and then prolonged for another three years ad infinitum. In effect, they could become permanent restrictions on what people can do in public places and, in extremis, whether they can go there or not.

The second concern relates to the possibility that public spaces protection orders could be used to keep people out of an area, not just to control what they can and cannot do within that area. For some types of land designated precisely for access and informal recreation, public spaces protection orders will in effect nullify and negate the very purpose of the designation of that land. That part of the proposals has caused considerable alarm among organisations such as the Ramblers and the Open Spaces Society, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred. The threat, as it is seen, is that some or all the rights under existing legislation specifically for those types of land could be removed, and that when proposals are made to remove them under the new legislation, all the existing safeguards to ensure that such rights are not removed unless absolutely necessary will be swept away in a pretty easy, arbitrary manner.

The third concern, which I think we can deal with now, is that as the Bill has gone through its parliamentary process, PSPOs have not been much scrutinised—certainly not adequately, in my view. The pre-legislative consideration of the Bill by the Home Affairs Committee dealt with PSPOs in a fairly cursory way; they got some discussion, but not a lot, as the Bill went through the House of Commons. We must scrutinise this part of the Bill carefully to see whether we can persuade the Government to make changes to prevent some local authorities taking the provision to the limit so that it goes further than is reasonable.

17:30

To avoid having to go through all the amendments in detail, I submitted a list of the questions they cover to the Minister, who kindly agreed to look at them. The basic questions are, first: will the orders have to be based on evidence—in other words, past and present activities on the land—as well as a concern that they will happen or continue, or can they be based solely on a concern or belief that activities will occur in the future? Secondly, can a PSPO be made only on the area where evidence exists or could problems in one area be used as a reason for a much bigger area, or even a different area, being made subject to one?

A further point has arisen since I had discussions with the Minister, which is whether the conditions that can be put on a PSPO can apply only to activities and the detrimental effect identified before people say, “Let’s have a PSPO”. Is it only those activities and the detrimental effect which have been identified and defined under the first condition, in Clause 55(2)(a), or could anything be put on once those are considered? Should the criteria for making an order not take account of the downsides of making it, rather than merely considering the benefits of doing so—in other words, should the legislation have a test of balance of judgment introduced into it? Should the prohibitions and requirements not be necessary rather than just reasonable? To what extent is discrimination acceptable between different types or groups of people, or differently aged people, in setting the prohibitions and requirements in the order? This is an important part of the Bill and I hope that we will scrutinise it carefully. I beg to move Amendment 23.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this is a large group of amendments which essentially comes down to the purpose of these orders. Perhaps I may take the last point first as that is often easier. The conditions that have to be considered include that the effect of the activities, in the second limb,

“justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice”.

I am looking at Clause 55(3)(c), so there is a requirement for balance in the creation of a public spaces protection order within the Bill. It is certainly not the case that, in introducing these public spaces protection orders, we are seeking to give local authorities an undiluted right to close off areas without proper consideration of the legal and proper activity being conducted in those areas.

The problem with my noble friend’s amendments is that he is suggesting that the lives of people in the locality would already have to have been affected for some time before the council could act. We are anticipating that there will be circumstances in which, because of other activities, the council may wish to create a public spaces protection order in advance of, let us say, a new development. For example, if a council wanted to open a new children’s play area, it may wish to place restrictions on that area either to prohibit dogs from entering or to allow them only if they are kept on a lead. If my noble friend’s amendments were accepted, the council would have to wait until irresponsible dog ownership turned up as a feature before it could address that. We dealt in a previous debate with the problems that can come through displaced activities, so I hope that my noble friend will understand that we see it as being for a council to exercise judgment on these matters.

Only those behaviours that are linked to a detrimental activity can be applied. Any additions to that list would be treated as a variation under Clause 57 and be subject to the same tests and consultation. Having got a public spaces protection order, it can be varied only by starting the consultative process again. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by that; if he is not, I can tell him that any variation of an order could be challenged in the High Court. Where orders are deemed to be unnecessary or disproportionate, there is still the ability for those affected to challenge it in court. The council will be mindful of this when judging whether the test has been met.

I fully understand why my noble friend is making these points. In the draft guidance published last month we have included guidelines on the aspects and impacts that should be considered before an order is used. We will, of course, continue to develop the guidance to try and cover the point raised by my noble friend, but I fear that including it in the Bill would make it hard for a council to act quickly and deal effectively with anti-social behaviour.

I think that I have covered the issue of the future impacts. Regarding Amendment 32, I would like to be clear that the aim behind this amendment is to allow councils to design solutions around local needs. Clause 55(6) will result in the closure of rights of way being less likely under a new regime. It will allow specific problems to be dealt with without the recourse to completely closing a public space, as I have said.

There is some flexibility in these orders that will suit both those who wish to go about exercising their legitimate rights and those who wish to make sure that anti-social behaviour can be tackled. I agree with my noble friend that these orders have to be used proportionately. The benefit to the community in tackling detrimental activities must be balanced against the impact of any prohibitions or requirements. I believe that local councils are capable of making such assessments and coming to the right decisions, having consulted the local community. If they get it wrong, or are perceived to have got it wrong, an order can be challenged in the courts. Given the safeguards that we have built into the legislation, which are reinforced by the draft guidance we have published, the Bill gets the balance right and I hope that my noble friend would be willing, on that basis, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that takes us into some very useful discussion and I am grateful to my noble friend for his careful response. What he said about play areas and the ability of councils to put a public spaces protection order on a new play area to keep dogs out, for example, or perhaps because they wish to have areas under a PSPO where dogs would have to be kept on a lead, indicates that what is being proposed is not a minor thing. It is a very powerful new proposal with a strong power. Some might think that it is far-reaching and draconian but, if councils behave properly, it may be valuable.

As a local councillor, I have to say that I am very attracted by the idea of being able to make public spaces protection orders. I can think of all sorts of places where suitable orders might be introduced—so I am not against them at all. What I am concerned about is whether there are sufficient safeguards. My noble friend refers to the right of appeal to the High Court but, in terms of closing footpaths, the right of appeal on closing a right of way is to the magistrates’ court. Most people concerned about such a matter can undertake an appeal to the magistrates’ court. They would not want to go to the High Court to appeal against an order. There is a real concern here that the powers being given to local authorities are very strong, potentially very beneficial but also powers that could be misused. Being able to go only to the High Court is a problem.

Finally, the Minister referred to the draft guidance that has been produced, which is very helpful and useful. Like my noble friend Lady Hamwee on guidance, earlier today I said that it was a good thing that in this Bill that there was not much provision for the Secretary of State to make orders and regulations. In practice, what is going to happen is that the Secretary of State will issue guidance, which in effect will be instructions to local authorities. It will be a very brave local authority that does not follow the guidance. I am not sure that non-statutory guidance in that sense is any better than statutory orders and regulations, which at least potentially can have some parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s comments. There are further things to discuss here before we get to Report but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Amendments 24 to 29 not moved.

Amendments 30 and 31 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 32 to 34 not moved.

Amendment 34A

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

34A: Clause 55, page 32, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) A prohibition or requirement made under subsection (6) may not prevent the use of the public space by persons—
(a) bearing placards, offering to talk to people or providing literature or other material relating to political or other beliefs and campaigns;(b) assembling or parading for the purpose of promoting political or other beliefs and campaigns;(c) making speeches whether or not amplified in pursuit of such aims.”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, perhaps we should have discussed this amendment along with the last amendment but one about goings-on around this building. This amendment tests to what extent public spaces protection orders can remove rights of peaceful assembly in public places. In practice, public spaces protection orders are not a suitable way of limiting freedom of speech, assembly or campaigning. We have just discussed a very extreme example. There may be occasions when these rights have to be curtailed or regulated and controlled for the benefit of people in general, people in the locality and even people in your Lordships’ House. But in most cases, when public protest gets out of hand, it is possible to deal with it through existing public order legislation. In some cases, it requires local by-laws but, by and large, it is dealt with fairly well. People ask whether we should not be able to ban those such as the English Defence League from having a demonstration in the middle of Bradford, but there is legislation to deal with that. If existing legislation is insufficient, it is in the area of public order legislation or local legislation that people should look.

It would be wrong for these orders, which can be made quickly and easily by a local authority, with a minimum degree of consultation—even with the welcome amendments that the Government will propose in a minute or two—to be used to limit basic rights of assembly, protest and debates in public places and freedom of speech. Specific problems should be dealt with in a one-off manner on the basis of existing law. If there are very special places, such as outside this building, where people think that there ought to be more control, it should be dealt with on that basis. If there is a need to improve the law, it should not be done on the basis of orders that are easy to make and can last for three years—and in practice, by extending them, can last for ever. The rights of assembly, free speech and peaceful campaigning are too important to be dealt with in this rather arbitrary manner. I beg to move.

17:45

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although the words of his Amendment 34A may not find too much favour in the light of the previous debate, when it refers to,

“making speeches whether or not amplified”,

given the discussion that we have had about amplified speeches outside your Lordships’ House.

There is an important criterion on which, I believe, the noble Lord is seeking reassurance from the Government. People have a democratic and legitimate right to protest in public places, and we would really not want to see these powers misused, if people are campaigning or lobbying for a particular cause or issue, although I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. It would be helpful to have some comment from the Minister. Can he give reassurance that there are no circumstances in which this provision would be allowed to curtail legitimate debate, campaigning or protest? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, there are other ways in which such issues should be dealt with. We all know of cases where laws have been used for purposes other than those intended by Governments. As the Minister will appreciate, it creates huge suspicion when provisions seem open-ended. I hope that he can give reassurance and be very clear on that, perhaps stating specifically in guidance that the intention would not be to limit in any way the democratic responsibilities of the citizen.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the arguments, but this is an instance where guidance would not be enough. Unless we can have hard examples of where the provision might be properly used to restrict assembly where there is no other provision to deal with any of the problems, it would not be adequate for guidance to say something like, “The Government would not expect this to be used in such and such a situation”. This is a power that I would be very unhappy to give to anyone because of its misuse, unless there was a very good reason to allow it here and they have no other tools.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am really grateful for this debate. It has been very helpful to the Committee to be able to talk in these terms. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 55 and how it is constructed. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and sometimes legislation is difficult to read or understand, but here the tests that are required on public spaces protection orders are quite clear and explicit.

We all agree that rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are important, and we would not wish to interfere with them in this Bill. Noble Lords are right to seek from me reassurance on this. What the amendment seeks to do is not as important as the probing that lies behind it. The legislation sets a very high test that must be applied before a public spaces protection order is used, as I will explain. The first condition of the test, in Clause 55(2), states that the activities must have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality or it is likely that such activities will occur which could have this effect. The second condition is that the activity is persistent, unreasonable and is justified by the restrictions on the notice. I think that gives us a pretty clear idea of the sort of activity which a public spaces protection order is designed to cover.

I consider it highly unlikely that, in the case of a peaceful protest, or holding placards or handing out literature, or talking to people, even the first condition could be met. I do not see that as being a condition which any court would allow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord refers to “any court”. It is of course the local authority that will be making the judgment. The court would only be involved at a much later stage, if that was challenged. The Minister says that the second condition is that it has to be,

“of a persistent or continuing nature”

and “unreasonable”. It does not have to be. It has to be “likely to”: a judgment is being made as to whether or not the effect of the activities is “likely to” do something. That is a much weaker test than that which the noble Lord implied.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness has only referred to one part of the second condition; there are three tests within the second condition alone. With the extra requirements set out in the second condition, I am satisfied that we have provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that these orders cannot be used to prevent peaceful protests or free speech. It is also worth mentioning that local authorities and the courts—I am sorry to come back to the courts, but we rely on them to make sure that legislation is properly used—must exercise their obligations compatibly with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine the rights to freedom of expression and association respectively. They are intrinsic in any matter concerning peaceful public protest or free speech.

That is not to say that public order legislation will not continue to apply; it can still apply. My remarks should therefore not be taken as licence to include threatening or abusive words on a placard, or the bearer of the placard containing that sort of wording could be liable to arrest. There is overriding public order legislation, but the test on a public spaces protection order has to satisfy the notion that it is a behaviour which is persistent and continuing, is or is likely to be such as to make activities unreasonable and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice. All three of those have to be part of the second condition, let alone the first. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

I am grateful for that discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her support. It is clearly a complicated matter. I will go away and look carefully at what the Minister has said. I suspect that I will not be completely satisfied but, nevertheless, perhaps looking forward to further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34A withdrawn.

Amendment 34B

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

34B: Clause 55, page 32, line 38, leave out “consult”

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief with this group of government amendments which implement the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of certain of the delegated powers in Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill. The amendments to Clauses 55, 56 and 57 are worthy of particular comment. The Delegated Powers Committee argued that, in relation to the public spaces protection orders, the current provisions in the Bill requiring a local authority to consult with the chief officer of police and community representatives was too narrow given the potential impact of such orders. The committee further argued that there should be a general duty to publicise the intention to make a notice. We are happy to accept the point made by the committee. The amendments to Clause 55 therefore require a local authority to publicise its intention to make an order so as to allow persons affected to make representations. In the normal way, a local authority would be bound to consider any such representations before making an order. This process is also replicated where the local authority plans to extend, vary or discharge an existing order by the amendments to Clauses 56 and 57 respectively. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I was a bit slow on to my feet; I suspected that there may be other noble Lords wishing to speak on this.

The noble Lord will recall that these are the amendments over which I last week raised our concerns about their being tabled late. The anticipation was that they would be debated the day after they were laid, so I am pleased that we have had a gap and welcome the opportunity to look at them more closely.

The amendments to Clause 55 are in response, as the noble Lord has said, to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government had tried to confer a wide-ranging and significant power on local authorities to control the ways in which public spaces are used without any requirement to publicise the public spaces protection order before it was made. We agree with the committee that that would have been inappropriate delegation of powers. I am pleased that the Government have tabled the amendment, which would require a local authority to publish the text of the proposed order, if I understand it correctly, or an extension in duration of an existing order, or any variation in a public spaces protection order. It adds clarity, which I welcome, but there are still concerns about the amended clause that will need to be addressed later in passage of the Bill.

As the noble Lord said, government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB on orders relating to the Housing Act—those on absolute grounds for possession of anti-social behaviour—and government Amendment 100 about the granting of injunctions will ensure that those elements are subject to the affirmative procedure. We have serious concerns about these proposals. The amendments at least provide for a greater degree of accountability of the legislative process and add greater scrutiny to these powers, which we find deeply flawed. There are loopholes and my noble friend Lord Rosser will be speaking to those in the course of today’s debate.

I will give one example. Clause 4 specifies the bodies which are authorised to apply under Clause 1 for an injunction against a person to prevent them engaging in conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. Subsection (5) of that clause will enable changes to be made to bodies and persons who are authorised to apply for an injunction under Clause 1, including making changes to the circumstances in which a body may make such an application. The Government’s view has been challenged, and I think they now accept this: it is not a general power to amend but is restricted to adding persons who may apply for an anti-social behaviour order under Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Delegated Powers Committee said that the Home Office’s explanation does not take account of the different nature of an anti-social behaviour order from an injunction under Clause 1, including the different tests to be applied in each case when determining an application. As a result, the Government have now tabled amendments whereby this would now rightly be subject to an affirmative procedure, which is much more appropriate.

Government Amendments 56ADA and 56ADB relate to subsections (10) and (11) of Section 84A of the Housing Act 1985. One of the conditions that, if met, could be used to trigger repossession proceedings, is that the tenant,

“or a person living in or”,

even,

“visiting the dwelling, has been convicted of a ‘serious offence’; and that offence was committed in the locality of the dwelling, against a person who lives in the locality, or against the landlord or a person employed in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions”.

The Delegated Powers Committee stated that,

“the scope of the power is not limited in any way, but simply allows the addition or removal of any indictable offence. In our view, this is a significant Henry VIII power, since the way in which it is exercised will have a direct effect on the circumstances in which a court will be required to order possession”.

Therefore we certainly agree with the government amendment that it is more appropriate that these amendments subject this process to the affirmative procedure. Obviously, the repossession process can have a hugely detrimental impact on people’s lives, and as such, any such power introduced by the Government must be monitored closely. Noble Lords have to be aware that we have serious concerns about that policy. My noble friend Lord Rosser will speak about that in more depth when we come to our debate on Clauses 86 and 89 stand part.

18:00

My key point on these government amendments is that while we think that they are more appropriate, agree with the comments made by the Delegated Powers Committee, and support specific amendments—we certainly will not oppose them—we still have concerns, even with that additional layer of scrutiny, that the proposals should be subject to greater scrutiny from your Lordships’ House. We shall speak to those later in the debate.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I note what the noble Baroness has said and appreciate the support, albeit qualified, for the government amendments from the Benches opposite.

Amendment 34B agreed.

Amendment 34C

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

34C: Clause 55, page 32, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) publish the text of the proposed order;”

Amendment 34C agreed.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

35: Clause 55, page 32, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) the owner of any part of the public space that is not owned by the local authority;”

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 35, I will speak to the other 14 amendments in this group as well. All but the last of these amendments, which was tagged on, are about the extent to which there should be consultation and advertising of public spaces protection orders before they are made and to what extent they should be publicised afterwards. What is in the Bill at the moment is pretty rudimentary.

The amendment made by the Government in the last group improved matters a little. However, Clause 55(7) states:

“A local authority making a public spaces protection order must before doing so consult the chief officer of police, and the local policing body, for the police area that includes the restricted area”.

That is fair enough. Paragraph (b) states that it must consult,

“whatever community representatives the local authority thinks it appropriate to consult”.

That is either very broad or very narrow, but we will hear what the Minister has to say.

In addition, the local authority has to publicise the proposal. The interesting question is, what does that now mean? Again, it could be done simply by putting a tiny advert in an obscure part of a not-very-widely-read newspaper, or by splashing it all over the place, on its website and everywhere else. The question is, will what local authorities are expected to do also be in the guidance? Would it not be better to have some basic proposals in the Bill—which is what my amendments try to ensure?

The first six amendments are about making public spaces protection orders. The remainder, apart from the last one, raise the same questions in relation to extensions, variations and removals of orders—what the legislation calls “discharges”. As far as consultations are concerned, Amendment 35 says that the owner of the land must be consulted. The Minister may tell us, “Of course the owner of the land will be told what is going on”, but it does not say so in the Bill. Whether the owner of a particular piece of land is a community representative may be a question of doubt. The owner may live in Wellington, New Zealand, in Vladivostok, or anywhere. However, if orders will be made that restrict the activities that members of the public can undertake on a particular piece of land, the owner of the land should be consulted about that before the order is made.

Amendment 36 probes what is meant by “community representatives”. Will the guidance tell us? The amendment would take that out, but only in order to probe what it means. Amendment 37 says that the county council—the highways authority in two-tier areas—should be consulted as one of the main local authorities. The county will think that it is the major local authority. The district may disagree, but nevertheless, the county council clearly should be consulted, particularly if the public spaces protection order affects a highway. The county is the highways authority—it is responsible for that highway—and it may well have a view as to whether activities should be restricted or whether people should be banned from going on that highway, if it is a right of way. The amendment also says that parish councils should be consulted.

I have put down amendment after amendment about parish councils and I sometimes think that the people who write legislation in central London—in Westminster and Whitehall—do not have much experience of them. I know that the Minister has huge experience of parish councils, because he lives in a part of the world in Lincolnshire that is rife with them, and quite rightly so. People may say, “Some parish councils are rubbish”, but some are brilliant. When it comes to dealing with things such as local environmental crime on a small but irritating level, or with anti-social behaviour, parish councils have an essential role to play. They are at the heart of communities and can help to stop it happening.

I propose simply that if a public spaces protection order is being made on land within a parish, surely that parish council should be consulted. The Minister may say, “Yes, the parish council is certainly the community representative, and will therefore be consulted”. I would like at the very least the assurance that that will be in the guidance. Unfortunately some district councils do not like parish councils, not even their own, and go out of their way to keep them out of things.

Amendment 38, which is quite complicated, sets out rules for advertising the proposal, making copies available, and considering representations and objections. It also says that the decision should be made in public, because some of those decisions will be very controversial, and they should not simply be made by a delegated authority to an officer or to a cabinet member who makes the decision without having to justify it to people who wish to support it or protest against it. Amendment 39 says that once a public spaces protection order has been made it has to be published and should be open to inspection. The Minister may tell me, “Of course that will happen—it will be in the guidance”. I look forward to that.

Finally, Amendment 56ZC covers a rather different area. It is an amendment which probes what the term “community representative” means, and whether it can mean a regional or national body that is perhaps called in by local people for some expertise. Again, I think, for example, of the Ramblers or the Open Spaces Society, which might be brought in if there is a proposal to close a right of way by a public spaces protection order. If the normal procedures for closing rights of way were to be carried through, through the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act, that would happen automatically.

The danger is that this legislation may provide a shortcut that local authorities will find very attractive. I am not sure that “shortcut” is the right word; it should aim to close a shortcut which may be highly controversial. One ought to be able to bring in experts in the field. Nowadays, it is not difficult to consult organisations. In the old days, you had to print off another copy of a letter, put it in an envelope, put a stamp on it and post it off. Nowadays, you do not do that; you just have an easy distribution list on your computer and you send it off to everybody, so there is no excuse for limiting and restricting the number of people who should be consulted and should be able to make representations. I sit on a local committee which deals with rights of way questions. Usually, the people who make representations to us are local people. If it is the Ramblers Association, it is a local branch of that association. However, sometimes the issue is more controversial and difficult, and national organisations get involved. These national organisations may be heritage organisations or amenity organisations. All sorts of organisations get involved on behalf of local people who have asked them to do so. Excluding them, which is what this section of the Bill seems to do, is ridiculous. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as ever. I beg to move Amendment 35.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend, especially on Amendments 38 and 56ZC. I raise the vexed issue of dogs and am happy that my first interjection on the Bill concerns that issue—indeed, I have been looking forward to it—in the context of public spaces protection orders. I think that many local authorities will consider introducing such orders to ban bull breeds of dogs from green spaces. Many people may support such a measure but an animal welfare issue is involved. If local authorities decide to ban a specific breed of dog, who will enforce it and where will those dogs be walked? Making such orders would be popular and therefore many local communities may suggest that they be implemented across the whole of their area, which would cause an animal welfare issue, especially for those responsible dog owners who look after their pets. Indeed, evidence shows that Staffordshire bull terriers are safe dogs if handled properly. However, many of the problems associated with status dogs arise because people do not understand how to look after them and do not train them properly. Blanket orders banning such dogs from green spaces could be very popular but would cause many problems. Many animal welfare charities are overrun with bull breeds of dogs that have been abandoned and the measure we are discussing would exacerbate that problem. The amendment would ensure consultation around such enforcement. I think that enforcement of breed-specific measures would be a mistake. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was drawn up in haste and tried to ban pit bull terriers. However, there are now more pit bull terriers in the country than when the Act was introduced, so it did not work. In addition, it is a very difficult law to enforce.

I understand that muzzling or keeping dogs on leads at certain times could be a solution to this problem in certain areas but a blanket ban would be a problem. Will this issue be dealt with in the guidance that will be brought forward? If that is not the case, who will make representations on behalf of these dog breeds? Amendment 38 refers to representations. I hope that national bodies will be consulted in areas where dog wardens do not exist following financial cuts. I very much hope that the Minister will advise that blanket bans cannot be imposed in this regard unless the animal welfare issues are fully discussed.

18:15

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I want to interrupt this string of Liberal Democrat speakers to correct the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He implied that the reason why parish councils were not referred to more explicitly in the Bill is that so many officials live in London and London does not have parish councils. However, London has the power to create parish councils. Indeed, last year a parish council was created in Queen’s Park following a referendum of local residents who voted for it by two to one, with about 1,000 residents voting in favour and about 500 voting against. Therefore, it is possible to create parishes in London and many local authorities have looked at this as a way of ensuring adequate local community and neighbourhood representation. Where such parishes or adequate community and neighbourhood structures exist, you would expect them to be consulted on the orders about which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is concerned.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendments in this group. I am happy to say that I believe there is merit in a number of his suggestions. I hope that he will be pleased by my response to his amendments.

Amendments 35, 45 and 50 would see the landowner consulted, if this is not the council—the council could, of course, be the landowner—before a public spaces protection order is made. I accept that it is entirely appropriate that the council should take reasonable steps to consult either the landowner or occupier of any land to be covered by a public spaces protection order. It is conceivable that this could be done through a relevant community representative under Clause 55(7)(b), but I acknowledge that the owner or occupier is in rather a different position and should be consulted directly where they can be identified. Likewise, Amendments 37, 47 and 52 would add parish councils, county councils and community councils to the list of bodies to be consulted where appropriate. Again, I accept that there is a case for having these bodies on the face of the legislation for the avoidance of doubt, and I would like to consider this matter further between now and Report. The viability of parish councils can vary enormously. I come from one of the largest parishes in England. Holbeach has a population of not far off 10,000 people and has its own resources, including a park and sports areas, so it is a considerable body in its own right.

Amendments 38, 49 and 53 would make provisions for prior public consultation where an authority wishes to issue, vary or extend an order. These go into more detail than the requirement to consult,

“whatever community representatives the local authority thinks … appropriate”.

As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said on the previous group of amendments, we have considered the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee about publicising orders and accept that such a requirement should be written into the Bill. Our amendments will require orders to be publicised before they are made, extended, varied or discharged. I hope my noble friend will accept that the government amendments achieve the substance of his Amendments 38, 49 and 53. It follows that having publicised its intention to make an order, a council is duty bound to consider any representations it receives in response to such a notification. We do not need to provide for this on the face of the Bill.

If I understand my noble friend’s scheme correctly, Amendments 36, 46 and 51 are consequential upon Amendments 38, 49 and 53. These amendments would remove the more generic reference to consulting “community representatives”. However, I still see merit in leaving reference to community representatives, which could include residents’ associations or other local, or indeed national, bodies.

This brings me on to Amendment 56ZC, which seeks to remove any doubt as to whether a national body falls within the category of community representative. While I believe that the Bill already covers the situations that my noble friend envisages, this additional clarity would be helpful and I would like to assure my noble friend that I will consider it.

I am also sympathetic to the sentiment behind Amendments 39 and 40, which relate to publicising an order once it has been made. Amendment 39 would specify that when an order is publicised this should include putting it on the local authority’s website. It was always our intention to keep the regulations light touch to ensure maximum flexibility at a local level. However, I suggest that in order to future-proof the legislation we avoid referencing websites specifically in the Bill so that if more appropriate media are developed in 10 years we do not require primary legislation. But we can certainly make clear in the regulations that the council should publish the order, at the very least, on its website.

Similarly, Amendment 40 seems to set a reasonable expectation that once an order is in place it will be available for inspection. Indeed, we would expect this to be best practice, although perhaps publishing the order on the website might make it more widely accessible than making it available at the council’s offices, as the amendment proposes. The point is well made but this matter is best addressed in guidance.

My noble friend Lord Redesdale opened up a tricky issue in an almost pre-emptive strike on our debates on dogs, if I may say so. However, quite a number of aspects of this matter are covered in the draft Home Office guidance on controlling the presence of dogs. When deciding whether to make requirements or restrictions on dogs and their owners, local councils will need to consider whether there are suitable alternatives for dogs to be exercised without restrictions. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, dog owners are required to provide for the welfare needs of their animals. This includes providing the necessary amount of exercise each day. Councils should be aware of the publicly accessible parks and other public places in their area that dog walkers can use to exercise their dogs without restrictions. I therefore hope that my noble friend is reassured about that, although he should also understand that we need to keep the public safe from dogs that are out of control. We will no doubt be discussing that delicate balance when we reach the dog provisions in the Bill.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Greaves on at least a number of the points he has raised through these amendments. I hope he will accept that the government amendments to Clauses 55 to 57 go some considerable way to addressing his concerns. I have also said that I will take away Amendments 35, 37, 45, 47, 50, 52 and 56ZC and consider them further in advance of Report. I make no commitment to bringing forward government amendments at that stage but will certainly reflect very carefully on the points he has made. With that commitment, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am a little overwhelmed by this stream of ministerial reasonableness, having spent most of the past 13 years in your Lordships’ House moving amendments and being met by the stubbornness of, “We must defend our Bill at all costs”. Seriously, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and, in the hope that we will get a good mix of government amendments and assurances about what will clearly and firmly be in the guidance, I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Amendment 35A

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

35A: Clause 55, page 32, line 39, at beginning insert “consult”

Amendment 35A agreed.

Amendment 36 not moved.

Amendment 36A

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

36A: Clause 55, page 32, line 41, at beginning insert “consult”

Amendment 36A agreed.

Amendments 37 to 40 not moved.

Amendment 41

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

41: Clause 55, page 33, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) A public spaces protection order may not be made in respect of land which—
(a) appears on a register of commons and of town and village greens maintained by a Commons Registration Authority,(b) is access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, (c) is a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic which appears on a definitive map of rights of way, or(d) is a cycle path or other way designed for pedestrians or vehicles used by disabled persons which is financed or maintained by a public authority, or which was authorised or required by a planning permission.”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this is the last group of amendments that I shall move or speak to. After that there will be just a few bullet points and I therefore hope that the Committee will bear with me a little because this is a long and complex group, in which my noble friend Lady Hamwee also has an amendment.

All these amendments are about the types of land where rights of access are provided by legislation, often with an actual or implied right to take part in formal recreation while accessing the land. There are two kinds of such land. The first is areas of land that include commons, village and town greens, and access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which includes the new coastal access routes and the spreading room between those routes and the sea. I remember that the person who led on the CROW Bill for the Liberal Democrats was my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Some of the amendments she moved attempted to place an obligation on councils to publicise areas of access land on their websites. We were told by the Government of the day that that was inappropriate because websites were new and unknown, most councils might not have them, and that they were therefore inappropriate. Now we are told by the current Minister that websites may not be around for very long and are therefore ephemeral. Such is the passage of time. The second type of land is highways, routes, rights of way and other important recreational routes. Some of the amendments in the group cover both types of land but, rather than going through the amendments in detail, I shall take each type in turn.

The first two paragraphs of Amendment 41 state:

“A public spaces protection order may not be made in respect of land which—

(a) appears on a register of commons and of town and village greens”,

or,

“(b) is access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000”.

Commons and greens are special places, the rights of access to which are contained in historic law, some of it common law, and in the CROW Act and the Commons Act 2006. The CROW Act provides a right to roam on all commons. Village greens and town greens are specifically designated as areas where informal recreation has taken place without permission or hindrance for at least 20 years, and in some cases for centuries. The right to informal recreation on greens is basic to their existence. Restricting such access and activities by the relatively easy administrative process under public spaces protection orders is, frankly, not acceptable. It is possible to have restrictions on greens but such restrictions are carefully worked out and laid down, and difficult to achieve. Commons are also historic and the right of public access is entrenched in the Acts. Often access to and the presence of a common are common law rights, by which I mean common law, not the Commons Act. Again, it is quite unacceptable that these ancient rights can be overturned and that there is only one difficult right of appeal to the High Court.

Amendment 41A concerns something quite different. It is about rights of common, although I do not want to go into great detail on those or we may be here all night. A common typically has an owner, which may be a public authority or a private owner. It also has commoners who are attached to the common, and they have rights of common. Nowadays, it is mainly a grazing right, but there may be ancient rights such as pannage and turbary, which noble Lords can look up in the dictionary. These rights of common belong to the commoners and are quite separate from the rights of ownership of the owner of the common. It would be absurd if these rights, which are laid down, could be overturned by the relatively straightforward administrative procedure of setting up a public spaces protection order, and that ought to be made quite clear.

18:30

Highways which are of real concern here are the rights of way on a definitive map. Several of these amendments are not consistent with each other because they put forward alternative ways of providing safeguards or simply take them out of the legislation altogether. I hope that the Government will start looking at the safeguards. These rights of way as defined under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are public footpaths, bridleways, the slightly more esoteric restricted byways, and BOATs—byways open to all traffic. The legislative regime is clear. It has been in place for a long time under the Highways Acts and, now, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is possible to close or divert rights of way. Closures and diversions happen all the time, but doing so is complex and the procedures are quite long, and that is deliberate because these are ancient historic rights that ought not to be able to be taken away easily and quickly. As I said earlier, I am on a committee that deals with them. You can appeal if a right of way is closed or diverted and the local authority has not achieved an adequate consensus, and the appeal is made to the magistrates’ court; you do not have to go galloping off to the High Court, which most people would find impossible. However, there is a fear that some councils will use public spaces protection orders to close such routes.

I have mentioned other sorts of routes which are often found in urban areas—cycleways and paths provided for disabled people. They usually have no statutory protection as such, and in these cases you probably have to rely on the good sense of the local authority. However, I have put them on the table as being a possible problem when local authorities do not behave sensibly.

I want briefly, or perhaps not so briefly, to refer to gating orders. These were introduced in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. They never got a proper scrubbing down in scrutiny terms in your Lordships’ House because that Act went into the wash-up at the end of the Parliament and we did not get to discuss them as we might have done. However, they have been relatively successful in most of the cases where they have been brought in. Some 1,700 gating orders have been made. A gating order simply puts gates on the end of a highway—usually a local back street—so that people cannot access it. There is a procedure under the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, for making gating orders, and this Bill subsumes gating orders under public spaces protection orders.

Most gating orders have been uncontroversial. They provide an improvement to community safety and the local environment. They stop people going down the backs of houses when they can perfectly easily go down the front, so no inconvenience is caused. They typically relate to back streets, alleys, snickets or ginnels, depending on where you live. However, some have been very controversial where local authorities have used them in inappropriate circumstances to close down footpaths linking one place to another and there are no satisfactory alternatives. Examples are where routes within urban areas link a main road and a school, a housing estate and playing fields, or routes to shopping centres and so on. There have also been one or two examples where the gating of a local highway in a town has blocked access to the rights of way network in the countryside, and that has clearly been undesirable.

I am not arguing against being able to use public spaces protection orders for gating purposes because that is how the Government now want to proceed. I am asking the Minister whether we can have some really good, genuine safeguards to ensure that they will be used only for those very local circumstances where the purpose is to keep people away from residential property and not to stop people using linking routes—usually footpaths—which are of value to the community. As it stands on rights of way, the Bill removes the basic safeguards in the Highways Act. At the very best, it shifts the balance to enable the easy closure of a right of way for three years, then for it to be extended for three years at a time, and eventually for ever. Real problems are involved in conflating gating orders with all rights of way. I am sure that there are ways around that by which everybody’s objectives can be reached, and I ask the Minister to treat this seriously and to have further discussions about it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 53FA in this group. It is an amendment to Clause 60, dealing with restricting the right of way over a highway. I am suggesting that in subsection (4), which provides:

“A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway for the occupiers of premises”,

we should also refer to “users” of premises,

“adjoining or adjacent to the highway”.

This is a probing amendment to ask whether the term “occupiers” includes people authorised by the occupier. Obviously this would apply to all premises, but it was thinking about business premises that made me decide that this needed to be made clear, because restricting in effect the use of business premises would be a serious matter.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lady Hamwee for explaining their amendments. Before I start on my notes, I should draw my noble friends’ attention to the underlying conditions that local authorities need to reflect on before they make orders. I think that they condition the whole approach and, to some extent, satisfy some of the anxieties that my noble friends have expressed.

I can assure my noble friend Lord Greaves that, like him, I fervently believe that public spaces are there for everyone to enjoy, but they should not be ruined by a careless and irresponsible minority. These new orders are designed to allow maximum flexibility for the council, meaning that restrictions on access to, or use of, any land should be considered only as a last resort. However, where restrictions on access are necessary, the option should be available to protect victims and communities from anti-social behaviour. That is what we are about and it is what the Bill is about.

On Amendment 41, I accept that the categories of land listed are important and, indeed, worthy of the further debate they have received today. This is exactly why many of them are covered explicitly in the draft guidance. However, making this amendment would stop the local council protecting those spaces more generally from issues that might deter usage. It is important that we do not inhibit the flexibility provided by these new orders.

Perhaps I may illustrate the point. Many of the categories of land listed here are commonly used by dog walkers as well as children. Given the risk to children of diseases spread by dog faeces, it is only right that a council has the ability to introduce measures to ensure that dog owners clean up after their animal. In addition, where some of these areas of land have become a focal point for people to congregate and drink alcohol, making usage by others unpleasant or even impossible, the council should be able to prohibit the drinking of alcohol to free the space for the majority who want to use it responsibly. The amendment as drafted would preclude the council providing these protections or any others that were necessary on the categories of land listed.

Amendment 41A is more specific and is designed to protect any rights of common, such as the right to graze animals, enjoyed by individuals or groups on common land. This amendment is, I believe, unnecessary. A public spaces protection order would not be used to stop a commoner exercising his right of common. In the case of rights of common, it is hard to imagine a situation where a right exercised by a commoner could result in anti-social behaviour, unless it were being done in a particular way. The new flexibility afforded to councils with the public spaces protection order means they can address the problem element of the behaviour while protecting the wider rights.

Amendment 54 would ensure that certain categories of land could not have access restricted. First, let me say that I accept the importance of maintaining access to footpaths, bridleways and byways so that they are available for the enjoyment of all. However, the list in Clause 61 relates to those highways that are of strategic value. This means that, in all probability, restricting access would have a significant impact on the community, if not the region or the country, that far outweighs the impact of any problem behaviours. I do not feel that the same can be said for all public rights of way. However, I agree that they deserve special consideration and I am happy to see how this can be made clearer in the guidance, but where the anti-social behaviour—and it is the anti-social behaviour that we are dealing with, not access—of those using these routes has reached a stage where the community is suffering, the council should have the ability to restrict access either in part or in totality.

I would like to make one more point which I hope my noble friend will appreciate. Due to the way in which the current orders in this area are framed, in many cases a gating order, and indeed the complete closure of a right of way, is the only option available to councils. The new order seeks to change this. Problem behaviours and anti-social individuals and groups can be dealt with more effectively under the new power, ensuring that the restriction of access is necessary only as a last resort. We have made this clear in the guidance, but I am content to work with interested groups such as the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers, to see whether it can be made any more explicit.

The other amendments my noble friend Lord Greaves has in this group relate to restrictions on rights of way over a highway and appropriate safeguards. Amendment 53B seeks to provide further safeguards on the list of things that need to be considered before the right of way over a highway is restricted. I believe that as currently worded Clause 60 provides those assurances. However, we can consider how to go into more detail in the accompanying guidance to ensure that my noble friend’s concerns are addressed.

Amendment 53D would mean that all those affected would have to be notified in writing. In most cases, I think this would probably be correct. However, it may be that for some orders another medium would be more appropriate, such as speaking individually to those affected if there is only a small number. As such, I do not believe we should tie the hands of councils in this way in the Bill.

18:45

I am also sympathetic to the intention behind Amendment 53E. When restricting access to a highway, the council will have to publicise it properly. It seems sensible that a sign at either end of the footpath would be the way in which this is done. Likewise, as we have already discussed, many councils will advertise these restrictions on their websites and through a number of different channels. However, I believe this is something that we can cover more effectively in the guidance and I do not believe it should be in the Bill as it could place an unnecessary burden on councils where those channels are not appropriate.

Again, I agree with the intention behind Amendment 53F, which I believe would be best practice anyway. Taxpayers would expect their local agencies, as public bodies, to be working together to address problems and sharing information of this type should be the norm. I do not believe that it needs to be in the Bill but, again, I am happy to further clarify this in guidance.

I hope I can also provide some assurances on Amendment 53FA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The legislation makes clear that when a public right of way is restricted over a highway, those who occupy premises on that highway cannot be precluded from accessing it. This is perfectly right, but my noble friend suggests that “users” of those premises should be included. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I fear that such a definition could open the exception out too far and make it difficult for local authorities to protect communities. However, I would remind my noble friend that, as I said at the beginning, in order to make a public spaces protection order the local authority has reasonably to believe that the behaviour justifies the restrictions. Restricting access to a highway is a significant step and, as such, the conduct it is weighed up against is also likely to be more serious. I believe that councils will use the most restrictive elements of this power only when the behaviour is such that it warrants the restrictions. We are back to the principles which are enshrined in Clause 55.

In conclusion, we will look at how we can take account in our guidance of a number of the points that have been raised in these amendments. In preparing the final guidance, we will continue to work with interested parties such as the Open Spaces Society. With those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful for some of that, I think. I am less overwhelmed than I was on the previous group of amendments, but there are some issues there to latch on to and have further discussions and debates about. The Minister has several times today made the point that public spaces protection orders are more flexible than, for example, gating orders or some of the other things they may replace, and it is a good point. Local authorities will find useful the ability to place sensible rules on the use of a right of way that might, for example, go near houses. From that point of view, the flexibility in the orders is a good thing. The problem is that the bottom line is that access can be stopped by quick, quite easy administrative procedures which can be appealed in the High Court only. That drives a coach and horses—that is the wrong image for footpaths—through the existing Highways Act legislation, which provides the opportunity to close a public footpath, but makes it much more difficult. There are many more hoops to go through. Those hoops are there for very good reasons. Perhaps the Minister might consider a two-stage process for public protection orders, making it clear to local authorities that they cannot just go straight to closing access if they have not tried these other more flexible means instead.

In practice, once you have banned people from going on a village green, you have lost. Whoever is doing it, they have lost. If there is anti-social behaviour on a village green, it must be tackled as anti-social behaviour to stop it. It is not a sensible answer to it to say that nobody can go on to a village or town green or access land because a minority are ruining it by “careless and irresponsible activity”, to quote the Minister. We all agree that careless and irresponsible activity has to be stopped when it is causing a nuisance, but the problem is the knock-on effect of preventing everybody else using historic facilities. They are not being careless but are being perfectly responsible. Keeping them off because a minority are hooligans is the wrong approach. If there is a minority of hooligans, we have to tackle that minority.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It would pay my noble friend to read Clause 55 to see that it is targeted at behaviour, not space. I recognise exactly his concerns—the anti-social activity is targeted in the order. Subsection (8) states that the order must,

“identify the activities … explain the effect … specify the period for which the order has effect”.

I hope that my noble friend will study this because a lot of his anxieties are taken care of not just in guidance but in the Bill.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that is true, but I shall finish where I started on public spaces protection orders. They are different from the other orders because, although they are based on people’s behaviour, the order goes not on the people but on the land. Because it goes on the land it affects everybody. That is the difference and why we have to be very careful.

I was going to read out some of the draft guidance that has been produced so far but I thought that your Lordships would probably not want to hear. It is pretty weak—it is considering, thinking about and then getting on with it. The guidance—if that is what we are to rely on—will have to beefed up very considerably. On that basis, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

Amendment 41A not moved.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed.

Clause 56: Duration of orders

Amendment 41B

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

41B: Clause 56, page 33, line 9, leave out “3 years” and insert “1 year”

[Baroness Hamwee]

In moving Amendment 41B, I will speak to Amendments 44A, 44B, 49A and 55A. The amendments take us to Clause 56, dealing with the duration of public spaces protection orders. I entirely take the point that Clause 55 is targeted at activities, but I also take my noble friend’s point that such an order affects everyone. After all, the title of the order is about protecting space, even though the language of the Bill is about the quality of life of the people who may be affected.

The orders may last for up to three years with, I understand, an unlimited number of extensions. The Minister said that he shares the view that public space should be for everyone to enjoy. I take a more urban view than that of my noble friend Lord Greaves. Where space is very scarce in an urban environment it is important not to restrict it. I am aware that one can argue this both ways: one can also say that it is important to ensure that activities do not take place that mean that it is not enjoyable for everyone. It is not just an urban or even suburban or rural issue.

My amendments would provide for the duration to be no more than a year with a single extension, and for there to be no new order dealing with substantially the same space until the expiry of a year—a sort of anti-avoidance provision. For all the reasons already discussed, I would be very concerned about having something that becomes permanent or semi-permanent, but I have a more practical concern as well—it is in part philosophical. My practical concern is: if the order is to stop undesirable activities, whatever they may be, taking place on a particular space, how does one assess that the threat has passed? If the order goes on and on, the culture, local habits and so on of the area may have changed necessarily, and we will never know whether we have been successful, as we should have been in that we have prohibited an activity, or whether we have actually changed behaviour.

Also, if an order goes on and on, it is difficult to see how it can be challenged in the wide, democratic sense. Clause 62 is about challenging validity, but that is different. However, I have Amendment 55A—a pretty ropey amendment, I am afraid, but it would allow some sort of challenge. It is not a good amendment because the clause is about validity, but it will enable me to raise the issue with the Minister on how one challenges such orders. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, which covers very much the same ground as covered by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, so I shall not pursue it further. I merely support everything my noble friend said.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I understand the nature of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in terms of restricting the length of time of a public spaces protection order, but I believe that the proposals go in the wrong direction. I wonder why there is an automatic process of the orders essentially expiring after a period of three years. The power to make orders sets a whole series of conditions for how the process is to be done. It requires extensive consultation, the nature of which we have discussed already. I am assuming that the orders are made in the context of consensus having been reached in a community that that is the way forward. If such a consensus has been reached, why do we have to go through this process regularly? It would be on an annual basis if the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is passed. Surely the point of the Government’s proposal is that a local authority will apply for the orders on the basis of having consulted widely, including with the chief officer of police and all the others specified in the order. That would include consultation with the local community. If the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, had his way, there would be explicit reference to the importance of parish councils, and I would certainly not object to that. So there we have a community consensus around the protection of public spaces in the area, and then it is said that the order should not have effect for a period of more than three years.

19:00

There is then a process of extension and, essentially, as I understand it, the extension could be for one term only and therefore would lapse after six years. I may be wrong about that. The harrumphing from the ministerial Bench suggests that I may have got this wrong and I shall be delighted if that is the case. However, it would therefore mean that a process would have to be gone through every three years and, if the noble Baroness’s amendment was passed, that process would have to be gone through every single year. There may well be circumstances in which people want these public places protection orders in place. In that is the case, why is it necessary to go through this process?

It may be that the Minister will say that opinions may change and things may happen, but local authorities are, in essence, democratic. They are elected on a cycle, usually every four years—or refreshed every four years—so if the local perceptions change and these public spaces protection orders no longer have the support of local communities, that will be reflected in the nature of the local councillors for the area and it will therefore be up to the local council to decide whether it wants to rescind the order or change the order and make it different.

I wonder about these time limits which, to me, seem potentially too restrictive. To make them even more restrictive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggests, would be detrimental to the objectives that the Minister is no doubt seeking for these powers.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the provision in Clause 56, particularly as all the flexibility needed is covered in Clause 57. There is a power to discharge, which would no doubt be exercised when the local community is satisfied that the order is no longer needed, and there is a valuable power to vary the order so that it could be extended to more people or its scope reduced if that is shown to be necessary. Flexibility is key and I would have thought that one could get by perfectly well with Clause 57 without having Clause 56 there at all.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord has just said. The only way in which Clause 56 might be amended to satisfy the anxiety is to make it a relatively simple procedure. At the moment, subsection (5) requires that the local authority must consult various people. If the local authority was given an opportunity so that it “may” consult rather than “must” consult, it would make the extension a relatively informal procedure. Otherwise, I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says: Clause 56 is over elaborate in view of the existence of Clause 57.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, there are two problems here. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is partly right and partly wrong because it depends on what kind of public spaces protection order is being made. If the public spaces protection order is made to prevent dogs going into a children’s play area—the example given earlier by the Minister—there is no reason why that should require a formal procedure to consult and so on every three years because once dogs are banned from a children’s area they will be banned for ever. It may be controversial at first but, once it has been done, no one will complain about it afterwards. If, on the other hand, you are using it as a quick, easy procedure to close a right of way instead of going through the proper closure procedure under the Highways Act, it certainly should be reviewed. My noble friend and I are saying that it should be reviewed within a year or within six months if it concerns a right of way.

This is because of the nature of the right that you are taking away from people who are not guilty of any offences. You are reducing the liberties of perfectly innocent citizens, and the nature of that reduction ought to be subject to reconsideration. How can you differentiate in the Bill between the routine orders that no one is going to complain about—orders that would otherwise be in the local playground by-laws or other rules and regulations—and serious orders that take away people’s historic rights of access to particular areas? I would be happy with a provision that the prevention of access would have to be reviewed if the public spaces protection order involved the removal of people’s rights to access land that they would otherwise have access to. This would apply to any access, whether or not it was to a common or a green or whatever. That is fairly fundamental and would have to be reviewed.

As to the lesser protections that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to as not having to be reviewed, there is a way through that if it can be written into the Bill.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I can see the distinction the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, draws between disruption of an historic right of way and preventing dogs fouling a children’s play area, but I am not sure how you would get around the problem that, essentially, you are saying to a dog owner, “You do not have access to this area”, or, “You do not have access to the area if you are with your dog”. That is also a restriction on rights of access to a particular area—in that case, a children’s playground. I can see what the noble Lord is trying to get at but the solution he is now proposing—admittedly it is not in an amendment before us—would be very difficult.

We come back to the quality of the consultation in the first place. If there has been a proper consultation and there is a general community view that this restriction on people’s access to a particular area is appropriate, surely that is what you go with rather than this constant process of renewal for what may be very limited sets of circumstances.

[Lord Greaves]

I do not think it is as difficult as that. I think it is quite easy. There are plenty of parks nowadays with by-laws that say you cannot take your dog into the park or you have to have it on a lead or whatever. These proposals will make that kind of rule much easier.

It would be possible to look at the question of whether the access itself was fundamentally different from many other things. On the other hand, having thought about that, do you really want an annual or three-yearly review of ordinary gating orders in back streets which are completely non-controversial? I am sure it is possible to think of a way through this and to find a solution.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I have tabled a clause stand part debate because I feel it is a better way of probing the intentions and contradictions in this clause than individual amendments trying to make sense of it. In many ways, the debate we have had has identified some of the contradictions.

These public spaces protection orders will replace three other orders which were specific to certain circumstances—the designated public place order, the gating order and the dog control order. Noble Lords are right; these orders can last for a maximum of three years and can then be renewed and renewed ad infinitum. There is no time limit or renewal limit in the legislation. The debate has highlighted those contradictions and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could reassure us on some issues. I am not sure that he will be able to.

I am unclear why the Government are making changes in this way and whether all the implications of doing so have been considered. The debate we have had so far might indicate that they have not. The exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Greaves, indicates that the Government are confused, possibly because they are talking about slightly different things. We are replacing different orders, which deal with different complaints, with a single order that is trying to deal with all the complaints. Those original orders were of necessity very specific about the remedy they were trying to bring forward, whereas we are now moving to a more general order. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made the same point—that it is going to be very difficult to bring in one order to address all the different complaints.

The dog control order is being abolished and replaced with the public spaces protection order. We are yet to have the debate about whether that is adequate to deal with the problems of dangerous dogs, but Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is very concerned about this as it is worried that local authorities will have to extend the powers after three years. Not only will that create a kind of hiatus at some point but it could create an administrative burden at a crucial time when resources are being cut. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made this very point and asked why, if something has been agreed and consulted on, it is necessary to have ongoing reviews and renewals. It could mean less protection if, for example, a local authority fails to renew or gets caught up in some bureaucracy and the renewal does not happen or is delayed.

I think I am correct in saying that there are no limits but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could give an indication of what the average number of renewals will be and how often the Government expect an order to be renewed. I wonder if the Minister understands the concerns that this could be a significant burden on local authorities, which will feel that they have to renew every three years. I looked through the impact assessment to try to find out whether that issue had been looked at, but it had not been specifically addressed. I thought it rather bizarre, given that orders can be renewed and renewed ad infinitum, that the impact assessment refers only to,

“providing councils with a flexible power to put in place local restrictions to address a range of ASB issues in public places, and prevent future problems. This would be different to the current situation as one order would be able to cover a number of issues, rather than needing to follow separate processes for each—reducing bureaucracy and cost for local authorities”.

Representations made to us, however, say that it will increase bureaucracy; that instead of having one order that lasts for the time required, it will have to be renewed beforehand.

There is also concern that in some cases a local authority may go for the maximum time, although it may not need it, because it would be overly burdensome and cumbersome to renew the order. It may think, “We need this to be in place for a year, but rather than having to renew it we will put it in place for three years and just let it lapse and not enforce it if it is not needed for the full three years”. Those are issues of concern. Then there is the other side of the coin. The Ramblers, for example, has other concerns, saying that a maximum of three years,

“is too long a period for the closure of any route of which everyday use is being made”.

I have read through the Explanatory Notes, the impact assessment and the Bill but cannot really understand why the period of three years was chosen. It is quite a lengthy maximum period to cover all the circumstances. What evidence did the Government use and what assessments were made that identified three years as the appropriate time for public spaces protection orders?

Similarly, there is a real danger in trying to address different problems in the same way. Gating orders, for example, are very clear—they do what they say on the tin. I am always very happy to admit that nothing is perfect and make changes to make something more effective, if things can be improved. However, I am not convinced that putting all three of these orders together into one less specific, and therefore weaker, general order is the right way forward.

The Minister and other noble Lords will have received letters about this from naturists who are concerned that it will impact on their activities. One of their concerns is the definition of what constitutes a public open space, which seems to rely on quite a wide description. Can the Minister offer any reassurance on that point?

I have already addressed the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could identify how many times he thinks it would be appropriate for an order to be renewed. Has any assessment been made of the costs? The impact assessment says that, because they are not separate processes, it will reduce the cost to local authorities. On what evidence was that comment made? Can he say anything about enforcement? If something is in place in every instance for at least three years, and then renewed, will there be any checks and balances in terms of appropriateness and enforcement?

19:15

When I raised this issue in respect of dispersal orders, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, was unable to answer. I want to try again because I feel very strongly about this. I am sure that we will also return to it for dispersal orders. Any new order that is introduced has to be evidence-based. I am sure—or I hope—that the noble Lord would agree with that. Can he explain where the demand is coming from which says that the public spaces protection order is the appropriate way to proceed instead of the three existing orders, and that that is the only option available for improving or changing those orders? This is another example of where the Government, in trying to streamline or rationalise orders, have let things drop and not identified all the problems and all the issues, such that we could well find ourselves in a weaker position in dealing with these issues. I hope the noble Lord can reassure me that that is not the case. On the present evidence, however, I am worried that effectiveness will be lost by trying to squeeze three orders into one solution.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I will just add a supplement to my addendum to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the flexibility that lies within the clauses as they stand. Clause 55(8)(c) creates a power to specify the period; so, with great respect to the noble Baroness, it is not a fixture that it will always be three years. If one takes that flexibility along with the point that I made earlier about Clause 57, a lot of flexibility is built into this. It is a very sensitive and well designed measure, subject to the point about whether Clause 56 should be there at all.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

As a point of clarification, I am fully aware that it is not three years in every case—it is up to three years. However, one of my concerns is that, because of the cost of renewal and the uncertainties around that, a number of local authorities may think that three years has become the default. It will be easier for them to run to the maximum of three years rather than face the bureaucracy and costs of renewal by doing otherwise.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In doing so I make the general point that sometimes in debates such as this you hear some noble Lords saying that the period is too long and others saying that it is too short, and so going down the middle is normally the solution. The noble Baroness talked about perfection. Dare I say that, perhaps on this clause, we are as near to that as we can be? I will address the amendments and the questions as far as I can but I hope, as I always do with the noble Baroness opposite, that she will gain some reassurance from what I say, if not from my words then at least from my tone.

These amendments relate to the process of reviewing and extending public spaces protection orders, as we have heard. As noble Lords are aware, there is currently no statutory review point for the orders we are replacing and they can run indefinitely. The argument has been made about where we are today. Putting in a limit is a positive way forward, otherwise—to quote the noble Baroness’s words back at her—these orders run on and on. It is important to look at how they should be reviewed. I believe that there should be a formal review point, which we have decided to set at three years.

The effect of Amendments 41B and 44A, which stand in my noble friend’s name, would of course be to limit this to 12 months. I have listened to the arguments that she put forward. As we have made clear in the guidance, orders do not have to last for three years—a point just made by the noble and learned Lord. There is flexibility within this, according to the circumstance and the situation and at the discretion of the issuing authority, including the local authority, as to what is appropriate. If appropriate, these can be reviewed or discharged before three years have elapsed. My view is more qualified and endorsed after listening to the debate and I believe that three years is a proportionate balance between the needs of users and the protection of the community, especially given the everlasting orders that we are seeking to replace.

Amendments 44B and 49A—which I take to be an alternative to Amendments 41B and 44A—would ensure that orders could not be extended more than once. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised the specific point that the legislation allows only for renewal. I am sure that he has reflected on Clause 56; there are provisions specifically to allow for the recurrence of a renewal of an order. He is nodding so I am sure that he agrees with the point I am making.

Of course, there are situations in which longer-term restrictions could be necessary; for example, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, these orders will replace, among other things, dog control orders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. This means that a public spaces protection order will be required, as a dog control order is now, to ensure that the fouling of public land is dealt with. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that this is not a problem that can be fixed in three or indeed six years and an ongoing restriction is therefore required. As such, preventing the further renewal of orders would mean communities having to put up with dog mess as well as other potentially anti-social behaviours, such as public drinking.

Turning to Amendment 48, my noble friend will be aware that the orders being replaced by the public spaces protection order do not include a formal review and, as such, can last indefinitely. In reforming the powers, we believed that it was only right that a statutory timeframe was built in, and I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that in principle. As the legislation states, the review should be conducted every three years.

Of course, I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend about the potential impact of a three-year restriction if applied to all orders but, as I have already said, the legislation is clear that councils can limit the duration of an order to a period of less than three years. Indeed, as the draft guidance suggests, in a situation where a public right of way is being closed for the first time to try to deal with a specific issue, the council may well prefer to review this after a shorter period of time.

To make this amendment would mean that all orders covering rights of way would have to be reviewed every six months. This would include, as I have already mentioned, welcome restrictions to deal with dog fouling and the consumption of alcohol. This would turn the new power into a bureaucratic nightmare that resulted in councils that decided to use it living in a loop of constant consultation and review. As I have said before, in my own experience as a local councillor for 10 years, consultations were regularly part and parcel of our decision-making, but if we had to issue an order and then immediately start another consultation, I fear that we would be constantly in consultation mode.

[Lord Greaves]

Does my noble friend accept that there could be a difference between the kinds of restrictions he is talking about, which in appropriate circumstances we would all find sensible to last for a long period of time, and actually banning access itself? It is when access itself is banned on a right of way that the real problems start to occur.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I take on board what my noble friend is saying. That is why I believe that, as the clauses are drafted, there is flexibility with regard to the circumstances, the situation and indeed the tenure appropriate to the offence that is being perceived. I have already flagged up that in this instance, if an issue arose for the first time, the local authority may well be minded to apply an order of smaller duration to allow for exactly the kind of review and assessment that my noble friend is suggesting. I understand the point my noble friend makes and, as I have said, it probably refers more to the restricting of access than anything else. I have listened and we will consider how to make the guidance more specific in this regard.

Finally, Amendment 55A relates to appeals against public spaces protection orders. My noble friend has asked for clarification of whether there is a right of appeal against the extension of an order. That is a fair point. The amendment would provide an additional opportunity to challenge an order every time it was extended. This could result in additional appeals, even if the circumstances had not otherwise changed. That said, my noble friend has raised an important point and I will take it away and reflect further on it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if I could predict the number of orders and renewals. Crystal balls are hard to come by and the important thing we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the orders are specific, time-limited and can be reviewed. Again, if the behaviour has been corrected, the order does not need to stay in place for ever. That is an important point to bear in mind. How often are we expecting the orders to be renewed? That is very much up to the local authorities to decide. One order can cover more than one behaviour with a shorter consultation process, so there is less paperwork, less bureaucracy and less delay. Reviews can be quite light-touch, so one review may be more intensive than another. It would be almost impossible to give a cost for each review.

We should not forget that there is an absolute need for democratic accountability for the continued operation of these orders. The Government feel that the balance has been struck. The noble Baroness talked about the Ramblers and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Perhaps she would like to respond and tell me whether she believes that what we are seeking to do in Clause 56 is appropriate, because the current situation means that there is no time limit. We are seeking to ensure three years, with the possibility to review, and a three-year period is allowed for only if the local authority chooses to persist with that; if it chooses to put one year down, that is its prerogative.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord invites me to say whether I think it is a good idea. The way to find that out is to review the operation after a couple of years. I am not really satisfied that saying that because some people want one year and some people want it for ever, if we find the middle number that is the right way to go. That does not address specific circumstances but I thank him for trying to answer my questions. He missed one: I asked what assessment had been made of why these were needed and what demand there was. Who has called for these changes to be made and have one order covering all three issues?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I hope I have illustrated that there is a need to decrease bureaucracy when you take three and turn it into one. Coming back to a point that the noble Baroness raised about enforcement, it makes that much easier. Certainly, my own experience in local government substantiates that. I am sure other noble Lords may share that experience.

It is right and proper that these orders should be regularly reviewed. The noble Baroness asks what evidence there is and why we have taken this route. The Government believe it is right to devolve these decisions to the people who are on the coalface, so to speak: the local authorities, the people who are closest to circumstances at a local level. I hope that I can share my own experience but also that of anyone who has served in a local authority. The last thing you need is central government or a central diktat telling you what is appropriate for your local area.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

What the Government are seeking to do is exactly what we have said on the tin: to allow local authorities to decide what is appropriate for them. I always take the laughter of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as approval.

19:30

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but if the desire is to give all this freedom to local authorities, I am still not clear why Clause 56 is needed at all. As has been pointed out, Clause 55(8)(c) states, “must … specify the period”, so you cannot just say, “We’ll just whack it in and see what happens”, and Clause 57 allows for variation. While I am on my feet and so as not to interrupt later, in case the Minister does not have the answer in his notes, I would be interested in his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the objection to changing “must” to “may” in Clause 56(5), so that there might be a less onerous process for the renewal of orders.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I never object to any noble Lord interjecting and asking questions. I have sought to explain why a defined period is specified in Clause 56. I shall certainly take back the suggestion on this matter made by my noble friend Lord Faulks and speak to officials. However, Clause 56 provides a key link through from Clause 55 to Clause 57 and sets out quite specifically the details behind the order. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee on the understanding that I will further consider Amendment 55A.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, having started as one who believes—I hope that I still do—very considerably in local democracy, I suppose that I have fallen into the trap over the years of viewing whatever comes to us on green paper as restricting it; it is the cynical view that too much legislation has somehow engendered. Like others, I do not see this debate as being two-dimensional in the way that the Minister has just described; that is, “Is it too long or too short? Well, it is in the middle so that must be okay”. It is a three-dimensional debate and the points that have been made about the expression of local democracy are important and serious. The Committee has challenged the structure of the provisions in a way that will bear a good deal of further consideration. The distinction made by my noble friend Lord Greaves between the different types of content of the orders—access on the one hand and particular activities on the other—may also get us to a better point.

On activities, I should have learnt by now not to look at my BlackBerry during debates, but a very long e-mail on this subject has just arrived from the naturists, who have been quite active in making representations on this Bill. It tells me that nudity is a state, not an activity, so how does this affect them? They are worried.

I do not want to leave it quite on that point so I come back to what the orders try to do and how that is best achieved. I shall of course withdraw my amendment at this point, but I hope that we might be able to discuss between now and Report how the orders will operate. Sadly, I see that the LGA, whose briefing I have just looked up, says that it does not think that the provisions are in need of further amendment. Perhaps we need to talk to it as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 41B withdrawn.

Amendments 42 to 44B not moved.

Amendments 44C and 44D

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

44C: Clause 56, page 33, line 24, leave out “consult”

44D: Clause 56, page 33, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) publicise the proposed extension;”

Amendments 44C and 44D agreed.

Amendment 45 not moved.

Amendment 45A

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

45A: Clause 56, page 33, line 25, at beginning insert “consult”

Amendment 45A agreed.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 46A

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

46A: Clause 56, page 33, line 27, at beginning insert “consult”

Amendment 46A agreed.

Amendments 47 to 49A not moved.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed.

Clause 57: Variation and discharge of orders

Amendments 49B to 49D

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

49B: Clause 57, page 34, line 2, leave out “consult”

49C: Clause 57, page 34, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) publish the text of the proposed variation or publicise the proposal to discharge the order (as appropriate);”

49D: Clause 57, page 34, line 3, at beginning insert “consult”

Amendments 49B to 49D agreed.

Amendments 50 and 51 not moved.

Amendment 51A

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

51A: Clause 57, page 34, line 5, at beginning insert “consult”

Amendment 51A agreed.

Amendments 52 and 53 not moved.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.35 pm.

Consumers: Paper Billing

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:36

Asked by

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the difficulties faced by consumers receiving bills and statements where financial penalties are applied to those choosing to receive them and reply in paper copy.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the Keep Me Posted campaign, which has led the way to this debate. It is already supported by 33 of our most respected charities and is being joined every day by more supporters.

We are living in a fast-moving, fast-changing society of which one sector, digital access and digital communications, is threatening to take over our lives, leaving out in the cold not only the millions who do not yet have broadband but the elderly, the disabled, their carers and members of their families. While some might be able to go online, very many are not able to and, in any case, they want to hold a piece of paper in their hands showing what they have left, what debts have been paid and what might be owing. They are caused great distress by not being allowed to do so. They are the obvious victims. On access to broadband, we hope that we will hear tonight from the Minister that the Government are aware of the need to get on as quickly as possible.

There are also people who, like the people whom I have described in what I call the priority areas, can go online but do not always want to do so. They want to pay their bills with cheques or postal orders, and certainly not by direct debit, which we now realise has caused great hardship to many people. There are a lot of people out there who have computer skills but are angry about the extra costs that they incur if they choose not to use those skills.

Big companies, banks and utilities all claim that they must cut costs—and they are right—in order to satisfy their shareholders and to safeguard their workforce. They have made these cuts by requiring online communications. While they are entitled to take that approach, they should also consider their customers, who cannot afford, are not able or do not choose to use these online services. This is not cutting into profits as such. It is taking advantage of some of the big savings that these companies have made by going online as far as they have.

Every day, I receive examples from people who have annoyance and expense because they do not want to go online. Where they have an alternative telephone line to ring, it is always the most expensive one. For example, Which? recently reported that customers of EDF can expect to encounter an average delay of 19 minutes and nine seconds before they can get on with asking their questions. One can only imagine the enormous cost of that.

While BT does not charge anybody for a paper statement except businesses, that includes even the smallest businesses. People who receive paper bills are not told for the first time until page 3, in the smallest possible print, how much they must pay. For those who want to pay by cheque or postal order because they have no other alternatives, it is often very difficult to find to whom the cheque should be made out. That is not put in a prominent position where they can read it.

On top of that, we receive blandishments every day from Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and all these people on the huge savings—£75 in the case of Waitrose—to be made if we will only change our accounts to online ones. We are no longer dealing with an equal society of any sort. There are those who are incapable of doing these things online. There are those who are capable but, for one reason or another, do not always want to do so and do not want to be penalised as a result. Furthermore, research has shown that households with online bills or statements are less likely to check them and more likely to fall into debt.

Things are moving very fast now and we cannot allow them to continue at the present pace without at least putting some safeguards forward to protect the people whom I have described from incurring charges either from freedom of choice or, very often, because they have no alternative. In replying to this debate, I hope that my noble friend will accept that there is a real and urgent need as we move forward to protect consumers’ choice in this matter and to preserve their existing right to exercise it. If we do not do that, more and more problems are likely to arise in the areas that are most vulnerable and more and more annoyance will be caused with companies that are not in any way co-operative. Above all, the right to hold a piece of paper in your hand—to look at what your bank statement is, what your bills are, what has been paid and what has not—is very important.

This is not just for all those vulnerable people or those others whom I have mentioned who have choice. Many people in high positions in society today are still not ready to accept that they must pay a price for receiving anything on a piece of paper. Only the other day, I had to ring the secretary of one of our foremost doctors. She said, “Well, I have got it on the computer but must print it out before I can see it”. I said, “Oh, thank goodness—one of us. What a wonderful welcome this is. Thank you very much”. “Oh,” she said, “but Dr X”—one of the most prominent doctors in the country, and who is not old—“has said over and over again that he hopes that when he dies he still has a lot of sheets of paper around him with writing on. Then he will die content”.

This is a social problem. It is a consumer problem. It is a problem where, certainly, the utilities have taken liberties because of the breadth of their market. The time has come for regulators, at the very least, to step in and approve a code of practice in these matters. This issue is becoming more and more urgent and I hope that noble Lords and my noble friend will treat it with the urgency that it deserves.

19:45

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, this House has a proud tradition of speaking up for the vulnerable in society and this evening the Question for Short Debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, stands firmly in that tradition. I congratulate her on it.

It is bad enough having to pay bills; it is worse having to pay for the bills you have to pay. Yet that is increasingly the situation with Britain’s rapacious utility companies. The mini-scandal we are debating this evening first came to my attention when a letter arrived in our post saying that, from July 2013, we would have to pay £1.50 for each paper bill BT sent to us—that is, £6 a year. That seemed—and still seems—wrong, so I complained to Ofcom. In her reply to me of 19 June, Colette Bowe, Ofcom’s chair, said:

“We believe providers are entitled to make commercial decisions on the methods through which they provide bills and whether they impose charges to do so”.

I was under what appears to be an illusion that Ofcom was supposed to be about regulating the market, not prostrating itself before its imperial diktats. She went on to say that Ofcom did,

“protect certain vulnerable groups from being charged for receiving bills”.

At that stage, my heart started beating faster with excitement. Then she cited the main group that this applied to: the blind and visually impaired. So, thanks to Ofcom, if you are blind you are entitled to have the bill you cannot read free in any format you choose. You could not make it up.

What is wrong with Ofcom’s supine stance? It is simply this: yes, it is right that the transformative culture of IT has advanced, should advance and will continue to advance. That is altogether a good thing. Those who support the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, tonight are not in any sense technological Luddites. However, it is an essential precondition of such technical advance that those who cannot benefit from it for one reason or another should be protected from it to the maximum extent possible, and are not penalised simply because they were not lucky enough to grow up, as our children have, in an age where being online was completely natural to them. New technology will be more successful if it is adopted by people as a free choice, not forced down their throat.

I will illustrate my point by quoting some figures from the ONS about daily computer use among adults. It is rising, yes, but in 2013 it still stood at 70%. That means 30% of the population not accessing a computer daily, either because they cannot, or do not have a computer. They may not have a computer because they cannot afford one. They do not have the good fortune that we rightly have as Members of this House in having one provided. They must buy it themselves and that is not an easy thing for everybody to do.

Not surprisingly, the figures for old people are very much lower. For those over 65, daily computer use is about half that of the population generally: only 37% of people over 65 access their computer once a day. Roughly 6 million pensioners, therefore, would struggle to get their bill by computer.

Let us say that half of them—that is a guess, but probably not far out—are BT subscribers. That means that BT might hope in time to make £18 million a year out of its new policy—money screwed out of pensioners, fully franked by Ofcom; money that alone would pay the £5 million bonus of BT chief executive Ian Livingston nearly four times over. Gosh, it is not surprising that they get big bonuses when they think up such brilliant wheezes to screw money out of their more vulnerable customers.

You would have thought that Ofcom might have had some regard to public opinion. Eighty-four per cent of people think that they should have a choice of how they get their bills, according to an Opinium Research poll for the campaign Keep Me Posted, to which the noble Baroness referred. Forty-one per cent fear that they might miss a payment without such bills. If we think particularly of older pensioners, those are the kind of things that make them worried sick. They do not think, “Oh dear, I might have forgotten to pay”; they think that their telephone might be cut off so that they could not ring the doctor or the hospital if they have a fall. Those things matter to them. Indeed, £6 matters to a pensioner a great deal more than it does to some other people in society.

BT and the other anti-post billers will not act. Why should they? It is already given them. Ofcom will not act. Why should it? The free market is its creed. So who is left to act? The Government, who, perhaps in the forthcoming communications Bill, need to legislate to bar the imposition by charge of online-only billing. That would cost Ministers nothing—the Treasury will be glad to learn that—but would be a much appreciated sign that they understand that the vulnerable must be protected against the vagaries of the unregulated free market.

19:51

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I had a very nervous, sleepless night last night. When I was at the Bar with a difficult case, appearing in front of a difficult tribunal, I had sleepless nights, too. On those occasions, I used to lull myself to sleep. I would find myself fantasising about scoring 100 in a test match at Lord’s against Australia, before lunch, against Lillee and Thomson without a helmet on. That was an amazing way of relaxing before a difficult day in court. I never got more than 50, because I did not need to; I had fallen fast asleep.

Last night was different. I got my 100 before lunch against Lillee and Thomson and thought to myself, perhaps I am needed in Australia at the moment. Then I scored a hat-trick in the World Cup final—all headed goals—against Germany. Then I scored a winning try against New Zealand down in New Zealand. Then I started batting again in another test match, this time against the West Indies with Roberts, Holding, Marshall and Garner, and I was 75 not out before I fell asleep. This is one of the more nervous occasions for a new speaker.

I begin, however, by saying that I cannot see any reason for being nervous at all. Since my arrival here, I have received nothing but kindness from everyone, without exception. Whenever I have been lost in all these many corridors, someone has found me. If I may say so, the officers of the Lord Convenor of the Cross Benches have been tireless in their patience with me in my anxiety to get this ordeal over. I thank you, my Lords, and through you, all the many people and staff here in the House who have been so kind to me.

I declare my support for the noble Baroness on the issue which I wish to address in relation to the generation—sadly, a passing one—for whom the new world of technology is not something merely to be passed by but, to some, represents something of a nightmare. This is not dealing directly with the matters currently in debate, but how often do they find that disembodied voice from, say, Hyderabad, of huge assistance to them? How often do they find a disembodied Home Counties voice telling them that they must listen and then press one of 10 numbers on their telephone and then, having found their way through to which one it should be, press the appropriate number, then come up with another five numbers which they have to listen to and press? What about the machine that you stick a card into that produces cash, but that you cannot tell has failed to give you the correct amount? What about the necessity of remembering codewords and passwords, when everyone tells you that the one thing you must not do is to write them down anywhere in case someone finds out what they are?

I declare an interest. My mother is 94 years old. Like so many of her generation, she is intrepid. Like so many of them, happily, she values knowledge rather than tricks. New knowledge, she is still interested in—new tricks, not. I suspect that there are many like her. They were well into their 80s when Facebook, Google and Twitter were invented. Can we please all remember that none of those existed only 10 years ago? They were taught, when young, to check their bills and their bank accounts carefully. Indeed, some of us remember our parents receiving the cheques which they had sent. Some of us, I dare say, are old enough even to remember having received the cheques ourselves. For them, a computer is not part of everyday living—not for all of them; of course some are adventurous and wish to enjoy the fruits of modern technology, but some do not. For some, online billing is a meaningless concept and they do not wish to have anything to do with it.

What is the real cost to the utility companies which do not provide paper billing for those individuals? I am ignoring the notional figures. Some expert consultant will tell a company that the cost is vast, enormous or huge. I suggest that the real cost cannot be all that high. There is a postage stamp and a member of staff to press the button on the company computer to produce the goods.

I end by asking, can we, should we not, offer the particular generation on whom I have focused my attention—the sadly but inevitably diminishing generation about whom I have spoken—something just a little more generous than penalising them for failing to keep up with the world as it is?

19:57

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, in this short debate, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and have great pleasure in congratulating him on his excellent maiden speech. It was original, amusing and very informative. For those of us taking part in this debate, it is valuable to hear from someone who has such a wide experience of the law, and therefore has an understanding of how citizens deal with authorities and how they try to deal with the bureaucracy that goes with them. I did a little research, as we are required to do when new Members come in. I understand that the noble and learned Lord is very keen on cricket. Indeed, his maiden speech proved that to be the case, so perhaps I may commiserate with him over the rather sad events of the weekend for the English cricket team.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes for introducing tonight’s debate about the difficulties facing consumers who cannot get paper billing without penalties. How you view this matter will probably depend on one or more of the following factors: how old you are, as we heard very clearly in our maiden speech this evening; how big or small a player you are in today’s complicated society; how well off you are; and where you live.

Beginning with the generational issue, I am 68 and I can use modern technology but I find it difficult to completely trust it, if I am honest. I like important things to be on paper. I understand that most self-employed people find it easier to collate pieces of paper for their tax return; that is certainly the case for me. I am also much quicker on paper—I have my notes for this speech on paper because of that. I may not be entirely rational about this but I have a terrible fear of having my identity stolen. I think it was listening to some programmes on the radio about it that set this off. It is mainly because I cannot really imagine how I would sort out such a situation, given the busy life that I lead here. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I suppose that I really am a bit of a Luddite.

My mother, too, is 94 and she has been diagnosed with dementia. There is absolutely no way that she could lead her life online. We have to remember that this will always be the case for some of us. We are living longer and there will be more people who are unable to remember passwords and so on, which have already been mentioned this evening. I am sure that my grandchildren will not feel the same way as I do and I know that my daughters are quite happy to lead their lives online. But between myself and my mother there is a wide spectrum of others who cannot or do not want to live theirs online. I understand that there are something like 7 million adults—they are largely elderly but include vulnerable and disabled adults—who cannot access the internet. Many people also live in rural areas which still have no internet access, although that is getting better.

Turning to the size issue, Judith Donovan, who is the chair of the Keep Me Posted campaign has said,

“At present the public appetite for paper bills does not correlate with the preference”

of large organisations, which is quite true. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talked a lot about BT and Ofcom. Within the communications sector, two in 10 companies give customers the choice of a bill format when signing up. I understand that in three-quarters of the cases, customers are charged for paper bills. There are issues about this. BT charges me £5 because I want to pay by cheque and post—I am the Luddite. However, I have done slightly better with O2, with which I have changed my arrangements and got a new phone. They said, “Of course, you realise that under this new arrangement you are going to have to have the bill on your phone”. However, somehow they forgot and I am still getting a paper bill, so I am doing all right out of that.

There has been much discussion in recent months about the big six energy companies, which was touched on this evening. I choose to pay by cheque and post; I pay more for it and pay more than I need to. But those who are less well off and cannot access the internet have no choice; they have to pay more for their fuel. They are often living in some of the least energy-efficient homes and on low incomes. They are a group that some of us in this House campaign on: the fuel poor. Yes, being paperless is cheaper and more profitable for the companies. It is more environmentally friendly. But is it fair to make the most disadvantaged in society pay a premium for the services and goods that they require?

Despite our living in an era when everyone seems to have a smartphone or an iPad, one-third of UK households do not have a personal computer, 20% of disabled people are not online and 53% of those who say that they never use a computer are disabled. Of course, in my age group eight out of 10 of those aged 65 or over want to keep their paper statements. This rises to nine out of 10 in the over-80s. As has been touched on, in another 20 or 30 years the situation may be slightly different, but for now I hope that the Minister will take on board the important and pressing issues raised by everyone in this debate. I hope that he can give us rather more comfort than he did when answering a Question on this very issue which was put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in this House last month.

20:04

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

We must all thank the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, for getting this debate in front of the House tonight. I thank also those who have rallied to her cause and who, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, are not Luddites. It is a particular delight that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has chosen this debate in which to break his silence in this House. He may feel that he is needed in Australia at the moment but as he introduced the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, today, who is from Wales, perhaps he should take up rugby instead. We are rather more successful at that.

The case that has been made out by the noble Baroness is quite clear. The service exists, after all, for consumers who pay for it and make the providers’ profits. Those consumers should therefore have a free choice of whether to have a paper or an electronic bill, with no price tag attached to either. This is part of a broader issue of defending consumer rights, especially where consumers cannot shop around to get a better service. We are all fed up of being charged when we want to book our theatre tickets, for example. After all, you cannot go to the theatre without a ticket so it is not an add-on to what is being provided; it is an essential part of it. One cannot shop around for which theatre to go to, as the play is on in only one place. Even budget airlines are beginning to realise that the allocation of a seat and the purchase of a ticket are an essential part of the journey—as opposed to a cup of coffee, which may be an add-on. So, surely, it ought to be in the areas of energy and the telephone.

It is impossible for people to shop around if all the providers are charging for bills, especially when they do not say at the outset what the cost will be or, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, when they write it in such a small typeface that none of us can read it. Even if one shops around for a supplier, the issue of billing will hardly be uppermost in one’s mind as one makes that choice. Effectively, these suppliers are adding a fee over which we cannot negotiate. Yet a bill is an essential component of the contract of service, not an optional extra.

These charges are not just the price of a stamp. Talk Talk charges £1.90 a month, and T-Mobile £18 a year. Given the weakness of the negotiating position of individual customers, it must be for the Government, an ombudsman or a regulator to stand in the consumer’s shoes and sort out the problem, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggested. Of course, had the Government not abolished Consumer Focus, there would be such a body. But have this Government any interest in consumers, like the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, former Minister and consumer champion? Apologies—she is a former Minister but she is still a consumer champion.

Do we not care about the old, the young and the vulnerable, who will be those most disadvantaged by having to pay to get a bill? Losing paper statements will disadvantage the elderly, as we have heard; only one-third of over-75s have browsed the internet. However, it is not just the elderly—7 million adults have never used the internet. One in seven does not have the internet at home and does not intend to get it, a quarter on grounds of cost. Some 16 million consumers over 15 do not have basic online skills. Even young people are not immune. One in 10 of those not in employment, education or training feels out of their depth using a computer. E-mails, even for those who are fairly familiar with them, are not always reliable. In fact, if your e-mail gets caught by a spam filter, it may never reach you, making payments easy to miss. Furthermore, online billing requires you to notify a change in e-mail address; it is sometimes easy to forget to do so—and there is no redirection facility, as with our much beloved Post Office.

Another issue, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is the risk associated with the internet of people fearing that they may lose their identity or access to personal information. One in four new internet users says that they would never share personal information online.

Another problem comes when printing copies of online statements, which may not be regarded as official, and certainly not as proof of address, on those occasions when you need to prove that. People who need a paper copy for tax, or as evidence of a transaction, would have to pay for it, with most banks already charging up to £10 for duplicate statements. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, reminds us, there is also the issue of remembering passwords as well as user names, especially as we are meant to have a combination of letters, capital letters and numbers—so we cannot even have an easy password. That is difficult not only for the elderly but for anyone with dyslexia or dyspraxia.

Another group that has approached me about this is students and flat sharers, who need paper bills so they can all see who owes what, rather than having to give control over bills to just one person. Those who claim expenses may need a paper copy of a bill to make a claim. Some institutions do not accept printed copies of online statements; indeed, the European Parliament will not even accept a photocopy—it has to be an original invoice, to be able to claim expenses. So people will have to pay for that documentation.

The real issue is why providers consider us users as merely a cost. Why should they be able to save money by charging consumers without whom they simply would not be in business? The average energy bill already includes £53 of profits for the company; the least they can do, surely, is to send us an invoice detailing how much to pay, and for what. As Judith Donovan, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also said:

“This is not an anti-online campaign, it’s a pro-choice campaign”.

We turn to the Government on this. We know that half of those with no access to the internet are in the lowest socioeconomic groups, but they are the ones who will have to pay for paper bills, and the ones who can least afford it. Not only that, but the Government are insisting on universal credit being online. This is surely nonsensical, given that even we here, most of whom can use the computer, want to pay our bills on paper. The idea that those who are not confident with the net should have their whole universal credit claim and income dealt with in this way is ridiculous.

The real question for the Government is what they will do about this situation, in which charges are being added, despite the choice that consumers want to make. The Government have a draft Bill on consumer rights, but how can they even use that phrase while allowing these rip-off practices to continue? We look forward to hearing about some robust action that they will take to make sure that consumers get a fair deal.

20:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I first extend my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes for securing this debate. As my noble friend Lady Maddock has mentioned, I am aware that my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes asked a supplementary question in this Chamber on a similar subject during an Oral PQ raised initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. My response to her question, and my response to some other questions, clearly did not strike a chord in this House. I recognise this and have had a few weeks to reflect on the subject further.

In replying, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge on his maiden speech, on sharing his passion for this issue with the House today and on speaking up for those who are concerned about the advances of the digital age and the so-called generational issue.

I say at the outset that I fully recognise and understand that there are those in this House and elsewhere in the country who, as individuals or for business purposes, may wish to continue to receive statements, bills and other documents through the post. I also recognise that some people may never wish to go online, nor indeed even use a computer, let alone other modern gadgets such as iPads or smartphones. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, both made the good point that some people cannot afford a computer. Again, I respect this. However, noble Lords cannot fail to notice that, whether we like it or not, the movement towards a fast-paced and rapidly changing digital age is inexorable; indeed, my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes alluded to this very fact. For example, some 60% of the UK population now have a smartphone, and we are responding to the huge demand for a comprehensive rollout of broadband.

The backdrop to this debate is therefore rather complex. The pace of change is fast. If we press the rewind button—if I may be allowed to use that term—e-mail only really became widespread during the late 1990s. Some noble Lords may recall the first cordless phones, as big as a brick and almost as heavy. Now we manage our lives using mobile phones, and even more, from having health gadgets on our wrists to writing e-mails using voice recognition. Doing all sorts of things on the move, be it checking on the weather or traffic, paying bills, even finding places and locating friends using satellite tracking, is becoming the norm. I hasten to add that I need to be brought up to date with all these gadgets myself.

The focus of the debate today is on how we help those facing difficulties or charges when wishing to retain the option of receiving traditional bills and statements through the post. I am the first to say that I have some sympathy with the traditional approach, but if I tried to hold back the tide of change I could on the other hand be accused of being a latter-day King Canute. The sons, daughters and grandchildren of many noble Lords here today do not feel the same need for paper. In exactly one month’s time, many will be sending Christmas e-cards to friends and relatives. Some people lack the space or inclination to store reams of bills. They want information at their digital fingertips, not buried somewhere in a pile on the coffee table. I recognise some of the statistics that have been adduced this evening about people being less efficient if they receive bills online.

The challenge to service providers is therefore to cater for the full spectrum of their customers, providing options and reassurance on billing and prices for the digital and non-digitally minded alike. The questions before us are, first, whether there should be an ongoing, default right to receive documentation through the post by request; secondly, if so, who should foot the cost; and, finally, how it might be underpinned by legislation. I reassure noble Lords that there are already several protections in place for the vulnerable, including the elderly. The Equality and Human Rights Act ensures that the rights of those physically unable to access material online are protected. More generally, the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 prohibit excessive charges being applied to specific ways of paying, such as paying over the counter at the Post Office. Regulators such as Ofwat and Ofcom ensure that protections are in place, in their sectors, for the most vulnerable. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, blind or visually impaired people can get their bills in an accessible format such as Braille. In the energy sector, for example, suppliers are not able to levy an additional charge for sending paper bills, but they may still offer a discount to those paying online. In so doing, I make it clear that they are not penalising the paper bill recipient but sharing genuine cost savings with the online customer.

Business is responding. For example, special tariffs for telephones, such as BT Basic, are available to those on low incomes, providing paper bills at no additional charge. In banking, thanks to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, access to transactional accounts is being broadened so that more people can use electronic payments.

I hope that this provides some reassurance but, as I said before, the digital age is moving rapidly upon us and much of it is driven by demand for efficiency and savings. According to the Digital Efficiency Report in 2011, the cost of an online transaction is 20 times lower than a phone one, and 30 times lower than a postal one. Companies cannot ignore such figures and the Government also need to consider savings.

However, there are wider drivers for change facing all of us that I might also mention. I mentioned earlier that it was a complex picture. Banks, councils and utilities, and the Government too, know that there is an increasing demand from their customers or citizens to go green and cut paper. People want to receive bills, receipts and statements online, reducing their impact on the use of natural resources. One can understand why. I might ask how many of your Lordships—I might ask myself this question—spend the weekend sorting through the post and seeking the right recycling bin to throw out those statements, receipts and circulars which you judge you will never read again. While doing so, you may well also wonder at the number of trees cut down to create all that paper. As a result, the specific question for us here is whether government should focus its efforts on controlling how business responds to customers—reflecting nominal and justifiable charges to certain bills—or on making markets more competitive to the benefit of all customers. Our stance remains to leave operational decisions to companies to act within the commercial spirit while putting in place the appropriate regime to ensure competition and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

It may be that in 20 years’ time, when I am approaching my eighties, this will be a largely paperless world. However, as the Government have committed, those not online will not be left behind. The Government’s approach to assisted digital exemplifies best practice in helping people access digital services and the benefits that going online can bring. Business should be looking to provide similar assistance. This House may recognise that, with advancing technology, the number of people feeling disfranchised by online billing is likely to diminish over time. That does not mean that we ignore the needs of the older generation. Options are there for those who wish to choose paper, but businesses should continue to meet the needs of their customers, both young and old.

In the time available I will address a number of questions that were raised.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Before the noble Viscount does so, let us be absolutely clear. Is he saying that the Government will do nothing about the issues that have been raised, or did I misunderstand him?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I can reassure the noble Baroness that that is not the case. We are encouraging businesses to bring in processes that will help more the vulnerable—I have already spelt out what we are doing. The Government, of course, provide the framework, but we believe that it is very much for companies to decide to put themselves in a position to help people in this respect.

[Lord Lipsey]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount again but, to press the point, why is it in the interests of companies to help the vulnerable?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is in the interest of companies to look after all their customers, otherwise they will go away. That includes all those people who are vulnerable and, as I mentioned earlier, all those across the spectrum who require the service. As I mentioned earlier, looking at the generational issues the picture is complex in terms of the current needs of customers.

My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes raised the issue of some companies not being up front about the charges, which is a very fair point. In the communications sector regulations are in place that prescribe that such charges must be set out in a clear, comprehensive and easily accessible form so that consumers can make informed decisions. The consumer rights directive will mean that suppliers should obtain consumers’ express consent to any extra charges and that they should not use a tick-box approach that requires consumers to un-tick boxes in order to avoid charges. The directive must come into force by June 2014.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of charging premium-call rates. In April, Ofcom announced plans to simplify the pricing of telephone numbers such as 0800 numbers. Under its proposals, calls to 0800 numbers from mobile phones will be free. Ofcom will publish the final proposals shortly. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of payment by cheques. There may be a legitimate charge for paying by cheques rather than paying electronically, but this charge is not levied as a norm. Any such charge would need to have been justified by relation to the additional cost. That is underpinned by the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012, to which I alluded earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised the issue of the response that he received from Ofcom about his question regarding a charge from a bill from his service provider. I repeat that what companies charge for their services is a commercial decision. In a competitive market consumers have choice and can move to a different provider. On the role of regulators, more widely, the Government have announced a number of reviews that look at competition and consumer issues. That may help to address the comments raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. For example, the PM has asked the regulators to instigate an annual review of the state of competition in the energy market. Ofcom published telecoms proposals in the summer and the Government have called on the industry to provide greater price transparency, particularly in communications with customers at the point of contract renewal.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised the generational issue of those aged over 65 who are offline. The Government are committed to helping people access the benefits of digital services. The Government Digital Service Digital Inclusion Team is working closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, to ensure that we protect the vulnerable.

My noble friend Lady Maddock made a good point about security online. Trust and security are major concerns and the Government are working with the online security industry to make it simpler and easier to protect individuals online. My noble friend also asked about charges for telecoms paper bills. Recipients of paper bills are not generally charged extra, even though they are being charged more than the discounted price. Should companies wish to charge for a paper bill or make a reduction for a digital bill or digital payment, they must ensure that the charge reflects only the different processing costs incurred.

This House may recognise that, with advancing technology, the number of people feeling disfranchised by online billing is likely to diminish over time. I fully accept that there remain those who continue to wish for, and, indeed, need, paper through the post in the form of receipts, bills and statements, but we do not believe that legislating further on charging for paper bills is necessary when options are available and protections are already in place for the most vulnerable.

20:26

Sitting suspended.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

20:35

Clause 58: Premises etc to which alcohol prohibition does not apply

Amendment 53A

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

53A: Clause 58, page 35, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) The meaning of “local authority” in this section includes a parish council and a Welsh community council.”

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53C. This small group contains two completely unrelated amendments. The first simply asks why premises owned by parish and town councils are not treated in exactly the same way as premises owned by district or other principal councils in terms of exemptions from alcohol bans. District councils are treated in a slightly less strict way compared with other premises, but I do not understand why town councils are not treated in the same way, as they very often own what people think are council-owned facilities in small and medium-sized towns.

Amendment 53C is a more important amendment, and it reads fairly cryptically. It proposes inserting at the end of line 41 on page 35,

“notify such other persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

It relates to Clause 60, which concerns orders restricting a public right of way over a highway. Therefore, we are back to that subject.

The existing legislation in a number of different areas relating to access contains designated or specified organisations. There is a list of those organisations and they usually appear in secondary legislation rather than in an Act. I remember arguing a long time ago during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as well as the Commons Bill in 2006 and some others, that they ought to be in an Act, but they ended up in regulations.

In the CROW Act, proposals relating to access concern restrictions on access land; in the case of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, they concern closures and diversions of rights of way; and in the Marine and Coastal Access Act, they are to do with the designation of access land and the coastal route. In all these cases there is a designated or, in the more recent legislation, specified list of organisations which are notified of proposals. The list includes access organisations such as the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society. It also includes representatives of landowners. For example, the Country Land and Business Association, formerly known as the Country Landowners Association, is on a specified list, as are other organisations. It is a balanced list and it is a matter of automatic notification.

The purpose of this slightly cryptic amendment is to ensure that such a list—really it is the same list as in the other legislation—applies in the case of proposals to restrict, and particularly to stop access to, rights of way so that those organisations have the opportunity to make representations just as they have in other cases. Particularly on the rights of way we are talking about here, if what was being proposed was a closure or diversion under the Highways Act, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, that right would exist.

I shall say what I said before we had our dinner break: nowadays such notifications are far easier than they used to be. Once a system has been set up, it is just a question of pressing two or three keys on a computer keyboard. If I can set up that sort of system easily enough, I am sure that local authorities would have no difficulty doing so. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling his amendments. On Amendment 53A, I appreciate and understand the important role that parish and town councils and community councils in Wales play in delivering key services in their area and, importantly, in creating a feeling of community; for instance, through the organisation of social events and so on and so forth.

The Bill provides some level of protection for council-operated licensed premises so that they can organise the kind of social events I have referred to but, as my noble friend has suggested, the narrower definition of local authority in this part of the Bill may mean that protection is not afforded to the types of council covered in the amendment. As such, it could result in the parish council not being able to sell alcohol at its annual fête because of a wider controlled drinking zone implemented by the district council. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend’s comments and have reflected on the amendment. If he will agree to withdraw it, we will certainly consider any further and wider implications of the change suggested and return to this on Report.

Amendment 53C would give the Secretary of State the ability to add, by regulation, to the list of persons who should be consulted before access is restricted. We believe that, as currently drafted, the Bill covers all those who should be consulted in each case. I am happy to provide further examples in the guidance but we do not believe there is a need to provide the Secretary of State with the ability to prescribe additions to the list. As my noble friend knows, it would, of course, be open to a local authority to consult more widely, if it so chose. On the basis that I accept in spirit his first amendment and with the explanation I have given on his second amendment, I hope that he will be minded not to press his amendments.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, having just had a splendid dinner, I am tempted to put the first amendment in this group to a vote and see what the Government do, but I shall not. I shall be a good boy. I thank the Minister for his very constructive response.

On Amendment 53C, I do not understand why organisations which are consulted at the moment on all similar proposals should not be consulted on these proposals. There is a suggestion that these national organisations ought to keep out of these local decisions, but we are talking about rights of way networks which have national or regional importance as public footpaths for many people who do not live locally. There is an issue of principle here which I would like to discuss further with the Government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 53A withdrawn.

Clause 58 agreed.

Clause 59 agreed.

Clause 60: Orders restricting public right of way over highway

Amendments 53B to 53FA not moved.

20:45

Amendment 53G

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

53G: Clause 60, page 36, line 17, at end insert—
“(6A) A public spaces protection order may not restrict the rights of any person in relation to a private right of way.”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thought that I was going to get a rest; my noble friend did not tell me that she was not moving her amendment, or if she did, I have forgotten.

I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say about Amendment 53G. Amendment 53H is slightly more complicated. It applies yet again to the sort of area in which I live where there are county councils and district councils in a two-tier system. The district council will be responsible for making public spaces protection orders. The county council is the highways authority, which is responsible by law for maintaining public rights of way to an acceptable standard so as to ensure that people can walk on footpaths and ride horses along bridleways, for example. County councils do not always carry out those duties to a great extent, but nevertheless they are responsible in law for maintaining these rights of way. It seems wrong that the district council does not consult the county. The Minister has already said that the Government will look favourably at making sure that county councils, as highways authorities, are consulted. The question is this: what if the highways authority objects to closing one of its highways? Does it have a veto or not? I am suggesting that it should, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions on this issue. We tabled a clause stand part debate and I was slightly taken aback when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdrew her two amendments because they touch on the issue that I wish to raise.

First, it seems to me that there has to be a very good reason to restrict a public right of way over a highway. Will it be in guidance, as there is nothing here to say that it should be a matter of last resort and that all other options should be considered before taking that step? It would be useful to have the Minister’s comments on that. Secondly, I have clearly been dreaming about this Bill—I am affected so greatly by it. I have just checked with the noble Lord’s officials as I was absolutely convinced that I had read in a letter from the Minister that he would make the amendment anyway, but I am told he has not. Clearly it is a very good amendment and he should make it. Will he enlighten me on Clause 60(3) which states:

“Before a local authority makes a public spaces protection order restricting the public right of way over a highway that is also within the area of another local authority, it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”?

Why would it not think it appropriate to do so? Why would it not consult the other authority in whose area the highway on which it wishes to restrict public access or the right of way belongs? In my dreams I thought that this had already been done, but I am told by the Minister’s officials that it has not. Can he comment on that and explain why the authority must consult the other authority in whose area the highway is only if it thinks it appropriate to do so, rather than seeking the permission of the other authority as a matter of course? I hope that the Minister will clarify this as I am puzzled by the subsection.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

I hope I can appear in the noble Baroness’s dreams in a good light. Do not have nightmares; that is all I say.

The decision to restrict activity on or access to public rights of way should not be taken lightly. Where anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder is present, local authorities will need to weigh up the impact of restricting access against the needs of the community. There are, as we have already discussed, additional consultation requirements associated with public rights of way above and beyond those expected more generally for a public spaces protection order. Those affected by the order must be notified of the proposal and be given details of how to see a copy of the restrictions. The local authority must also notify those persons of how they can make representations, and these representations must be considered before the order can be made.

Amendment 53G, proposed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, aims to protect private rights of way. I assure my noble friend that I agree with his sentiment. I am happy to confirm that the definition of public spaces included in Clause 60 will not allow for the order to be used for private rights of way. The principal access route to homes cannot be closed with a public spaces protection order. As such, I do not believe the amendment needs to be made.

On Amendment 53H, I understand the issue here relates to areas where there is a district council and a county council. Indeed, just as the noble Lord lives in such an area, so do I. In the situation described in the amendment, while the district council has the ability to make an order, the county council is likely to act as the highway authority. Therefore, in line with the consultation requirements I have just described, before restricting access the district council should consult the county council about the terms. However, I do not believe that this should come with a right of veto. In the majority of cases the evidence presented will be sufficient for both bodies, acting in the interests of the communities they serve, to agree. However, where this is not the case it should not prolong the misery for victims and communities, and so the district council should be free to make the order. On the basis of what I have said, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and I beg to move that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

On the specific question asked by the noble Baroness about the phrase in the clause,

“it must consult that other authority if it thinks it appropriate to do so”,

I can hardly see how, in the case of a public highway, it would be possible for a local authority to do other than consult those people. I have a note here which has come to my rescue. As to why it states in Clause 60(3),

“only if it is appropriate to do so”,

it is hard to imagine a situation where a council would not do so. However, it adds flexibility. Clause 60(3) was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons in response to a point raised by Gloria de Piero, the honourable Member leading on the Bill for the Opposition. It may be that the letter the noble Baroness is thinking of is the one from Damian Green to David Hanson of 7 October dealing with the Government’s amendments on Report in the Commons. I cannot remember ever discussing this issue before. However, it was added to the Bill on Report in the Commons, presumably with agreement.

I should say that it is only as a last resort. We have made it clear that the added flexibility means it is less likely that a right of way will be closed. This is covered in the guidance and we do not believe it needs to be in the Bill. It is also worth making clear that highways of strategic value cannot be restricted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord sought to assist me, and I want to respond to his answer because he has actually puzzled me even more. He said, both before and after receiving enlightenment from the other end of the Chamber, that he really cannot conceive of the circumstances where it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. He says that the provision was put in on Report in the other place. However, that does not really answer my question. Can he give me any circumstance where he thinks it would not be appropriate? That might help me to understand why it is there.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I wonder whether I should come in on the same issue to allow time for reflection. As I said to the Minister through his officials, I did not move my amendment because I assumed that there must be legislation which would require both authorities to agree. I read “consult” in this clause as meaning consult not around the outcome of actual closure but about the things surrounding it. I thought that, rather than taking the Committee’s time, I would simply not move it. Perhaps it would have been better if I had.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister can assist the Committee by giving us some examples of when this power might be required and what the circumstances would be. It is about restricting the public right of way to a highway, but under what circumstances is that likely to happen and what sort of roads would these be? The requirement is to notify “potentially affected persons”, which,

“means occupiers of premises adjacent to or adjoining the highway, and any other persons in the locality who are likely to be affected by the proposed order”.

Depending on the nature of the highway concerned, that could be a very large number. One also wonders why it is confined to the locality when it might have a much wider impact. I suspect that the answers might be clearer if I had a better understanding of the circumstances in which the Government envisage this power being used. If they are rather narrower than the potential of this clause seems to suggest, I would like some clarity on why that is not made clearer in the clause.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may be that I have been misreading this particular clause. I assumed that it was evidence of the phenomenon where you have both a district council and a county council, which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred to. It may be, of course, that the highway lies in two local authority areas, and that by restricting it to one local authority, an adjacent local authority that shares the highway might be affected. In that case it clearly would be appropriate for there to be consultation between the authorities. In effect, there would be a joint highway, shared with other authorities.

However, I am hazarding a guess and seeking to inform the House on the basis of guess-work. My best position is to say to noble Lords that there is clearly some uncertainty about the meaning of this and that I am quite prepared to write to noble Lords with all the detail. This is based on current gating order legislation, which has been used for many years by councils to deal with anti-social behaviour, so we might see a similar clause there. Clause 60 needs to be read with Clause 61, in particular subsection (1), which describes which public highways cannot be restricted. It excludes strategic highways, so it is non-strategic highways that are being considered here. I will write to noble Lords explaining how these two clauses operate together, as clearly they are both of a part.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very helpful suggestion for trying to get to the bottom of what it means. When he writes, perhaps he could focus on giving us an answer about when he thinks it would not be appropriate to consult the other authority. The other points he made are relevant and helpful.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps in that letter the noble Lord could also give some examples of circumstances in which he thinks the power would be used. It seems that it may be a wider power than simply gating regulations in the past and might be used over and beyond them. We are back to the whole issue of why we should change something just for the sake of it, which might add increased ambiguity as a consequence.

21:00

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, that is very interesting. The discussion went beyond where I thought it might go. I was talking really about footpaths and bridleways but we now find that this power may apply to a majority of the road network in this country—no?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I point my noble friend to Clause 61(1), in which he will find a list of the highways to which it cannot apply.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I think the Minister is relying on Clause 61(1)(e), which refers to,

“a highway in England of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”,

because the rest of them are,

“a special road … a trunk road … a classified or principal road … a strategic road”.

I am not sure that in terms of sheer mileage, they cover more than half the roads in the country. Unclassified roads are legion. No doubt they will appear in the prescribed description of roads made by the Secretary of State. To add to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we really want to know what roads will be prescribed under that subsection so that we can work out what is left and what might become public space.

As I say, that is all very interesting. On the first amendment, on private rights of way, I hesitate to get into the intricacies of private rights of way because there has been quite a lot of case law and it is all very complicated. I ask the Minister to have another look at it because it is quite possible for private rights of way to cross public land that will be designated as public space. This needs a bit more attention. Having said that, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 53G withdrawn.

Amendment 53H not moved.

Clause 60 agreed.

Clause 61: Categories of highway over which public right of way may not be restricted

Amendment 54 not moved.

Clause 61 agreed.

Clause 62: Challenging the validity of orders

Amendment 55

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

55: Clause 62, page 37, line 7, leave out “An interested” and insert “A”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this amendment is about who can appeal to the High Court if they are dissatisfied with the council’s decision to declare a public spaces protection order. At the moment Clause 62 says that it has to be an “interested person”, and that they can question the validity of either the order or a variation of the order. It then says:

“‘Interested person’ means an individual who lives in the restricted area or who regularly works in or visits that area”.

I am suggesting that it should be just “a person”—anybody can do it.

There are two reasons for this. One is that the current definition is wide open to vague interpretation. It is fairly clear if you live or work in the area, but whether a person who regularly visits the area is an interested person is open to interpretation. In any case, why should a person who wishes to visit the area, or who intends to visit it, or who occasionally or intermittently visits it, not have the right? If they go only once a year and walk on a particular path, why should they not be able to challenge a decision to close that path?

The second reason is that the definition as set out in the Bill appears to exclude national and regional organisations that regularly represent people who use rights of way, people who walk on access land, or people who may visit town and village greens. We are talking about the same group of organisations: perhaps the Ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society and others. Why should they not be able to bring a case to the High Court on behalf of their members or of people who have appealed to them? Let us remember that the Ramblers have rather more members than all the political parties put together and is a representative organisation which is used to taking such cases from time to time. Why is it excluded in this case? Why is the right suddenly being closed down so that it can be exercised only by people with a much more local connection? This seems mean-hearted. There seems to be no obvious, sensible reason for it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s excuses for it—because I think they will be excuses—and I will listen carefully to what he has to say.

It is possible for the Ramblers nationally to take an issue to judicial review under the Highways Act, the CROW Act or the Marine and Coastal Access Act, or any other Act that involves village greens, town greens or access to land, on behalf of people who may not have either the resources to go to the High Court—perhaps they would have the resources—or the know-how. Efficient review through the courts of things like this depends on the people taking those reviews being experts, so that they know what they are talking about on both sides. This is an unnecessary and mean-minded provision. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, this clause comes under the heading “validity of orders”. From the way in which it is framed it seems very much as though it is in the form of a judicial review of an administrative order. What is interesting about the way in which the whole scheme of the legislation is formed is that there is the power to make, vary or discharge orders under Clause 57, so that local people who are affected by the orders and are discontent with them can vary or discharge them relatively simply. Yet here we have this clause, which provides for a high-level challenge by way of judicial review.

The provision is described in the Explanatory Notes as an appeal route for either an order or variation of an order, but it contains the sort of restrictions that you would expect in judicial review, in particular subsection (1), which is to do with what used to be referred to as locus standi—in other words, have you got the standing to challenge this? I respectfully disagree with my noble friend that there should be no restriction at all on who should be able to challenge the orders. There is always a restriction; there has to be a proper connection with the subject matter. Where we are concerned with a local order covering a specific area, it seems only appropriate that those given the opportunity to review it should be those with a close connection with it, rather than somebody who simply has a general view about the orders.

However, I am slightly concerned about Clause 62(7), which appears to say that this is the only way in which such an order can be challenged, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the court to carry out judicial review. That is quite a radical step for a Government to take. If there was no Clause 62, it seems to me that it would be perfectly open to somebody affected and who had the appropriate standing to challenge this order by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was unlawful, just in the way that is set out within the body of Clause 62. I wonder how necessary Clause 62 is at all. There is judicial review, which I would suggest is very much a last resort, and then there are the powers to vary or discharge it. Do we really need this rather curiously described appeal that is really a judicial review?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, because I do not understand what this clause is about. Maybe it is my failure to read it properly, but this seems to be about a mechanism for challenging process. It is not an appeals process so it does not do what is says on the tin or in the Explanatory Notes. This is solely about the validity of orders. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is concerned about the Ramblers’ Association acting on behalf of ramblers who use a path. The association would only be able to challenge an order on the basis that the local authority did not have the power to make that order, or the particular variations, or that it had not complied with the process described elsewhere in this clause. I rather assumed that an appeal would be for somebody to look again at the principles going into that decision, not whether the process was followed correctly. This is not the clause described in the Explanatory Notes. It is something very different.

If it is the Government’s intention to create an appeal mechanism of some sort, this is not it. However, if the Government’s intention, irrespective of what is said in the Explanatory Notes, is to provide a mechanism for challenging the validity of the process, I do not understand why we have this one, given that all those cases would be amenable—as I understand it—to judicial review. It would be helpful if the Minister told us if this clause is meant to reflect what is said in the Explanatory Notes or what it says in the clause heading “Challenging the validity of orders”. If it is the latter, what is the point of having nicely bound Explanatory Notes that do not tell us the Government’s intentions?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Greaves]

Perhaps I could speak before the noble Lord, and then he could speak last before the Minister. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for clarifying my thoughts on this. I must admit that my thoughts were muddled after reading this. I think that they are clarified now but perhaps the Minister will muddle them again—I do not know. I ask him one question. If this process is indeed one of judicial review of the process as opposed to a normal appeal on the merits of the case, will the judicial-reviewable process include the guidance as well as what is set out in the Bill?

[Lord Rosser]

My comments will be much in line with those already expressed. It is worth recalling the very considerable powers given to a local authority with a public spaces protection order. It has the power to impose such an order for a period of up to three years without, apparently, any requirement to secure the approval or agreement of any other individual groups, bodies or organisations, including the courts.

There are just two conditions that a local authority must satisfy. First is that,

“activities carried on in a public place … have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”,

or that,

“it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place … that … will have such an effect … The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities … is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature … is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and … justifies the restrictions imposed by the”,

public spaces protection order.

The only check on that local authority power is that:

“An interested person may apply to the High Court to question the validity of … a public spaces protection order”,

on the grounds,

“that the local authority did not have the power to make the order … or to include in particular provisions or requirements imposed by the order”,

or,

“that a requirement under this chapter was not complied with in relation to the order or variation”.

Bearing in mind the potentially significant but apparently unchallenged powers that a local authority will have to make a public spaces protection order, it is important that the Minister places clearly on record how weak or strong are the proposed provisions to challenge the validity of such orders and how, in practice, they are expected to operate.

What do the Government believe that Clause 62(2) means in practice? That is the clause referring to the grounds on which an application can be made to the High Court, to which I referred a few moments ago. In an early debate this evening, the Minister said that the fact that activities carried on in a public place had to be,

“of a persistent or continuing nature”,

and “unreasonable” was adequate protection, but each local authority will interpret those words as it sees fit. How regularly does an activity have to be carried out to be persistent or continuing? Can that issue be taken to the High Court in challenging the validity of an order? On what basis might it be deemed that a local authority did not have the power to make a public spaces protection order or to include particular prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order? Would that include a challenge that the two conditions referred to in Clause 55(1) and (2) had not been met? If so, why does the Bill not set that out clearly in Clause 62(2), or does a local authority not having the power simply mean that the challenge can be only on the basis that the area to which the order relates is not a public place?

Perhaps the Minister could give some examples of what might be deemed a prohibition or requirement that the local authority had imposed on the order which it would not have the power to impose under the Bill. Clause 62(2) also refers to a challenge on the basis that a requirement under this chapter was not complied with in relation to the order. Does that ground relate purely to process, or would it include other issues? If so, can the Minister give some examples?

How quickly do the Government think that an application under subsection (2) would be heard in the High Court? If a local authority has made a public spaces protection order preventing use of, let us say, a public footpath in the light of objections from landowners and nearby residents—or, alternatively, a local authority has made a public spaces protection order preventing the use of a large public square in a major city which is regularly used for the purpose of rallies or public protest meetings, in the light of opposition from local residents or businesses—the question of how quickly access to the High Court can be made is not unimportant.

As an individual can apply to the High Court, how much is it likely to cost to make such an application and will the use of professional lawyers be mandatory or optional? Will legal aid be available? If so, to which categories of interested people will it be available? Does the reference to an interested person making an application to the High Court mean that a business or other organisation cannot make an application to question the validity of a public spaces protection order? If that is the case, what is the Government’s argument for taking that stance?

Clause 62(5) states that,

“the Court may quash the order … or any of the prohibitions or requirements imposed by the order”.

Does that include the length of time of up to three years for which the order has been imposed by the local authority?

The Government say that the Bill is about victims, but people on the wrong end of an unjustified local authority public spaces protection order will also be victims, so what provisions in the Bill will enable support to be provided to such individuals, including support in taking a challenge to the High Court? On the face of it, one might conclude that the proposals for public spaces protection orders are fair and reasonable. If they are applied by reasonable people acting in a reasonable manner, they almost certainly will be. However, the question is: what are the safeguards in the Bill to prevent abuse of this power? What or who is there to stop a local authority from acting unreasonably in making an order in the first place? Is there in reality nothing?

[Lord Faulks]

Is the answer to the noble Lord’s question not that if an authority acts unlawfully its acts are amenable to judicial review, just as any other administrative acts are?

[Lord Rosser]

I am waiting to see what answer the Minister gives me. The noble Lord himself raised a particular reference to Clause 62, so perhaps he is also waiting for an answer to his point.

I ask the question again. Is there in reality nothing, with the only redress being an application to the High Court by an interested party? If the answer is that you go to the court on some other issue of judicial review, it comes back to the point about what this clause is doing in the Bill. If that is the case on the question I have raised about the specific grounds on which the validity of the order can be challenged in the High Court and how restrictive or otherwise those grounds are, I suggest that that is very relevant—as is the speed with which an individual can get a hearing at the High Court, along with the cost of doing so and the support that will be given to them.

There is obviously some confusion about what Clause 62 means; that is clear from the contributions made by a number of noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide detailed answers to these questions and thus resolve any confusion there may be about what this clause is meant to mean, and in what circumstances and on what basis it will be applied.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords for raising this issue because it gives me a chance to provide some detail and, to the extent that I am not able to answer all the factors, I will certainly write to all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments.

Perhaps it would help if I explain briefly how Clause 62 provides a process by which a public spaces protection order can be challenged. The heading is “Challenging the validity of orders” and that is what the clause seeks to achieve. Within six weeks of an order being made or varied, any interested person can appeal to the High Court to challenge its validity. It is only right that those with an interest in the area should be able to do this and, as such, this route is not open to those who do not live in, regularly work in or regularly visit the area.

A challenge can be made on two grounds. The first is that the local authority did not have the power to make the order. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is quite right to draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 55, which stipulates the power that the order is designed to provide for. For instance, this could be in cases where the person challenging the order believes that the test for making an order had not been met. The second ground is if the requirement in this part of the Bill was not met; for example, if local community representatives were not consulted as required by Clause 55(7)(b).

The court has the power to quash the order, uphold it or quash any of the individual elements, including its time and duration. The court can decide to suspend the public spaces protection order in full or in part until the proceedings are complete. However, it does not have to do so; an appeal does not necessarily mean that restrictions are lifted. But this appeal mechanism acts as a valuable safeguard to ensure that local authorities do not use the order disproportionately.

My noble friend Lord Greaves has tabled Amendments 55 and 56, which raise the question of who should be able to challenge the issue or variation of a public spaces protection order.

I stress that it is important that we strike the right balance between councils being able to protect communities from harm and providing the right opportunities for people affected by it to challenge such action. That is why, as I have explained, we have sought to restrict the ability to challenge an order to those who have a direct interest—namely, those who live in, regularly visit or work in the area. I believe that in doing so we have given the right people an appropriate safeguard. There is, of course, nothing to stop national bodies raising a challenge through a local group or even an individual, but someone directly affected by an order should at least object to it for it to be challenged. Our reforms are all about putting the victim first, and it is only right that they have the ability to shape the local solution.

I hope I have been able to satisfy my noble friend, although I suspect not, because he strongly believes that national organisations should be involved in this process. That is not the Government’s view.

I shall seek to answer some of the particular questions that have been raised. The High Court is the appeal route for the three orders being replaced; the designated public places order, the gating order and the dog control order all have an appeal to the High Court. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the restriction could be challenged when conduct does not justify the proposed restriction—so, in other words, there is improper balance. That is in Clause 55(3)(c). The noble Lord also asked why no one need agree to an order for it to be made. The council will have to consult the police and any community representatives they think appropriate. They may not reach agreement on the order but, none the less, if they were unreasonable in not reaching agreement in that consultation, that, too, would provide grounds for review. The intention is not to close the door on judicial reviews.

I will reflect on the noble Lord’s point on the whole business of the balance between the High Court application and judicial review—and, if I may, I shall write to him about it, because he raises a lot of detailed questions, particularly on the question of legal aid, and suchlike.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that. Until he made the comment about writing to me, I was going to ask him whether, if somebody considered a public spaces protection order to be unreasonable in any way at all, the Minister would say that they should pursue it under Clause 62 or do it through other legal channels. I gather that that is one issue that the Minister is going to consider and write on.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I certainly give that commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked how long it would take to get an appeal heard. As he will know, that is a matter for the courts having regard to a number of factors, including the urgency of the case. He also asked how quickly a PSPO could be made; each one must be made following the requirements of the Bill, especially the consultation requirement. This will take different times in different circumstances; what is appropriate will include an assessment of the need for immediate and urgent action if this is the case. I have said already that the High Court can suspend a PSPO pending the outcome of the challenge under Clause 62, so I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. There was a lot of detail in his questions, which I think that only correspondence will be able to settle.

[Lord Rosser]

Does the Minister accept my interpretation of what the Bill says or not? It is an individual who has to take the case there—presumably, they must use professional lawyers and, presumably, there is a cost involved. Presumably, they have to feel sufficiently confident to take a case to the High Court, if it is the case that an individual has to take it and an organisation cannot take it on their behalf.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have made it clear that this does not pre-empt the judicial review route, if that is considered preferable by the individual.

[Lord Rosser]

Then I come back to the point to which I know the Minister will respond. Is this the key clause for dealing with the belief that a public spaces protection order is unreasonable or unfair, or is judicial review the appropriate channel? The question that has just been raised goes to the heart of whether it is Clause 62 or judicial review, which is obviously not covered in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clear up what the Government’s intentions are when he writes.

21:30

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps the Minister could also clarify what he just said about also having a judicial review. My reading of Clause 62(7) is that judicial reviews are precluded. Perhaps, while the Minister is pondering that point, he could also answer the question of how this procedure is in practice different from the judicial review. Does this have more teeth or fewer teeth?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This clause is of course specific to the Bill, and so lays down the procedure of the considerations which apply in the Bill. Judicial review is a much broader process through which individuals can challenge legal conduct of the implementation of a PSPO. I have made it quite clear that the intention is not to close the door on judicial reviews, but I will reflect on the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey. I will be writing to all those who have participated in the debate.

[Lord Faulks]

Further to a point that I made a little earlier, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, also made, of course the Minister is absolutely right: judicial review cannot be ousted by any provision. That is why I am a little perplexed about subsection (7), where it is provided:

“The validity of a public spaces protection order, or of a variation of a public spaces protection order, may not be challenged in any legal proceedings, either before or after it is made, except under this section”.

It looks, on the face of it, as though it is precluding challenge. I am sure that there is an explanation, but I look forward to it being included.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thought that I would be getting my views on this clause clarified. I am even more muddled, having heard this debate, than I was before. That is no fault of those taking part; lots of valid questions have been asked, which will need answering. I assume that my noble friend the Minister will copy any letters he sends to people around the Committee so that we can all see his answers. Is that the case?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am certainly quite prepared to make my correspondence as broad as anybody would wish. I have certainly noted the people who have taken an interest in this matter and will try to make sure that everybody is included in the correspondence.

[Lord Greaves]

I am most grateful, as I am sure other noble Lords are. I have two quick points. For all this talk of whether it is the High Court or judicial review, they are both way above the abilities of ordinary people. If I go on a local footpath anywhere in this country and I find that it is blocked and complain to the highways authority, and the highways authority does nothing about it, I can go to the court to make the highways authority do something about it. That court is the magistrates’ court. However, if I then find signs up saying that the local authority has just issued a public spaces protection order to stop me walking on it, there is no way on God’s earth that I will go to the High Court, because ordinary folk do not do that kind of thing. There may well be Members of this Committee and your Lordships’ House who spend half their time in the High Court, but most of us do not; and after the one or two occasions on which we have ever been there, we may never want to go back again.

If there are to be decisions like this, which affect basic, historic rights to walk on paths and land, there needs to be a proper appeals mechanism just as there is under the Highways Act. If a local authority closes a footpath under the Highways Act and you do not like it, you can appeal to the magistrates’ court. That is the sort of level at which ordinary people can function. Are the Government saying that ordinary people are not able to get help and support from organisations that can operate at a higher level, such as the Ramblers or perhaps the CLA, but are on their own? Sorry, but they are individuals, and it clearly states here that it is about an individual, not even a local business, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said.

I think that there is something wrong and we need to have further discussions about it, but not now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

Amendment 55A not moved.

Amendment 56 not moved.

Clause 62 agreed.

Clause 63: Offence of failing to comply with order

Amendment 56ZA

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

56ZA: Clause 63, page 38, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prohibition or restriction relates to—
(a) travel along a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic in an appropriate manner in each case;(b) presence on a common, village green or town green or on land that is access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, Clause 63(1) states that:

“It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse”.

The words “without reasonable excuse” are part of the reason for putting these probing amendments down in order to find out what they mean. Subsection (1) continues,

“(a) to do anything that the person is prohibited from doing by a public spaces protection order, or,

(b) to fail to comply with a requirement to which the person is subject under a public spaces protection order”.

Again, my amendments refer to the kinds of access that are specifically enabled by legislation, historic practice and common law; that is, rights of way, commons, village greens and town greens. Amendment 56ZA is about those. It states:

“Subsection (1) does not apply if the prohibition or restriction relates to—

(a) travel along a footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic”,

or presence on access land. If I am walking along with an Ordnance Survey map in my hand, or if I am a bit more modern and I have a fancy phone or tablet, and I walk on to this land or on to footpaths where access has been prohibited from access by a public spaces protection order, why should I become a criminal for doing things which, on the face of it, I believe to be reasonable? This amendment probes to what extent that would be a criminal offence. The question is, would I be behaving in a reasonable way if I did that? If I met an owner, a resident or somebody else who told me to get off because some sort of spaces order had been made on the land, would I still be breaking the law if I said, “No. I’ve got this Ordnance Survey map which maps the access land and shows the rights of way, and I’m okay”?

Amendment 56ZB states:

“A person does not commit an offence unless the local authority has displayed information about the relevant restrictions and requirements on or adjacent to the land that is subject to the public spaces protection notice in such a way that it is reasonable for the person to have seen the notice”.

The possibility under public spaces protection orders for people to break the law but not know that they are breaking the law—in other words, breaking the order, which is an offence—simply because the local authority or other authorities have not provided adequate information on the site, is very great indeed. These are probing amendments to test what would happen under those circumstances. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I understand that these are probing amendments relating to the circumstances in which someone may commit an offence when a public spaces protection order is breached. I can see the reasoning behind Amendment 56ZA. Clearly, it is hard to see how using a public right of way in an appropriate and responsible manner, or mere presence on common land, a town or village green, or on access land, could constitute an offence. However, in the extreme circumstances where the council, in consultation with the relevant bodies, has decided to place restrictions on access to the land that apply to everyone, there must be a penalty for breach.

Similarly, Amendment 56ZB seeks to provide that it is not an offence to breach the conditions of a public spaces protection order if the local authority has not publicised it in a certain way. As I have said before, I do not believe it is for primary legislation to state how restrictions will be publicised; not least there may be situations where it is not necessary or appropriate to do so in the entirely sensible way my noble friend suggests. The place for this is in regulations or guidance.

However, on the more important point of a defence of reasonable excuse, I would like to assure my noble friend that a person commits an offence only if they breach a condition without reasonable excuse. The courts carefully consider whether there is a “reasonable excuse” to breach an order if the local authority has not publicised it appropriately. As such, regardless of what is in the legislation, or indeed the guidance, it is in the best interests of the local authority to make sure that people using the public space know what is expected of them; otherwise, it becomes unenforceable. Earlier this evening we discussed unenforceable legislation in connection with a matter affecting this House.

I hope that, with this reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the real problem with this measure is that it criminalises trespass in certain circumstances where people not only think they are not trespassing but have evidence in their hand which shows that they are allowed to be there. This is the potential problem that could arise. I am not sure that the Minister’s answer has tackled that thoroughly and completely. This issue needs further discussion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56ZA withdrawn.

Amendment 56ZB not moved.

Clause 63 agreed.

Clause 64: Fixed penalty notices

Amendments 56ZBA and 56ZBB not moved.

Clause 64 agreed.

Amendment 56ZBC

Moved by

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

56ZBC: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Orders made by statutory custodians
(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a person as a statutory custodian for the purposes of this section in respect of any land which that person is empowered to regulate under any enactment.
(2) Where an order is in force under subsection (1), the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) apply as if the statutory custodian were the local authority for the area comprising the land in respect of which it is designated.
(3) Subsection (2)—
(a) does not affect the ability of a local authority to exercise within its area any of the functions conferred by this Chapter, and(b) is subject to the following provisions of this section.(4) A statutory custodian may not make a public spaces protection order imposing any prohibition or requirement which it would not have been able to impose (in whatever form) by means of a byelaw made under any enactment.
(5) Before making, varying or discharging a public spaces protection order, or extending the period for which such an order has effect, a statutory custodian must consult (in addition to any other person who must be consulted by virtue of any provision of this Chapter) the local authority for the area that includes the restricted area.
(6) Where a local authority makes a public spaces protection order—
(a) any public spaces protection order made by a statutory custodian shall cease to have effect, and(b) a statutory custodian may not make a public spaces protection order,to the extent that such an order regulates an activity which is regulated by the public spaces protection order made by the local authority. (7) In subsection (6) “regulate” means—
(a) prohibit by virtue of section 55(4)(a), or (b) subject to requirements by virtue of section 55(4)(b),whether or not for all persons at all times.(8) A notice given by a person under section 67(2) does not have effect in relation to the making of any public spaces protection order by that person as a statutory custodian.”

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, the aim of this new clause is to apply the power to make public spaces protection orders to bodies which are responsible for the custody of public open spaces under private Acts. The amendment is prompted by the position of the City of London Corporation. I probably do not need to record for your Lordships the provenance of my association with the City in the other place. In addition to its responsibilities within the City, the corporation acts under a variety of private Acts and related instruments as custodian for a range of well known public open spaces: Hampstead Heath, Burnham Beeches and Epping Forest are prominent examples.

I was born in Hampstead, where my home address persisted until I was 29, before shifting to Highgate for a further 14 years. I therefore know Hampstead Heath backwards under both the LCC and the GLC, prior to the City of London Corporation inheriting the responsibility for Hampstead Heath. I also confess to your Lordships to have form as the sponsor of City of London Bills involving its open spaces, particularly Epping Forest.

21:44

The problems that arise in the public open spaces for which the City is responsible are no different in kind from those encountered in those which local authorities manage. The case for public spaces protection orders provided for by Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Bill is therefore the same. The control of dogs is a particular feature of the City’s open spaces around London, but no doubt that feature is shared by many. The Bill recognises this commonality by making the power to make orders generally applicable to public spaces at the suit of the local authority for the area, including those governed by private Acts by agreement with those responsible for them. However, unlike the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which introduced a similar, more limited, regime to the one that we are considering, and is applicable to the control of dogs, there is no provision in the Bill to enable the custodians of public spaces governed by private Acts to make such orders.

There are, however, good reasons why the principle applied in the 2005 Act is appropriate for public spaces protection orders. Those responsible for public open spaces under private Acts of Parliament also have responsibility for enforcing the by-laws made under those Acts; the open spaces may cross local authority boundaries—many of those for which the City is responsible do so—and it makes practical sense to have an order covering the open space as a whole rather than a patchwork with different enforcing authorities and the practical evidential problems of demarcation near boundaries; and in relation to the open spaces managed by the City, such an order will relieve public expenditure because the cost of custodianship, including any public spaces protection orders, will be met from private funds.

The proposed new clause seeks essentially to apply the same regime for public spaces protection orders as set out in Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Bill. The application depends on a designation being made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of the new clause. The new clause does not affect the entitlement of the local authority for the area in which the open space is located to make its own public spaces protection order. If the local authority does so, any order made by the custodian of the open space ceases to have effect under subsection (6). In other words, the local authority has precedence if it wishes to regulate the open space itself, although, as I have said, that eventuality would not seem to be a particularly attractive practical option. Any custodian of a public space—“statutory custodian” in the terminology of the proposed new clause—wishing to make a public spaces protection order must undertake the same consultation procedure as is applied generally by the Bill to others seeking to make an order. In addition, subsection (5) requires the custodian to consult the local authority for the area in which the open space is located.

I hope that Lordships feel that this new clause is a practical and realistic way to address open spaces governed under statute by bodies other than local authorities. I remark in the presence of the government Whip on the Front Bench that three years of my life were partly spent watching my eldest son with an Oxford blue running against Cambridge cross-country over Wimbledon Common—in passing, he was always a member of the winning team. I therefore also hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment, and not least for his closing remarks. He raises an important and interesting issue. The City of London Corporation, as all noble Lords would agree, does a fantastic job managing a number of important spaces through both primary legislation and the effective use of by-laws. I also know that in discussions officials have held meaningful and constructive conversations with representatives from the City of London Corporation over the past few months to discuss the issue, and I note and appreciate the safeguards that have been built into the suggested amendment. I would like to consider the matter further ahead of Report, read through my noble friend’s contributions and the representations which have been made by the City of London, and consider any wider implications of this proposed change. In the mean time, given the strong case made by my noble friend and what I hope he feels is my positive response, I hope he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I am happy to do as my noble friend suggests. Should he wish to have further contact either with me or with the City of London Corporation, I hope that he will not hesitate to do so. I am very grateful to him for the spirit of his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56ZBC withdrawn.

Clauses 65 and 66 agreed.

Clause 67: Interpretation of Chapter 2

Amendment 56ZC not moved.

Amendment 56ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Debate on whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have two brief questions for the Minister on interpretation. One is an issue that I raised with him previously. He will know that the naturists have written to a number of noble Lords about their concern that the definition of “public place” in the Bill is drawn very widely and that it will unnecessarily restrain—perhaps “contain” would be a better word—their activities. It would be helpful to have an explanation of that. I raised it previously but did not get an answer. However, if there is an answer for them on that, that would be helpful.

Unitary authorities are not referred to under the interpretation of “local authority”. Do I take it that a county council, when there is no district council, includes a unitary authority, even though the unitary may not be the county council? I can see no other way in which a unitary authority would be referred to in the legislation.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

Perhaps I may make a very brief intervention. Clause 67(2) seems to contain a drafting mistake because the subsection opens with the words “This section”, but it is in fact a reference to paragraph (b) immediately before it in subsection (1), referring to “public place”. I am not seeking to press this in any way but some attention might be drawn to it between now and Report to make sure that, if I am right, it is corrected.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, Clause 67 provides interpretations of the terms used in this chapter, and I shall briefly explain the definitions and the reasoning behind the key terms.

First, perhaps I may pick up on the question of “public place”, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has just raised. This is defined as,

“any place to which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission”.

It is the same definition as is used for the current designated public place order. It does not apply where a private Act gives a person or body a power in relation to a certain area of land. However, if that person or body gives written notice to the local authority, the local authority can make a public spaces protection order in relation to that area of land.

Unitary authorities fall within the definition of “local authority” as currently drafted in the Bill. I am mindful that we have looked at the various definitions of local authorities, including parish councils and county councils, and we are looking at all these issues in more general terms. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the specific issue of unitary authorities but they fall within the definition of “local authority”.

There are a few other definitions which have not been raised in this debate, but I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness on the two specific issues that she mentioned and that she will be minded not to press her opposition to the clause standing part. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for pointing out the drafting issue and we will certainly review it in advance of Report.

Clause 67 agreed.

Clause 68 agreed.

Clause 69: Power to issue closure notices

Amendments 56ZDA and 56ZDB not moved.

Amendment 56ZE

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

56ZE: Clause 69, page 41, line 21, at end insert “and is proportionate”

[Baroness Hamwee]

This amendment takes us to the clauses on closure notices. My amendments are about closure notices, temporary notices and extensions to closure notices. They insert a reference to proportionality at every point. I anticipate that the Government will say that we need not worry because the mechanism that has been designed involves a local authority or a senior police officer, and they would not apply for a closure notice and the court would not grant a notice unless it was proportionate.

Closing premises is a significant step. Closure has to be necessary but, as I read the provisions, the behaviour itself need not be serious enough to justify an order. For instance, one might want to close premises to preclude offensive behaviour—that is one of the types of behaviour in question—but what if the offensiveness is not of such an extreme to justify closure? There are other types of behaviour that could lead to closure notices being applied for and granted—for instance, criminal behaviour, which surely could be dealt with through other mechanisms.

I anticipate that we may be told that this is a matter for guidance, but closing premises is a serious matter and the legislation must be very clear so that we do not have to rely on guidance. Indeed, because it is a serious matter, one ought to have in mind that in any notice applied for or decision made the process should allow for challenge and possibly even a subsequent claim. Therefore proportionality ought to be integral to the power. I beg to move.

22:00

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, again, the reason for moving a clause stand part debate is that it is a more satisfactory way of addressing a number of different questions than tabling lots of individual amendments. Noble Lords will recall that I raised this matter briefly under the issue of corporate ASBOs, which is one of the things that strikes me about closure notices. We support the need to close premises, particularly if they are likely to be a nuisance to members of the public or there could be disorder, but this goes straight to closure. The point of the corporate ASBO proposal that I put forward in our previous sitting was that prevention would be better than cure, and it would be good to have a stage prior to closure to try to get organisations, companies or premises facing disorder to get their act together and prevent a nuisance taking place.

I have a few questions to raise with the Minister. Is it possible to have some further clarification on what the “reasonable grounds” would be? We do not want any confusion over the slightly vague wording. I know that there are examples in other legislation of reasonable grounds, but it would be helpful to have more explanation of what the Government consider to be reasonable grounds here. Another issue concerns the consultation in subsection (7). As the Bill stands, a police officer or a local authority can issue closure proceedings but they do not have to consult each other on this. There is no requirement for the police to talk to the local authority or for the local authority to talk to the police. In Committee in the other place, Damian Green said that he thought the police and local authorities would probably consult each other before issuing orders. It does not seem a very satisfactory way to legislate to say that they probably will. If it is appropriate that they do so, it should be formalised in the legislation. The other question is: who should they consult? The way in which the clause is drafted at present, a police officer or local authority can consult who they think appropriate, but that might not be each other. I cannot think of anyone more appropriate to consult than the police and the local authority.

It would also be helpful to have the Government’s view on whether they think it would be appropriate to publish the names of those who have been consulted. Those who have been aggrieved by a closure perhaps would understand the reasons more easily and be less likely to appeal or try to stop the proposal if they understood who had been consulted and the process was more transparent. If there had been widespread consultation in an area, it would be understood that there was a serious problem, but they might be more aggrieved if they found that only one or perhaps two organisations had been consulted. That might in turn give grounds for challenges to the closure. Subsection (7) states:

“Before issuing a closure notice the police officer or local authority must ensure that any body or individual the officer or authority thinks appropriate has been consulted”.

Could they consider it appropriate not to consult anybody at all, and would that be grounds for a challenge?

There are two issues: one, whether it is appropriate and whether there is enough information about who should be consulted; and two, if it is not necessary to consult anybody, or to consult very few people—or the most appropriate or useful people to consult—would that give reasons for the decision to be overturned or challenged? I hope that the Minister can address these points, which would be helpful.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we know that in another place the Opposition stated their support for closure notices. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, means when she says that she wants to clarify some of the detail in this, and I agree that a clause stand part debate is a good method to use. Clause 69 gives the police and local authorities a simple and easy-to-use power to close temporary premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder. There are a number of existing powers that could be used to close such premises, but they are similar.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Did the noble Lord say, “to close temporary premises”? I am slightly confused by what he means by temporary premises.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

“Temporarily”, I said. I am sorry. I might have said “temporary” but I meant to say “temporarily”. It may be me misspeaking or the noble Baroness mishearing but: “temporarily premises that are the focus of public nuisance or disorder”.

A number of existing powers could be used to close such premises but they are similar and overlap in a number of ways. We are consolidating these existing powers into a single scheme applicable to all premises associated with anti-social behaviour. These powers are flexible and can apply to private and residential premises, and to business premises whether licensed or unlicensed. The notice allows for immediate action while the longer-term order is put in place if it is required. This will give professionals a simple and flexible means to protect the public, making it easier to act preventively.

However, noble Lords will agree that such a power requires safeguards. Of course, local agencies already work informally with individuals and businesses to mitigate the risks of crime and anti-social behaviour before resorting to formal powers. This will continue to be the case. Most businesses want to protect their customers and premises. Where there is information that premises may be the location for or contribute to crime and anti-social behaviour, they can be invited to take action to tackle it, and many do.

Clauses 69 and 70 specify a minimum rank for police officers authorising the issue of a closure notice for up to 24 hours, with a higher authority needed for both the police and local authority for the extension of the notice up to a maximum of 48 hours. The provisions also include requirements about notification and consultation, and of course only the courts can require closures of premises for longer than 48 hours.

The noble Baroness has not tabled amendments but I can use some of the information that she was seeking. The court has to be satisfied that there is likely to be serious nuisance or disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour. The second element is that it is necessary to prevent the nuisance or disorder from continuing, recurring or occurring. In practice, we expect that in most cases informal measures would be the right starting point. The draft guidance directs professionals towards informal measures in the first instance, where appropriate. Indeed, if alternatives to closure are available but have not been considered, it is difficult to see, save in exceptional cases, how it could be argued that the closure notice is necessary. Professionals, as public authorities, would have to exercise their powers proportionately or risk an adverse judicial review.

Additionally, in applying the test, a court, the police or a local authority must have regard to an individual’s human rights—for example, Article 8 rights. As I said when similar issues were raised in respect of earlier parts of the Bill, such qualified rights can be infringed only where to do so is necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of a legitimate aim.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me what the reasonable grounds are. It is a matter of evidence, usually comprising of witness statements and statements of victims and police officers, in particular. CCTV evidence, for example, can also be brought into play when deciding whether there is a justification for the grounds. The term is commonly used in legislation and I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

The noble Baroness also asked who has been consulted. Given that the notice is affixed to the premises it would not be appropriate to name all the individuals who had been consulted. Guidance highlights the importance of partnership working and it is advised that the police and local authority keep a record of who has been consulted.

The noble Baroness also asked why we do not require the police and local authority to make information about the closure of the premises more publicly available, such as in a paper or some other way. The closure powers are flexible in that they can be used for residential, business, licensed and non-licensed premises. There may be circumstances where a short-term closure of the premises is needed to resolve a problem, such as closing a residential premises for 24 hours to prevent a Facebook party. That would not be of interest to the wider public in that area, and requiring the police or local authority to make a public announcement of all closures would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. That is why we require the police and local authority to consult anyone they think appropriate as well as the owner and occupier of the premises. Clause 72 requires them, where possible, to fix a copy of the notice to the premises.

I hope that I have been able to answer the questions that the noble Baronesses have posed. I hope my noble friend will accept my explanations and agree to withdraw her amendment and that noble Lords will support the provisions in this part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I did not catch what sort of party was mentioned.

[Noble Lords]

Facebook.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I was going to say I will catch up with that when I read Hansard. I wonder whether, rather than starting with my amendment, I should have moved one in the group in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my noble friend’s amendments that were not moved and not mine. Clearly, the answers will deserve, and require, some reading.

One comment I will make is that of course the right of judicial review must remain and human rights must apply. However, I do not think that having either of those available means that we should allow legislation which is insufficiently clear or detailed to go ahead without questioning it. At the same time, the Government are trying to reduce the use of judicial review, so the argument that that remedy is still available is not one which particularly appeals to me. However, I imagine that my talking any longer will not appeal to other Members of the Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 56ZE withdrawn.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.12 pm.