House of Commons

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 10 November 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that tomorrow, Tuesday 11 November, is Armistice day. At 11 o’clock tomorrow, I regard it as appropriate that we, and staff working for us, should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedoms. Instructions will be issued to the heads of House Departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence may do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to promote localism and give powers to local communities.

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

This Government have abolished Labour’s unelected regional assemblies and devolved power down to local people. We have given more power to councils over planning, housing, licensing and public health. Some 70% of all local authorities’ income is now raised locally.

[Laura Sandys]

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Worth, a village in my constituency, which has just had 92% acceptance of its neighbourhood plan? Does he agree that the additional money that has been secured for neighbourhood planning will help other towns in my constituency to deliver that empowerment to the people on the ground?

[Mr Pickles]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the residents of Worth. She is absolutely right that the additional £23 million that has been announced will help and encourage many more communities across England to start neighbourhood planning and to take control of future developments in their area. Nearly 10% of the population of England is now covered by a neighbourhood plan.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that localism is not much help when the most important project in Coventry, the Gateway project, is called in and then the decision is delayed? An answer was expected in December, but it has been delayed to January and then to the end of January. Will he tell us when he will make a decision?

[Mr Pickles]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not call in many applications for consideration. Last year, we called in only about eight. The one he has mentioned has some degree of complexity, and he will understand that I cannot comment about the individual application until all the facts are before me.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I strongly support the Minister’s excellent work in devolving powers to our city regions. Will he assure us that our counties and rural areas such as those in east Hertfordshire will have the same opportunity for these new responsibilities?

[Mr Pickles]

Such areas most certainly do have the same opportunity. The devolution of responsibilities and powers to cities has been an important step forward for localism. I should like to see counties, perhaps adjoining counties, and district councils coming together with a united case, because it was that unity of purpose, which was presented to us in various deliberations, that made it easier for us to take powers out of central Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be at the forefront in encouraging his local councils to do exactly that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Last Thursday, I held an Adjournment debate on works that had been carried out by Sainsbury’s in Belgrave and Leicester, which was efficiently answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). When will local communities be given the powers to hold developers to account not just for planning applications but when works are being executed, because great delays are being caused by this company?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is very junior and new to the job, has just briefed me on the situation. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, the local authority should exercise the powers that it already has in these matters. There is not much point in calling for new powers if the existing ones are not used.

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

While I agree that the devolution of powers to local authorities can be a good thing, does my right hon. Friend agree that local people should always be consulted before there are any changes to their system of local government?

[Mr Pickles]

Certainly. When new things are to be brought in, I think that it is appropriate to have a consultation and, in some cases, a referendum. The most important thing about localism is that it is about passing powers not only to councils, but to local communities.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In my constituency we are currently campaigning against a planning application for a new drive-through McDonald’s. I hope that it will be rejected on the normal planning grounds of noise, pollution and so on, but does the Minister think that the local community should also be able to reject such applications when they are very close to local schools?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course, it is very important in that kind of discussion to have a local plan in place, and one would expect a local council to be helpful to the community, and to developers, by setting out clearly where particular developments should take place. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me; obviously we will consider that fairly and openly if it comes to us, because the applicant is entitled to justice.

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

2. What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

11. What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

14. When he next plans to meet firefighters to discuss their pensions.

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

18. What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

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

After extensive consultation and numerous changes, the Government laid the final regulations before Parliament on 28 October. They provide one of the best schemes in the public sector. I regularly meet firefighters and will continue to do so.

[Pat Glass]

We have just come through the longest firefighters’ strike in 38 years. When will the Government stop their politically motivated and disingenuous behaviour in this dispute and genuinely sit down with the Fire Brigades Union to settle this, as the Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are doing?

[Penny Mordaunt]

There has been extensive debate and consultation on these matters. I have dealt with any outstanding issues in the past few months, including those of the transition of armed forces pension schemes into the firefighters’ pension scheme and fitness protections. The regulations have now been laid, and it is evident from the questions coming from the Opposition that they do not understand the scheme. It is an excellent scheme, and to say otherwise would be to do firefighters a disservice.

[Alex Cunningham]

In a letter to the shadow fire Minister on 5 September, the Minister stated:

“I am conscious that we will only have the ideas for the service to meet future challenges and aspirations if firefighters are engaged and feel an ownership for the service. Trust and good morale are key to this.”

How does refusing to change a single word of the regulation improve morale, and how does refusing to negotiate improve trust?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The irony of the hon. Gentleman’s question might be lost on him, but I am sure that it will not be lost on many Members of the House. There have been several changes to the scheme since it was originally published, including improvements on the 2006 scheme—introduced by Labour—which introduced retirement age at 60, disproportionately penalised firefighters who want to retire early and offered no protections on fitness. We have addressed those issues in the new scheme.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister explain to me why my constituents who work for Welsh local authority fire services have reached agreement on a fitness test and a pension plan, through a negotiated settlement and at no extra cost to the taxpayer, yet my constituents who work for the Merseyside or Cheshire fire services, on the English side of the border, are faced with a strike because of an intransigent Minister?

[Penny Mordaunt]

What the right hon. Gentleman says is not correct; Wales and Northern Ireland have made no announcements on fitness. We are currently consulting on doing what Scotland has done through a regulation, which would offer firefighters those protections —we have to do that through a statutory instrument because we do not have one single fire authority for England. In addition, we are the only nation that has set up a working group on fitness to ensure good practice among all our fire authorities.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

I worked down the coal mine for 29 years, and I watched old men of 60 struggling at the coal face. What must it be like for firemen of 60 trying to save lives from fire and flood?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As I said earlier, it was Labour that introduced the retirement age at 60, but this is an issue that I—[Interruption.] I have to say that I take great offence, particularly at some of the paid-for advertising that has been run in local newspapers, which has been incredibly patronising towards older workers. We need older workers to stay in the fire service because they have great expertise. By offering protections on pensions and jobs for older workers and good practice for fire authorities to follow, we will ensure that in future they have the protections that Labour did not introduce.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

In her open letter of 24 October, the Minister thanks firefighters

“for your patience in letting me work through these issues”.

The regulations she has put forward were in place in June 2013, so what exactly have they been patient for, and why does not she treat them with the respect that they deserve?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As an incoming Minister, I could have immediately laid the regulations, but I chose not to do so because I felt there were some outstanding issues, one major recurring theme being the many firefighters who have previously been in the armed forces thinking that they have been disproportionately adversely affected by transferring in their pensions. That is one issue I looked at, among others. Most importantly, I also met a number of groups, including women’s groups, within the fire service. I have trained as a firefighter and I am a serving reservist, so I know the stresses that women go through in order to maintain strength, in particular, in their fitness tests. That formed the bulk of our negotiations with the FBU. I am very happy that on the day we laid the regulations we also started a six-week consultation on putting protections for firefighters on a statutory footing.

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

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that no firefighter over the age of 55 faces the prospect of having no job and that they still have a good pension?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As I said in previous answers, we are consulting on putting those protections on a statutory footing in the national framework. That will, through a single regulation, have the same effect as what Scotland has done.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Given that the Minister has recognised that there remain severe reservations about the fitness test for firefighters, is she saying that she will pass regulations that will ensure that firefighters who fail the fitness test will not lose their jobs, because there are insufficient numbers of back-office jobs in the fire service to accommodate them?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Yes. In addition to the protections that we are consulting on, we are the only nation that has set up a working group to ensure that there is best practice for fire authorities to follow so that their firefighters can maintain fitness.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

In negotiations with the FBU, the hon. Lady said that some firefighters might not be able to maintain operational fitness standards until the age of 60. She promised regulations to protect those firefighters, she promised to address the specific concerns of women firefighters, and she asked the FBU for detailed proposals. Now, she has torn up every promise, stopped negotiations, imposed her own regulations, and plunged the fire service into the longest and most avoidable strike in 36 years. Firefighters risk their lives on a daily basis. Do they not deserve better?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I have outlined in several previous answers the reason that we cannot use the regulation: we have more than one fire authority in England—we have 46. We must go through the national framework, but it will be on a statutory footing. I caution the hon. Lady on this: we want older firefighters and women to stay in the fire service, and she is not helping by spreading myths about the existing scheme.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the level of the take-up of neighbourhood planning and community rights.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Over 1,500 assets of community value have now been identified and listed, and over 1,200 communities have taken their first steps towards producing a neighbourhood plan for their area. There has been overwhelming support in the 34 local referendums held so far, and that means that roughly 5.2 million people are now covered by a neighbourhood planning area.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to praise the residents of Warton in my constituency who recently submitted a comprehensive neighbourhood plan in line with the Government’s aspiration for community engagement? Does my hon. Friend agree that neighbourhood plans should be given full consideration by local councils at the earliest opportunity?

[Brandon Lewis]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s community on going forward with a neighbourhood plan. He is absolutely right. Local authorities should move forward to get them to the referendum stage as quickly as possible—the average at the moment is just two months. I hope that his community will benefit from that as well.

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

The Government have made very much of localism, particularly community planning. Why, then, has the Minister held up the Gateway project in Coventry? Why cannot we have a decision?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that every planning decision that comes through the Department is taken on its own merits. Obviously I cannot comment on a particular application as it is going through its process.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Neighbourhood planning and community rights are clearly welcome, so will the Minister give advice to a community that cannot exercise them because the people who are planning to build 3,000 houses on their doorstep are in the neighbouring local authority area?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an issue for local authorities, and Labour’s plans, which would allow councils to build on other councils’ land, would create that very problem. That is why we have the duty to co-operate and planning inspectors look very carefully at how it is exercised. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue.

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

Recent research by planning consultancy Turley shows that areas of below average income have so far been less involved in the neighbourhood planning process, with just nine plans published in areas categorised as most deprived. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that more disadvantaged communities can participate in this process and that it does not become the preserve of the affluent few?

[Brandon Lewis]

All communities should be looking to undertake neighbourhood planning. I visited Southwark last week to see the excellent work being done there. A wide range of more than 1,250 areas are undertaking neighbourhood planning. Obviously, a few are ahead of the others and there have been 34 referendums. We have put in more money and are funding local areas that undertake neighbourhood planning and the local authorities to support them. I encourage all areas and communities to consider undertaking a neighbourhood plan.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

5. What estimate he has made of the number of children living in bed- and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

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

We have invested more than £500 million to prevent and tackle homelessness. Homelessness statistics reported by local councils are published by the Department and they show that 3,670 children were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 30 June.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Slough council made strenuous efforts to avoid the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for children, and before 2010 it had abolished it. However, I estimate that in the past two years some 60 children have been placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in this area of high housing need. Will the Minister meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children, to discuss how we can avoid using bed-and-breakfast accommodation for children? They do not learn how to eat at a table and are often pushed out of their homes during the day and end up in expensive cafés. What is the Minister going to do to end this situation?

[Kris Hopkins]

First of all, we already do meet as a ministerial group. The number of homeless acceptances has dropped by 2% this year. There are eight people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Slough and nobody has been in those bed and breakfasts for more than six weeks.

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

Earlier this year the Minister told the House that the number of homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had dropped compared with the previous year and that that was

“a direct consequence of this Government’s intervention”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 588.]

Since then, however, the Government have released figures that show that the number has, in fact, increased to a 10-year high. Given that the Minister took credit for the fall in the numbers, will he now take responsibility for the increase? Crucially, what is he going to do to help those families with children?

[Kris Hopkins]

The number of families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has dropped by a third since Labour was in power, the peak being in 2002. We have put in a significant amount of money where there are issues in councils, and we have reduced bed-and-breakfast acceptances by some 96% where we have intervened.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to support community pubs.

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

In last year’s autumn statement we announced a £1 billion package of business rate support, which included a £1,000 discount for small businesses with rateable values above £50,000. That is benefiting three out of four pubs.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for the work the Government have done on reducing the burden of business rates. Will he consider further reform, such as standardised billings and an appeals process, to reduce yet more of the burden on small businesses and community pubs such as the Charcoal Burner in Furnace Green?

[Kris Hopkins]

I commend my hon. Friend on his work in supporting the pub industry. As well as the £1 billion package to help bills, we are considering ways in which the regime could be improved through a review of our business rates administration. We are also looking at ways to speed up the appeals process, to make it more transparent for businesses.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The problem with pubs in inner-city areas such as London is that the land they sit on is so valuable that they fall prey to property developers who want to build houses, as has happened to the Dutch House public house in my constituency. Is it not about time that we told developers that they are not going to take away these assets, which are highly valued by local communities, just for their profits? Will the Minister take some action to ensure that we protect pubs in such a situation?

[Kris Hopkins]

We have already put in place a community right to bid process. As well as discounts for the associated business rates, councils can use article 4 directions if they want to shape their particular community and to shape how such businesses are established. The hon. Gentleman is right that the pub plays a really important role in the community. The good news is that beer is 8p cheaper as a consequence of this Government.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the serial bad behaviour by the Co-op in my constituency and others in the south, where it is taking over pubs and converting them into shops, often on very unsatisfactory sites? The Ship Inn in Cuckfield in my constituency is uniquely badly placed to serve as a Co-op. Will he look at what he can do to review the article 4 direction scheme, and to give general instructions about where such shops should be sited?

[Mr Speaker]

That was a splendidly detailed question. There was I thinking that the right hon. Gentleman was going to tell us about the champagne and oysters that he consumes in his community pub, but I was wrong.

[Kris Hopkins]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his support of the local pub. The article 4 direction scheme is strong, and it gives councils the opportunity to intervene. I know that there is a passionate campaign to support the Ship Inn. I would welcome the opportunity to meet the campaigners, and I will try to support them where I can.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Other things threatening public houses include not just the issue of business rates, but the cost of alcohol compared with the discounts that people get in their local shops and supermarkets. Has the Minister had any discussions with his colleagues about changing the price of alcohol in this country, as has been recommended, to protect not just people’s health but the local village pub?

[Kris Hopkins]

All sellers of alcohol have a responsibility to make sure that they promote responsible alcohol consumption, which the Government are encouraging. There is a consultation on alcohol pricing, which is still under consideration.

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

No one wants this Government to be shown to be the most pro-pub Government ever more than me, but that is not going to happen while this ministerial team continue not to change the rules whereby a pub can become a supermarket without needing to go through the planning process. Will the new Minister with responsibility for community pubs tell us that he will finally stop this scandal, which is robbing communities of pubs up and down the country?

[Kris Hopkins]

I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because nobody in the House is more enthusiastic about supporting pubs than me. There are powers through an article 4 direction to protect a location, and there is an opportunity through the community right to bid to support a treasured local site. I suggest that he works with the local council to make sure that he secures such assets.

[Sir Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Will the Minister acknowledge the contribution made to many small community pubs by independent family brewers? Will he speak to his counterparts in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the concession achieved for them during the passage of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill is carried through and that they are excluded from the regulations?

[Kris Hopkins]

Having several small brewers in my constituency, I know that they make a huge contribution to the local economy. I am more than willing to have the conversation for which my right hon. Friend has asked.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

7. How many small firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Cherwell district council area have been affected by the reduction in business rates.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

15. How many small firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Dover have been affected by the reduction in business rates.

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

Our £1 billion business rates support package includes a £1,000 discount for smaller shops, pubs and restaurants. That will benefit more than 300,000 premises in England, including 430 in Cherwell and 580 in Dover. We are also doubling small business rate relief for a further year, which will benefit about 575,000 businesses, with 385,000 businesses paying no rates at all. That will help 1,100 small businesses in Cherwell, and 1,300 small businesses in Dover.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Has not the introduction of the business rate retention scheme given local authorities the ability to offer business rate discounts to help attract firms, investment and jobs? Is not the fact that local authorities now directly and locally retain half the business rates a strong incentive for councils to encourage businesses and enterprises to set up in their areas?

[Kris Hopkins]

Councils have a huge responsibility to promote local businesses, whether that involves getting the skill set right or using the discretionary powers that we have given them. I know that businesses and councils, particularly Conservative councils across the country, are responding positively.

[Charlie Elphicke]

May I welcome all the Government have done to help high streets such as that of Deal, in my constituency? Will Ministers condemn the Local Government Association group leader who has been going up and down the land telling councils to hike taxes and business rates, which will devastate our high streets and increase the cost of food?

[Kris Hopkins]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to promote Deal high street, which has been a tremendous success. Most recently, Deal topped the polls as Britain’s best coastal town as voted for by readers of The Daily Telegraph. The instinct of the Labour party is to tax businesses, ours is to encourage and grow local businesses by offering tax breaks.

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

Will the Minister explain who sets the business rates?

[Kris Hopkins]

Local authorities have been given the opportunity to shape their tax base.

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

8. What recent assessment he has made of the availability of affordable housing in Brighton and Hove.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Local authorities are required to develop an evidence base locally. This ensures that their local plans meet the needs for their market and for affordable housing to be consistent with policies in the national planning policy framework. We have published new guidance to local authorities on assessing housing need in their area and 340 new affordable homes have been provided in Brighton and Hove since 2010.

[Caroline Lucas]

In spite of national constraints, the Green administration in Brighton has overseen the development of more than 500 affordable homes, with a further 230 in the pipeline, and has built the first council homes in a generation. Brighton council and councils around the country could do much more if the Government would provide direct capital grant funding. Will the Minister reconsider that and meet my constituents to discuss proposals we have put together in a local housing charter to promote fairer rents and more affordable homes?

[Brandon Lewis]

There is about £2.8 billion of headroom in the housing revenue account across local authorities. We have recognised this year that some authorities that have been building have come close to that headroom, so we made extra money available. We have already announced some bids and will announce some more shortly. I encourage local authorities to bid to take up this opportunity, along with the housing guarantee grants that we have been offering with housing associations to provide more affordable housing. I am proud that we have managed to deliver more than 200,000 such houses over the past couple of years.

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

9. When his Department plans to issue a final response to the consultation entitled “Opportunities for collaboration, cost savings and efficiencies”; launched in May 2014, on the local government pension scheme.

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

Our consultation outlined how £660 million a year could be saved if local government pension funds were invested more efficiently. We will publish a response in due course. Many funds have already started to take the messages from the consultation on board.

[Robert Neill]

I hope that “due course” will not be too long delayed, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the significant savings that have been made to taxpayers and scheme members by the agglomeration of vehicles. When he takes on board the consequences of the consultation, will he particularly bear in mind the value that can be brought by collective investment vehicles, which can achieve some 90% of those savings without significant administrative upheaval and can provide useful vehicles for wider investment?

[Kris Hopkins]

The consultation considered how some £240 million could be saved by creating combined investment vehicles. It should be noted that London borough councils have already taken that on board and some 30 councils have come together after their council meetings and have agreed to bring those funds together.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect on council tax payers of freezing the rates of council tax.

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

Under Labour, council tax more than doubled. Under this Government, it has fallen by 11% in real terms. Our council tax freeze is saving the average band D householder in England up to £1,073 over the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Maria Miller]

Just like central Government, local government has had to take tough spending decisions. Does the Secretary of State agree that councils such as mine in Basingstoke, which have frozen council tax for five years, have protected front-line services such as the weekly bin collection and are now rated by their residents as providing even better value for money, have got those tough decisions right?

[Mr Pickles]

It is a pleasure to be associated with my right hon. Friend. I congratulate Basingstoke and Deane borough council on its excellent work. We must remember that we are doing all this to ensure that ordinary people on modest incomes are not forced to pay hundreds of pounds more for a mansion tax. That is why the Government will not introduce one. We want to reduce the cost of living, not increase it. That is why we are helping councils to freeze council tax.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Would the Secretary of State like to congratulate Kettering borough council, of which I also have the privilege to be a member, on freezing its share of the council tax since 2010, maintaining all its front-line services, maintaining its grants to local community groups and cutting car parking charges?

[Mr Pickles]

Every time I travel close to Kettering, I find myself saying, “Thank God for Kettering borough council.” What a great, well-run council it is. It is my pleasure to say from this Dispatch Box—I think for the 10th time—that Kettering borough council is magnificent, as is its Member of Parliament.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

What is the additional cost to people on low incomes who now have to pay for basic services that they need and who have lost their council tax benefit?

[Mr Pickles]

I assume that the hon. Lady is making some kind of spending commitment on behalf of the Labour party—an unlimited one. Local schemes are put in place by local councils. We have offered them transitional relief to help them. It is a ludicrous argument to say that poor people and people who are struggling hard do not pay council tax. The problem with the hon. Lady is that she belongs to the political classes, who are out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

12. What steps he is taking to increase the supply of social housing.

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

We are on course to deliver the Government’s programme of 170,000 affordable homes by March 2015. A further £23 billion of investment will deliver 165,000 affordable homes between 2015 and 2018. That will be the fastest rate of affordable house building for at least 20 years.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

I thank the Minister for that positive report. Will he assure the House that the energy performance of new social and affordable homes will not be downgraded using any of the foolish loopholes in the Infrastructure Bill, and that we will get genuinely zero-carbon homes in the social and affordable sector?

[Stephen Williams]

The Government are determined that we will. We tightened up the energy efficiency standards for new house building in April and we have announced a commitment to zero-carbon homes from 2016. It is important, however, to get smaller house builders back into the market, which is why we are consulting on a modest exemption.

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

There is a chronic shortage of social housing in this country, not least in my constituency. Despite that and despite the cuts in the grants for building affordable homes, will the Minister confirm that £800 million of grants have not been bid for and are sitting, unused, in the coffers of the Homes and Communities Agency? Does he blame the providers for not putting in bids because they do not see the need for social housing, or does he blame Government policy, under which the amount of grant per unit has been cut to such a low level that providers no longer feel able to bid for the money?

[Stephen Williams]

In fact, the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London authority, which is responsible for this matter in London, have announced initial allocations of £1.3 billion under the next programme to deliver 62,000 new affordable homes from 2015 to 2018. We will open the bidding process for the next round soon.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of the concerns expressed by our national park authorities about the possible unintended consequences of introducing a threshold below which affordable housing would not be required under section 106 agreements? Is he aware that it could halve the ability of the authority for the national park that I represent, Dartmoor, to deliver affordable housing, including social housing?

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, I and my ministerial colleagues certainly are aware of the special concerns about providing affordable homes in national parks. That is why, in the consultation, we have proposed a different threshold for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty from that for urban areas.

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

May I draw the House’s attention to my interests?

As the Minister will know from his own Department’s figures, just 100,000 new housing association and council homes have been built in the first four years of the life of this Government. Given that their record is an average of just 25,000 affordable homes being built over their four years to date, how will he miraculously deliver a further 75,000 in the Government’s last remaining year in office? It beggars belief that output will treble, as he suggests.

[Stephen Williams]

Some people may think that it beggars belief that a former Housing Minister can say that, given that in the 13 years for which his party was in office, with a rather different economic inheritance, the number of social and affordable homes fell by 420,000. This will be probably the first Government in my lifetime to leave more affordable homes in stock at the end of a five-year Parliament than there were before it.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

13. What recent representations he has received on reform of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

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

Local council tax support schemes are a matter for local authorities. An independent review of schemes will be carried out within three years, as set out in legislation.

[Mr Hepburn]

The changes to council tax benefit that the Government have brought in are every bit as cruel as the evil bedroom tax and Thatcher’s poll tax. My local citizens advice bureau tells me that its new referrals to food banks have gone up from two a month to 10 a week. When will the Government stop attacking the poor?

[Kris Hopkins]

One way in which we can get people to stop using food banks is to get them into a job, and this Government have delivered 1.8 million jobs for those individuals.

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

The New Policy Institute says that more than 200,000 families have been hit by both increases in council tax, due to the withdrawal of council tax support, and the bedroom tax. Will the Minister make a proper assessment of that tax double whammy on the least able to pay, and will he tell us why he is so keen to increase taxes on the poorest people?

[Kris Hopkins]

This Government have frozen council tax for some five years, and in real terms it is 11% less than it was, which equates to a saving of more than £1,000 for an individual household. That is the Government’s track record.

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

16. What level of reduction there has been in (a) his Department’s budget and (b) centrally-funded local authority budgets since May 2010.

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

We needed to make sensible savings to address Labour’s deficit. Local authority net current expenditure in England, excluding education, has risen from £74.7 billion in 2009-10 to £77.1 billion in 2013-14. At the time of the spending review, the budget for the core Department was reduced to £15.9 billion, reflecting an overall saving of 68%.

[Chi Onwurah]

Since this Government took office, Newcastle has had its budget cut by 41% in real terms—almost half. My constituents are losing £115 per dwelling, while more affluent areas such as Surrey and Wokingham are gaining up to £20 extra per dwelling despite having less pressure on services. Will the Minister make a commitment to come to Newcastle to see the effects that his budget cuts are having on local services, and to explain to the people of Newcastle how they are fair?

[Kris Hopkins]

I have had the pleasure of visiting the great city of Newcastle many times this year. It has the opportunity to invest money, support vulnerable individuals and spend further on public services by growing its business base. As a direct consequence of this Government’s interventions, 6,300 businesses have gained from our business tax discount.

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

17. What steps he is taking to protect leaseholders from nuisance legal actions initiated by their landlords.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Existing legislation already provides leaseholders with rights and protections. Furthermore, the Government fund the Leasehold Advisory Service to give free advice to leaseholders who face a dispute with their landlord.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his response, but not enough is being done. My constituent Emma Stewart is being pursued by her landlord over a leasehold dispute. A tribunal decision found that Ms Stewart had made every effort to comply with the terms of her lease, and that her landlord had not been disadvantaged in any way, yet they continue to demand payment from her. That is a clear case of nuisance action and has cost Ms Stewart the sale of her home. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation and say what on earth can be done?

[Brandon Lewis]

I wrote to the hon. Lady about this issue a couple of weeks ago, but I am happy to meet her if that letter did not cover everything she needs.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

19. What recent guidance he has given local authorities on ensuring adequate storm water drainage in residential areas. [Official Report, 18 November 2014, Vol. 588, c. 1-2MC.]

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

There are strict tests in national planning policy to protect people and property from flooding, including from storm water. We made clear in planning guidance that we published in March that where those tests are not met, new development should not be allowed.

[Duncan Hames]

Quite right. In the past year we have seen businesses and homes damaged by floods in Bradford on Avon, Corsham, Melksham, and villages, including Holt. What role does the Minister expect local authorities such as Wiltshire council to play in preventing flood damage with sufficient storm water drainage?

[Stephen Williams]

We obviously expect local authorities to deal with such issues through their local plan. Some 94 local authorities act as the lead local flood authority and are expected to have in place a flood risk management strategy. Of those 94, 36 local authorities have not yet published or consulted on their strategy and, according to my information, Wiltshire is one of them. Perhaps as a diligent constituency MP, my hon. Friend will join me in encouraging Wiltshire council to come forward with that plan.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

20. What the take-up of Help to Buy has been in (a) England and (b) Winchester constituency.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government have already helped more than 54,000 families purchase a home in England with the support of Help to Buy since March 2012, helping people to achieve their ambition of owning their own home. In the Winchester local authority area, 65 families have already bought through Help to Buy.

[Steve Brine]

Like many Members, I have spent years listening to young people say that they can afford mortgage payments but never the deposit to get on the housing ladder. Help to Buy nails that issue, and it is one of the most positive things this Government have done. Will the Minister comment on the starter homes plan and say whether those two programmes will work together to give more young people a chance to live the dream?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has campaigned hard for people to aspire to own their own home, and the Government share that desire. The Conservatives have made clear that after the next election we want to deliver 100,000 extra starter homes at a 20% discount, giving more people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder for the first time.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

There is no place in British society for anti-Semitism, and we must stand united to resist all the pernicious ways in which it is manifested. Recently, there has been an increase in anti-Semitic graffiti on public property, private homes and in Jewish cemeteries, where gravestones have been desecrated and covered in offensive graffiti. That is appalling. Today, I am writing to councils, with the Community Security Trust, to stress the importance of using their range of legal powers to remove such graffiti quickly, including on private property, and to report all incidents to the police. That is part of a wider measure to tackle anti-Semitism and promote tolerance and respect in our society.

[Bill Esterson]

I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about tackling anti-Semitism.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue service has faced a 35% cut to its Government grant since the Government came to power, which means that it has lost two of the four whole-time fire appliances serving my constituency. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that we will not suffer further cuts in the next spending review, given that such cuts would inevitably lead to the loss of at least one of the fire stations in Sefton?

[Mr Pickles]

The project merges existing stations into three new efficient stations, while protecting front-line services with the introduction of an on-call arrangement on the three new sites. In addition, the new sites will be shared with police and ambulance services, enabling further efficiencies and service contribution. That seems a very sensible way of going forward.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T4. Last month, the Secretary of State upheld the planning inspector’s decision to close the Arpley landfill in Warrington. This is of great benefit to the town and on behalf of the residents I thank him for that. Will he confirm that landfill remains at the bottom of the waste hierarchy and that in time it will be replaced everywhere by incineration and recycling?

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, below incineration, energy recovery and recycling. Updated planning policy on waste from October this year continues the focus of moving waste up the hierarchy by moving away from traditional landfill towards more sustainable options.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in condemning anti-Semitic abuse. I very much welcome the action he has taken today.

Last year, the Secretary of State decided to extend permitted development rights so that offices could be converted to residential use without requiring planning permission. What assessment has he made of the impact of his change on the availability of office space, in particular for small and start-up businesses that are so important to our economy?

[Mr Pickles]

First, may I express great sadness that the right hon. Gentleman was not on his feet yesterday to defend his leader? For him to be missing seems to me to be deeply shameful. [Interruption.] Well I’m here to defend Ed.

We did this because there was quite a lot of surplus office accommodation. It was a necessary thing to do and I think it has improved a number of town centres by getting people new homes. In terms of offering new and exciting ways for people to set up new businesses, the situation remains open.

[Hilary Benn]

It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State has clearly made no effort at all to find out the impact of his decision, despite reports of small businesses being affected. As he will know, the Mayor of London is very unhappy about what he has done. The Business Secretary thinks it is a really bad idea, saying that

“in south-west London large swathes of commercial property are in the process of disappearing…there is nowhere for small firms to operate.”

A recent Local Government Association survey found in one case that 100 charities and small businesses had been given four to six weeks’ notice to quit. The right hon. Gentleman used to be a localist. He said earlier that he has given more power to local communities to take decisions on planning, so why did he decide that his view on this matter would prevail over the views of local people?

[Mr Pickles]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to defend the Leader of the Opposition, which again I am very shocked at. He should do his homework: local schemes exist and article 4 exists. It is possible to decide where they go and where they do not. People need housing, and where Labour failed to deliver houses, we have succeeded.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

T6. Stevenage borough council has taken more than £3.5 million in car parking charges, preventing the regeneration of Stevenage town centre. Thousands of local people have joined my campaign for three hours free parking. Will the Minister agree to support my campaign and send a strong message to Stevenage borough council to stop ripping off local people?

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. He is quite right that this is an issue that restricts growth locally. We recognise that and have introduced restricting the use of CCTV to enforce parking, grace periods for on-street parking, and have made it possible for local people to require their local councils to review parking. I draw his attention to the Great British High Street portal, which demonstrates that if local authorities reduce their parking rates they receive greater revenue.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

T2. Responding to a Centrepoint report quoted in The Independent last week, the homelessness Minister said that the number of people sleeping rough was falling dramatically and claimed that it was a result of the Government’s action. Given that his Department’s own figures show that the level of rough sleeping has risen every year under this Government and is up 37% since 2010, will he repeat his claim to the House and take responsibility for this dramatic change in levels of rough sleeping?

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

The Government take the plight of individuals who are homeless and rough sleeping extremely seriously, which is why we support the No Second Night Out project and have invested £1 billion through homeless services and welfare reform to address the problem. Levels of homelessness have dropped by 2%. Rough sleeping figures across the country are variable, but the Government take the issue extremely seriously and will continue to support those vulnerable individuals.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T9. Has the Minister seen the disturbing reports from Tower Hamlets that £400,000 was given to organisations that did not meet minimum standards and that council land was sold off to friends of the administration? The mayor, Mr Rahman, says they have done nothing wrong, but surely this has to be tackled—a very serious situation has arisen.

[Mr Pickles]

As my hon. and learned Friend will recall, I made a statement to the House last week, and we are currently waiting to hear what the mayor has to say in response to the report. As the House will recall, I asked for two specific undertakings regarding the disposal of property. We have received those undertakings, and I hope to make an announcement very soon.

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

T5. I draw the House’s attention to my indirect interest, which I frequently make public in this place.When will the Secretary of State act to save roughly £500 million of public money over 10 years by giving registered housing providers the same powers as local authorities to enter properties to carry out essential gas safety checks, as supported by the Association of Gas Safety Managers?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am discussing this matter with the industry, and I will continue to do so and inform the House once we have finished those conversations.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The concrete councillors of Labour-led Telford and Wrekin borough council seem to be building on every bit of greenfield and every green patch in the borough, despite its being a semi-rural borough. What more can the planning Minister do to encourage this out-of-touch council to build on brownfield sites?

[Brandon Lewis]

We have published further guidance to help councils to appreciate that green-belt development should be an absolute last resort and that brownfield sites should always be used first. This summer, we made available to councils an extra several hundred million pounds, and I encourage my hon. Friend’s council to bid for some of that and do what it can to protect its valuable green belt.

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

T7. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has personally allowed the dispute over fire service pensions to drag on for three years. The Government’s own expert report says that two thirds of firefighters will not pass the current fitness standard at the age of 60, meaning they will be faced with no job and no pension after years of good service. Why has he turned his back on firefigters and now dragged his new junior Minister away from the negotiating table?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As I have stated before, we have introduced protections for firefighters on a statutory footing and set up a working group to ensure best practice to enable people to maintain their fitness. We have gone further still, however, and are looking at the future shape of the work force to ensure that people who want to stay operational but cannot maintain those fitness standards have jobs to go to.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend consider strengthening guidelines to prevent a council from unilaterally removing heritage assets, including a presumption of like-for-like replacement if assets need renewal? In particular, I am thinking about popular items of street furniture.

[Mr Pickles]

Obviously, if my hon. Friend has something specific in mind, I would be most interested to hear what he has to say, and perhaps we could have a discussion about it today.

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

T8. This Government have taken away 58% of Liverpool city council’s funding, hitting Liverpool harder than anywhere else, yet Liverpool is still finding innovative new ways of maintaining services, including the announcement today that all our libraries will be kept open. Will the Secretary of State finally travel to visit Liverpool for himself to see what difference the city could make if its funding cuts were at the national average?

[Mr Pickles]

Liverpool is one of the highest-funded councils in the country, but it has one problem—it does not collect its council tax. If it were to do so, an enormous burden would be taken off the shoulders of taxpayers in Liverpool.

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

Given the Prime Minister’s commitments earlier in the year, why is it proving so difficult for the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to find a sustainable funding formula for the proposed Somerset river authority? Frankly, I do not care about precedent—13,000 acres under water is a pretty compelling precedent in itself.

[Mr Pickles]

We have, of course, honoured our obligations to the people of Somerset with £20 million having already gone in and an additional £13.1 million for looking at the possibility of a barrier at Bridgwater. It simply comes down to this: what we are doing is trying to find something sustainable. The hon. Gentleman seems to be urging me to tax people who were flooded. What we are looking at is trying to get something sustainable without over-burdening the people of Somerset. That seems a much more sensible course to pursue.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

T10. Further to the Secretary of State’s statement last week on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Tower Hamlets and the criticism on grants and disposal of assets in particular, it was reported at column 669 that the right hon. Gentleman would “send a copy” of the report “to the police”. Will he confirm that a copy will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, too?

[Mr Pickles]

It appears on our website, but I will certainly bring the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service to it. I express no view on whether or not these matters are criminal. I am certainly unhappy with them, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution to make the appropriate decision. I am determined to ensure that Tower Hamlets has the best possible council so that public confidence can be re-established in it.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I understand that the Secretary of State is calling in almost all onshore wind farm applications and turning most of them down, including those already approved by the planning authorities. Given the majority of the people of this country say, when polled, that they are broadly in favour of onshore wind projects, will the right hon. Gentleman explain his Department’s policy on this matter?

[Kris Hopkins]

If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to correct him. There have been just over 800 applications for solar and wind farms, of which some 40 have been recovered and only four have ever been called in.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The continuing firefighters’ dispute in England is both damaging and avoidable. Will the Minister look at what has happened in Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Executive have come to an agreement with the firefighters that is neither costly nor damaging? Will he adopt the same common-sense approach here as has been adopted in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

[Penny Mordaunt]

In summary, all the schemes except that of Northern Ireland have a retirement age of 60, while England and Scotland have the same faster accrual rate and England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the same transitional protections. Wales and Northern Ireland have not yet made any announcements on fitness. The scheme in England is marginally different from that of the other nations and, in many respects, it is better. The regulations have been laid. We must get the message across to firefighters to remain part of that scheme.

Immigration Checks in the UK

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present a petition initiated by my constituent Mrs Elsie Guidici among her fellow constituents and others in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the surrounding area, following the murder of her son in his home by a convicted criminal from outwith the United Kingdom. The related petition has received more than 800 signatures. It states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that current immigration checks in the UK are not tough enough; further that the Petitioners believe that the checks should mean that if an individual has no job, no money and a criminal record, they should be denied entry to the UK; and further that a Petition in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West Constituency on this matter has received over 800 signatures.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration to stop criminals from entering the UK and breaking laws.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001397]

Planning Application—Bozeat (Wellingborough)

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It gives me great pleasure to present a petition—somewhat earlier than I had expected, regrettably—about the village of Bozeat in my constituency, where a massive planning application has gone in that would increase the number of buildings around the village by 10%.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the Petitioners believe that the proposed planning application for 75 new houses outside, but adjacent to the village of Bozeat—planning application reference WP/14/00369/OUT—is unacceptable, because it would increase the size of the village by nearly 10% and would put further strain on public services and utilities that are already inadequate.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage the Borough Council of Wellingborough to reject the current planning application.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P001398]

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)(Urgent Question)]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement to clarify his agreement on the European Union budget surcharge.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

Last month the previous European Commission presented Britain with a bill for £1.7 billion, which it insisted must be paid by 1 December. The Prime Minister spoke for British taxpayers when he said that that was completely unacceptable, and we set about getting a better deal. Following intensive discussions with the new Commission and at the ECOFIN meeting last week, we have achieved such a deal. I can tell the House that we have halved the Bill, have delayed the Bill, will pay no interest on the Bill, and have changed the rules of the European Union so that such unacceptable behaviour never happens again.

Let me briefly give the House the details. At the European Council last month, the Prime Minister made it clear to the Barroso Commission that while annual adjustments to contributions were a regular part of EU membership, a sudden and unprecedented demand for a £1.7 billion payment on 1 December was unacceptable. He secured the agreement of all 28 Heads of Government that it should be discussed by the Finance Ministers as a matter of urgency. That meeting took place last Friday, and followed two weeks of intensive and constructive discussions with the new Budget Commissioner, Vice-President Georgieva, and other member states.

As a result of those discussions, we achieved unanimous agreement that, first, expecting payment on 1 December was indeed unacceptable. The budget rules will therefore be rewritten to allow for a delay in any payment. In Britain’s case, that means that we will pay nothing this year, and will instead make payments in two instalments in July and September, in the second half of next year. Secondly, the suggestion that we might have to pay interest charges was rejected, and it was agreed unanimously that no interest would be charged on the delayed payments. Thirdly, in our discussion with the new European Commission, it was agreed that a full rebate would apply to the British payment, that the rebate would be specific, that it would be in addition to any other rebate that we might expect next year, and that, for the first time ever, it would be paid at the same time as any money owed.

It had not been clear that we would receive a rebate, let alone such a large one. No one in the House had suggested that we would. Only my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) had even asked a question about it. Indeed, it was only confirmed that we would receive a rebate, and a large one, by Vice-President Georgieva on 6 November, last Thursday evening. This means that Britain’s payments have been halved, from £1.7 billion to about £850 million.

Finally, all member states agreed with us that the entire episode had been unacceptable, and a deal was therefore reached to make a permanent change in European law so that this would never happen again.

In the face of this budget challenge, we have far exceeded the expectations and predictions that preceded Friday’s meeting. We have achieved a real result for Britain. The whole episode reminds us of the reform that we need in Europe—reform that Government Members believe should be put to a vote of the people of Britain.

[Ed Balls]

If this is such a good deal, why did the Chancellor not offer to make a statement? Why was he dragged to the House this afternoon? Talk about smoke and mirrors, Mr Speaker—I can barely see you through the Chancellor’s fog and bluster!

Is not the truth that the Chancellor failed to reduce our contribution by a single penny? All he is doing is simply counting the rebate that was due anyway—a rebate that was never in doubt—in an attempt to fool people into thinking that the bill has been halved. His so-called victory is nothing more than a con trick.

The Chancellor claims that the rebate was somehow in doubt, but that claim has been contradicted by everyone else. The EU Budget Commissioner was very clear when he said, on 27 October, in a statement on the backdated gross national income revisions,

“the UK will benefit from the UK rebate for the additional payments”.

On Friday, having been asked whether the rebate was in doubt, the Vice-President of the Commission replied, “No, absolutely not.”

On Friday, the Treasury was telling journalists that the Government had legal advice that the UK rebate somehow might not apply. If the legal advice exists, the Chancellor should publish it. Mr Barroso’s spokesperson, Mr Mark Gray, has directly contradicted the Treasury’s claims, saying:

“Commission position on this clear at European Council—rebate was never in doubt”.

The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan agrees. He said—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I wish to hear the views of Mr Daniel Hannan. Let us hear them.

[Ed Balls]

I’ll tell you what Mr Hannan said. He said:

“it’s not credible to claim that it was ever in doubt”.

The Dutch Finance Minister said that of course this

“mechanism of the rebate will also apply”

on the new contribution:

“So it’s not as if the British have been given a discount today.”

The Austrian Finance Minister said that

“the amount cannot be put in question”,

and the Irish Finance Minister confirmed

“the UK will pay the whole amount.”

They are queuing up to contradict the Chancellor.

Let me ask the Chancellor this: can he name a single Finance Minister who is willing to go along with his desperate attempts to pull the wool over people’s eyes? And it is worse. The Financial Times reported:

“Officials involved in the closed-door negotiations between finance ministers said Mr Osborne did not complain about the overall bill.”

He didn’t even complain about the overall bill, Mr Speaker! I have here the minutes of Friday’s ECOFIN meeting: 21 pages, and not a single reference in those 21 pages to the UK rebate or the amount Britain owes being reduced.

Is it not now clear that the Chancellor totally failed to get a better deal for the taxpayer? He did not reduce Britain’s backdated bill by a single penny. The British people don’t like being taken for fools, and his attempts to fool them have totally unravelled.

[Mr Osborne]

No, the British people do not like being taken for fools which is why the shadow Chancellor is in opposition. The shadow Chancellor is one of those people who is wise neither after the event nor before the event. How do we know that? He wrote an article in The Guardian last Friday. It appeared alongside another article called “Labour is doomed” by one of his colleagues, and in his article he set out four tests that I had to pass. The first test, he said, was that we needed a coalition of support, and he asked me about that again today. We had unanimous support around the ECOFIN table for the deal that was agreed. The second test he set me before the ECOFIN council was that we needed the support of Germany. Well, we went to Berlin and the German Finance Minister was central to the deal that we did. Thirdly, in this article, he said:

“The Prime Minister should be clear about whether he intends to take the EU Commission to the European Court of Justice if they insist on the deadline of 1 December.”

Well, we do not have a deadline of 1 December any more, because we did not challenge the law; we changed the law.

So three tests passed, and here is the fourth and final test the shadow Chancellor set us: he said that the interest rates on any delayed payments should be fair. Well, I disagree. I do not think we should pay any interest at all, and we are not, but what is revealing about this fourth test is the number he himself gave for the fines Britain might face. He said:

“Britain could face a…fine of £114,000 a day.”

Does he confirm that that is what he said in the article: £114,000 a day? [Interruption.] Well, he has given himself away because £114,000 a day happens to be the EU penal interest on £1.7 billion, so the shadow Chancellor, who stands before us today and says he always knew the rebate would apply, is the same shadow Chancellor who on Friday said we would paying £1.7 billion.

And of course the word “rebate” never appeared once in that article or, indeed, in any intervention from the Labour party on this issue. This whole question from the shadow Chancellor today is based on the absurd charade that he would stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe, but he gave away billions of pounds of the rebate, he signed us up to billions of pounds of eurozone bail-out, and he still refuses to give the British people a say on our future in Europe. May I suggest to him that he should leave the strong leadership in Europe to us, and he should get on with throwing over the weak leadership in the Labour party?

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

This is almost like Budget day. Was it not crass insensitivity on the part of the Commission to make such a demand on several countries in this way? The Government have negotiated an interest-free deferment and a reduction in the sum outstanding, and exactly what those are worth is something that the Treasury Committee will want to examine with the Chancellor in public session in due course. In the meantime, will he give us further details to assure us that such demands will not be made on us or any other country again?

[Mr Osborne]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for what has been announced. There was agreement around the table that we should permanently change the EU budget rules. We shall have to consult the European Parliament on that, but it does not have a veto. We should change those rules so that if there is an exceptionally large payment or adjustment in future, as there was this time, member states cannot be bounced with a bill like this. There was strong support around the table for that change.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

On the UK rebate, will the Chancellor give us the name of just one European Finance Minister who changed their mind after listening to him?

[Mr Osborne]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, the rebate involves a discussion between member states and the European Commission, which is why we were discussing with the Commission, in parallel, the size of the British rebate. Frankly, any question from Labour Members about the rebate is a bit rich, given that they gave up half of it.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on getting rid of these punitive interest rates. I hope that he will refer the new rules that were decided at ECOFIN last Friday to my Committee so that we can scrutinise them properly. Is there any sound reason for our making any payment at all if those rules do not deal with the problem of other member states including their black economy in the statistical base that they use when putting forward their proposals? That greatly affects the whole basis on which the calculations are made.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the quality of the statistics. It was raised by the European Court of Auditors last week; it was also made forcefully by the Dutch Finance Minister at ECOFIN. The key point is that we can examine the numbers, and if there are errors we will get money repaid to us at the end of next year.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Can the Chancellor explain why the EU Commissioner said on 27 October that the UK would benefit in any event from the rebate that was due? Also—this is at the heart of the problem—what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to suggest to the House, other than in a gross act of deception worthy more of Goebbels than of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer—

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing any member of the Government of engaging in deception. If he is, he must withdraw that term.

[Mr Robinson]

I am happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker; it was meant in a light-hearted manner.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful.

[Mr Osborne]

I always knew that the hon. Gentleman asked questions that had been prepared by the shadow Chancellor, but I have never before seen those questions being handed over in the Chamber. Nor do I think his embellishment of the question added much to it. If the rebate was always going to apply, and to such an extent, why did neither he nor any other Labour Member raise the matter? Why was it not mentioned in the shadow Chancellor’s article in The Guardian? The shadow Chancellor says that the outcome was obvious, but the estimate of a £114,000 fine was based on a number of—

[Ed Balls]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Osborne]

He says no, but the penal rate is 2% above base, and 2% above base per day on a £1.7 billion charge is £114,000. Is that just an amazing coincidence?

[Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the deal last Friday. He was good enough to recall that, two weeks ago in the Chamber, I said that the rebate should apply to the additional demand on the UK’s contributions. Despite the shadow Chancellor’s assertions just now, the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about the rebate two weeks ago; he said nothing until my right hon. Friend actually secured it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rebate will still apply to UK net contributions in future years, as it would have done before? [Interruption.]

[Mr Osborne]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wants to leave, because we were just talking about the presence of the Labour leader. As the hon. Gentleman said at the weekend:

“‘I never believed the answer to Labour’s problems was to show people more of Ed Miliband.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) is right; on 27 October, he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the position of the rebate. The Prime Minister said it was:

“One of the important questions that needs to be asked and properly answered”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 30.]

He said that that is what we are seeking to do. So my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to have asked the question—of course nobody from the Labour party did—and that is why we were engaged in the intensive discussions to nail down the rebate.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor not agree that this whole fiasco just shows that we are paying far, far too much to the European Union, that we should be seeking ways of getting back control of our country, our own borders and our own system of justice, and that the sooner we get a referendum, the better?

[Mr Osborne]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I made the point at the end of my remarks that the whole episode demonstrated why we needed reform in Europe. She, of course, is one of a growing number of Labour MPs who join us in wanting to see that referendum—I hope she can persuade the Labour Front-Bench team.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that whatever deal he had obtained last Friday—even if he had come back bearing sackfuls of tribute in gold—it was wholly predictable that hard-line Eurosceptics would immediately say that this was robbery by Brussels and that the shadow Chancellor would immediately claim that, in some mysterious way, he could have produced some superior outcome for this country? Would the Chancellor accept my congratulations on a surprisingly good result that he achieved at that meeting, which I strongly suspect was a friendly discussion between 28 Finance Ministers and a Commissioner on a technical subject, and did not resemble the gunfight at the O. K. Corral, which is how everybody has to present European Council meetings and the debates we have on these subjects in this House?

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support; he is not always fulsome in his support of our European policies, so that is particularly appreciated. He is right that around the table were other members states that had been hit by this very large payment—the Dutch, the Italians, the Greeks and others—and therefore there was a lot of sympathy for trying to change the rules. In parallel, as he would know, there is a discussion with the Commission about the British rebate, which is properly a matter for the discussion with the Commission rather than ECOFIN.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the Chancellor accept that, whatever is said about the rebate, this substantial bill for the United Kingdom still represents an EU penalty for stronger economic performance? Does he not think that there are better ways to spend £850 million than handing it over, albeit next year, to the European Union?

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the European Union could spend the money far better than it does through reform—that is the reform we are seeking to achieve. Of course membership of the European Union does mean adjustments to the payments each year, and sometimes Britain has been a beneficiary of them—indeed, when the shadow Chancellor put the country into recession we received a tiny bit of money back from the EU. That is one of the regular features of membership but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it demonstrates why we need further reform in Europe.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The last time the shadow Chancellor mentioned the EU rebate in this House appears to have been in 2005. Does the Chancellor agree that, if the shadow Chancellor really thought the bill we were being presented with by the Commission was £800 million out, it is curious that he did not find time to mention it before this week?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Of course the only involvement the shadow Chancellor has ever had with the rebate is giving away half of it.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The rules that determined this payment were agreed in May, without discussion. The UK participated fully in those discussions, and had two formal opportunities to respond but did not do so—indeed, there was not a single signal from the UK that there was a problem until late October. Is the truth not that this performance by the UK Government has less to do with payments to Europe and more about pandering to the open wound of anti-Europeanism from the Members who sit behind the Chancellor?

[Mr Osborne]

If the separatists had had their way, Scotland would not be in the European Union. But I make this point: Commission Vice-President Georgieva confirmed in the press conference afterwards that there was no way that member states could have known the net figure until 17 October, which was when the official meeting took place in Brussels. That has also been confirmed by the Dutch Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission. Again, this is one of those examples in which the shadow Chancellor says that he knew better than the rest of us, but those Heads of Government confirm that Britain could have known only in late October.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is this a superb deal for the UK, but if the people vote for a Conservative Government in May 2015, the people will have a vote in a referendum about it?

[Mr Osborne]

As my hon. Friend says, the key point is that we are offering the people of Britain a vote on the membership of the European Union, which we will then seek to reform. Interestingly, it is not only the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who has made her point on Europe, but the last Labour Chancellor, who says he now supports a referendum on Europe. It would be interesting to see what the shadow Chancellor really thinks.

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

I am still trying to find a serious commentator who did not think that the rebate would apply to the British contribution. All this banter covers the fact that the Chancellor has not made any progress in reforming the system that led to this completely absurd demand, which made Britain pay and France and Germany receive money.

[Mr Osborne]

I agree that this was a totally unacceptable approach from the previous European Commission. To be fair to the new budget Commissioner, she has engaged constructively and got the rules changed so that it does not happen again. On the hon. Lady’s comment about finding a serious commentator who thought the rebate might not apply, I know the shadow Chancellor is not a serious commentator but he did not at any point raise this issue. The calculation on interest payments that he used in The Guardian on Friday was based on the assumption that we would pay £1.7 billion—that is how he came up with the number that he used to make his point. As a result, he did not expect the rebate to be applied or to be applied at this rate.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor says that this reduction is entirely down to the rebate. So, if Tony Blair had not given away half the rebate, would we have got a 100% reduction?

[Mr Osborne]

Sadly not is the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question. The Prime Minister we should credit for the rebate is Margaret Thatcher.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May I try to help the Chancellor? He is in danger of becoming illiterate as well as innumerate. The word “result”, which he used once today and three times last week, can mean a win, a loss or a draw or, as in this case, a confidence trick.

[Mr Osborne]

I take it as a win for Britain. Again, I do not want to follow lessons from Labour MPs about how to negotiate in Europe when they gave up much of the rebate, signed us into the eurozone bail-outs, gave up many of our vetoes over many years and refused to give the British people a say in referendums in key treaties.

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

Does my right hon. Friend know who my constituents believe is most in need of this money, the UK or the EU?

[Mr Osborne]

At a time when budgets are tough, I completely understand why people want the maximum amount of money possible to be spent at home, but the truth is that we have been able to get a reduction in the EU budget because of the tough negotiations of the British Prime Minister. That is what we are able to achieve by standing up for Britain’s interests in Europe.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Chancellor help us better to understand what he is presenting as a masterful feat by telling us: what he did not know; when and for how long he did not know it; and why he did not know it?

[Mr Osborne]

It was not clear that this exceptional demand for a payment would have the British rebate applied or indeed to what extent the rebate would be applied. The amount was confirmed to us only last Thursday evening.

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

Is the Chancellor surprised by the number of EU budget experts who now seem to be appearing on the Opposition Benches? Does he, like me, wonder where they all were when former Chancellors were happily signing off flawed EU accounts or giving away our rebate?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; they gave into all Europe’s demands and handed over more and more British taxpayers’ money. They were neither wise before this event, nor particularly wise after it.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Can the Chancellor confirm that when the EU budget is reconciled, it will show that the surcharge to the UK was paid in full, that it will show quite separately that there was a rebate that was applied, and that therefore his attempts to link the two are simply nonsense?

[Mr Osborne]

What we achieved was the simultaneous application of the rebate, so we will pay only £850 million.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on maintaining the application of the UK rebate in a way that the Opposition utterly failed to do when they were in power. Would he have been strengthened in that position had he maintained a euro preparations unit in the Treasury?

[Mr Osborne]

The first and kindest cut of all was closing down the euro preparations unit, which I discovered in the Treasury on coming to office.

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

I know that the Chancellor did not want to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy), but I will try again. Can he please name one EU Finance Minister who supports his version of events?

[Mr Osborne]

All 28 countries, and therefore 27 other Finance Ministers, agreed to our plan, and the plan put forward by other member states, to change the rules so that we do not have to pay on 1 December, to enable us to delay payment, to ensure that no interest will be paid during that delay, to ensure that any errors in the accounts will be rectified and that we will be compensated for them next year, and to ensure that this never happens again. We got that coalition of support around the table. The discussions on the rebate, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, happen between the UK and the European Commission.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

After all the to-ing and fro-ing over who should pay what, would not the best way to thank our European friends be to show them how to make savings in the cost of Brussels so that the costs paid by each country becomes more affordable, both for us and for their shrinking economies?

[Mr Osborne]

We want to achieve reform in Europe. The hon. Gentleman mentions Brussels, and I suggest that they could make a start by staying there and not going to Strasbourg.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Some €1 billion is still an exceptional surcharge on this country’s finances. Will the Chancellor put his deal to a binding vote in this House?

[Mr Osborne]

We have the normal scrutiny methods. Indeed, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and I have already discussed my happily answering questions from members of the Committee, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has his Committee as well.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worrying that the shadow Chancellor forgot to mention the rebate before today? Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to make a detailed calculation of exactly how much less Britain would have to pay had Labour not given away the rebate in the first place?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, giving away the rebate cost Britain billions a year. My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the pattern of forgetfulness on the Opposition Front Bench. They forget about the deficit and about immigration, and now they forget about the rebate. It reminds everyone why the British public are quite clear that they are unfit for government.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Regardless of whether the bill has been rebated, does the Chancellor not recognise that for many UK citizens facing cuts in public services, £850 million extra going to a body which has not had its accounts signed off for 19 years, wastes billions through fraud and spends money on vanity projects, is not good value and that they object to it?

[Mr Osborne]

I completely understand the anger and frustration felt by all our constituents at the way money is spent by the European Union. That is why we are seeking reform and why both the hon. Gentleman and I would like to see the British people asked for their consent in a referendum.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Was my right hon. Friend surprised to see the shadow Chancellor in his place here today? My reading of the Daily Mirror was that the shadow Chancellor was going to make a speech in support of the Leader of the Opposition—I apologise to the House; I misread that. The shadow Chancellor is going to be making a speech in support of the Leader of the Opposition in the next fortnight.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful, but the question suffered from the disadvantage of being irrelevant to the matter under discussion, so we will move on to someone who has a relevant question to ask.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Confirmation that the rebate will be applied is clearly to be welcomed, but the blunt truth is that this country faces a bill £850 million larger than it faced two weeks previously. Given that we now pay more than £10 billion a year as our membership fee for this organisation, my constituents in Kettering feel that the bill is too large. Will the Chancellor confirm that a majority Conservative Government will renegotiate the membership fee after the next election?

[Mr Osborne]

As I say, I understand the frustration that many people feel about the way their money—hard-earned taxpayers’ money—is spent in Europe. That is why we are seeking a reform of Britain’s relationship with Europe and a reform of the way Europe works for all its citizens, and why we are seeking to put that to the British people in a referendum. With reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), it is good to see the shadow Chancellor here, breaking off from the Balls family pastime of undermining the Leader of the Opposition.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Chancellor read out to us the Prime Minister’s response to the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) about the rebate, but can he explain why, in all that feigned anger, the Prime Minister did not explain about the rebate? Was it because the Chancellor had not shared that knowledge with the Prime Minister, or was it because the pair of them were in it together, ready to pull out a white rabbit last Friday?

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure what a white rabbit has to do with it, but it was not clear that the rebate would apply. That is precisely why we were engaged in intensive discussions with the European Commission, and it is why, universally in this House and in the media, people were talking about a figure of £1.7 billion. It was not clear, but we achieved the application of the rebate, and as a result the bill is £850 million.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I think I am missing something here. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the only reason we are discussing the payment of an EU surcharge at all is because of the stunningly impressive handling of the economy by my right hon. Friend?

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend is very kind. One of the reasons why this surcharge, as he puts it, has arisen is because of the strong UK economic performance relative to the continent of Europe. We should not be happy about the poor performance of the European continent. We want the European continent to be performing better.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Has not Britain had the rebate for a very long time? Can someone therefore tell me why the Chancellor has only just found out how it works? He was taken by surprise by the £1.7 billion bill in the first place, and now he belatedly discovers the rebate. How can the House have any confidence that the Chancellor knows what is going on?

[Mr Osborne]

The House can have confidence that this Government fight for Britain’s interests in Europe, because we have cut the EU budget, got us out of those disastrous eurozone bail-outs that the Labour Government put us into, and had the rebate applied—a rebate which, of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party wanted to get rid of.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Given the fact that the shadow Chancellor and almost everyone on the Opposition Front Bench with him has been completely absent from the airwaves in the past few days in support of their leader, one would have thought that they had ample opportunity to proffer advice on the rebate. I did not hear it. Did my right hon. Friend hear it privately from them?

[Mr Osborne]

I do not want to discourage members of the Opposition Front-Bench team from taking to the airwaves and criticising their leader, because it is very good. It is only after the event that we hear that they think he is useless. They did not tell us that beforehand. My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition did not raise the issue—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor calls me to the House of Commons, he has nothing to say for himself and he has no answer to the fact that his own article reveals that he thought we were going to be paying £1.7 billion. It just confirms that he is not up to the job.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I think the Chancellor should calm down when it comes to leadership and loyalty. Why did we have a by-election last month that his party lost to the UK Independence party and why do we have another one this month? Will he confirm that the ECOFIN Ministers he discussed the rebate with are of the opinion that we will pay no less than we would have done if we had paid the full £1.7 billion on 1 December and then received our rebate?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have already said, it was not clear that the rebate would apply, which is why the shadow Chancellor, in his article in The Guardian, uses a number that assumes that we are going to pay £1.7 billion. That is what he thought we were going to pay, but we negotiated hard and had intensive discussions, and as a result we have got this result for Britain.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was the UK’s leadership in Europe that resulted in the deal being struck that has enabled all nine countries that were being surcharged by the EU to delay their payment until 1 September next year? Does he agree that such leadership in Europe bodes well for our renegotiations next year, after the Conservative party has won the next general election?

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we needed the agreement of all the member states for this budget deal. Any one of them could have blocked the deal, but we got the support of all the other 27 member states, not just to delay the payment and have no interest applied but permanently to change the rules.

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

For the fourth time, I think, in this House, may I press the Chancellor to tell us which Foreign Minister or which Commission official agrees with his interpretation of the rebate?

[Mr Osborne]

As I say, it required the agreement of all 28 member states to get the budget deal at ECOFIN. The discussion on the British rebate was a discussion had with the Commission. The Commission confirmed that the rebate would apply, and apply in the amount it did, only on Thursday night. The hon. Gentleman also serves on the Treasury Committee. If he, like every other Labour Member, was so wise about the number, why were they not saying this beforehand? Not a single Labour MP, either in the Chamber of the House of Commons or on the media, said anything other than that we would be paying £1.7 billion. They are trying to be wise after the event, and they have been found out.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that one additional way to help the EU budget would be to clamp down on corporate tax evasion in places such as Luxembourg?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right that we need fair tax arrangements. The European Commission is looking at that through some of its state aid action on particular tax deals done in some member states. However, we do not want to move to a common tax policy across Europe whereby there is a single corporation tax rate and the like. I am in favour of competitive business taxes, but competitive business taxes that are fairly paid. That is the policy that we pursue in the UK and that we are seeking international agreement on and making a lot of progress on.

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

Since the Council meeting on Friday, the Finance Ministers of Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands have all said that the UK will still pay the full amount. Is the Chancellor seriously arguing that they are wrong, and if so, can he point to a single measure that will cut the overall bill for the UK taxpayer over the next two years?

[Mr Osborne]

We were presented with a bill for £1.7 billion and we are going to pay about £850 million, so in my book that is a cut.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Chancellor on the excellent deal that he has achieved in Europe? As a better woman than me once said, there is no such thing as Government money, only taxpayers’ money. Does he agree that the people who benefit from this negotiation are hard-working British taxpayers?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, this is not the Government’s money: it is the people’s money—taxpayers’ money. People work very hard to earn money and then they pay taxes on it, and it is the policy of the Conservative party to keep taxes as low as possible.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the relationship between GDP and the European Union budget was understood before this series of events, and yet the Government appeared to be asleep at the wheel, what was the reason for their reluctance in getting their act together properly in the first place? Was it the Chancellor’s unwillingness to fess up to the Prime Minister or to stand up to his Back Benchers?

[Mr Osborne]

I am not sure it was worth waiting 45 minutes for that question. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the President of the European Commission and the vice-president of the European Commission with responsibility for the budget all said that it was not clear until late October what the amount would be. That is why, the moment we found out, we got it on the European Council agenda, and the European Council agreed that it would be discussed at ECOFIN.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

This weekend marked the 19th year in which the European Union has failed to sign off its accounts. Does that not make the case for a referendum and reform compelling? The harsh binary truth is that during this parliamentary Session the only Members who have pushed that agenda are sitting on this side of the House.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are pushing the case for reform in Europe while the Opposition want no reform in Europe. The people of Wolverhampton and elsewhere in the country have a very clear choice at the election. If they vote Labour, they will pay more to Europe; there will be no reform in Europe; Europe will continue to hold back the British economy because it is unreformed; and, of course, they will have no say. If they vote for the Conservative party, they will get a say on Britain’s future in Europe.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Irish Finance Minister has said:

“My understanding is that the UK will pay the whole amount”.

Is the Chancellor seriously saying that the Irish Finance Minister is wrong?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have already explained, the negotiation and discussion on the rebate are had with the European Commission. The full amount, which was universally discussed in this House beforehand and by the shadow Chancellor in The Guardian, was £1.7 billion. As a result of our negotiation and intensive discussion, we will be paying £850 million.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has secured a change in the way that the surcharge formulas are calculated. Can he confirm that the UK will never be penalised in this way again for a strong economic performance?

[Mr Osborne]

We will never face such a large payment or such an unexpected period of time in which to pay, which is why we are getting permanent changes to the budget rules. That requires the consent of all member states, and we have that.

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

The UK’s deficit at the moment is the worst in the European Union. Will the Chancellor be selling that as a result as well?

[Mr Osborne]

Some of us remember inheriting a budget deficit of 11.5% from the previous Labour Government. It has fallen by more than a third. We will get the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility in December.

[Ed Balls]

It’s going up!

[Mr Osborne]

Let us get it on the record that the shadow Chancellor says that the budget deficit is going up. We will wait for the forecasts at the beginning of December and see who is right.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this deal, but the situation adds to the frustration that many of my constituents have with the EU. Does that not show that we need to renegotiate such matters and then give people in my constituency, my right hon. Friend’s constituency and constituencies across the country an in/out referendum so that they can decide whether they want to stay in the EU?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Nuneaton and across the country will have their chance to vote on whether Britain stays in the European Union. I want to see reform in Europe and I want to put that reform to the British people. The only way the British people will have that say is if they vote for my hon. Friend and other Conservative Members.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My constituents would have expected the Chancellor to negotiate the best possible deal on a rebate. They would also have expected him to negotiate down the surcharge. Is it not the case that he has not done the latter at all? It is not a penny less than it would have been and the accounts will show that the figure is still £1.7 billion.

[Heather Wheeler]

You would have paid the whole lot!

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that the hon. Lady would have paid the whole lot. We are paying £850 million because of the application of the rebate.

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

I congratulate the Chancellor on halving the recent EU demand in record time. I wish he had just continued a little longer, because with his skills he might have got us a net refund. Does he agree that for those for whom this result is not enough, nothing would ever have been enough? Does he also agree that, however distasteful we might find it, while we are in a club we have to abide by the rules, and that only a future Conservative Government will give the people a say—and a chance to leave the club—in a referendum in 2017?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. Part of the reform we seek in Europe is reform to make sure that the money that British taxpayers pay is well spent. Indeed, we want to make sure that the money of all European citizens is well spent in Europe. He is absolutely right that the only way to get that reform is with a Conservative Government, and then the British people can decide in a referendum.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor name one European Commission official who asserted to him, or will he release correspondence from the European Commission indicating, that the rebate did not apply in this case?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have already said, the rebate and its size were only confirmed to us by the European Commission—by the vice-president for the budget—last Thursday night.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Roughly speaking, the previous Government gave away 20% of our rebate. Based on that logic, they have just cost us a further 20% of £1.7 billion. Does the Chancellor agree that they have just cost us another £340 million?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend underestimates what the previous Labour Government cost us. They actually cost us billions of pounds a year in the rebate that they gave away. That is yet another reason why the idea that they could fight for our interests in Europe is obviously false: we saw what they did when they were in office.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My constituents want a Chancellor who will work with our European partners to create well-paid jobs for ordinary people to reverse the decline in living standards over which he has presided. What they do not want is a Chancellor who tries to pull the wool over their eyes after failing to negotiate with our partners, while making false promises and claims about a budget rebate that was always going to happen.

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said, we worked with the other member states to achieve the deal at ECOFIN. We needed the agreement of the other member states on the delay, paying no interest and the permanent change in the rules. It is always good to get lectures from Labour Members about working with and supporting colleagues, so we look forward to the shadow Chancellor’s speech supporting his leader in the next couple of weeks. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman nods, and I know that he is a man true to his word.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Much of this discussion has centred on the rebate, but has my right hon. Friend done any calculations of the value of the forgone interest that would be paid as a result of the extension of the date for this payment from 1 December to the middle of next year?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, the shadow Chancellor estimated that it would cost £114,000 a year, which is the EU penal rate on £1.7 billion. If interest had been charged even on the rebateable amount, it would of course have been about half that figure.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting half the money back? That is certainly a step in the right direction. However, does it not show that one economic cap does not fit all in the EU, and never ever will?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. That is why previous Conservative Governments achieved things such as the opt-out from the single currency, even though the previous Labour Government toyed with the idea of joining the single currency, which reveals—

[The Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household (Greg Hands)]

It is still their policy.

[Mr Osborne]

The Government Deputy Chief Whip reminds us that it is still official Labour policy to join the single currency. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is right that different economic models and different economic policies are appropriate for different countries, but I would make the broad point that freer markets and lower taxes seem to help most countries.

Speaker’s Statement

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

16:24

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the main business, I have a statement to make on the handling of it. Several hon. and right hon. Members have asked me to rule on the scope of each of the two motions today relating to the protocol 36 opt-in regulations. It might be of assistance to Members intending to take part in the debates if I do so now. On the business of the House motion, any debate should focus on the time to be allocated to the subsequent debate and the putting of the question at its conclusion. Members will have to exercise some ingenuity if they wish to raise other matters, such as the absence of an opportunity for the House to express an opinion or to vote on all or any of the related matters not contained in the regulations. Such remarks must demonstrate a reasonable connection with the business of the House proposition before the House.

On the substantive motion to approve the regulations, which I understand transpose into UK law 10 of the 35 measures the Government have decided that the UK should rejoin, I will be prepared to offer some latitude in permitting reference to the merits or otherwise of rejoining those related measures not requiring transposition and therefore not in the regulations, as listed in the Government’s explanatory memorandum on the regulations. I ask hon. and right hon. Members to lighten the burden on the Chair by holding in their minds the actual question before the House. The Chair and the House can deal only with what is on the Order Paper.

Points of Order

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

16:26

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

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

We haven’t started.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That was an exceptionally ignorant observation from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). If he would sit quietly and listen, instead of pontificating from ignorance, he might one of these days learn something.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the motion on the Order Paper refers to the criminal justice and data protection regulations, which, as you have said, include 11 measures, none of which is the European arrest warrant? Will you therefore confirm that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant today?

[Mr Speaker]

I can. Members can interpret all they like, but there will not today be a vote on the specific matter of membership of the European arrest warrant. That is the reality.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to other Members, as these are important matters that have considerably and understandably exercised hon. and right hon. Members, but first I call Yvette Cooper on that point of order.

[Yvette Cooper]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your response, which is very clear. The Home Secretary wrote to me on 9 November and said that she wanted to be absolutely clear that Monday’s debate and vote in the House of Commons would be a debate and vote on the whole package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant. Will you therefore confirm that that is not correct?

[Mr Speaker]

I stand by what I have said. The House will understand that in doing so I do not act entirely alone and certainly I do not do so without studying the matters and taking the advice of disinterested experts. That is what I have done, because that is my responsibility. The Home Secretary, of course, can offer her own take on the matter and doubtless she will do so. I have advanced the position in what I believe to be factual terms, unadorned but benefiting from expert advice.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On 29 October, the Prime Minister said:

“I am not delaying having a vote on it”—

that is, the European arrest warrant—and:

“There will be a vote on it.”

He went on to say that

“we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]

Have you had any indication from the Leader of the House whether there will be an emergency business statement so that we can facilitate a vote on the European arrest warrant rather than on everything but the European arrest warrant?

[Mr Speaker]

There are two answers to the hon. Lady. First, I have had no indication whatever that a Minister intends to make an emergency statement to the House. Secondly, I do not think that it is for me to seek to interpret the comments of the Prime Minister. It would be presumptuous of me to do so and would require probably a degree of sophistication that I do not claim that the Chair possesses.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you accept that it is likely that the issues that Members will wish to raise in the course of today’s debate, on whichever side of the argument, will be very similar for all of the 35 measures that the Government propose to opt back into and the more than 100 measures they are opting out of? Although I accept your ruling on the technical meaning of the vote at the end, will you allow a broad interpretation of what is relevant to the debate, because at the root of it is the competence of the EU in these issues and the use that is made in this country of the 35 measures that the Government are seeking to opt into?

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I have known for 20 years, that I do not feel entirely confident in anticipating what, as he puts it, is likely to be said. However, I am probably not blessed with the degree of prescience that he possesses. He possesses great prescience. I have indicated an intention to offer some latitude to Members of the House, because I think that that is what Members, in these rather imperfectly configured circumstances, would expect.

I was asked the specific question, “Is the vote on the European arrest warrant?” The simple and straightforward answer—I, like the public, believe in straightforward dealings—is no, it is not. That is the end of it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take further points of order, but we cannot deal with these matters indefinitely. Let us hear from a knight from Lincolnshire.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am completely confused now. I read in all my Sunday newspapers that we would be debating the European arrest warrant today and that we would have a vote. Apparently, there was going to be a rebellion, but I know nothing about that. Apparently, we are not now voting on the European arrest warrant. What are we voting on?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that we are voting on the regulations, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied comprehensively. When he says that he is confused, I find it hard to credit. He is a sophisticated barrister and has served in the House for 31 years and five months—[Interruption.] Yes, and a day. He has served in the House for 31 years, five months and a day, so I cannot believe that he is confused about anything.

Nine hon. Members wrote to me, presumably independently of each other because I do not think that Members are in the habit of sharing their letters to the Speaker with each other, to indicate that they intended to speak in the debate on the European arrest warrant. They obviously all thought the same thing. I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: I, too, thought that we would be debating and voting on the European arrest warrant. However, I ask him to bear it in mind that I am just the Speaker. Government Whips sometimes have another language altogether, which only they understand.

[Yvette Cooper]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the confusion and secrecy that there has clearly been, the difference between your clear advice to us and the Home Secretary’s letter to me, and the fact that the Home Secretary is sitting here, do you not think that this is a great opportunity for her to stand at the Dispatch Box and make a point of order to clarify the position—are we voting on the European arrest warrant or not?

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the Home Secretary to do so. She may feel that she wants to set out her thoughts in the debate, and she is welcome to do that.

In all courtesy, I must come to the point of order from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your helpful reply to my inquiry on this matter. Is it not right that debates are, on most days, in the hands of the Government? They are perfectly capable of putting down clear motions that people will understand. If they want a vote on the arrest warrant, they can have one. Does this not seem to you, as it does to me, to be procedural prestidigitation to persuade people that they are voting on something on which they are not really voting? Would it not be better if the Government were to put down a clear motion on some future day that we could vote on properly?

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that all sorts of things might be better, as he puts it, but as I said in my statement, the Chair and the House can deal only with what is on the Order Paper. I understand, because it has been communicated to me by several Members, that there is considerable irritation on this matter. I absolutely understand that, but what I am trying to do, operating within the limits of the powers of the Chair, is to facilitate the will of the House. I have only a partial ability to do that—I cannot create a vote for which provision has not been made—but the House will want to debate what the House wants to debate. In future, it would be better if these matters were handled in a way that is straightforward, and if the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for the honouring of commitments were to be met.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for you excellent clarification so far. Will you confirm my understanding that the mighty issue of opting in and giving away major powers from this House is also not on the Order Paper, so the House cannot vote for or against that massive opt-in and surrender of power today?

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is probably safest for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I leave that for him to interpret. I do not want to embarrass him, but he has an intellect truly frightening, so I am quite sure he can interpret these matters to his own satisfaction.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you will allow some latitude in the debate later on, because I always like it when you allow a certain amount of latitude in the House.

The Home Secretary wrote to the shadow Home Secretary saying:

“The Government has been clear throughout that Parliament should have the opportunity to vote on the final package—

which includes the arrest warrant—

“before we formally notify Europe of our desire to remain bound by it.”

We may debate whatever we want, but what really matters is what we have voted for and what, in the end, goes into law and is resolved by virtue of what we have voted on. Can you make it clear that the Government have been extremely unwise to proceed in this way, and that legal uncertainty will remain unless we are absolutely clear that by virtue of what we are voting on this afternoon, we will not be notifying the European Union of joining the European arrest warrant?

[Mr Speaker]

All we can do today is have a debate, and after that debate Members will have either to vote for or against the regulations or decide to abstain upon them. What motions might or might not be put forward on a subsequent occasion, either to satisfy Members’ appetite or for the purposes of the clarity that the hon. Gentleman hankers after, is another matter. That, of course, is in the hands of the usual channels.

I think I have given a fairly clear indication that this has been a rather sorry saga and that the House should not be put in this position. Most of us think that a commitment made is a commitment that should be honoured, and we should try to operate according to sensible standards rather than trying to slip things through by some sort of artifice. It may be the sort of thing that some people think is very clever, but people outside the House expect straightforward dealing, and they are frankly contemptuous—I use the word advisedly —of what is not straight dealing. Let us try to learn from this experience and do better.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you not simply rule that this is an utter and absolute shambles? Have you any explanation of how we have got to this sorry state?

[Mr Speaker]

I have expressed my own thoughts to the House on how we should proceed, and I have tried to be very fair and candid about the matter. Whatever opinion people have about these matters, they will express it, and that is nothing to do with the Chair.

I cannot really go further than I have gone today. The handling of matters in the future, as ordinarily, is in the hands of the business managers. In the best, pragmatic British tradition, what we must do is work with what we have before the House today and, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, do our best.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the House is most indebted to you for your ruling. It is being said that tonight’s vote will be a proxy for a vote on the European arrest warrant. Is there anything in Standing Orders to allow a vote on one issue to be treated as a proxy for a vote on another?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to interpret individual votes. The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is anything in the Standing Orders about how a vote on one matter can be considered to be a proxy for another, and the straightforward, factual answer—as I think he knows—is that no, there is not. I am not aware that anybody is suggesting that there should be, but do not give them ideas.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it clear that the debate is about 10 powers being transposed, excluding the European arrest warrant. Can you make clear that in the event that the House votes down that motion, the Government will still be free to go forward with the 35 measures they want, without reference to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is doing his best, but he is getting a bit beyond himself. I have said that the debate is about the regulations. I have been very fair and quite fulsome in my responses to colleagues’ inquiries, to try to give straight answers. We should probably leave it there—

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Except, of course, that I cannot refuse to take a point of order from somebody who first entered the House in 1966.

[Mr Winnick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I think there is general agreement that what has emerged from these points of order has not in any way improved the reputation of the House of Commons. You said a few moments ago that we should know precisely what we are debating, and that the public outside certainly will not. Do you therefore feel that there is a case for the sitting to be suspended for a short period in order—given the usual way in which these matters are looked on by the usual channels—for us to have clarification before the debate begins? I emphasise that the reputation of the House of Commons is not so high that we should go through this farce.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I always treat what he says with great seriousness and respect. The reason I do not think we should travel that route is first that we are where we are and, as I have said, I think pragmatically that we should deal with the circumstances that exist. Secondly, a business of the House motion will give people the chance to say their piece on the allocation of time and, with latitude, more widely on the handling of these matters—matters to which I think we should now progress.

Business of the House (Today)

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

16:42

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), debate on the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to Criminal Law may continue until 10.00pm, at which time the Speaker shall put the Question, if it has not already been decided.

Having listened carefully to the strictures in your initial statement, Mr Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief to leave time for the full debate and the latitude that, as you expressed, would be permissible. The points that have been raised on the European arrest warrant will be addressed by the Home Secretary in her speech. I also want to explain to the House why I will not be able to support the Home Secretary in the main debate today. In my capacity as Lord Chancellor I have to speak at the lord mayor’s banquet tonight, and will not be able to take part in that debate—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The lord mayor’s banquet will have the joyous benefit of hearing the Secretary of State, which is right and proper. For the time being, however, the House should have the joyous benefit of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman. It was in some danger of not having that opportunity because of excessive kerfuffle. Let us hear from the right hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Grayling]

The Government have brought forward this debate so that the House can consider legislation to ensure that domestic law is compliant with a package of 35 measures that the Government seek to rejoin. The motion is to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny by extending today’s debate beyond that of a normal statutory instrument. I want to be clear that the debate and vote will be taken as a vote on the whole package of 35 measures as a whole, and I urge the House to support this business motion.

16:44

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

What a shambles! What complete chaos! The Justice Secretary is scuttling away and will not even stay for the debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) suggested we suspend the sitting to allow the House to come back with a more sensible business motion. We will happily suspend the House. It would allow the Justice Secretary to go for his dinner and come back again, and we could then vote later on a more sensible measure.

The Justice Secretary stood there and I heard him say that this was a vote on the whole package of 35 measures. That is in direct contradiction to your ruling and your advice to this House, Mr Speaker. We were told that the business motion today would give us a proper debate. The Whips are scuttling away to try to do some quick dealing to sort out the mess and chaos that the Home Secretary has left the House in today. This was supposed to be a proper debate on the European arrest warrant—the motion will allow no such thing.

The Home Secretary told me, in a letter I received this weekend, that

“Monday’s vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures …and in this case a whole day is being made available for the debate rather than the usual 90 minutes.”

The whole reason for this business motion, and the whole reason we have the suspension of Standing Orders and the extra time for the debate, is because the Home Secretary told us that this would be a debate on 35 measures, including the European arrest warrant. That is what this business motion is supposed to achieve, but it is a joke. Instead, we have a vote on 11 regulations—regulations we support and will vote for—that do not include the European arrest warrant. This is what the motion states:

“That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014…be approved.”

What do the draft regulations say? Not the 35 measures the Government want to opt back into; just 11 good sensible measures, none of which is the European arrest warrant. We have today a business motion on a false premise. This is what the Committee Chairs have said:

“The motion to be considered by the House of Commons concerns a Statutory Instrument…which is only intended to complete the implementation, in UK law, of 10 of the 35 measures the Government proposes to rejoin. It has no direct relevance to the European Arrest Warrant, the most contentious of the 35 measures, or to UK participation in EU Agencies such as Europol or Eurojust.”

That is what they said at the end of last week. That is why I wrote to the Home Secretary at the end of last week to ask her to clarify the matter for the House. That is why she then wrote to me and said that this included the whole package of 35 measures.

The Prime Minister promised us a vote, and that is what the business motion should achieve. The Leader of the Opposition asked him:

“A vital tool…is the European arrest warrant. Why is the Prime Minister delaying having a vote on it?”

The Prime Minister said:

“I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote on it.”

The Leader of the Opposition offered our help. He said:

“We will give him the time for a vote on the European arrest warrant, and we will help him to get it through.”

The Prime Minister said again,

“we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election”.——[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]

So where is it? Instead, the Home Secretary forgot to put it in the motion.

Why does the Home Secretary want to play into the hands of those who might challenge the European arrest warrant in the courts by not having a straightforward vote? Why not just put the three words “European arrest warrant” on the Order Paper and allow us a vote? Yes, some Back Benchers would vote against it, but Labour would vote for it and support the Home Secretary because we think it is the right thing to do. Why not let Parliament have the vote it was promised?

We have just had three quarters of an hour of the Chancellor trying his smoke and mirrors trick, but the Home Secretary has gone one step further with a disappearing magic trick! One minute the European arrest warrant is there, the next minute it is gone. One minute you see it, the next it disappears. It’s her Paul Daniels act! Unfortunately, she has sent the Justice Secretary to be her glamorous assistant Debbie McGee and to come and present it to the House! She thinks they’ll like it—not a lot, but she thinks they’ll like it! [Laughter.] The business motion is a complete joke. She should withdraw it and come back with more sensible proposals.

We will vote for the regulations, but we will vote against this business motion, because it is a joke, a complete nonsense. It does not provide Parliament with the vote we need on the European arrest warrant, but is simply because the Government are scared of a rebellion. They want to say one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group. They are not being straight with the House. The Home Secretary knows she is playing fast and loose with very serious measures on tackling crime and national security. It is irresponsible, and it is playing fast and loose with Parliament as well. I urge her and the Justice Secretary to rethink, ditch this business motion, come back with something more sensible and let us vote on the measures this country needs.

16:50

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is a disgraceful way of going about a very important matter. It is tainted with chicanery. It is not the way that Parliament should be treated. Right from the very beginning of this issue, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee have complained about the lack of transparency and consultation and the manner in which the Home Secretary has been treating the House. It is completely unbelievable that she should come to the House and, presumably, try to argue—as we shall discover in due course—that this is about the EAW when it clearly is not.

If the motion were a Bill, it would be dealt with in separate clauses and parts, all of which could be amended, but this motion is unamendable. That has not yet been properly considered. This is being done to avoid a real decision being taken today, as was promised to us by the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago, and by the Home Secretary in the article in The Sunday Telegraph and in the letter that the shadow Home Secretary referred to. This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings, and that is a reason in itself to vote against the business motion, as I shall be doing. I could give many other reasons for doing so, but it is fundamentally about a lack of transparency and honesty in going about issues we need to deal with.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sorry that the Home Secretary is shaking her head, because she knows perfectly well that this is a trick and an attempt to get round the reality of what is facing us: this is not just about law and order, but about the European Court of Justice and the opportunities being created to bypass this House and our own courts. It is a disgrace.

16:53

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I co-signed a letter with him and the Chair of the Justice Select Committee over the weekend to express our concern about how this legislation is being put through the House.

Mr Speaker, you were clear that this was not a vote on the EAW, but the Lord Chancellor, when he moved the business motion, told the House that we were voting on the full package of 35 measures, so that voting for the motion would allow the Government to inform the European Commission that we had opted back into the 35 measures. Mr Speaker, I prefer to accept your ruling that this is about the 10 regulations, not the EAW. The Select Committee was clear that the House should have the opportunity to vote on the EAW separately, because we felt that it was controversial and had huge implications for the British people. The position of the European Scrutiny Committee is that we should vote on each of the 35 measures. I am not against that idea; I just do not think we can do that tonight. We will need additional time to do so.

I share all the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is a shambolic attempt to get a vote on an issue of fundamental importance to the British people. I hope the motion will be withdrawn to give us an opportunity to vote on these measures.

16:54

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

From time to time during my career here, the procedures of the House have stood in the way of its intention. Often on these occasions, the matters have been resolved on the basis of, I suppose, allowing a more mature consideration, and with the Treasury Bench seeking the opportunity to take with it all the disparate opinions within the House, making it clear that nothing is being done that thwarts the will of the House to discuss a matter of such significance as the one under consideration today. Would it not therefore be appropriate for the Treasury Bench to take the opportunity of having more mature consideration and to withdraw this motion, proposing instead one that would meet the aspirations of those who either support or oppose—

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I cannot give way.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am not an expert on procedure, Mr Speaker, but I understand what is happening here.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am trying to listen intently to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope I have not misunderstood him, but he certainly is able to give way if he wishes to do so, although he is not obliged to do so.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

We learn something new every day, Mr Speaker.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He can have his way: all he needs to do is to encourage his fellow Liberal Members to vote against the business motion. If it is defeated, the Government will have to go away, think again and present something sensible so that we can all debate what we want to debate. He should get the Liberals to vote against the business motion.

[Chris Grayling]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will take the point of order from the Secretary of State for Justice.

[Chris Grayling]

It might help the House to know that, as I explained in my remarks, tonight’s motion extends the normal 90-minute debate to one that lasts all evening. Should it be defeated, there would simply be a 90-minute debate.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

That, Mr Speaker, is also my understanding. It is equally my understanding that there is considerable unrest in the House about this matter. Surely in those circumstances, the best thing for the Government to do is to go away and think about how best to allow us to express our view on these matters. Otherwise, we will have a bad-tempered, fractious and inconclusive debate. How can that possibly be in the interests either of the House or indeed of the public?

16:57

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke very wisely. He is absolutely right to say that the way we do our business in this House is just as important as the business we transact. That is why we have rules that govern our proceedings. For centuries we have believed in this country that we govern by consent, not by arbitrary decisions made solely by the Government. We govern by consent, not by proxy motions that are reinterpreted by the Government. That is why it is important that the way we do our business, especially on a matter that affects the imprisonment and extradition of British nationals and nationals of other countries coming back to this country—a matter of essential importance to people’s personal liberty—should be debated properly, openly and transparently on a proper motion that, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, should be amendable. The motion should not be advanced to the House by proxy or by some subsidiary means; it must be open and clear.

The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister stated quite categorically in this Chamber, and elsewhere in letters, that they would ensure that there was a proper vote on the matter of the European arrest warrant. Mr Speaker, you have said today that this will not be a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet the Justice Secretary, who should know better, has told us that he will reinterpret the message as meaning that this is a vote on the European arrest warrant. I simply say to the Government that for the sake of legal certainty—so that lawyers will not be paid vast quantities of money to debate in extradition courts whether the law has changed and whether it applies—it is essential that they withdraw the motion, and that they should have tabled a proper motion in the first place.

It is no good the Government coming here and saying, “The House may pass one thing, but we will interpret it to mean exactly the opposite.” The House agreed unanimously that the rules should be changed in relation to Magnitsky, and that anyone who had been involved in his murder or in the corruption that he had unveiled would not be allowed in this country. The Government agreed to that at the time, and have done nothing subsequently. The Government let the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill go through, and have done nothing since. We cannot have a Government who conclude, arbitrarily, “The House has decided one thing, but we choose to believe that it means exactly the opposite.”

17:00

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Many of us thought that we would have an opportunity today to debate the very weighty question of whether this country should opt back into 35 important measures relating to criminal justice, and put it under European Court of Justice and European Union control. We looked forward to a debate and a vote on that high principle, which includes the important and contentious European arrest warrant, but also a number of other measures that constitute the building blocks for a system in which our criminal justice would be conducted primarily under the central control of the European Union rather than that of the United Kingdom.

We welcome the Government’s wish to engage and to allow us a reasonable length of time in which to debate those matters, followed by a concluding vote at 10 pm, but you, Mr Speaker, have told us, very wisely and helpfully, that that is not what the business motion says, and, through you, I urge Ministers to consider amending it. As I understand the position, you would probably be sympathetic if they wished to do so. We could debate their regulations for 90 minutes, and during the remaining time, until 10 pm, we could debate the much wider issues of substance. We could discuss whether we wish to opt into all those measures and what we think of the European arrest warrant. Some believe it to be the biggest of all the measures, which is in itself debatable. I think that justice would then be seen to be done by the wider public.

I hope, Mr Speaker, that I am not taking liberties by suggesting to Ministers, through you, that a simple amendment to the business motion might provide a way out of this dilemma, and enable the House properly to consider the wider constitutional issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Let me simply say, for the convenience and awareness of the House, that the Home Secretary will wind up the debate on the business motion in order to clarify the Government’s position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman regards that as helpful. In the spirit of fairness and propriety, the Opposition Front Bench will also have a wind-up speaker, who I believe will be the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It looks like it, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for the suggestion that you have just made. Would it not be even more convenient to the House if the Home Secretary did that now? We could then curtail this debate, and get on with it.

[Mr Speaker]

That is very cheeky indeed. Other Members might wish to speak in the debate. It is not only Front Benchers who have a right to speak. Other Members might wish to express themselves as well. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman was, as always, trying to be helpful, but let us hear from a couple of other Members.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am one of those who were waiting to speak, but I would happily forgo my place in the queue if the Home Secretary could be allowed to tell the House in a little more detail whether we are voting on the European arrest warrant or not.

[Mr Speaker]

That is very generous of the hon. Gentleman, and I think that it will be taken by the House in that spirit, but Members must have their head. If they wish to demonstrate generosity similar to that of the hon. Gentleman, they can, and if they do not, they will not.

17:04

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

There are many differences over the European arrest warrant, as there are bound to be. They are legitimate differences, and it is important for us to debate the subject and vote accordingly. I believe that there is a unanimous view that there should be a debate on the actual issue of the European arrest warrant. When I received the Whip, like other Members, I was utterly surprised by Monday’s business, in which there was not one mention of a debate on the European arrest warrant. Ministers clearly consider that they were clever, and that they would contain and minimise a vote against what is being proposed. I can understand that, and it is not unique to this Government, but what is unfortunate, and what is a form of deception, is to bring a motion before the House for debate which is basically about the European arrest warrant but to avoid those three words.

I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that if we are confused and if we do not like it, what about people outside? There are people who pay close attention to what we are doing, who are interested in the work of Parliament, and who believed that today we were going to debate the European arrest warrant; and they will see the exchanges that have occurred, and which have lasted over an hour, about whether or not the actual issue was to be debated today in the House of Commons. I therefore put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the way to resolve this issue is for the Treasury Bench to make it clear that there should be a debate today on an appropriate manuscript motion on the issue of the European arrest warrant.

Let us decide one way or the other whether we are in favour of it, instead of all this muddying the water—this desire to deceive, this desire to give the opposite impression —so that at the end of the day when the vote occurs the Government can say that there has been hardly any opposition from their own side. That is not the way to proceed. It is a way that only brings the reputation of this House into disrepute, which is all the more reason why we should proceed in a different way from that which the Government have suggested.

17:06

[Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

If I remember correctly, Maine’s “Ancient law” makes the observation that justice lies in the interstices of procedure. That rubric has survived through our history since it was set and there is a truth in it. Today we are confronted with a motion that is incomprehensible, and with an understanding that seems sly and that is actually a means of trying to incline the public to believe other than what is so.

At the heart of this is a misconception about what this House represents. We must be straight with ourselves if we continue to allow the Executive to control—so completely and absolutely now—the Standing Orders of this House. This can be no joy for Labour, because Labour also started a Modernisation Committee that was determined to take over the Standing Orders. My overlong time in this House of Commons has led me to understand that the growth of Executive arrogance is unsupportable. We say that we are disconnected from the public outside and the issues outside, and that is because we are meaningless when we are confronted in the House with no motion and no real ability to discuss the very issue that moves many people in this country. What is the purpose of this House if the Administration —and a Conservative Administration at that, whose members had to suffer all the years of a huge new Labour majority—have not learned something, namely that there has to be tolerance in this House and there has to be an ability to debate in this House?

This is what so angers one. This is what brings this Chamber into disrepute. We are not able to discuss the substance of what we stand for here, and that is wrong. I therefore think we should be talking out this motion until the end of time, until the Government come back with a proper motion before this House.

17:09

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

In my 31 years in this Chamber I have never seen the nonsense we have got this afternoon ever happen under any Government. If it is without precedent, Mr Speaker, could we perhaps retire for half an hour or so, so the Government can put down a motion that is intelligible and that they could understand as well, so we can make a decision in a meaningful and proper way?

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear that the Government Whips and those on the Treasury Bench have concocted some sort of conclusion to this utter shambles. May we not hear, right now, from the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary or the Chief Whip? Let us get this over and done with. For goodness’ sake, there are people watching this who will be appalled at what is going on in the House. Put an end to it now!

[Mr Speaker]

I understand what people are saying, but procedure does allow other colleagues to speak and I do not want to deprive them of that opportunity if they still wish to contribute.

17:10

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

This really is a sorry day for the Government. The motion to allocate time was tabled on the basis either of error or of falsehood. The Whip went round to Conservative Members of Parliament and said that today’s motion would be on regulations including those on the European arrest warrant. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons. He has a brain the size of a planet. He is of the highest quality and the most honourable gentleman one could find. I cannot believe that he would make a basic error of this kind.

We have Whips scuttling around the House saying that a vote will be taken tonight that will be indicative of what the House of Commons thinks about the European arrest warrant. That is a procedural absurdity. It is legislative legerdemain. The Government cannot conceivably decide that one vote is indicative of another. What might they decide next? Perhaps that a vote to cut taxes would indicate that we wanted to increase them, or that a vote in favour of longer prison sentences would indicate that we wanted to cut them? This is the way of tyranny, because it takes away the right of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

We have heard a wide range political views, but I think that everyone here today is unanimous in believing that we came here expecting to vote on a decision to opt in to 35 measures and that that vote would affect that decision one way or the other. Before we all get too worked up and decide that this is the biggest threat to parliamentary democracy since the gunpowder plot, may I suggest that we allow the Home Secretary to explain how the Government are going to give us the debate and the vote that we all want, even though my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I do not always see eye to eye and might not vote in the same way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a point that is, as always, worth listening to, but he is in error. This matter needs to be debated thoroughly, because it is my contention that this is not accidental. A letter was sent to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), saying that we would have a vote. The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury said to this House that there would be a vote. The Lord High Chancellor and the Home Secretary sent a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee promising us that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant and all the other opt-ins and opt-outs. Now that we come to it, however, it is proposed that there will be a vote, after extra debating time, on a number of relatively obscure measures that require statutory instruments, and that that will be intended to determine the view of the House. That is not proper parliamentary procedure; it is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedure.

I often disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—and with others, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—on European matters, but this debate today is of a degree worse than our disagreements. Our disagreements are polite and they reflect our fiercely held views, which we discuss in an upright and, I hope, proper fashion. This approach and this motion are fundamentally underhand. That is why there is such anger, not only on the Conservative Benches and among Eurosceptics. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is shocked by this, as are the Scottish nationalists, who think that this is a poor way of behaving.

[Mr Redwood]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the irony that as we approach the 800th anniversary celebration of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the rights we have taken from those previous generations should be at the heart of this debate but they are not going to be debated today?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my right hon. Friend; we should be having the time to debate the issues that really matter, not obscurities.

[Martin Horwood]

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to leave the Liberal Democrats out of his list. Those of us who support the European arrest warrant would really value the opportunity to argue in favour of it and to vote in favour of it; we want to get the hashtag “Toriessoftoncrime” trending on Twitter and we want to have a real debate. We want that opportunity as well. I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but on this one I do.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because I hope it brings home to those on the Treasury Bench the deep discontent. I was saying earlier how deeply grateful I am to you, Mr Speaker, that you are protecting the rights of the legislature against the Executive by clarifying the terms of this debate. As I look down from here at the Treasury Bench, I want to see something that is solid, but I am worried that it is made of increasingly crooked wood. We want to have it re-solidified and we want this motion withdrawn.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said on a couple of occasions, in response to Members of this House, that you will not call the Home Secretary until later on because others wish to speak. Is there anything to prevent her from speaking before the end of the debate?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be normal for the Home Secretary to speak either at the beginning or at the end of the debate. A most courteous approach was made to me on her behalf suggesting that it might be helpful to the House if she were to wind up the debate, and I agreed to that request. It is not that I am seeking to delay the Home Secretary for one moment; it is that there is provision for others to speak. When they have finished doing so, the Home Secretary can and will speak, and we will look forward to that. I think it would be a bit odd if I suddenly interrupted the flow of the debate now, when other Members are seeking to contribute, but I will take one further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Davis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I quite accept that it is not normal procedure, but at the moment we are debating something we know not what. We do not know whether the Government are going to change the motion or stay with this motion. My stance on this matter is entirely different depending on which of those two outcomes it is. Therefore, it might be useful for the House to know rather earlier than usual.

[Mr Speaker]

I can see the force of that proposition. If other Members are prepared to exercise a self-denying ordinance and to hear from the Home Secretary, they can do so. It would be normal to allow the shadow Minister, who, in any case, wants to speak if at all only very briefly, to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman still wish to contribute? [Interruption.] He appears to be exercising a self-denying ordinance and I have a sense that colleagues would like to hear from the Home Secretary in winding up the debate. [Interruption.] In that case, I call Mr David Hanson.

17:18

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to focus the Home Secretary’s mind, if I may. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he says that every Member came here tonight expecting to be debating 35 measures; Members in all parts of this House believed that to be the case over the weekend. I also find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he says that this business is being done in an underhand way, because all Members of this House expected to come here this evening to debate this matter and the issue of the European arrest warrant.

Strangely, I also find myself in agreement with the Home Secretary, in that I am led to believe that she wants to debate and vote on the European arrest warrant. Let me let you into a secret, Mr Speaker: so do we. We would like to vote on the European arrest warrant and to give the Home Secretary our support, and I believe the Liberal Democrats would like to support her, too. We happen to take a view that murderers, child pornographers, bank robbers and fraudsters should be brought to justice in this House—[Laughter.] And perhaps elsewhere.

I disagree strongly with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and, I suspect, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). They do not want to sign up to the European arrest warrant for reasons that we need to debate. I thought that today was about that debate. Over the weekend, I was expecting to have that debate today, as I am sure did all Members of this House. It now appears that that is not going to happen. Let me offer the Home Secretary a way out.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman might wish to correct the record. I can assure him that we, like him, wish nasty people to be locked up after proper prosecution. The argument is over who has the ultimate control over our criminal justice system to do so.

[Mr Hanson]

Well, let us have that argument. First, let me offer the Home Secretary a way out. For the purposes of today’s debate, we will vote against the programme motion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said. I invite those Members who are dissatisfied with today’s proceedings and—dare I say it—the Liberal Democrats who do not hold Government positions, to join us in that.

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

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will give way in a moment.

If we do that and the programme motion is defeated, we will, as the Lord Chancellor has said, be in a position to debate this motion for one and a half hours this evening. That is probably sufficient to debate the 11 measures that are down before the House today. Let us defeat that programme motion, and use the 90 minutes on the 11 measures. Let the Home Secretary go away from this House, listen to what people have said from all parts of the House, bring back a formal motion to debate the other measures, including the European arrest warrant, and let people, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham who takes a different view from me—[Interruption.]

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Hanson]

I see the Chairman of the 1922 Committee nodding his head. Let those Members have that debate. Let them exercise their vote and let this House express its will before 1 December on what we should do. This is a problem of the Home Secretary’s own making. She needs to sort it out, and sort it out now.

17:21

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the business motion.

The Lisbon treaty, which was negotiated by the previous Labour Government and which included within it the opportunity for the United Kingdom to opt out of around 130 justice and home affairs measures and then to decide whether to opt back in to a number of measures, did not require any vote to be brought before this House of Commons to undertake those decisions. This Government believe that that was wrong, which is why we have brought a number of debates before this House on these matters. There is also no legislative requirement for us to bring before the House this package of 35 justice and home affairs measures.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

No, I will not give way. Members have been calling for me to stand up and speak, and that is exactly what I am doing.

There is no legislative requirement for us to bring this package of 35 measures to this House for Members to consider and vote on. There is a legislative requirement for us to transpose certain measures into UK legislation. The normal way of doing that is upstairs in a Standing Committee, on a one-and-a-half hour debate on a negative statutory instrument, after 1 December and after the decision by this Government to opt in to a certain number of measures had been taken.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

No, I say to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Lady that I have been asked to explain the Government’s position, and that is what I intend to do.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House agreed that the Home Secretary should speak so that she would right something that we all knew was wrong. This is simply a scoundrel’s defence. This is wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, no. The Home Secretary is entitled to say—and she will say—what she thinks, and the House must hear that.

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear that there was no requirement under the Lisbon treaty or any legislative requirement to bring the package of 35 measures to this House.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary seems to think that the House should be grateful for what we have got, but she and the Prime Minister promised that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant. Will she now admit that, with the motion she has put before the House today, she has broken that promise?

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady will just let me continue, I will explain further to the House. As I have said, there is no requirement to bring any vote to the House. There is a requirement to transpose into UK legislation certain of the 35 measures that we will opt back into. That would normally have been done through the negative statutory instrument procedure in an hour-and-a-half debate upstairs in a Committee, not on the Floor of the House. That would normally have been done after 1 December, so after the date on which the Government had chosen to opt back in, and indeed after we had exercised our opt-in. We did not think that that was right either, which is why we have brought before the House an affirmative measure on a statutory instrument that shows the House the legislative requirements that will need to be made.

However, I have been very clear, the Government have been very clear, and indeed you, Mr Speaker, have been very clear—I am grateful for the clarification in your statement—that the debate we will be having on the motion on the regulations will be wide-ranging and, indeed, will include a debate on the European arrest warrant. I say to Members of the House that it is my intention to speak about the European arrest warrant when that debate takes place. I also say to right hon. and hon. Members that if they vote against this—[Interruption.]

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Home Secretary was listening earlier when you said that the European arrest warrant can only be mentioned peripherally in the main debate, because she has just said that she intends to speak about it. It might be helpful if you reiterated your earlier advice, in case she had not been listening.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that I referred to the requirement for Members to deploy some ingenuity, and I gave quite a full explanation of the situation as I saw it. I do not recall using the word “peripherally”—I hesitate to argue with the hon. Gentleman, who is always very precise in his use of words—but I think that the substance of what I was getting at was clear. Let us now hear what the Home Secretary has to say.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am clear that it is possible in the debate on the regulations to discuss those measures that are not listed in the regulations, and that is certainly what I and other Members intend to do. The Government are very clear that what we are debating in the next debate is the regulations that transpose into legislation those measures that need to be transposed.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

No.

The European arrest warrant is not on that list because it does not need to be transposed into legislation, because that has already been done. However, the Government are clear that the vote that will take place on the regulations will be the vote that determines whether or not we opt into these measures. [Interruption.]

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are talking about the liberties of the subject, this is a very important matter. You have absolutely said in terms that the vote tonight is not about the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary seems to be intimating that we are indeed making an indicative vote tonight on the European arrest warrant. The House of Commons, in a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, needs to know what it is voting on, and we need advice from you and the Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point or order. What Members think is indicative is a matter for them. Indeed, if a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government chooses to argue that something is indicative, that is a matter for that Minister. As a matter of fact, I was simply trying to be clear with the House, as I think was the Home Secretary in her previous paragraph, to be fair, that tonight’s vote—I have been asked regularly what the vote is about—is on the regulations. The vote is not—I repeat, not—on the European arrest warrant.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fact, I was attempting to be as clear as you have been that the vote on the next motion will be a vote on the regulations, which includes those measures in the package of 35 that we wish to opt back into which require to be transposed into UK legislation. But the Government are clear that we will be bound by that vote, and if this House chooses not to transpose those measures and votes against the regulations, it will be voting against the Government opting into all the measures, including the European arrest warrant.

My final point is this: we have the option now of a vote on the business motion. The decision for Members of the House is whether to vote against that business motion and have one and a half hours for debate on all these matters, or to vote in favour of the business motion and have four and a half hours for debate. I trust they will take the latter option.

[Yvette Cooper]

Mr Speaker, you pointed out how unusual it was for the Government also to reply to debates on a business motion, but is it not normal in a reply to respond to the points that have been made in the debate? In the debate it was clear that the Home Secretary promised a debate on the European arrest warrant and promised a vote on it, and she has not given it. Do you agree that that is not a reply to a business motion debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I think I have set out the position clearly and there is nothing at this stage for me to add, but Members will form their own view. That is the fairest thing I can say—Members will form their own view.

I think I am right in saying that the Home Secretary has concluded her speech.

[Mrs May]

Indeed, Mr Speaker.

Question put.

17:31

Division 77

Ayes: 251

---

Conservative: 209
Liberal Democrat: 40
Independent: 1

Noes: 242

---

Labour: 192
Conservative: 36
Scottish National Party: 4
Liberal Democrat: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
UK Independence Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Criminal Law

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Nineteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Documents considered by the Committee on 5 November 2014, HC 219-xviii; Seventeenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, The UK’s block opt-out decision: summary and update Report, HC 762; Twenty-first Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2013-14, The UK’s block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures, HC 683, and the Government Response, HC 978; Ninth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2013-14, Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK’s opt-in decision, HC 615, and the Government Response, HC 954; Eighth Report from the Justice Committee, Session 2013-14, Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block opt-out, HC 605, and the Government Response, HC 972; First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees, Session 2013-14, The Government’s response to the Committee’s Reports on the 2014 block opt-out decision, HC 1177.]

17:45

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

Protocol 36 is the part of the Lisbon treaty that relates to the United Kingdom’s opt-out from the policing and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the treaty came into force. The opt-out provisions are unique to the United Kingdom, and were negotiated by the previous Administration. Under the terms of protocol 36, the UK had to decide before the end of May 2014 whether it wished to opt out of all the police and criminal justice measures—some 130 in all—that predate the Lisbon treaty. The opt-out had to be exercised en masse; we could not simply leave the measures that we did not like.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I want the Home Secretary to be very clear, and give a yes or no answer. Will the House get the chance in the next couple of weeks to vote on the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

The House is getting a chance today to debate the European arrest warrant. The House has been clear that it wished to have such a debate. We were very clear during the debate on the business motion that regulations are before the House, and the House will vote on those regulations. I have also been very clear about the Government’s position. We have brought those particular regulations before the House because they are the only ones that we need to transpose into UK legislation. I will come on to comment on the European arrest warrant. As I said earlier, I am very clear that the vote today relates to whether or not the UK opts back in to the package of measures that we have negotiated. The package comes together; it is not an a la carte menu from which one can pick and choose.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary telling the House that she disagrees with the ruling made by the Speaker—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

No. I can tell the right hon. Lady that I would certainly not stand at the Dispatch Box and disagree with the Speaker’s ruling. The Speaker’s rulings are about what happens in this Chamber and what votes are on. In fact, the words I have just said agree with the Speaker’s ruling—that the vote will be on the regulations on the Order Paper. We have tabled the motion because we believe it right that the House, in debating and considering the package of measures that we want to opt back in to, sees very clearly what legislation is necessary to transpose certain measures.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

But the Speaker has said in terms that we are not voting on the European arrest warrant. Is the Home Secretary now arguing that by voting for the regulations tonight we are joining the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

I have been very clear that the formal vote before the House is on the regulations. I have also been clear that the Government—I will come on to explain our timetable, which has some relevance to this matter—want to opt back in to measures that are in a package. If the House votes against transposing some of those measures into UK legislation, it is effectively voting against our package of measures. On that basis, we can speak about all the measures within the package of 35 measures.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Why did the Home Secretary not just include the European arrest warrant in tonight’s motion?

[Mrs May]

I have explained that the statutory instrument transposes those measures that require legislation. I repeat—I am happy to speak about this again later—that we are not required to transpose the European arrest warrant into UK legislation because it is already in UK legislation, in the Extradition Act 2003.

We had an opportunity to exercise the opt-out, and we did so. We have brought back more than 100 powers from Brussels.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will make some progress, because the time for the debate is now more limited and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

As the Prime Minister says, we have overseen the biggest return of powers since this country joined the EU, but we have always been clear that we wanted to remain part of a smaller number of measures that give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical help in the fight against crime. This Government and this party will never put politics before the protection of the British public and that is why we are seeking to remain part of a package of 35 measures that help us to tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that in the event the House votes down these 11 measures, she will still be free to opt in to the European arrest warrant and, what is more, she will still be free to move forward with those 11 measures through other parliamentary means? That is the case, is it not?

[Mrs May]

We have been very clear that we have brought before the House tonight those measures that are required to be transposed into UK legislation. We have also been clear that in the Government’s view, a vote against those regulations is a vote against the package of 35 measures. I have been very clear that the 35 measures hang together. Even though only a small number require transposing into legislation, they are a package of measures and not a pick and mix.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am going to make some progress.

The package is the product of careful deliberation in this House and beyond. It follows consultation with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, our security and intelligence agencies, the devolved Administrations and the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the Government of Gibraltar, victims’ groups and many more. It has been scrutinised by Committees in both Houses of Parliament and the Justice Secretary, and I, along with other Ministers, have appeared before those Committees to give evidence on the Government’s approach. We have also published two Command Papers on the issue.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am pleased that we will, I hope, opt in to a range of these measures. As the Home Secretary says, this has taken a huge amount of time, effort and negotiations with Europe. How much benefit is there, given that most of the measures to which we are not opting in have expired?

[Mrs May]

There is considerable benefit, and I point my hon. Friend towards the measures on minimum standards for the justice system—there are about 20, I think. It is not the view of the Government, and it is certainly not the view of the Conservative party, that we should be part of the European justice system that some people think some of Europe wishes to introduce. Coming out of the minimum standards measures was an important part of ensuring that we did not go in that direction.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the scrutiny process, but, as she well knows, all three Select Committees—the European Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Justice—have said that there has not been proper consultation with Parliament on these matters. What has happened today amply demonstrates our concerns and nothing has emerged to change our view. Will my right hon. Friend explain how on earth all this has happened?

[Mrs May]

I am aware of the views expressed to this House by my hon. Friend and by the Chairmen of the Justice and the Home Affairs Committees. I remind my hon. Friend that I, the Justice Secretary and other Ministers have appeared in front of the Select Committees of this House, of the European Scrutiny Committee and of Committees of the House of Lords on a number of occasions on the subject of these measures. We have also held a number of debates on the Floor of the House and varying views have been expressed from both sides of the House about the measures that have been proposed.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given that the Home Secretary wrote yesterday in The Sunday Times that the European arrest warrant and 34 other measures were in the package proposed by the Government, and given that she knew that the European arrest warrant was one of the most controversial of those measures, will she explain why she has included those issues in the regulations that we are discussing today but left out the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

It has been made clear that it is possible to discuss the other measures in our debate today, and I have explained why the regulations include only certain measures—those required to be transposed into UK legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to refer to the package of 35 measures being the product of tough negotiations in Europe. In July, when we last gave Government time for a debate on the issue, I informed the House that good progress had been made in negotiations with the European Commission and other member states and that we were close to reaching an in-principle agreement. The matter had been discussed at the General Affairs Council in June, but some member states had expressed technical reservations. I published Command Paper 8897, which included the full list of measures discussed at the General Affairs Council and impact assessments of each of those measures. I had hoped to be able to return the matter to Parliament for consideration before the summer recess, but the reservations expressed by other member states meant it was not possible to do so. In September, two of those member states lifted their reserves and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that on Friday, Spain, the one remaining member state blocking the deal, formally lifted its reservation in Brussels.

I believe that the deal we have negotiated in Europe and that we are bringing before the House today is a good one for the United Kingdom. It includes important tools such as SIS II, the second-generation Schengen information system, which the United Kingdom is scheduled to join shortly. That will further strengthen our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.

The package of measures we have negotiated includes Europol, which does excellent work under its British director, Rob Wainwright, to tackle cross-border crimes. Three weeks ago, for example, Europol played a key role in Operation Trivium, a UK-wide operation led by West Midlands police that saw police forces from 14 European countries jointly targeting foreign criminals in the UK. Senior officers from across Europe came together at the control centre in Edgbaston to witness the operation in action and Europol provided a mobile unit to co-ordinate activities on the ground. In the first 48 hours of the operation, more than 700 suspected criminals were arrested and a further 950 were handed on-the-spot fines for minor offences, cautioned or summonsed to court. They included a 51-year-old Polish man arrested on suspicion of involvement in a fraud of more than £11,000.

Europol also played a key part in tackling the horsemeat scandal that so appalled this House and the British public last year, as did Eurojust, another of the measures in our package.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Home Secretary keeps talking about a package of measures, but, of course, this is not a package of measures but things that she has bundled up into a package. As she appears to be making up parliamentary procedure as she goes along, will she explain how on earth those people who agree with some of the measures but not others should vote this evening?

[Mrs May]

I described them as a package because that was what was open to us under the terms of the Lisbon treaty negotiated by the previous Labour Government. We have to opt back in to a group of measures. There are measures in the package that interrelate. For example, the European supervision order relates to the European arrest warrant. We cannot simply pick and choose individual measures; many of them interrelate and should be considered together.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Home Secretary made but a fleeting reference to consultation with the devolved institutions, but since Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land frontier with another EU member state, will she take the opportunity to put on the record that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, David Ford, and the Assembly support the measures before us this evening?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The Justice Minister in Northern Ireland supports the measures, as does the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland, Frances Fitzgerald, who has made very clear the consequences if the House rejects the measures and if the Government do not opt in to them.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Home Secretary may recall that she and I stood on the same Conservative manifesto, which said very clearly that a Conservative Government would reassert the “ultimate authority” of the House of Commons over important matters and repatriate powers in criminal justice. Does she not see the danger that if we opt back in to 35 measures, without having any legislation to assert our primacy, our criminal justice system can be entirely controlled from Brussels?

[Mrs May]

I will refer later to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and what that means in relation to the measures before us. This is a simple decision about whether we want to be part of practical law and order measures that make a difference to the ability of our law enforcement agencies to catch criminals.

The support and co-ordination provided by Eurojust were invaluable to the UK’s law enforcement agencies and prosecutors during the fraud investigation that followed the revelation of the horsemeat scandal. Eurojust was extremely proactive and offered immediate assistance to the prosecutors in our Crown Prosecution Service, and provided vital information on investigations that were being carried out right across Europe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will make a little progress before I take more interventions.

The assistance of Eurojust has proved instrumental in the prosecution of animal rights extremists in the UK. Through its facilitation of meetings between the relevant European jurisdictions, evidence was obtained of the existence of an international conspiracy to blackmail the suppliers and customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences which was used in the UK trial.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I ought to declare an interest because my wife is a judge who deals with European arrest warrants on a regular basis. The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense. Please will my right hon. Friend stick to her guns, because I do not want this country to become a haven for foreign criminals?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I assure him that I will refer to a number of measures that will ensure that there is judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant and proper consideration of such cases in the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right about another thing. The Government have negotiated this package and are bringing it to the House because we believe that these measures are necessary to ensure that we can continue the job of keeping people safe and bringing criminals to justice.

I will outline some of the other vital measures in the package of 35 measures. However, I said earlier that I would say a little about the timing of today’s debate, which I think is relevant to the consideration that Members have given to the motion. Now that the final reservation has been lifted on our deal, which, as I said, happened on Friday, we must allow for discussion at a Council in Brussels before the month is out. Very few appropriate options remain. We must add items to the agenda of a Council 16 days in advance to guarantee their inclusion. That means that we do not have long to complete our domestic processes. To avoid an operational gap for our police and law enforcement agencies, we must complete the entire process before 1 December. That involves formally notifying Brussels about the measures that we wish to remain part of.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way? It is important.

[Mrs May]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for just one moment. He will know that I am usually very generous in giving way to him during debates on European matters, even though I sometimes disagree with the points that he makes. However, the point that I am about to make is important too.

If we do not complete the entire process before 1 December, including notifying Brussels of the measures that we wish to remain part of, we will have an operational gap, which I believe would be a real problem for our police and law enforcement agencies. We must be ready to transpose those measures fully into our domestic law. That is why it is important that we hold votes in this House and the other place, and complete the necessary legislative steps as soon as possible—hence the motion before us.

[Sir William Cash]

In the light of what has happened so far and the fact that we do not have the opportunity to vote on the European arrest warrant, as Mr Speaker has indicated, will the Home Secretary confirm that we will have an opportunity to do so, as was promised not only by her, but by the Prime Minister? We have not had such a vote. Will she guarantee that we will have one after a proper debate on the matter?

[Mrs May]

I have set out quite clearly the Government’s view on the motion before the House and the debate that we are having. I will attempt to make progress, because I want to get on to some of the other issues, including the European arrest warrant. I recognise the degree of interest in that and the concern that remains among some hon. Members. That is why I wish to have time to speak about that particular measure.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way once more and then I will make progress.

[Steve Rotheram]

Following on from what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, when the Prime Minister was offered parliamentary time to debate the European arrest warrant by the Leader of the Opposition, he said:

“There is only one problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s …question: we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election—his questions have just collapsed.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]

What has changed, Home Secretary?

[Mrs May]

We are having a vote on the regulations tonight and it has been made very clear that people are able to discuss the European arrest warrant in the debate.

If we were to vote against the motion tonight and did not opt back in to the measures—because a vote against the motion tonight would be a vote against the package of 35 measures—we would find ourselves kicked out of Europol within weeks and our extradition arrangements would be thrown into legal uncertainty, potentially for years. That would risk harmful individuals walking free and escaping justice, and would seriously harm the capability of our law enforcement agencies to keep the public safe.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will make a little more progress and will then give way to my hon. Friend.

For the reasons I have just given, the Government have always been clear that it is in our national interest to remain part of these vital measures and to do so without an operational gap.

Over the past four years, and particularly since we announced our intention to exercise the opt-out in July 2013, a number of hon. Members have proposed alternative courses of action to me and my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary as we have undertaken our negotiations in Europe. A number of hon. Members are interested in the position of Denmark with regard to justice and home affairs matters. Some have said that it provides a potential model for the UK to follow. I believe that it is a false comparison. Denmark has a separate protocol to the Lisbon treaty that excludes it from participating in post-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures. It has concluded third-country agreements with the EU because it has no other way to participate in those measures.

By contrast, protocol 36 to the Lisbon treaty sets out the process by which the UK can opt out of and rejoin justice and home affairs measures. There is no precedent for an international agreement between the EU and a member state that already has the ability to participate in EU measures by specific means. The European Commission argues that protocol 36 provides adequate provision and renders a third-country agreement unnecessary. Riding roughshod over that would involve walking away from a very good deal for the UK and risk damaging our support for future negotiations in Europe. Even if we could persuade the European Union, it would take years to thrash out, guaranteeing a lengthy operational gap in the fight against crime and a risk to the British public that would be unacceptable.

Finally, I hope hon. Members will heed the Danish example in full. Every agreement that Denmark has made separately with the European Union has required Denmark to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In effect, the Danish agreements that have caught the attention of some hon. Members simply bind Denmark to EU law by another legal means. I suspect that is not what those hon. Members had in mind.

I have explained that only a certain number of the measures require transposition through the regulations before the House. The regulations make provision to give effect to the European supervision order in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. That allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK, rather than spend months and months abroad awaiting trial. It will therefore stand alongside the reforms that we have made to the arrest warrant, making it easier for people like Andrew Symeou, whose case has been championed admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), to be bailed back to the UK and preventing such injustices from occurring in future. The connection between the supervision order and the arrest warrant, one of which is being transposed in the regulations and one of which is not, is an example of the inter-connectedness of the package of measures.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.

I mean this question completely sincerely. One reason why I passionately support the British courts and jury system is that one never knows when one might get into trouble or be wrongly accused oneself. I realise that it is extremely unlikely, and it is a personal question, but if she were wrongly accused of something in, say, Croatia, would she rather rely on British justice and traditional extradition procedures or on the say-so of a prosecutor in Croatia?

[Mrs May]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come on to explain how we have changed the European arrest warrant so that British judges are now interposed in the system in a way that they were not always in the past. Those measures have been an important advantage, and some arrest warrant requests to the UK have already been rejected as a result.

I do not want to lose sight of some of the other measures in the package. For example, the regulations also cover the European criminal records information system. We are already taking steps to identify foreign nationals who are abusing our openness and hospitality by committing crimes in this country. Operation Nexus, a groundbreaking initiative taken by the Metropolitan police and immigration enforcement, helped us to remove more than 2,500 foreign nationals during its first two years, including 150 dangerous immigration offenders considered by the police to represent a particularly serious threat. As I said, it began with the Metropolitan police, but it has recently been extended to the West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester forces and six other forces including Police Scotland, and we wish to extend its work to every force in England and Wales. ECRIS is a key tool that supports that operation and thereby helps to keep our streets safe.

As people find it easier to move around the globe, we must ensure that our law enforcement agencies can exchange information more readily too. In 2006, the UK made and received no requests at all for criminal records from other EU member states. In 2012-13 we made over 25,000 requests, and last year that figure was 41,500. I recently announced that the Government would increase the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals by introducing full checks on foreign nationals arrested in the Metropolitan police area. Given that 30% of those arrested in London are now foreign nationals, it is clear that that is an operational necessity. That is also why our package of 35 measures also includes the Swedish initiative, which simplifies the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement agencies, and the data protection measure, which protects personal data transferred in the fight against crime. Those measures both require transposition, and they are covered in the regulations.

Another of the measures in the regulations provides for joint investigation teams between our police and their European counterparts. It allows our police to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill, which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking into the UK of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland; and Operation Rico, which resulted in 110 arrests, mostly in the UK and Spain.

[Dr Huppert]

The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. She has made a strong argument for cross-border co-operation with our European partners, but one measure that she is not opting into is the internal security fund, which involves about £3 billion for measures across Europe to tackle cross-border crime. We are one of only two countries that have not opted into that; will she consider doing so, so that we can continue to work across borders?

[Mrs May]

We were clear about the package of measures that we wished to opt into—the 35 that we identified. We looked at all the 130-odd measures that were subject to protocol 36, and we believe that the package that the Government have published for Members is the right one to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they need.

Another measure in the package is the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps to remove foreign criminals from British jails—prisoners such as Ainars Zvirgzds, a Latvian national convicted of controlling prostitution, firearms and drug offences and assault. In April 2012, he was sentenced to thirteen and a half years’ imprisonment in the UK, and in June this year he was transferred out of this country to a prison in Latvia, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence. Had it not been for the prisoner transfer measure, he would have remained in a British prison at a cost to the British taxpayer of more than £100,000.

As I indicated earlier, I have taken part in a number of debates on these issues. From those debates, and from the debate that we had earlier and the comments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today, it is absolutely clear that the measure that attracts the most interest from Members is the European arrest warrant.

Extradition is always an emotive subject. It raises important questions about the civil liberties of British citizens, the quality of justice in other countries, the role of our own courts and how we bring criminals to justice, and I understand those concerns. I remind hon. Members that I am the Home Secretary who blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States, and who reformed our extradition arrangements so that, when prosecution is possible in both this country and another, British courts can block extradition overseas if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so. I therefore share many of the concerns that have been raised about the European arrest warrant in the past. Indeed, as a member of the shadow Cabinet I voted against its transposition into British law by the last Labour Government. That is why, as Home Secretary, I have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections that we can offer to British people and others who are wanted for extradition.

The changes that we made through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the arrest warrant that sits in our package of 35 measures is a better and safer arrest warrant than the one operated over the past decade. Under the last Government, British citizens could be extradited for disproportionately minor offences, so the law has been changed to ensure that arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge must now consider whether the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate, and a British judge must also consider whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for taking a second intervention from me.

The Home Secretary knows well that a Mr John Downey walked free from the Old Bailey earlier this year. He had been charged in connection with the Hyde park bombing, which killed four innocent British soldiers, and was also sought in connection with the Enniskillen bombing and the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment men in Northern Ireland. He walked free because the Northern Ireland Office had signed off a letter in 2007—not during the current Administration—for a category of people known as the on-the-runs. Mr Downey is now enjoying the air of County Donegal. Would the UK opting into the European arrest warrant help the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland retrieve Mr Downey to face serious criminal charges if the Police Service of Northern Ireland had sufficient evidence?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the case that the hon. Lady raises and her concern about it. I do not think it would be right for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on an individual case, particularly one that involves certain other matters that are not only relevant to the measures that we are discussing. As she says, they relate to decisions taken some time ago about the issue of on-the-runs.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend and ask her to stick to her guns on this matter? She is delineating the changes that she has caused to be made to the European arrest warrant. It is different from how it was before, and we can and must support it in the interests of justice, because it will prevent this country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists and criminals. Furthermore, does she recall that Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, told the Committee that I sit on, the Home Affairs Committee, that he supported the European arrest warrant? He said that it was the best tool to accomplish what my right hon. Friend and the rest of the House want to achieve.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and as an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee he has looked at the matter in some detail. He is absolutely right that the Committee was clear about the benefits of the European arrest warrant. We have indeed made changes to it, thanks to which the National Crime Agency refuses requests before they even get to our courts in the case of the most trivial offences, freeing up police and court time for more serious matters.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you made it clear that reference to the European arrest warrant was to be made only in passing. The Home Secretary has been speaking about the European arrest warrant for the past 10 minutes. Is that not in total contravention of what you ruled earlier?

[Mr Speaker]

I said in my statement that I intended to offer latitude, so that the matters of which the House wishes to treat may be properly aired. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in seeking clarity from the Chair, but nothing I have heard so far has conflicted with that. I intended—and I intend—pragmatically to handle matters from where we are, which, as I think we all agree, is sub-optimal.

[Mrs May]

Our reforms have also clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so nearly 40 times since our reforms came into force in July. Under the old arrest warrant, people were being detained for long periods overseas before being charged or standing trial. We have changed the law to require that a decision to charge, and a decision to try the person, has been made in the requesting country before they can be extradited.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her personal interest in the case of my constituent Andrew Symeou, and to the Minister. On this point, which is often known as the Symeou clause, does she have confidence—this is something that I and my constituent lack—that the decision to charge and try will necessarily follow with the same speed and alacrity as in this country and many other countries? We are totally reliant on those other countries to enforce such measures quickly, else people will languish in jail because there is a difference between the decision to charge and the different decision to try.

[Mrs May]

In our changes to the legislation we are clear that this is about the decision to charge and to try. As I mentioned earlier, my hon. Friend has been assiduous in championing the issue because of the case of his constituent Andrew Symeou and we all recognise that that sort of circumstance led many people to query the European arrest warrant and be concerned about its operation. The legislative changes we have made allow a British court to decide that unless there is a decision to charge and try an individual, it can reject the European arrest warrant. In addition, we have also made changes so that an individual can be transferred temporarily to give evidence and be returned to the United Kingdom, or to give evidence by video link, for example, so that they do not need physically to be taken to the other country concerned.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nick de Bois]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I note the importance of the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, so I will give way to him again.

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s attempt to explain that point, but perhaps I can ask her about another issue. The courts are not allowed to take into account the record of a country in its effectiveness at pursuing a case from charge to trial-ready. Would such a requirement on the courts provide more confidence that they can look beyond the initial application to extradite and hold to account countries that fail to deliver?

[Mrs May]

I note my hon. Friend’s point, but I believe that the changes we have made are sufficient to ensure that our courts are able to make judgments on charge and trial, and therefore a judgment on whether a European arrest warrant should be put into place. I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

[Chris Bryant]

I did not have to ask this time, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I fully agree with what she is saying about the European arrest warrant and with many of the changes that she has managed to introduce and negotiate with other countries. I agree with all that, but not with the process she is adopting. On 29 October, when asked about the European arrest warrant, why did the Prime Minister say not just once but four times:

“I am not delaying having a vote on it. There will be a vote on it…we are going to have a vote, we are going to have it before the Rochester by-election”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]

The Speaker has already said that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. So that all Members of the House can at least reckon that they have had a fair deal, will the Home Secretary please give us a proper vote next week?

[Mrs May]

And the hon. Gentleman started off so nicely—such a disappointment. As I have said, the National Crime Agency is refusing arrest warrants in certain circumstances, and as I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), those require people to be able to be charged and stand trial. Some hon. Members were worried that arrest warrants were being used for investigatory purposes rather than prosecution, and, as I said, that is why we have allowed people to visit an issuing state temporarily to be questioned, or to do so via a video link without even leaving these shores.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

These post-July changes are extremely welcome, but one point that has not yet been made is that 95% of European arrest warrants that are applied for from this country are for foreign nationals. It is foreign countries wanting their nationals back to prosecute them—these are foreign nationals, foreign criminals, who have come to the United Kingdom because they think that it can be a safe haven. The European arrest warrant is enabling the countries where the offences were committed to get their nationals back—95% of those warrants do not apply to UK citizens but to foreign citizens.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is prescient because it was a point to which I was coming soon in my speech, and it is an important statistic. Sometimes people think that the European arrest warrant is just used to extradite United Kingdom citizens from the United Kingdom, but that is not the case.

Hon. Members have expressed concerns about people being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they consent to extradition, so we have lifted the requirement that individuals lose their right to “speciality protection” when they consent to extradition. Those changes have been made in UK law, and came into effect earlier this year. They are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The concept of proportionality is hard to define and therefore hard to understand. The Home Secretary has already given examples of cases that have been refused on the basis that they are too trivial. Can she give an example of the least serious offence where extradition has been possible since July?

[Mrs May]

I do not have a list of all the European arrest warrants that have been refused, but there are two steps to the proportionality decision. The first is an administrative decision taken by the National Crime Agency as the body that initially receives the request. Then there is the possibility for the courts to make a determination about proportionality, and they will consider a variety of issues. It is not a tick-box approach; the courts will make judgments not just about the nature of the crime but about the nature of the disposal available in the other member state in relation to that crime, so that they can decide whether the arrest warrant is appropriate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) indicated that the vast majority of people extradited from the UK—more than 95%—are foreign nationals. They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults and seven terrorism cases. In the same period, the arrest warrant has been used to return 647 people to this country to face justice. The list includes 51 suspected killers, 80 suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs, and one suspected terrorist.

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

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has come to the issue of the United Kingdom causing the extradition of others from abroad. Does she accept that the European arrest warrant brought an end to the rather hideous spectacle of well-known criminals living off their ill-gotten gains and sunning themselves on the Costa Brava?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and there are many people, particularly from Spain, whom we are now able to extradite in a rather more efficient process than was the case previously, and they are exactly the sort of people to whom he refers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I say to right hon. and hon. Members that I am conscious of the time I have been speaking for. I have taken a number of interventions, but I wish to make progress because others wish to speak in this debate.

Some opponents of the European arrest warrant say we should refuse to remain part of it and instead rely on the European Council convention on extradition of 1957. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) noted on the radio last week:

“If we have to fall back temporarily on the old Council of Europe conventions, extraditions will be slower.”

That view was echoed today by the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee, which stated that

“there is no convincing case for disagreeing with the conclusions previously reached by the European Union Committee that ‘If the United Kingdom were to leave the EAW and rely upon alternative extradition arrangements, it is highly unlikely that these alternative arrangements would address all the criticisms directed at the EAW. Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.’”

[Mr Raab]

I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s elucidations. What I am seeking to understand is why we cannot opt out of all the measures, including the EAW, and negotiate a bespoke arrangement without the erosion of democratic control through the European Court of Justice and other means. I listened very carefully to what she said earlier—the Commission’s view that this was unprecedented—and I appreciate it would take time and a lot of diplomatic elbow grease, but can she confirm that there is no legal bar to that course of action and that it is a question of political will?

[Mrs May]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point. It is one he has made to me on a number of occasions. I have addressed the two areas where people have sometimes said that alternative arrangements could be made. The first is that we would fall back on the Council of Europe convention of 1957. I have been absolutely clear in the remarks I have just made that there is one crucial aspect that would cause us problems: the length of time that extradition procedures would take. As the House of Lords Extradition Law Committee has just said, that could undermine public safety.

There is another aspect in which that would be problematic were we to be negotiating with other member states. Without the arrest warrant there are 22 member states in the EU, including France, Germany and Spain, that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK. In the past five years alone, more than 100 people from those countries have been returned to Britain to face justice, many for serious crimes including rape and murder. One of those was Andreas Ververopoulos, a Greek, who committed a violent and sickening sexual assault on a 16-year-old girl in Hampshire in 2007 and then fled home to Greece. In July 2013, Hampshire police linked him to the crime using DNA and an arrest warrant was used to return him to the UK. In April this year, he pleaded guilty to his crimes and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The judge in the case said it was

“an appalling attack on a young and vulnerable girl”.

After seven years of further suffering, the victim and the victim’s family finally saw justice done.

[Yvette Cooper]

I, too, have looked at that case. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is an appalling example of a terrible crime. The European arrest warrant was rightly used in that case. Will she say why the EAW is not on the Order Paper?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows that I have answered that question previously.

The right hon. Lady is right that the case I cited was a particularly difficult and awful case in terms of the crime that was committed. Without the arrest warrant, the individual who committed that crime would still be in Greece today. Before it came into force, Greece did not surrender its own nationals. Indeed, it entered a reservation to the 1957 convention specifically barring the extradition of Greek nationals, so the victims of brutal crimes, such as in this case, would go on suffering. We owe it to them to heed the old warning that justice delayed is justice denied.

I want to come on to one final relevant point that was hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) earlier: the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This pass was sold when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) signed the Lisbon treaty. Our opt-out only applies to those policing and criminal justice measures that precede it. Since the Lisbon treaty came into effect, the UK has signed up to 90 new justice and home affairs measures, accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ over them. We face the same choice today: whether to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ over the small package of measures that we wish to remain part of from 1 December, so that our law enforcement agencies can continue to use those powers to fight crime and keep us safe; or reject those measures and accept the risk to public protection that that involves. That invidious choice is the result of a poor treaty, badly negotiated. In my mind, however, it is clear: this is a vote about law and order, not a vote about Europe.

I am certainly no enthusiast for the European Court of Justice. The ECJ should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or our international relations. That is why, as I indicated earlier, 100 or so measures the Government have opted out of, and will not rejoin, include more than 20 minimum standards measures on sensitive matters such as racism and xenophobia. It is why we have opted out of, and will not rejoin, the EU-US extradition agreement. It is this place that should have the final say over our laws on these matters, and Her Majesty’s Government should be able to renegotiate such arrangements as they see fit.

I understand the concerns raised about the European Court of Justice in the many debates we have had on protocol 36. I believe we must look again at this matter in our renegotiations with the European Union before the referendum that a Conservative Government will deliver by the end of 2017. In the meantime, however, we must act in the national interest to keep the British public safe. We have therefore exercised an opt-out, which it seems no one else would have exercised. We have brought back more than 100 justice and home affairs powers that had already been signed away. We have listened to those who work tirelessly to keep us safe on which of the tools at their disposal are vital to their important work. We have gone to Europe and negotiated a good deal for the United Kingdom. We have won support from the Commission and other member states to remain part of a smaller package of measures in the national interest. Now we must vote to transpose those measures that require transposing and, in doing so, vote to seal the deal.

18:36

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Today we have had a completely shambolic debate. The Home Secretary has given an excellent account of why we should support policies that are not on the Order Paper. She has given an excellent defence of the European arrest warrant, which is not on the Order Paper. I agree with her that the European arrest warrant is immensely important. It helps us to fight crime. It helps the police, in Britain and across Europe, to stop murderers, traffickers and sex offenders. It helps us to deport more than 1,000 suspected foreign criminals primarily to their own countries to face justice. Given that there is a majority in this House in favour of the European arrest warrant, why on earth are we not voting for it? Why the sophistry? Why the games? Why the dancing around? It is just baffling that the Home Secretary is playing games with something so important to criminal justice and to the fight against international crime and terrorism.

The draft regulations cover a series of measures—the 11 measures that are on the Order Paper—and we support them. The confiscation orders, freezing orders on criminal records, the European supervision order, the joint investigation teams—we support them all. We support the measures on confiscation and freezing orders because no country in the EU should become a safe haven for criminal assets. We should be able to confiscate them wherever they are held. We support the two measures on criminal records and conviction. Exchanged data on the conviction of EU nationals should be harnessed for us to identify, locate and stop EU criminals entering our country and committing crimes. We support the European supervision order as a vital reform to interact with the arrest warrant, because suspects awaiting trial should, if appropriate, be in their home state. We support the joint investigation teams because we saw with Operation Golf that co-operation in complex investigations means we can arrest 126 traffickers from across Europe and safeguard vulnerable children not just in Britain but across the continent too. We support the prisoner transfer framework, because it makes it harder for other member states to refuse to take back their nationals from our prisons. We should have that co-operation in place.

We support the rest of the 35 measures that are not on the Order Paper—the measures we do not have a chance to demonstrate our support for and to vote for tonight. We saw, with the problem of foreign criminals entering in the UK, that the Schengen information system is also vital and necessary. We need Europol to support and co-ordinate cross-border investigations. We support closer co-operation on combating child abuse imagery, because with this crime there are no borders and the police need to work with police across Europe and across the world too. We support action to tackle football hooliganism across borders, and as we have made clear many times in the House, we particularly support the EAW. The Association of Chief Police Officers has described it as an essential weapon, and distinguished legal figures, including the former President of the Supreme Court, have argued that

“Britain also risks becoming a safe haven for fugitives from justice, a handful of them British citizens, but the vast majority foreign nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in Europe.”

And they are right.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady believe that our country was a safe haven for foreign criminals before the EAW, and does she believe it is a safe haven now for foreign criminals from countries outside the EU?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were cases before the introduction of the EAW when it took years to extradite suspects—for example, suspected terrorists back to France. We should not be in that situation. If we have people in our country wanted in France for serious crimes, particularly terrorists allegations, we should be able to deport them to face justice.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Is not the important point that in a completely multilateral system we do not stand out, whereas if everybody else opted into the justice and home affairs measures and the EAW, and we alone stood outside, we would become a safe haven, because it would be much easier to stay in this country for extended periods than in any other EU state?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is suggested that we could arrange separate extradition treaties, but in the past when we did that, they took too long and caused immense problems. In the case of Rachid Ramda, the Algerian national arrested in the UK in connection with a terrorist attack on the Paris transport system, France sought extradition from the UK in 1995. The process was completed in 2005. That was when the EAW was not in place.

[Steve Rotheram]

My right hon. Friend started by calling the proceedings in the House “shambolic”. Does she agree that the Home Secretary has got herself into a mess, but that equally the Prime Minister has got himself into a mess, because on 29 October he told the House that he would join Opposition Members in the Lobby on a specific vote on the EAW?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister was asked specifically about the EAW, not the 11 measures on the Order Paper, and he could not have been clearer: he said there would be a vote before the Rochester by-election. That he and the Home Secretary think they can rip up promises made to the House shows that they are not taking this Parliament seriously.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is not this fine mess in many ways of Labour’s making, given that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) gave away the opt-outs? To be clear, would Labour have used the opt-out for any of the 130 justice measures.

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try. I will come to the issues that the Home Secretary has opted out of in a second, but the idea that the Home Secretary’s utter shambles today is the fault of the previous Labour Government is pushing the hon. Gentleman’s political argument to a ludicrous extreme.

The statistics are clear: the EAW helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists, and of the 1,057 people removed under an EAW last year, only 43 were UK nationals, and eight of those were connected to child sex offences. It is because the EAW and the other measures are so important that we should be having a vote on them now.

The Home Secretary has form. We saw it when she was asked about the net migration promise. No ifs no buts, the Prime Minister made a promise—a contract with the British people, he said—but she said it was no longer a promise but a comment. We saw it again today when she dismissed the Prime Minister’s promise to the House that there would be a vote on the EAW.

Frankly, the whole opt in, opt out process has been a con. It is an in/out hokey cokey back to where we started. On the measures to be opted out of, the Prime Minister promised the biggest transfer of power from Brussels back to Britain by opting out of more than 100 measures, but what powers in practice have been brought back? Britain will no longer be expected to have a good practice guide on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, but we will keep one anyway; Britain will not sign up to having a contact point for cross-border allegations of corruption, but the police and Border Force will still have one anyway; we will not sign up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers, but we will get someone to send it to us on the side; we will not sign up to a whole series of accession measures that apply to other countries and did not cover us anyway; we were already opting out of the European judicial network, and we will carry on opting out of it; and we will not be involved in setting up contact points to deal with the other countries in pursuing those responsible for genocide, but we will—quietly—let Europol know whom they should ring.

Time and again, the Home Secretary claims to be repatriating huge numbers of powers, when in fact she is simply opting out of dozens of measures that either do not operate anymore or which cover areas where we plan to carry on regardless, whether we are in or out. So much for a repatriation of powers—it is a repatriation of other people’s phone numbers. She has taken back the Yellow Pages. Congratulations to her.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

Let her try and defend it now.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has said she disagrees with the opt in, opt out process. Will she remind the House which party was in government when it was negotiated?

[Yvette Cooper]

Given the shambles the Home Secretary has presided over today, the idea that she wants to make this about the last Labour Government is frankly ludicrous, and it makes her look silly. She decided what she wanted to opt into and out of, and she then claimed to the House that she had repatriated powers and safeguarded the hugely important things she is still too scared to give the House a vote on.

[Nick de Bois]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he can tell the House whether he thinks, like us, that we should have a vote today on the EAW.

[Nick de Bois]

Since the right hon. Lady has been busy disparaging the 100 things or so she signed up to, does Labour now acknowledge that the Lisbon treaty was one of the greatest betrayals of this country on record?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, nice try. The problem is that we are debating a series of measures that we and the Home Secretary think we should be opting back into. We think that the 11 measures are important, and we want to have a debate today on the additional measures we also think we ought to opt back into: the EAW and the rest of the 35 measures. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Back Benchers disagree, but at least we should have the debate. I can reassure the Home Secretary that there would still be a strong House of Commons majority in favour of her 35 measures, because they are important for fighting crime. Surely, however, we should have that debate so that the House can send a strong signal to Europe and the courts that we support these measures—that they are the right thing for fighting crime and for Britain and Europe.

[Sir William Cash]

Is the shadow Home Secretary effectively saying that she agrees with the treatment of the Kings: a small child with a brain tumour is taken away from his parents in Spain, a European arrest warrant is issued by the British courts—after the July reforms—and the parents are arrested? Was that a good way to treat a child?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think there was dreadful decision making in that case. The police should not have continued with the EAW—they should have withdrawn it—and I think it was a bad decision. However, the hon. Gentleman will know of cases in this country where the police wrongfully arrest somebody; we do not then conclude that the police should not have a power of arrest. Instead, we say there should be proper and thoughtful decision making. What happened to that family should not have happened, and the whole House will have immense sympathy with them. They should not have been put through what they were put through.

[Sir William Cash]

Of course, the big difference is that in the case of the Kings, this European arrest warrant is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It overtakes the Supreme Court; it overtakes this Parliament because the Lisbon treaty has allowed it to do so. That was passed by the right hon. Lady’s Government, but the bottom line is that it has created grave injustice.

[Yvette Cooper]

As I have made very clear, the police and the CPS should have withdrawn that arrest warrant much earlier; it was the wrong thing to do. I also think it important for the police to be able to work with other police forces right across European and right across the world, and to have these particular powers in place to work in Europe. The Home Secretary agrees, and we agree with her that this is the right thing to do, but the way in which we have had this debate in Parliament today has been utterly chaotic.

[Geraint Davies]

We have heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the Kings, but what about Hussein Osman, one of the 21/7 bombers, or the murderer Jason McKay and many more appalling cases of appalling crimes that have been brought to justice by the European arrest warrant? Yes, there have been a few odd mistakes, but a massive number of criminals have been brought to justice who, if the hon. Gentleman had his way, would still be lounging around, posing a threat to the public.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. A huge number of people, including more than 1,000 foreign citizens, are deported from this country, having been suspected of committing crimes, to face justice. I think it is right that we have the ability to do so.

The Home Secretary has basically told us that we should be grateful for the debate that the Government have somehow conceded should take place. You gave your ruling, Mr Speaker, that we were not having a vote on the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary then stood up and completely contradicted that. She went on to say that we were voting on a package of 35 measures and that it was not a “pick and mix”. Why, then, has she picked and mixed only 11 of the measures and put them on the Order Paper rather than the full package of 35? The Prime Minister said categorically that we would have a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet he has refused to allow it.

Again I urge the Home Secretary to rethink. It is not too late for her to rethink and to provide the House with a specific vote on the European arrest warrant. It is true that some of her Back Benchers would vote against it, but the rest of us would vote for it. On the Labour Benches, we want enthusiastically to endorse the Home Secretary’s measures; on the Conservative Benches, Members want rebelliously to oppose them—but we all want a parliamentary vote.

Is not the truth that the Government took the European arrest warrant out of the motion because the Home Secretary and the Chief Whip thought they were being clever? They took it out because they wanted to minimise the rebellion. They wanted to tell journalists that it was a vote on the European arrest warrant, but tell the Back Benchers not to worry because they were voting only on prisoner transfer agreements. They wanted to pretend to Parliament that this was a vote on a package of 35 measures, yet let their MPs fend off UKIP in their constituencies by claiming that they never voted for the most controversial plans.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me whether the European arrest warrant is included in this motion.

[Ben Gummer]

I have the privilege, unlike the right hon. Lady, of being in receipt of communications from the Whips and from the Home Secretary about today, and I have to say that we were all perfectly well aware of what we are debating, as the right hon. Lady has made clear.

[Yvette Cooper]

It might have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had explained that to some of his fellow Back Benchers—and certainly to us, as we really would have liked to know. We thought we were coming to vote on the European arrest warrant. When we saw the motion on Thursday and Friday last week, I specifically wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for clarity, because it was utterly baffling to us.

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

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I allow the intervention of the hon. Member for North East Somerset, we have a point of order.

[Chris Bryant]

“Erskine May” says that if a Member prays in aid a document, they must be prepared to submit it to the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) prayed in aid documents that apparently came from the Government Whips. Surely they should be made available to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not as simple as that. The ruling refers to state papers, and I do not honestly think that some document circulated clandestinely or otherwise as a result of the wishes of Her Majesty’s Government Whips Office necessarily constitutes a state paper. It is probably just some piece of advice or other material being lobbed around the Chamber. It does not have a hallowed status.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think state papers would normally include anything prepared by a civil servant for a Government Minister. I am sure that the papers to which the hon. Member for Ipswich referred were such.

[Mr Speaker]

I have not seen the document in question, although it may be presented at some point. At this stage, all I am saying is that it is not obvious to me that a state paper is at stake or that the hon. Gentleman has suffered any detriment. We will leave it there. I think that the right hon. Lady was about to take an intervention from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) quite understandably does not read his communications from the Whips Office with care and attention. Had he read section 4 of the document on today’s business, he would have found that it said:

“We then move to a motion to approve the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations, which includes the European arrest warrant.”

I hope I have been able to clear up this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

Now that the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have referred to this document, it really must be put in the public domain. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has kindly put it in front of the House so that that we can all consider it.

That demonstrates the chaos we are in. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that this is not a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet communications to Government Back Benchers were very clear that it was.

Let me now give the Home Secretary the opportunity to agree from the Dispatch Box that there will be a vote—an additional vote—on the European arrest warrant before the Rochester and Strood by-election. Let me give way to the Home Secretary so that she can do this. [Hon. Members: “Come on!”] She has not done so, and that is really disappointing. Let me give her one further opportunity to do so, because it is a huge concern for this House if we do not have the opportunity to put the European arrest warrant beyond legal doubt—we know the mischief lawyers will make through judicial reviews. Let us have a chance to give a strong signal that we support all 35 measures, not just the 11 that appear on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It is no good the Home Secretary saying from a sedentary position that we will do that by voting for this motion, because Mr Speaker has said that it is not a vote on the European arrest warrant. We are therefore acting on advice from the House. I urge the Home Secretary again to stand up and say that she will withdraw this motion and give us the opportunity to vote on the full 35. I will let her do so.

[Mrs May]

indicated dissent.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to tell the Home Secretary that this puts the House in an extremely difficult position. She has effectively said that Ministers are just going to make it up. The Speaker has been very clear that this motion does not include a vote on the European arrest warrant. The right hon. Lady has said that she is going to reinterpret this in any way she chooses. That is an irresponsible way in which to treat this House. If she brings this motion back tomorrow, with all 35 measures included, we will support it. We will work with the business managers, we will support it, we will vote for it. Then there would be no doubt that we had categorical support for all 35 measures. The Home Secretary should do that tomorrow. We will get it through—there is plenty of time. Will she do that tomorrow?

If the Home Secretary will not do that tomorrow, she is playing fast and loose with the criminal justice system and fast and loose with this Parliament. On that basis, Mr Speaker, I think we need further debate now, and to return to the issue tomorrow. We have loads of time tomorrow. There is plenty of time for the Home Secretary to do this tomorrow. We could get it all in place. On that basis, I move that the Question be not now put.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question is, that the Question be not now put. As the Previous Question is an unusual procedure, addressed on page 404 of “Erskine May”, I ought to explain the effect of so deciding. I should perhaps first make the point that the question is debatable. If the previous question is agreed to, the draft regulations will not be further considered at this sitting. If the previous question is negatived, the Chair will be required to put the question on the draft regulations straight away, with no further debate. Only if the previous question is withdrawn can the House continue to debate the regulations. As usual, withdrawing the previous question would require the unanimous assent of the House. I repeat, for the sake of clarity and the benefit of Members, that the question is, that the Question be not now put.

[Hon. Members]

Aye.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I put the Question, I want to hear from the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that your clarification meant that it was now possible for speeches to be made in relation to the question that has now been proposed, which is that the question should not now be put. In that case, I am very happy to speak, and other Members may wish to do so as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that that is perfectly orderly. I did say that the question was debatable. No Member appeared to be standing, and Members seemed to be expressing a will to reach a decision by making their voices heard. However, the Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to speak on the matter, and she will now do so.

19:01

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) appears to have been getting herself into quite a state about this particular issue. I am very happy to explain the position to the House again, very clearly. It is very simple. There is a timetable that we must follow if we are to ensure that we can opt back in to measures by 1 December—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather than the merits of what we have previously been debating.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the context is germane to the question of whether the motion be approved, or not approved, as the case may be. I therefore think that an excessively narrow interpretation would be wrong. I think it only right for the Home Secretary, if she wants to speak to the Question that the Question be not now put, to have an opportunity, in an orderly way, to make her case. Let me now hear what I hope will be an orderly account.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on what matters are relevant to the speech that can be made in relation to the question that has now been put.

The motion is about whether or not we should vote on the regulations that are before the House today. As I have made very clear, we put those regulations before the House today because of the timetable with which we are dealing in relation to ensuring that we are able to opt back in to the measures that we need to opt back in to by the requisite date—1 December—if we are to ensure that there is no operational gap.

[Sir William Cash]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although several Select Committees have said that there should be?

[Mr Speaker]

I would have called the hon. Gentleman to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, including the European arrest warrant. However, I have also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the legislative process that would be put in place. There is no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put in place for us to remain party to the European arrest warrant.

[Sir William Cash]

I must point out, with great respect, that what my right hon. Friend is saying is, “We will go by prerogative.” That smacks of everything that is in direct contradiction to the evolving democracy of the House of Commons. The fact is that it was the prerogative that was displaced by parliamentary change and reform. What she is saying is that, on this particular matter, she will decide on behalf of the Government without regard to what Parliament has to say, and that is unacceptable.

[Mrs May]

I am not saying that. I suggest to my hon. Friend that I have been very clear about this matter. The Government have negotiated with the European Commission, and with other member states, a package of measures for us to opt back in to. We believe that those law and order measures are necessary for ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to catch criminals and to deal with matters of justice, which is why we have put before the House legislative measures that will enable United Kingdom law to accord with that package of 35 measures.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has dug herself into a hole. She will not allow the House to decide on the very important issue of the European arrest warrant. Why does she not simply support the procedural motion so that she can go away, have a think, and then come back and allow the House to vote on whether it wants to enter into the European arrest warrant or not?

[Mrs May]

The House said absolutely clearly that it wanted to debate the European arrest warrant, and we have been debating the European arrest warrant. I am very happy to speak about the issue, and I am sure that other Members wish to speak about it as well. I understand that, if the Question put by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is agreed to, the debate will be ended in relation to the European arrest warrant, and the debate will be ended in relation to the regulations.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say something for the sake of clarity? I do not dissent from what the Home Secretary has just said, but what I said, quite specifically, was that if the previous question were agreed to, the draft regulations would not be further considered at this sitting. I did not say, and I am not contending, that debate on these matters will be over for good. I am simply saying that the debate on the regulations would be over for today. It would of course be open to the House, which is in control of these matters, to have that debate on a subsequent day if it wished.

[Lady Hermon]

May I take this opportunity to remind Members on both sides of the House that we in Northern Ireland face an unusual threat? [Interruption.] May I ask Opposition Front Benchers to keep quiet for a moment?

The situation in Northern Ireland is very serious. Dissident republicans—the Real IRA, or whatever they want to call themselves—hide beyond the border in the Republic of Ireland. They come into Northern Ireland, and they murder people. We had a prison officer murdered two years ago, on 1 November. If his widow and his family were aware that we are jeopardising the possibility of these measures coming into force, they would be deeply concerned, as I am. Let me say to Members on both sides of the House that we must make absolutely sure that there is no time gap between these measures, which we have all agreed that we support, and the debate in the House.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting that out so clearly, and she is obviously deeply concerned about that point. She intervened on me earlier in relation to a particular case, and I would add to that that while, of course, in any individual case it is up to the independent police and prosecution services to choose what to do, if we were not in the European arrest warrant it would, as she has indicated, be harder for us to extradite people who had committed offences in Northern Ireland and who were now in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland has been very clear that if there is any operational gap at all between being in the European arrest warrant and opting back in to it, which there would be if we reject the package of measures, that would have serious consequences because it would be assumed that the arrangements currently in place would no longer be extant.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is time tomorrow to debate this, and we would then be able to vote on the whole package of 35 measures, support all of them and have no operational gap by 1 December? Will she confirm there is time to do this tomorrow?

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady is concerned about the operational gap, she is perfectly able to vote for the regulations we have put before the House tonight. She talks about wanting to have time for debate. I say to her that we had time for debate and what has happened is she has raised another motion that is interrupting that time for debate.

[Michael Ellis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an example of game-playing by the Labour party on a crucial matter of law and order and the national security of this country? Opposition Members stand up and say at length how they want to debate this matter, how they want to extend the debate and how they want to cover every angle of it, and then they use an arcane procedure, for which we have to look up the precedents in “Erskine May”, to curtail the debate, and they do so with a view only to obstruct the proper business of this House, against the interests of justice and law and order.

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend—

[Pete Wishart]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can do so, but it is for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, no other debate is required, as has politely been suggested from a sedentary position. It is for the Chair to decide whether to accept what is effectively a closure motion, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that at this rather early stage in debating these particular matters—the previous question—I do not accept the closure motion. We are in the middle of a speech by the Home Secretary and there may be other contributions. A former senior Cabinet Minister wishes to contribute and possibly other Members, so I would take a view on that matter in due course, but not now.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Redwood]

As I understand it, if the Government defeat the Opposition motion there will be no further debate, which would frustrate debate on a very important matter on which the Government wish to have more time. In that event, will the Home Secretary make more time available if colleagues are going to help her vote down the Opposition motion?

[Mrs May]

I did not move this motion that the Question should not now be put. I was very happy for this debate to carry on this evening, because there are hon. and right hon. Members of this House who wish to contribute to it. The right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary has taken the decision that she wishes possibly to curtail the debate that takes place in this House today on this matter. We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm—

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

I will in just one moment.

We started this debate shortly after 4.30 pm, after we had had the urgent question following questions. There was a good length of time available, in which hon. Members, with the degree of latitude you indicated you would give them, Mr Speaker, in relation to the motion on the regulations, would have been able to debate matters that were not just the measures in those regulations. We then went into a business motion debate, which took a considerable time. We have now got into the debate proper on the regulations, but what we have seen—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friends are queuing up to intervene, so I ask my hon. Friend to wait.

What we have now seen is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to change the terms of this debate and to stop the debate taking place, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary that she says she supports the regulations and she says she supports the Government on what we wish to do, and in that case she should allow the debate to take place and vote on the regulations.

[Margot James]

I am very concerned that these measures have a deadline, which is beyond this House’s control, of 3 December, by which time we have to opt in. We have a recess coming up on Wednesday, and I do not share the confidence of the shadow Home Secretary that the Government could find time for a debate tomorrow. The House starts sitting late tomorrow—at lunchtime—so we have minimal time then. We have almost three hours left to us to debate these important matters this evening, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to take all of that time to debate the substantial motion?

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Sir Tony Baldry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the House to ask you to say how many hon. and right hon. Members have written to you asking whether they might catch your eye in this debate, so that if this motion is agreed the House will know how many hon. and right hon. Members will have been prevented from contributing to the substantive debate we were having before the shadow Home Secretary moved her motion?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that a considerable number of Members have applied to speak in this debate. If memory serves, approximately 20, possibly slightly more, wished to speak in the debate as a whole, not in the debate on the previous question—obviously I have had no written applications on that, because it has only just been introduced. On the overall debate today, I had approximately 20 requests to speak. If those Members do not have the opportunity to do so, they will be denied the opportunity today, but they would not, of course, be denied the opportunity subsequently.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I make the point to the shadow Home Secretary that if she says she supports—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Yes, I did say I would give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On the point the Home Secretary has just made on the importance of debate and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), as I understand the procedure, now that we are debating this motion there will be no further debate regardless of the result of the vote we are about to have. Am I right in thinking that?

[Mrs May]

I hesitate to give an absolute ruling, because Mr Speaker has, of course, made it absolutely clear what would happen, but the Question is that the matter be not now put and, as I understand it, if that motion is passed, the draft regulations will not be put to this House. We have been very clear about the timetable we need in order to address this matter.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We are in quite a serious position now. This is a very important matter and it looks as if, whatever happens in the vote in a few minutes’ time, there will be no further debate today. I beg the Government: this is an important issue and we can come back tomorrow. We can just set aside time, have a proper motion, and vote on the European arrest warrant. That is the clear, simple, honourable and direct way of proceeding.

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend, as I have been saying throughout the debates on the various motions tonight, that the Government have been very clear about why they have brought the regulations forward in the form they have done in relation to UK legislation, but we are also very clear that if this House votes in favour of the regulations, then it is endorsing the package of measures the Government have brought forward to ensure we can maintain the ability of our law enforcement agencies to deal with matters they need to deal with.

[Yvette Cooper]

So determined are we that the House should be able to debate and pass these regulations and the rest of the 35 measures that we will not jeopardise those regulations. We want to have a vote tomorrow. The business managers can agree, and will agree, to have a debate and vote on all the measures tomorrow. If not, the Home Secretary can have our Opposition day debate in order to do it then, so there is no gap and we can get all these measures voted on in this House.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady doth protest too much. If she wishes to have a debate and to vote on the regulations, that option is open to her tonight. However, she has chosen to play politics with the matter and tried to curtail the debate. As we have heard from the Speaker’s answer to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), a significant number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate on the regulations. The Speaker has granted latitude regarding the subjects that Members may speak about, and we are able to debate the European arrest warrant and other matters that are not in the regulations.

It is open to the House to have that debate but, sadly, the right hon. Lady has chosen to take a step that could curtail the debate and ensure that the regulations are not put before the House, in which case it would not be possible for Members to have their say on these important matters. She and I agree on the importance of these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I might disagree on how some of them should be finalised and on whether we should be party to the measures, but I am clear that, at this point, the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate and vote on measures that relate to law and order in this country. These are important decisions for the House to make, and I have clarified for the House the exact form of the regulations.

[Geraint Davies]

Is the Home Secretary saying that, if the House votes to terminate this debate today, she will refuse to have a further debate on the European arrest warrant and the statutory instruments—[Interruption.] I know she is saying that we can debate the matters now, but is she saying that if we vote not to do so, she would refuse to have any further debate on them?

[Mrs May]

I have made it absolutely clear that we have had an opportunity to debate these matters today. Ample time has been set aside for the debate. The point of the business motion on which we voted earlier was to ensure that we could have a lengthier debate, rather than the hour and a half that would normally be set aside to debate such regulations. The Government have given time to Members to make their points and contribute to the debate before voting on the regulations. We have been clear about our position on the regulations, but the shadow Home Secretary is now suggesting that she wishes to curtail that debate. The opportunity was there for hon. Members.

This is an important matter, on which different views are held. I have made it clear why we have brought forward the regulations and why we should debate and vote on them now. We need to make these decisions in order to inform the European Commission and other member states and to enable the Council to take a decision, to ensure that there is no operational gap on 1 December.

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

I am mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of the timetable—[Interruption.] I slipped out of the Chamber for one cup of tea; otherwise, I have been here for the duration of the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) will withdraw that remark. Will the Home Secretary explain what difference it would make if we postponed the debate from today to tomorrow or next week, given that we were promised a debate and a vote on these matters by 20 November?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. We said that we would bring this debate to the House and enable a vote to take place according to a particular timetable, and we have done so. We have introduced the measures in the form of regulations because these are the only ones that require transposing into UK legislation. It is absolutely clear what the legislative approach would be. I think that Members would be unwilling to accept any decision by the Government not to introduce the regulations or not to show Members before the 1 December cut-off date what those regulations would look like.

I have not been in this House for quite as long as some right hon. and hon. Members but it is clear to me that all hon. Members wanted an opportunity to stand up and put their arguments on a variety of matters, including the European arrest warrant. That option was open to Members tonight, but the shadow Home Secretary is saying that she wants to forget about the timetable and about our need to put the regulations before the House. Instead, she seems to be saying that the Government should not have brought the debate to the House, because she does not happen to think we have done it in the way she wanted. Well, that is not a position that I am willing to accept. I have made it clear why the regulations have been brought forward and why we feel it necessary to do so. We have debated the European arrest warrant and, had she not moved her motion, other Members would have been able to debate it as well. Her motion is not an attempt to ensure that the House has a proper debate. It is not an attempt to ensure that the House votes on these important measures. It is just an attempt to take away—

[Michael Ellis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the motion smacks of political opportunism on the part of the Opposition? Does she also agree that it is ironic, or perhaps just odd, for them to be talking about voting on this matter given that we are in this position as a result of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated so ineptly and negligently? In the light of the incompetence of the previous Labour Government and of the current Labour Opposition, one might almost think that they were leaderless.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the difficulties that the Labour party is having with its leadership. I will make no further comment—[Interruption.] He tempts me to comment on why the shadow Home Secretary has been intervening in the debate in certain ways this evening, but I will not do so. He has made an important point.

Earlier, I asked the right hon. Lady who had negotiated the opt-out, opt-in arrangements in the Lisbon treaty. She was unwilling to answer the question, because it followed on from her complaining about the inadequacies of those arrangements. Those inadequate arrangements were negotiated and introduced by her own Government, of whom she was a Cabinet member. She refused to accept that point, however. She will not accept any suggestion that we are now having to deal with these opt-out, opt-in arrangements as a direct result of the Labour Government’s negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. This situation is not a result of the way in which this Government have been dealing with these matters. I have made it clear that we should have been able to continue the debate tonight. It is quite wrong for the right hon. Lady to have introduced the new motion and I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will vote against it.

19:29

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

May I ask the shadow Home Secretary to reconsider the rather extraordinary step she has taken of presenting this archaic motion and, indeed, ask the House to consider quite where we are getting to on this issue? Nobody enjoys a good procedural row in the House of Commons as much as I do, and this is one of the best we have had for many years. It is perfectly straightforward—people are entitled to do this if they wish—but the House ought to reflect on what impression this is going to give to the outside world if we are not careful. We are discussing serious matters, yet we are all frolicking about in a rather schoolboy manner while the Whips try to get people to come back for an unexpected debate early in the evening. Let us be candid about what is happening.

Some 20 or 30 years ago, this sort of thing was quite excusable, and people just thought it was one of the things this House did, usually at bizarre hours of the night. Nowadays, that is not the mood out there and we have to be careful that we do not feed the thoughts of those who do not have a very high regard for parliamentary debate and for party politics, and who believed they were told to expect, as every Member of Parliament expected, that we were going to spend an evening having a serious discussion on how we organise our policing and criminal justice system to deal with the extremely important and growing problem of international and cross-border crime. If the whole thing collapses in time for everybody to go and have a good dinner in the early evening, that will not rise to the expectations of serious members of the public who expect us to have a proper debate.

[Steve Baker]

I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend profoundly. I came into politics only because I was sick of the state of it, yet tonight I see the House of Commons alive. We have the opportunity to find out whether the Government are even asking the right questions. Surely he can see that this is about Parliament seizing back the initiative and reconnecting representatives with the public, who are so upset, largely because of the incompetence of the Labour party.

[Mr Clarke]

I have every respect for the strongly held views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, but I think we would win back the respect of the public if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to come.

I sympathise with the shadow Home Secretary’s position; indeed, I agree with her on quite a lot of things. Her problem is that she is leading for the Opposition when in policy terms she agrees with absolutely everything the Home Secretary is proposing, and so do I. I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on her responsible approach to the subject. Everybody in this country responsible for the fight against crime and for the criminal justice system, and wanting to protect the public, is in favour of this opt-in. I am even more closely aligned with her than with some of my colleagues. I voted with her on the Maastricht treaty. I also voted with her on the Lisbon treaty, which paved the way for these international agreements being reached. That has enabled us to be so much more effective than we used to be in dealing with international criminal fugitives, who not only thrived on the Costa del Sol but were very present in London when they fled to this country before we steadily began to develop today’s arrangements.

The shadow Home Secretary has, however, got absolutely no arguments against the Government’s proposals on the merits. She is therefore making a mountain out of a molehill of a parliamentary procedural thing, which she thinks serves her purpose. Of course she is also enjoying herself, which I quite understand in ordinary party political terms. She is allying herself with my right hon. and hon. Friends who profoundly disagree with her and with the Home Secretary, and who are totally opposed to me in my support for these criminal justice measures. The alliance between the shadow Home Secretary and some of the most dyed in the wool Eurosceptics in this House is a very unlikely one, but I go back to where I started.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I agree with him on many issues relating to the European Union, but I gently suggest to him that good Europeans like us need to understand that we have to carry the country with us. That requires proper processes in this House, not chicanery and not a proxy motion; we need a proper motion on the Order Paper, which is why every Committee that has considered this matter—the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee—decided that there should be a separate motion. That is all we are calling for.

[Mr Clarke]

I hope my opening remarks made it quite clear that the one thing I am not going to do is get drawn back into this entertaining procedural debate we had earlier on. It seems to me as plain as a pikestaff that if we have a vote at 10 pm on what is apparently on the Order Paper, the Government will be bound either to proceed with the opt-in to 35 measures or not to proceed with the opt-in to any of them. I repeat that the public are expecting the House of Commons to debate this seriously. It may be that there are not enough Members of Parliament against it and there are not enough arguments against it to delay us much longer, but I do not think that is the case. Some very respectable Government Members are going to oppose it—if they ever get the chance.

One way or another, this argument about whether or not the strict requirements of parliamentary procedure—allowing everybody to get wildly indignant about what we all know is synthetic anger at the way the procedures have been brought forward—is not a wise way of proceeding. One thing that unites most Members so far, all the way from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) to me, is that we think these are serious issues, and to break down now in an atmosphere of such trivial argument will be a triumph for the UKIP but something that all of us ought to regret.

19:36

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

It is always a privilege to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with whom I disagree on only one thing: his statement that he enjoys procedural rows more than anyone else. The attendance in the House at the moment suggests that procedural matters can unite the House in ways that, weirdly, the serious matters we thought we were discussing today appear not to have done early on. I speak in the same terms as he has: in the context of strong support for the measures the Government are putting forward today and for the whole of the 35 measures, which is shared by the official Opposition.

On the shadow Home Secretary’s motion that debate be curtailed—that the Question be not put—it is important that some issues that have not yet arisen be discussed before the House decides whether or not to support it. Never having been here for this sort of debate before, I confess that I am not clear whether there is a winding-up speech from the Government. I see, Mr Speaker, that it may not be entirely clear whether or not there is a winding-up speech—I shall take silence to indicate assent. If there is a Government winding-up speech, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the point that has not come up yet: the attitude of the courts to the motion that we pass.

The point has been made by Members on both sides of this House that the motion before us tonight only commits us to legislating on a certain number of the 35 issues. Clearly, that will be a decision for the courts—the courts will enforce that. In the controversy, particularly about the European arrest warrant, there must clearly be the possibility of legal challenge at some stage, perhaps through an application for judicial review. There is always the prospect that what a Minister says at the Dispatch Box is taken as the intention of the Government of the day and has some weight with the court, but clearly it has much less weight than if this House had passed a legislative motion.

I speak with some experience, and with some scars on my back. As Immigration Minister, I was advised by Government lawyers that if we had a debatable motion and said things from the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, that would entail the courts acting in a certain way on asylum appeals. As it turned out, that was not an effective way to make the immigration and asylum courts change how they operate. Subsequently, the Home Secretary wisely put through primary legislation to allow that to happen.

That experience is analogous to the current situation. Strong supporter as I am of all the motions that the Government wish to opt back into, I wish to know whether they would be fire-proofed against judicial challenge and whether, if we do not pass a motion explicitly opting into all of them, there is any area of ambiguity left that could be exploited by their opponents. It is perfectly clear from the debates that we have already had that the vast majority of Members are strongly in support not only of the motion before us tonight but of what could have been a wider motion to opt into all the elements—[Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip seeks to intervene from a sedentary position. I know that it would be improper for her to stand up and do so, but we are living in interesting times and debating unusual things, so perhaps she would like to speak as well.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Damian Green]

Sadly not. There is a serious point for the Government to address. Given the passions that have been aroused and the novel constitutional and procedural territory into which we have now gone, it would be particularly bad if the House went through all of this, presumably passed this motion and came back on another day to do it again, and then discovered that some of this could be challenged or even overturned in the courts at a later date. Assuming that this debate follows the normal course and there are winding-up speeches, I would be grateful if the Minister could address that issue.

19:42

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

In a fit of enthusiasm earlier this evening, I voted with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Labour party along with a rather distinguished collection of rebels from at least two diametrically opposed positions on Europe and from at least four different political parties. That was because we all shared her frustration at the outcome of the procedural shenanigans that have landed us in this situation in which we are voting on only 11 of the 35 justice and home affairs measures, and not specifically the European arrest warrant, which is the very one that we all wanted to debate and vote on. Now, the right hon. Lady has got a bit carried away. I cannot see any earthly reason, however frustrated we all are with the situation, for not voting on the 11 that we all agree on. There is no logic to that whatever. What justification is there for not voting on co-operation between asset recovery offices of the member states in the field of tracing the proceeds of crime? That is something on which we all agree.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

I am making only a brief speech, but I will happily give way.

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me clarify this matter for the hon. Gentleman. We think we should vote in support not just of these 11 measures but of all 35 so that we have a vote from this House that puts it all beyond legal doubt, and we should do so tomorrow. We will work with him and the Government Front Bench to make that happen. The Government can have our Opposition day debate if they do not want to do it tomorrow.

[Martin Horwood]

There is actually nothing to stop the Opposition using their Opposition day debate for a further indicative vote on the European arrest warrant. I would entirely support the right hon. Lady if that is the motion she chose to bring to the House. However, that does not justify not voting on the statutory instrument that is required by the deadline of 1 December, and voting on it tonight. I am afraid that she is trying to sow more procedural confusion and the Home Office has already provided us with enough of that for one night, so I will not be supporting her in this Division.

19:44

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Whatever the outcome of the Divisions tonight, I think it would be helpful for the House to know what happened to my constituent whom I visited in Wandsworth prison. I was appalled not only by how horrible prison is but by the miscarriage of justice experienced by my constituent.

In Romania, my constituent gave the equivalent of £2 to a young beggar. Two policemen immediately accused him of having sex with this boy, arrested him and took him to a cash point machine where he refused to pay them off as he had done nothing wrong. The prosecution was based on a witness who gave contradictory statements, and the policemen and the beggar were never seen or heard from again. My constituent was arrested on 11 August and was released from Romanian prison on 3 November 2004 by a judge who recorded that there was no evidence against him and that the original arrest warrant was illegal.

My constituent returned home to the UK later in November, following direct advice from the then consul at our embassy. He refused to give money to his interpreter’s friends to make his files disappear, and so without either his knowledge, or that of the British embassy in Bucharest, he was tried and convicted in absentia—illegally—in 2005. An appeal followed, which led to another trial, of which neither he nor the British embassy were made aware. It was only on 3 March 2007, when he received an e-mail from the Romanian desk of the Foreign Office that he first heard news of these events. It said:

“I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you.”

It told him that the Romanian Ministry of Justice had noted that

“you were sentenced to 7 years with…approximately £1,000 fine in moral damages and…approximately £140 for court expenses; your appeal against the above decision was made at the Bucharest Tribunal, the result was that your sentence was reduced to 4 years; this sentence was then open to appeal by the Prosecutor’s Office…and the initial sentence of 7 years was re-set. As far as we are aware, you will not be extradited but will have to pay the damages if the minor involved employs a lawyer to track you down.”

Although the first my constituent knew of these developments was on 3 March 2007, our embassy in Bucharest had been working to find out such information, without any success, for more than two years since the initial trial held in absentia.

On 5 March 2007, just two days later, my constituent was arrested at work in Tenerife, on an European arrest warrant, to serve the sentence in Romania, without any promise of a retrial. He had never been given any opportunity to speak or give evidence in his own defence and was given no promise that he ever would.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

The seriousness of the case to which my hon. Friend refers in his excellent speech will be listened to by his constituent and his constituent’s family. Does that not show that the voters who send us here do not want us to get involved in procedural shenanigans in the House of Commons? They would rather we have a proper debate and allow Members to raise constituency cases as my hon. Friend is trying to do.

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is quite right, but this case gets a lot worse. This man was then held in a Madrid prison while an appeal against his extradition was submitted. The Foreign Office sent a letter to the Spanish authorities saying that, unless the Romanians were willing to ensure that a retrial took place, they should decline Romania’s request to have him extradited. No such assurance was given, but on 14 May 2007 he was taken back to Bucharest where he spent a further 21 months in prison, enduring horrendous conditions which fell considerably short of the minimum required by members of the EU. Most importantly, the Spanish constitutional court, following the Foreign Office request, upheld the appeal against extradition—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are matters of judgment and degree, and I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In the debate on whether the question be not now put, it is perfectly reasonable for Members on either side of the argument to put their case with reference to matters that they think either do or do not require immediate resolution by the House. Where the hon. Gentleman strays somewhat beyond the legitimate parameters of this debate is when he starts to go into great detail, which he is now doing, of the particulars of the matter of the EAW or some other policy matter. That he should not do, and I am clear in my mind, upon receipt of suitable advice, that it would be unwise—I know the hon. Gentleman applied to me to speak in the main debate—for him simply to read out the speech that he would otherwise have made as though the motion moved by the shadow Home Secretary had not been moved. The hon. Gentleman might not have wanted it to be moved, but it has been moved, and he needs to display—dare I say it—a deftness of touch and an adaptability in terms of footwork.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I have been at pains to avoid mentioning anything that might fall outside the motion—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is very difficult to interpret the precise will of the House on these matters without notice. I am alert to the argument for closure, which is what he is seeking, but several other Members have been standing—[Interruption.] Order. Therefore, I am quite open to the case for closure after a reasonable interval, but I would like to see whether, when the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has concluded his speech—before it becomes even more disorderly—there are other hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. If there are, and if my assessment is that they are likely to want to make orderly speeches, I might wish to hear them. If the hon. Gentleman is hopeful that closure might be accepted before too long has passed—I leave the House to consider what constitutes “too long”—he may not be disappointed.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am sorry that I read some of my speech, Mr Speaker, and will leave it there so that you will not feel that I have strayed again. My purpose in speaking in this debate is that, as you have ruled that we are not debating something that we wanted to debate, I wanted the Home Secretary to hear of the specific injustices suffered by my constituent. I would have been able to read those out, but now I will not. Luckily for the House, I will not take a great deal more time. My constituent was told that he was not going to be extradited, but he was extradited on the day that the Spanish court decided that it would not allow that. I think that we need to be allowed to continue this debate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Ignoring the instruction of the Chair does not cease to be ignoring the instruction of the Chair just because it is done politely and with a charming smile. I think that the hon. Gentleman is concluding his speech—his peroration is being reached, and may even have been concluded.

[Bill Wiggin]

Not quite.

[Mr Speaker]

But very nearly.

[Bill Wiggin]

Therefore, I hope that we will not rush to vote on this important matter, because there are serious cases. My constituent did not get legal aid to allow him to clear his name. Until we get the justice element right, we should not allow debates such as this to be curtailed too speedily.

19:52

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Perhaps it is entirely appropriate that I should follow a Member who has been disorderly, given the nature of the House all day—in many ways this is the most disorderly I have seen it in 20 years. However, in one respect he demonstrated a really important point: he gave us an example of what we should have been debating had this parliamentary gambit not been attempted. What we have seen today is a very clever parliamentary gambit by Labour Front Benchers, but it is acutely undemocratic. It has denied Back Benchers on both sides the opportunity to debate one of the most contentious issues to come before the House for some time.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I have completely different views on how this should proceed: he believes that this measure is entirely necessary for the delivery of law and order, and I believe that it is pernicious to law and order. I take the view that the first duty of this House is ensuring justice for subjects of the British Crown. What it has done, in fact, is allow a number of people, including the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), to suffer a miscarriage of justice and then have it arbitrated on in what could be termed a parody of a justice system in courts outside the United Kingdom.

[Nick de Bois]

My right hon. Friend makes an entirely important point. The House might be interested to know that my constituent Andrew Symeou, who languished in jail for 11 months and was not served well by the European arrest warrant, has just tweeted to say that today

“should be about preventing injustice and protecting British citizens, not be used as a political football!”

The debate should be heard.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right. There are many cases of British citizens, such as Andrew Symeou, Deborah Dark and Colin Dines, being badly mistreated. It is not just British citizens, because the leading criminal lawyers in 11 other countries have complained about this procedure in previous years. It is a very serious issue. This House, above all others, should have been in a position to debate it at some length, rather than being faced with this awful choice between accepting the Government’s business untouched and forgoing the debate altogether in the fond hope of having it another day.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If we accept the motion proposed by the shadow Home Secretary, we will not forgo the debate; we will be allowed a full debate and the Home Secretary will be able to return with a proper motion on the European arrest warrant. The shadow Home Secretary’s motion is much to be commended.

[Mr Davis]

I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend—I very rarely do. I would have liked to have had a full-blooded debate with several motions on each component, or at least packages of components of this so-called package, but that was not available to us today, and there is no guarantee that we will get it if the Opposition’s motion succeeds.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no guarantee, should the Opposition’s motion be carried, that we would get the proper debate that so many people are demanding, but the Government, having behaved pretty shamefully today, will be facing huge embarrassment if they do not give in to the clear will of the House, which is that there should be more time for debate. I urge him to support the shadow Home Secretary.

[Mr Davis]

I am afraid that—I will explain why in a moment—I am not in the business of casting something on the waters and hoping that it comes back. If I hear from both Front Benches that they have agreed to meet all day tomorrow to go through this business again, I will change my view, but I will not take a chance with something quite so invidious as this. Let us remember what we are talking about: taking British citizens, with no prima facie evidence, and sending them off to courts elsewhere in Europe. What we have been asked to debate assumes that those courts all deliver equal justice. Romania does not deliver equal justice. Nor does Bulgaria, Greece or Italy. Some of them have post-Soviet justice systems to which we are sending our constituents.

What is so anti-democratic about the Opposition’s proposal is that it would deny many Members who had intended to speak today the opportunity to do so, and that is a tragedy, because this House’s first responsibility, as I have said, is the delivery of justice for our constituents. We will not have the opportunity to discuss the alternatives, such as having a multiple-negotiated outcome, rather than the European arrest warrant. We will not be able to talk about the other implications of Europol and Eurojust for the actions of the European Court and the ability of the Home Secretary to pass laws that protect us. All in all, I think that this is a very unfortunate outcome for Parliament today—a very clever parliamentary trick, but very poor democracy.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only those Members who wished to speak tonight who have been cheated, but those who, like me, wished to listen to the arguments on both sides?

[Mr Davis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will hear some of us attempting to stay in order—desperately, Mr Speaker—while making those arguments, but he will be unable to vote explicitly on them; he will have to vote on whether we have a vote on another day or we close down the debate today. That is not the way Parliament is designed to work. I am afraid, therefore, that this is a travesty of democracy.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making his comments. Would not the solution be for the Government to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that they will make time available to allow us to discuss the issue properly, as the country wants and as Parliament wants, and then we can move on? It is within their scope to do that now.

[Mr Davis]

It is, of course, within their scope, and I was very tempted at the beginning of the exercise to suggest to the Home Secretary that she shoots the Opposition’s fox—that she says, “We’re going to have a day’s debate tomorrow. There you are. All over.” They would have looked stupid and we would have looked very democratic. Sadly, that did not happen. I will not vote for the proposal today. I may abstain, I may double-vote, but I am not going to vote for the proposal because I do not want us to leave uncovered an extremely important debate in the history of this House.

20:00

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

Last time the previous Question was moved, I voted for it. On this occasion I will vote against it. The difficulty is to work out what the Opposition feel they will achieve from this. Although there is always an argument about the Executive lumping together lots of decision into one vote, one of the more complex questions is when the Executive are bound by a motion of the House. It was obvious on the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill and various other occasions that the Executive are not automatically bound by motions in the House. The Executive are bound when they say they will be bound. On this occasion the Executive have said that they will be bound. There is therefore nothing else on that that the Opposition can achieve and the motion should be withdrawn.

20:01

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I support the previous Question. To listen to some of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, one would think that it destroyed our democracy, that it threatened our democracy or that it was bad for this debate. Not a bit of it. Of course the substantive question is a matter of the first importance to justice, security, our international relations, our constitution and the democratic control of power.

In a moment we will have a chance to answer the question, “Are the Government asking the House the right questions?” I urge everybody to vote Aye and send the Government back to reformulate the question, come back to the House and ask us the right questions about matters of the most grave importance. The motion—the previous Question—is not a motion to destroy our democracy; it is a motion to save it, and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

As the previous Question is an unusual procedure, I think I ought to repeat to the House the effect of this motion, because several Members have come up to me, quite understandably in this unusual situation, somewhat uncertain about what is at stake and what the implications of a particular course of action are. Let me try to help.

If the previous Question—that is, the motion put by the shadow Home Secretary at, if memory serves me correctly, 7.1 pm is agreed to—the draft regulations introduced by the Home Secretary will not be further considered at this sitting. That is to say, they will not be further considered tonight. If the previous Question is negatived—that is, the right hon. Lady’s motion is defeated—the Chair would be required to put the Question on the draft regulations straight away, without any further debate.

Lastly, before I put the Question, I can say to the House, with reference to an inquiry at a very senior level that has just been put to me, that yes, of course, if the House wishes to debate a motion or a set of motions of a similar or a different character, or a combination of similar and different characters, tomorrow, it is perfectly at liberty to do so. I am not saying it should do so; I am not saying any such thing. That is not for the Chair, but the House would be at liberty to do so with an emergency business statement to explain the change of business.

I hope it is clear what the implication of agreeing to the previous Question is—no further consideration of the draft regulations tonight. If the motion is rejected, the draft regulations would have to be put to the vote without any further debate. And yes, the matters can be treated of by the House tomorrow if colleagues wish to do so. My role is simply to facilitate the will of the House. Is that clear?

[Hon. Members]

indicated assent.

Previous Question put, That the Question be not now put.

20:05

Division 78

Ayes: 229

---

Labour: 192
Conservative: 26
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
UK Independence Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 272

---

Conservative: 229
Liberal Democrat: 40
Independent: 2

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that the House will now move to vote on the 11 measures that the Home Secretary has put forward, which we support? Have you had any indication from Government Front Benchers, in the light of the speeches made in all parts of the House today, that they will come forward with a vote tomorrow on the remaining 24 measures?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. As I indicated in my explanatory statement before this vote, in which I sought to explain to the House the implications of different courses of action, I had been approached about debating some matters tomorrow, and I explained what was possible, but no determination was communicated to me by Government on that matter. In the circumstances, therefore, the proper course is to proceed to the next vote, which flows naturally from the defeat of the first motion. I therefore now need to put the Question on the draft regulations straight away without any further debate.

Original Question accordingly put.

20:20

Division 79

Ayes: 464

---

Conservative: 223
Labour: 187
Liberal Democrat: 41
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 38

---

Conservative: 36
Labour: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Resolved,

That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

Business without Debate

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Development and Co-operation Results Framework

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 17709/13, a Commission Staff Working Document–Paving the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework; and welcomes the document as an important step towards putting in place a results framework which will help drive improvements in the impact of the European Commission’s development programmes by reporting results achieved and providing performance information for the Commission and others to act on.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Consumer Protection

That the draft Compensation (Claims Management Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 7 together.

Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.

That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Prohibition on Opening Current Accounts for Disqualified Persons) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.

That the draft Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker’s Allowance (18-21 Work Skills Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

20:29

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish to present a petition initiated by my constituent Mrs Elsie Guidici among her fellow constituents and others in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the surrounding area, following the murder of her son in his home by a convicted criminal from outwith the United Kingdom. The related petition has received more than 800 signatures. It states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that current immigration checks in the UK are not tough enough; further that the Petitioners believe that the checks should mean that if an individual has no job, no money and a criminal record, they should be denied entry to the UK; and further that a Petition in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West Constituency on this matter has received over 800 signatures.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enforce stringent checks on immigration to stop criminals from entering the UK and breaking laws.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001397]

20:37

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It gives me great pleasure to present a petition—somewhat earlier than I had expected, regrettably—about the village of Bozeat in my constituency, where a massive planning application has gone in that would increase the number of buildings around the village by 10%.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the Petitioners believe that the proposed planning application for 75 new houses outside, but adjacent to the village of Bozeat—planning application reference WP/14/00369/OUT—is unacceptable, because it would increase the size of the village by nearly 10% and would put further strain on public services and utilities that are already inadequate.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage the Borough Council of Wellingborough to reject the current planning application.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P001398]

David Efemena

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), I should advise the House that, although a date has been set for the inquest into the death of his constituent, I have exercised the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow debate on this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will refrain from discussing the matter that it is for the inquest to decide, which is the cause of death.

20:40

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Tonight, I wish to raise a number of issues regarding the tragic death of my constituent Mr David Efemena.

First, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the waiver of the sub judice rules regarding Adjournment debates, which is needed because the pre-inquest hearing begins on 17 November 2014. The issues that I will cover do not relate specifically to the findings of the coroner on the reasons for David’s death, which is why the waiver was granted, and the family very much appreciate that. Rather, I will focus on the events that took place in the camp that night, the camp protocols on the duty of care, and the questions of supervision and effective communication between adults and cadets.

David died at 14 years of age on 23 March 2014. He would have celebrated his 15th birthday last Wednesday. By all accounts, he was a strong, sporty, athletic young man. David went on an air cadet camping trip on Friday 21 March 2014 at the Bramley defence training estate in Hampshire. On Sunday 23 March, at about 9 am, his parents Zoe and Felix received a telephone call from Basingstoke hospital advising them that David was “poorly”. While they were still speaking to the hospital, the police arrived at their home in Elm Park in east London to take them to the hospital. Upon arrival, a lady detective met the family and said, “I’m really sorry for your loss.” That is how they discovered that their son had died.

I will provide a brief summary of the events that occurred on the base over that weekend before making some more specific points regarding David’s death. The summary is based on an oral report of the initial findings of the investigation that was given to the family on 27 March 2014. There are also some elements that come from the service inquiry report.

The training that weekend was to take place at training base A, with the use of areas known as A, B and C. A risk assessment, an emergency action plan and a military training plan were all included in the Bramley application for the weekend. There were 13 male cadets and two female cadets on the trip, together with three staff members. Two of the senior cadets were responsible for the supervision of the cadets at the campsite, leaving 13 cadets taking part in the exercise.

On the first night, Friday night, everyone slept in the building at training base A because the group arrived late. Following a 6 am start, the Saturday was spent setting up camp and practising patrolling, followed by an escape and evasion exercise, with four cadets evading and nine hunting, one of whom was my constituent David Efemena. The staff ordered the cadets to go back to their bashers after 10 pm on the Saturday. The staff then went back to training base A, which was 1.9 km from the cadets’ camping sites, according to the service inquiry report. It took members of the service inquiry team about nine minutes to drive between the two sites when subsequently investigating the events of the weekend.

Two-way radios were supplied to each group to retain contact. The last actual contact between staff and the group took place at 10.15 pm, according to an oral report of the initial findings of the investigation that was read out to the family on 27 March 2014. The next morning at between 6.20 and 6.30 am, as the staff leader was walking to the cadet site, he began to receive intermittent radio messages, but could not make out what was being said. At 6.45, he received a clearer message that the cadets could not wake David. The staff arrived at the campsite at approximately 7.5 am. On realising the condition that David was in, they called for an ambulance while administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation. They were joined by another ambulance and then an air ambulance and the police.

According to an interview with a fellow cadet and tent mate, David had complained on the Saturday afternoon, 22 March 2014, about an old rugby injury to his back and of feeling sick. Later, a rota for sentry patrols was established for that night, although David was excused given how hard he had worked carrying heavy equipment that day and because there was an odd number of cadets to divide up. However, I should add that it was suggested in the evidence of other cadets that he was relieved of duty because of his sore back.

Sometime after 11 pm, the cadets went to bed. David’s tent mate has said that he was woken on up to 10 separate occasions through the night by strange noises and shaking from David. Each time he tried gently to shake David to wake him, but at no time did he succeed. At 5 am, David’s tent mate relieved two others for sentry duty, which began about 4 metres from where David was sleeping. His tent mate says that he then heard what were described as “wild animal noises” coming from the direction of the tent and assumed it to be a wild animal. Those sounds were heard another two or three times that morning, and the tent mate, covered by a fellow 14-year-old cadet, went to see David, who by that stage was shaking violently. At about 6.55 am they again went to check on David, and they noticed that his eyes were wide open and realized that they could not wake him up. David’s tent mate woke the other cadets and was left with David for about 30 minutes until adult staff arrived.

There are slight discrepancies in timings throughout between the statements of the tent mate and the adults, but that is the basic series of events according to the police liaison officer assigned to the case.

On the cause of death, the family had a meeting on 28 March 2014 with the coroner’s officer David Richards, who had notified them that the coroner’s report would be completed after the receipt of reports from both Home Office and paediatric pathologists, the police report and the service inquiry report. During the meeting, David Richards stated that the preliminary medical report showed that David had a scarred indent kidney, fluid in his lungs, an enlarged heart and a swollen brain. Mr Richard discussed with the family the possibility that David’s heart was enlarged, and that it could have been hereditary and the reason for his death.

On 9 May, the family received a letter from the coroner Andrew Bradley, stating that he could

“confirm that Professor Sheppard has completed her examination and I have a natural cause of death for David. In those circumstances I have concluded my Investigation and released David for burial.”

Cardiac specialist Mary Sheppard had reported a discovered heart defect and concluded that death was due to natural causes. However, the forensic pathologist had not completed his report at the time, so the family’s concerns about the circumstances surrounding David’s death, particularly the lack of adult supervision, communication and early intervention, were not taken into consideration before the case was closed.

The family, my office and solicitors have made a number of requests for the reasons for the delay in completing the pathologist’s report and how Mr Bradley had come to his conclusion, but they have not been answered. Subsequently, the family had a phone call on Wednesday 3 July, and then they received a formal letter on 4 July that stated:

“Having regards to the history of the case and your concerns it seems appropriate for the matter to go forward to Inquest and for that purpose I have transferred jurisdiction to your local Coroner in Walthamstow.”

As you said, Mr Speaker, there are a number of questions to be answered about the process that cannot be covered here tonight. Instead, I want to raise a number of points relating to the events on the base that weekend. Following David’s death, the family were assigned a police liaison officer from the Hampshire major investigation team and a warrant officer from RAF Northolt. On 24 March 2014, the family presented the police liaison officer with a list of questions that needed answers regarding events at the camp on that Saturday night and Sunday morning. In an e-mail dated 2 April 2014, the police liaison officer said that

“these questions will be fully answered in time as all the information regarding the case is gathered together.”

The parents notified both the police and the RAF that they would carry out an independent examination, and the independent examination report was presented to the family last Thursday, 6 November 2014. The service inquiry report, with three A4 ring binders of reference documents, was handed to them last Saturday, 9 November, by the president of the board of the service inquiry team, Squadron Leader Paul Ellis, and Warrant Officer Duncan Andrews. Therefore, until last Saturday, the family’s only account of what had happened to their son had been provided on 27 March 2014—some seven and a half months earlier—when the police liaison officer and the RAF warrant officer verbally explained their initial findings surrounding the events of that night.

Despite the service inquiry report with three A4 ring binders of reference documents, many of the initial questions submitted by the family in late March 2014 remain unanswered. Those concerns cover three general areas, the first of which is the time taken to alert the adult in charge as to David’s condition that night, and therefore the medical attention given to David. The second is the protocols on the base regarding the supervision of cadets, and third is the possibility that the camp communication systems were faulty. The family believe that those factors might have made a difference to David’s survival that night, which is why I am asking these questions this evening.

Having read the completed service inquiry report, the following areas still need to be resolved. On the diagnosis of David’s condition and communication on the base that weekend, the following questions need to be answered: when David initially declared that he was unwell, how was that managed and monitored, and by whom? It would appear that the adult in charge did not have the next of kin information. The parents were informed of David being “unwell” from Basingstoke hospital, and did not receive any communication from the RAF. As I mentioned earlier, they were informed that David had passed away by the hospital on arrival in Basingstoke, but prior to that there had been no contact between the RAF and the family.

What are the protocols for determining a suitable camping area, or on the distance between adult supervisors and cadets? What are the emergency protocols in such environments? In this case, the service inquiry report details the distance from the camp site where the cadets were based to training base A where the adults were as some 1.9 km—approximately a nine-minute drive. According to the service inquiry report, the original camp area that was planned to be used that weekend had been changed, and an alternative camp area had to be used due to the cadets’ late arrival on the base on Friday 21 March 2014. The service inquiry report highlights that no risk assessments or other checks were carried out on the alternative site prior to its use.

From the time that David was first believed to be shivering at about midnight, causing initial concern in his fellow cadet, were the first aiders made aware of his condition? What “escalation process” was in operation that night for cadets if they had concerns about their tent mates? As I have mentioned, David’s tent mate had concerns throughout the night and attempted to wake him on approximately 10 separate occasions. The parents were not informed of David’s condition before the police attended the scene, so why was that the case? Overall, from about midnight until around 5 am on 23 March 2014, David had shown symptoms giving rise for concern. Would earlier medical intervention have given him an opportunity to survive if an adult, and not a fellow 14-year-old cadet, had assessed his situation?

The second area of concern relates to supervision on such training camps. Are parents aware when their children go on training trips that they are being cared for by 17-year-old senior cadets and not necessarily by adults? Should parents be made aware that there is not 100% adult supervision at all times, prior to signing the “Activities, Consent and Health Form”? If adults are not within close proximity to the cadets at the camp site, what protections should ensure communication between the sites in the event of illness and escalating health concerns? Should camp protocols ensure that “experienced” and not just “qualified” first aiders are available at the camp site. The three senior cadets in charge had received “Heart Start” first aid training, but did not know what to do when David’s situation was assessed—that point is made in the service inquiry report.

Did any of the adults know that David had been unwell prior to leaving the camp that Saturday night, and were any plans in place to monitor his health? Why did the cadets not contact an adult on 22 March 2014 from about midnight, when there was first cause for concern? The report suggests a “lack of process” or “non-compliance of process”. Is that because of the lack of effective camp protocols in terms of supervision and medical diagnosis and care?

The third area relates to equipment. The preliminary report from the police investigation highlighted that the communication system was not working and that it took one of the cadets approximately 30 minutes to alert one of the adults, who were not at the camp area with the cadets. Were the communication devices tested, once the camp site had been determined, based on range? The service inquiry report details that the distance was 1.9 km. We know that six radios were issued for the camping exercise. In May 2014, three of the six radios were tested. Of the three radios that were tested, they had a range shortage of approximately 200 metres between the cadets’ camp site and where the adults resided that night. It is unclear whether the two handsets issued to the cadets were among the three that were tested. The service inquiry report classified the three tested radios as “unserviceable”. It is unclear whether the handsets issued to the cadets had a fault range of greater than 200 metres. That raises questions regarding emergency procedures and the effectiveness of communications devices on the base that night. That is obviously of vital importance if cadets are miles away from their adult supervisors.

These questions need to be answered. It has been nearly eight months since the death of my constituent David Efemena. Throughout, the family have battled to find out what happened to their beloved son that night. Answers to those questions, and many others concerning other elements of the case, are needed so that we might be reassured that our young people are safe when attending weekend military camping trips. If protocols on our military bases need to change, the family would take some comfort that other families might not have to experience what they have had to experience in the past seven and a half months following the tragic death of their son David Efemena.

20:56

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing this debate.

I express my sympathy and offer my condolences to the family and to everyone who knew and loved David Efemena. Those of us who are parents cannot think of anything worse than the death of a child. Burying a child is every parent’s nightmare, but one does not need to be a parent to know and understand that. Our sympathies go out to his family. In these circumstances, it is undoubtedly the case that the awful grief they must bear is made all the worse when they do not know everything that has happened. It is a terrible feature of such cases, but I fear that it is almost inevitable that, to ensure we know everything that happened and are therefore able to learn the lessons, statements need to be taken and post mortems conducted, and pathologists, doctors and other experts all need to make their inquiries. Inevitably, that takes time. It behoves those who are charged with those dreadful tasks to act as swiftly as possible. That has to be in everybody’s interests, but most importantly it is in the interests of the family who are suffering in grief.

I am placed at a severe disadvantage. I gently chide the hon. Gentleman in this respect: if I may say so, I think he has pre-empted the coroner’s inquest. This is a very serious matter. The death of a cadet is taken extremely seriously, not only by the air cadet organisation in this particular instance but by everybody and anybody associated with such a matter, as one might expect. What then happens is that there is a service inquiry, which delivers its report. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the report. I certainly have not, but I make no complaint about that because the service inquiry report was only delivered to the family on Saturday, when two members of the RAF, including the family liaison officer, attended them. That must be the right way. The first people to find out what the service inquiry has looked at and found must be the family, and that is why two members of the RAF attended. The coroner has not received the report yet, so I make no complaint that I have not. It would be a grave discourtesy to the coroner were I to see it before her.

The coroner’s inquest will be rigorous, transparent and honest. I would like to draw on my own experience as a Member of Parliament. I do not know whether you were in the Chair, Mr Speaker, but not long after my election I secured a debate about a constituent killed by his grandson. It was a terrible case—I will not trouble anybody with the details because we are talking about David Efemena’s death—and in due course there was a coroner’s inquest, some of which I attended, which lasted longer than the two days currently set aside for the inquest into David’s death.

It is not just the Nottinghamshire coroner; all coroners conduct extremely good investigations into all matters leading up to a death, as well as the cause of death, and they do so with rigour, honesty and transparency. In what I realise are dreadful circumstances, I know that the hon. Gentleman will take that assurance to the family, whom I know are legally represented, which is important. To be blunt, I hope they have had the benefit of legal aid. If not, I will do everything to ensure that they do. Furthermore, they should know that the coroner will bend over backwards to get all the answers. The family will be at the heart of the investigation.

The hon. Gentleman quite properly asked a series of questions on behalf of the family, not only about the events leading up to David’s death but about the events after he died. Normally, a coroner cannot look into the latter, but regardless of whether the hon. Gentleman brings this back to the Chamber, I give a solemn promise that I shall ensure as far as possible that all these incredibly important questions are answered. Even if nothing and no one could have saved David, because of some inherent heart problem or condition or whatever it may be, I am told that the service inquiry has nevertheless made more than 20 recommendations arising from the hon. Gentleman’s important questions about supervision.

It is the nature of these exercises—be it the Duke of Edinburgh Awards or the cadets—that they contain an element of excitement and risk. Nevertheless, everything must be done to ensure that children are as safe as possible, and important questions have been raised about the distance between where the youngsters were camping and the adult volunteers. I do not know the recommendations of the service inquiry—possibly some of that has already been addressed—but certainly the coroner will look into it. On the way the family were informed, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I do not know if there is ever a good way to deliver such dreadful news, but he asks an important question that needs to be answered.

I do not think there is anything else to add until the coroner has conducted her inquiry and we know her findings, at which point I will be more than happy to answer all these questions as fully as possible.

In this particular case, David’s family will, of course, always grieve for the loss they suffered because they no longer have their beloved son, but we must remember that other youngsters were involved—not just the youngster in the tent, but another young man who came to assist—and, indeed, the adult volunteers who came when they were told what had happened. The other young cadets must have suffered a terrible experience to know that somebody in their tent, one of their number, had become so terribly ill and died. Their welfare is also in my mind.

I am more than happy to take any interventions from the hon. Gentleman if he wishes me to assist him further. Mr Speaker, I think that everybody here would join him in expressing our condolences and sympathy to the Efemena family. We hope that all their questions can be answered and that, in time, perhaps some peace could settle upon them.

Question put and agreed to.

21:05

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 10th November 2014 Written Statements

Monday 10 November 2014

Public Bodies Reform Programme

Monday 10th November 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

In May 2010, the Government committed to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. Nearly four years on, I am pleased that the public bodies reform programme has made excellent progress in the biggest reform of the public bodies in a generation. Earlier this year the National Audit Office commended this progress and

“major simplification of the public bodies landscape”.

Today I am placing in the Library of the House an update setting out progress. It is the first comprehensive update since the Public Bodies Act received Royal Assent in 2011. The achievement now stands at over 95% of planned abolitions and mergers completed.

The public bodies reform programmes’ successes include:

Reducing the number of public bodies by over 285—by abolishing more than 185 and merging over 165 bodies into fewer than 70.

Improved accountability through bringing the functions of over 75 bodies closer to democratically elected representatives.

Increased funding from alternative sources and volunteering by moving some organisations outside the public sector under innovative delivery models.

Achieving cumulative administrative spend reductions as at March 2014 of £2.0 billion since 2010.

The programme is now on track to exceed cumulative spend reductions of £2.6 billion by the end of March 2015.

Full details of the reforms are available at https://www. gov.uk/public-bodies-reform.

Today the Cabinet Office is publishing “Public Bodies 2014”—detailing the broad range of public bodies sponsored by the UK Government.

The “Public Bodies” annual report was first published by the Cabinet Office in 1980. Initially it reported on the size, expenditure and membership of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), but since 2010 it has been expanded. Today it is a single transparent source of top-level data on all NDPBs, Executive agencies and non-ministerial departments. “Public Bodies 2014” also contains an annual update of the progress in rationalising the public bodies landscape, the savings made and the legacy delivered by the work on the sponsorship and triennial review programme, which will continue reform.

“Public Bodies 2014” will be an online publication, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ public-bodies-2014, and the data set will be updated quarterly where applicable.

Continuing reform

We have delivered our promise. The landscape is now smaller, more accountable and efficient, with reduced administrative costs, ensuring better value for money to the public. This remarkable achievement is thanks in no small part to the committed public servants who have embraced the spirit of reform. We will continue to work in partnership with the chairs and chief executives of public bodies to build on these achievements, and improve accountability, embracing innovation and, most importantly of all, raising the quality of services. This is efficiency and reform at its best—not just cutting costs, but actually finding new and better ways of providing services that people can rely on.

Triennial reviews provide regular, rigorous review of the form and function of public bodies to guarantee that NDPBs exist for a clear purpose, deliver the services their users want, maximise value for money for the taxpayer and do not outlive their useful purpose. The Cabinet Office and Departments have worked together to apply lessons from the first phase of the triennial review programme, firmly embed good practice for the next phase and build the civil service’s capacity for good governance of the landscape of arm’s length bodies.

To ensure that Departments improve the way they sponsor public bodies in the long term a sponsorship specialism has been established this year for over 500 officials across Government. Independent analysis of the public bodies reform programme undertaken by academic experts at the universities of Birmingham and Sheffield demonstrate that a step change has been achieved in Government capacity to undertake public bodies’ sponsorship, but we will continue to work to improve this.

We are also pressing forward with a review of the classification system for public bodies in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 10th November 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I would like to inform the House that a statement I made on 29 October 2014 during an Adjournment debate on South West Trains, Official Report, column 106WH, was incorrect. During the speech I stated that:

“We are seeing the most rapid rise in travel of anywhere in Europe. We have the safest and most punctual railways in Europe. We have the most improved railways in Europe, according to passengers. We are seeing an enormous rise in demand for these services...”

While we do have the safest major railway in Europe, as well as the most improved railway in Europe according to the European Commission, the statement on punctuality cannot be substantiated. While we do not have comparable statistics that show how our railway is currently ranked for punctuality, we can say that UK rail passengers are among the most satisfied in Europe with train punctuality and reliability.

Grand Committee

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Monday, 10 November 2014.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

Good afternoon. I remind noble Lords that should there be a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government recognise and welcome the benefits that migrants bring to our country. However, they also recognise the need to deter people from attempting to enter the country unlawfully and to ensure that those who are here illegally are encouraged to leave. As part of the Government’s reform of the immigration system in the Immigration Act 2014, action is being taken on illegal migrants’ access to services. Effective immigration controls require responsibility to be shared—between government, local public service providers, employers, landlords and other private service providers—for denying illegal migrants the means to establish themselves here unlawfully. That is why the Government are bringing forward this legislation to prevent known illegal migrants accessing banking products and services in the UK.

From 12 December 2014, banks and building societies will be prohibited from opening current accounts for illegal migrants unless they have first checked the applicant’s immigration status with a specified anti-fraud organisation or a specified data-matching organisation. Where this check identifies that the applicant is a “disqualified person”—that is, an illegal migrant that the Home Secretary considers should be denied access to a current account—the bank or building society must refuse to open the account. These measures will make it more difficult for illegal migrants to establish a viable life in the UK by closing the gateway to transactional banking and lines of credit.

The two orders we are considering today specify which current accounts will be within scope of the prohibition. The regulations will enable the Financial Conduct Authority to make arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the prohibition imposed on banks and building societies. Before discussing the detail of the instruments themselves, I will first remind the Committee of the Government’s intentions for the banking provisions within the Immigration Act.

The legislation is designed to prohibit banks and building societies from opening current accounts for those who are present in the UK and who require leave to remain in the UK, but who do not have it. The prohibition will apply only to illegal migrants whose details have been notified by the Home Office to an anti-fraud or data-sharing organisation. The Home Office has already specified that this will be CIFAS—the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Service. The Home Office will notify CIFAS of illegal migrants who have exhausted the immigration process and are liable to removal from the UK. This will not include people who have an outstanding application or appeal. The prohibition does not require banks and building societies to check immigration or identity documents presented by the customer. Instead, they will be able to undertake electronic checks against the data provided by CIFAS.

The decision to limit the scope of this measure to current accounts provided by banks and building societies ensures that the measure is proportionate. This will ensure that smaller deposit-taking institutions, such as credit unions, are not impacted by these measures. We have also decided that the prohibition should apply only to current accounts, as they serve not only as a product for day-to-day transactional banking but also as gateways to further financial services and lines of credit.

I should make it clear that, in the view of the Government, a current account is intended to be used principally for conducting day-to-day banking activities. Such an account would be expected to provide functionality to hold deposits and make withdrawals without having to give notice. It would also typically enable the customer to receive and make payments through a number of different methods, including by cheque, direct debit, standing order, continuous payment authority or other electronic payments. Withdrawals, money transfers and other payment transactions can typically be conducted through various channels, including ATMs, branches and online, mobile or telephone banking. Many current accounts also have overdraft facilities. For the purposes of the Immigration Act, “current accounts” should also include basic bank accounts.

The prohibition does not apply to savings accounts, which, in the Government’s view, are intended to be opened for the primary purpose of accruing savings and not for day-to-day transactional banking, although they may provide some of the functionality described above. Savings accounts have been deliberately excluded from the provision as they do not act as a conduit to further financial products in the same way as current accounts. This will also ensure that smaller institutions which only offer savings accounts are not unduly burdened.

I now turn to the statutory instruments themselves. Following initial publication of the Bill, the banking sector raised concerns that the range of current accounts within scope of the prohibition might be too broad and could include accounts that were outside the Government’s initial policy intention. For example, concerns were raised that accounts of large companies would, unnecessarily, be covered by the prohibition. The Government’s intention through this legislation has been to stop illegal migrants from opening current accounts in order to prevent them accessing other products such as credit cards, mortgages or mobile phones, and thereby establishing themselves illegally in the UK. We have listened to the concerns raised and agree that the legislation, as it stands, goes further than necessary to achieve this aim.

The effect of the two orders, taken together, is to limit the scope of the prohibition to current accounts that are operated by or for consumers, microenterprises—that is, companies with fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet total of no more than €2 million—and charities with an annual income of less than £1 million. These categories are consistent with the definition of a “banking customer” already in common usage in the banking sector and set out in the FCA’s existing Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook.

Including consumers, microenterprises and charities within the ambit of the prohibition is also consistent with the distinction that the FCA already makes between the conduct of banks and building societies with respect to these retail banking customers and to other customers such as large corporations. This will make it easier for the banking sector to comply with the Act and for the FCA to enforce the prohibition at Section 40 of the Act. By retaining microenterprises and charities within the prohibition, the amendment will also make it more difficult for illegal migrants to circumvent the prohibition set out in Section 40 of the Act. Illegal migrants will be unable to set up as a sole trader, for example, in order to open a current account.

In summary, the Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between ensuring that the prohibition is appropriately targeted and minimises the burden on businesses while still preventing obvious avoidance schemes.

I turn to the monitoring and enforcement of the Act. It is important that a relevant body is equipped with the necessary authority and powers to monitor and enforce the requirements in the Act. The Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 2014 therefore give the Financial Conduct Authority the power to monitor compliance with the Act and to further investigate firms when necessary. As the conduct regulator for deposit-taking institutions, the FCA is well placed to regulate, monitor compliance with and enforce these provisions. The regulations require banks to provide the FCA, at the latter’s direction, with information in respect of compliance or non-compliance with the requirements of the Act. They will also oblige firms to retain records relevant to compliance or non-compliance for a minimum of five years. It is also important that there are proper sanctions against individuals or institutions that fail to comply with the Act’s requirements.

That is why we are equipping the FCA with the power to levy financial penalties, of such amounts as it considers appropriate, on any firm that it considers has breached the prohibition in Section 40 of the Act or breached a requirement of or under the regulations. The regulations will also allow the Financial Conduct Authority to restrict the deposit-taking permissions of an institution that it considers has contravened a relevant requirement and to publish a statement naming any such institution. These sanctions will act as a clear deterrent and help to ensure compliance with the prohibition imposed on banks and building societies. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition will not in any way oppose these three statutory instruments, but we have some small questions. The impact assessment created more questions than it answered. First, how many people will be impacted by these regulations? The impact assessment states, I think, that there are 60,000 disqualified persons and then uses a questionable bit of logic to suggest that 2,000 of them might be impacted. Does the Minister agree with that estimate or feel that the actual figure might be somewhat less?

The impact assessment implies that the net present value of the cost of the exercise is £2.7 million. I had some trouble between the pages but I think that that is what it states on page 8—that there will be £2.1 million set-up costs and £0.6 million of ongoing costs at net present value. It is difficult to feel bad about that £2.7 million as it will be paid for by the banks, but, nevertheless, it is not an insubstantial sum if the impact is going to be de minimis. The impact assessment leads one into even greyer territory when it comes to the benefits. A benefit prayed in aid was that there might be fewer people to seek out and move out of the country, and the impact assessment offered an incredibly precise estimate of the cost of exiting a disqualified person, with a range from £400 to £60,100. That is a pretty heroic estimate with no indication of where in that range these individuals might fall or how many of them there might be.

I am trying to envisage a situation whereby any individual would come into this position. It seems to me that the provision could only apply against an individual who, for all other reasons, could reasonably expect to open an account with a bank. As I understand it, when one is an asylum seeker, you may open a bank account if a bank will allow you to open a bank account. There is no prohibition against an asylum seeker opening a bank account, and these orders create no such prohibition, if I have understood them properly. I would be delighted if I am wrong. My understanding is that if you are an asylum seeker and you can satisfy a bank in every other respect, the fact that you are an asylum seeker is not a reason for prohibition.

It seems to me that any asylum seeker of sufficient sophistication to intend not to leave the country when they become a disqualified person and who wants to have a current account will have the wit to set up the account before they become a disqualified person. We know from today’s Question Time that the period that they are an asylum seeker as opposed to a disqualified person is frequently very long. It seems to me that most people who are in this situation will disappear into the black economy and not need a bank account. However, the small number who are going to do this period as a disqualified person in a sophisticated way which requires a full bank account will surely have set up a bank account beforehand. As I understand it, the order does not require a bank to close an account when it is notified that somebody who has a bank account has become a disqualified person. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me if I am right or correct me for the record.

15:44

Finally, I have to admit that I have stolen most of those points from the debate in the other place—so I hope the Minister has already had a chance to check them out. I understand that when it comes to regulations, there is a one-in, two-out policy. I have always felt that regulations should be in if they add value to the community and out if they do not—there is little other calculation. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government have a one-in, two-out policy. Does the one-in, two-out policy apply to these regulations, or are they covered by a one-in, no-out policy, or, indeed, even by a three-in, no-out policy?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his support for these regulations. He asked how many people are likely to be affected by them. The impact assessment has made an estimate of approximately 2,000 people. As it happens, it is estimated that, in 2013, almost 2,000 people were the subject of Home Office data shared with CIFAS, who were then refused current accounts in 2013. So, in 2013, getting on for 2,000 people were refused current accounts. On the basis that this legislation extends the scope of the scheme to some number of—

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

In 2000, as I think the Minister has just quoted, this scheme was not in place, so I assume that those 2,000 people were refused for other reasons, such as their creditworthiness, or as potential launderers, or whatever. It was nothing to do with their being asylum seekers, as I understand the logic.

[Lord Newby]

Not with being an asylum seeker; but banks that were already signed up to CIFAS were already, before this legislation, as a matter of course, referring to CIFAS as regards whether a person was an illegal immigrant. The banks that were doing that already were refusing about 2,000 current accounts in 2013. It is reasonable to expect that the figure will be 2,000, or something slightly more than that, as we expand the number of banks and building societies that are covered by the scheme. It is obviously impossible to know exactly, but that gives you an idea of the order of magnitude. You are almost certainly talking about a small number of thousands rather than a few hundred or tens of thousands. I think that that must be the scale of the impact of the legislation or the process.

The noble Lord asked whether, given the cost of implementing the scheme, it was worth it. We believe that it is worth it. The annual cost to banks and building societies is only £200,000, which is relatively modest. The set-up cost, although greater in the overall scheme of things, is relatively modest.

The noble Lord asked about the situation of a legitimate asylum seeker who is going through the process and opens a bank account. What happens if, at the end of the process, they are not given asylum and are required to leave the country? We have taken the view that only new bank accounts should be covered by these regulations, and therefore if there is an existing bank account which it subsequently transpires is operated by an illegal immigrant, the law under these regulations will not require the bank to close that account. The view was and is taken by the Government that the approach we are adopting is proportionate and that to go beyond what we now propose would impose an unnecessary burden on the industry.

The noble Lord asked about one-in, two-out. I am told that this qualifies as one-in but, of itself, it is obviously not contributing to the two-out because it is a new regulation. The Government are committed over a period, taking all the activities of government, to end up with two out for every one in. This is an in, but there are lots of other outs, including some of the measures going through in the Deregulation Bill, almost literally as we speak. As the noble Lord is aware, the Government are absolutely committed to reducing the burden of regulation and we believe that the broad approach of having two out for every one in makes a major contribution to that effort.

With those responses, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Amendment) Order 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Amendment) Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Prohibition on Opening Current Accounts for Disqualified Persons) Order 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Act 2014 (Bank Accounts) (Prohibition on Opening Current Accounts for Disqualified Persons) Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:52

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 be considered by the House. In doing so, I shall speak also to the Maternity and Adoption Leave (Curtailment of Statutory Rights to Leave) Regulations 2014 and the Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014.

We are here today to consider changes to the law on family-related leave and pay. These changes started with the Children and Families Act 2014, which enables Parliament to make regulations introducing shared parental leave and pay. These regulations give qualifying working parents a new statutory right to share leave and pay where the mother has taken, or intends to take, less than her full statutory maternity entitlement—that is less than 52 weeks’ leave in the case of maternity leave, and less than 39 weeks’ pay in the case of statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance. The new system will apply to working parents who are expecting a baby which is due on or after 5 April 2015. These regulations put in place the overarching legal framework for shared parental leave and pay and set out how this will work in practice.

Noble Lords may be wondering why it is necessary to make these changes. They are required because the laws on maternity and paternity leave and pay that we have now are rigid and inflexible. They have failed to keep pace with the modern family and the modern workplace.

Looking first at the modern family, the current law assumes that the child’s mother is always the main carer. This is clearly not the case for many families, as women now make up almost half of the United Kingdom’s workforce. The role of women in the workplace has changed dramatically since women were given rights to maternity leave and pay in the 1970s. In nearly a third of households, women are the main earners. It is therefore unsurprising that many women choose to return to work sooner than they would have done historically. Women return to work for a variety of reasons, including financial reasons, as well as a desire to avoid any setbacks to their career or work prospects that may follow a prolonged period of absence from the workplace. The changes to the law that we are considering are therefore partly about reflecting modern life. The regulations before us restructure the legal framework to make it easier for mothers to stay in the labour market, if they wish to do so.

The Government also have a more ambitious agenda. We want to facilitate a cultural shift towards the removal of outdated beliefs about the role of fathers and partners in caring for their children. Evidence shows that where fathers and partners are involved early on in the life of the child, they are more likely to stay involved and that there are positive benefits not just for the children but for society generally. However, the current law propagates outdated assumptions. Instead of supporting fathers and partners who want to play an active role in caring for their children, it hinders them by placing constraints around how much time they can take off from work.

The current arrangements can be unhelpful to fathers and partners who want to, or who out of necessity have to, be the primary carer. The current law enables fathers and partners to take one or two weeks’ paternity leave within the first eight weeks following birth—a position that will remain the case after these regulations are passed—and further leave later on, but only if the mother has returned to work, whereas those regulations will be subsumed by the regulations before us. In short, parents, including fathers, have some choice about who cares for their children, but it is a limited choice. The Government believe that working parents should be able to decide for themselves which of them is best placed to care for the child. We do not want to force arrangements on working parents which may not work for them or their employers. We believe that fathers and partners should be able to be the primary carers, if the parents wish that, and that mothers who want to work should be given rights which make their transition back to work easier.

Shared parental leave and pay enables fathers and partners to be the main carers if they so wish, both parents to spend time at home together and the parents to stagger their leave so that one of them is at home when the other is at work. In enabling them to share the responsibility for the care of their child, we enable both parents to maintain stronger links with the labour market. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, enabling employees to maintain links with the labour market and individual employers has many benefits for business. These include lower staff turnover and therefore lower recruitment and training costs. Employees who have a better work/life balance are also likely to take less sick leave and to have higher levels of commitment to their employers and work generally.

The Maternity and Adoption Leave (Curtailment of Statutory Rights to Leave) Regulations would specifically enable a mother to give her employer notice to end her maternity leave early, on a date which she chooses, and to indicate that she or her partner intends to take shared parental leave. The word “curtailment” in the title of the regulations is perhaps unfortunate; it gives the impression that something is being lost by this when in reality it is an option to share the leave with the father or partner.

Once notice has been given, there are only very limited circumstances in which the mother can reverse her decision. The mother needs to end her maternity leave early to create shared parental leave for her and her employed partner to take. In essence, the untaken balance of the mother’s maternity leave is used to create the shared parental leave. Where the mother creates shared parental leave by giving her employer binding notice, her employed partner can start to take some or all of this leave while the mother is still on maternity leave, so that both parents can be at home together with their child if they so wish. Because the mother chooses the date when her maternity leave will end, she remains in control of the number of weeks of maternity leave that she takes. If she wants to take the full 52 weeks of maternity leave to which she is entitled, she can do so. This is the default position if the mother does not opt into shared parental leave.

16:00

The Shared Parental Leave Regulations and the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations provide the nuts and bolts of the new system. They set out how shared parental leave and pay work: for example, how parents calculate how much shared parental leave they can take and when they can take it.

In contrast to maternity leave, which has to be taken in a single block of consecutive weeks, shared parental leave can be stopped and started again, with the employee returning to work between periods of leave, if they wish. The regulations provide for that. For example, an employee could return to work between periods of shared parental leave to complete a particular project or during a period when the business is particularly busy. The Committee will be able to see how that arrangement might work for certain employers or be attractive to certain employees: for example, those who are reliant on commission to make up their wages or salary.

The regulations also enable an employee to claim up to 37 weeks of statutory shared parental pay while they are on shared parental leave and enable employees and workers who are not eligible for leave to create statutory shared parental pay for their employed partner to take. The statutory shared parental pay is created from untaken statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance. The pay is based on the mother’s salary or on the maternity allowance.

The regulations give employees who are on, or intend to take, shared parental leave similar protections to employees on maternity or paternity leave. They ensure that the employee is not treated less favourably than other employees because they have exercised their statutory right to take the leave. They also balance the needs of the parents with the needs of their employers, who understandably want to know when their employee will be absent from work on shared parental leave in order to plan for the employee’s absence. The regulations do that by linking entitlement to shared parental leave and pay to the employee giving their employer adequate notice of both their entitlement to leave and periods of absence. With very limited exceptions—which include early births—the employer must receive at least eight weeks’ notice of any periods where the employee will be absent from work on shared parental leave. If an employee fails to give sufficient notice, they will not be eligible for the leave or pay.

The regulations are necessarily detailed in places, as we need to provide for the wide variety of circumstances that parents may encounter. For example, the regulations need to cater for exceptional events such as the sad death of the child or one of the parents. The Government are providing guidance and tools to help working parents and their employers to understand and use the new shared parental leave and pay system.

The Committee may be wondering what happens in the case of adoptions and civil partnerships. I have deliberately talked about birth parents, as they make up the vast majority of employed parents who will be eligible for shared parental leave and pay, but in the two other cases, they apply mutatis mutandis, in just the same way. I assure the Committee that the provisions in the regulations apply equally to parents who have a child placed with them for adoption on or after 5 April 2015 and similarly apply to civil partnerships.

In summary, the regulations provide the legal structure for shared parental leave and pay which is needed for the new system to work in practice. The provisions contained in the regulations are made under the powers introduced through the Children and Families Act 2014. They are in line with statements made in the course of debates on the Bill during its passage through Parliament, and the policy on shared parental leave and pay was consulted on extensively. I therefore trust that the Committee will be able to support these statutory instruments, and I commend them to the House.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, in general, I support the regulations, because I understand that the thinking behind them is to enable both parents to come together to care for the child; obviously, one supports that.

However, I should like to raise one or two issues with the Government, just for clarification. Incidentally, I thank the Minister for the detailed paper that has been issued in support of the regulations. The regulations stipulate that for an eligible mother to meet the requirements for a shared allowance and so on, she must curtail her maternity or adoption leave in order that the curtailment can be used to support the new shared parental provisions.

This could give rise to some problems here and there, because not every couple is married and not every couple is living together. The mother might have difficulty contacting the father to enable them to come to an agreement in relation to the shared provision provided for in these regulations. One has to remember that relationships are not all exactly as we would wish them to be. People do not always live together—they may have a child together but may not live together, and the woman may therefore have the obligation placed on her of trying to sort things out and make sure that the shared rights are available. If she has to curtail her own share, that may be a bit more difficult. Have the Government thought about this? We are of course working in this situation where not everybody is in married partnerships or even living together. Nevertheless, we want to ensure that both parents participate in looking after the child, when the child needs to be looked after, and that the rights under the regulations are properly shared between the two parents.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the legislation in the Children and Families Bill went through extremely smoothly. In fact, I think it was one of the smoothest things I have seen in the four and a half years since I came into the House because all sides welcomed the introduction of parental leave. Just looking at noble Lords around the Grand Committee, I do not remember any amendments at all during the passage of the Bill, which was very encouraging. I am principally glad—I am delighted that my noble friend outlined this at the start—that the interpretation of “family” in Regulation 3 gives a clear picture that it comes in all shapes and sizes, including same-sex partnerships. The issue about the family unit is a difficult one but I hope this also covers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that a family is not always at the same address. Recognition of that about the family unit is most important and is a major step forward for government. Let us hope that employers are as encouraging. I am delighted to see that adopters have the same entitlement to leave. It is even more essential when a child may have had a distressing start to their life to be able to have that relationship with both of their new parents.

I have two questions, which are not so much about the regulations but about their application. The first relates to Regulation 17, which modifies the eight-week regulation where a child is born early. I have a nagging worry that employers might use these regulations to be less than compassionate to a partner where the mother and the baby might still be in hospital. If the baby is in a neonatal intensive care unit, could the employer say, “Well no, the mother is using the leave and therefore you can’t”? It is quite possible these days for a baby to be in a neonatal intensive care unit for more than the eight weeks covered by the early period after birth. The second question refers to the following regulation, on change of circumstances. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that there will be monitoring of employers saying that it is not convenient to change arrangements at fairly short notice? If this becomes a default reason for refusing change, it will be defeating the object of the regulations.

Part 5, on taking shared parental leave, includes a regulation looking at protection from detriment. There is some concern over the right to return after shared leave in Regulation 41 that the job the partner can go back to is broadly in sympathy with the job that the mother can return to. I think it would be wrong for a partner to have a less robust facility to go back to their prior job. It would be reassuring to hear that that is the case.

Will there be codes of practice for employers on how they can liaise with each other when dealing with this arrangement between a mother and a partner trying to break down the leave between themselves, particularly in relation to statutory maternal/paternal pay?

On a positive note, I know of at least one young couple who have delayed starting their family until this comes into place because the partner works for a very open-minded organisation and he would like to test it on extended parental leave at a fairly early date.

Finally, we need some really good evidence of how this is being used to encourage employers and prospective parents that this is something that will really change the nature of a child’s first year’s relationship with both their parents.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I do not know whether this is his first time in this Room. If it is—I think it must be—I offer him a warm welcome. My only complaint is that the progress made under the previous Government was given rather short shrift, if the Minister does not mind me saying so, so I will give a little historical background. The Labour Government transformed rights for women and families in order to help them balance earning a living and caring for their family. Over 13 years, Labour extended paid maternity leave to nine months and the right to take maternity leave to 12 months and gave new entitlements to paternity leave and pay for fathers.

The Labour Government also introduced the right to request flexible working. In 2009, this was extended to parents with children up to the age of 16. We introduced a right to request flexible working to people with caring responsibilities for disabled or elderly relatives and to parents with disabled children up to the age of 18. We ought to remember that David Cameron and the Conservatives voted against the introduction of paternity of leave, the extension of maternity leave and the right to request flexible working. I always welcome a Government having a Damascene moment, and I am glad that the Government are on board, as they nowadays are, with the minimum wage.

We support today’s regulations to reform the work-life balance for families. We think they are positive and comprehensive legislation. As I worked my way through them, I admit that they started to make my cerebral cortex ache with the various circumstances that might apply. The Government have tried comprehensively to account for more or less every circumstance that one could think of. Shared parental leave is a step towards levelling the playing field for fathers, and that is to be welcomed. The Minister talked about facilitating a cultural shift. That is an ambitious project and it takes time, but I think it is the right thing to say. I do not say that in a derogatory way. That is what we are trying to do. The Minister drew out some points, including the importance of maintaining links with work. Today, both fathers and mothers, but principally women, want to continue careers. I also welcome the fact that we now have a situation where both parents can be at home, using that curtailment. There is flexibility.

I also recognise that this is a challenge for employers and that they will need adequate notice. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a valid point about the need for a code of practice or guidance, given that there will be different employers.

Returning to the point about facilitating a cultural shift, we would be interested in hearing from the Minister what the Government will do to promote shared parental leave, because we will have to promote it. We know from the data available for the first two years of additional parental leave that only an estimated 1% of eligible fathers took it, so a cultural shift takes time.

The Government estimated in their impact assessment that between 2% and 8% of fathers would take up shared parental leave. However, experts claimed that that figure was optimistic. As I said, only 1% of fathers have taken additional parental leave, which shows that even the lower end of the Government’s estimate looks optimistic. That takes us back to what positive steps the Government are taking to promote this.

16:15

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Turner’s point about couples not necessarily residing at the same address. She is absolutely right; we have every variation on the theme that you could imagine nowadays with regard to parenting. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was right to bring up the not necessarily exceptional circumstances, these days, of children who are born extremely early. That is a valid point.

The monitoring of employers and the review process will be very important. I will be grateful if the Minister will set out in his response what the Government will do to increase the uptake of shared parental leave so that the intention of the changes introduced through the Children and Families Act 2014 and the regulations can be fully realised.

Despite those comments and a number of questions, we entirely welcome the proposals.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a very interesting debate, and for the support around the Room. I am delighted that noble Lords have supported the regulations and to see strong support for the new shared parental leave and pay system.

I shall try to deal first with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. First, on couples who are not part of a typical family unit, including where they are living apart, providing that they meet the definition of partners, spouses or civil partners, they are fully covered. I take the point, also made by my noble friend Lady Brinton, that families come in all shapes and sizes now. The Government have certainly done our best to accommodate that, so I hope that I can give reassurance on that point.

The noble Baroness also asked about having some way to facilitate agreement between the partners and what happened where people are living apart. Clearly, the Government are unable to legislate for every situation. It is incumbent on partners, where they are living apart or otherwise, to come to an agreement. Underlying all this is the principle that that has to be in the interests of the child.

If I may, I shall come to some points raised by the noble Baroness about the code of practice when I deal with the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton.

Parties are entitled to shared paternity leave. The interests of both working partners are fully protected, both the father and mother, on an equal basis. A code of practice has already been developed by ACAS, which has been warmly welcomed. No doubt it will be monitored and, if changes are necessary, they can be made to it as things progress. We should not see this as something set in stone and adamantine; if changes are needed, I am sure that they can be made.

I turn to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young, thanking him for his kind remarks and the historical journey that he took us on; I suspected that there might be a bit of party knockabout. I fully recognise that these regulations are supported across the Room, and rightly so. It makes the cultural change that we all want that much easier if we all support it and are doing everything we can to make sure that it happens.

I can reassure the noble Lord about the rollout. He is right that we need to do more on that to make sure that it is taken fully on board by those who are prospective beneficiaries of it. At the moment, it is featured on the GOV.UK website, and there is evidence that there has been a lot of downloads by employers, so they are aware of this. We have to make sure that employees are aware of this, such as the potential family to which my noble friend referred. Perhaps these regulations should be named after them, if they are taking full benefit of this as pioneers. But it is important, in all seriousness, that we make sure that the messages are rolled out. This is being done through the TUC, the CBI, the FSB and the National Childbirth Trust. I have asked officials to look at the possibility of ensuring that information is available through commercial outlets such as Mothercare. It seems to me that places such as that would be a good way of trying to get the message across so that we ensure that everybody benefits in the way that we want, not just the families, partners and children concerned but society in general, as we want that cultural shift.

These regulations will enable working parents better to balance their caring and work responsibilities and will enable employers to plan for the periods when their employees will be absent from work on shared parental leave. I commend these statutory instruments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Maternity and Adoption Leave (Curtailment of Statutory Rights to Leave) Regulations 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:21

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Maternity and Adoption Leave (Curtailment of Statutory Rights to Leave) Regulations 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:21

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance and Property Interference: Code of Practice) Order 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:23

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance and Property Interference: Code of Practice) Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, these orders bring into force revised codes of practice under Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The codes of practice have been revised to reflect changes that the Government have made to the Part 2 provisions on covert surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources since the codes were last revised in 2010. The codes also give guidance on property interference, an action which necessitates authorisation under separate legislation, but which will often form part of a wider covert operation.

I believe it is accepted that, faced with the sophistication of the methods employed by modern-day criminals, our law enforcement agencies sometimes need to operate covertly in order to prevent or detect serious crime, but those powers must be deployed extremely carefully and properly balanced against individual rights, including the right to privacy.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or RIPA as we know it, provides a statutory framework for public authority use of a number of covert techniques likely to acquire private information, including the techniques covered by the codes of practice concerned here, and ensures that their use is compatible with an individual’s right to privacy.

The Act provided a number of safeguards to prevent misuse of the powers, including clear authorisation procedures and independent scrutiny of the use of the powers by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and the Intelligence Services Commissioner. RIPA and its associated codes of practice have greatly improved control and oversight of how public authorities use covert investigatory techniques. However, the Government keep a close eye on the regime to ensure that it is working as intended and, when improvements have been identified, we have acted to put these into place. I will briefly outline the main changes which have been incorporated into these revised codes.

First, in response to concerns about use of covert surveillance by local authorities to investigate relatively minor matters in England and Wales, local authorities’ use of these powers has been restricted so that they can now use directed surveillance only to investigate criminal offences which either attract sentences of at least six months’ imprisonment or relate to the underage sale of alcohol or tobacco. In addition, in all cases, decisions by local authorities to grant or renew the authorisation of covert techniques will only take effect once an order approving the authorisation has been granted by a justice of the peace. These changes were made in Part 2 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

To improve confidence in the decision-making and authorisation of undercover deployments, RIPA has been amended to allow an independent body, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, to provide enhanced oversight of all undercover law enforcement deployments. Law enforcement agencies are now required to notify the surveillance commissioners of an undercover deployment at its outset and must seek prior approval from the commissioners for all deployments that last longer than 12 months. We have also increased the rank at which undercover deployments are authorised.

The revised codes were the subject of a public consultation exercise in February and March this year. We received responses from 126 organisations and individuals, details of which we will publish on the Home Office website, following an undertaking given by us during the debate on these orders in another place, once we have obtained permission from the respondents. The consultation provided additional recommendations for changes to the codes.

One of the main concerns related to undercover officers forming inappropriate relationships in the course of their duties. To address this, the College of Policing has issued a code of ethics which states clearly that officers must not engage in sexual conduct while on duty, and shall not establish or pursue an improper sexual or emotional relationship with a person with whom they come into contact in the course of their work. The revised Covert Human Intelligence Sources code of practice in turn specifies that all police officers deployed as undercover officers in England and Wales must, of course, comply with and uphold the principles and standards of professional behaviour set out in the code of ethics.

I turn to other changes. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources code also includes a clarification that law enforcement agencies must seek an authorisation when developing a cover persona, an activity known as “legend building”, if the activity will interfere with an individual’s Article 8 rights. This change was made to ensure consistency and that proper consideration is given to privacy and proportionality in all undercover deployments, irrespective of the nature of the deployment. The HMIC report into undercover policing published on 14 October highlighted this as a concern and I am pleased that we have already taken steps to address it. In addition, in response to feedback, a number of more technical amendments have been made to the codes to provide greater clarity for those authorising and using covert techniques.

The changes that I have described today clarify the way in which the law enforcement agencies can use these intrusive powers, and consolidate the changes we have made to ensure that the right level of oversight and authorisation is in place. They ensure that the powers can be used only when it is necessary and proportionate, when it will help to keep us safe from harm. I commend the orders to the House.

16:30

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. He will be aware that there have been a number of debates on this issue over the past few years in your Lordships’ House. It is helpful to have the two codes of practice before us; it was also helpful that he set it all in context. However, as he will know, following the debate on what became fast-tracked legislation in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, or DRIP, it was agreed through our amendment in the other place, which the Government accepted, that there will be a full review of RIPA. As I think the Minister said, it has not kept pace with technology and there have been changes. Clearly, there needs to be a full review to ensure that it keeps pace with not just the technology but some of the problems that have arisen, which he also alluded to.

The Minister will also be aware, although he did not mention it in his comments, of the issue raised in debate on the Serious Crime Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, tabled an amendment about concerns regarding journalists and their sources being intercepted and accessed. We have had previous debates about his point about undercover police officers on covert operations having inappropriate relationships with people, particularly between male police officers and women. Regarding surveillance techniques, I think particularly of my noble friend Lady Lawrence, whose family was subject to surveillance that under no circumstances could ever be described as necessary or proportionate. There is clearly a need for guidelines to address that and, if guidelines are not adhered to or something goes wrong, a process by which those issues can be taken up. We certainly welcome seeing the new codes of practice, but I also hope that the Minister will confirm that all these issues will still be discussed and further considered when we have that full review of RIPA by David Anderson, the commissioner.

We have made it clear that there has to be a full public debate on this and I hope that the noble Lord will agree. We do the public a disservice if we stand back and say, “We need these powers”—and the Government do need such powers—“but trust us, everything will be okay”. We would bring the public into our confidence a lot more on these issues if we explained why we need such powers and how they will be used. The public would understand that but we have to do a lot more than just ask for their trust. There is recognition, and I am sure that the public recognise this as well, that covert surveillance or operations have to be undertaken. To suggest that in each and every case they are wrong would be completely to misunderstand their purpose, as I think the noble Lord made clear. Those operations are dealing with some of the most dangerous crime and serious criminals and are an essential part of policing. We are talking about drugs, trafficking, smuggling, sexual abuse and pornography. Often, as I am sure we will come to debate on the Government’s opt-out and opt-in proposals, that information is shared between countries and is an important part of putting together the jigsaw of the details of some of these international crimes, where there is cross-border communication that we can get only if we co-operate with other countries.

I was surprised that in the order there was nothing, unless I have missed it within the two codes of practice, distinguishing between long-term and short-term operations. I would make that a clear definition and perhaps do so on authorisations as well. Regarding some of the things that we expect police officers to do, my local paper ran a story about one officer who had infiltrated a drugs gang. As he got more and more information—he got excellent information that went to court—it was obviously putting him at risk. He ended up having to jump out of the window and run pretty quickly down the street to ensure that he was not caught while still acting under cover.

The two issues that we have raised before, which are largely recognised in these provisions, are the inappropriate use of powers, in regard to which I mentioned my noble friend Lady Lawrence, and inappropriate relations. If the Minister has not read it, I suggest that he reads a book that was written about in the Guardian magazine on 22 June last year. I kept a copy of its excellent article about the problems caused by that kind of covert surveillance when it got out of hand and the powers were abused.

We have two new draft codes of practice. What they and any review needs to address is, first, the safeguards to protect the public while addressing the balance and conflicts and, secondly, establishing and maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the process and system. That is difficult, because you are balancing liberty against security, and privacy against public safety. Those issues clash, which is why the guide is so important. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that the draft codes of practice will still be part of RIPA.

The Minister mentioned the consultation. I was a little surprised that he and Mike Penning in the other place gave different numbers; they were only one out, but the noble Lord said that there were 127 consultations, while the Minister in the other place said that there were 126. I went to the website to see what those consultations had said, because I thought it would be helpful to inform this debate if we could see the consultations—the Explanatory Notes say that most of the points were taken on board. However, I went to the website on Friday to be told:

“We are analysing your feedback. Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback”.

However, the Minister said today that as a result of the question David Winnick asked of the Minister in the other place, Mike Penning, about whether it would be made public, he was told, “No problem; it can be”. Did the Government never intend to publish the consultation? They now have to go back to everybody who contributed to the consultation, which implies that there was no intention to publish it in the first place. From a personal point of view, I always find the publication of consultation responses extremely helpful in these kinds of debates. I am very disappointed that they have not been published. To suggest that the Government now have to spend money to go back to everybody to ask them if they mind their information being published does not seem to be the best use of resources or time.

I will ask the Minister a couple of questions on the code of practice, because I was not 100% clear about a couple of things. In the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Draft Code of Practice, a piece on page 9 refers to public officials who provide information to the authorities, and there is new guidance on that. Is all that guidance new, or has it been adapted from something that already existed? If a person is providing information—and not always information about an offence; often it is what you might call personal information; and whether or not they become a covert human intelligence source or just a source in the normal course of things—does it make it more likely that they will be reluctant to provide information because they know that they are registered somewhere, someplace, as a covert human intelligence source? I do not know whether you call that a CHIS. Does that make it more difficult for the authorities to obtain information in that way?

On page 19, paragraph 4.20, confidential constituent information is referred to as being confidential information,

“in relation to communications between a Member of Parliament and a constituent in respect of constituency matters”,

because that is held in confidence. Does that also apply to Members of the House of Lords? Although we do not have constituents as such, members of the public contact us about issues. Indeed, the Houses of Parliament website suggests that if you are not happy with the response from your MP, you can contact a Member of the House of Lords. Would we be bound by the same confidentiality as Members of the House of Commons and by the same provisions? That is not clear in that passage, as it specifically refers to Members of Parliament with constituencies.

I would also like a clarification about the authorisation criteria on page 22. The final one in the list says,

“for any other purpose prescribed in an order made by the Secretary of State”,

with the proviso that it has to enshrine the right to family life. Does that mean any order on any issue? It seems to be a very broad power; it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that.

Finally, on the Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Draft Code of Practice, I have a query about how the role of the surveillance commissioners works. I do not know how many authorisations there are annually, but it would be very difficult for them to look at every case. Would they have to inspect a sample to see if they were happy that the code of conduct had been adhered to and that it was lawful, proportionate and necessary, or do they have to wait for a complaint? Under what circumstances would a commissioner look at the issue?

That brings us back to the guidance about proportionality. Again, the commissioner has been clear about the changes for local authorities, because there were cases when it was not proportionate; the changes to which he has referred are very helpful and we support them totally, but last week the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, made the point about journalists. How is that affected by the code of conduct before us today?

Finally, I could not find anything about training, although I may have missed it because there are quite a lot of documents to go through and I did not know whether it was raised in the consultation. I refer to the training available to those who provide the authorisations and to those who seek authorisations, under either code. Will they receive any training on the new codes of conduct and the guidance that has been issued so that they know exactly what their responsibilities and obligations are?

I welcome the orders. Significant efforts have been made to address concerns that have been raised that any covert surveillance covered by either of the draft codes of practice is lawful, proportionate and necessary. The deal with the public is that any legislation that will be passed on surveillance is used only for the purpose intended—to make people safer against serious crime, including crime against the community, crimes which makes the community less safe. Terrorism is often mentioned in that context, and that is part of it—but that co-operation to deal with serious crime, whatever the purpose, is the aim. This provision goes some way to addressing that, but I look forward to a full review of all the issues that we have discussed. I hope that we can get to the point of having a proper public debate to ensure the integrity of the process that we need.

[Lord Bates]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions, which, as usual, have gone into the detail in some depth. We are grateful for them because it gives us an opportunity to put more information on the record. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in her place. I would guess that she was caught out by the pace at which the earlier business moved through, like the rest of us, but I hope that we may be able to take her points into consideration as part of an ongoing dialogue.

I shall try to go through the issues in the order in which the noble Baroness raised them. There is no requirement or convention to say that, when there is a public consultation, we should eventually publish all responses to it—for a variety of reasons, not least because sometimes people have given information that they do not wish to be made public. However, as soon as the intervention was made to which she referred, we said immediately that it should be published. We are in the process of going back to the 125 or 126 people—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It was 127.

[Lord Bates]

We are going back to the 127 people who are in the course of responding, just to clarify the position. That will give further comfort to people that the process has been open.

I am pleased, too, that the noble Baroness welcomed the significant changes that have been made to the code. These highlight genuine concerns that people have had about these issues and raised in other legislative fora, and the need for us to take action.

The noble Baroness asked how often the powers are used. It may be helpful for the Committee to know that under Part 2 of RIPA and Section 8 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act, in 2013-14 the number of authorisations by law enforcement for intrusive surveillance was 392; for directed surveillance it was 9,664, while for CHIS it was 4,377. Directed surveillance authorisations by other public bodies stood at 4,412 and for CHIS at 53. That is quite a large number, but those who are undertaking covert surveillance account for less than 1% of total police numbers. They are trained to be deployed but they are not necessarily all on active duty at any point in time.

16:45

On the broader issue on the powers of RIPA, the Data Retention and Regulatory Powers Act 2014 provides for a review of investigatory powers to be undertaken by Sir David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He is obliged to report to the Prime Minister by 2015. His review, and that of the Intelligence and Security Committee into privacy and security, will provide the opportunity for debate on the use, capabilities, oversight and safeguards of the important powers provided for in RIPA. Indeed, that was part of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Strasburger during the passage of the Serious Crime Bill, when we were able to offer the reassurance that these issues are under active consideration. Clearly, however, the Government did not want to pre-empt any specific recommendations which may come forward from those reviews.

In terms of the distinction between long-term and short-term authorisations, the code of practice notes the change we have made to the authorisation of long-term covert operations to ensure a higher level of scrutiny. Operations continuing beyond 12 months must be authorised specifically by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, which provides independent scrutiny of such operations. That is in addition to the provisions under an authorisation from a justice of the peace and the increase that we propose in the rank of the officer who needs to make such a decision.

The noble Baroness asked about judicial approval of undercover deployment, which is a very important issue. RIPA provides a strong set of safeguards to ensure that the powers are used properly and to prevent abuses. In addition, the surveillance commissioners, who are all retired members of the judiciary, provide oversight and approve longer term undercover operations, which is the area in which the historical abuses arose. The police and other enforcement agencies deploy undercover officers to deal with some of the most serious violent crimes, to which the noble Baroness referred. A balance needs to be struck between operational flexibility and controls which prevent misuse of their powers.

I think I have covered most points, but I will be happy to go back and review with officials the remarks of the noble Baroness. I am grateful that she has made them. These orders and the codes of practice implement a small but important part of the process of ensuring that a balance is maintained between effective law enforcement and universal entitlement to privacy and ensure that any improvements which strengthen the regime are reflected in the codes. RIPA requires public authorities to have regard to the codes of practice, and I know that they are relied upon extensively by practitioners as a source of guidance on how to comply with the letter and spirit of the law. It is essential that the codes keep pace with changes to the legislation and I am pleased that they have been brought before the Committee. I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2014

Monday 10th November 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:48

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.49 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 10 November 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Introduction: Baroness Janke

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

14:38

Barbara Lilian Janke, having been created Baroness Janke, of Clifton in the City and County of Bristol, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Tope and Baroness Maddock, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Asylum Seekers: Mental Health

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:42

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the mental health of asylum seekers who have had to wait 12 months or longer before being allowed to apply for work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, asylum seekers may apply for permission to work if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months. The Government have had no cause to assess the impact of this policy on the mental health of asylum seekers. However, we are always open to discussing any welfare concerns with voluntary sector and refugee groups.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. However, does he not agree that we are all very much aware of the stress and tension that are caused when someone cannot find a job, which sometimes lead to suicide? Will he consider that asylum seekers, who are not allowed even to apply for a job for 12 months, face stress even worse than that faced by others? We know that there have been cases of suicide because of the prohibition against allowing them to work for that first 12 months. Would it not be a humanitarian gesture for us to reduce that 12 months to six months, so that asylum seekers have less time to wait until they can apply for work?

[Lord Bates]

It is a very difficult situation. Of course, we have every sympathy with the people who come here. However, the reality is that, if they are allowed to work while they are not here legally, we are saying that they are able to compete in the labour market with people who are here legally. That would be unfair. It is not the case that they cannot work; they are able to volunteer in the community and they are getting support, with all their accommodation covered and access to education and health care, including mental health care if they need it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the denial of the right to paid work, as well as the inadequate asylum support system, can lead to severe poverty or even destitution. Last week, the Joint Committee on Human Rights heard evidence that women, many of whom have fled violence, are thereby made vulnerable to further violence and sexual exploitation. What steps are the Government taking to prevent this as part of their strategy to end violence against women and girls?

[Lord Bates]

I accept the point that the noble Baroness is making about the importance of providing that protection. Of course, asylum seekers have accommodation with all utility bills and council tax paid, access to legal aid, safety and protection and a liaison officer allocated to them. However, in providing the care, we need to reach a decision on their asylum claims as quickly as possible so that they can get on and rebuild their lives.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, of course one wants quick decisions because it is not fair to keep people hanging on month after month after month. However, does the Minister accept that it is humiliating and frustrating to want to work and not to be allowed to? Would it save the country money if these people were allowed to work and contribute more to our society?

[Lord Bates]

The six-month period applies broadly across Europe. We have arrived at the figure of 12 months but the key is to speed up the decision-making process. However, during that time we encourage people to undertake volunteering, learn the English language and take IT courses. They can get support with those types of initiative.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have heard concerns expressed by the BMA and others about the desperate need to train doctors and other workers who deal with people in immigration detention, including, particularly, to train them in awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions from which asylum seekers and some other immigrants are likely to suffer. Is there better training provision outside detention?

[Lord Bates]

The numbers going into detention on what is called a fast-track process are relatively small—about 15% of the total. We contract with Migrant Help, which does excellent work in providing advice to asylum seekers during their application process—for example, helping them register with a GP or getting their children enrolled in school. Progress is being made but I accept that we are talking about very vulnerable people.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend clarify what he said in reply to my noble friend Lord Roberts? I thought I heard him refer to people who are here illegally. However, the Question is about asylum seekers who are here perfectly legally, waiting for their case to be heard and a decision to be made, which, as he will know, sometimes takes years. In the mean time, they are not allowed to work. Will he clarify what he said earlier about illegality?

[Lord Bates]

Absolutely; I am happy to clarify that. I was talking about people who had a legal right to seek employment in this country. They should be protected and be able to apply for jobs in the first instance.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

The Government have to date not allowed retired NHS doctors who volunteer to work with asylum seekers to set against tax the cost of their General Medical Council and defence union payments. Will the Government undertake to look at this again? These doctors are acting as volunteers to meet the health needs of this group but are incurring huge expense in so doing.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to look at this but doctors are in one of the shortage occupations and would be eligible to apply for work after the 12-month period.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very hard for any of us to imagine the tragedy and fear that drive somebody to leave their home and travel many miles—thousands of miles in many cases—to seek sanctuary and asylum. They have often suffered considerably. The Minister said that he is concerned about mental health issues. May I ask him two questions? What measures do the Government take to assess someone’s mental health while they are seeking asylum? He also said that it is important to speed up the asylum application process. What evidence does he have that the Government have speeded up that process?

[Lord Bates]

The process is genuinely speeding up. We have given a commitment that everybody who applied before 2012 will have their case decided by the end of this calendar year. Seventy per cent of applications are decided within six months, and 35% of those people are given the right to stay, so there is speed in the system. We have recruited extra people to help. As for mental health needs, that is clearly a clinical decision. When someone is registered with a GP and in contact with the NHS, their condition can be assessed.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister answer the noble Baroness who raised a question a few minutes ago?

[Lord Bates]

Judging by the general murmurings, I think that I may have misheard the noble Baroness. I thought the question was about whether asylum seekers would be able to work if they were doctors, but I gather that it must have been about something else—in which case I apologise, and I will be happy to write and clarify the matter.

Underoccupancy Charge: Carers

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:50

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to exempting unpaid carers from the underoccupancy charge.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

An unpaid resident carer is allocated a bedroom, unless they are the partner of the housing benefit claimant, in which case they will share a bedroom. A non-resident unpaid carer who regularly undertakes overnight care in respect of the claimant or their partner is also provided with a bedroom.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

Does the Minister really think it justifiable to make carers who are providing round-the-clock care apply repeatedly for a discretionary housing payment in order to remain in their own homes—a process which, by the way, is lengthy and bureaucratic, and very uncertain in terms of getting the discretionary payment? Is this really a fair way to treat people who are providing vast amounts of care and saving the state vast amounts of money—often at great personal cost, as the Minister knows? I ask him again: will he consider an exemption for carers from this pernicious tax?

[Lord Freud]

We clearly value carers greatly, and we have put support into the system at different levels for them. In this case we have given local authorities some guidance to make it absolutely clear that they can make longer-term determinations of discretionary housing payments. We have also made it clear that DHPs will be paid next year as well as this year.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s own review of the spare room subsidy shows that discretionary housing payments are inconsistent, short-term and temporary. Indeed, the evidence is that most of the applications for those payments are made by the very groups who should be exempt—carers and those who have had adaptations made to their homes. Many local authorities are now means-testing the disability benefits of people in receipt of those allowances. Regardless of what may happen to this policy next year, is it not now time for the Government to fully exempt people in those groups, such as carers and those with adapted homes, so that they are not subject to this inconsistent approach to government funding and can get certainty in their lives?

[Lord Freud]

As I said, we have made sure that long-term discretionary housing payments can be made. We have also provided guidance to make it clear that where claimants are using their disability payments for needs caused by their disability, such as paying for care or Motability schemes, those would not be included in the calculation.

[Lord Christopher (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that it is not just outrageous but downright cruel to require a partner—presumably a wife or a husband—whose day may be appalling anyway, to sleep in the same room as the disabled person? I find that statement utterly outrageous.

[Lord Freud]

About 40,000 couples in which one is looking after the other were covered by the spare room policy when it was introduced. That is about 6% of the total. The discretionary housing payment system was set up precisely to look at circumstances in which the couple could not share a room—because, of course, many of them could, even though there was a disability.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, a lot of people are looking after severely disabled children, or older adults with long-term conditions—particularly dementia. In order to get some sleep, they have to chop and change, and need additional carers such as other members of the family coming in. They desperately need the extra room. Can those sort of carers usually get an exception to the rule and be allowed to have an additional bedroom?

[Lord Freud]

This is precisely the kind of circumstance for which the discretionary housing payment is designed. It has not been found possible to have a general rule, and that is why this system, which has gone through the courts in quite some detail, has been found to supply support where necessary.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, if, as the Minister suggests, disabled families with family carers are effectively covered by DHPs, why not simply exempt them? If he is wrong—which I suspect he is—why are we, quite knowingly, making lives that are already hard even harder, perhaps thus ensuring that the family carers will themselves become disabled?

[Lord Freud]

The courts have gone through this in some detail now and found that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to take the view that it is not practicable to provide a further exemption for an imprecise class of persons, and that the flexibility of the DHP scheme can be relied upon to provide the additional help.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend not accept that this policy, which appears to be insensitively applied, does not sit happily with Conservative philosophy?

[Lord Freud]

We have aimed to get rid of some of the areas where people are just not taking part in the economic life of the country. One of the things that has been happening is that the proportion of people who have been outside the labour market and in social housing has dropped dramatically from a peak of 49% at the beginning of this Parliament to 41% now—the lowest-ever level. We need to look to help all people that we possibly can to take a full part in the economic life of this country.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister’s department claims that the focus and scope of the family test is on strong and stable family relationships, with particular focus on extended families, particularly when they are playing a role in raising children or caring for older or disabled family members. Can the Minister explain to the House how the bedroom tax passes this test?

[Lord Freud]

The removal of the spare room subsidy is designed, at its heart, to save money—it saves £500 million a year—and make sure that housing is allocated more efficiently. There are signs of that policy now working.

Leaseholders

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government where the public can obtain the details of their rights under Section 83 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 regarding the rights of leaseholders to seek redress against managing agents.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a leaseholder.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the schemes themselves are primarily responsible for publicising their service to leaseholders. My department has issued a number of press releases on the government and LEASE websites, and included information about the redress schemes in the recently published How to Rent guide. Additionally, we will be sending information to 30,000 leaseholders via the LEASE mailing list.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell me whether the ombudsman, to whom one will now have the right to apply for redress, will have the powers under that scheme to rule that if the head lessee or freeholder is found to be at fault, they cannot charge the costs back to the very people who made the complaint and were justified in doing so? This has now become a most unfortunate practice.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Lords register as a leaseholder and pay tribute to my noble friend’s consistent efforts in ensuring that the subject of leasehold remains on the Government’s agenda. In terms of the ombudsman, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal stays, will continue to determine a wide range of residential leasehold disputes and will not be affected by the new requirement for managing agents to belong to redress schemes. For example, leaseholders and freeholders will still be able to ask the tribunal to decide whether a service charge demand is reasonable. Where the lease requires the freeholder to recover administration charges, the tribunal will still be able to issue orders to redress this.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. As well as the redress and complaints schemes arising under the 2013 Act, the Minister will be familiar with the EU alternative dispute resolution directive. The Government have 24 months after the directive enters into force to transpose it into national legislation. That will be in mid-2015, so the clock is ticking. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s continued support for that measure and say what progress has been made to date? In particular, can he say which pieces of domestic legislation have been identified for the transposition?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises the issue of reform of leasehold legislation. The Government are aware of a number of concerns in the leasehold sector and have welcomed suggestions of how resolutions on leasehold can be improved, but at the moment they are not persuaded of the need for wholesale reform. The Government want to ensure that all leaseholders have appropriate avenues for resolving disputes. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific issue of the EU directive.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, in an area of the law where there is much existing legislation, as is I think accepted, does the Minister agree that the only way in which the leaseholder could find out his rights would be if the law were consolidated from time to time? Consolidation is a boring thing to do, as I know from experience, but it is important. Will he please give it a boost on this issue in particular? I ask the question as a former chairman of the consolidation committee.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

All attempts to bring laws together across the field are welcome. The Government are making serious efforts on the issue of leasehold and the sharing of information. As I already alluded to in my original Answer, we have taken various steps to ensure that leaseholders are able to access information about the redress scheme and information about the First-tier Tribunal. There are also other efforts we are making, such as the model tenancy agreement, as a way of ensuring higher standards in this particularly important sector.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I draw attention to my housing interests given in the register of interests. I do not want to minimise the problems of leaseholders, but every year 300,000 tenants are evicted after making a complaint to their landlord about the state of their home. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that the sooner the tenancy Bill that is currently going through the Commons, proposed by my friend Sarah Teather, is put through this House, then the sooner tenants will be better protected against retaliatory eviction?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend makes an important point. The Government are supportive of Sarah Teather’s Bill. I think I already mentioned the steps we have taken, such as the model tenancy agreement, which safeguards the rights of tenants and, indeed, encourages much more long-term tenancies, which is I think to be welcomed by the elderly population and young families with children.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, tenants and leaseholders find it extraordinarily difficult, as we have already heard, to find their way through the complexities of the regulations and the present law. Could the Minister tell me what it would cost for a leaseholder, having got through that, to take action and make an application under the redress scheme regulations?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Each company is required to register under one redress scheme. If the scheme makes a decision, it will be for the company to pay. There are three different schemes and each has specific criteria. Without detailing each one, one costs £95 a year, but that is done on a case-by-case basis. Another costs £199, which is an all-inclusive cost. In the interests of time, I will write to the noble Baroness on the details of the three redress schemes, and share that information with the House.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Property Ombudsman Council. It is an important point that the ombudsman redress services are free to the tenant or leaseholder and that they are paid for by the freeholder, the landlord or the agent and not by the person making the complaint. Does he agree that, if one has a complaint and needs redress, the best way to find out what to do next is to use Mr Google or AN Other and to put the words “property” and “ombudsman” together? In doing that, we hope, a lot of one’s problems will be solved.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord speaks with great experience in the sector and he is absolutely right. To clarify, when I said, “the company”, I meant the scheme rather than the person to whom the complaint is made. He is correct to say that there is no cost to the leaseholder. In addition to Google, perhaps I may mention www.gov.uk as a source of information, as well as the LEASE website. We are also working closely with LEASE, which provides good information in this respect.

Olympics 2016

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the allocation of resources for the Great Britain Olympic and Paralympic teams due to compete in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, through UK Sport, the Government are investing £355 million into summer Olympic and Paralympic sports during the Rio 2016 cycle, which is an increase from London of 7% into Olympic sports and 45% into Paralympic sports. Our ambitions for Rio are to be even more successful than London in both the Olympics and Paralympics, which no host nation in history has achieved. With record investment, UK Sport believes that this is attainable.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, Olympic and Paralympic sport is fair set for Rio, underpinned by unprecedented UK sport funding. Does the Minister agree that, post-Rio, there should be no compromise to the UK Sport no-compromise funding model? Does he also agree that we all owe a tremendous debt to the father of the lottery, Sir John Major, whose vision, drive and determination transformed the sporting and cultural framework of our nation for the better for ever?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as one of our greatest Paralympians and the only Briton to win six gold medals at a single Games, my noble friend comes to these matters with exceptional experience. I entirely agree with him about Sir John Major and that many of the causes favoured by so many of your Lordships have been transformed because of what was done with the National Lottery. Looking at Sochi, where the no-compromise principles were adhered to for the first time, and the great successes at the Olympics and Paralympics, what my noble friend says has a lot of merit.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that all the home nations have been proactively engaged in the decision-making around the allocation of UK Sport’s investment for the GB Olympic and Paralympic squads for Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, UK Sport works very closely with all the national sports bodies, including Sport England, Sport Wales, Sport Northern Ireland and Sport Scotland, precisely to ensure that the allocation is correctly placed. It is trying to ensure that the best athletes come forward and are supported.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, what will be the effect on this programme of a decline in lottery receipts?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I very much hope that there will not be a decline in lottery receipts generally and that people will play the National Lottery. I believe that there are many good causes. Clearly, if that happened, we would have to look at these matters across the piece.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the problems we had were solved by developing the lottery for the Olympics, we must go on and look at the funding of team games to give ourselves a broader base to encourage participation?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, my noble friend raises the issue of team sports and clearly we want all sports to have as many opportunities as possible—my noble friend may be thinking of basketball in particular. That has enormous potential to reach young people and we want it to grow in the country. That is why Sport England in particular is investing a great deal of money. Over the funding cycle about £10 million will go into basketball. We want teams to succeed but they need to be in a position to win Olympic medals, which basketball is not at the moment. While it is not in a position to win medals it is not in the Rio funding scheme.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the no-compromise approach has winners and has done very well but it also has losers. Basketball has had its £7 million grant from UK Sport cancelled and yet, as the Minister said, it is hugely popular, with 70% of participants aged under 25 and more than 50% of those who play the game coming from BME communities. What can they do now? The Minister mentioned Sport England but its contribution is £1.2 million, hardly making up the gap to £7 million.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I said, the total funding to basketball is nearly £10 million over the cycle to 2017. In fact, there is investment through Sport England and also the youth and community scheme. Some £1 billion has gone from that scheme into precisely the sports and activities that the noble Lord was referring to, such as basketball.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the year 1808 Rio de Janeiro was the capital of Portugal? Does he agree that the allocation by the British of resources behind the lines of Torres Vedras during the same period is a very good long-distance omen for the British teams competing in 2016?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That is a most intriguing question and I am not sure how best to answer it other than to say that I am sure that all your Lordships wish all the athletes, wherever they come from and whichever discipline they are participating in, enormous success.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, going back to the question from my noble friend Lady Armstrong, can the Minister say what the trend is on spending on the lottery? I do not mean spending of the lottery funds but spending by people who buy lottery tickets and whether therefore it is likely that the long-term sustainability of funding to both culture and sport will remain constant.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I do not have the precise figures in front of me. I will look at the projection for National Lottery proceeds and come back to the noble Baroness. As I said, this is something that we will need to look at and I very much hope that the National Lottery will continue to be the enormous success it has been.

Draft Protection of Charities Bill

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:12

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Commons message of 6 November be considered and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Protection of Charities Bill presented to both Houses on 22 October 2014 (Cm 8954) and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 28 February 2015;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Barker, L Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L Hope of Craighead, B Warwick of Undercliffe, L Watson of Invergowrie, V Younger of Leckie;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:14

Clause 8: Recall adjudicators

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Woolf]

1: Clause 8, page 8, line 13, at end insert—
“(4) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament describing—
(a) the recruitment process for recall adjudicators;(b) the qualifications, experience and competences which will be required of recall adjudicators;(c) the training which will be provided for recall adjudicators; and(d) the anticipated costs of establishing a system of recall adjudicators in comparison with the costs of recruiting an increased number of Parole Board members and case managers.”

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

My Lords, I can be brief because I hope, and have reason to believe, that the Minister will indicate that he can give me the comfort I am seeking and which this amendment is designed to achieve. Noble Lords will recall that the Minister tabled a government amendment on Report that was designed to introduce a new figure into the criminal justice scene. He is to be the recall adjudicator and he will take over the responsibilities of the Parole Board in respect of reviewing those who have been released on licence but are being recalled for reasons such as their committing another offence. This could be of serious importance both to the public and, of course, to the offender who is being returned to prison. His liberty is at stake.

When the Minister introduced the amendment, he was not in a position to provide any details that would enable the quality of what was being proposed to be assessed. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who I am pleased to see in his seat, described it—I suggest accurately—as seeking a “blank cheque”. As we all know, it is never wise even to give Governments a blank cheque because you may find that it is not used in precisely the way that was intended. The noble Lord sought those details and, while giving the proposal a general welcome and hoping it would be successful, sought to impose both a sunrise clause and a sunset clause to cover the situation being created by the amendment.

The Government had acted on this so late in the day because of a decision of the Supreme Court in a case which was discussed on Report, and which indicated that it would be possible to have a body that was not necessarily created as a proper judicial body to perform this function—a sort of quasi-judicial body. The interpretation by the Supreme Court of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights indicated that what was determinative was the original court sentencing, not the body reviewing the recall.

The matter was left at that, but I suggested on Report that the position was unsatisfactory and expressed the hope that the Government would consider the situation further. However, in case they did not do so, I tabled the amendment in question. It sets out what I would suggest is the minimum amount of information that needs to be provided before the new body is created. It would give those who are concerned about saving money in the hard-pressed criminal justice system information about cost and would seek information about the quality of those who are to be the new adjudicators on recall applications.

Before the new system is introduced it is important that Parliament should be given information that would enable it to use its powers to scrutinise what is proposed. The Minister accepted that there was an obligation for fairness in that situation, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the Whiston case, 1914, UKSC39. That made it clear that he was thinking along the same lines as those who, like me, were concerned about what the quality of this new body would be.

If the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that he would arrange for a report to be made to Parliament, setting out enough information to enable what was proposed to be evaluated, I need not detain the House further. In order to give the Minister an indication of whether what I have been told is correct, I propose to say no more, but at this stage formally to move my amendment.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the Minister may accept the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and in that case the noble and learned Lord will have entered the fold, but this time it is the ministerial sheep who will emerge wearing the Woolf’s clothing—and for that I am sure the House will be grateful.

The noble and learned Lord identified some of the potential problems that need clarifying and we look forward to receiving that clarification. I would like to add another issue that was raised in the debate on Report, and that is the possible availability of legal aid for such applications. I dare say that the Minister will confirm that that will at least be considered and that any reference to it will be contained in such a report in due course.

One other matter to touch on is no doubt encompassed within the terms of the amendment. There was an indication at an earlier stage that the Government would possibly be looking to the magistracy as a source of potential recruitment for those who would undertake this responsibility. The matter has aroused some concern. Obviously I am not asking the Minister to give an indication finally one way or the other, but I take it that he would confirm at least that that is not the only possibility that will be looked at—in which case we will await the Government’s response in due course with keen anticipation.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for his helpful explanation of the amendment to Clause 8 in his name, and for helpfully setting out the concerns that lie behind it. I understand them, and why the noble and learned Lord seeks to make sure that Parliament is given the opportunity to consider a report by the Secretary of State about how the recall adjudicator model will operate before the provisions can be brought into force. I have no objection to the principle of what his amendment is seeking to achieve and am happy to make a commitment that before the recall adjudicator provisions are brought into force, the Government will produce a report for Parliament on matters such as the recruitment process, qualifications, training and costs.

The amendment of the noble and learned Lord is quite specific on some aspects of what the report must contain. I bear in mind what he said, namely that this should be a minimum, as he saw it; we do not indeed anticipate that it would be restricted entirely to those matters. In particular he is specific about the anticipated costs of the recall adjudicator system compared to the costs of recruiting more Parole Board members and case managers.

While the Government would be happy to provide an analysis of the respective costs and benefits of the new model—and indeed we will be publishing a further impact assessment on this—we would not wish to be tied to including in the report such a direct comparison of the sort prescribed in the amendment. This is a constantly evolving area of work, with the Parole Board itself driving forward changes to its process, and new operating models, and we would want our cost-benefit analysis to have the flexibility to take account of those developments rather than tying ourselves in the legislation to making this very specific cost comparison. But we will provide information as to costs.

However, I accept the point and agree that our report should set out the respective costs of the new process and systems compared to carrying on with the Parole Board model. The Government’s position is that we would have no objection to providing a report on the sort of information that the noble and learned Lord asks for, but until we have had more time to consider exactly what that report should contain and how best to present the information, we would not wish to be constrained by the exact requirements of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.

When the Government introduced the recall adjudicator provisions, I explained that the aim was to introduce greater flexibility in the way that determinate recall sentences are reviewed and to allow the Parole Board to concentrate its resources on indeterminate sentence prisoners. There is a great deal of further work to be done on the detail. The noble and learned Lord was quite right to identify the case of Whiston and the decision of the Supreme Court, which enabled the Government to bring forward this amendment, albeit on Report—but we would not have been able to bring it forward before then because the decision had not been reached. I think that inadvertently the noble and learned Lord suggested that the decision had been reached in 1914. It was a little more recent than that—2014, to be precise—but I am sure nobody misunderstood that. The Government move a little faster than that.

[A noble Lord]

Sometimes.

[Lord Faulks]

We will operate an analysis of how it will deliver the benefits we envisage in the most cost-effective way. We are committed to undertaking this further development work in a collaborative and open way. It will be vital to get the new model right and to ensure that those with an interest in how this will work, including Parliament, are kept informed and have an opportunity to offer views on what is being proposed.

The fact that the Bill is silent on the precise workings of the recall adjudicator does not mean that the process will be devoid of safeguards. The Bill already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make rules regarding the way in which the recall adjudicators work. These rules will be made by statutory instrument, allowing for further parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, the protection of the public remains at the heart of any decision to release—or not to release—a prisoner from custody. That is why we will ensure that there is a robust system of selection and appointment of recall adjudicators. I have already indicated that it is our intention that such appointments would be filled by people with significant criminal justice experience.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, we have certainly not ruled out the possibility of using magistrates. The feasibility of using magistrates is very much a matter for consideration. Of course, they will be magistrates with significant and appropriate experience in criminal justice—not every magistrate—and they would be given rigorous and appropriate training before being allowed to perform the role of recall adjudicator. But there is in the magistracy a great deal of experience, and it would be unwise to rule out the possibility of using appropriately experienced and trained magistrates for that purpose. A solid foundation of knowledge and experience will be complemented by this training, as well as by guidance and oversight by the chief recall adjudicator.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked about legal aid. He effectively asked whether recalled offenders would be denied legal aid under these proposals. The answer is that legal aid will still be available. For once, I can give a satisfactory answer, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

The Government are absolutely determined to ensure that all the necessary safeguards are in place before we implement these changes. I hope that this demonstrates to the noble and learned Lord our commitment to ensuring a fair, impartial and robust process for prisoners that does not put the public at risk.

Returning to the final point of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, which was about costs, he will understand that we are committed to ensuring that the new model is as cost-effective and efficient as possible. There is no question that we will have to achieve overall savings and benefits in the criminal justice system as a whole. It will do this primarily by diverting determinate recall cases away from the Parole Board, processing them in a quicker and less resource-intensive way, and by allowing the board to focus on making inroads into the backlog of indeterminate sentence cases, thereby avoiding delays in hearings and release decisions, which in turn has an impact on prison numbers.

We will, therefore, carry out a careful analysis of the costs and benefits of the new process as part of the development of the model and plan to publish a further impact assessment when that work has been done. The Government are willing to share that analysis as the model is developed, and I have already undertaken to consult the Parole Board as we go along and to provide a report for Parliament. I hope therefore that with the assurance I have given about the Government’s commitment to ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place, to working closely with the Parole Board and to providing Parliament with a report, I can persuade the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

15:30

[Lord Woolf]

I thank the Minister for giving those assurances, which meet my expectations as to what he would say. Perhaps I may be excused if I point out that the point he makes about the rules of procedure is helpful but by no means meets the concerns that I was indicating because, of course, the rules committee cannot—by rules—ensure that the right people are doing the job. What the Minister says should achieve that; the only possible caveat I would have is with regard to his comments about magistrates. I should disclose I was a former president of the Magistrates’ Association. I say former president because unfortunately I belong to a club which was not to the liking of the Magistrates’ Association because it has no female members, and in consequence they have suggested that I am no longer president. That is a view to which they are entitled but I fear may not necessarily influence the members of the club concerned to the extent that some would like. That is a fact I have to bear.

Despite that, magistrates concentrate on criminal cases of a rather different level than those which will come before this new body. Some of the persons who will have to be considered by this new body have serious criminal records, and it is important that the persons concerned should have the proper capacity to deal with that. I would not rule out magistrates but I think that that is something to borne in mind. Finally, I am conscious, having disclosed my position as a former president of the Magistrates’ Association, that I should have indicated—and I apologise for not doing so—that I am, as I declared on Report, chairman of the Prison Reform Trust. The submission I made at the time, and would have made in more detail but for the intimation kindly given to me by the Minister’s team, was based on help that I received from the Prison Reform Trust and Justice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[The Earl of Listowel]

2: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Duties of custody officer after charge: arrested juveniles
In section 37(15) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (definitions for the purposes of provisions about detention in Part 4 of that Act), in the definition of “arrested juvenile”, for “under the age of 17” substitute “under the age of 18”.”

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 rectifies an ongoing anomaly in the way 17 year-old children are treated by the police. While all other children detained by the police are entitled to a local authority bed, 17 year-olds are not. This means they must be held in a police station. This is one of the remaining areas where 17 year-olds are excluded from the protections available to other children, and it needs to change. I tabled amendments on this matter in Committee and on Report and I will not repeat all the arguments made then, but I would like remind the House briefly why this matter is so important.

Since 2010, three 17 year-old children have taken their own lives after being treated as adults by the police. They were Kesia Leatherbarrow, Eddie Thornber and Joe Lawton. It is worth taking a moment to think about what it means for a child to die in this way, the terrible waste and the pain that it causes those they leave behind. These children are much loved and deeply missed, and I should like to take a moment to read out some brief words of remembrance about each of them. Nick Lawton said of his son, Joe:

“He was a beautiful boy, everyone agreed. Joe was a happy, successful 17 year-old studying for his A-levels. He is missed every moment of every day”.

Eddie Thornber’s mum, Ann, says:

“Eddie was head boy of his school, looking forward to studying in America. We would do anything to make sure Eddie was still with us”.

Martina Brincat Baines, Kesia’s mother, said:

“Kesia was my only daughter. She was beautiful. A funny, lively girl who, despite her mental health issues, was loving and great company, she was so hugely loved and is so hugely missed”.

In Committee and on Report, the Minister explained that a review was looking at the treatment of 17 year-olds in police custody and that the Government wanted to receive and digest its recommendations before acting. However, things have moved on since then. The review has recommended that the law be changed; the Home Office has committed to do so as soon as possible; and recently the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children published the report of its inquiry on children and the police, and recommended that this change take place. I pay tribute to the chair of that group, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for the work of that important inquiry.

There has been much movement forward. Almost 30,000 people have signed a petition requesting that today be the day that this law is changed. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I have given the Minister’s office notice of the point that I am about to raise. It is to do with youth anonymity, which is a slightly different point from that made by the noble Earl.

On Report, the Government introduced amendments which are now Clause 77 of the Bill. Those amendments gave lifetime reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings for witnesses and victims under 18. The amendments clearly give the judge discretion to give lifetime anonymity to witnesses and victims. It is also clear from the Government’s amendments that that discretion of the judge does not extend to the accused.

What I would like to know—as I said, I have given notice of my question to the noble Lord’s office—is what the status would be of somebody if they had been found not guilty at trial. Clearly, after they have been found not guilty, they are no longer accused, but they may well still be a witness. Would that discretion of the judge extend to those found not guilty at trial?

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I commend and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on the progress that he appears to have been able to promote, and look forward to hearing the Minister confirm what the noble Earl has said after citing those very poignant cases. It seems that a mistake in the system can now be corrected. For that, although it has come late for the families to whom the noble Earl referred, I think everybody will be grateful. I congratulate the Minister in anticipation of his confirming that the Government have accepted that point. It is entirely to their credit that they have listened to the very strong representations made on that matter.

As to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, again, I hope that the Minister will be able to offer him some clarification of the situation along the lines that he has suggested.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention. I very much commend the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Quite simply, the position of 17 year-olds has changed radically since 1984. The proportion of young people staying on in education to 18 or beyond has almost doubled in that time, and many young people continue within their family structures until the age of 18, which was not so much the case in 1984. So it is important that the Government look at this. Schools continue to have responsibility for young people who are at school until the age of 18. It would therefore be rather bitter if that responsibility was recognised as continuing while people are at school, but then ending when they cease to be at school.

There is some very disturbing information about the number of young people who commit self-harm when in detention, as a result, for example, of very serious mental health problems. Without detaining the House of Lords further, it is worth looking at whether the age of 18 is not a more natural bridge to a young person becoming a fully responsible adult than the present age of 17. It might do something to reduce the suffering that some of these young people undergo in detention.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, both in Committee and on Report, there was agreement around the House that this amendment had a great deal to recommend it. It follows the tragic cases of three 17 year-olds who committed suicide following their encounters with the police, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has referred this afternoon. Their families are determined that no other parents should suffer such a loss, and want to see a change in the law so that 17 year-olds are treated as children. I pay particular tribute to the noble Earl for his continued commitment to improving the welfare of young people, and for helping to keep this important issue at the top of the Government’s agenda.

Despite recognising the merit of this amendment, the Government resisted it both in Committee and on Report as they were still reviewing all the remaining pieces of primary legislation which treat 17 year-olds as adults. That review was proactively launched following the High Court’s decision in the case of Hughes Cousins-Chang. That the review was launched is testament to the commitment of the Government to ensuring that young people are protected and treated appropriately while in police custody, ensuring that 17 year-olds have the protection to which they are entitled. My noble friend Lady Williams makes an important point about how 17 year-olds have changed in many ways.

Seventeen year-olds who come into contact with the police are afforded important safeguards by Section 11 of the Children Act 2004. This places the police under an obligation to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions, and means that the police have to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of 17 year-olds. Additionally, following the amendments to PACE codes of practice C and H as a result of the Hughes Cousins-Chang ruling, children aged under 18 have access to appropriate adults at the police station, whose function is to support them throughout interviews and during procedures such as the taking of fingerprints and samples. A parent or legal guardian must also be informed of their detention. Indeed, it is common for a parent to perform the role of appropriate adult for their child.

On Report, the noble Earl welcomed the news of the internal review. He directly asked the Government if something could be done in this area by Third Reading, although he caveated that by saying, effectively, that he realised that such a change would be unlikely. However I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have listened to his plea and the passionate collective voice of the families of loved ones who are tragically no longer with us. The Government have now concluded their review and have arrived at a very clear conclusion: the provisions in PACE that relate to the treatment of 17 year-olds should be amended as soon as possible so that they are treated as children.

I must point out that this is a very complex area and the Home Office review was very wide-ranging—more so than the amendment that has been tabled today. This means that the amendment only partially affects the change in relation to the treatment of 17 year-olds. However, in the limited time available, this amendment makes the most substantial change, that relating to the overnight detention of children charged and denied bail. The effect of the amendment would be that 17 year-olds, as with 12 to 16 year-old children, must be transferred to suitable local authority accommodation overnight in these circumstances. The amendment has the full backing of the police. The Home Office will work with forces to help them prepare for implementation.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked a question that is perhaps not entirely related to this amendment but he was kind enough to give the Government notice of it. As I understand it, it concerns those acquitted after a trial, whereas the focus of the amendment to which he referred is victims and witnesses. Indeed, a number of statutory protections within the criminal justice system are applicable only to victims and witnesses. The position with an acquitted defendant is that the court retains its inherent powers to order reporting restrictions in the case of defendants where that is necessary to ensure that the administration of justice would not be seriously affected. It has that right. Of course, up to the age of 18 defendants will continue to be subject to the youth reporting restrictions that apply automatically in the youth court and may be applied in other court proceedings. That is the position.

Returning to this amendment and in conclusion, this Government share all noble Lords’ desire to ensure that children are always treated appropriately, including where they are suspected of wrongdoing. If how we treat our prisoners is a measure of how civilised a society is, this must surely apply to how we treat our children when they are in trouble and at their most vulnerable. Therefore, I trust that I have noble Lords’ support in the Government’s decision to seize the opportunity afforded by the Bill and accept the noble Earl’s amendment.

15:49

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his acceptance of this amendment, for his kind words to me and for the eloquent way in which he put the case for this particular change. It must have taken a great deal of effort on his part, and on that of the Bill team and many others, to move this forward so expeditiously. I thank the Minister, the Home Secretary, the Bill team and the local government officials who must have worked with them on this issue.

Great tribute must go to Martina and Matt Baines, the mother and stepfather of Kesia Leatherbarrow. Despite their terrible and at times overwhelming grief, they threw themselves into campaigning for what they think of as Kesia’s law. I also pay tribute to Jane and Nick Lawton, parents of Joe, and to Ann and Adrian Thornber, parents of Eddie. They, too, have fought for changes to the way that 17 year-olds are treated at the police station after the tragic deaths of their sons. Without the commitment of these extraordinary parents in their time of enormous loss, I do not think that the changes would have been made today.

I also express thanks to the charity Just for Kids Law for its hard work, commitment and support for the campaign, and to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the National Appropriate Adult Network. Finally, thanks, too, to the public law teams at Doughty Street Chambers, who provided free legal help throughout. I am so grateful to the Minister for moving on this at the unexpected point of Third Reading, accepting the amendment and making this change that will protect future 17 year-olds from the harms that these young people experienced.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 94: Commencement

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

3: Clause 94, page 89, line 30, leave out “and (3)” and insert “to (4)”

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 relates to the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. As I set out on Report, the convention ceases to apply in the UK on 1 December 2014 and we are in the process of negotiating a new bilateral treaty with the Republic of Ireland along similar lines to the convention. This amendment will correct a minor typographical error in Clause 94 concerning the commencement of transitional provisions. As the convention ceases to apply on 1 December, these transitional provisions need to take effect on this date and we therefore need the provisions to come into force on the day the Act is passed.

Amendment 4 is a minor and technical amendment in respect of reporting restrictions applying to under-18s and online content. It removes an inaccurate and unnecessary reference to the definition of publication in the new Schedule 2A to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The definition of publication is in fact set out in Section 63(1) of the 1999 Act and applies to all sections of Part 2 of that Act. The Section 63 definition will apply to the new Schedule 2A because the schedule is enlivened by new Section 45A, and new Section 45A is being inserted into Part 2 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by a previous government amendment also tabled on Report in the Lords. I beg to move.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Schedule 15: Reporting restrictions: providers of information society services

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

4: Schedule 15, page 167, leave out line 32

Amendment 4 agreed.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

I apologise to the Minister for not raising the point that I am now going to mention. However, as it is based on a report that was published only last week, I have only very recently become aware of the position that I wish to raise. When I was the newly appointed Chief Inspector of Prisons, I found that the treatment of and conditions for women prisoners in Holloway was a national disgrace. I was frustrated to learn that current practice for handling inspection reports offered no hope of immediate remedial action, so I fell back on army practice and suspended my inspection for six months, during which period I expected defined action to be taken. I feel the same frustration about the proposal for a secure college contained in Part 2 of the Bill, having learnt that the rules of the House do not allow me to bring forward a Third Reading amendment based on a report that was published only last week, which I believe changes the whole nature of the proposal.

Before the Bill leaves the House, therefore, because the treatment of children is a matter of national importance, I feel that I must make one last appeal to the Government. Before doing so I assure the Minister that nothing I am going to say reflects on the way that he has taken the Bill through the House—during which, all noble Lords, while not necessarily agreeing with him, have admired the skill with which he, as a renowned advocate, has defended his brief, and been assiduous in briefing us, both verbally and in writing, on that brief. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Nash, during the passage of the recent education Bill, who was able to accept the case for inclusion of young offenders with special educational needs among those for whom education, health and care delivery must be provided, the noble Lord’s position in regard to any reasoned suggestion of change to the Secretary of State’s pet plan, appears akin to that of the tank commander with whom the Chinese student tried to reason in Tiananmen Square.

Last Tuesday, I took part in the launch of a British Medical Association report, entitled Young Lives Behind Bars: the Health and Human Rights of Children and Young People Detained in the Criminal Justice System. Welcoming it, Norman Lamb MP, Minister of State for Care and Support, wrote:

“The newly established Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Well-Being Taskforce, includes a specific working group on vulnerable children and young people, including young people in contact with the Youth Justice system and will focus on how services can best meet their needs”.

In her foreword, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, who has considerable experience of working with young offenders, wrote:

“This timely, authoritative report presents an overview of the complex reasons why children and young people offend, their multiple needs and the challenges they present. It enables practitioners and policy makers to reflect on their work with young people in trouble”.

She went on to say:

“An almost 60 percent reduction in child imprisonment over the last seven years … offers a tremendous opportunity for health and justice professionals to focus on the most vulnerable children and help them to get out of trouble”.

I quote two of the report’s recommendations:

“Practitioners should consider how best to encourage involvement and interaction with healthcare services, in a manner that is appropriate to the needs and concerns of children and young people in custody”,

and:

“Health and wellbeing of children and young people should be seen as concerns for all those working in the secure estate, not just healthcare professionals. To this end, all staff working in the secure estate must be adequately trained and supported in identifying and reporting health concerns”.

I said on Report that the House is being asked to rubberstamp a pet project of the Secretary of State for Justice, without the known agreement of the Cabinet committee appointed to ensure that all departments drive forward the aims of the government’s social justice strategy, key indicator number 3 of which is a reduction in the number of young offenders who go on to reoffend. In addition to ignoring proven national and international good practice, as well as the advice and pleas of countless people with experience of working with young offenders, I now understand that the Secretary of State has ignored the advice of paid consultants such as Deloitte, which recommended smaller establishments on the lines of Diagrama in Spain—the subject of a fascinating article in the Guardian on Saturday entitled “Tough Love”—and current practice in America.

I admit that this is the first I have heard of the children and young people’s mental health and well-being taskforce working group, charged with focusing on the needs of the very children whom the Secretary of State is proposing to detain in his secure college. Far from being children for whom normal education and security provision might be appropriate, these have a multiplicity of mental health and behavioural needs, and their reaction to any regime, let alone one based on the education that almost all have rejected or from which they have been excluded, will be conditioned by the complexity of their problems. Furthermore, the majority are to be uprooted from their family and local social or healthcare workers, whose involvement in their post-release rehabilitation is crucial. A recent conversation with NHS England has caused me to look again at two remarks made about healthcare by the Minister on Report:

“We also have been working closely with NHS England… to test our designs for the secure college pathfinder”,—[Official Report, 22/10/14; col. 660.]

and,

“a … health unit placed strategically in the middle of the design … will be the best way of delivering healthcare uniquely tailored to those individuals”.—[Official Report, 22/10/14; col. 663.]

True, a health unit is now placed strategically in the middle of the design, but it was not there when the Minister briefed us in July, suggesting that working closely with NHS England is a comparatively recent occurrence. What is more, as I am sure he realises, adequate tailoring of the delivery of healthcare appropriate to meet the multiple and complex needs of 320 damaged and vulnerable children requires more than just a strategically placed health unit. NHS England tell me that it is pressing for healthcare, particularly mental health care, to be embedded in the culture of the proposal, requiring confirmed resources, particularly of appropriately trained staff, without whom healthcare, adequately tailored or otherwise, cannot be delivered. But, as the Minister knows, there is an acute shortage of appropriately trained staff in the country, let alone in the middle of Leicestershire.

So the situation appears to be this. On the one hand, we have the Secretary of State for Justice who, without any evidence and in apparent defiance of government strategy as well as vast amounts of expert advice, insists on pressing ahead with his claim that his,

“new form of youth detention accommodation with”,

as yet unspecified,

“innovative education provision at its core … will equip young offenders with the skills, qualifications and self-discipline they need to turn away from crime”,

and believes that,

“it is right to focus on the educational outcomes that the establishment achieves rather than the staff it employs”.

On the other hand, we have the cross-government social justice strategy, a specific working party of the NHS children and young people’s mental health and well-being task force, and the declared opposition of countless experts who know from practical experience how essential trained professional staff are to the development and future well-being of this damaged and vulnerable cohort of children.

I said in Committee that the changed nature of the detained children population, resulting from the Youth Justice Board’s success, gave the Secretary of State ample justification for rethinking this proposal. I fully accept that I failed to persuade the House to vote that he should be required to obtain the approval of both Houses before proceeding with his proposal or to test the opinion of the House on a rethinking amendment. However, I submit that the evidence now available, thanks to the BMA report and the recent involvement of NHS England and the mental health and well-being task force, exposes serious flaws in the well intentioned, education-based secure college proposal, which clearly is not tailored to the characteristics, capabilities and needs of its suggested population.

I realise that that is not something that either the Minister or the Secretary of State can resolve, because of the involvement of the NHS and a Cabinet committee. I therefore ask the Minister that it be referred to the Prime Minister himself, who, I hope, will make a statement in the other place on whether, having examined all the available evidence, he authorises that the proposal should go ahead or that it should be put on hold until it has been rethought.

16:01

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I certainly endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, who has consistently questioned the detail of the Government’s proposals in respect of secure colleges. I must agree with him that the BMA report, published only last Tuesday, makes for sombre reading. The report emphasises the need for the state,

“to ensure that detained children and young people have access to healthcare that is appropriate for their age and health needs”—

which the EHRC has identified as a critical human rights challenge—given that,

“Custodial detention is the most extreme form of social exclusion that can be imposed by the state”.

That need is likely to be enhanced in the secure college context by the very nature of the institution and its physical remoteness from the family and community whence the offenders have come and to which they will return. After all, the report refers to the average time that offenders will be housed in the college as 85 days, which is not a long period. Clearly, after they move on, there will be a concomitant need for the provision of adequate healthcare and, indeed, educational provision.

It appears, then, that NHS England will have to do more than simply commission healthcare provision within the college. It is welcome that there will be such a physical provision, although the noble Lord has pointed out that, of itself, that will not be enough. NHS England will have to ensure that appropriate provision will be made when the offender returns home, quite conceivably in a different NHS region. How will that work? Will NHS England assume responsibility in a different region, or will it be involved from the outset? How will the commissioning process work, both for the period during which the offender is in the college and afterwards?

What will be the role of the relevant local authorities? Leicestershire, in the first instance, will be the site of the first college. Will the home authority deal with educational and childcare provision on the offender’s return home or return to residential care in the case of looked-after children? Have there been any discussions with local authorities—with Leicestershire in the first instance, which presumably will be able to provide educational and other provision if the project goes ahead within its boundaries—and with the Local Government Association on behalf of other local authorities generally, in respect of the need to follow up when the offender returns home?

The noble Lord has made a robust critique of the proposals this afternoon and throughout the debates on this Bill. When the Bill returns to the House of Commons, it is important that the other place should have a response to the questions that he has raised, the suggestions he has made and those which I have added.

However, at this stage, I join the noble Lord in expressing our thanks to the Minister who has, as ever, argued the Government’s case with great skill and perhaps conviction—but certainly with great skill. We are grateful to him and to the Bill team for the assistance that they have given. In some respects, the Bill has been improved, but this area remains extremely problematic. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to look again at the questions and issues that have been raised, in which case he will be entitled to even more gratitude than that which I and others now extend to him.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am, of course, disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, remains concerned about the provisions in the Bill to create secure colleges. With 68% of young people reoffending within a year of leaving custody, the Government have taken the view that it is clear that things must change. As the House knows, secure colleges will put high-quality education at the centre of efforts to rehabilitate young offenders. These provisions in the Bill provide the framework for this approach.

As the noble Lord was good enough to say, the Government have gone to great lengths to engage Peers, stakeholders, practitioners and experts—and, indeed, young offenders themselves—on our plans. Indeed, we are currently consulting on our approach to secure college rules and, in response to concerns voiced in this House, we have amended the Bill to make these rules subject to the affirmative procedure to the extent that they authorise force, which was an area of particular concern.

The noble Lord described my position as being rather like that of a tank commander. I am not sure whether that was a compliment or the opposite. Be that as it may, it would be wrong to suggest that the Government are frozen in a rigid posture in responding to any new knowledge or learning that is available on the best way to treat these particularly vulnerable young people. The report from the BMA published last Tuesday will inform the Government’s approach to this issue and, indeed, to all issues.

Of course, the noble Lord is quite right, as was the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to focus on the health needs of this cohort. The Government have worked closely with NHS England since the inception of the proposal, and I assure the noble Lord and the House that we have a very constructive and well established relationship with the Department of Health and NHS England on youth justice. I should remind the House that NHS England commissions healthcare for young people in custody. During the debates, I attempted to indicate to the House how the provision of healthcare within the secure college should enable its better delivery to these young people—better, we hope, than in the current youth custody estate.

As I say, we continue to develop these plans. We will, of course, bear in mind all advice from whatever source, particularly any new learning that is available. However, we continue to believe that these secure colleges—whatever anxiety may reasonably be expressed about them—will provide an appropriate means of giving education to young people who, sadly, have often lacked any continuity in their education and, at the same time, help them to rehabilitate and to emerge at the end of their sentence with a much better chance of leading useful lives. I hope that I have gone some way to reassure the noble Lord and ask the House to pass the Bill.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I would be grateful if he would comment on the role of local authorities through their children’s services departments, in addition to the health aspect. The two cannot be divided.

[Lord Faulks]

They cannot—but I am not going to comment in detail from the Dispatch Box on those precise roles. Of course, as the noble Lord will be aware, local authorities have statutory functions in relation to all young people in their local authority area. Those duties will continue, depending on the geographical position of the young person—and of course the NHS has its own obligations, wherever that individual may be. If I have any further information to elaborate upon my answer to that question, I will do so in writing.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

EU Budget Surcharge

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:10

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an Urgent Question earlier this afternoon in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows.

“Last month the previous European Commission presented Britain with a bill for £1.7 billion, which it insisted had to be paid by 1 December. The Prime Minister spoke for taxpayers when he said that was completely unacceptable, and we set out to get a better deal. After intensive discussion with the new Commission and at the ECOFIN last week, we have achieved that.

I can tell the House that we have halved the bill, delayed the bill, will pay no interest on the bill—and have changed the rules of the EU so this unacceptable behaviour never happens again. Let me briefly give the details.

At the European Council last month, the Prime Minister made it clear to the Barroso Commission that, while annual adjustments to contributions were a regular part of EU membership, a sudden and unprecedented demand for a £1.7 billion payment on 1 December was unacceptable. He got agreement of all 28 Heads of Government that it should be discussed by the Finance Ministers urgently.

That meeting took place last Friday, and followed two weeks of intensive and constructive discussion with the new Budget Commissioner—Vice-President Georgieva—and other member states. As a result of those discussions, we achieved unanimous agreement that, first, expecting payment on 1 December was indeed unacceptable. Therefore, the budget rules will be rewritten to allow for a delay in any payments, and in Britain’s case that means we will pay nothing this year, and instead make payments in two instalments in July and September, in the second half of next year.

Secondly, the suggestion that we might have to pay interest charges was rejected. It was unanimously agreed that there would be no interest charged on these delayed payments.

Thirdly, in our discussion with the new European Commission, it was agreed that a full rebate would apply to the British payment, and that this rebate would be specific, extra to any other rebate we might expect next year, and, for the first time ever, be paid simultaneously with any money owed. It was not clear we would receive a rebate, let alone such a large one. No one in this House suggested we would. Indeed, it was only confirmed to us by Vice-President Georgieva on 6 November—last Thursday evening. It means that Britain’s payments have been halved from £1.7 billion to around £850 million.

Finally, all member states agreed with us that this entire episode was unacceptable. A deal was reached to make a permanent change in European law so it never happens like this again. In the face of this budget challenge we have far exceeded the expectations or predictions made by those before Friday’s meeting. We have achieved a real result for Britain. But this is only the first step of the reform we need in Europe—reform that we on this side of the House believe should be put to a vote of the people of Britain”.

16:14

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I genuinely feel sorry for the noble Lord opposite. In 10 years or so of speaking from that Dispatch Box, I now and again had awkward cases to argue but I never had a completely bankrupt one, such as the case that the noble Lord is trying to put forward. If the Chancellor had got such a good deal, why did he not go to the other place and make a Statement today instead of being dragged there by my right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor in order to answer some questions that have arisen around this issue?

Is it not clear that the Chancellor failed to reduce the UK’s net contribution by a single penny? The analogy that has been used widely is “smoke and mirrors”. I cannot see much through smoke and at the age of 75 I do not much like what I see in the mirror. I certainly do not like the Government’s smoke and mirrors on such a significant issue as this sum. What it all revolved around is the fact which the Government seek continually to deny—that they had omitted to identify the rebate to which we were entitled, a rebate that the Commission has made abundantly clear was never in the slightest doubt. On all sides, it has been made absolutely clear that Britain was going to get the rebate, and the saving that the Chancellor has made was achieved by subtracting from the bill he was presented with the rebate to which we were entitled. What a story.

[Lord Deighton]

I should just like to point out that what we have seen in the past few days is complete clarification of a situation. The reality is that the net payment is £850 million. Noble Lords may understand the situation better than me but until that point everyone assumed that the payment was £1.7 billion. The rebate was not at all clear. What officials spent the past two weeks doing was clarifying that the rebate would be available in a size that has effectively halved our payments. There are also no smoke and mirrors about the fact that the payment has now been delayed—it is in two stages. We have brought the rebate forward so that it offsets the notional second half of the payment. What we have introduced in the past few days is complete and utter clarity on the arrangement in hand.

16:16

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the policy of constructive engagement and alliance that has brought this happy result will be pursued across the whole spectrum of EU policy, instead of one of hubris, bluster, threat and brinkmanship about repatriation of powers, as that is the way to get a good result? Can he also confirm that while of course the UK must always drive a hard bargain to get the best value, given that control of EU spending is vital, our UK contributions to the EU, which give us access to the world’s biggest single market and trade agreements with 50 countries, are less than a quarter of our annual national debt payments? Finally, can he also clarify the exact way in which the final bill has been calculated and whether the rebate is being applied to all 18 years—1995 to 2013—covered by the £1.7 billion GNI recalculation? What is the effect on the rebate in the next and subsequent years?

[Lord Deighton]

I thank my noble friend for the questions; there is quite a list there. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has demonstrated how effective his constructive engagement has been in producing this outcome. I would expect the same result from the Prime Minister’s constructive engagement on the reform programme that we will put to the British people in 2017. It is absolutely right that we drive a hard bargain and get better value for money. If one looks at the EU budget, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been the first to achieve a real-terms cut for the multi-year financial facility, through to 2020, which has thereby capped the amount spent. The weakest part of our performance of the past few years in that negotiation was, frankly, the poor rebate deal that the previous Government gave away, which put us in a much weaker position. That was by far the most ineffectual piece of negotiation. It is a complicated calculation to work out these rebates, but the rebate side of the calculation does not go back for the same full period as the GNI calculation.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, the original demand from the Commission was for €1.7 billion. Its demand is still €1.7 billion, against which a British rebate of approximately half that sum has to be offset. If that is right, and I think it is, it does not seem to me that the Government have reduced the amount of the demand by one penny—certainly not by one euro. What they have done, through some creative mathematics, is bring in a rebate that we were going to get anyway and then pretend that they have reduced the €1.7 billion, which they have not.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, I am afraid that I can only repeat the position. It was far from clear that the rebate would be applied. That is the point at issue between us. We can continue to have that discussion, but it was far from clear that the rebate would be applied. That is what was accomplished in the last two weeks. The other things that have been accomplished are a deferment of the payment and that there will be no interest on those payments. We have also changed the rules so that we cannot get ambushed like this again.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister accept a welcome for the elegant and timely decisions reached in the Council last Friday, while recognising that the clarifications relate to the timing of payments, not to their scale? Will he also recognise that such technical adjustments, as I think the Chancellor said in his Statement, are an endemic part of the EU budget process, from which the UK sometimes benefits and sometimes loses? In future, it might be better to handle it all a little more calmly.

[Lord Deighton]

I thank the noble Lord for pointing out that these are, in practice, technical adjustments. Of course, it was a very large technical adjustment delivered with very short notice, which is why the Prime Minister reacted in the way that he did, and why, as part of the negotiations over the past couple of weeks, we have determined that the process will not work quite that way again. In summary, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a better way to handle these things.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, when the announcement was first made that we had to pay £1.7 billion—it is pounds, not euros—we were told by the Commission, other member states and, no doubt, the party opposite that it had to be paid by 1 December, or else we would have to pay interest? We have now reached a situation where it does not have to be paid by 1 December; half of it has to be paid over a period next year. By the way, there was no mention of the rebate whatever at the beginning of this conversation. If this is smoke and mirrors, can we please have more of them?

[Lord Deighton]

I thank my noble friend for putting, with force and eloquence, precisely the points I have been trying to make in response to the last three questions.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord explain exactly what the Treasury had been up to—it had been involved in all the calculations—and how it was that, after three months of negotiations, the Chancellor did not understand what it had been doing? The Chancellor also did not advise the Prime Minister before he went to Brussels, which is why the Prime Minister was caught on the hop. If we have not got just what we were going to get back in any case, can the Minister assure us that we are still going to get the rebate in 2015 and 2016, and that we have not merely already received it back as an advance?

[Lord Deighton]

I can assure the noble Lord that the rebate that we are discussing with respect to halving this payment is applied specifically to this payment. It is independent of other arrangements for the rebate.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware—it was these Benches’ turn.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

Actually, my Lords, we have had one question from each.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I was saying to my noble friend: is this not the most skilful manoeuvre we have seen since Disraeli caught the Whigs bathing and ran away with their clothes?

[Lord Deighton]

It is hard for me to put it in historical perspective, but as always, the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Chancellor have done an excellent job representing the interests of this country.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

There is a minute, so I have just made it. The country was treated to a lot of sound and bluster from the Prime Minister stating that he was not going to pay a penny. Today, by smoke and mirrors, the Chancellor has reduced that amount to £850 million. However, is the Minister aware that people think that that is a lot of money, which is to be added to the £11 billion we shall be making in contributions?

[Lord Deighton]

I agree with the noble Lord that £850 million is a lot of money. We will expect value for money for that kind of investment. I should make clear that the Prime Minister said that we would not be paying £1.7 billion on 1 December. In fact, we will pay nothing on 1 December. We will pay £850 million in two payments next year.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Monday 10th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

16:25

Clause 30: Maximising economic recovery of UK petroleum

Amendment 113A

Moved by

[Baroness Worthington]

113A: Clause 30, page 31, line 8, after “petroleum” insert “and the co-ordination of the transportation and storage of CO2”

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to the energy parts of the Infrastructure Bill on Report. We hope that these amendments will introduce a level of co-ordination into government policy, specifically with regard to the use of enhanced oil recovery for the furtherance of extraction of oil and gas reserves from the North Sea—and, in doing so, will join up with a policy on carbon capture and storage and the pursuit of carbon capture and storage. We on these Benches are clear that we must pursue a range of technologies if we are to meet our challenging greenhouse gas targets and, more specifically, if we are to decarbonise both our power sector and, importantly, our industrial sector. When we look at the industrial sector, it seems clear that CCS will have to play a considerable role.

Unfortunately, we have not yet seen the ground being broken on any CCS projects in the UK. We have seen CCS start to operate on a commercial scale in Canada and we will see a plant opening in the US. We are also told that commercial-scale projects are expected to be commissioned in China. Therefore, we have slightly fallen behind the curve in terms of leadership on this. Nevertheless, our geographic advantages in the UK are such that we can be a very fast follower. We can take the great learnings that we are seeing in other parts of the world and apply them here to become a leader in Europe in the application of carbon capture and storage.

We have two projects under consideration: in Peterhead in Scotland, and the White Rose project in the north of England. Both could help to establish a considerable infrastructure that would help CCS to be deployed in other sectors and at other power stations. In the creation of this infrastructure it is likely that we will see enhanced oil recovery playing a part, particularly in the Scottish project. The purpose of these amendments is to probe the Government on the degree to which CCS and enhanced oil recovery will be incorporated in this new approach to getting economic advantage and economic development in the North Sea. We understand that the Government have tabled amendments with a view to establishing a new regulatory body, following on from the recommendations of the Wood review, which mentioned CCS and EOR specifically. Recommendation 4 states:

“The new Regulator should work with Industry to develop and implement strategies”,

which include looking at CCS and enhanced oil recovery. Unfortunately, as tabled, there is no explicit reference to those strategies in the clauses that we are here to debate this afternoon. My two amendments seek to address that. I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.

16:30

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s amendment. It has always seemed to me that if you are to have an effective carbon capture and storage policy, and if it is to be developed from the two projects which the Government are currently financing, it would make sense eventually to have what one might call a grid for the CO₂ that would be separated as a result of the technology. Each individual power station developing its own method of disposing of its CO₂ would not seem to me to be sensible.

However, we are at a very early stage in developing this technology. Yes, there have been other examples of a technology being worked in other countries. A number of noble Lords were in a party that I joined a year or two back when we went down to see the BP research establishment at Sunbury. We were given what I found a completely fascinating account of how carbon capture and storage has been operated in a large BP gas field in Algeria, with gas deposits spread over about 20 miles or more coming up to the collection point and the carbon capture and storage technology being applied and the CO₂ going straight back down to the deposits from which the gas had been extracted. The gas, now free of CO₂, was piped to the coast where it was delivered to markets.

I completely understand that that is a unique situation, but there are other examples in other parts of the world where the technology is working, and one hopes that this will be possible. If we are going to have to rely on fossil fuels—as I believe we will—for at least the next three decades or perhaps more, it seems desirable, if we can, to develop an economic method of carbon capture and storage so that it can be done without necessarily increasing the carbon that has to be discharged into the atmosphere.

I say this with some hesitation as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is sitting opposite and knows, I suspect, 10 times more about this than most of the rest of us. Nevertheless, the Government’s policy of having pilot projects and supporting them with the support of the industry is the right way ahead. It may well be that if this can be developed it will be necessary at the same time to develop a coherent system for disposing of the CO₂ that is discharged from the plant. I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend on the Front Bench about whether this needs a change in the law. It seems to me that something along these lines may eventually be necessary, and I hope that perhaps the Government will recognise that in due course.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister when she responds to comment on two points? First, if we are now to be committed in this legally strengthened way to the maximum economic exploration of our oil and gas reserves, how do the Government see that to be compatible with the commitment under the Climate Change Act to reduce our emissions to only 20% of the 1990 level by 2050 without also having a strategy for carbon capture and storage, which I think lies behind the amendment?

Secondly, the amendment refers to the economic extraction of our hydrocarbons—I have never yet heard any reliable estimate of what the additional cost will be of having carbon capture and storage on a typical power station, be it a coal station or a gas station. What level of increase per kilowatt hour—in a unit that can be easily understood—is anticipated if carbon capture and storage is required on such stations? That impacts on what is economically recoverable.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have a question for my noble friend on the Front Bench arising from my work not long ago on carbon capture and storage. It concluded that every situation would be different and that it would depend not only on the oil wells but on the businesses trying to do this work. Some businesses might be able to pool their resources, and while it might be possible to set up a grid in a certain area, it might not be in another. Would not the amendments as proposed make that much more difficult? As my noble friend Lord Jenkin has reminded us, we are at a very early stage in CCS and the technology is not yet fully proven. An awful lot of work still has to be done, so to put something like this on to an industry which is in its infancy will surely cause more problems than it will solve.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for proposing these amendments and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It gives me the opportunity to respond in full to both amendments in the group. They seek to extend the maximising economic principle objective to include,

“co-ordination of the transportation and storage of CO₂”,

and would require,

“the establishment of a strategic vision for the permanent storage of CO₂ in depleted fields”.

I reassure noble Lords that the UK has one of the most comprehensive programmes on CCS anywhere in the world in order to support the commercialisation of the technology and develop the industry. The programme includes a competition with up to £1 billion capital plus operational support for large CCS projects and a £125 million research, development and innovation programme. In addition, the Government set out how we are supporting the carbon capture and storage industry in a policy scoping document published in August. The document sought evidence and views from experts and stakeholders on a range of issues affecting the CCS industry going forward, including CCS with enhanced oil recovery. The deadline for submitting those views passed just over two weeks ago. Given that we are analysing the responses we have received and are in discussions with HM Treasury over its review of the fiscal regime for oil and gas, it would seem premature to make provision in primary legislation at this time.

The Government recognise that captured carbon dioxide could play a role in enhanced oil recovery, and likewise that enhanced oil recovery could play a role in the UK’s carbon capture and storage industry going forward, but the extent of any interaction between the CCS industry and the concept of maximising economic recovery of petroleum is not yet clear. Carbon dioxide transport and permanent geological storage is a nascent industry, so although it is important to promote the industry where possible it would be wrong to be too prescriptive now. That point was made eloquently by my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Caithness. Further discussions with industry and the relevant trade associations are needed before we can say with certainty how the MER UK principle should apply to areas such as CCS.

The Oil and Gas Authority will have a significant function in considering the role of CCS when determining whether companies are operating in line with the maximising economic recovery strategy. The OGA will issue carbon dioxide storage site licences and approve carbon dioxide storage permit applications. It will also have responsibility to ensure that CCS is considered as part of a proposed decommissioning plan and will take into account the viability of utilising captured carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects. In addition, the transfer and storage of carbon dioxide is an important technology, which is why it is likely to form a key element of the technology and decommissioning sector strategies that will be developed by the OGA, in consultation with industry. These strategies will help to underpin the overarching strategy related to maximising economic recovery.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester asked how this would help us to meet our emissions reduction aims as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. Implementing recommendations contained in the Wood review will be done in a way compatible with the legally binding climate change targets. Our overarching energy strategy seeks to underpin secure and diverse energy supplies, including renewable, nuclear and indigenous resources. The carbon plan has shown that Britain will still need significant oil and gas supplies over the next decades while we decarbonise our economy and make a transition to a low-carbon one; projections show that in 2030 oil and gas will still be a vital part of the energy mix, providing around 70% of the UK’s primary energy requirements as we seek that transition.

The right reverend Prelate also asked about the costs of carbon capture. If he and noble Lords would allow it I would like to write to him and ensure that the Committee gets sight of the letter.

Having given those reassurances and demonstrated that the Government see that carbon capture and storage will be a part of our strategy in the future, though we are still at an early stage, I hope that the noble Baroness can be persuaded to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Worthington]

I thank the Minister for her response and for the comments of noble Lords. I am encouraged to hear these explicit references to the work of the OGA in relation to CCS and EMR. It is not unnecessarily prescriptive to add it to this part of the Bill. As we go forward and if the Government come forward with other legislation to transfer the OGA from an executive to a private company, we may have a chance to revisit this. We are in a world where CCS is being taken seriously and EMR is often associated with that. We are also in a world where offshore oil and gas fields are running down. If CCS can achieve the double aim of reducing our carbon emissions and helping to maximise economic recovery, that should certainly be pursued. I do not see why it cannot be explicitly stated, as it seems such an obvious win-win, but I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 113A withdrawn.

Amendment 113B not moved.

Amendment 113C

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

113C: Clause 30, page 31, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 39

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the UK oil and gas industry is of national importance. It makes a substantial contribution to the economy and supports around 450,000 jobs. Oil and gas will continue to be a vital part of the energy mix as we transition to a low-carbon economy, still meeting around 70% of our energy demand in 2030. Therefore it is vital that we maximise our indigenous supply, to put downward pressure on prices, support jobs and maintain secure supplies. The Government commissioned Sir Ian Wood in June 2013 to review UK offshore oil and gas recovery and its regulation, and we have been making good progress in implementing the recommendations.

Amendments 113C to 113F seek to remove from Clause 30 all references to commercial arrangements. This issue is clearly of the utmost importance, since a great deal of what industry does in its efforts to maximise the recovery of offshore oil and gas is affected through oil and gas’s commercial arrangements with one another. Never in the history of the UKCS has this been more true than today. As set out in the Wood review, collaboration between licence holders, operators and infrastructure owners will be a key requirement to meet the challenge of maximising economic recovery from the UKCS.

Clause 30 provides for this and makes collaboration a central part of the principle of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum. However, the Government recognise the legitimate concerns that industry has raised about the way in which commercial arrangements are dealt with in the clause. The industry is concerned that it may have an adverse impact on investment in the UK continental shelf, and we take those concerns seriously. It is not in anyone’s interests to undermine investment in the UKCS at such an important time.

We have just launched a call for evidence to discuss in further detail with interested parties the best way in which to implement the recommendations contained in the Wood review. We will use this opportunity to discuss how the maximising economic recovery strategy should apply to commercial arrangements without creating any unforeseen circumstances.

Amendment 131A is minor and technical in nature. Clauses 30 and 31 and Schedule 6 come into force on such days as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations. The purpose of the amendment to Clause 41(7) is that regulations bringing into force those provisions may appoint different days for different purposes. It is for these reasons that I propose these amendments and I beg to move.

16:45

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the House will know that we have been supportive of this new regulator and have very much welcomed its creation. Of course, the Wood review suggested that the measures within it would increase, as the Minister has indicated, the production of oil and gas from the North Sea by a third—and in doing so produce an additional 3 billion to 4 billion barrels, with a wholesale value of around £200 billion over the next 20 years. Those are significant numbers and anything that helps to produce figures of that kind to the advantage of our people and our economy is, of course, greatly to be welcomed.

This measure was welcomed by the industry although there were concerns about the power of the regulator to interfere with commercial arrangements. These amendments would remove the ability of the regulator to alter commercial arrangements. Therefore, I must say, they appear to water down its powers. We understand the anxiety about the commercial arrangements but if this change is necessary to ensure that investment is not deterred, we need to hear from the Minister the extent to which it can be said to have substantially altered the regulator’s power. If it has not made any significant change, what is the rationale behind these amendments?

Did the Government consult Sir Ian Wood before developing these amendments and, if so, what was his response? Obviously, it is important that we have his views if these amendments represent a significant change to the regulator, which we as the Opposition have fears that they do. The fundamental question prompted by this change is whether the regulator still has the required authority to encourage greater co-operation and asset-sharing, and, following on from that, whether the Government see the regulator as a facilitator or as someone who can insist on co-operation. I hope the Minister will recognise that our anxieties that the amendments might represent a weakening of the power of the regulator need to be allayed.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, it needs to be remembered—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has acknowledged—that the industry very much welcomed the report of Sir Ian Wood.

Noble Lords will remember that perhaps the most important recommendation that Sir Ian Wood made was that in future if we are to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas, there needs to be a tripartite partnership of the Government, the industry and the regulator. The industry signed up to that. That has been the basis of the substantial amendments which were moved in Committee with the intention of implementing the Wood review, and I am on record as having welcomed them very warmly.

I am aware of the concerns which have been voiced by the industry—to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has referred—but I take much comfort in the recent appointment of Andy Samuel as the chief executive officer of the Oil and Gas Authority. As my right honourable friend Mr Davey announced in the Statement last week:

“This is a significant milestone in the establishment of the OGA and demonstrates our commitment to the UK’s oil and gas industry and implementing Sir Ian’s recommendations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/14; col. 53WS.]

It has to be remembered that Andy Samuel has a very long background in the industry. He will understand as well as anybody the problems of getting industry members— hitherto seen as competing with each other all the time—to work together in this tripartite arrangement. Therefore, while I understand the concerns, I do not share the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I think the industry is well placed to take this forward and achieve the very substantial advantages of additional production and national revenue that were outlined. I think these amendments are probably necessary to reassure the industry but I believe the industry is firmly committed to the tripartite partition for which Sir Ian called.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his intervention and contribution, because he lays out very clearly our position. In responding again to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, we are committed to ensuring that the regulator is as strong, competent and influential as a regulator should be. However, it is important to ensure that the powers are practical and effective and do not create unintended consequences, as I stated earlier.

It is also important that we do not undermine investment in the UKCS at such an important time. As part of the call for evidence we will engage with interested parties to discuss how the strategy for maximising economic recovery should apply to commercial arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked if Sir Ian Wood was content with our amendments; the understanding is that he is content, but he also understands very clearly that we must not be undermining investment at this time. It is not our intent that the OGA has the ability to directly interfere with new or existing commercial arrangements. We will ensure that the strategy deals with commercial arrangements in a sensible and proportionate way.

We have listened very carefully to all concerns from industry and other stakeholders but, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin has rightly said, this is a tripartite understanding of investment within the UKCS, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is content with my descriptions of why the amendments are important.

Amendment 113C agreed.

Amendments 113D to 113F

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

113D: Clause 30, page 32, line 20, leave out from “holder” to end of line 23

113E: Clause 30, page 32, line 27, leave out from “licence” to end of line 30

113F: Clause 30, page 32, line 36, leave out from “infrastructure)” to end of line 39

Amendments 113D to 113F agreed.

Amendment 113G

Moved by

[Baroness Worthington]

113G: Before Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—
“Underground access: environmental protection
(1) All sites extracting petroleum under the provisions of section 32 must—
(a) carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment,(b) ensure that independent inspections are carried out of the integrity of wells used,(c) publicly disclose the chemicals used for the extraction process, and the proportions in which they are used on a well-by-well basis,(d) consult with the relevant water company, and(e) carry out monitoring over the previous 12 month period.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulation specify what data shall be required under paragraph (e).
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must specify as required data the levels of methane in the groundwater and ecological studies, that data shall include but is not limited to levels of methane in the groundwater and ecological studies.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 115A. These two amendments have been tabled to address what I think will prove a major oversight on the part of the Government. They would ensure that hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas in the UK could get off to a good start with the confidence of the general public. The oversight that I refer to is that there has been no word from the Government on the need for regulations to enhance environmental protection in light of this new activity.

Obviously, we have been used to extracting oil and gas from offshore in the UK for many years. However, the advent of fracking, as has been seen in the US, brings with it a unique set of circumstances and a unique set of potential risks. It seems odd that the Government have not seen fit to come forward with a comprehensive review of the current environmental regulations that would apply to this industry and have sought only to introduce a limited set of clauses to the Bill, which we will come on to debate, relating to trespass laws.

As I have said, fracking is a novel process which contains a number of different stages all of which will be subject to some forms of environmental regulation—let us be clear about that. However, the Economic Affairs Committee of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in its thorough and detailed inquiry and recent report, clearly highlighted the need for a review of the existing regulations not only to simplify and clarify but to ensure that any potential loopholes are closed. Two in particular were mentioned by the noble Lords who were the authors of that report, one being the need for genuine independence of inspectors and the other—here, they cited a recommendation of Professor David MacKay—the need for baseline and ongoing monitoring of fugitive emissions. Our amendment puts forward those requirements as part of new regulations. We have also included two or three other issues.

We propose our amendments not out of any desire to see fracking held back or delayed but to give it the best possible chance of moving forward on the right foot from the outset. Just last week, a town in Texas, Denton, voted against allowing fracking to continue within the confines of the town. This is right in the heart of the oil and gas boom that has been brought about by shale gas in the US. The reason cited for passing the ban was that people had become tired of industry trying to work around environmental protections and environmental regulations.

Our aim in tabling the amendments is to ensure that we do not have that outcome here in the UK. We should take the time now to introduce a proper regulatory framework that enables the industry to get off to the right start and to learn from some of the mistakes that we have seen in the US, where patchy regulation has led to a number of pernicious scare stories being in the public mind when it comes to fracking. Once such stories have seen the light of day, they are very hard to root out. It is our contention that the Government have not done enough to go forward with a sensible and balanced approach to fracking in the UK—hence these amendments.

As I have said, in thinking about amendments, we read with great care the recommendations of noble Lords on the Economic Affairs Committee. I am pleased to say that we have taken forward the two recommendations that I mentioned, on independence of inspectors and in relation to the monitoring that is needed to establish a baseline. We can have a discussion about how that baseline should be established, but it would be in the interests of the industry to have baseline monitoring because what we do not want is for stories to keep abounding about shale gas having higher emissions than coal simply because we lack the data. It would be a shame not to put in place the adequate protections so that we can have access to those data and can refute such claims, and to show that fugitive emissions do not undermine the environmental case for fracking.

As I said in my comments previously on CCS, on our side we are committed to bringing forward a whole range of low-carbon technologies and fuels to enable us to decarbonise our economy. Shale gas can play an important role in that. I would far rather that we use homegrown gas than imported Russian coal. For that reason you will see that we are, in general, supportive of the Government’s moves to change the laws and the legal loopholes that we will debate today. However, we have tabled this amendment because this is a very serious issue. We need to get public support and public confidence and ensure that our regulators have every possible chance to ensure that this industry gets off to a good start.

17:00

I am sure that the Minister will claim that the experts say that it is all okay and we have all the environmental regulations we need, but that does not appear to be the case. I have been approached by someone who mentioned to me that the regulatory structure is really not good enough, both in its complexity and its lack of oversight in terms of some of the issues I have just mentioned. I would very much like to hear from the Minister what her response is to the question of independent inspection.

Equally, in our debate on Tuesday, a number of noble Lords made specific reference to the issue of fugitive emissions—here I refer to our Amendment 115A. Unfortunately, the Minister was not forthcoming in her response to either myself or the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord MacGregor, who also raised questions about fugitive emissions. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity today to put on record the Government’s approach to fugitive emissions, the baseline monitoring for those, the ongoing monitoring and who should pay for that and resource it.

I apologise to noble Lords if I am even more rambling than normal. I am not feeling 100% today, but I am here because this is an incredibly important aspect of this Bill. It is in our interest, and also that of industry and the economy, that we get fracking right. I do not believe that the Government have paid sufficient attention or listened carefully enough to the concerns from those in the environmental sector, pondering on what we think about the potential impact of this technology. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords I understand the case that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I started my consideration of the details of this with the hugely important joint report of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering back in June 2012. Indeed, I had substantial discussions with the chairman of the committee that produced the report, Sir Robert Mair, whom I had known previously. Perhaps the most important statement in that report—and it had a great deal of detail backing it up—was that they had reviewed the scientific and engineering evidence on risks associated with UK shale gas development and concluded that those risks,

“can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation”.

That has been at the heart of my continuing support for the development of the shale gas industry in this country.

My second point—and no doubt my noble friend will be able to elaborate on this—is that the regulation system that we have in this country, in general under the authority of the Environment Agency, is quite different from that in the United States. I am in no doubt that some of the regulation there has been quite seriously defective. That has given rise to accidents that have been reported, and to the lack of support that one is aware of here and that the noble Baroness has referred to. Of course, you only have to read the media to realise that every accident that happens there is greatly magnified through the media—with a trumpet, as it were. If noble Lords studied the various blogs that come out on this every day, I am sure they would realise what an unbalanced argument it has become because of the way in which all these things are presented here in this country.

I have been critical in the past of both the industry and the Government for failing to realise the extent to which they need to fight the case for the development of a shale gas industry. To be fair to the industry, it has now started a considerable programme called “Let’s talk about shale”. Briefly, the leaflet I have been sent speaks of the very considerable activities that the industry is now taking—primarily in the areas of the Bowland shale deposits, because that is where the main arguments come from at the moment, but of course that can eventually be spread nationwide. That is a welcome development, if perhaps a bit belated, but at least it is now happening.

The one point where I agree with the noble Baroness is that the Government have to match that as well, and take these scare stories seriously and counteract them. Indeed, when I talked to the head of the trade association UK Onshore Oil and Gas, I said, “Learn the lesson of instant rebuttal”. We learnt that from a previous Government. If they wanted to scotch a rumour, it had to be the subject of an instant rebuttal. I see very little sign in the media that either the industry or the Government are yet engaging effectively in the instant rebuttal of scare stories.

Having said that, I will perhaps anticipate what my noble friend will say. We now have the most effective system of regulation in the world for our oil and gas resources. It is of a very high standard and admired across the world. There is absolutely no suggestion that the existing powers of the Environment Agency and other bodies involved in this need reinforcing by additional statutory provisions, as in these amendments.

I read the amendments and thought, “For goodness sake, all this is happening already”. The noble Baroness mentioned baseline monitoring. The Environment Agency has the powers—as have the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales—to require baseline monitoring of those environmental indicators it considers appropriate and for the lengths of time it deems suitable for each given site. We discussed this in Grand Committee. I was certainly there arguing that baseline monitoring is hugely important. If there is to be any question of contamination, you have to know what you are starting with. That is what it means and we do that in this country already. I have never heard it suggested that it is anything other than fully effective.

I am not sure that we need the additional provisions in the noble Baroness’s amendments. I have great faith in the ability of our existing monitors. They have these powers and the duties imposed on them. They do not need to be told in detail by Parliament what to do and how to do their jobs, so this is probably unnecessary. I understand the motives behind the amendments, but the issue should be dealt with effectively by proper information programmes to counter the mischievous rumours that one reads in the press every day. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend’s response from the Front Bench, but I do not think that these amendments actually add anything to what we have already.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 113G. I declare a past interest, having been chief executive of the Environment Agency for eight years. This is a technology that is deeply distrusted by the public. Certainly, my experience of regulation in the environmental field is that if a degree of certainty can be given to both sides—the industry and the public—that is hugely beneficial in removing tension, distrust and suspicion. Industry used to tell me time and again that it would prefer to see clear, unequivocal regulation, which it could then fit its business around and make sure that it was compliant with, so that there was no doubt about the requirements that would be laid upon it. This was the most successful way of developing a degree of trust on hotly contested issues that could have an environmental impact.

Therefore, I urge the Minister to think seriously about placing in the Bill an environmental impact assessment and some of the other associated requirements here. Some of these exist elsewhere in legislation, but there is no harm in making the point that whether they are implemented is not the decision of the Environment Agency but a requirement because this technology is so distrusted by the public. I think it should cover exploration as well as extraction. It should also be associated, if I may say so slightly in advance, with the two amendments—or at least one of them—that I have put down, which we will be debating later. Certainly in the initial stages of this hotly contested area, we need belt and braces, not just belt.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am content to support Amendment 113G as far as it goes but, to my mind, it does not go anything like far enough. I regret that I will be introducing rather a disconsonant note to the debate. I will outline my opposition to hydraulic fracking, lock, stock and two poisoned barrels, in the debate on a later amendment in my name—here’s to knocking these diabolical fracking provisions out of the Bill. These amendments give a modicum of increased environmental protection, and I welcome the reference to the levels of methane in underground water, to which I shall certainly be returning in a later bank of amendments. I seek some clarification from the mover of the amendment on whether either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales has any role in the consideration of these draft instruments.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, when one reads the amendment, one is clearly very favourable to it because it tries to do certain things and convey a message, which the noble Baroness is quite right about, in terms of public confidence in the fracking industry. However, sometimes in this debate we forget the amount of regulation and control that is already there. For a start, we must have the permission of the surface land owner. We need planning permission from local authorities. We need a licence from DECC from a series of auctions or allocations of those licences and areas for that. We need the Environment Agency to approve and we need health and safety to give the go-ahead as well. That is quite substantial. When I look through the amendment a little more, I certainly agree with independent inspections and disclosure of chemicals. I am far from sure about a 12-month period for a previous record of monitoring. From discussions on this in Committee, this is not particularly seasonal and 12 months is a long time—certainly, in terms of fugitive gases, methane in particular, that is extremely important.

However, I am not sure that the Bill is the right place to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something. In fact, I am sure the Minister could speak to the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change quite easily—maybe even after the debate—and come to an agreement on whether that was needed. I agree that maybe a report is required. It could, of course, really look only at foreign experience, while perhaps UK experience becomes far more important. We clearly cannot do that until after at least some of the exploration stage, and maybe some of the production stage, has happened. However, I agree that we need the regulation of this technology to be comprehensive, and we have a good track record in general in this area. Perhaps we need that regulation to be in one place comprehensively so that not only the industry but we as parliamentarians can understand it and, more importantly, the public can see how this all works.

So while I do not really support this amendment in its current form, I hope that the Government are working on this anyway and will bring forward, perhaps later in the Bill or in secondary legislation, a comprehensive summary and description of exactly how all these levels of regulation will work within the industry.

17:15

[Lord Hollick (Lab)]

My Lords, I was chair of the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House during the inquiry into shale gas and oil. The committee wanted to be fully satisfied that the regulatory regime was equal to the task of protecting people and the environment. We took extensive evidence from regulators, academics, local communities, NGOs and exploration companies. We concluded that the regulations and the mandatory industry guidelines gave the regulators all the powers needed to ensure that the environment and the health and welfare of local communities could be effectively protected. The report in 2012 by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, came to exactly the same conclusion.

We heard from many witnesses that the current regulation of offshore and onshore gas and oil drilling in the UK is widely regarded as best in class. Four of the proposals in Amendment 113G are already covered by existing regulations or industry guidelines, and there is no need to gold-plate them and include them in the Bill. We on the committee endorsed the recommendation in Professor MacKay’s report that fugitive methane should be measured when shale gas extraction begins. The industry agreed to this. To impose a requirement to monitor over the previous 12-month period is quite unnecessary, and only extends an already far too long 16-month timetable to get permission to drill.

We also recommended in our report, as my noble friend has mentioned, that wellhead inspections should be carried out by independent inspectors. The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive will indeed conduct job inspections but the well examiners will be employed by the companies. This was raised in the debate by the Minister last week, and she pointed out that the companies would provide these. One of the important things about regulation is that not only must it be independent but it must be seen to be independent. So why not ask the companies to foot the bill—if resources are a concern, and I suppose they are—for one of the agencies to carry out these independent inspections?

Our report identified that the tortuous and bureaucratic process to approve exploratory drilling is the major impediment to finding out whether or not the UK’s shale deposits are economically exploitable. It is regrettable that amendments were not tabled to address this serious problem, which has the merit of being supported by the facts and which would have commanded cross-party support. If passed, these amendments would add further complexity to an already devilishly complex and bureaucratic approval process, and will potentially extend the timetable by a further 12 months. Having lost the argument on the facts of the case, delay is now the main weapon of choice for those who oppose fracking. To add further delay to the exploration of shale gas would be a misstep.

Shale gas and shale oil could be a major boost to our economy; create jobs and preserve them; boost public and local finances; and halve emissions by replacing coal, which currently generates 40% of our electricity. For these reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. It is true that the Minister and I easily could have a conversation, but I wanted to put into context where the Committee on Climate Change stands on the basis of this amendment. Our view is that it would be quite wrong to depart from the science here, when we spend so much time in asking that small group of people who still do not think that climate change is happening, to look at the science there. In other words, we have a responsibility to keep to the science. The science is very clear that there is no fundamental reason why we should not frack and produce gas. Indeed, there is no argument scientifically opposed to it. The royal societies have done us a great deal of good in their work, because we are able to state that as clearly as any fact can be stated. Of course, no scientific fact remains fact for ever; it can always be altered by new information. That is why all scientists are properly referred to as questioning. That is why I believe that we should start with those facts and say that we should go ahead and see whether fracking can give another way of providing the energy we need.

It is very important to say to those who do not want to frack that there is always somebody who does not want to do any of these things—people who think that neither onshore nor offshore wind is acceptable, or people who do not like tidal power. I am fed up with people who have their favourite bits and dislike every other means of generation. The climate change committee has said, rightly, that we want to have a range of means whereby we can meet our future needs. Fracking could, or should, be part of that because we have already said that we will need gas into the 2030s. I thank the Government again for confirming the fourth carbon budget. Following those budgets, we still will need gas. Surely it would be better coming from our own resources than being brought in from somewhere else, particularly given that we do not always have the confidence in many of those places “somewhere else” that we have in our own resources.

That is the background. However, I warn the Government that there is always a chance of snatching defeat from victory. I am afraid that the Government are not always aware of that, so I want to encourage them not to get into that position. I think that the amendment is unnecessary. However, it seems to me that the reason it has been tabled is that there is so much misunderstanding outside. It is terribly important for the Government to underline the very significant difference between the way in which we deal with environmental questions here and the way in which they are dealt with in the United States. First, we deal with them on a national basis, whereas the United States deals with them on a state basis; secondly, there is no doubt that the United States system is lacking very considerably. There are some really disgraceful examples of failure to insist upon basic environmental protections in the United States. I do not want us to have to fight the public, who are misinformed, not about what happens in the United Kingdom but about what has happened in certain states in the United States. Nor do I want the public to take the rather ridiculous view that because it happens in the United States we can do it here, that it is the answer to everything, and there is no need to think about anything else. Both ends of that spectrum are wrong. Those who think that fracking will be the answer to everything and that there will be lower prices are clearly wrong. I say to the noble Lord that to say that it is unacceptable or that it is a sin against the Holy Ghost is also fundamentally wrong and unscientific. We ought not to go back into that same area of the dark ages, which we are invited to do by those who do not believe in climate change. We have to have a sensible, central position, which the Government have.

I would like the Government to oppose this amendment but to say publicly that they will do three things. One is to make it much clearer to everybody in a simple form how the regulations will work and how they will be enforced. The second is to make it absolutely clear that where the Select Committee of this House has recommended that independent checking is necessary, the Government will find a way of insisting that that is done. That is important not just because the House of Lords has suggested it but, frankly, because no one believes any business if it is doing its own checking. It does not matter how good or how bad the business is, we all believe that checking should be done independently—the business can pay for it but it ought to be done independently. We ought to promise that and state it.

The third thing is, I am afraid, even more important—namely, the Government have to give a real undertaking that, when the moment comes, there will be no question of a shortage of funds for any of the institutions that are responsible for protecting the public. The public are very suspicious that it is all too easy to say, “We would have done it but we couldn’t because it was all too long so we did some random checks”. If this measure is to go ahead, we have to know now that there is no question of there being any shortage of funds for the necessary checking, and that it will be done independently. Those of us who believe in the market believe that the cost should fall, as always, on the people who are proposing the fracking.

I end with one simple comment. I am finding it more and more difficult to deal with those who talk about the free market but do not believe in it. They talk about the free market but mean the managed and biased market that we happen to have and which is convenient for them. I do believe in a free market but that means that the costs of the production of this gas should be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the producers and therefore also on the shoulders of the consumers. Given that, I do not think that we need these amendments. The Government are right to proceed on the basis that part of our means of generating for the future will be our home-produced gas.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I live in Lancashire, which is a beautiful, well populated and much loved county, in case anybody has any doubts. I have listened very carefully to the points made in this debate and have read the proceedings on other stages of the Bill when I have been elsewhere in the House and unable to be present. I would like to concentrate on one issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hollick and other noble Lords. If it is managed and controlled carefully, I believe that a benefit to Lancashire and the north-west can be gained from the production of shale gas—and it is an area of the country which has much need of investment, regeneration and growth.

However, I happened to be in bed when the earthquake occurred in the Irish Sea and I have never been able to find out whether the integrity of the relevant well was a factor in that, as alleged in some of the local media. I am not asking the noble Baroness to tell me now whether she knows more about that but I would appreciate a letter.

I want to concentrate on public confidence. I am not a Luddite. I am not one of those who says, “Never”. However, given all the people who have spoken and written to me, I am very well aware of the grave concerns that people have, some of them for the reason that the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Deben, referred to—that is, the scare stories. Those are felt to be real by the people in the communities most affected in Lancashire—and they are felt and feared very strongly.

17:32

When I go back to Lancashire, having stated my position, I want to be able to say that there is absolutely no doubt that the companies themselves will neither choose nor be responsible for the independent monitoring of the integrity of the wells. That is the least we can do for the people who are frightened, and to allay the fears of those who are tempted to believe—or do believe—the scare stories that emerge. Therefore I need the Minister to say that the companies will neither choose nor be responsible in any way for the process whereby, for example, the integrity of the wells is judged. I am not interested in an assurance that they will be given rules about choosing who does the monitoring. That will not satisfy the people in Lancashire.

As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, one of the problems is that different rules apply in different states in America. We have a strong set of rules in this country, but people need to know that those who judge, for example, the integrity of the wells, have no link, other than being funded by them, with the companies involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the Government have taken that on board. I understand the point about the free market, but, as my noble friend Lord Hollick said, people need to know that it is not those with an interest in the business who are judging the safety and security of the wells, but those whose only concern is to report the truth. If the Minister cannot give that rock-solid guarantee, the people of Lancashire who have spoken to me will not be happy. That will delay the process, and nobody wants that.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the period for monitoring proposed in Amendment 113G—the previous 12 months—is unnecessary. The British Geological Survey found that background methane in aquifers is generally low. It also concluded that the majority of sites it studied showed little change in methane levels. That says to me that we should monitor situations on an individual basis, based purely on risk and not on anything else. Extensive monitoring like that proposed in the amendment is only going to delay safe projects from going ahead. Once we get a green light at an extraction site, we should get on with it.

On Amendment 115A, I do not see a great need for the Government to spend time putting together a report on fugitive emissions. Industry will already monitor emissions from the site; indeed, all the companies involved are committed to doing so. Fugitive emissions occur from leaks and poor-quality construction. In the UK the well design and plans have to be signed off by the regulators and reported on, so that is unlikely to be a major issue. Civil servants could spend their time far more productively than in producing such a report.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I support Labour’s amendments. They attempt to improve the regulatory framework but they do not go far enough. I hope that other amendments will be pushed through. We need a complete rejection of fracking. The things that have been said so far are not borne out by the facts and it would be very interesting to see future examples of just where fracking has gone very badly wrong.

We need to see a reprioritisation of renewables and energy efficiency. That would reduce our overall energy demand and make us much more able to fulfil our agreement under the Climate Change Act. Energy efficiency and renewables are already delivering jobs. They are very good at supplying employment and will do much more for energy security, lower bills and reduced emissions than an unacceptably risky shale gas industry can ever do.

The Bill contains some very worrying new measures that will, if given the green light by Parliament, threaten the UK’s wildlife. No one seems to take that into account. It will also promote the unfettered extraction of unconventional fossil fuels, which will undermine the Climate Change Act and our ability to avoid, as one nation among many nations, dangerous climate change.

The coalition talks endlessly about its supposed concern for future generations when it comes to reducing the budget but the same level of commitment is, surprisingly, absent when it comes to the environment and handing on a planet fit to live on. The next generation will be given a very degraded natural world if we do not understand the sort of damage that fracking can do.

If we want any more evidence that this is not the “greenest Government ever”, we need look no further than Clauses 32 to 37 and the deeply worrying and hugely unpopular new provisions to give companies the freedom to frack under our homes without letting us know. The Government have pushed ahead with this change despite recent polling showing that 75% of people are against it and the fact that 99% of respondents to the consultation rejected the proposals. I remind noble Lords that those people are voters.

If we look at just how much we have to do if we are not to allow the world to heat by more than 2 degrees—although it is probably already too late to avoid that—it is clear that fracking cannot be part of it. It is not even as though shale gas will bridge the gap that we keep hearing about between now and a future based on renewables. Shale gas will not be online until about 2020, or even well into the 2020s, so if the Government stick to our commitments under the Climate Change Act and coal is offline by the early 2020s, shale gas will not be replacing coal. We will see exactly what we have seen happening in the United States, which is that it is simply able to export more coal when shale gas fills its own energy needs. Shale gas merely displaces fossil fuels; it does not replace them. Professor Dieter Helm of Oxford University has told us that there is enough gas and coal to fry the planet several times. But of course we cannot use it. It must stay locked up. That is the most efficient form of carbon capture: leave it as coal.

These clauses will also allow fracking companies to undertake activities that have not yet been assessed for their environmental safety, including the keeping of substances within infrastructure on the land with no limits on what can be kept or for how long. Injection wells could be extremely damaging. They have caused problems in the United States, particularly in Ohio, where there have been earthquakes.

We know that the existing regulatory framework is full of gaps. Rather than continue the obsession with deregulating fracking and allowing the industry—an industry that the Chancellor proudly stated has the most generous tax regime in the world—to regulate itself, the Government should see this as an opportunity to introduce regulation that is fit for purpose in order to safeguard the climate. Balcombe, which has been the scene of a lot of interest in the context of fracking, has now decided to go carbon-neutral. If Balcombe can do it, the rest of us can do it.

Lord Lipsey (Lab): My Lords, I was a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, whose report, I am pleased to say, has received considerable praise today. When we started on our inquiry, I did not know what fracking was. I would have been hard pressed to distinguish it from another word beginning with “f” and ending with “ing”. However, in the months over which we heard evidence on the subject from every expert from every quarter, we had a clear impression of where the facts lay. The facts are reflected in a carefully balanced report, which says, quite clearly, that fracking must be allowed to go ahead for its enormous economic and social benefits but that we must have the right regulatory system in place. The report defines in some detail what that regulatory system should be.

That brings me to these innocent-looking amendments. If it is the mover’s intention merely to probe the Government’s intention, then I would go further and say that they are welcome amendments. In particular, the new clause proposed by Amendment 113G insists that the integrity of wells used should be independently assessed rather than it being possible for firms to use their own preferred consultants. I hope that the Minister heard the consensus around this House that that was a sensible recommendation and the disappointment that the Government have rejected it.

We need to set our arguments in a broader context. In the committee, we heard from the leading environmental groups, and I am afraid that the speech just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, confirms that they were not really interested in whether the wells were integral, how much methane should lapse out or whether there were any risks of earthquakes. Instead, they sought to raise every empty canard about fracking and treat it as if it were a genuine concern. Their aim was transparent—to surround fracking with regulations and planning constraints to ensure that in practice it never happened without having, in theory, to oppose it. For example, I asked a question of Mr Molho, the spokesman for the environmentalists. I said that,

“if there was no threat of global warming in this gas, would you still be against it, or would you say … that if the regulatory framework is right, it could be a goer?”.

He said:

“We would revise the position accordingly, yes”.

In other words, what the environmentalists want is to stop fracking, and the Trojan horse they use to hide their armies is more and more regulation, which is in danger of killing the whole thing.

That was the environmentalists and, unfortunately, they are not heavily represented in this House, so it is always a delight to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Unfortunately, their philosophy has popped up within these amendments. Amendment 113G specifies a 12-month period for groundwater baseline monitoring. It pops up in Amendment 115A, which demands a monitoring programme, including on fugitive methane, to report within six months of the passing of the Act—not, as the committee did, a report only when extraction begins. The amendment sets up a whole new system designed to ensure that fracking is compatible with climate change aims.

Those features make me worry about the position of our Front Bench. It says that it is not opposed to fracking. Indeed, I hope that the noble Baroness will say when she responds to this debate that she is in favour of fracking with the right regulation. However, in practice, it wants to make it more difficult than even your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee wanted. We are somehow left trying to ride two horses at once—no doubt, cheers from some environmentalists, although, in my experience, they are never satisfied by whatever concessions you make to them; not the extreme environmentalists. We are saying that we are in favour of fracking in principle but want to make it harder in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, is not in the Chamber but his predecessor, Jimmy Maxton, said that if you could not ride two horses at once you should not be in the circus. In this particular case, the trick becomes a little demanding when the horses are galloping in opposite directions. Are we for fracking or against it, subject to the right regulation? At the end of reading these amendments, I was in great doubt.

17:44

The energy future of this country is a grave matter and may be one of the biggest issues in the years to come. On the one hand, there is global warming, and man’s contribution to it, and Britain’s contribution to man’s contribution. On the other hand—this should matter to the party of working people—there is energy security, industrial costs that feed into jobs, and the amount that people have to pay for their fuel. These complex considerations have to be balanced, as the Economic Affairs Committee balanced them. That balance will not be totally upset if these amendments are carried. It will not be the end of the world. It will just make it a tad more likely that the next generation will pay more for its fuel, a tad more likely that our industry will be less competitive relative to other nations, and a tad more likely—I put it no higher—that one hard winter the lights will go off in the homes of those who would have liked fracking to take place as well as in the homes of environmentalists.

As I say, if they are merely probing amendments, it is excellent that we have had this constructive debate about them and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. However, if our Front Bench was so unwise as to press them to a vote, I shall be in the Government’s Lobby.

[Lord Marland (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to re-engage in this debate. In particular, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, better health and applaud her braveness for coming in today. I had the great pleasure of opposing her, or being opposed by her, for quite some time, as Members will know. There was never anything between us. In fact, when we took the Energy Bill through the House, there was very little between us—and there is not now with these amendments. I am taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who believes that these are probing amendments. I, too, believe that they are probing amendments.

There is nothing between us because, as the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, she was in favour of fracking. She also said that it had to be properly regulated. We have heard in the debate, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin, that we have the best regulation in the world for this part of the industry. To overdo regulation is to kill it. What it will kill is our ability to progress economically as a nation, as the two noble Lords on the opposite Benches have said; it will not enable us to have fuel security, which fracking gives us the opportunity to have; and it will not enable us to have cheap fuel in our homes. For people in this country these are the critical things that matter to the future of this economy and country. I am therefore delighted that the Government have taken on the work started four-and-a-half years ago in this field. It is fundamental to us all that we press on with it. The longer we debate it and get carried away in different directions from the core issues, the longer it will take to get this country back and going.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as to where the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, lies on fracking. Her heart on this subject is a little closer to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but she is putting on a very brave front, because she has to, and says she supports fracking. We have been at hydraulic fracking in this country for more than 50 years. As so many of your Lordships have said, this is a highly regulated industry and Britain is a world leader in it. It is totally inappropriate to compare our standards and form of regulation with some of the scare stories from America. However, it is about presentation and, at the moment, the industry and the Government are losing the presentation battle, although that might be beginning to change. As my noble friend Lord Deben will remember only too well, it is fine to say, “I wish the Government would improve their PR”. It is difficult to do that in practice because if it is a good news story our press do not want to know about it. All they want to know about are the bad news stories.

I made my comment about the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, because these amendments will make the whole process much more difficult and time-consuming. For example, new subsection (1)(a) in Amendment 113G requires all sites to,

“carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment”.

We know that environmental impact assessments are hugely important. They cover a range of other industries. However, European standards have been agreed on for fracking. Within those standards are certain exemptions for the small fields and for some experimental wells, but there are also restrictions. It is not a total blanket; it is a limited exemption. Why does the Labour Party want to gold plate what is already in existence and covers the whole of Europe?

When I was on Sub-Committee B and we inquired into energy, what came over abundantly clearly was that the rest of Europe—which has quite a lot of shale gas, too, particularly Poland—is looking to Britain for a lead. When Britain does it, the rest of Europe will get on and do it. We in Europe can all benefit from that. If we do not take the lead, the others will not do it by themselves. That is why I support all those who have said that we must get on with it, regulate it and make transparent who is regulating what and why, so that we can give the maximum amount of reassurance to the public.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, in taking part in the debate, my only interest is that we should make a judgment based on supported evidence, rather than on allegations. If nothing else, the amendment is important because there is a battle of ideas on fracking that we need to win. Noble Lords have said that we are not currently doing so well on public opinion. Unfortunately, the scare stories are believed. There has been an important event since we debated this in Committee: the publication of The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. It is a very important report. No one has questioned its integrity or the evidence it contains. I stress that point again and again.

Like many others, I looked at Amendment 113G. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Worthington say that she was not opposed to fracking. I suppose the amendment is a bit like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts. It is probably better than the average curate’s egg because most of the parts are good. I support an environmental impact assessment—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that that is something that needs to be done. I support independent inspections of the integrity of wells used; I am pretty sure the fracking companies would as well. They are also prepared publicly to disclose the chemicals used for the extraction process. Again, read the report: they are in there. For the most part they are used in tiny amounts, and for the most part there is no problem with them whatever.

It is true that some practices that went on in the States were not helpful to the process of fracking. That is not to say that everything that happened in the States was bad, because it was not—there are plenty of good examples from there. We should not forget that fracking substantially reduced emissions in the States. It did and has created jobs and it has brought industry back to the States. We should not forget that important aspect.

[Lord Wigley]

The noble Lord quotes the economic impact report, which I have with me. Paragraph 269 says that the Government,

“must also explicitly address the safety issues”.

The committee that produced that report was clearly not entirely happy on that count.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

Of course, we have to address the safety issues. I am not seriously saying that anybody in the Chamber is recommending that we embark on a process of mining or whatever activity without addressing safety issues. I listened carefully both to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and to his companion sitting next to him, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. They both expressed a deep-rooted opposition to fracking, which frankly puzzles me. If we do not have fracking we will still be dependent on LNG, on which I think about 27% of our energy is based. I do not understand the basis of their opposition. I sometimes do not understand the green analysis of a number of issues because it is not always evidence-based. I could say the same about GM foods, but that is another issue.

To return to this important subject, I, too, want to hear what the Minister has to say. I heard it once in Committee, but it is worthy of repetition. I listened to and understand the concerns of my noble friend Lady Farrington, but I direct her to the report. It said that when people talk about earthquakes, it might be better if we talk about tremors. There was one in Wigan in Greater Manchester, which was of a 1.5 magnitude. It was about the same as a heavy lorry passing.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I thought it was a bomb, living as we do half way between both the aerospace centres, with planes going over all the time. The noble Lord was not in my bedroom.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

That is an indisputable fact and I am glad it has been affirmed. I may not have been there when the earth moved for the noble Baroness, but I am going by the evidence of the recorded seismic shock. I again appeal to the House: that is what we must do if we want to win the battle of ideas. It is a really important one.

Of course we need to get the regulation right, but it needs to be proportionate and evidence-based. We have the capacity to do that. If we do not, we will see what has happened in Balcombe and in various other parts of the country. Instead of fracking being seen as a perfectly valid contribution to energy security, the cost of energy and the capacity to create a significant number of jobs, those who are opposed to it will succeed in creating the view that it is something to be feared. I do not believe that that is the case. Noble Lords do not need to look just at the evidence of the report. Durham University, in a totally independent survey, addressed the issues in a serious way. The industry is not financing it; it is totally independent research.

I welcome the amendments because it is important that the House debates this issue and makes clear what we expect from regulation. We and the public expect a safe, regulated, transparent and accountable process. I look forward to the Minister addressing those concerns.

[Lord Donoughue (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments are useful as probes, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. They also have important political and economic implications for the whole process of fracking. I will not explore the political side at this hour; I will point out on another occasion how very unproductive it is for the Labour Party to appear—I stress “appear”—to oppose shale fracking by artificial regulatory delay when shale offers the hope of 70,000 new jobs, billions of pounds of investment in the regions, lower energy prices, keeping our energy-intensive industries alive and here, and providing energy security. That seems to me to offer hope, which is still to be fully proved, to millions of ordinary British people. I do not think that Balcombe necessarily represents the majority of them. Public confidence is a factor that is repeatedly raised. In the polls, 75% of the public either support or, to a greater extent, do not oppose fracking.

Leaving the politics reluctantly on one side, I shall focus on the amendments. I support my noble friend Lord Hollick in his argument that all these environmental concerns are apparently covered by existing regulations. They need to be properly implemented, which I fully support. But if there is some need for further gold-plating—my noble friends Lord Hollick and Lord Lipsey mentioned that possibility—that can be pursued later. We should not use the very mixed regulatory experience of the United States to go into this bureaucratic jungle to delay fracking for ever. If one reads some of the official reports that have investigated it—I particularly call attention to that of the Geological Society—one will see that these matters put into perspective the statement that our British regulatory regimes are the best in the world and that we can rely on them. However, we cannot always rely on local authorities to have the resources to pursue them, which is a factor that should be pursued further.

I direct my next point especially to my Front Bench. It has not been explained to me in prior discussions why on earth we need a vote today. These excellent probing amendments explore the matters fully but I do not see the need for a vote. This jungle of bureaucratic regulations, including the existing ones, which I accept have already given excuses for the delay in extracting these precious reserves, mean that we have only one well today. We can express our views and Members have taken part in an impressive debate on all aspects. We can explore the matter but such a vote from this side—I am speaking very much as a lifelong Labour man—will send the wrong message. It will send the message that Labour wants to delay the great shale gas contribution to our economy. Conveying that message, which is hostile to job creation, lower energy prices and energy security, could push me, with my noble friend Lord Lipsey and perhaps others, into the very unfamiliar territory of the government Lobby. I trust that we will not get to that point.

The Government should agree tonight to explore further how genuine concerns about fracking can be allayed. I stress again that our concerns are genuine and that I am not referring to fictional scaremongering. However, we need to bear in mind that the Green Party’s concerns will never be allayed. I think that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for confirming that tonight. They will never be allayed because, in reality, however disguised, the Greens want to stop shale gas because it threatens their beloved windmills. With great reluctance, I shall vote against this amendment if, unfortunately, it is pressed to a vote.

18:00

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for putting forward the amendment and to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very informative debate. We are absolutely clear that shale development must be safe and environmentally sound. We agree with the Opposition that the issues they raise should be thoroughly addressed but that the existing regulatory regime does so in a robust and proportionate manner. I am minded to repeat some of the contributions that have been made already today because it is necessary and important to do so. I hope that over the next few minutes I am able to allay the fears of those noble Lords who are supportive of these amendments.

As noble Lords have said, we must ensure that the public are properly informed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that fracking must not be seen as a silver bullet. It can offer huge potential to ensure that we have a home-grown supply in a diverse range of energy mixes. It has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Deben and others that evidence in the United States referencing shale developments has, on occasion, led to public mistrust. However, it is important to note that the latest evidence continues to show that such cases in the States are due to faulty surface operations or faulty well construction rather than hydraulic fracturing.

On another issue again rightly raised by most noble Lords today, it is important to emphasise that in the UK we have an entirely different regulatory system to the US. The UK benefits from a comprehensive and stringent set of statutory and non-statutory requirements. My noble friend Lord Jenkin and other noble Lords rightly pointed that out. In the US, practice between different states varies considerably and regulation is in some respects less stringent. For example, unlike some US states, we do not allow open-pit storage of chemicals or waste fluids and we require independent verification of the design of the wells. I will respond to the questions raised towards the end of my contribution.

The UK’s globally recognised expertise in the offshore oil and gas industry is well known. Noble Lords, including, I think, my noble friend Lord Caithness, referred to the fact that the UK has more than 50 years’ experience in regulating onshore oil and gas production. We are confident that the regulatory system will continue to provide robust protection for the environment. Our position is backed up by reports from the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and Public Health England. These reports have considered a wide range of evidence and have looked at the UK regulatory system. Their advice has outlined the risks and concluded that, overall, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin pointed out, they can be managed or are low if industry meets all regulatory requirements.

I will now turn to each of the areas raised by the noble Baroness. First, where there are likely to be significant effects of a proposed scheme on the environment, environmental impact assessments are prepared by companies at an early stage in the development of proposals. They have a key role in informing regulators, planning authorities and the public about the likely significant effects of a proposed scheme on the environment. They enable mitigation measures to be identified to reduce or avoid significant effects. If the significant environmental effects cannot be mitigated, planning permission could be refused.

The UK has a strong track record in assessing the potential environmental impacts of development and in ensuring that they are appropriately mitigated. This is based on more than 20 years’ experience of adopting a proportionate, evidence-based approach to the environmental impact assessment. But what is proposed here misunderstands its purpose. Existing regulations already require the assessment of all proposals which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Legislating to force mandatory environmental impact assessments on all shale sites, even where significant effects are not considered likely—bearing in mind that hydraulic fracturing may not even be proposed—would be disproportionate and unnecessary. Not only would it slow down or delay development for no discernible environmental benefit, it would create a damaging precedent for other new industries in the future, both in the energy sector and beyond.

The proposal to make EIAs mandatory for all shale gas activities was discussed during the recent negotiations on the revision of the environmental impact assessment directive and was roundly rejected by member states, including the United Kingdom. We appreciate the importance of building public confidence in the shale gas sector and the fact that this includes being open about environmental impacts and how they are to be addressed. The existing EIA regime is already well suited to meeting these requirements.

Changes here would also affect other areas of development. There is an ongoing issue with planning authorities taking an overly cautious approach to environmental impact assessment. To gold-plate the requirements of environmental impact assessment in this way could significantly impact upon developments such as housing. We are therefore keen to maintain the existing rigorous and consistent approach across all sectors of the economy. We welcome the industry’s public commitment to carry out environmental impact assessments for all exploration wells that involve hydraulic fracturing. This commitment has already been seen through in the planning applications that have been recently submitted by Cuadrilla in Lancashire and we will support the industry in delivering on this commitment over the coming years.

The second area concerns well inspections. The integrity of the well is critical to ensuring the safety of the site and protecting the environment. For this reason the Health and Safety Executive checks the design of all wells and approves them prior to any construction taking place. The HSE also monitors well construction based on weekly reports to its well specialists. It is the well operator’s responsibility to appoint an independent well examiner separate from the immediate line management of the well operations. This allows a scheme of quality assurance and quality control, where an operator’s employee is not responsible for verifying their own work. This approach is flexible in that it allows in-house checks but only where the appropriate safeguards are in place. In this context, it is the competence of the well examiner that is most important. In reality, due to the size of shale gas operators, the well operator will generally appoint a company to act as its well examiner.

The third area relates to chemical disclosure. One of the problems we have seen in parts of the United States is where companies have refused to disclose the chemicals used in their fracking fluid, which raises safety concerns and alarms the public. In the UK in contrast, full disclosure is already required of every chemical the operator proposes to use, ahead of any fracking being allowed to take place. The environmental regulator requires this information when companies apply for the relevant permits to assess the safety of what is proposed and any potential risks to the environment. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it will publish the permit with this information, including naming each chemical and the maximum concentration of each at each well. In addition, the industry has committed to publish this information itself at each well along with the total volume of fluid used.

The fourth area concerns water companies. We recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are fully engaged in shale gas development. Their role underpins the strict controls that are in place to protect the quality and availability of water supplies. The environmental regulator is already required to check the potential impact on groundwater of any shale gas proposal for which permission is sought and will not grant a permit where our water supplies could be affected. The Opposition are seeking to ensure that oil and gas operators will consult with the relevant water company. However, the water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early and share plans for water demand and wastewater management. Making this a legal requirement does not add any value to an existing arrangement.

The fifth area is baseline monitoring of environmental indicators, including methane levels in groundwater. Good quality baseline monitoring, prior to operations, is essential to enable a rigorous assessment of any subsequent changes. It also provides local communities with information on the current state of their environment, potentially preventing those unfounded scare stories later. The UK already has a good set of regional groundwater data, thanks to the work conducted by the British Geological Survey since early 2012. At the more local level, the Environment Agency has confirmed that it would typically require baseline monitoring of groundwater methane for each specific site proposing to undertake fracking. It would not normally require this where no fracking is proposed, because there is no discharge to the environment. Moreover, the environmental regulator has the powers to require baseline monitoring of those environmental indicators it considers appropriate and for the length of time that it deems suitable for each site.

18:15

For fracking sites, the precise length of the period of monitoring the Environment Agency would require would depend on its expert assessment of the characteristics of that particular site and any risks associated with it. Typically, this would be a minimum of three months, not 12 months, although the regulations afford the agency the flexibility to require a longer period of monitoring should this be deemed necessary. For other indicators, such as surface water and biodiversity, the degree to which these will be relevant and the time required to monitor them will vary so much between sites that any fixed requirement would be inappropriate. Setting fixed requirements on monitoring will not strengthen these protections; they will simply impose unnecessary obligations in cases where environmental experts do not believe they are required.

The sixth and last area is fugitive emissions reporting. We already report the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions annually as part of our international reporting obligations to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and under the EU’s monitoring mechanism regulation. This reporting includes an estimate of fugitive emissions from onshore energy extraction, is done in accordance with guidelines produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is audited annually by a group of international experts. Our obligations mean that we will be required to include emissions from shale gas exploration and extraction in this reporting once these activities begin in the UK. Fugitive emissions from conventional onshore oil and gas extraction were estimated at around 0.03% of the total UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2012.

The MacKay-Stone report entitled Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use responded to a request from the Secretary of State in 2012 to assess potential greenhouse emissions associated with shale gas extraction and use. The report found that if properly regulated—as the noble Lord, Lord Young, highlighted—local greenhouse gas emissions would represent a small proportion of the carbon footprint. In April 2014, my department accepted the recommendations in the MacKay-Stone report, four of which relate to emissions monitoring, and a research project is planned to measure on-site emissions in line with the development of UK shale gas operational activity. The research will address uncertainty relating to fugitive emissions and inform decision-making on future monitoring. As we already have a robust process in place for reporting of fugitive emissions, and have plans in place to monitor and report any emissions from shale gas exploration and extraction once these activities start in the UK, additional reporting in this area would be redundant.

I hope that noble Lords have been reassured that we have examined closely each of the concerns in detail and are confident that these are fully reflected in the existing regulatory system, which has been operating well for decades for onshore oil and gas development.

The noble Baroness asked how the regulators would be funded, as did my noble friend Lord Deben. The regulators have confirmed that they have sufficient inspectors to deliver the regulatory regime they are responsible for during the current shale gas exploratory phase. If large numbers of wells are drilled to produce shale gas, the regulators may need to increase their resource accordingly, and they have plans in place to review that at relevant times.

The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked how confident we are that fracking will not cause earthquakes, although there was a difference in the definition of whether they would be earthquakes.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I said that this was one of the stories that is circulating. I asked the Minister for an assurance that the companies that are drilling and maintaining the wells would not appoint the people who will judge their safety, either while they are being built or when they are being used.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am grateful for the correction, and I think I mentioned that issue in my response on independent well operators. Perhaps I may clarify the position as regards the concerns of the noble Baroness. The Health and Safety Executive scrutinises well design and monitors progress to ensure that the operator is managing risk effectively, and will continue to do so throughout the life cycle of the well. An independent well examiner will also review its design and construction. To date, onshore operators have used separate companies to provide this service; they have not delivered in-house.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

As I understand it, seismic monitoring is done on a continuous basis. While I cannot remember the exact figures, I think that if a tremor registers 0.5, the operation is stopped. That is a very low-level seismic shock and reflects a high level of safety precaution. Can the Minister confirm that?

[Baroness Verma]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young. He is absolutely right to point out that exploration is immediately stopped once the level of 0.5 is reached. However, I will clarify the point and write to him, and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

With these reassurances, I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have spoken in this illuminating debate. As is characteristic of this place, it has been based on fact and has reflected the care and understanding that is always applied to these issues. However, having listened to the noble Baroness’s response, I have to say that she has not reassured me that the Government are listening on the very important issue of the need, for the industry’s own sake and for the economic benefit of this country, to be absolutely certain that, while we have a world-class regulatory system in place today, we will not see it become overwhelmed as the use of this form of extraction of the UK’s natural resources expands. There is an absolute and clear link between requirements in statute and the resources that are made available to meet those legal standards. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who pointed out that it is imperative that we have a clear and transparent regulatory system so that we know what is required of everyone and so that adequate resources are made available to ensure that, in the future, fracking has the best chance of proving to its detractors that it can be done safely. It is not correct to say that everything is in place for a world-class regulatory system today. There are loopholes and, while the noble Baroness has sought to give us some reassurances on independent inspection, I do not believe that she has addressed all the questions that have been raised in the debate. On that basis, I will not withdraw the amendment and I seek to test the opinion of the House.

18:24

Division 1

Ayes: 141

---

Labour: 118
Crossbench: 13
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 237

---

Conservative: 145
Liberal Democrat: 58
Crossbench: 22
Labour: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1

18:37

Clause 32: Petroleum and geothermal energy: right to use deep-level land

Amendment 113H

Moved by

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

113H: Clause 32, page 38, line 8, at end insert—
“(c) outside—(i) Special Areas of Conservation as designated under European Council Directive 92/43/EEC;(ii) Special Protection Areas as classified under European Council Directive 2009/147/EC;(iii) land which is functionally linked to Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation;(iv) Sites of Special Scientific Interest;(v) National Parks;(vi) the Broads;(vii) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and(viii) World Heritage Sites.”

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I am slightly nervous about speaking to Amendments 113H and 115 in my name on the Marshalled List. The mood of the House appears to be that if you dare to utter a word that strengthens environmental protection in any way you are immediately regarded as an anti-fracker. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that my track record in having managed a good balance between business and the environment for many years in the Environment Agency and before that is an example of how environmentalists can be keen on ensuring good levels of protection, while not then getting in the way of progress or commercial activity.

The two amendments are about the need for protection of our most important conservation areas. Amendment 113H is similar to one about which we talked in Committee but has some significant differences. I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss my concerns and to debate the best way forward in addressing them. The reality is that there are possible impacts on nature conservation and biodiversity as a result of fracking. We know about them; in terms of water abstraction and pollution, and habitat damage and disturbance, they have been rehearsed adequately here and in another place.

I will give an example—which I am sure is absolutely uppermost in your Lordships’ minds every minute of the day—and that is pink-footed geese. The pink-footed geese in this country in the winter comprise about 85% of the global population. We are hugely important for the survival of the species on a global basis. They are highly dependent on three parts of the UK for their wintering grounds and at least one of those, if not more, is a key site for shale gas extraction; that is, the Bowland area in the north-west. We really have to get this one right, not just for us and the pink-footed geese but for global conservation. If we expect other countries to look after their biodiversity in order to prevent species going extinct, we have to play our role with those species for which we have a huge international responsibility.

That is the whole purpose of some of those protected areas, to ensure that important habitats and important species are not put into jeopardy as a result of other activities. So there are areas where, when push comes to shove, their biodiversity importance has to take predominance. Less than 12% of the area currently potentially available for shale gas extraction comes under such designations, so we are not talking about huge areas. The amendment is seeking to demonstrate that we need to make special provisions and avoid extraction in those areas or where it would impact on land that is functionally linked to those areas, which would also create detriment as a result of that linkage.

Apart from the biodiversity and conservation importance of the amendment, it is vital to try to put up front what the key requirements are so that the industry is clear about what it needs to steer away from. In the very early stages of the offshore wind debate there were a number of sites in the North Sea that were, quite frankly, barking in terms of their biodiversity impact. To give them their due, organisations interested in biodiversity conservation and the industry worked together to identify the areas where it would be crazy to try to get offshore wind developed and, therefore, the areas where by default it was a sensible idea to press ahead. That good piece of work demonstrated very clearly where the industry could get ahead, get licences and start to generate power in a way that was not going to be stultified by conflict with the conservation movement. That is the approach we should be taking with shale gas extraction, to ensure clarity about those areas where it is really not a good idea to be proposing this, so that people can get ahead and move much more quickly in the areas where there is not that potential for conflict.

That is Amendment 113H. I know that the Minister is not inclined to accept it but there it is, for what it is. I am sure the Minister will say that there is the National Planning Policy Framework, which puts in enough controls, and that there is other European-linked legislation that will put in other controls, but I believe that it is worth putting it in the Bill, in one place, so that nobody is in any doubt about the areas that both the Government and the public would like shale gas extraction steered away from so that other areas can be much more rapidly exploited.

Amendment 115 is a fallback proposition—plan B, as it were—should the Minister not be inclined to accept the list, which is actually a shorter list than in my original amendment in Committee; I have taken out all the local wildlife sites and kept only the nationally and internationally important sites. If the Minister is not too thrilled with Amendment 113H, Amendment 115 might be a more practical proposition.

There is already precedent. There is planning guidance that the Government, in a very welcome fashion, have put down with regard to applications for development within AONBs—areas of outstanding natural beauty—and national parks. What I am asking for in Amendment 115 is a degree of consistency across all the landscape and conservation designations, with other protected areas being brought into that planning guidance. If not, there will be a feeling in the industry that if the Government think it is so important to give planning guidance for AONBs and national parks, and since they have not thought it as important to give planning guidance for SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest, there is some sort of hierarchy and that the areas of outstanding natural beauty and the parks are more to be steered away from than the other designations because the Government have given additional guidance on them.

It would be useful if the Government would acquiesce to Amendment 115 and expand the planning guidance that has already been given to some protected sites to others in order to send a signal that the Government believe—and I absolutely accept that they do—that all these protected sites are important. I beg to move.

18:46

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the amendment. I do not need to tell the House that I am a passionate defender of the areas of outstanding natural beauty and the national parks. We have to be vigilant all the time on that. There is no room for complacency because the pressures against what we believe in are always there and we have to beware of erosion. The point she has made about a wider application of those principles is very important.

As I listened to the previous debate, I felt my blood pressure rising because it is a travesty to suggest that environmentalists are against economic progress. Of course we are in favour of economic progress. We want to see it effective and driving as hard as it can. But we are equally determined, as custodians and trustees of all that we have inherited in terms of the environment, scenic beauty, biodiversity and the rest, to keep those issues as equally important. Therefore, it is a matter of rational, strategic decision-making about how you have clear areas for driving ahead, so that people are not worried about constraints of one kind or another but know that they have got green lights going all the way, and areas where we are saying, “Yes, but there are other considerations to be taken into account and if we want a Britain worth living in and if we want our children and grandchildren to inherit a country worth living in, these other issues are crucial”.

When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the previous debate, my feeling was that, yes, I do believe that the market has a key part to play in our economic affairs, of course it has. I happen to believe, rather traditionally—and I am not ashamed of that—in a mixed economy. But having said that, I believe in a managed market and I will take the opportunity to say why. The trouble is that the market operates from a short-term time perspective and these other issues of the environment, scenic beauty and the inheritance by our children of a country worth living in do not have the same immediacy in play in the market as other factors of a more essential economic character. Therefore, one must make sure that those points are on the table, being seen to be taken seriously and being given the muscle to be taken seriously. From that standpoint, I am very glad indeed that the noble Baroness has raised the point that what we want to apply to parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty should not be exclusively limited to them.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, neither the noble Baroness who has moved this amendment nor the noble Lord, Lord Judd, appears to have recognised that what we are talking about in Clause 32 is developing land 300 metres below the surface. Looking at the list of the various sites in the noble Baroness’s amendment, I cannot of think of one of them which could remotely be affected by horizontal drilling 300 metres below the surface. I am surprised that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Lord seems to have acknowledged this. We are not talking about actually drilling down in a special area of conservation or a site of special scientific interest which implies development on the surface. We are talking here about horizontal drilling 300 metres below the surface and I just cannot understand how either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord can think that this could affect these important sites. Perhaps I have missed something.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for introducing these important amendments. Perhaps I could immediately pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, a moment ago. Yes, there will be drilling across—of course there will be—but somewhere they have got to drill down. If he is saying there shall be no drilling down at all in these areas, just drilling across into them, then at least I would understand what he was saying, but he appears to say that there should not be any rules whatsoever appertaining to these special areas because the drilling can only come from the side. Well, it cannot only come from the side, and I would have thought that that is something that perhaps could be addressed later if this amendment was accepted.

I wholly welcome this amendment—

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The noble Baroness had an amendment in Grand Committee which addressed the question of whether there should be downward drilling and whether pads for developing shale gas could be located in any of these places. Although we did not vote in Grand Committee, the argument was perfectly clear that it would depend on the site. You have got planning permission and you have got a whole range of other things. I must confess I have not reread the noble Baroness’s debate on that occasion, but what we were talking about here is 300 metres below.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

Perhaps I may give just a couple of examples. Water pollution and the impact on aquifers in general could be quite a substantial issue. We already know that the volume of wastewater coming from shale gas extraction sites is substantial. For the most part that will be brought back to base, but where aquifers are involved we are not absolutely clear about that. There are a number of issues which are not just the site-based issues on the surface. They are about what is happening in terms of underground processes as well.

[Lord Wigley]

As I was saying before such diverse interventions, I welcome these amendments. They exclude important parts of these islands from the impact of fracking.

I come back to the experience of the United States—I will be talking more about that in the next group of amendments. The experience of the United States has been scorned in our previous debates, but it teaches us to be extremely careful before allowing such developments in our more sensitive rural areas. I accept that perhaps the rules will be different in the United Kingdom compared to the United States. That is one of the reasons why we need to have rules in the United Kingdom to look after these areas. Most certainly in the United States, to my knowledge, there are areas that have suffered not just from the effects underground but also very badly on the surface.

Noble Lords will be aware of the classic book Rape of the Fair Country by Alexander Cordell. We in Wales know what such extractive industry can do to our beautiful countryside and its effect on all sorts of wildlife. My only reservation with this amendment is merely that it does not go far enough and that many sensitive environments are excluded from being governed by it.

[Lord Borwick]

My Lords, I only wish that I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is a short-term exercise to get planning permission for this sort of development. The planning permission process will take many months, probably years, and cost a large amount of money. It is not a short-term exercise, and that is why I think this amendment is unnecessary because it will be up to the local council or local planning authority to grant the planning permission, with all the pressures put upon them to make the decision to protect the environment. With these sites listed in this amendment, I do not think they are going to get the planning permission which the noble Baroness fears they will. I really do not think it is going to be possible.

Secondly, I am sorry that—despite trying to listen to it—I am not sure I fully understood the meaning of “functionally linked”. How wide a definition will that actually be in practice? I wonder whether the noble Baroness could help in explaining that?

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I rise to oppose these amendments. I understand the principle behind them but, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin has reminded us, we are talking about something that is going to happen well below the surface. Having taken that into account, and while I agree with him that the amendment is in the wrong place, I also think that the principle of the amendment is quite important. However, what the noble Baroness has totally failed to do, and what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has failed to do, is to explain why the present system of controls is not adequate.

I do not class myself as an environmentalist; I class myself much more as a countryman. I have a much broader range of interest than an environmentalist would have. The house that I used to own very recently up in Caithness was right beside an SSSI, and on that SSSI there wintered whooper swans and lots of geese and ducks. Around us there are now eight wind turbine farms. This is a huge area—an important one for nature—but the argument was looked at for every single one of those turbines. More recently, a planning application was made for four wind turbines to be sited much closer to the SSSI. My house was perhaps one of the nearest that was going to be affected by that and I lodged my objection on the grounds of nature and what effect the four wind turbines—which are considerably bigger than anything we are talking about in the fracking process and would be at a higher level for much longer—might have on the flight path of geese and swans.

The planning process worked perfectly and the decision was turned down. It has gone to appeal and I do not yet know what the result of that is, but my point is that the existing procedures are there now to protect such sites as these. I used the existing procedures and the planners looked at the existing procedures and agreed with all of us that had objected to these four wind turbines. I believe that what we have got in place is sufficient and we do not need any more.

[Lord Judd]

Before the noble Lord sits down—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I am looking at the Companion in terms of rules of debate on Report. We are getting quite close to contravening them and I would just like to say to noble Lords that we should be cautious of that.

[Lord Judd]

Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that, whatever the value of the regulations and the means of implementing them that exist at the moment, it would be of considerable assistance to industry and those behind this important and vital initiative for the British economy to see clearly on the face of Bills such as this the areas on which they can and cannot concentrate their attention?

18:59

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, it is clear now. Industry does not need further clarity. It works.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, those who oppose these amendments are missing the point. The amendments may well be in the wrong place; they may well be too wide. I did not intervene in the previous debate because I thought that it was becoming far too polarised. Public opinion on the issue of fracking is polarised, but public opinion is not polarised in relation to the protection of our national parks and our areas of outstanding natural beauty. Unless the Government in some way recognise within the overall approach to fracking that there are certain sites which have to be protected—whatever provision exists elsewhere in terms of general planning law and so forth—the outcry against fracking will grow rather than be reduced.

The Government should at least have the grace to recognise that that is a reality. In terms of public acceptability of fracking, protection of our protected areas is an important element which needs to be in the regulations and in the Bill. Whether the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness are technically in the right place or not, the politics and the PR for fracking need to make that point. If they do not, the 25% of people who fundamentally oppose fracking will grow in number. The Government have the opportunity to ensure that that does not happen. I hope that, if not now then in the process of this Bill through the Commons, the Government will put that right.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has been another interesting exchange of views on how best to get the fracking industry off on the right foot and to minimise the degree of public opposition that might arise.

I recently visited the Lake District, which is one of my favourite parts of the country. I visited a mining museum and, in doing so, I realised that we often see such parts of the country as having a great value now in terms of tourism, wildlife and appreciation of scenic beauty, but that they have in previous times been quite diversely economically active and been able to accommodate different activities within the boundaries of the parks as we know them today. Therefore, I for one am not of the opinion that these special places need to be preserved in aspic but that it is about achieving the right level of balance.

That said, it is absolutely clear that, when you have a Government who say that they are all out for fracking and that it will be the silver bullet that solves all our energy needs, and slightly overhype it, you can see why people get nervous that all due consideration and care are not being taken. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s responses to the two amendments. The second of them, Amendment 115, points to something of an inconsistency, with planning guidance having been issued for national parks and AONBs but not for other nationally significant sites. Such sites, because they tend to be smaller, more fragmented and under considerable pressure from a wide range of economic activities already, arguably deserve even greater levels of protection than those larger national parks and AONBs, which I think can accommodate economic activity within them and generate jobs and economic benefits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I welcome the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to protected areas and was grateful for our meeting prior to today. Such areas are nationally and internationally important in terms of their environment, and all noble Lords who have contributed today, from whichever perspective, have highlighted their significance.

As the noble Baroness made clear in Committee, these areas are the jewels of our country and we agree that they need to be accorded appropriate protection. While I recognise the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendments, which is to ensure the necessary protection for habitats and species in or near to protected areas, I assure her that such areas are already offered a high level of protection derived from EU directives transposed into domestic policy and through the planning system, as noble Lords have alluded to today. The National Planning Policy Framework, the supporting planning guidance and a government circular on biodiversity and geological conservation all recognise that there are areas designated for natural conservation and biodiversity value, including sites of special scientific interest, special protection areas, special areas of conservation and Ramsar sites, and that they should be given a high level of protection. They are clear that protected areas need to be fully and appropriately considered by mineral planning authorities when exercising their planning duties, both in preparing local plans and determining planning applications.

The planning authorities assess each application for shale and geothermal development on a case-by-case basis. For example, the National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that development should not normally be permitted if, either individually or in combination with other developments, it is likely to have an adverse effect on a site of special scientific interest. That applies even if the development is outside site of special scientific interest boundaries.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, which transpose the EU habitats and wild birds directives, ensure strict controls on any plan or project that might affect European sites such as special protection areas and special areas of conservation. Development cannot occur on or near such protected areas unless it can be shown to a high degree of scientific certainty that there will be no adverse impact on the integrity of the site. This is a very high bar for securing development in such areas. In addition, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 place a duty on all public authorities, including the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, when exercising their functions, to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Public bodies also have comparable duties relating to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest.

It is important to note that the regulatory system in the UK fully recognises these protections. Before any oil or gas operations can begin, operators must gain a permit from the environmental regulator, the Environment Agency or an equivalent agency. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently preparing revised guidance on protected wildlife sites as part of a wider project to make all the department’s guidance quicker to use and easier to understand—the noble Baroness raised that when we had our meeting the other day. This will help ensure that these requirements are clearly communicated to developers and regulators.

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said that the Government looked on shale as being a silver bullet. We have always maintained that we do not see it as a silver bullet but that we see its potential for ensuring that we have home-grown supply and energy security and for helping drive down costs to the consumer. The debate should be in that context rather than shale being taken out of context in the wider arena.

In drawing the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to the robust regulatory regime that is already in place and the full recognition that the planning system already gives to protected areas, I hope that she is reassured that such areas are already accorded significant protection and, on that basis, will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am reassured that there is already strong environmental protection for these sites, but I am not reassured that it is necessarily always going to work.

There are two dimensions. First, I was interested in the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and his wind farms. There was an example where there were environmental considerations that should have given a strong signal to the developer that it was not a sensible place to put a wind farm, but he nevertheless barrelled on. One assumes that it will go to appeal. So we are not giving the right signals to potential developers of sites that it is a waste of their time, effort and money to get into disputes in areas where there is a very strong case for the protection of the biodiversity interest, and where it is therefore going to be a struggle for them to get permission. We need to give them very strong signals that it is going to be a lot easier and cheaper for them not to set their hearts on some of these highly protected biodiversity sites.

We also have a case in Kent at the moment, for a housing development being proposed to the local authority. I am earnestly hoping the planning authority will turn it down. It is a proposition for 5,000 houses to be built on 300 hectares of a site of special scientific interest. If the development goes ahead it will be the largest loss of SSSI land for the last 30 years in this country. It will be a complete outrage. But the developer has been barking enough to set themselves on that site. That is an example where the developer is simply not reading the signals, so the signals need to be absolutely explicit.

I very much appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made. This is an effort to try and make sure that fracking gets off on the best possible foot, with a really clear commitment linked specifically to shale gas extraction about environmental protection being absolutely paramount. We should not rely just on other pre-existing legislation but gather together the real requirements that this industry needs to take account of, so that we can reassure the public and move ahead.

I was hoping that the noble Baroness might give me hope for Amendment 115 at future stages of the Bill, because the situation seems totally anomalous. I would like to understand from her why the Government felt it necessary to issue guidance on areas of outstanding beauty and national parks, which have strong environmental protection requirements already, but not on the other nature conservation sites. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and hope the Minister might think more kindly of the amendments in pushing the Bill to another place.

Amendment 113H withdrawn.

Amendment 114

Moved by

[Lord Wigley]

114: Clause 32, page 38, line 15, at end insert—
“(6) This section shall not extend to Wales unless an order authorising it has been passed by the National Assembly for Wales.
(7) An order under subsection (6) may contain any conditions which the Assembly deems appropriate.”

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 115B, 115C and 123, which also stand in my name and are grouped with Amendment 114. First of all, could I say a word about the whole issue of fracking? Noble Lords will be aware that when this Bill was given its Second Reading there was no reference to the provision it now makes in relation to fracking. When we first started in Committee, there was no sign of the amendments we knew were being prepared. Ostensibly, we had to wait until the conclusion of the consultation process in August, before amendments were formulated. But since little notice seems to have been taken of the overwhelming opposition to fracking expressed by the general public, this seems to have been little short of a charade. It is not good enough to take an arrogant and disparaging attitude to those who harbour genuine fears.

Now that we have the amendments in the Bill and the provision for fracking is likely to be confirmed as part of it as we move forward from Report, unless we challenge it rigorously tonight, then the fears that people have will be underlined and reinforced. That is why I have tabled my amendments. But before I address the detailed wording, I will make it clear why I unreservedly oppose the application of fracking technology to extract underground gas. I have grave reservations about this technology. I do not express these doubts and concerns on the basis of a nimby approach. There are no identified areas of potential fracking activities in my home county of Gwynedd, nor do I harbour doubts about any form of modern applied technology.

19:15

My university degree, many years ago, was in physics, and I rejoice in the progress of science in making life so much better for millions around the world. But science needs to be applied with a degree of the precautionary principle. We all remember the tragedies of thalidomide, the dangers of radiation exposure, and the potential disaster which was associated with CFCs in the atmosphere. It is just as stupid to blindly accept the application of science as it is to blindly apply a knee-jerk reaction against the wonders of modern science, and what it can bring us. We need a balanced approach, and that means asking awkward questions and challenging glib assumptions. That is what I want to do in regard to our apparent acceptance of fracking technology.

The dangers associated with fracking can be summarised under five headings: first, direct dangers to human health and to animal and plant life arising from the chemicals used in the fracking process and the likelihood of them entering our water supply systems; secondly, the possibility of fracking technology triggering seismic tremors, as we have heard about in earlier debates tonight, and in the extreme, earthquakes, as apparently happened not so far from Blackpool in 2011; thirdly, the implications, by building a cheap gas economy, of worsening our carbon footprint at the very time when we should be putting every priority into reducing our fossil fuel usage and investing in reducing demand for fuels by insulation and fuel efficiency programmes, and re-orientating our energy systems into using renewable low-carbon technologies; fourthly, the highly questionable principle of giving developers carte blanche to enter people’s property or dig under their land under a blanket assumed permission to do so, undermining the checks and balances which have been carefully crafted into our town and country planning systems; and fifthly, the environmental squalor which fracking has left in its wake in so many of those communities in North America which have been blighted as a result of the fracking invasion of their countryside, and now this Bill will allow fracking companies to walk away from their clapped-out equipment, which they leave under the ground after them.

We are told of the economic benefits which will flood into these areas as a result of fracking, but all experience shows this to be a total nonsense. Only a handful of jobs are created, and they usually go to migrant workers who move from location to location as the fracked-out wells are exhausted, leaving behind them the industrial squalor so often associated with the extractive industries. We are told that there will be immense wealth from exploiting these untapped reserves of gas. But that wealth does not go to the communities which have suffered the ravages of exploitation; it goes to the supranational corporations, which are only too ready to respond to the Government’s inducements. Of course, the money will go into the Treasury to bail out a near-bankrupt economy, with the danger of being squandered in the same way as has happened to the UK’s North Sea oil reserves. Local families, local communities and local environment pay the price, and distant pockets bulge with the proceeds.

All these are matters of concern to me. But let me concentrate, in the limited time we have available on Report, on the dangers of chemicals contaminating the water systems of those areas where fracking takes place. In Wales, we provide water not only for our own communities, but for many English conurbations: in north-west England, in the Midlands, and in probably increasing quantities to southern England. The purity and safety of those water supplies have been taken for granted. Let me mention just some of the chemicals used in the fracking process. Each fracking “job” requires between a million and 8 million gallons of water, and each such job uses 40,000 gallons of chemicals, involving as many as 600 different chemicals, including carcinogens and toxins such as lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde.

In the United States, there have been over 1,000 cases of contaminated drinking water in locations next to areas of gas drilling, and these have led to cases of sensory, respiratory and neurological damage which have been attributed to ingesting contaminated water. Less than 50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered; the remainder of the toxic fluid is left in the ground. Overwhelmingly, it is not biodegradable.

In the United States, waste fluid is often left in open-air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful, volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain and ground-level ozone. A whole plethora of legal cases have arisen in the United States. In April, the Parr family in Texas were awarded $3 million damages against the Aruba fracking company for the pollution of air, water and soil which had seriously impacted on the family’s health. The following month, in May, there was a rig blow-out in Morgan County, Ohio, with a spillage of 184 barrels of toxic fracking fluid, which apparently reached the nearby waterway. In Pennsylvania in June, a fracking company was fined almost $200,000 for a toxic hydraulic fracking fluid spill of over 200,000 gallons into the local environment that led to the evacuation of local families from their homes. In Texas in August, it was reported that in a survey of 100 water wells up to three kilometres away from the fracking locations, over 30% had arsenic levels above the safety limit. A survey by Dale University said that water sources—again in Pennsylvania—showed an elevated level of methane in locations a kilometre or more distant from drilled areas. In some instances, the methane concentration was so high as to be explosive.

Britain is much more densely populated than the United States, with consequently higher likelihood of water sources used for human or animal consumption being polluted. Given this sort of experience, it is of little surprise that states such as Vermont have banned fracking since 2012. They did so, in the words of the state governor, Peter Shumlin, in order for Vermont to,

“preserve its clean water, its lakes, its rivers and its quality of life”.

I was told graphically when in America in August by Eluned Jones, Professor of Economics at South Dakota State University, that the economic benefit gained in her state by fracking had been attained at an environmental and social price that was a profound disaster. Other parts of America are waking to the dangers of fracking. Only last Tuesday, as we heard earlier, the city of Denton in Texas—in the heart of fracking country—voted in a referendum to ban any new fracking operations. Civilised European countries that put the safety of life and the environment above commercial profiteering have banned fracking. France has done so since 2011. Both Germany and the Netherlands have placed a moratorium on it. That is what my party, Plaid Cymru, has also called for.

In these amendments I urge the House to take a first step towards a moratorium throughout Britain by refusing to carry forward Clauses 32 and 33. They were inserted in a blind moment in Committee and I urge the whole House to reject them emphatically. If, for whatever reason, I cannot carry the House with me—as I suspect may be the case having heard earlier debates—then I implore the House to at the very least agree Amendment 114. That would allow this clause to be applied in Wales only if it was so approved by the National Assembly, and allows the National Assembly to impose whatever conditions it deems fit on any fracking development. My hope would be that, irrespective of what happens in England, it would say no to fracking in Wales.

However, there are cross-border issues relating to fracking. My parliamentary colleague, Hywel Williams, MP for Arfon, was told in a Written Answer that fracking developments in north-west England may well look to Wales for the enormous supplies of water they will need for those purposes. As noble Lords will be aware, water is an incendiary substance in Wales. Any suggestion of the drowning of further valleys in Wales to provide water for fracking in England—no doubt without any compensatory payment—will generate a howl of outrage the length and breadth of my nation. Water is to Wales what oil is to Scotland, so let there be no misunderstanding whatever that the exploitation of water resources in Wales, without the sanction of the National Assembly or adequate payment, is a non-starter and will be fought every step of the way. I cannot make it clearer than that.

In many ways, it would be totally perverse not to devolve to the National Assembly responsibility for allowing, banning or putting conditions on fracking in Wales. The Assembly has responsibility for virtually all aspects of town and country planning in Wales, it has total responsibility for the environment and agriculture, and it has responsibility for the healthcare services in Wales. All these are policy portfolios impacted by the effects of fracking. If Wales is to have coherent public policy, then control of fracking must also be devolved. Indeed, the Government have tacitly admitted this in their response to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on energy generation in Wales. The committee recommended that the UK and Welsh Governments should co-operate on regulatory and planning matters, including the “environmental risks” associated with hydraulic fracking. The Government’s response was that planning was a devolved matter. That being so, surely the Government must accept the thrust of my amendment.

Incidentally, I would be grateful to the Minister if we could have some clarification as to whether these draconian provisions will apply to Scotland directly, or whether the Scottish Parliament has some control over their applicability. I suspect that if you were to tell Mr Salmond that Scotland will have to allow fracking willy-nilly and by Westminster diktat, there would be such an eruption north of Hadrian’s Wall as to re-open the whole relationship between this place and Holyrood. Yet if Westminster were to allow a Scottish veto over fracking, then on what earthly basis is such a provision to be denied Wales?

My preferred outcome of this debate would be for the Government to withdraw or the House to vote these appalling clauses out of the Bill. In the event of failure to do this, I implore the Government to either accept my Amendment 114 to allow the National Assembly to determine these matters in Wales or undertake to bring forward their own clause in another place for the same purpose. Whichever way they proceed, this issue will not go away. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I do not want in any way to suggest that Wales should not have its own authority over this area. As a citizen of Cornwall, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—though I do not know enough about what the relationship is here.

On the attack on fracking, down in Cornwall our geology does not support shale gas but it does support deep geothermal, in which fracking plays an important part. I think that the noble Lord spoke on the whole about fracking in relation to shale gas, but there are issues around fracking for whatever purpose, and seismic events are one of those. In one of the early EU-funded geothermal tests in Alsace, there were seismic events and a lot has been learnt from that. There were also events in Blackpool, but as I understand it the industry is able in the right locations to make sure that such matters are very well controlled.

I make the point that fracking can be good. It can be good for renewables. I hope that in the longer term fracking will be available for deep geothermal in terms of power generation. At the moment, it looks like we will go through a heat revolution with not quite so deep geothermal, but in the long term we may get to generate baseload electricity through deep geothermal. I wanted to make that point, because fracking is not just around shale gas; it has those other benefits as well.

However, Wales should be able to steer its own course.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I rise briefly to ask the Minister for her comments on the issue of devolution and fracking. I am particularly interested in the Scottish question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As I understand it, Holyrood already controls planning permission and the permitting regime, so it would not be a huge step to devolve this aspect of the control of fracking and rights of access. I just ask that question.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, when we talk about these provisions and rights of access, they apply to more than just the extraction of petroleum. Indeed, they apply to deep geothermal, which arguably needs the loophole to be changed more urgently than in the case of fracking for oil and gas. It may change the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on this that you can frack for coal as well. Fracking of deep-mine coal might bring a degree of economic development back to Wales. I am not saying that that is the only way that Wales should develop; I am much more interested in some of the marine technologies, biomass and wind in a Welsh context—those seem to have huge potential. However, I would never rule out the idea that deep coal mining could come back as an economic activity if done in combination with carbon capture and storage.

In summary, these clauses potentially relate to more than just oil and gas extraction, and I am interested in the noble Baroness’s response on the Scottish question.

19:30

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I note the clause stand part amendments and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, regarding the application of the right to use deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy in Wales. The Government support the development of shale gas and oil. Natural gas from shale could play a crucial role in supporting UK energy security, as well as an important role as a part of the transition to a low-carbon economy, and that was well debated previously. The carbon footprint of UK-produced shale gas would likely be significantly less than coal and lower than imported liquefied natural gas. Domestic shale gas could also benefit the UK in terms of jobs, tax revenues and growth, mitigating some of the falling revenues from the North Sea.

However, it has become clear that difficulties in obtaining underground access pose a barrier to exploring this new industry. The same problem also applies to the deep geothermal industry, which is likewise at an early stage of development in the UK. New lateral drilling methods that can cover much larger areas underground mean that existing processes for obtaining underground access can be disproportionately costly and time consuming in relation to the potential benefits. Currently, companies must negotiate rights of access with every landowner living above underground drilling. If these negotiations fail, an oil and gas operator can make an application to the Secretary of State, who may refer the matter to the courts. This process gives a single landowner the power to delay a development significantly and, in the case of geothermal, it is likely to stop the project entirely.

The right to use deep-level land would help unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards a low-carbon economy. However, let me be clear that we are not proposing any changes to the regime for surface access, and the regulatory system that deals with the potential risks associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing will remain the same. I can reassure noble Lords that a company looking to develop shale or geothermal would still need to obtain all the necessary permissions, such as planning and environmental permits. The onshore oil and gas industry has committed to engage with communities at the early stage of operations, as well as consulting through the planning application process. Our robust regulation will protect residents while allowing this source of homegrown energy to develop in a way that is fair to communities.

EY has estimated a thriving industry could mean 64,500 jobs nationally. Locally, that could mean cementing contracts, new facilities and jobs for local companies. Communities that host shale development could see a share of this, which is why we welcome the developers community benefit package, similar to other technologies such as wind. This will pay communities £100,000 per hydraulically fractured well site at exploratory stage and 1% of revenue if it successfully goes into production. As with wind farms, wider communities will benefit too, as local councils will also be able to retain 100% of the business rates that they collect from productive shale gas. Therefore, there are many potentials of this industry to communities in Wales if shale production takes place.

Petroleum extraction is a non-devolved matter. As such, the proposals for oil and gas will apply across England, Wales and Scotland. The proposals on deep geothermal energy also cover England, Wales and Scotland, where in Scotland deep geothermal energy is exploited for the sole, or main purpose of electricity generation. Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 sets out the conferred subjects over which the Welsh Assembly can exercise legislative competence. Oil and gas are clear exemptions from the conferred list of economic development and, furthermore, the exploitation of deep geothermal resources could not be considered to have been conferred under any of the subjects in Schedule 7.

Although deep geothermal and oil and gas activity may impact upon conferred subjects such as environmental protection, that is not what they properly relate to for the purposes of the legislative competence test in the Government of Wales Act 2006. In addition, the right of use clauses are not removing any existing regulatory requirements. We therefore see no ground on which this measure would be within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. On that basis, there is no rationale for requiring approval by the Welsh Assembly before the section can apply in Wales.

It is also worth noting that, while oil and gas are non-devolved matters, all existing planning authority procedures and powers will remain in place. As such, the different UK planning regimes will continue to regulate shale gas or geothermal developments according to their existing planning procedures. I have reflected on the noble Lord’s amendment and in response to his concerns I have offered him a government perspective. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wigley]

I am very grateful to those who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for her response. Quite clearly, I would be unlikely to carry the House on the amendment that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. Although my heart would want me to go down that road, I suspect that I would come to a blind alley. Therefore, I will not press it on this occasion because there will be opportunities in another place. I have no doubt that many Members of all parties in the other place will wish to come back to this because there is deep concern outside.

Even if one was in favour of fracking in principle, I would have thought that it would be very wise to pay attention and take the maximum possible notice of the reservations that exist outside, because these are the real fears of real people in real communities, and they need to be addressed. Members in all parts of the House have expressed that in the series of debates we have had tonight.

Turning to the lead amendment in the group, which relates to the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, I think that it is ironic that at a little earlier than this time tomorrow—as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, on the Government Front Bench, will be well aware—we will consider an amendment that would change the model of devolution for Wales to a reserved-powers model of the sort that exists for Northern Ireland and Scotland. This was a recommendation of the Silk commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was a member, and which appeared to have all-party support in Committee in this House. The Report stage of that Bill takes place tomorrow. That being so, unless there was a specific exemption made for these purposes, it would not be enough to rely on the 2006 Act, which the Minister has relied on in the debate tonight.

However, rather than argue technical, legalistic points arising out of legislation, I put this to the Minister in conclusion. When the National Assembly for Wales has responsibility for the environment, particularly for town and country planning, transport, and economic development within Wales, as well as health proposals, then surely it makes all sense to put the responsibility for this area also into its hands—at the very least to make sure that there is a working together. That surely was the intention of the Government when they responded to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs report. I will not quote it again, but it underlined the fact that planning policy is a devolved matter and that planning is integrally involved in the decisions we are talking about in regard to fracking.

Therefore, I ask the Minister whether she will take this away between now and the debates in another place and give further thought, particularly in the light of the debate we will have on the Wales Bill tomorrow, as to whether there is a mechanism to make sure that the National Assembly for Wales and the Government of Wales are totally on board in a dialogue on these matters so that, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the decisions affecting communities can be taken as close as possible to those communities—in this context, decisions affecting Wales can be taken by the National Assembly where possible. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 114 withdrawn.

Amendments 115 to 115B not moved.

Clause 33: Further provision about the right of use

Amendment 115C not moved.

Clause 34: Payment scheme

Amendment 115D

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

115D: Clause 34, page 39, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) The regulations must require contributions to the contingency fund or funds from relevant energy undertakings which are sufficient to meet—
(a) any loss caused directly or indirectly by the operation of the oil and gas activity;(b) the costs of—(i) remediation;(ii) enforcement action against the relevant energy undertaking;(iii) other measures taken by a public authority in respect of, or in consequence of the loss, or the activity which gave rise to the loss.( ) The regulations must ensure that the contingency fund is protected in the event of the insolvency of a relevant energy undertaking which has made payments to the fund.”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am trying to help the Government out here. This is yet another part of the jigsaw that is necessary to ensure public acceptability of fracking in appropriate circumstances. The amendment deals with the issue of damage caused by fracking and who is liable for it.

We have had a debate about the nature of the regulations, whether or not they are effective and whether there are enough resources to enforce them. Even if we accept that we have world-class regulations and regulators in this area, if fracking takes off in the way in which its proponents—and, to some extent, I—hope it will, then there will be hundreds of sites across Britain and, however good the regulatory process, however vigilant the regulators themselves and however well motivated those companies that are responsible for those operations, there will be problems. There is no prior form of energy where there have not been some accidents, leakages or effects on the environment, on neighbours, on businesses or on the water supply.

The failure of even a fraction of the number of wells that are being talked about could have a significant impact on the landowner, on the farmer, on the community close to the fracking site, on individual households or indeed on individuals, or it could have an effect on other businesses, whether small local businesses or giant water companies. We therefore need to have an effective liability arrangement that ensures that the cost of such damage and its remediation do not fall on the public purse. We have historic examples here in the energy field. Whether you are talking about deep coal mining, opencast mining or the nuclear industry and the cost of decommissioning there, the reality has been that the costs of damage, waste and pollution have been borne almost entirely by the taxpayer. I want to see a provision in the Bill whereby that does not arise in the case of substantial development of the fracking industry.

My amendment would therefore deal with the Secretary of State’s obligation to bring forward regulations to ensure that any operator within this field, whether in the exploratory or subsequent stages, has sufficient resources to cover any loss arising from the operation, the costs of remediation and the costs incurred by the public authorities in enforcing that. That may require a separate fund within the company or a common fund. I leave that to the Secretary State in the regulations. However, such provision is necessary.

I am afraid that the Minister’s reply, when I referred to this issue in rather similar form in Committee, raised several concerns. It was argued by the Minister that companies can be required to remediate the effects and prevent further damage from pollution under existing regulations. However, in general, that applies only if land itself is contaminated in the strict terms of those regulations. It is not clear that funds need to be available from the outset to foot the cost of this remediation activity.

The Minister made a big point of saying that we should not treat fracking differently from other industries and that existing law is robust. However, one has only to look at one of the examples that I mentioned: opencast mining in Scotland cost £200 million in Scotland alone, and the entire cost fell on the public purse. My amendment also therefore seeks to ensure that that would not arise in this case and that a fund would be provided in advance, as it were, and in effect would be bankruptcy-proof.

The Minister also argued that environment regulators already have the power, although not the requirement, to require up-front financial bonds to address the risk wherever they deem that necessary. Article 14 of the European mining waste directive is relevant here but it is limited; it relates only to the situation where the waste itself is hazardous or is managed at a category A site. Neither of those things needs to apply for substantial damage to be caused if there is some leakage or other damage caused by the fracking operations.

19:45

The amendments are fairly straightforward. They require anticipating what has happened in other industries at the same time as we are designing the permitting system for fracking operations. It would be a substantial piece of foresight by the Government to introduce such requirements and to ensure that the operators in this field had sufficient resources to meet such contingencies. However, probably more importantly, to outline a point that I made in my brief intervention earlier, it is also a vital part of ensuring that the public, the businesses, the communities and the landowners who are anxious about the effects of fracking are reassured from the outset that if something goes seriously wrong, their interests will be respected and it will not be the taxpayer who pays but the operator. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is no longer in his place, said at an earlier stage that it should be clear in relation to the enforcement of regulations that the polluter pays. That must be true also in relation to any negative effects that require action and remediation as a result of these operations.

This would be a reassurance, and in extremis it might become an absolutely necessary reassurance, so that we do not go through the sequence of events that followed earlier generations of energy exploitation in coal and nuclear power, where no such liability was placed on the operator and where, in fact, the taxpayer has paid and is continuing to pay. In the case of nuclear in particular, the taxpayer will continue to pay for many generations to come. Let us anticipate that and at the same time reassure large sections of the community who may not have any fundamental objections of the type that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has to fracking but nevertheless are anxious about their own interests and the effect that this may have on their own businesses and their way of life. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, when I saw the noble Lord’s amendment, my immediate reaction was to say, as he has done, “Look at what’s happened in other industries, notably the nuclear industry, and then look at what has been happening recently in relation to offshore oil and the measures that are now being taken there”. That led me to approach the trade association that covers the fracking industry, which was extremely helpful. My noble friend’s department has produced a very long paper of financial guidance on the whole question of petroleum licensing. At this hour of the night, when there is further business to come, I will not go into that in great detail, but the fact is that, having read that and the paper that has been produced by the trade association, UKOOG, I am satisfied that the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised are in fact being addressed very positively. It is not only the question of whether the company that will get a licence will have the resources to carry out the work and continue to operate any shale gas well that it constructs. The papers address very specifically the questions that the noble Lord has made most of—the decommissioning of plant and financial liability if things go wrong. The existing regime provides for the remediation of environmental damage and contaminated land, and that includes water. If we take all the regulations together, if a company causes damage, harm or pollution to the environment, it can be required under the regimes in force to remediate the effects and prevent further damage, which is the same approach as applies to other industries.

Furthermore, the Government appear to have very clear powers: they can require financial evidence that there are resources available to pay for that. UKOOG has relieved my anxieties in that regard. Unlike the earlier industries to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred, the approach to this industry, which is still at a very early stage of its development, as he rightly said, has been extremely responsible. I shall be very interested to hear from my noble friend what those measures are. I am satisfied, but I will listen to my noble friend’s reply.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I have been glad to put my name to this amendment, which is very wise and prudent. It has been suggested in recent years that the interpretation of welfare capitalism has changed. The original concept was that capitalism had a social responsibility that it should discharge for the well-being of society as a whole. It seems that quite a lot of people have come to believe that perhaps welfare capitalism is about ensuring that while wealth generation and profit is privatised, risk is nationalised and is the responsibility of the taxpayer. The point in the amendment that is particularly important in this context is what happens in the case of insolvency, when all the best predictions can be blown away in the wind in the chaos that follows.

If a scheme is put forward and is being properly costed, the cost of dealing with potential damage, closure or the consequences of that is an essential element in the calculations. We are concentrating today on this new and exciting aspect of shale development but we are beginning to see infrastructure across the country in connection with power generation and its distribution that is no longer required. We need to be very careful that we are ensuring that any adverse results of that are not left just for the taxpayer to settle, but that they are the responsibility of the people who, while they are operating, are receiving the profits that come from that.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling his amendment and for continuing the discussion that we started in Committee. I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments and am particularly interested in the aspect of liability arising from orphaned sites. We are talking about a potential new industry that will see a large number of distributed sites developed. We may well see smaller companies that perhaps do not have the assets or deep pockets of more traditional extractive companies, and there would be considerable potential for orphaned sites. I am very interested to hear from the Minister how we would address any liability arising from such orphaned sites.

I think my noble friend Lord Whitty said that he is seeking for the Government to demonstrate foresight. It strikes me that the Government are demonstrating foresight in some respects of fracking, in imagining the future benefits and future economic wealth that will come. Over the weekend, we even heard comments about the imagined spending of all this great tax revenue. We shall debate that aspect shortly. That foresight is possible, but perhaps we should apply it in the slightly more realistic context of learning from previous experiences of extractive industries in trying to plan for what happens if everything does not go according to plan. I would have thought that companies would be able to take out insurance against some of these liabilities. Again, I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what type of insurance she might expect companies to undertake and what liabilities would be insured. We are entering uncharted territory in the types of company, the types of project and their distribution across the country. It is right that we should proceed with caution.

There is a lot of merit in the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty. He started by saying that he was trying to help out the Government. A number of us have tried to help out the Government during tonight’s debate. However, I suspect that the Government are not listening and do not want to be helped out, but there we are. I look forward to the comments from the Minister in response to this amendment.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for trying to help out the Government. I have listened very carefully and of course I recognise his concerns and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin very eloquently put it, there is already a lot in place that addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The existing regulatory system covering onshore oil and gas is robust. We already have more than 50 years’ experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry. There are controls and regulations in place to ensure on-site safety, prevent water contamination, mitigate seismic activity and minimise air emissions.

While the Government are keen for shale and geothermal exploration to go ahead, shale gas development must be safe and environmentally sound. I agree with noble Lords that we need to be sure that we are responding robustly to the perceived concerns that the public raise. One of the central aims of the current regulatory framework is to ensure that wells are appropriately designed and operated, and that when operations cease they are properly decommissioned.

A petroleum licensee cannot search for, bore for or get petroleum without a petroleum exploration and development licence, the terms of which are in the model clauses set out in secondary legislation. All drilling or production operations, and the abandonment of any well, require the consent of the Secretary of State. In addition, there are regulators and controls that can be relied on to minimise risk and any impacts associated with oil and gas activities. Those controls include conditions attached to environmental permits issued under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 in England and Wales and the equivalent regime in Scotland, as well as safety scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive.

The current regime, as it applies to shale gas, includes the management of mining waste and naturally occurring radioactive minerals, the scrutiny of well design and construction, the suitable restoration of sites, the protection of habitats and 10 different EU directives addressing environmental concerns. In addition, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the domestic Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 provide for the remediation of contaminated land and serious environmental damage. This regime, together with the operators’ responsibilities under their licences and permits, is sufficiently robust to ensure that operators are required to remediate any damage or pollution to the environment.

If, for any reason, these controls were not enough—we have no reason to think that this would be the case because the UK has a well developed and very strong regulatory regime—and if any damage were to occur, in accordance with statutory requirements and government policy, remediation of the damage would be dealt with under the main regimes for dealing with contamination. These regimes are sufficiently robust to ensure that, if a company causes damage, harm or pollution to the environment, operators can be required to remediate the effects and prevent further damage or pollution. This is the same approach that applies to other industries, and we believe that the existing law is robust.

20:00

As noble Lords rightly highlighted, the environmental regulators have powers to require upfront financial guarantees to address this risk in circumstances where they deem this necessary. In addition, mineral planning authorities can require a financial guarantee to cover restoration and aftercare costs, although this will normally be justified only in exceptional cases. The Government have also been working with the industry’s trade body, UK Onshore Oil and Gas, to ensure the development of a mutual industry scheme that would, where necessary, step in and pay for necessary remedial action in the event that the liable company is unable to do so. My department has powers that can be exercised to require membership of such a scheme, where one exists, or the provision of equivalent security by other means. This range of financial securities, along with the statutory regime for dealing with damage or pollution, provides the reassurance that taxpayers or landowners will not be left to foot the bill for liabilities.

Since the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised these concerns in Grand Committee last month, I have given this issue particular consideration. While I am confident that we have a strong regulatory system for managing liabilities, I have heard concerns regarding unintended impacts of the right to use deep-level land on landowners, specifically, the situation whereby a landowner whose land is accessed through our proposed legislation might face claims from third parties for damage done by the operator. I have reflected on that and intend to bring forward an amendment on that issue.

I hope I have been clear on other issues that the noble Lord has raised. Given the reassurance that we already have a very robust framework in place—

[Lord Judd]

I am sure that my noble friend shares my gratitude for the full way in which the Minister is replying. However, there is just one point she made which intrigues me. She said that the regulator has powers that he can use in these contexts. However, if the taxpayer is faced with the possibility of having to foot the bill, why is it not compulsory to require that these things are covered?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I hoped that I had reassured noble Lords that we do not wish to see the taxpayer foot the bill or any bill, and that there will be processes in place to ensure that that is the case. Having gone through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his concerns, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw it.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her full reply and for the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, drew to our attention. It has always been clear to me that the Government and the regulatory authorities have the powers to require remediation. The issue I was attempting to cover was if sufficient funds were not available to do that. The Minister said that the authorities, in granting a licence, have the ability to say, “You have to provide some money upfront”. There was also reference to a mutual industry scheme. It seems to me prudent for the Government to make that a condition of the licence—either that a fund is established or that the relevant body is a member of the scheme being established by the industry. Otherwise, we will end up with a situation whereby, as a result of an unforeseen accident combined with financial problems for the company, or, as a result of a situation whereby, many years hence, there is an abandoned site, orphan site or a site that has been badly decommissioned, there is damage but there are no funds available to cover it, so at the end of the day the taxpayer will pay for that.

I accept a lot of what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said but unless this is a condition of a licence, either through insurance or by establishing a fund, we will not have the situation entirely covered, and that is not entirely reassuring to those who are worried about the potential impact of that on their environment, business or dwellings. The Minister has gone some considerable way on this issue and I will certainly not press the amendment any further tonight, but her reply was not quite as reassuring as I had hoped. Nevertheless, I thank her and others who have contributed to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 115D withdrawn.

Amendment 116

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

116: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Renewable heat incentives
(1) Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008 (renewable heat incentives) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section may confer any function on any person.
(1B) Regulations under this section may provide for a function conferred on a person to be exercisable on behalf of another person.”
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for the words before sub-paragraph (i) substitute—“(a) make provision giving any of the following persons entitlements to payments (“RHI payments”) in specified circumstances—”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “such payments” substitute “RHI payments”;(c) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) make provision about the circumstances in which, and descriptions of persons to whom, the whole or a part of an entitlement to an RHI payment may be assigned (whether the person has the entitlement by virtue of regulations under paragraph (a) or regulations under this paragraph);(bb) authorise or require the Secretary of State, the Authority, designated fossil fuel suppliers, or any person with any other administration function, to make an RHI payment—(i) to the person who is entitled to the payment by virtue of regulations under paragraph (a), or(ii) where that entitlement has been wholly or partly assigned in accordance with regulations under this section, to the person or persons for the time being enjoying the entitlement or any part of it;”;(d) in paragraph (c), for “such payments” substitute “RHI payments”;(e) for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) authorise or require a person to provide specified information;”;(f) in paragraph (e), omit “to the Secretary of State or the Authority”;(g) in paragraph (h), omit “for the Secretary of State or the Authority”;(h) omit paragraph (i);(i) at the end insert—“(j) authorise the Secretary of State to make payments to a person in respect of the exercise by the person of functions under regulations under this section;(k) make provision about the resolution of disputes relating to the exercise of functions under regulations under this section, including provision about arbitration or appeals (which may, in particular, provide for the person conducting an arbitration or determining an appeal to order the payment of costs or compensation).”(4) In subsection (3), after the definition of “fossil fuel supplier” insert—
““other administration function” means a function relating to the administration of a scheme established under this section, other than a function conferred by regulations under subsection (2)(bb);”.
(5) Section 105 of the Energy Act 2008 (Parliamentary control of subordinate legislation) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) to (8).
(6) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), omit sub-paragraph (vi);(b) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) regulations which contain (whether alone or together with other provision) affirmative resolution provision made under section 100 (renewable heat incentives);”. (7) In subsection (3), after “(2)(a)” insert “, (ab)”
(8) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Provision made under section 100 is affirmative resolution provision if—
(a) the provision is made under any of the powers which always attract the affirmative resolution procedure, or(b) the provision—(i) is not made under any of those powers, and(ii) meets condition A, B, C or D.(3B) The powers which always attract the affirmative resolution procedure are the powers conferred by—
(a) section 100(2)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (k),(b) section 100(5), and(c) section 100(6).(3C) Provision meets condition A if—
(a) it is made under the power conferred by section 100(2)(bb), and(b) it requires a designated fossil fuel supplier to make a payment under an RHI scheme.(3D) Provision meets condition B if—
(a) it confers an administration function on a person who is not the Secretary of State or the Authority, and(b) the time when the provision comes into force will be the first time that an administration function under the RHI scheme concerned is exercisable by a person who is not the Secretary of State or the Authority.(3E) Provision meets condition C if—
(a) it is made under a power conferred by paragraph (ba) or (bb)(ii) of section 100(2),(b) it is made in relation to an RHI scheme that was in existence immediately before the coming into force of this subsection, and(c) it is the first provision to be made under that power in relation to that RHI scheme.(3F) Provision meets condition D if—
(a) it is made under a power conferred by paragraph (a), (b), (ba), (bb), (d) or (j) of section 100(2),(b) it is made in relation to an RHI scheme that was not in existence immediately before the coming into force of this subsection, and(c) it is the first provision to be made under that power in relation to that RHI scheme.(3G) In deciding whether provision meets condition B, the following matters must be ignored—
(a) for the purposes of subsection (3D)(a): any provision which confers a payment function on designated fossil fuel suppliers;(b) for the purposes of subsection (3D)(b): any payment function under the RHI scheme concerned which (before the time when the provision comes into force) is, or has been, exercisable by designated fossil fuel suppliers.(3H) The fact that provision is to some extent made under a power conferred by section 100(1), (1A) or (1B) does not prevent that provision from being taken (for the purposes of subsections (3A) to (3F)) as being made under any other power conferred by section 100.
(3I) In subsections (3B) to (3H) and this subsection—
“administration function” means a function relating to the administration of an RHI scheme;
“designated fossil fuel suppliers” has the same meaning as in section 100;
“payment function” means a function of making a payment under an RHI scheme (whether the function authorises or requires the making of the payment);
“RHI scheme” means a scheme under section 100 to facilitate and encourage renewable generation of heat.”
(9) In section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), omit “or section 100”;(b) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) it is made for the purpose of facilitating any functions of any person under section 100 of the Energy Act 2008;”.”

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, as noble Lords know, this Government are committed to ambitious action to reduce carbon emissions and increase renewable energy generation in the UK. To this end, the non-domestic renewable heat incentive was introduced in November 2011 and followed with a domestic scheme in April this year. These schemes are the world’s first long-term financial support programmes for renewable heat. Switching to renewable heat can in some circumstances bring significant bill savings to businesses and households and helps the Government meet their challenging targets on climate change.

The government amendment before the House responds to one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, in Grand Committee, on which I undertook to return to noble Lords on Report. The new clause proposes three changes to Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, which provided for the creation of the schemes. I shall take each of the changes in turn. As noble Lords will be aware, administration of the schemes is currently limited to either Ofgem or the Secretary of State. While Ofgem is successfully administering both schemes, our inability to run a competitive process is a constraint on achieving best value for money. The Government, therefore, signalled their intention to seek the necessary legal powers to enable an alternative administrator to be appointed in their consultation on the domestic scheme in 2012.

Ofgem will continue to administer the scheme for the time being and in making this change the Government will retain the power to appoint Ofgem to administer the scheme in the future. The ability to appoint a new administrator means that the Government will require the flexibility to adapt the appeals processes to any new administrator and to ensure that these remain robust. The amendment therefore also allows the Government to make regulations covering dispute resolution through appeals processes.

The second change deals with payments. Payments under the scheme must currently be made to the owner of the renewable heat installation or to the producers of biomethane, biogas and biofuels for heating. The amendment will allow the schemes to be redesigned to mean that these parties can have the option to assign their payments to a third party. For the domestic scheme, this would mean that the upfront cost of renewable heating systems could be funded by third parties for households unable to afford them, with scheme payments then made directly to the third party, making this an attractive opportunity for investors. For the non-domestic scheme, assigning rights to payments may allow for simpler financial arrangements between parties, reducing the costs of, and barriers to, the installation of renewable heating. By incentivising new funding arrangements, this change could lead to an increase in both demand for and supply of renewable heat technologies and a mix of higher deployment and lower costs.

Implementing changes would require secondary legislation, on which we intend to engage with stakeholders. In making any changes, we will also work with the scheme administrator and other parties to ensure appropriate design of the consumer protection framework and to integrate the assignment of rights into the scheme’s existing cost control mechanism.

The amendment would also allow some changes to the schemes to be made by the negative resolution procedure. At present, all changes must be made by the affirmative procedure, regardless of their complexity or materiality. In practice this is much slower than the negative procedure. The Government have found that their inability to make changes to the schemes quickly, in response to market changes and other factors, may risk undermining confidence in them. For example, we cannot update regulations quickly to allow them to reference updated technical industry standards.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, proposed that all secondary legislation in relation to the schemes be made by the negative procedure. I have considered the comments made in Grand Committee in response to that proposal. The amendment now before us aims to achieve greater flexibility while still ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. It stipulates that some uses of the powers in important areas remain subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. For example, this would include making provision covering sanctions, enforcement and appeals, establishing requirements on fossil fuel suppliers to fund the renewable heat incentive, or amending Section 100 of the Energy Act to change the general type of heat-generating methods that can be funded through the scheme.

For other powers, the amendment stipulates that the first use of the power should be via the affirmative procedure, but allows for use of the negative resolution procedure for subsequent uses of the power in relation to the same scheme. This will allow for appropriate scrutiny where powers are first used, such as to provide for assignment of payments in the schemes, but means that minor subsequent changes can be made by negative resolution.

The Government expect that future changes to the existing schemes are likely to be straightforward and uncontroversial—for example, measures to reduce red tape, or technical changes to allow the schemes to keep pace with market innovation. I do not consider use of the affirmative procedure necessary in these circumstances. The negative procedure, while still allowing for adequate parliamentary scrutiny, provides flexibility to address issues as they arise, rather than delaying matters while suitable legislative opportunities are sought.

Together, these changes will allow significant improvement in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of renewable heat incentive schemes, allowing the UK to meet its carbon reduction and renewables targets, while also making efficient use of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these moves, which will make financing much more flexible, and mean that money really can flow into the RHI. I therefore congratulate the Minister on the amendments, and on moving this matter forward.

20:15

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to her amendments. As she said, there are three aspects to this group. The first is the potential for somebody other than Ofgem to administer the RHI. I am intrigued by this aspect and I wonder whether we may be creeping towards a bit more joined-up government in terms of renewable energy. There is always a tendency to equate renewables with electricity, whereas under the EU mandatory targets agreed for 2020 we are required to move forward on renewable energy, which means electricity, transport and heat. There has been rather a stop-start process of renewable transport fuel support, and a separate body oversees that. Under the RO the renewable electricity side has been the responsibility of Ofgem, and it is now moving to the department, for the Secretary of State specifically to oversee, while Ofgem has been given the RHI to look after. It would seem sensible to me to have one consolidated agency to deal with all renewable energy, so that we could properly assess the best application of our renewable resources to the different markets.

If we apply a biomass unit of energy to the generation of heat we get far more efficiency and far more displacement of carbon in the heat market than we would by going into electricity—or, indeed, into transport fuels. We need a bit of joined-up thinking on our various ways of supporting renewable energy. I wonder whether this gives us an opportunity to have a look at the regulatory framework.

On the second part, about third-party payments, I am very supportive of the amendment. It will help to overcome a barrier about which people have personally petitioned me, and said how much of a barrier it is.

On the third point, however, I am afraid that I am not quite so supportive. I do not want to detain us too long, but the Minister and I have spent many a pleasurable afternoon in Committee discussing the RHI. It has not been unnecessarily time-consuming or difficult—we generally tend to get through SIs quickly—but it gives us an opportunity to revisit the RHI and see how it is doing. It would be a shame if we were to create any uncertainty in the industry by moving to the negative resolution procedure. I seek clarification from the Minister. She speaks of uncontroversial straightforward changes and describes them as technical. If that group of potential changes included changes to the subsidy levels for different technologies, that might cause alarm for some people in the sector—particularly if they felt that they would not have the opportunity to petition Members on both sides of the House, to discuss and to raise concerns.

This is an industry that has seen quite a lot of changes, and is subject to rigorous derogations and price control mechanisms. They are incredibly complex, and I do not really want to spend any more afternoons debating them—but I would do so if that would give comfort to the industry. It is a new and growing industry, and we are not quite on track yet for meeting our targets. We need to see considerably higher growth in renewable heat if we are to meet the challenging targets that we have set ourselves. I am seeking reassurances from the Minister that these negative resolution procedures will not increase uncertainty in an industry that we need to see getting stuck into the job of delivering and putting us on a strong footing with regard to our EU targets.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I agree completely with the noble Baroness that we must ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny. I assure her that the amendment aims to achieve greater flexibility while retaining appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment stipulates that some use of the powers is important in areas that remain subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We will not move away from that where there is cause for it. Where we just want to make some minor, technical changes is where it is probably more likely that we would wish to use the negative resolution procedure.

[Baroness Worthington]

Will the noble Baroness write to me? What I am most interested in is change to the level of subsidy given to different technology bandings.

[Baroness Verma]

I of course undertake to write to the noble Baroness and place a copy in the Library.

Amendment 116 agreed.

Clause 38: Consequential provision

Amendment 117

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

117: Clause 38, page 41, line 36, leave out from “under” to end of line 40 and insert “this Part (other than section 29).”

Amendment 117 agreed.

Amendment 118

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

118: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Revenue from shale gas: sovereign wealth fund
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, establish a sovereign wealth fund to receive and deploy revenue from the extraction and sale of shale gas.
(2) The regulations shall provide—
(a) that the fund shall receive no less than 50% of any revenue received by the United Kingdom Government from any activity connected with the extraction and sale of shale gas;(b) that the assets of the fund shall be deployed to serve long term public objectives other than those connected with monetary and exchange rate policy;(c) that the assets of the fund may be deployed in the United Kingdom or overseas;(d) that no more than 4% of the assets of the fund may be paid out in any one year; and(e) for the governance, independent oversight and transparent reporting of the activities of the fund.”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is simple, although the policy implications are perhaps more complex. It is to insert a new clause that will provide a statutory framework for the establishment of a UK sovereign wealth fund to receive a proportion of the Government’s revenues from fracking and shale gas.

I tabled a similar amendment in Committee on 14 October and I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I did not find her response entirely convincing. I have therefore retabled the amendment. It is primarily a Treasury matter, of course, and I am therefore pleased and grateful to see that my noble friend Lord Deighton has taken up the cudgels and will reply to this debate. I am grateful also to my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Teverson, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for adding their names in support.

The background to and reasons for my amendment are as follows. This country has been blessed with a wide range of natural assets. These can be divided into two parts, the finite and the infinite. The infinite includes the sun, rain and wind—all of which we can harness in various ways. However, there are finite resources. For example, our huge reserves of coal that powered the industrial revolution for a time made this country the workshop of the world. In the 1970s, we discovered another great gift from nature—North Sea oil. At the time of the original discovery, it was expected that by now it would all have run out. In the event, because of improved technology and higher oil prices, despite our having extracted some 40 billion barrels of oil, it is estimated that at least some 16 billion barrels remain recoverable. But—and this is the important but—one day the oil will inevitably run out and this gift from nature will have been entirely consumed.

Successive Governments and the country have benefited hugely from this oil. Estimates of the overall revenue run as high as £400 billion, but every penny of that revenue has been spent. A debate on whether it has been wisely or foolishly spent would occupy your Lordships’ House for many a long day. That is not the point this evening. The point this evening is that the revenue has all been spent and nothing has been put aside for the future.

On the other side of the North Sea, Norway, which has also benefited from North Sea oil, had an extremely fierce political debate about how to use its proceeds. In the end, it was decided that it should establish a sovereign wealth fund. Norway has a much smaller population than we do—about 10% of that of the United Kingdom—and its oil and gas reserves are commensurately larger. Therefore, I do not wish to push the metrics too far. The fact is that in the 20 short years since revenue started to flow to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, it has grown to $800 billion—£500 billion. At this point, I should apologise to Members of your Lordships’ House because when trying to send a letter to you from Chicago I mixed up my “millions” and “billions”. The figure is, in fact, £500 billion, not £500 million, as in my original letter. That is not the end of it. It is confidently expected that the $800 billion will reach $1 trillion in the next few years. The fund generates between £20 billion and £25 billion every year. That is a lot of money. It is roughly two-thirds of our annual defence expenditure or what we expect to spend on our nuclear deterrent over its life. It is roughly 10 times what the Leader of the Opposition thought was necessary to save the National Health Service. He referred to £2.4 billion in his speech at his party conference.

In this country, we took a different approach, and the decision is irrevocable. Every penny that we receive in future will be spent until the oil finally runs out. But we now appear to have received another potential gift from nature: natural gas extracted as a result of the development of the new fracking process. I argue that we should learn from the decisions of the past, as well as from the example set by Norway, and provide for the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund to receive at least part of the proceeds from shale gas exploration and development. I do so on three principal grounds. First, the costs of infrastructure projects, which are so essential to this country’s long-term prosperity, are notoriously difficult to forecast. The returns from a sovereign wealth fund would help to plug some of these overs and unders.

Secondly, a sovereign wealth fund would provide some insurance against future uncertainties. Governments are constantly urging us as private citizens to save more to guard against the rising costs of our increasingly long lives. We are told that we must forgo current consumption individually for our long-term benefit. It would surely be no bad thing if the Government occasionally practised what they so assiduously preach.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is about intergenerational fairness and equity. These gas reserves have built up over millions of years. Are they properly ours to plunder and spend in a couple of generations? Should we not ensure that some parts of the proceeds are left for those who come after us?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

In his amendment, my noble friend says that no less than 50% of any revenue received should go into the fund. Can he indicate what he expects that revenue to be and why he chose 50%?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

If my noble friend waits for one minute, I shall explain the detail of the amendment. That will take care of the 50% point. Since I think there is possibly an indication that other uses should be made for this revenue, I will come to that immediately after that point. If I have not answered those questions in a couple of minutes I invite him to intervene again.

I turn to the details of my amendment. As I have said, it is an enabling amendment. It does not require the Government to do anything now, but it does indicate a direction of travel. The enabling provision is subject to five provisos. The first, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth has just pointed out, is that the Government should get 50% of the revenue from shale gas. That is part of the fairness argument: 50% for us, knowing that at least some of it will be spent on projects that will benefit future generations, and 50% put aside for those generations directly.

Secondly, the fund should support long-term public policy objectives. That underpins the philosophy and approach behind it.

Thirdly, the fund may invest overseas, as well as in the United Kingdom. That is necessary to ensure that the fund obtains the best returns. In that context, it is worth noting that the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund now owns more than 1% of the entire world’s quoted equities.

Fourthly, no more than 4% of the fund may be paid out in any one year. The need for a limit is obvious. Without one the fund would almost certainly be drained very quickly indeed. My proposed maximum level of withdrawal, 4%, is calculated based on a 2% long-term rate of real return and a 2% allowance for inflation. That level should mean that a well managed fund should be able to operate long into the future.

Finally and most importantly, proposed subsection 2(e) provides that the operation and activities of the fund must be transparent and open to public scrutiny. If noble Lords read the literature, it is clear that transparency has been a vital part of creating trust and confidence among the Norwegian public in the operation of their fund.

So much for the reasons for the fund and the detail of my amendment. Before I conclude, let me briefly address the reasons given for not having a fund, which I think underlie the intervention from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. There are essentially three of them: first, this is not the right time to do it because we do not yet know how large and profitable the shale gas development will be. That is absolutely true. My answer is that the amendment is permissive—it requires only an indication of the direction of travel. I hope the House will not think me unduly cynical if I say that, in the absence of any specific prior commitment, I believe the chances of establishing a sovereign wealth fund once the revenues are beginning to flow are even closer to zero than the chances of the Government accepting my amendment tonight.

The second reason is that any revenue from shale gas should be used to reduce the deficit. Again, that is a perfectly understandable argument, but one that undermines the concept of intergenerational fairness. In any case, under my amendment, half the proceeds are available to reduce the deficit. However, to suggest that all should be used for that purpose is akin to me saying to my children, “I was going to leave you a decent sum of money, but I’m afraid I’ve been living beyond my means and I’ve run up debts. I don’t wish to take difficult decisions to reduce my standard of living, so I’m afraid that if you want your inheritance, you’ll have to take all my debts with it—or, of course, I could use your inheritance to pay off my debts”. We need to face the consequences of our own actions and not slide them on to a future generation.

The third and last reason revolves around the most feared word in Treasury-speak—hypothecation, the sin that dare not speak its name. If one consults the Oxford English Dictionary, hypothecate is defined as:

“Pledge … by law to a specific purpose”.

I argue that the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund which has no specific purpose would require an unusually broad interpretation of the concept of hypothecation. Of course, in reality, this is all a smokescreen. The real reason for Treasury opposition is that it always opposes policies that in any way diminish its direct day-to-day control over every aspect of our national life.

To conclude, this enabling amendment is designed to balance the long-term national interest against short-term political expediencies, to enable future generations to share in this potential windfall and to encourage Governments to follow the saving practices they so urgently suggest we individually adopt.

20:30

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend has not answered my question on what he anticipates the revenue to be.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I think I answered it by saying that the reason given for opposing a fund at this stage is that nobody knows quite how much money is going to flow. No one can know. I pointed out that if you do not get something in principle in place now, once the revenue starts to flow, the chances of having a sovereign wealth fund are very low. If we do not get a peg in the board now, when revenue starts to flow there will be a million reasons as to why it should not be put in place at that stage.

I was most encouraged by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the weekend about the advantages that a sovereign wealth fund would bring. I hope that my noble friend will put some flesh on these bones when he winds up. The very last word must rest with Jens Stoltenberg, the then Prime Minister of Norway. In September 2013, at the John F Kennedy School of Government, he said:

“The problem in Europe with the deficits and the debt crisis is that many European countries have spent money they don’t have. The problem in Norway is that we don’t spend money we do have”.

He went on to say that to achieve this happy state of affairs needs actions to be taken that require “political courage”. It is that political courage that I am looking for from the Minister tonight. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend’s amendment and I congratulate him on the way in which he moved it. I want to make two points. First, I was the Minister for Energy in the very early stages of our North Sea oil and gas. I was the Minister for only seven weeks when we lost the election at the end of February 1974. At that stage, no one had the remotest idea of setting up a sovereign fund. I do not remember the thought crossing my mind or my desk. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth has indicated, we did not have the slightest idea of how much it was going to be.

In a sense, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Hodgson for saying that it was a massive mistake. I find it difficult to accept that. There may have come a time when one should have seen that the prospects were going to be as bright as they have been and one might have done something to meet my noble friend’s wish. But to have expected that to happen in the very early stages when the oil and gas had scarcely begun to flow is a little unfair. At the time, when BP was investing in the Brent oilfield, which became the most important oilfield, its financial director said that he had established a law; namely, that, however much is spent in developing a North Sea oilfield, the amount still to be spent would be constant. It stands constant. It does not go down. That was the climate in which the oil industry was operating then. The Government, I think, gave it every opportunity to develop and we have enjoyed the success.

Secondly, I hesitated to put my name to my noble friend’s new clause because of the figures. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has already raised this. Nevertheless, I think the principle is sound, particularly what was said about intergenerational equity. Where you have the prospect of major wealth, is it right that it should all be spent on the present generation? It seems to me that there is a principle here that it is desirable to support. My noble friend referred at the end of his speech to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor said over the weekend about,

“making sure money is not squandered on day-to-day spending”.

When you have the indebtedness we have it is unrealistic to say that when you are spending money to keep the economy going to meet the needs of social services and so on that somehow if we spend the revenues from something such as shale gas we are squandering it. However, there may come a time, as happened in Norway, when it would be right to set up a fund. My noble friend’s new clause says that the Government “may”—it does not say “must”. I have already indicated that I have some doubts about the figures he has put in at the end but the principle seems to be very sound and I hope that the opportunity may come when we shall do something about it. Like him I look forward to the reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have also added my name to this amendment. This is for two reasons—partly, I was swept away by the rhetoric from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in Committee; it is such an obvious strategic decision that I thought I must support it. The second reason is purely historic. Somewhere in the archives of the TUC, from about 1973, there is a paper with the initials “LW” on it. In that paper I argued that we should set up a fund to invest in upgrading into the new technologies of the manufacturing industry and acquire assets at home and abroad to meet the interests of the state and of the British economy out of the tax revenues which we anticipated would come from the North Sea. We had no idea how much revenue would be coming in from North Sea oil at that time but it would clearly be substantial. I do not think anybody thought at that point it would be as substantial as it turned out, altering the terms of trade of the UK, with the level of sterling rising to the detriment of the competitiveness of the British manufacturing sector which was, of course, already a bit deadbeat and uncompetitive.

If only they had listened to me then. I am afraid that I never got my paper to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, while he was still in office but the next Government took no notice of it nor, indeed, the one after that. It stayed through all that period of North Sea oil revenue the Government received—I would not use “squandered”. I disagree with a lot of the priorities of the Government of the 1980s as noble Lords know, but that revenue was not used for the long-term benefit of the British economy when at least a fraction of it should have been. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had an important point here. If this industry develops to the extent that many of its proponents are saying, although none of us knows that yet, there will be a serious tax revenue that is in a strict sense a windfall for future Governments and a windfall for the British economy. We should not make the same mistake and we should take a lesson from our Norwegian cousins by investing in a fund that can provide some degree of security and improvement of the British economic situation for future generations. I am very happy to support in principle the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment and I was pleased to add my name to it both in Committee and now on Report. The important point to make is that my noble friend Lord Hodgson is absolutely right: if we do not put this on to the statute book as something that can happen, the temptation will pass and it will be as if it never happened. That is why I am keen that it should be done now.

I should say just as an observer, if you like, that it is very easy to expand government expenditure and very difficult to pull it back. It is easy to find uses for income if it is there, but perhaps those uses are not always the best for our long-term future. It is easy when there are financial and fiscal constraints of the kind the country is confronting at the moment, but that is not always the case. It is hoped that we will get over the current deficit at some point in the not too distant future. That is why it is important to prepare for a sovereign wealth fund so that we can build it up in an intergenerational way, as has been advocated already.

The other aspect is completely different and not at all the most important. In the last parliamentary Session this House set up a Select Committee to investigate the nature of soft power. I was not a member of the committee, but it seems to me that countries with sovereign wealth funds exercise considerably more soft power in global affairs. That is not surprising because money talks—not just within the family or in business, but across nations as well. Why does Norway enjoy its stature? It is in part because of its sovereign wealth fund. The same can be said for a number of Gulf states and for China. In terms of Britain’s status in the future, we would gain quite considerably if we were seen to be a country that is able to save, invest and exert influence financially beyond our borders in this way rather than one that just keeps its current account going through non-renewable resources that cannot be brought back. That is why I feel strongly that we should at least take the step of this enabling legislation and then let future Governments decide how it should be used.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I did serve on the soft power committee and I have to say that the countries with sovereign wealth funds are not exercising soft power; they are exercising hard power because they are lending us money to keep going. Every year we are spending roughly £100 billion more than we have income. The leader of the Opposition forgot about the deficit in his speech at his party’s conference. I have to say that I have very considerable respect for my noble friend, but he seems to have forgotten about it too. He did mention at the end of his speech that there is the issue of debt, which might be a reason why people would oppose this policy. It is certainly why I would oppose it.

The national debt will have doubled during this Parliament. The coalition Government are absolutely determined to reduce it, but it is still growing. We are not meeting our targets in terms of bringing the deficit under control. The idea that we should pre-empt resources that may or may not come from shale gas is like going along to the bank manager and saying, “I would like to borrow £1.4 trillion and, by the way, I would also like to open a savings account into which I shall put the proceeds from shale gas”. This is a noble thought. It would be great to have a sovereign wealth fund, but it would perhaps be a first step to live within our means and pay back the debt that we have accumulated.

20:45

My noble friend has talked about the importance of recognising our obligations to future generations and the finite nature of the resources. However, this national debt that we are growing is a charge on those future generations. It is a millstone around their necks. At the very least our priorities should be to pay that down and not to think of new ways of spending money that we do not have.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. When we discovered North Sea oil, inflation was running at something like 24% and interest rates were not much below that. I suppose that we could have argued that we would have got quite good interest, but the inflation would have taken away any benefit. We had a country that was haemorrhaging billions from the nationalised industries and that was dependent on industries with a great past but no future. That money, particularly in Scotland, was used to transform the economy, and create new industries and new opportunities. At that time, Scotland had more public housing than the communist countries of central and eastern Europe.

The economy was transformed in the 1980s. The blessing of North Sea oil provided for that. To use the word “squandered” is grossly irresponsible. That money was invested in building a new future for our country. As we have just heard repeated over and over again by the leader of the Scottish nationalists, Scotland is now the richest part of the United Kingdom outside the south-east, and that is not just because of the Barnett formula. It is because of the way in which the prosperity from North Sea oil was invested and developed by the private sector. There is an argument that we could have achieved even more if the tax burden on those in the private sector who took the risks had not been so high.

We have just won a referendum in which we discredited the nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, for wanting to set up a sovereign wealth fund with the proceeds of North Sea oil while at the same time spending the money from North Sea oil. We are not in a position to be taking any tax revenue, whether from shale gas or anything else. We should not be doing anything other than paying down the debt that is due to us.

If we embark upon this idea that we need to set up funds for future generations, why should we limit it to shale gas? Why do we not have other sources of revenue? My noble friend said that the Treasury was concerned about hypothecation. This is not hypothecation. The definition of hypothecation is surely to take a certain quantity of revenue and apply it to a certain purpose. That is what his amendment does. It says that,

“the fund shall receive no less than 50% of any revenue received by the United Kingdom Government”.

I have another objection to my noble friend’s amendment. He said that we need to put down a marker because, if we do not, when the money starts coming in the Treasury will not want to hypothecate it for this purpose. If we put a marker down with 50% of the revenues given to this purpose, the Government will have every incentive to raise the tax on the people who are developing the shale gas and the industry. But with a new industry, we should be ensuring that as much of the available revenues as possible are used to invest and develop and take the thing forward. I very much regret that this is a proposal that we should not accept. I was slightly dismayed to see the Chancellor over the weekend appearing to smile upon it, and to describe the alternatives as squandering the money at a time when we do not have the money we need to fund public services may have been a slip of the tongue.

I very much hope that my noble friend will reject this amendment and put to one side any thought that we should do anything over the next five or 10 years other than to reduce our deficit, eliminate our deficit and eliminate the debt. I do not know quite how we can do that: £1.4 trillion is an enormous sum and if we are not going to have inflation eroded, it is a superhuman task to pay it off. I hope and pray that shale gas will help to provide some of the revenue that we need to do that for the sake of those future generations that my noble friend has spoken of.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, has joined us for this debate. I had anticipated that perhaps he would have a slightly more comfortable ride than he did earlier this afternoon in trying to justify the Government’s position on the European issue. But the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has made this debate pretty challenging as well and I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, will enjoy sailing between the shoals of difficulty in this proposal.

We all enjoyed the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made in Committee. I very much enjoyed reading his piece in the Telegraph this morning—not a journal I go to for enlightenment very often—which was an excellent explanation of the sovereign wealth fund and its benefits. But someone had to point out its problems and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has certainly done that.

I would like to add a dimension to this question. Of course, it looks attractive because it looks as if we are acting like benevolent grandparents—after all, we are the right age—trying to ensure that the future for our grandchildren is reasonably rosy. I am in favour of that. I am sure we all are. But the problem is, of which decade in the 20th century, or in the 19th century, would you have said, “The resources that that society commanded in that decade ought to have had an element of hypothecation not to be spent at that time but to be looked after for the succeeding generations”? The problem with that is if you were able to anticipate the periodic crises in the capitalist society in the 19th century and also get the 20th century right, then you could make appropriate judgments. Otherwise, what we are facing is a situation where, one decade after the next, the society gets considerably richer.

We have been used to 2.3% growth. Of course I recognise the crisis that we all face at present. In fact, I have from time to time upbraided the Government’s Front Bench for seeming to portray it as a British crisis, quite unable to recognise that the whole of Europe and the advanced world, particularly the United States, are under the same strains. But we are having a period of very significant constraint upon growth at present; in fact, of course, we have had a negative position for a number of years. That is why it is right, surely, that all the resources we have available are directed towards improving the balance of this society, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has indicated. But in previous generations, such as the one after the Second World War, when it was quite usual to have 2.3% growth a year, within a quarter of a century this country had doubled its wealth. That generation would have looked pretty silly to have hypothecated money for those 30 years down the line when the growth in society ensured that the later society was so much wealthier than it was. We have to rehabilitate—and I am glad I am not the first person to actually try to do this—the word “hypothecation”. After the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had spoken in Committee I went and had a little chat. I probably indicated in Committee that I took issue with my colleagues at the other end who have got some responsibility for the Opposition’s position on the economy.

Hypothecation is a real problem. Once any area is hypothecated, in effect the flexibility that attends a Government is inevitably reduced and we are all operating—at this time of all times—on the tightest of margins. I think it was said by the outgoing Government at the last election that there was no money left. The incoming Government after the next election are not exactly going to be rolling in vast resources which they can allocate as they wish, hence the reason everybody is reining in the ambitions of potential Governments for the next few years.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, will address himself to what I think is a complex debate. He starts off, of course, from a very strong base because he is the Minister responsible for infrastructure and, after all, will always need to look a decade or more ahead rather than the immediate five years in order to get infrastructure that is effective and accurate at a location. I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, can spend too many warm words on the enthusiasm that the Chancellor has shown over the weekend towards this idea. It is an idea worthy of exploration because the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has got a concept that could well capture the public mood and would encourage people to say that in fact we need to look to the longer term future in our investment plans. However, I hope that is what Governments intend to do in any case.

Therefore I have no doubt that when the Minister responds he will have warm words to say towards the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the work that he has done and the speech that he has made this evening. However, I hope that he will explain why it is so very difficult for a Government to accept what is—in fact—a majestic argument for hypothecation.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has pointed out, superb cases have been made for each side of this argument by my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Forsyth.

Shale gas represents a huge economic opportunity for the UK. It could create thousands of jobs, generate business investment and in future provide substantial revenue for the Exchequer. A sovereign wealth fund would create a legacy for the long term and ensure the benefits are shared with future generations, and we have heard a lot about intergenerational fairness and the issues around that. It is a complicated issue to get right.

As a Government we support the idea and want to explore—I think those were precisely the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Davies—creating a sovereign wealth fund with the money that comes from shale gas. It would be a way of making sure that this money is invested in the long-term economic health of the north of England, because of course that is where most of the reserves are located, and in other areas hosting development to create jobs and investment there. My right honourable friend the Chancellor found this an appealing concept because for him it is all part of building a northern powerhouse, which is at the heart of the Treasury’s current economic strategy. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out—

21:00

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Given what my noble friend has said, what answer would my right honourable friend the Chancellor give if Alex Salmond suggested that we should set up a sovereign wealth fund now using the proceeds from North Sea oil so that Scotland would benefit from it? Where does this hypothecation end?

[Lord Deighton]

I think the difference between the two opportunities is that, in one case, we are right at the beginning and, in the other, we are right at the end. Now is the time to explore the opportunity with respect to shale gas.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out that a sovereign wealth fund was implemented successfully in Norway, but that fund was established in 1990, which was nearly 20 years after oil was first produced. The fund was set up when the levels of revenue were already well known—this was a point that my noble friend Lord Forsyth was also getting at. The UK shale gas industry is still in the exploration phase. We will not be able accurately to forecast the scale or timing of shale revenues until more work is done to determine the extent of gas that can be technically and commercially recovered. Therefore, coming up today with a clear plan for how this might fit into issues related to determining how we reduce the deficit and how we invest in the long term is extremely difficult without understanding what the revenues will be—I fully take on the point made there by my noble friend Lord Forsyth.

It should therefore be for future Governments to think about how such a fund could be designed, but we commit to the principle. The Chancellor will demonstrate his commitment to bring forward a proposal in the next Parliament in his Autumn Statement. With respect to the request made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson for a peg in the board now, and for those others who support this idea, I think that the right timing is when we have better information and are able to look at this matter properly. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson, Lord Whitty, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin, will agree not to press their amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I might follow up on my noble friend’s point about the Scottish position. He said that we were right at the end and not at the beginning. What would his response be to a proposition that said, “Well, for new fields that are discovered, we should have a sovereign wealth fund”? Let us bear in mind that there are considerable potential resources to the west of the Shetland Islands and so on. Surely this is a very dangerous argument given the delicate situation that we are in, where we appear to be saying that, for some parts of the country and for some energy resources, a different view will be taken of the long-term future. Is this not a very dangerous proposition which could unravel rather badly?

[Lord Deighton]

That is one of the reasons for our anticipating that this subject would be explored in the next Parliament rather than this one.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his experienced view. I accept his stricture that it would have been hard in 1970 to foresee the flows from North Sea oil. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Teverson, for their support.

There was a characteristically combative speech from my noble friend Lord Forsyth from which I drew four things. The first was that the priority must be debt repayment; otherwise, it is a charge on future generations. That is fine, so long as you do not think that there should be any intergenerational fairness and you think that the assets that flow from shale gas are ours to use to repay the debts that we have created. That is a philosophical question. Secondly, he said that we should not spend money that we do not have. However, a sovereign wealth fund is not spending; it is saving. It is not actually spending but making sure that we do not spend it. Thirdly, he said that it is like going along to your bank manager and asking to borrow £1.4 trillion. Of course it is, but what we are doing at the moment is saying, “We’re not going to take the actions to cut that; we’re going to pledge some future assets that actually might belong to future generations”. That is the conversation that we are having with our bank manager rather than one about how we cut our coat according to our cloth. On my noble friend’s last point, this is a permissive amendment. It is not designed to set out how things are going to work; it is designed merely to say that, if things develop in a certain way—that is, profitably—then we should look at it again at that point.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on the question of hypothecation, when we are talking about a finite natural resource that might belong not just to this generation, we should consider whether there is a special case for dealing with it in a particular way, which you might or might not call hypothecation.

Finally, I turn to the Minister’s reply, for which I thank him greatly. It is interesting that, given institutional concern about this, the Kuwait Investment Authority, which is the sixth largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, is worth about $600 billion. It was set up in the 1950s, at a time when Kuwait looked to this country for guidance and help and support, by a team entirely from the UK Treasury. So we have tried to deal with the sovereign wealth fund idea, but not here—only with people who were looking for our advice.

I recognise, and am grateful for, what is at least half—probably more than half and possibly two-thirds—of a loaf tonight. I think that I heard my noble friend say that he wholeheartedly commits to the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, a commitment which he said the Chancellor will reaffirm in his Autumn Statement. Further, the Chancellor will at that time commit to bringing forward a proposal for a sovereign wealth fund in the next Parliament.

There is of course many a slip between principle and practice. I equally have to recognise that my amendment is a pretty rough and ready one on which to hang such a radical new departure for British public policy. Weighing all of these factors up, I am going to trust that practice will follow principle, and watch developments closely. In the mean time, I thank my noble friend for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Amendment 119

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

119: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Part 4AImpact of infrastructure spending on costs for consumersImpact of infrastructure spending on costs for consumers
(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for the regulators to provide data, in a manner prescribed by the regulations, about the anticipated impact of infrastructure spending on the cost of products for consumers.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may prescribe—
(a) the type of infrastructure spending about which data must be provided;(b) the nature of the data to be provided;(c) the methodology for collating and manipulating the data, including assumptions that should be made; (d) the form in which the data should be presented;(e) the persons that should receive a copy of the data.(3) The regulations may make different provision for different regulators where necessary.
(4) The Treasury must scrutinise the data provided under subsection (1) and assess—
(a) the impact of infrastructure spending on the cost of products for consumers;(b) the affordability of any anticipated increases in the cost of products for consumers, taking into account factors other than infrastructure spending that are also likely to significantly impact the cost of products; and(c) differences in affordability between different groups of consumers, if any.(5) The Treasury must publish the data provided under subsection (1) and the assessment made under subsection (4) in such manner as it reasonably deems appropriate.
(6) The Treasury must take into account the assessment in subsection (4) in making decisions about the extent, prioritisation or timing of infrastructure spending.
(7) In this Part—
“consumer” means any individual or household of individuals that purchases a product or products;
“product” means a good or service the provision of which is regulated by a regulator;
a “regulator” means any of—
(a) the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation;(b) the Office of Communications;(c) the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets;(d) the Office of Rail Regulation;(e) the Water Industry Commission for Scotland; and(f) the Water Services Regulation Authority,and “the regulators” means all of them.”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who added their names to the amendment. We turn from the question of spending the proceeds of shale gas to the question of who is paying for the infrastructure investment on which the country has embarked and for which there is a great deal of support.

When my noble friend Lady Kramer wound up the debate on the new clause in Committee, she was kind enough to suggest that I might approach my noble friend Lord Deighton to discuss this matter as it was entirely a matter for the Treasury. It was therefore no surprise that a day or two later I received an invitation from my noble friend’s office to go to a meeting. It was a very helpful meeting and I will refer to it later. However, I was most grateful for his readiness to meet me on that occasion, and for his presence here this evening to respond to the debate. I recalled his splendid speech when he opened the second day’s debate on the Loyal Address last June. He demonstrated his deep commitment to the Government’s major programme of renewal and expansion of Britain’s infrastructure.

The new clause concerns one important aspect of that. I refer to the absence at present of any systematic system for calculating and publishing what part of the costs will fall on consumers and have to be paid for in their bills. I suggested in Grand Committee that it was time for the Treasury to “lift the veil”. But we are not the first. Last year the National Audit Office produced an interesting report. I will quote two passages from it. First, in paragraph 16, the NAO said:

“Government has made no assessment of the overall impact of infrastructure on future bills or whether those bills will be affordable. Therefore government and regulators are taking decisions on behalf of consumers in the absence of full information about the situation for consumers”.

Later on, on page 11 of the report, it recommended:

“The Treasury should ensure that there are mechanisms in place to assess the cumulative impact of infrastructure investment on consumer bills and the affordability implications, particularly for low-income households”.

I say straight away that I have accepted the arguments that to try to do this cumulatively right across the whole range of infrastructure is at this stage probably unrealistic. In the present new clause, we have removed any reference to the cumulative assessment that we had in the version of it in Committee.

The NAO report was taken up by the Public Accounts Committee, which made a number of recommendations. One of them was to pick up that point made by the National Audit Office. On the same day, the Government published their response to the PAC report. That was really quite an interesting document. They accepted most of the recommendations but rejected the PAC’s recommendation that the,

“Treasury should ensure that an assessment of the long-term affordability of bills across the sectors is produced and published”.

However, at the end of that response, the Government added:

“Nonetheless, the Government agrees that there is scope to improve understanding of affordability in this important area and will continue to work with the regulators on these issues, including through the UK Regulators Network which is considering affordability as a key element of its work-plan”.

I regarded that as a very important pointer to a possible way forward, in particular the reference to the UK Regulators Network. I was unaware of this body, so explored its origins with Ofgem and learnt that it is indeed a more formal and authoritative body than the previous informal association of regulators. Here I come to my meeting with my noble friend Lord Deighton. He told me that the Treasury was in full support of the UKRN. Indeed, its creation was on the initiative of the Treasury itself. I also gathered that that paragraph in the response had actually been approved by my noble friend. I was delighted to hear that. As I said, I have taken on board what I think was the most difficult aspect of the proposal—the question of aggregating consumer impacts across several different programmes. We are now looking at just assessing the impact on consumers of each individual industry.

My noble friend told me at our meeting that the Treasury regarded the regulators network as the right body to take this initiative forward and that the Treasury would take very seriously any recommendation which it might make. There is no doubt that the impact on consumers is an issue of not only great but growing importance. This has been repeatedly acknowledged by the coalition Government, not least in the recent Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

The PAC report of last July has not yet been the subject of a debate in another place. In those circumstances, I would not think it the least bit appropriate to invite the House to vote on the new clause. Rather, I see this debate as providing my noble friend Lord Deighton with an opportunity to give the House his assessment of where we are in greater understanding of the impact of infrastructure investment on consumer bills and what his department may be able to do to advance that understanding. There is no doubt about the importance of the subject. Indeed, the presence of my noble friend to respond to the debate indicates that the Government share that view. I beg to move.

21:14

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on the amendment. My noble friend Lord Whitty apologises; he had to leave. Presumably he thought this would come up a little earlier in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, told the House a number of very useful and interesting ideas about how this issue is going to be taken forward. I shall be very interested to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. First, obviously, I welcome the Government’s commitment to so much new infrastructure. It is not before time. Most of it is sensible and should be good value for money. However, as the amendment seeks to point out, we need to know the effect on consumers, not just this year and next year but in the long term; some of these projects take a long time to construct. If there has been some kind of financial arrangement in the private sector to finance them, we need to know the long-term effect.

It is worth pointing out that many of the sectors mentioned in the amendment are by definition monopolies: railway infrastructure is a monopoly; water services are generally monopolies; and gas and electricity are not generally monopolies, but some of them are. I think it is true to say that all regulators have a duty to protect the interests of consumers while also ensuring that the companies they regulate are financially sound and capable of investing and delivering for the future needs of their customers.

I will take one or two examples. We have to ask how successful these industries and the regulators have been in protecting the customer’s interests. We have had much debate this year over electricity prices, resilience of supplies—are all the lights going to go out?—and people complaining that Hinkley Point EDF may be a deal that has screwed the Government. I do not know whether that is true: I am not an expert on it. Then, of course, there is the latest investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into the big six electricity suppliers in terms of vertical integration. Where the customers come in all this is quite difficult to understand for the average payer of electricity and gas. That is something that could very usefully come as a result of discussions on the amendment.

On the railways, to take another example, the Office of Rail Regulation’s role is not directly to help the customer—it does, because the charges relating to Network Rail’s costs have come down—but it is relevant because it is regulating a monopoly. Everybody said at the beginning that Network Rail was pretty efficient but it could probably do with a tweak here or there. However, the regulator over the last 10 years has succeeded in reducing Network Rail’s costs, or efficiencies, by something like 40%. If it was 40% over what it should have been as an efficient operator, that is quite an achievement for a monopoly. Now the regulator is expecting another 20% from it in the next five years, and many people say that there is more to come. I do not think that other infrastructure managers of monopolies are probably much different, which is quite worrying. We have very efficient regulators across the sector and they have achieved a lot, but how much more is there to achieve? I just do not know.

The water industry is a different issue. We have had many debates here, some of which I have instituted, about whether the regulator has regulated Thames Water in order to ensure that it had enough assets to provide the investment it believes is necessary for its long-term operation—personally I do not believe it is necessary, but that is not the point—and whether the regulator was doing its job properly in ensuring that there was not a load of asset stripping, which appears to have gone on. More importantly, when is the regulator going to come up with some credible estimate of the effect that the Thames tideway tunnel and the other changes to the industry are going to have on the customers? There has been lots of talk about this; it would be interesting to know, but I suspect that that might require a bit of pressure.

Several newspapers today say that the Prime Minister is apparently going to announce 300 new roads. Whether they are all Highways Agency or strategic road company roads, I do not know—I suspect that the noble Baroness will tell us one day—but that is not the point, really; he is going to announce them, although I do not know how they are going to be financed. Under the Bill, which some of us think is being set up for them eventually to be privatised, the roads will probably be turned into toll roads, although the Minister has strongly denied that at every opportunity. There is still a question of how these new roads will be paid for, though, so should there not actually be some toll roads? However, we are not going to go any further on that today.

The amendment is therefore very important. Having some consistent statistics and data across all these different sectors regarding how much the consumer is going to have to pay, and over what period, would be very useful. It might also put pressure on the regulators to come up with a bit more consistency than they have shown up to now. The UK regulators network is a good idea and I think it is making progress; I have also been involved in some suggestions that there should be a European rail regulator, or an association of European rail regulators, across 26 member states, though at the moment that seems to be a step too far. Still, the concept of regulation is developing, and the question we have to ask ourselves is: is it sufficient that the regulators apply self-regulation to themselves? I have my doubts and would prefer the Treasury to do that to start with, but maybe the Minister will be able to persuade us that they are capable of doing it themselves, with a good deal of Treasury supervision. It will be interesting to see what happens. Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for bringing this to our attention on Report.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this gives me the chance to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the assiduous way in which he has pursued this topic and the way in which he has clarified many of the issues. He did so to our great advantage in Committee and has been a great strength today, so the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, knows the nature of the opposition to which he needs to respond.

We regard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as entirely right to raise the key question of the costs to consumers; he is certainly right to repeat the call of the Public Accounts Committee, which argued that departments should consider very carefully the costs to consumers of the policies that they pursue on infrastructure. He is also right, of course, to raise the fundamental issue of ensuring that costs are not unfairly passed on to consumers. If we had more time, we would dwell on the number of occasions where we consider that to have been the case. It is clear that in many sectors costs to consumers have risen very significantly: one in eight households says that their water bills are unaffordable, while around one-quarter of households and 64% of the poorest households spend more than 3% of their disposable income on water bills. Those bills are 40% higher in real terms than they were in 1989. Obviously the licence agreements set a maximum price, but whether Ofwat has quite the powers that it needs to alter those agreements is still unclear. Likewise, the rise in energy bills has been very well documented. The House will of course recognise the extent to which we have been concerned about electricity bills, to the point of indicating that under the next Labour Government there will be a period of time when bills are frozen.

There is an apparent lack of connection between wholesale prices and the retail prices that hit the consumer. It seems pretty obvious to us that the consumer is often getting a bad deal. None of us underestimates the extent to which infrastructure needs to be improved. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, will dwell on that point. However, we need to ensure that increased infrastructure investment does not fall on the consumer, mainly because currently we are very badly in need of better infrastructure delivery. It is absolutely clear that, given that output has fallen by over 19% since May 2010, less than a third of the projects in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline are classed as in construction. Therefore there is a great deal to be done. The Government are rather better at indicating promise and intent than at acting in reality. The imperative is clear. We need to ensure that our infrastructure output increases; likewise, we need to ensure that the costs are not unfairly passed on to consumers, as they have been in some areas in the recent past. I hope that, just as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, will guarantee that we are pointing in the right direction towards achieving the right balance and a better one than has obtained in recent years.

[Lord Deighton]

My Lords, I shall begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Jenkin for raising this matter in the House. As we know, infrastructure investment is a key element of the Government’s economic plan. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it is key to improving our long-term productivity and that delivering it effectively is a part of the Government’s responsibility in working with the industries involved. Of course, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that is affordable for consumers and taxpayers. That is a crucial and quite complicated issue. The way that we finance and deliver infrastructure in each sector differs. The road sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to, is of course financed exclusively through taxpayer funding, so the question of passing the price on does not exist, whereas the energy and water sectors, for example, are predominantly financed in the private sector.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out personally the Government’s position on this important issue. If we look at the future pipeline of infrastructure expenditure, it works out that about 60% of it is expected to be privately funded—water, energy and telecommunications are the sectors where that is the case. To ensure that such privately funded investment is affordable for consumers now and in the future has to be central to the Government’s approach, and independent economic regulation is at the heart of that. At the core of the argument I am going to make is that it is actually in our long-term interest to have the regulators primarily focused on this. That is where the expertise is. The fact that they operate independently of the short-term changes that may come from government policy is a very healthy thing in terms of both protecting the consumer and creating an environment that encourages investors to put their money into our infrastructure for the longer term.

In that respect, protecting the consumer is central to the work of our regulators—particularly in the case of Ofwat and Ofgem—and is enshrined in their statutory duties. They are able to take a long-term view free from political involvement, as I said. This is a tried and tested system. Indeed, the ability of regulators to undertake their work independently of government interference is a cornerstone of our regulatory system’s success. Our regulatory system, which has its challenges, is the envy of the world. We need to keep on improving it, but it is a strong competitive advantage for this country.

21:30

The regulators have the expert knowledge which allows them to scrutinise companies’ proposed infrastructure investment plans to ensure that they are necessary, are delivered efficiently and are in the interests of the consumers we are serving. One of the concerns that I had about the amendment was that I did not think it was in the interests of getting this right to have the Government take over some of those roles. We need to focus the regulators on what is important, encourage them and ensure that they deliver on this mandate so that the impact of the investment programme is appropriately managed in terms of its impact on consumer prices.

The relationship between infrastructure investment and bills is a very complicated one. Infrastructure investment is one of many inputs into the ultimate price, and the price itself is driven by many other factors. The price of our utility bills is one component in the overall cost of living equation, so you have to look at not only the detail but the macroeconomic situation. A whole range of factors come into play in the final price paid by the consumer. Those can include commodity prices, the cost of debt and capital expenditure and also, of course, operating expenditure. There is quite a focus now on looking at what one might refer to as total expenditure as a way of determining price settlements.

We should not forget that infrastructure investment, if it is done well, ultimately reduces the future costs of supply, maintenance and renewal. That will drive down prices as well as giving us other improved outcomes. Telecoms is the best example in recent history where the improvements in broadband and mobile data speed and coverage brought about by huge infrastructure investment have come alongside falling prices for consumers. So you have to be able to see both sides of the equation here. Similarly, not investing in energy generation now could be expected to increase prices further down the line if demand started to outstrip supply. Given all those complexities—this takes me back to my noble friend Lord Jenkin and his focus on this—I very much welcome the fact that, as part of its first annual work programme, the UK Regulators Network is already looking at improving the understanding of affordability pressures across the sectors and, indeed, the part that infrastructure investment plays in this.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that it was important to achieve consistency across regulators. One of the key objectives of the Regulators Network is to transfer best practice and to look at the differences, ask whether they are justified and examine how we can improve overall performance. I think that there will be significant focus on this area of infrastructure investment and affordability. This work will include looking at patterns of household spending across sectors, characteristics of an essential service and how these influence household spending decisions and can be drivers of customer decisions. I am happy to reiterate that the Government have made clear that they are committed to supporting the UKRN in taking this work forward. In fact, we are currently consulting on how we can best support and encourage the UKRN to help to embed this co-operation more widely between the regulators.

Of course, this is not the only way that the Government can take targeted action to help with the cost of living. Sometimes it is appropriate to intervene in other ways to reduce the cost of living, through more targeted action on bills. For example, in the Autumn Statement alone, we announced a series of steps that are saving the average household around £50 on its energy bills. Only recently, we announced an extension to the freeze on rail fares; with last year’s freeze, this will save season ticket holders around £75 over 2014 and 2015. There are other ways of intervening to manage the impact of what is effectively amortising the investment spend through the pricing variable. There have also been other measures—such as increasing the tax-free personal allowance, freezing fuel duty, and helping local authorities to freeze council tax—all of which reduce the cost of living burden on our citizens.

More specifically on infrastructure, a unit of the Treasury, Infrastructure UK, is also taking forward a considerable amount of work with industry to reduce the costs of infrastructure projects in both the public and the private sector.

In conclusion, I can reassure my noble friend that the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that vital infrastructure investment is cost-effective and affordable. That is why we have a system of independent regulation that has the consumer at its heart. The regulators are the ones with the expertise in weighing up these complex issues, and it is better that we should look to them to do so. I very much welcome the fact that they are working together through the UK Regulators Network to further our understanding of these issues. Indeed, I can give the assurance that the Government are committed to doing everything we can to support them in this important work, at the same time as taking action to help with cost of living more broadly.

I thank my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to discuss these issues today. I hope that what I have set out reassures him, and that he will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Before I withdraw the amendment, may I say that I am immensely grateful to my noble friend for his reply to the debate? I—and others, I am sure—will want to study carefully what he has said, because this represents, in some respects, a new departure in trying to assess who is actually having to pay for the huge programme of infrastructure investment on which we are currently embarked.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I should also mention that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, apologised to me for the fact that he had to leave. This has been a useful debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend for having been here to reply to it in the way that he did. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119 withdrawn.

Amendment 119A

Moved by

[Baroness Worthington]

119A: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of duty to limit emissions
(1) The Energy Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 4 (application and modification of emission limit duty), after paragraph 1(1)(b)(ii) at end insert—
“(iii) substantial pollution abatement equipment dealing with oxides of sulphur, oxides of nitrogen, heavy metal emissions or particles is fitted to the generating station.””

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords may recognise this amendment, because this is not the first time we have had this discussion. I am afraid that I do not intend to apologise for retabling it; I shall keep retabling it until the issue is resolved. At the moment, whether because of a lack of joined-up thinking or because it is the Government’s intention, we are seeing perverse effects arising from their energy market reforms, leading to a reinvestment in old coal.

I said earlier that I would far rather we used home-grown gas to generate electricity than see imported Russian coal being burnt in stations built in the 1960s and 1970s that are now well past their use-by date. When I tabled this amendment in Committee, the Minister’s response was to say that she agreed neither with my analysis of the current position nor with my prediction of the future, and was not convinced that the amendment, which, essentially, would bring in a backstop power to enable us to limit the operating hours of old coal, was needed.

Last week Eggborough, one of the coal-fired power stations built in the 1960s that is seeking a three-year contract to extend its life under the capacity payments mechanism, was sold to a Czech energy company which, in addition to running power, heat and energy provision services in the Czech Republic, is also the third largest coal producer in Germany. This is its first entry into the UK market. The company is EPH, whose spokesperson, Daniel Castvaj, said that there were obviously questions over the long-term operation of the plant but that the company intended to run the existing units for as long as possible.

Today a report was released by WWF with the help of Imperial College London. It made the point that I have continually been seeking to make to the Minister and the Government that just wishing old coal away is not going to work. If we want coal to come off our system and be replaced by cleaner, more efficient infrastructure, we will have to regulate to make that happen. We were told during the passage of the Energy Bill that this would be achieved by financial measures, through the introduction of a carbon price floor, which was in the Finance Bill, and that that would see an end to coal. No sooner did that Bill pass into law than that financial provision was frozen. The escalator, intended to drive off coal, was removed.

Everything that the Government told us during the passage of the Energy Bill has changed since it passed into law. More information has now come to light on the impact of the capacity mechanism. That was intended to enable investment in new infrastructure—to bring forward cleaner infrastructure and make sure that the lights stay on. However, the Government’s choices in how they have implemented that measure have meant that there is now a real possibility that we will not see the capacity mechanism bringing forward investment in new gas infrastructure. If we do, it will be on a very small scale. Instead there will be reinvestment in old coal.

Overall, the capacity mechanism and the people who have bid into it demonstrate that we have more than sufficient plans for infrastructure and supply than is demanded by the capacity mechanism. In fact, it will come down to a straight choice between investment in old coal and investment in new gas. The costs of that are such that it is my expectation—we will find out in December whether this is the case—that it will be old coal that wins and new gas will not. Essentially, the capacity mechanism favours short-term investments by allowing coal plant to continue operating unconstrained, at high load factors but lower efficiencies, than if there were investment in cleaner gas.

I am sure that I will hear from the noble Baroness that she disagrees, but the Imperial College study launched today and commissioned by WWF said:

“Imperial College’s economic modelling shows that it is unwise to simply assume that coal-fired power stations will all close in the 2020s. If government wants old coal stations to close it needs to ensure that happens through legislation. We modelled a variety of scenarios and, with the UK’s existing suite of energy policies, in every instance coal still played a role in generating electricity and 2030 emissions targets were missed”.

That was picked up today by the Independent, which went one step further and said that this really showed that the coalition’s commitment to being a green Government was in tatters and that it did not have credibility in its comments on moving to a decarbonised electricity system.

I saw the noble Lord, Lord Turner, here earlier but he is obviously not in his place now. He commented on WWF’s report and I shall take the liberty of quoting him. He said:

“"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report update on climate change science makes it unequivocal that we must reduce carbon emissions dramatically to avoid major harm to human welfare. And we cannot achieve the required cuts unless we eliminate unabated coal from the electricity generating system”.

At the end of an extensive comment, he concludes:

“A clear commitment to get unabated coal out of the UK generation system is needed to provide certainty against which businesses can invest”.

The amendment has been tabled a number of times and I make no apology for that. I will keep tabling it, probably until I run out of breath, because I care passionately about achieving decarbonisation at least cost and by keeping our energy supplies secure. It is a very short-term attitude to think that if we patch up old coal and keep it running at high load factors it will somehow be beneficial for the country as a whole. Yes, it may make a small difference in the short term, but in the longer term it will be wasted investment. If we are to hit our targets, we need to get our electricity systems almost fully decarbonised by 2030. We need unabated coal to come off. These stations are old, inefficient and highly polluting. If we do not phase them out, using measures such as the EPS, we will simply see ourselves running very fast to stand still. Every coal station that stays open emits twice as much as a gas station. More renewables and nuclear have to be built to compensate for those extra emissions, at a greater cost. This is really not that difficult to work out: old coal should come off first. It is the most polluting and we are wrong to set in place a capacity mechanism that keeps it going a moment longer than it needs to.

I hope that at some point the Government will see the logic of my argument and accept that something needs to be done if we want to get these coal stations out of our system early in the 2020s. I beg to move.

21:45

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I very much agree with the amendment. I have backed similar amendments to other Bills. Unfortunately, we did not manage to get any further on it. It is Liberal Democrat policy that we should get unabated coal out of the energy generation system by 2025—to me that seems an eternity. One of the key things that would do, as this amendment would do, would be to stop long-term investment of any size in unabated coal generation and facilities. That seems to me an absolutely fundamental prerequisite, not only of meeting our carbon budgets, but of ensuring we meet our international obligations, such as on air quality. It will be very difficult to continue to lead on climate change—as we do and as we want to continue to do into the future—if we have a continued electricity generation industry based on coal for the long term.

There are all sorts of other ways to do stop that reinvestment. We have rehearsed these arguments many times before. It is the Chancellor’s and the Treasury’s wish that we should have gas investment at a reasonable level in this country over the next few years. Of course, the more we take the risk of encouraging coal to reinvest into the future—we do not know how much of that will happen but some of it already has—the more we will crowd out investment in other technologies. I suspect that the Minister will not accept the amendment, unfortunately, but I know that a number of Ministers and people in DECC understand the importance of taking coal out of generation. I hope that the Government will one day come to a single view that this needs to be done.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, we were treated yet again to an exposition by the noble Baroness on a matter that we debated at length and voted on last year on the Energy Bill. Here we are doing it again. If the noble Baroness and her party had really wanted to meet some of the targets then they should not have flapped around like wet hens in a thunderstorm when they were in power and got on with doing something about nuclear. As a result of this Government, the energy programme is taking off in a way that it should have done a long time ago. We all agree that we want to get coal out of the system. It is about getting the timing right for that, without creating extra costs for the consumer and without switching the lights off. The coal power stations have to meet the new directive on, I think, 1 January 2016. This subject has been debated long and often and we have voted often. We will obviously continue to do so, but thankfully we are now heading in the right direction. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not accept the amendment.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for yet again bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As my noble friend Lord Caithness eloquently said, we debated this amendment during the passage of the Energy Bill less than a year ago. Noble Lords will recall that, after careful consideration, this House and the other place decided that it should not be adopted. I do not propose to set out in detail again the reasons why the Government did not support this amendment when it was last considered. However, noble Lords will recall that the Government’s main concern was that it could lead to circumstances where existing coal plants closed prematurely, leading to a need for more generation capacity to be built earlier than would otherwise be necessary, and resulting in totally unnecessary and avoidable cost to consumers.

I want to address the points made by the noble Baroness that developments since we last considered this amendment make it necessary to reconsider the conclusion we reached at the time. It is true that there have been a number of developments over the course of this year. We have set about implementing our electricity market reforms, which include taking the actions that are delivering new investment and our plans for a secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity system. That is well demonstrated by the allocation in April of the first contracts for difference to eight renewables projects. These projects include offshore wind farms and coal to biomass conversions, which alone will provide up to £12 billion of private sector investment by 2020, supporting around 8,500 jobs and providing a further 4.5 gigawatts of low-carbon generation capacity to Britain’s energy mix.

The noble Baroness pointed to the capacity market and the fact that four of the 11 remaining coal plants are seeking a three-year capacity agreement to refurbish their plant. She said that that is evidence that these plants will upgrade to comply with the industrial emissions directive allowing them to continue operation long into the future and generating at levels inconsistent with our decarbonisation plans. She also pointed out that the freezing of the carbon price floor improves the economics of continuing to operate coal-fired power stations. The fact is that neither of these developments is expected to have a significant impact on the overall future outlook for coal.

The Government’s latest projections, which take into account recent changes to the carbon price floor, suggest that virtually all coal will have retired by the end of 2025. Only one of the four plants seeking a three-year capacity agreement has fitted the equipment needed to comply with the directive and operate without constraint when it comes into force on 1 January 2016, as my noble friend Lord Caithness rightly said. We are not aware of evidence that any of the other plants will be compliant with the directive at the time it comes into force.

Even were these plants to achieve compliance at some point in the future, our assessment remains that overall levels of generation from coal will decline over time as multiple factors, including age, environmental regulation, increasing levels of low carbon generation and a strengthening carbon price, act to reduce coal generation, although the additional resilience to our energy system that comes from a small number of compliant plants while they are still economic to operate would not be unwelcome.

The risks that would be created by this amendment are also more immediate. I would like to draw the attention of noble Lords to the first auction under the capacity market that will be held in December, which is our response to ensuring security of supply at the least cost to the consumer. A potential impact of this amendment is to constrain the ability of plants to generate when it is otherwise economic for them to do so. Accepting this amendment will therefore create a significant regulatory risk to those plants seeking refurbishment contracts in the capacity market. Their response may therefore be to seek a higher capacity clearing price to compensate for this possible reduction in electricity market revenue, particularly in the years preceding the first delivery year in 2018-19. Alternatively, these investments may not go-ahead. Neither scenario is desirable, with the risk that the cost of the capacity market is pushed upwards with no accompanying benefit to security of supply.

We should also consider what sort of signal it sends to investors of all types of generation, not just coal, now and in the future. They will interpret this as further intervention of a measure that has already been rejected by this House and so close to the first capacity market auction where we will be seeking competitive commitments from over 48 gigawatts of capacity to ensure continued security of our electricity supplies over the course of this decade. It is also important to remember that over 10 gigawatts of new gas has come forward to participate in the December auction, highlighting that we have the right incentives in place to ensure security of supply at the least cost to consumers and to encourage competition through new investment. As we discussed last year, I will oppose an amendment that has the potential to increase consumer bills and increase the risks to security of supply.

There is an almost unanimous consensus on the need to substantially decarbonise our electricity system on the pathway to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050. There is a similar consensus that it is only with carbon capture and storage that coal will continue to play a role in that future. The measures we agreed last year to reform our electricity market are already bringing forward the investment needed to achieve this cost effectively and securely. Against this background we continue to believe that applying the EPS as proposed by this amendment is a potentially risky intervention in the market.

I hope I have gone half way to convincing the noble Baroness that the developments since the Energy Bill was before this House less than a year ago are unlikely to have the impact she assumes and I hope on that basis she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. It may well be true that up to 10 gigawatts has bid into the capacity market but my point is that not one of those apart from Carrington, which is already under construction, will successfully be awarded a capacity mechanism contract. They are going to be frozen out by contracts that will be given to existing coal. It is pointless telling me that lots of people out there want to build gas if in reality we are going to keep coal open at the expense of those investments in cleaner, more efficient technology.

We have spent the largest part of this evening talking about fracking rather than the need to develop the resource of gas so that we can use it as a bridging fuel. There is absolutely no point us investing in that if there are not going to be any stations in which we can burn it efficiently. The losers in this capacity mechanism at the moment are the operators of existing gas stations and those who wish to build new ones. That is because we continue to tell ourselves that the lights will go out if we constrain coal and that that will necessarily force a higher price on to consumers. The money we are spending on propping up old coal is going to be money wasted—we will have to shut these stations anyway at some point. Why we seem to be perpetually telling ourselves that we cannot do without these ageing dinosaurs in our electricity system is beyond me.

I do not intend to detain the House any longer at this stage and I will, of course, withdraw my amendment. However, I reiterate the words of Dr Gross from Imperial College that we will not see the end of old coal without government intervention. If this Government refuse to do it then it will fall to another Government. There is a future for coal; it is with CCS and only with CCS. Unabated coal is simply not something we should be sustaining through the 21st century and no end of anyone telling me otherwise is going to persuade me. However, I will withdraw this amendment now.

Amendment 119A withdrawn.

Clause 39: Regulations and orders

Amendment 119B

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

119B: Clause 39, page 42, line 9, leave out “or 35” and insert “, 35 or 36”

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, as part of our proposals on the right to use underground land to exploit oil and gas and deep geothermal energy, each of these industries has put forward a voluntary offer for a payment and notification system. The Government support this offer. We think that the offer is in the communities’ best interests because it ensures that the payment scheme will be flexible and tailored to the specific requirements of each community. We have proposed to take a delegated power in the Bill, both as an incentive to adhere to the voluntary agreement and, if it becomes necessary, to set out the voluntary agreement on payment and notification in secondary legislation.

For instance, if the scheme were not honoured by industry, we would look at making the notification and payment schemes a statutory requirement under secondary legislation. Any regulations made by statutory instrument to set up a payment or notification scheme will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Under the sunsetting provision, the powers to make these regulations are subject to a one-off review and must be repealed if they have not been used within seven years of commencement.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that regulations made under the sunsetting clause should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have agreed to this approach and therefore propose an amendment that seeks to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under Clause 36. I beg to move.

22:00

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness has stated, this amendment follows from the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. It is clear that the availability of statutory safeguards was a matter of considerable concern to a large proportion of respondents to the Government’s consultation exercise. If these safeguards are to be repealed, the proposed regulations should be approved by Parliament after the Government have made a full explanation which has been examined and debated by both Houses. We are pleased that the Government have seen fit to agree that any of these regulations will be made under the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 119B agreed.

Clause 40: Extent

Amendments 120 to 122

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

120: Clause 40, page 42, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) In Part 1A (powers of British Transport Police Force)—
(a) section (Powers of British Transport Police Force)(1) extends to England and Wales only, and(b) section (Powers of British Transport Police Force)(2) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”

121: Clause 40, page 43, line 1, leave out “22(11)” and insert “22(11) and (12)”

122: Clause 40, page 43, line 2, after “Part” insert “and section 26(6)”

Amendments 120 to 122 agreed.

Amendment 123 not moved.

Amendment 124

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

124: Clause 40, page 43, line 4, after “38” insert “, section (Renewable heat incentives)”

Amendment 124 agreed.

Clause 41: Commencement

Amendments 125 to 127

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

125: Clause 41, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1A (powers of British Transport Police Force) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

126: Clause 41, page 43, line 21, leave out “and 18” and insert “, 18 and 26”

127: Clause 41, page 43, line 29, leave out “, 25 and 26” and insert “and 25”

Amendments 125 to 127 agreed.

Amendment 128 not moved.

Amendment 129

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

129: Clause 41, page 43, line 35, leave out from “28” to “come” and insert “and Schedule 5 come into force on 1 June 2016,
(ab) section 29 and sections 32 to 37”

[The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)]

I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 130 by reason of pre-emption.

Amendment 129 agreed.

Amendment 130 not moved.

Amendments 131 to 132

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

131: Clause 41, page 43, line 40, leave out “section 38 comes” and insert “section 38 and section (Renewable heat incentives) come”

131A: Clause 41, page 43, line 42, leave out “or (3)(a) or (b)(ii)” and insert “, (3)(a) or (b)(ii) or (5)(b)”

132: Clause 41, page 43, line 43, at end insert “or areas”

Amendments 131 to 132 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 133

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

133:In the Title, line 14, after “energy;” insert “to make provision about renewable heat incentives;”

Amendment 133 agreed.

House adjourned at 10.02 pm.