House of Commons

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 26 January 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the innovation fund for young people.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I set up the £30 million innovation fund four years ago to test cutting-edge projects for helping disadvantaged young people: some of those most at risk of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—or falling in with gangs. Using social impact bonds, these projects are now proving they can deliver a return on the investment; 16,600 positive educational and employment outcomes have been achieved, each one an improvement in a young person’s prospects.

[Stephen Mosley]

One key factor of the innovation fund is the use of social investment. How effective does my right hon. Friend think social investment has been? What future does he foresee for social investment in future projects from his Department?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The interesting thing about this development, which I hope has support on both sides of the House, is that these social investment bonds have advanced dramatically in the past four years, making the UK now a world leader in this, with lots of different Governments coming to ask how to implement it. With the tax relief that we have granted to social investment bonds, the future funding in many of these projects will involve more and more decisions being able to be taken by local government; it will be able to set individual projects up and fund them, without recourse to government, but with a return. So we will be paying for things that happen rather than things that might happen—that is the key.

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

But ending the wage incentive part of the Youth Contract eight months early was a tacit admission of its failure. Only 10,000 young people completed the contract, whereas 160,000 were budgeted for. Can the Secretary of State tell us what went wrong?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

What went wrong was the Youth Contract, full stop. The money used for the Youth Contract actually went to invest in people who had greatest disadvantage, and when we set up our other programmes, including the Work programme, we outperformed anything the Youth Contract had. Furthermore, work experience was not available to young people under the previous Government for any great length of time, whereas we have had more than 50% of people on those work experience programmes go back to work. More young people are in work now than when we came into office; they were left by the disaster of the previous Government.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Young people remain at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market. The statistics published last week show that for the third month in a row overall unemployment came down but youth unemployment rose. Does the Secretary of State have any new proposals to tackle this problem of currently rising youth unemployment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has actually looked at the figures correctly. He will find that under this Government youth unemployment has fallen; there are now more young people in work; and youth unemployment is at a lower level than the previous Government left us in 2010, after they crashed the economy. I might also remind him that they used to put young people on short-term programmes. As soon as they did that, they took them off the register and started them as though they had begun looking for work then, rather than being six months in. The previous Government gerrymandered the figures and they still failed.

[Stephen Timms]

At the time of the general election the rate of youth unemployment was two and a half times the overall level of unemployment. Since then, the relative position of young people has steadily worsened, to the point where last week the youth unemployment rate was 2.9 times the overall rate of unemployment. Judging by his answer, the Secretary of State may not have noticed that youth unemployment is currently going up. Is it not now high time for a compulsory job guarantee, so that young people have the chance of a job at the start of what should be their working lives, instead of spending years on unemployment benefit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The reality is quite different from that set out by the right hon. Gentleman. Youth unemployment is down 171,000 on the year—nearly a fifth; 7.1% of all young people are unemployed and not in full-time education; and the number of young people on jobseeker’s allowance has fallen every month for that past three years. The truth about this is quite the opposite to that he suggests. The previous Government left us with young people unable to get work experience and unable to get jobs, and a real stagnation problem, with young people not being able to get the skills necessary. Youth unemployment is now falling. Youth employment is rising—[Interruption.] No; since the last Parliament youth unemployment has fallen. Youth employment is rising. Once in a while it would be nice if the right hon. Gentleman got up and said, “You know what, the last Government got it wrong. Thank you for getting it right.”

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on supporting people with a mental health condition to find work.

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

8. What progress he has made on supporting people with a mental health condition to find work.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

The Government are committed to helping people with mental health problems into work. We are piloting a number of innovative approaches to employment support for those with mental health problems, and the Access to Work mental health support service can help people with a mental health condition who are absent from work or who are finding it difficult to get back into work.

[Mark Menzies]

Mental health issues in Fylde are as serious as they are anywhere else, so what plans does the Minister have to support further people with mental health conditions throughout the Disability Confident campaign?

[Mr Harper]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentions the Disability Confident campaign. I have invited Members from both sides of the House to talk about Disability Confident at an event in the House on Wednesday. Specifically on mental health, I had the privilege last Thursday to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and to meet with the work coaches in the jobcentre and with those who have been on some of our pilot programmes to hear about the success we have had in encouraging people with a mental health problem to get back into work, or to avoid having one in the first place.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister join me in recognising the importance of the voluntary sector in helping those with mental health issues to get back into work? Organisations such as Relate in my constituency work tirelessly to improve mental health and provide vital counselling that allows people to get back into work and progress with their careers.

[Mr Harper]

I am happy to pay tribute to organisations such as the one my hon. Friend has just mentioned. The important thing is to have a proper partnership with Jobcentre Plus, voluntary and third-sector organisations, the NHS and employers working together to ensure that we stop people from falling out of work if they develop a mental health problem, and that they can get back into work if they do so.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I cannot be the only person in the House today who finds it utterly heartbreaking when people come to their surgery unable to find work. Those people are often more than capable of working but, because of a fear of stigmatisation and an absence of support, they are unable to find that work. I praise the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for setting an example in this area. Following on from the good work of Waitrose and Tesco, can we not do more in this House to set an example, because we are after all a major employer?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. One thing we are doing through our Disability Confident campaign is ensuring that employers are aware not only of those with physical disabilities but of those with mental health problems. There was, for a period, a statutory bar on Members of Parliament serving in this House in this respect. When I was in Opposition I challenged the then Justice Secretary on the matter, and this Government have now delivered change to ensure that we set a good example. We now say that if someone has a mental health problem, they are just as capable as anyone else to work both as a Member of Parliament and as staff in the House.

[Mr Speaker]

On that matter, the Minister of State wisely heeded the recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation, which enjoyed all-party support.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Voluntary sector organisations working with the most vulnerable claimants are expressing concerns that people with mental illness are still over represented among those being sanctioned. Does the Minister accept that there is still a problem here, and what more can he do about it?

[Mr Harper]

Just before I answer the hon. Lady, let me say that I am happy to agree with you, Mr Speaker, that your conference showed great leadership, which we were happy to follow. I think that it is wise to acknowledge that from the Dispatch Box—[Laughter.] The Secretary of State says keep going. The hon. Lady makes a serious point about sanctioning. We have to make sure in the Department and Jobcentre Plus that if someone on employment and support allowance does not engage with the help they are given, we understand why they do not engage with it and then deliver proper support. Last week, when I was looking at the pilots, I was trying to see how we better engage with that mental health support to ensure that we give people the support both to stay in work, and to get back to work, if they have a mental health problem.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I was delighted to welcome the Minister to the Olive Tree café which provides opportunities for more than 30 people to rebuild their confidence and skills. That has been achieved through a successful social enterprise. How can we share that best practice?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend invited me to visit the Olive Tree café in his constituency on a day that I also spoke at a mindful employer event, which again focused on mental health, at the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). We can use our Disability Confident campaign to get those messages out there. My hon. Friend, by using the benefits of this House, has ensured that the message will be heard far and wide.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In the past year, a number of people have written to me who are finding it hard to stay in work because they are getting very poor support in the workplace, and sometimes they are having difficulty accessing mental health support. What discussions has the Minister had with employers and his colleagues in the Department of Health about how we can tackle that? If those people cannot stay in work and become unemployed, they may have difficulty getting back into work again.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, to which I would say two things in reply. First, people who are in work can be referred to the Access to Work mental health support service, to get support delivered to them to enable them to stay in work. Secondly, the NHS now recognises that it has an important part to play here, and for the first time we have set out access requirements for mental health services, which will start this April.

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

Why is no help available to get people with mental health problems back on to employment and support allowance, when they have voluntarily come off ESA and gone on to jobseeker’s allowance, wrongly believing that they were fit to work, only to be sanctioned for failing to comply with their jobseeker’s agreement because of their mental illness?

[Mr Harper]

One of the things that our work coaches in the jobcentre are able to do is flex the claimant commitment people make according to the claimant’s health condition. What should happen in such cases is that, if the individual remains on JSA, their work coach can alter the conditions to deal with that. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples where that has not happened, I would be delighted if he wrote to me so that we can look into those cases.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Just at the time that many young people leave full-time education, those battling mental health problems are also having to navigate their transition from adolescent to adult mental health services. Is it not essential that those services are there to support them at the very time we are looking to them to embark on their working lives?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are doing several things in that respect. First, we are looking at properly joining up the education, health and care assessments people have at school and the disabled students’ allowance application made when they go to university. We are also working closely with the Department of Health to make sure that mental health services are properly integrated with the world of work.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

5. How many jobs were created in (a) Shipley constituency and (b) Yorkshire in 2014.

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

In the year to September 2014, employment rose by 6,500 in Shipley and nearly 30,000 in Yorkshire.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those great statistics. Late last year, I organised a jobs fair in Shipley that had employers there with more than 300 current vacancies. She will be aware that many Conservative MPs in Yorkshire have also held jobs fairs in their constituencies. Will she ensure that jobcentres always support jobs fairs, to ensure that as many jobseekers as possible come to them?

[Esther McVey]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I congratulate him on holding a jobs fair. He is right to draw attention to the fact that Conservative MPs in Yorkshire have been putting the Labour MPs to shame for not holding as many job fairs. Because of those events and our welfare changes, and because of the success of our long-term economic plan, more jobs were created in Yorkshire last year than in the whole of France—something I am sure my hon. Friend is particularly pleased to hear.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a considerable distance from Shipley and Yorkshire, but no doubt he will say he has a half-sister there, or something.

[Wayne David]

I am an only child, Mr Speaker.

With regard to Shipley and Yorkshire, can the Minister say how many of the jobs she mentioned were part-time, on zero-hours contracts or on the minimum wage? If she is not sure of the figures, does she agree with me that a heck of a lot of jobs are in those categories?

[Esther McVey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, because I frequently hear the myths put about by the Opposition. I can assure him that 80% are full-time jobs and 75% are managerial and professional jobs. These are very good jobs for excellent people who are trying to support their families in Shipley and across the UK.

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

6. What steps he is taking to improve job opportunities in (a) Huddersfield and (b) the northern region.

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

As part of this Government’s long-term economic plan, we are committed to developing the northern powerhouse. We are investing heavily in infrastructure, science and technology, and culture to rebalance the economy by closing the long-term gap between the north and south—something the Opposition did not manage to do.

[Mr Sheerman]

Some of us are a little wary of short-term gimmicks, especially short-term jobs fairs. In Huddersfield we have had an Enterprise Foundation promoting small business start-ups that last, and it continues to be very effective. Has the Minister seen the Centre for Cities report, which shows clearly that the investment and job growth seem to be largely, though not entirely, in London and the south-east? If she looks at the report, she will see that it is the great northern industrial cities that have suffered over a number of years. What is she doing about that?

[Esther McVey]

Again, I am delighted to answer the question; again, the information was out of date. The information for that report closed in 2013 and covered the previous 10-year period, when the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported were in office. The latest figures would show that 60% of jobs created are outside London and the south-east. I know that the hon. Gentleman, as the previous Chair of the Education Committee, takes a keen interest in opportunities for young people, so I hope he will welcome the latest announcement from Yorkshire Water that it will create 160 apprenticeships.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in thanking Huddersfield job centre, which supported my jobs fairs in Holmfirth and Marsden last year, giving local people access to real jobs and apprenticeships? Will she note the 4,130 apprenticeship starts in my constituency since 2010?

[Esther McVey]

Indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local jobcentre and him on all the work he does. Those were over 4,000 apprenticeships in his constituency, but at the end of last year there were 2 million new apprenticeships for young people right across the country. That is why we have seen the biggest fall in youth unemployment since records began.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve job opportunities for people in the north of England is for Government to reduce tax and red tape on businesses to give them the opportunity to create new businesses, and to ensure that the Government always make it pay to be in work, not on benefits?

[Esther McVey]

Once again, my hon. Friend speaks sound sense. That is exactly what this Government have been trying to do. We have been working with businesses, finding out what they need to expand and grow and to take on young people. As we have seen, growth is increasing. We are now growing faster than any other country in the G7. We know that not only are wages going up by 2%, but they are destined to go up by 3.4%, and inflation has fallen by 0.5%. If anybody had a long-term economic plan, it is this Government.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of take-up of the new enterprise allowance (a) nationally and (b) in the Dudley metropolitan borough council area.

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

The new enterprise allowance supports jobseekers who want to set up their own business through mentoring and a weekly allowance. Through the scheme over 60,000 businesses have been started nationally, including 640 within the Dudley metropolitan area.

[Margot James]

The new enterprise allowance is one of the many ways that the Government are supporting people into self-employment and running their own businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this support has been essential to the thriving business environment which has seen over 2,000 new businesses start up in my constituency, Stourbridge, since 2010?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. When any new business sets up, it needs support, mentoring and access to finance, all of which we are providing. With her background, she knows exactly how to set up a business; she set up her own and won awards for it, and her dad set up his own business in the 1930s which went on to be an incredibly successful manufacturing company. That is what we need to do—support people, provide access to finance and mentoring, and ensure that they have a good business plan. I thank my hon. Friend for that question.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the views of Jobcentre Plus managers on the effectiveness of the Work programme.

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

We have continued to drive improvements in providers’ results. Jobcentre Plus is integral to this, and we have implemented a closer working approach between jobcentres and providers. The evaluation indicates that the relationship between jobcentres and providers has strengthened over time—for instance, through the use of co-location and enhanced information sharing.

[Nia Griffith]

The serious concerns of jobcentre managers expressed in a report published in December should come as no surprise to the Minister given the latest dismal figures showing that barely 7% of people on employment and support allowance have moved into sustained employment. What is the Minister going to do to tackle the problems that jobcentre managers identify, such as the lack of work placement opportunities, infrequent contact with participants, and lack of explanation to participants about why sanctions have been requested?

[Esther McVey]

First, I would like to remind everybody that the Work programme is the most successful scheme of its kind in getting people from long-term unemployment into work. Some 1.75 million people are now being helped and over 600,000 have got a job. In feedback, participants are saying that they are happy with the frequency of contact and think that that works with them and helps overcome the barriers to finding work. The number of people on ESA shows that it is actually performing well above what was expected. It was expected to apply to only one in 14 people and the figure is now one in 10. All the extra work that we have done on the communications between Jobcentre Plus and work providers is obviously showing results.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What more can the Minister do to get a better relationship between jobcentres and Work programme providers so that they can provide a warm handover when claimants move into the Work programme and when they return from the programme at the end of their two-year period?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. This is all part of the Oakley review. It is about ensuring that communications are better, that that hand-holding is understood, that people get a copy of the claimant commitment, and that they can understand a good cause and work together. At the end of the day, we are trying to get some of the most vulnerable people, who have been unemployed for a long time, into work. What is needed is that communication and that support from Jobcentre Plus and prime contractors.

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

My constituent, John McArthur, was laid off at the end of a temporary job that paid the national minimum wage. The DWP later tried to force him to work for the same company, in the same job, for six months. He subsequently got accused and lost his benefit. How can that sanction possibly be justified?

[Esther McVey]

This was a complicated case. I will obviously meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. His constituent had been laid off and then, as we were trying to support him back into work, he did work experience. It was in a different part of the business, and it was how we could best enable him to move from long-term unemployment into employment. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet me, I am more than happy to do that, but I have already looked into this case.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Work programme has helped hundreds of thousands of people out of the misery of long-term unemployment and into sustainable work?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend raises yet another good point. Under Labour, the number of people living in households where nobody had ever worked doubled. We therefore needed not only to do a lot of work to bring us back to the regular standards of what we had before Labour came into office, but to build on that to get more people into work. That is exactly right. We have helped hundreds of thousands of those people who were left unemployed for a long time.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

10. Whether universal credit will be available to migrants from the European Economic Area when it is fully rolled out.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

16. What recent steps he has taken to stop welfare tourism.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Citizens of the European economic area who choose to come here without a job to start will not be able to access universal credit. We have introduced several restrictions to benefits to ensure that our welfare system focuses support on those who are contributing to the economy. These include strengthening the habitual residency test, banning access to housing benefit for new EEA jobseekers, and introducing a three-month residency requirement for income-based jobseeker’s allowance.

[Rosie Cooper]

The Secretary of State originally predicted that 1 million people would be on universal credit by April last year. The latest figure is 26,000. I understand that last October he predicted a figure of 100,000 by May—does he still believe that?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The universal credit programme is working well. It is now completing its roll-out to all the areas in the north-west, to all singles, couples and families. In the next month, it will start rolling out across the country, and that will bring universal credit to more jobcentres. By the time that process is completed, one in three jobcentres will be running universal credit. The key thing is to make sure that we get this vital reform, which helps people to get back into work faster, that we land it correctly and safely, and that we learn the lessons of the past when things like tax credits, brought in under the previous Government, were absolute disasters wasting billions of pounds in lost money and fraud.

[Sir David Amess]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite wrong for people who are working in this country on a temporary basis to be able to claim benefits for their dependants in their country of origin, when one considers the cost of those benefits in relation to the differences in the cost of living?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes; changing that situation is something that the coalition has set out to achieve. I remind my hon. Friend that when we came to power, the last Government had pretty much left an open door for access to benefits. People were able to claim jobseeker’s allowance pretty much on arrival. There was a habitual residence test, but it was very weak. We strengthened it and stopped people claiming for more than three months. People will not be able to claim housing benefit and they must have a right of residence. If they do claim, they must show that they have a minimum earnings likelihood. Anything below that will not count as a job. We are tightening up the system after the mess that we were left by the last Government.

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

Does the Secretary of State really feel that it is sufficient for people to have to work in this country for only three months before they can claim out-of-work benefits?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will take that as a peculiar compliment. We inherited a system in which people did not have to work for any time to claim jobseeker’s allowance. Within the existing rules, we will not pay for the first three months. If people are unemployed, they will be paid for three months. After that, they will be asked to leave. That is a much tighter position than the one we inherited. I, of course, would like to take it further. As the Prime Minister set out clearly in a recent speech, he believes that there should be years of contributions before someone is eligible to claim benefits, be they tax credits or jobseeker’s allowance. When the Conservative party gets back into power, we will implement that.

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

I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement in November that a future Conservative Government will have the toughest regime in Europe on limiting migrants’ access to our benefits system. Will the Secretary of State outline for the House the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that migrants come here to work and contribute, and what he has done to deter people from benefit tourism?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Exactly what I have mentioned. The mess that we were left by the last Government left little or no restrictions on anybody coming in, so the UK became a draw for people who wanted to claim benefits and be out of work, because it was a better option. We are tightening that up. We have stopped a number of things, such as housing benefit, and have shortened the time on jobseeker’s allowance. Tax credits are moving into line with that as well. As I said, when we are re-elected at the next election as a Conservative Government, we will tighten it up even more.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the reasons for differences in the unemployment rate in the UK and in other European countries.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The UK has the fifth lowest unemployment rate in the European Union, and unemployment has fallen by more than in any other G7 economy in the past year. Thanks to welfare reform and our long-term economic plan, businesses are creating jobs and 1.75 million more people are in work than in 2010.

[Mr Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most recent EUROSTAT figures, which show that employment in the UK is rising at twice the rate of any other European nation, underline the importance of maintaining a benefits system in which people are always better off in work than not in work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. The reality of what he raises is exemplified by the fact that the Opposition still cleave to the idea that they would copy the French way of doing things in respect of the economy. It is worth reminding them that in France—this is the system that they think is really good—the employment rate is down at 64%, the unemployment rate is 10.3% and the youth unemployment rate is up at 25.4%, which are all massively worse than here in the UK.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

But it remains the case that youth unemployment here is much higher than in countries such as Germany, Austria and Norway. Does the Secretary of State agree that we will not tackle that until we tackle the scandal of the quality of technical and vocational education in our schools and colleges?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to ensure that much greater emphasis is placed on vocational education in schools, including to get people ready for apprenticeships. The Government have done a huge amount towards that. There are 1 million new apprenticeships. The report that came out when we first arrived said that there had to be a greater emphasis on that. None the less, our youth unemployment rate is remarkable when compared with the average in Europe and, apart from Germany and Holland, is significantly lower than anywhere else.

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

In May 2010, the claimant count in my constituency was 1,702. This month, it is 684. In a European context, will my right hon. Friend help me? Is that fall in unemployment in my constituency due to the increased vibrancy of a diversified rural economy such as mine, or the absence of a plan long terme économique elsewhere?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on it. The reality is that the Government have implemented a long-term economic plan. In that long-term economic plan, welfare reform plays a critical part in ensuring that people are ready and available for work. Our labour market is far more deregulated than that of many other countries in Europe. It is noticeable that today, in the light of the elections in Greece, everyone is talking about austerity, but the big problem in Greece, as in other countries, is that the labour market is so rigid that very few companies want to invest, because there is no flexibility whatever. That is why they come to the UK—this Government have a plan that works to help them to get profitability.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Unemployment in the Kettering constituency has halved since May 2010. What does my right hon. Friend think would have happened to the rate of unemployment in Kettering had Her Majesty’s Government followed the economic policies of France, which apparently are a blueprint for Her Majesty’s Opposition?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is the point. Opposition Members do not like it very much, but let us follow that theme for a minute. The Leader of the Opposition extolled the virtues of the alternative to the long-term economic plan—the French plan, which was no economic plan as far as I understand it. We have now seen French unemployment go through the roof, employment rates fall and economic activity stagnate. London is now something like the sixth or seventh-largest French city because so many French people are coming to the UK because—we welcome them—they like to look for jobs.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

12. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.

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

17. What recent estimate he has made of the number of people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The latest published figures for August 2014 showed that the number of people affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy has fallen by 75,000. This follows a general downward trend, bringing the number of those affected down from 547,000 in May 2013 to 472,000.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

In the Wigan borough, 3,386 people have had their housing benefit reduced due to the bedroom tax. Wigan & Leigh Housing estimates that it will take over seven years to re-house those who wish to downsize. Many of those affected have contacted me because, despite working, they are struggling to pay bills and feed their family. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the average income of those subject to the bedroom tax?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In previous speeches and today, the hon. Lady has talked about the fact that there are just not enough properties in her constituency to enable people to downsize. In fact, I understand that there are 2,700 people subject to the under-occupancy spare room subsidy, but something like 15,000 one and two-bedroom houses in the social sector properties in Wigan. There are many houses—many more than she might have laid out.

My point to the hon. Lady and the Opposition is that, in their opposition, they need to explain how they will afford it. The policy is saving some £500 million a year. It has already saved £830 million to date. They have no plans for substituting that, which means that their economic record is in tatters. After all, Labour, when in power, was the party that introduced that very policy for those in social sector private rented tenancies.

[Jack Dromey]

Once in every generation, there is a tax so bad that the next generation looks back and asks, “Why did they do it?” Such was the poll tax, now the bedroom tax. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many victims of domestic violence liable to the bedroom tax have had their sanctuary rooms deemed as spare rooms?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is just another attempt to start scaremongering about the whole idea—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. What has been disgraceful about the Opposition is that they have spent their time scaremongering up and down the country about this issue. He knows very well that local authorities and the police work together, they have discretionary housing payments to deal with that matter at a local level and they can resolve it. More than £380 million has been granted to local authorities for discretionary payments.

I have looked at what the hon. Gentleman said previously about the number of houses available. He said that some 5,000 people are suffering due to the under-occupancy rules because they had nowhere to move, but I remind him that there are 63,500 one and two-bedroom properties in Birmingham. He yet again mis-states the reality, which is that this has to work. I remind him again that it was his Government who introduced this for the private-rented social sector.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is too complacent. The fact is that when a family pays the bedroom tax, the whole family suffers. The actual number of people affected is much higher than the numbers he quoted, at 750,000. Making families move is unkind, especially when it disrupts children’s education. There are not enough smaller properties, as colleagues have said, and people cannot move. So why did not the Government vote with Labour before Christmas to abolish the bedroom tax?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady, like many on the Opposition Benches, is living in cloud cuckoo land. They invent a whole series of issues about this. First, we get these lines about the fact that evictions are up. In fact, evictions are a very small proportion and are down. They say that rent arrears are up, but they are stable and have not risen. They say that homelessness is up, but it is actually down. The reality is that every time the Opposition talk about this subject, they invent these issues. But never once in the whole of the time they were in government—or even now—did they bother to talk about the fact that their policies meant that house building fell to the lowest level since the 1920s and that many people live in overcrowded accommodation, thanks to Labour’s failure, its crashing of the economy and its shocking mismanagement of housing.

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

13. What recent steps he has taken to support young people seeking employment or training.

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

The youth claimant count is at its lowest level since the 1970s and this is due to the action that the Government have taken. Young persons entering a jobcentre will receive tailored support from their work coach and be directed to work experience, sector-based work academies or locally funded support.

[Chris White]

I am delighted to say that the number of 18 to 24-year-olds in Warwick and Leamington claiming JSA has fallen by 79% since April 2010. However, I recognise that there is still more work to do. Does the Minister agree that schools and businesses can develop strong partnerships, not least in terms of providing work experience? What incentives can the Government provide to encourage those relationships and highlight the benefits that they can offer?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right—it is about building relationships between businesses and schools, and that is what we have done with some of the biggest businesses. We set up Movement to Work, which created 100,000 work experience schemes. Another scheme, Feeding Britain’s Future, provided another 15,000 work experience places and, in the west midlands alone, there are more than 16,000. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education created the new careers support scheme, which is also working with companies, schools and individuals.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

23. It lifts my heart to see so many more people in employment across Windsor and the country. All hon. Members share the vision of a country in which the circumstances of our birth do not determine where we end up. I commend the Secretary of State on his work on welfare reform, and does the Minister agree that we must continue to push on with those changes so that social mobility in Britain is boosted once again?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right about social mobility. He is also the living embodiment of it, as he comes from a council estate in south London, son of a single mum with many mouths to feed. He then set up a multi-million pound business and won young entrepreneur of the year from Ernst and Young. The Government have provided support and encouragement, creating the sort of environment in which people like my hon. Friend can develop their businesses and employ other people.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

15. What plans he has to respond to the recent recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The report is a serious contribution to an important debate, which recognises that the reasons behind the demand for emergency food assistance are complex and overlapping. I have already responded and will continue to review the recommendations and engage with the inquiry as it takes its proposals forward. That is an undertaking I gave at the last Question Time. My Department has already agreed to do more to raise awareness of short-term benefit advances, including advertising in jobcentres so that everyone can see it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The report showed that about a quarter of a million people last year used food banks because of benefit sanctions. I have a constituent who showed me evidence that he applied for hundreds of jobs, but, because he applied for one by handing in a CV in person rather than through the website, he was sanctioned for three months without money. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is completely outrageous?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am afraid I simply do not recognise the kind of case the hon. Lady raises. She knows that if she wants to raise a case directly with me or with the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), she should do so, but there is no such rule in jobcentres or in respect of sanctions. [Interruption.] Yes, I am very happy to see the hon. Lady, but let me bring her to the wider issue, which is simply this: the report made it very clear that there are multiple issues. What the Opposition have tried to do non-stop, as they have with the spare room subsidy and other matters, is try to scare everybody up and down the country into believing that there is a magic wand. Let me remind her that under her Government the number of food banks doubled. The reality is that long before the coalition came to power, they were already delivering a failed economy and forcing people out of work and into difficulty beyond whatever we may have done.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

One of the reasons for using food banks—a reason given by those who use them—is delays in benefit payments. Am I right in thinking, however, that the average time for sorting out benefit payment disputes has been reduced to under two weeks?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is correct. The reality is that delays in benefit payments have fallen under this Government. There are now fewer delays. The Opposition say that we need to speed up the payment of benefits. I remind them that under Labour benefits were not paid until two weeks after the claim, so unless they are now saying that benefits should be paid earlier than that, I really have no idea what the Opposition’s policy is on this. We pay benefits as quickly as possible. There is no determination to delay payment. Jobcentres and benefit offices do their level best to ensure that people get money when they need it, and hardship funds are available if anybody has any difficulty.

[Mr Speaker]

We shall squeeze in one more. I call Sheila Gilmore.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

18. What recent assessment he has made of the reasons for changes in the number of employment and support allowance claimants.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

Under this Government, the number of people in receipt of out-of-work benefits has fallen by 899,000, and there are 93,000 fewer people on incapacity benefit since May 2010.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think he is absolutely clear that the number of people on incapacity benefit who have been found unfit for work is far higher than the Department for Work and Pensions predicted. Is it not time that Ministers dropped the scrounger rhetoric and accepted that if people are to move back towards employment, they need real help and support?

[Mr Harper]

I do not know whom the hon. Lady has heard using that rhetoric, but it is certainly not me or members of this Government. [Interruption.] It is no good her waving at us. It may be reported like that in newspapers, but Ministers do not use that sort of language. I have been very clear that people who are able to go to work with the right support will receive employment and support allowance. I am sure she was listening to the long exchange we had earlier on mental health support. Half the people on ESA have a mental health problem. She will have heard me set out the considerable range of things we are doing to help them to get back into work.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Ministers are spending £8 billion more than planned on incapacity benefit and ESA because they cannot assess people quickly enough, they cannot reassess them, and the failing Work programme cannot get them into sustained employment. Even the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), admitted a few moments ago that it is achieving a 90% failure rate. Now the Tories say that they want to cut £12 billion from social security spending, and disabled people are worried that they will be paying for this catalogue of Tory welfare failure. What reassurance can the Minister offer them?

[Mr Harper]

I listened carefully, but it is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to criticise the issues we had with the assessment process. There were issues with the assessment provider that her Government appointed, which is why we appointed a new contractor, Maximus, which will start work in March, and I am confident that that will improve the assessment process and get people back into work. Getting people back into work is how we will continue to reduce the benefits bill, which I remind her rose enormously when her party was in government.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today I welcome the new cross-Government report on drug addiction which shows that, for the most complex cases, residential treatment delivers a rate of positive outcomes nearly three times better than community treatment. Instead of not prioritising full recovery, as used to be the case, we are now getting people off drugs, into work and on the path to a better future, rather than leaving them languishing on methadone.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In answer to my earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of food banks under the last Labour Government. In the last year of that Government, there were 41,000 food bank users, but the number is now nearly 1 million a year—a figure that just before Christmas he referred to as “tiny”. What do we have to do to get him to accept that food bank use and the scandal of food poverty in this country are his responsibility and that he needs to do more about them?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As we have always said, these are complex issues. We welcome the fact that voluntary sector organisations provide for and support people in their community, through food banks and often with clothing and various other things. Having had the allowance passed down to them, many local authorities now use it to engage with food banks and send people there and to other organisations providing food and so on. Instead of simply saying that everything is the fault purely of the Government, the hon. Lady should take stock of one thing: it was her Government who crashed the economy and made people worse off. [Interruption.] I know the Opposition do not like to hear it, but they should do the maths: destroying the economy leaves people worse off. By getting more people back into work, the Government are helping them get beyond the need for food banks and other support.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T3. Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately on benefits arrangements for people with mental health difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have problems.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. Of course, assessors are trained in assessing mental health problems and are particularly mindful of the fact that people with mental health problems often have a fluctuating condition that might not be apparent at the time of the assessment. Of course, we tell claimants that they can bring someone with them to support them during the assessment, if that would be beneficial.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

In 2011, the Secretary of State said that, by April 2014, 1 million people would be receiving universal credit. With delays and write-offs, that date has been and gone, so will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) asked, but which was not answered, and give a guarantee to the House that he will meet his latest target of just 100,000 people receiving universal credit by May 2015?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I say to the hon. Lady that we intend to, and I repeat the answer I gave earlier. I know she wants to dance around on these things, but she has to say whether she genuinely supports universal credit or whether she plans to get rid of it, as that seems to be becoming Labour party policy.

[Rachel Reeves]

We have been consistent: we support universal credit, but not throwing good money after bad, and we will go ahead with it only if the National Audit Office signs it off and says it will save more money than it costs, which is far from clear at the moment.

Last week’s figures show that the glacial pace continues, with still only 26,940 people receiving universal credit. At this rate of progress, it will take 1,571 years before it is fully rolled out. The Secretary of State protests that it would be riskier to go faster, but he has only himself to blame for the undeliverable targets he set and the unrealistic claims he made for this flagship policy. Is not the truth that, having failed to deliver the one policy that could have helped make work pay over this Parliament, all he is left with is a toxic legacy of rising child benefit and reliance on food banks and a ballooning benefits bill for people in work—a record of Tory welfare waste that, if I were him, I would rather run from than run on?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I bet that looked good on a piece of paper when she wrote it. Honestly, here we go again Let me just remind the hon. Lady what her party left behind. It left a welfare budget that had “ballooned”—her word—by 60%. On tax credits alone, in the six years before the election, her Government spent £175 billion. They ballooned their welfare spending; unemployment rose; the economy crashed; people found themselves out of work—and her Government were to blame for all that. We have reformed welfare, and let me remind the hon. Lady that, at the end of this Parliament, we will have saved £50 billion from the bills Labour left us; housing benefit has come down; the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants has fallen; and before she writes a script again, she might like to test it for accuracy. They—the Labour party—have failed.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T5. What measures have been taken to ensure that sanctions are not imposed inappropriately on jobseeker’s allowance claimants—if they unavoidably miss appointments, for instance?

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

If somebody misses an appointment and has good cause for not being able to make it, they would never be sanctioned. I do not think that people quite follow the process of what happens. Should somebody not make an appointment or not take the steps to get work that they should have taken, they would have been told that it could be a sanctionable offence. That is what the adviser would say. It would then go to the decision maker, and if there is good cause, 50% will not be sanctioned. The vast majority will not be getting sanctioned because they will have good cause, but they need to be taking reasonable steps to get into work. In fact, monthly sanctions rates are at about 5% to 6% for JSA, and for ESA they are less than 1%. Those are the numbers.

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

T2. Following my request for a rescheduled meeting about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no reference to my request for a meeting and why did he refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city council when my constituency is North Tyneside?

[Mr Harper]

My point was that the independent living fund has been meeting local authorities across the country to make sure that every local authority with somebody in it that has ILF is well aware of the support it is getting. My answer was saying that to make sure that the person was getting the support, a conversation with the local authority would be more productive than a question to me.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

T6. The Government have rightly tackled the long-standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment have the Government made of the big drop-off in the number of parents using the Child Maintenance Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared off to avoid theirs?

[The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I was beginning to feel unemployed until this moment. [Laughter.] The philosophy of the new Child Maintenance Service is that, wherever possible, we want to encourage people to sort things out for themselves if they can. The £20 charge is designed to encourage people to think before applying to the Child Maintenance Service. Where, however, there is an instance of domestic violence, for example, that £20 will be waived. We are undertaking research into the people who contact us and then do not use our services to ensure that effective maintenance arrangements are being put in place.

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

T4. The Secretary of State has said that local authorities are choosing to give funds to local food banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the Secretary of State sit down with representatives from the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by the actions of his Department?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The truth is that many local authorities are using some of the devolved social fund, which is a very good idea, and engaging with food banks to enable people to access them in the early part of their claim. That is happening up and down the country, and I think that is quite reasonable; it is what local authorities do to help people as best they can. Perhaps the hon. Lady is opposed to that because she thinks everything should be run centrally from the Government here. Well, they made a mess of it last time.

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

As my right hon. Friend will know, a crucial aspect of tackling youth unemployment is ensuring that people have the right skill set. Will she commend the work of City of Wolverhampton college, which is in my constituency and which—following a very difficult starting point—has turned around the lives of many young people by working with local businesses and creating opportunity and employment, and creating opportunities for the local university as well?

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed praise that college, and I will praise my hon. Friend as well for all the work that he does in engaging with colleges and bringing businesses to them to support the young people so that they can get jobs.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T7. Dr David Webster of Glasgow university has estimated that about £300 million is withheld in benefit sanctions each year. Is that figure correct?

[Esther McVey]

I apologise: I missed the question. What I do know, however, is that no one has any limits, or targets, or whatever it may be, for benefits or for sanctions. There are no targets for sanctions, and there will be no numbers.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Local housing allowance levels in Cambridge are far too low, and have been for years. In 2008, Shelter could find only four properties that were affordable, and the position is essentially unchanged. The Minister helpfully gave us an above-inflation increase, but it still has not solved the problem. Will he investigate further to check that local housing allowances match the cost of renting, and undo the legacy of the broad rental market areas?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend, and, indeed, his predecessor have been doughty campaigners on behalf of the city of Cambridge. He will be aware that the rent levels are set across the whole Cambridge rental market area, not just in the city of Cambridge. As he said, in 2014-15 we allocated £45 million for targeted affordability funding. We will be allocating £95 million in 2015-16, and the rates will be announced at the end of this week.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T8. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?

[Esther McVey]

We have taken significant measures to help young people who are long-term unemployed. We have established sector-based work academies, and have provided work experience and traineeships. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, according to figures from the International Labour Organisation, youth unemployment is down on the quarter, on the year and since the general election.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Not all employers appreciate the social importance and value to the work force that employing disabled people can bring. What more are the Government doing to try to encourage employers to take on disabled people, and to help them into work?

[Mr Harper]

I think that our Disability Confident campaign has contributed to the fact that more than a quarter of a million extra disabled people have started work over the last year. I am also considering improvements that we can make to the Access to Work service, which plays an important role in helping people either to stay in work or to return to it.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

T9. The Secretary of State said that by the start of this year no one would wait more than 16 weeks for a personal independence payment assessment. Will he tell us whether that is the case—yes or no?

[Mr Harper]

As the hon. Lady will know, this Wednesday I shall publish some properly verified statistics. I shall also engage in a lengthy session before the Work and Pensions Committee, when I shall set out the facts in full, as I have been requested to do.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Independent Project Board, which was set up by the Office of Fair Trading, recently established that more than £8 billion-worth of private pension assets were subject to charges of between 2% and 3%. That makes it almost impossible for such schemes to grow. Will the Minister tell us what action he will take to deal with that?

[Steve Webb]

Action is already being taken. Those statistics were a snapshot showing the position in April 2014. Measures that we have announced, such as the charge cap, mean that some of those schemes will be dealt with, and by the end of this week I shall have met six major pension providers to discuss how we can speed up the process of tackling the high legacy pension charges which the last Government did nothing to tackle.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Graham Allen.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

T10. The Secretary of State will be aware that 1,250 young people in my constituency are long-term unemployed. As well as helping those people directly, will he link much more closely with the Department for Education so that we can pre-empt those problems through good careers guidance, helping the pre-NEETs and ensuring that young people are job-ready at the age of 16, 17 and 18?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

May I first commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done? It has been a shining example both in his own area and nationally on early intervention and in setting up the Early Intervention Foundation. He has worked closely with Government and his own side. Yes, the answer is that of course we want to look at linking closely with the Department for Education, and I am very happy to discuss it with him further, but I also want to congratulate him on the hard work he does.

Traffic safety measures in Cartmel

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I seek to present a petition on behalf of residents in Cartmel and neighbouring communities concerned about road safety outside Cartmel Priory school.

The petition states:

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that current traffic safety measures on the road outside Cartmel Priory School are insufficient and pose a safety risk to pupils and local residents and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 255 individuals.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to launch an urgent strategic review of traffic safety measures in the Cartmel area and the implementation of further controls and restrictions.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.

[P001423]

Traveller encampments in Brighton and Hove

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Unauthorised Traveller encampments remain a major issue in my constituency and across the wider city area of Brighton and Hove. Many constituents feel that the city council does not have a robust plan in place to move on Travellers on unauthorised sites expeditiously, and that too often the needs and wishes of the existing settled community appear to be ignored. Many of my constituents believe that the city council, after years of trying to manage the issue, should be more actively using the powers available to it. The petition has been signed by thousands of local people, and a similar online petition attracted the support of 2,000 local people.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Brighton and Hove City Council to use the powers available to them to deal promptly with unauthorised traveller encampments in the city.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

Following is the full text of the petitions:

The Petition of residents of Moulsecoomb, Woodingdean, Rottingdean & the wider Brighton area,

Declares that Brighton and Hove City Council has powers to deal with unauthorised traveller encampments; further that the Petitioners believe that the views, concerns and needs of the existing, settled community on this issue too often seem to be ignored; and further notes that sensitive sites in the city seem to be repeatedly targeted every year, costing large amounts of taxpayers’ money to clear up.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Brighton and Hove City Council to use the powers available to them to deal promptly with unauthorised traveller encampments in the city.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001429]

Points of Order

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

15:34

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee last week tabled an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill based on the Committee’s findings but ahead of their publication. Obviously we are all aware that it is a clear breach of Select Committee rules to leak a report in advance of publication, and I make no suggestion that that has been done here. However, I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to whether amending a Bill in such a way as to reveal key parts of a report prior to its publication is in order, and whether you could remind the House of the duty of Select Committee Chairs to ensure that they do not give an impression that inquiries are being rushed through in order to make political points.

[Mr Speaker]

I will offer a response, but if the hon. Lady who chairs the Committee wishes to come in on the back of the point of order, she is at liberty to do so.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important for the House to understand that the Select Committee was simply operating in such a way as to ensure that our report was helpful in terms of the legislation coming forward—the Infrastructure Bill that we shall be dealing with later today. What perhaps needs to happen, following on from your ruling on this, Mr Speaker, is consideration of what rules and guidance there can be in order that those of us on the Liaison Committee can make absolutely sure that we do not, as it were, miss the bus. There is no point in having important recommendations coming forward when legislation is being rushed through in this place, and it is then too late to have the informed debate that this House of Commons absolutely has to have.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Precisely because the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) courteously gave me notice both of his intention to raise the point or order and its thrust, I have, unsurprisingly, a prepared response. The House can make its own assessment of this situation, but I confess that my own reading of it was analogous to that of the hon. Lady. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, but let me just say this for the record. It is certainly unusual for a Select Committee to release information about the conclusions of its report prior to publication, and to do so would normally be considered a discourtesy to the House, though not a contempt given that the report had been formally reported to the House. However, in this case I understand that the Committee considered that it was helpful for the House to have notice of the relevance of its report, which was published this morning, to the amendment, which was required to be tabled last week. Therefore no harm has been done by it. I think the House will be grateful to both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Transport Committee for the work they have done on matters relevant to the Infrastructure Bill, although of course I note in passing, non-evaluatively, that it does not follow that all Members will necessarily agree entirely with their conclusions. We will leave it there for now.

[Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Directly on this point of order?

[Mr Yeo]

Yes, directly, Mr Speaker. You made reference to two Select Committee reports, one from the Environmental Audit Committee and one from the Transport Committee, directly relevant to this Bill. May I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that my Energy and Climate Change Committee has reported twice in detail on the specific issue of shale gas and fracking?

[Mr Speaker]

I was not aware of that, though far be it from me to dispute the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman. It was of course open to him and his Committee to have put that on the Order Paper. For whatever reason, it did not, but the hon. Gentleman, in prime time and with some alacrity, has now sought to remedy that deficiency.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Early in this very important anniversary year of Magna Carta, in which we celebrate the work of this parliamentary democracy, we still have time to pay attention to the many children who will come here to learn about this place and its history. When I was chair of the then Education and Skills Committee, we found that our wonderful free museums in London were largely attended by people from London and people who were rather better off. Can we make sure that this year that less privileged children get the chance to come here, and that we have people from the north of England as well as London and the south?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but the short answer is that we already have a scheme, which is effectively a grant scheme or subsidy mechanism, that makes it less burdensome for school groups from areas of the country either a considerable distance from London or characterised by disadvantage to come here. That is already in place, and should we continue with such a scheme and perhaps even redouble our efforts in 2015—I think we should—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is always young at heart, will be enthusiastic about the scope of the education centre when it is opened in the late spring or early summer. That centre, which will be a state-of-the-art facility charting the journey to rights and representation, will allow us to double the number of young people coming through this place. There are people on both sides of the House who strongly supported this, and it is something we can all unite in welcoming.

[Mr Sheerman]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure there is anything further to say, but the hon. Gentleman has been here for 35 years and I have a feeling that if I do not let him come in, he will be badgering me for another 35 years.

[Mr Sheerman]

I certainly will, Mr Speaker; I have every intention in that direction. Could the subsidy, help and support that Members of Parliament get be circulated again to them, because many I talk to are not aware of the scheme?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think we will circulate the subsidy, but we will circulate awareness of the fact of it. I hope that meets the needs of the case. I know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, and I think the House appreciates his purpose.

On a separate matter, I hope, I call Helen Jones.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last weekend it was revealed that the general secretary of a party that is represented in this House had compared the NHS to Nazi Germany. That remark not only plumbs unfathomable depths of ignorance but, at a time when we are commemorating the holocaust and celebrating the dedicated team that aided the recovery of Pauline Cafferkey, is also morally repugnant. Can you advise whether there is any way for this House to express its disapprobation of those comments and its support for our many dedicated NHS staff, who deserve better from people who seek to be public representatives?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of this House and I think she has already served her cause; I suspect that what she said will be echoed by Members on both sides of the House. I am not sure it is a matter for the Chair. The only thing I would say is that Nazism is one of the most evil phenomena in our history, and the holocaust a despicable crime. People in whatever party should be very careful not to bandy about terms of abuse in contexts which most sensible people would think completely inappropriate. I think both sides of the House will agree on that. Perhaps we can now make some progress. I thank the hon. Lady for what she said.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

15:43

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 8 December 2014 (Infrastructure Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

[Mr Speaker]

It would have been a disappointment if the right hon. Gentleman had been planning to move it formally. The prospect of his customary lyricism is enticing indeed.

[Mr Hayes]

Mr Speaker, it is always a joy to perform in this Chamber under your benevolent stewardship, but a still greater joy to be able to move the programme motion on this important proposed legislation.

I will just say a word about the programme motion. It is important that we emphasise that, although we do not want to take up too much of the House’s time—this is a big subject—there is a range of subject matter contained in the Bill and the need to ensure effective and fair consideration of it is the basis of the programme motion. The House needs to be afforded sufficient time to debate all the Bill’s areas effectively. We considered the number of amendments and the strength of feeling among hon. Members to create a programme fit for the purpose of enabling the House to do so.

The programme motion accordingly provides until 5.30 pm to debate the new clauses and amendments relating to energy. Thereafter, it provides until 7.30 pm to debate the new clauses and amendments on environmental control of animal and plant species, and on planning, land and buildings. All other provisions, including those relating to strategic highways companies, will be considered until 9 pm.

In fairness, the Opposition raised the issue of needing more time on Report when the Government introduced new clauses and schedules in Committee. Given that the Government intend to remove the additional and, admittedly, late-in-the-day provisions on the electronic communications code, and that no amendments have been tabled against our new clauses on the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the reimbursement of persons who have met expenses in the electrical connections market and the mayoral development orders, I cannot see why they want time for further deliberation at this stage.

The Bill has so far been debated in the right spirit. Indeed, I would go further: the mature and measured consideration it was given on Second Reading and in Committee speaks well of the House and, if I may say so, of the Opposition. Their team scrutinised the Bill carefully and fully, but in a considered way, while not in any sense failing in their duty to test the Government’s arguments and to make good arguments of their own.

To that end and in that spirit, we have in turn listened carefully and taken on board some of the criticisms made of the Bill since its inception. In all the Bill does, it has evolved by a process of careful scrutiny, such as I have described. It has also moved forward because Governments need to think about the arguments made in this place and elsewhere when proposed legislation of such significance comes before the House.

It is in everyone’s interests to send a signal from this House that there is consensus on the Bill, and that we can deliver it on time. On that note, as a father might say to his young children, I say, “Don’t spoil it now.” Let us maintain that spirit and send out such a signal. Let us do right by the House, but right by the nation, too.

[Mr Speaker]

By any standards, the Minister of State is an extraordinary specimen of humanity, and I am sure we were delighted to hear him.

15:47

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

Mr Speaker, I completely endorse your point about the Minister being an extraordinary specimen of humanity, which we commented on in Committee on many occasions.

I will not detain the House long, but may I say a few words? I welcome what the Minister said about the Committee stage, which was conducted maturely. There are still differences that we will debate today—fairly sharp ones in many cases—but there was movement, and I welcome the Minister’s approach in Committee on such areas. However, he is right to say that we asked for two days on Report. That should not have been too much to ask for a Bill that was introduced in the other place, and to which whole new areas were added when it reached this place, to the extent that even the long title had to be changed in Committee. That is not a good way to approach legislation. Against that background, it should not have been too much to have two days for proper scrutiny on Report and Third Reading; sadly, we have been denied that opportunity.

The problem with debating programme motions is that there is always this dilemma for the House and for the Opposition: do we debate the fact that we have not got enough time to talk about the Bill, or do we get on with talking about it in the time available? I will not detain the House by dividing on the programme motion, but for the benefit of all Members I want it to be recorded that the Bill was introduced and pursued in a cack-handed way, and that it should receive greater scrutiny today than the time available allows.

15:49

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I will be extremely brief, because I do not want to take time away from the debates on the Bill.

My concern is not so much about the time available for debate, because we have had enough heat and no light already, but about the number of votes that the House will be able to have. There are a number of new clauses and amendments, and I am particularly interested in a range of them, such as new clause 6, new clause 9 and amendment 50, which I hope will be debated. However, I wish to highlight amendment 51, because 360,000 members of the public have signed a petition in support of it. It would be right for the House to have the chance to have its say; otherwise we will be letting people down.

15:50

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

However lyrical, charming, elegant and extraordinary the Minister is, and however beautifully he has taken the Bill through all its stages thus far, it is a bit rich for him to enjoin us not to ruin it at the end, because unfortunately it was another Department that tried to ruin his Bill. His former Parliamentary Private Secretary, the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, over whom he no longer seems to have any control whatever, insisted that large amendments be added only a week ago on a whole new matter that had nothing whatever to do with the Bill—the electronic communications code. That was part of some magic deal that was being done with the mobile telephone operators before Christmas, which has now crumbled to dust. Those amendments were foisted on the Bill—it is not so much a Christmas tree Bill as the whole of Oxford Circus, it has so many baubles on it.

The truth is that the amendments that were suddenly added to the Bill were interlopers. The Minister says that the programme motion is fine, because he now wishes to withdraw the amendments that he insisted were added to the Bill only a week ago—the shortest-lived amendments in the 750-year history of this Parliament, no doubt. However, we now have to debate removing them, having never had an opportunity properly to debate putting them into the Bill in the first place.

Although I accept that the Minister is a wonderful chap—I see that he is now pointing to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and telling him off—I gently say to the Government that it would have been far better if we had gone through the process properly and had a two-day debate on the important matters in the Bill. Fracking is an important issue to many people, and we will no doubt debate it at considerable length today, but we should have had a two-day Report stage.

15:52

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

I am a little disappointed, because I wrote to the Public Bill Committee and asked whether it would consider an amendment, but I gather there was not time for it to do so. This is probably the only time I can raise the matter I want to mention today because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the debates will be quite crowded. When there are huge pieces of infrastructure work such as the proposed 3.5 million square foot rail freight development in my constituency, there is no obligation on developers at least to consider green, environmental measures. It is a loss that we will not get to debate that today.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but I think that probably relates to amendments that it might have been in someone’s mind to table, but which have not yet been tabled and do not relate directly to the programme motion. However, the hon. Lady has opted for an elastic interpretation of the terms of the motion, and she has got her points on the record, so I hope she is content.

15:52

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is right that the clause providing for the electronic communications code is the shortest-lived clause ever—it survived just a week. The Government introduced it, but it is now being withdrawn from the Bill. As I argued in Committee, it is right that the Government should withdraw it, so I congratulate them on doing so—the code needs sorting out. Having said that, a huge amount of time has been wasted on it, meaning that we will not have adequate time today to debate many important details of the Bill.

The Minister knows that I am on his side on fracking. In principle, I want to see it go ahead in the right regulatory environment. The trouble is that he is putting the House in a difficult position by asking us to approve hugely important measures with just a couple of hours of debate.

15:54

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

I do not want to detain the House long. I have great respect for the Minister and have worked closely with him in his different guises, but the emollient tone in which he introduced the programme motion was inappropriate in some ways. Many of my constituents, and constituents up and down this country, read that a major infrastructure Bill is going through and they would expect us to have the time to tackle issues such as shale gas with great scrutiny, and with a great depth of probing of exactly what was going on and what was intended. The Environmental Audit Committee was right in recommending the moratorium, although in the long-term this should always be based on good evidence. Many people up and down this country would see that an infrastructure Bill is before the House and that the biggest infrastructure programme at the moment, HS2, means we are possibly going to spend £80 billion on an iconic railway rather than investing in the national health service. Those people in this country deserve a voice and they will not get it on this Bill or in respect of these two days of debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2014-15, on Environmental risks of fracking, HC 856, and Sixth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2014-15, on Action on air quality, HC 212.

Fifteenth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2013-14, Better roads: Improving England’ Strategic Road Network, HC 850, and Fourth Special Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2014-15, Better roads: Improving England’s Strategic Road Network: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifteenth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 715.]

New Clause 15

Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon budget

“(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time request the Committee on Climate Change to provide advice (in accordance with section 38 of the CCA 2008) on the impact which combustion of, and fugitive emissions from, petroleum got through onshore activity is likely to have on the Secretary of State’s ability to meet the duties imposed by—

(a) section 1 of the CCA 2008 (net UK carbon account target for 2050), and

(b) section 4(1)(b) of the CCA 2008 (UK carbon account not to exceed carbon budget).

(2) As soon as practicable after each reporting period, the Secretary of State must produce a report setting out the conclusions that the Secretary of State has reached after considering the advice provided by the Committee on Climate Change during that reporting period in response to any request made under subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any such report before Parliament.

(4) In this section—

“CCA 2008” means the Climate Change Act 2008;

“petroleum got through onshore activity” means petroleum got from the strata in which it exists in its natural condition by activity carried out on land in England and Wales (excluding land covered by the sea or any tidal waters);

“petroleum” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (see section 1 of that Act);

“reporting period” means—

(a) the period ending with 1 April 2016, and

(b) each subsequent period of 5 years.” —(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change on the likely impact of petroleum (including natural gas) produced onshore in England and Wales, and to report periodically on the conclusions reached as result of the advice given.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1— Hydraulic fracturing—

‘(1) The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, Schedule 1, Part 2, Chapter 1, is amended as follows:

(2) After Section 1.2 insert—

“SECTION 1.3

Hydraulic Fracturing Activities

Part A(1)

(a) carrying out exploration or assessments prior to hydraulic fracturing;

(b) drilling wells for use in hydraulic fracturing;

(c) process of hydraulic fracturing;

(d) decommissioning and long-term maintenance of hydraulic fracturing wells.””

New clause 2—Shale gas extraction: devolution—

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows:

(2) In Schedule 5, Part II, section D2, after “gas other than through pipes,”, insert—

“( ) The licensing of onshore shale gas extraction underlying Scotland.

( ) Responsibility for mineral access rights for onshore extraction of shale gas in Scotland.””

New clause 4— Committee on Climate Change shale gas reports—

It shall be a duty of the Committee on Climate Change to produce Reports into the effects of exploitation of shale gas in the UK on net carbon emissions from the UK.”

New clause 6—Hydraulic Fracturing exclusion zones—

‘(1) The Petroleum Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 3, after subsection (4), insert—

“(5) No licences shall be granted to search and bore for petroleum in protected areas using the process of hydraulic fracturing.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “protected area” means—

(a) special areas of conservation under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994,

(b) special protection areas under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(c) sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(d) national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,

(e) The Broads under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, and

(f) areas of outstanding natural beauty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

New clause 7—Environmental Impact Assessment: publication—

“(1) Any Environmental Statement undertaken in respect of the possible exploitation of petroleum or deep geothermal energy, under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, must be publicised before a planning application is submitted to the local planning authority and/or the Secretary of State.

(2) The publication of an Environmental Statement under subsection (1) must be in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”

New clause 8— Impact on rural communities—

“The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must, within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before the House of Commons the full report on Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts.”

New clause 9— Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum—

“(1) All use of land for development consisting of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain shall be discontinued during the relevant period.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that an independent assessment is undertaken of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain including the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing.

(3) The assessment must take account of the impacts of the exploitation of the unconventional petroleum on—

(a) climate change;

(b) the environment;

(c) health and safety; and

(d) the economy.

(4) The Secretary of State must—

(a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

(b) publish the assessment

within the relevant period.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)—

“relevant period” means a period of not less than 18 months and not more than 30 months commencing on the date two months after Royal Assent;

“unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore.

(6) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A).

“(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain during the relevant period.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) “relevant period” and “unconventional petroleum” have the meaning specified in section [Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum] of the Infrastructure Act 2015.”

New clause 10— The security of supply of gas—

(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 and so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time, keep under review whether further measures may be appropriate in order to protect the interests of existing and future consumers in relation to the security of the supply of gas to them.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may direct the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to conduct a Significant Code Review in relation to whether modifications to licences granted under Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 or to the Uniform Network Code are appropriate in order to underpin the demand for and the security of supply of gas.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“consumers”, for the avoidance of doubt, includes domestic and non-domestic consumers;

“Significant Code Review” has the meaning given in Standard Special Condition A11 (24) of licences granted under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986;

“Uniform Network Code” means the document of that title required to be prepared pursuant to Standard Special Condition A11 of licences granted under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986.

New clause 11— Annual report by Secretary of State on security of energy supplies—

“(1) Section 172 of the Energy Act 2004 (annual report on security of energy supplies) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert—

“(e) the security of supply of gas to consumers in Great Britain, including available storage capacity, and any appropriate remedial measures.””

New clause 19— Hydraulic fracturing: necessary conditions—

Any hydraulic fracturing activity can not take place:

(a) unless an environmental impact assessment has been carried out;

(b) unless independent inspections are carried out of the integrity of wells used;

(c) unless monitoring has been undertaken on the site over the previous 12 month period;

(d) unless site-by-site measurement, monitoring and public disclosure of existing and future fugitive emissions is carried out;

(e) in land which is located within the boundary of a groundwater source protection zone;

(f) within or under protected areas;

(g) in deep-level land at depths of less than 1,000 metres;

(h) unless planning authorities have considered the cumulative impact of hydraulic fracturing activities in the local area;

(i) unless a provision is made for community benefit schemes to be provided by companies engaged in the extraction of gas and oil rock;

(j) unless residents in the affected area are notified on an individual basis;

(k) unless substances used are subject to approval by the Environment Agency

(l) unless land is left in a condition required by the planning authority, and

(m) unless water companies are consulted by the planning authority.”

The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that shale gas exploration and extraction can only proceed with appropriate regulation and comprehensive monitoring and to ensure that any activity is consistent with climate change obligations and local environmental considerations.

Amendment 50, page 39, line 12 leave out clause 37.

This deletes the Clause that puts into primary legislation a new duty to maximise the economic recovery of UK oil and gas.

Amendment 68, in clause 37, page 39, line 17, leave out

“the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum, in particular through”

and insert

“not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets being breached, in particular through—”.

This reflects the conclusions from an inquiry into the Environmental risks of fracking by the Environmental Audit Committee, whose report is published on 26 January (Eighth Report, HC 856).

Amendment 73, page 39, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) A strategy must be compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008.”

This would require strategies drawn up under clause 37 on maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas to be compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008, thereby avoiding the risk that the Secretary of State could, as a result of clause 37, be required to fulfil conflicting duties.

Amendment 51, page 45, line 22 leave out clauses 39 to 44.

This deletes the Clauses that seek to change the trespass law and introduce a new right to use deep-level land, which would allow fracking companies to drill beneath people’s homes and land without their permission and to leave any substance or infrastructure in the land.

Amendment 44, in clause 39, page 45, line 25, leave out

“petroleum or deep geothermal energy”

and insert—

“(a) petroleum; or

(b) deep geothermal energy.

“(1A) The right under (1)(a) only applies if the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report under section (Committee on Climate Change Shale Gas Reports) concludes that shale gas exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.

(1B) The carrying out of hydraulic fracturing in connection with the exploitation of unconventional petroleum is not allowed unless the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report under section (Committee on Climate Change Shale Shale Gas Reports) concludes that shale gas exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.”

Amendment 47, page 45, line 27, leave out from “if” to end of line 29 and insert—

“(a) it is deep-level land,

(b) it is within a landward area, and

(c) the well shaft is not within two kilometres of any village or town.”

Amendment 56, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) subject to the agreement of the owner of any land altered by the use.”

Amendment 83, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“(c) outside:

(i) Special Areas of Conservation under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994,

(ii) Special Protection Ares under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(iii) Sites of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,

(iv) National Parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,

(v) The Broads under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, and

(vi) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty under section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

Amendment 117, page 45, line 29, at end add—

“(c) subject to the prior collation of existing environmental data and that data is published in a form that enables it to be subject to scientific peer review.”

Amendment 57, page 45, line 32, at end insert—

(a) The right of use shall be subject to the precautionary principle being applied;

(b) The Environment Agency will determine whether the condition under paragraph (a) has been met; and

(c) In this section, “precautionary principle” shall mean that no land is used for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy unless it is proved that it is not harmful to the environment.”

Amendment 3, page 45, line 33, leave out “300 metres” and insert “1,000 metres”.

Amendment 65, page 45, line 33, leave out “300 metres” and insert “950 metres”.

Government amendment 86.

Amendment 2, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State shall, before the award of licences in relation to the use of deep-level land for onshore oil and gas exploration, issue additional planning guidance introducing a presumption against such developments within or under protected areas.”

Amendment 48, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State shall prevent the exploitation of shale oil or gas if either a water company or the Environment Agency credibly asserts that to do otherwise would—

(a) create substantial risks to public health due to potential contamination of groundwaters from the extraction process; or

(b) create substantial risks to nearby surface waters due to potential contamination from flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracturing activity; or

(c) create substantial risks to the nearby environment due to potential contamination from flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracturing activity.”

Amendment 49, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) The use of hydraulic fracturing in connection with the exploitation of unconventional petroleum shall be prohibited.

(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore.

(5C) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A).

“(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), “unconventional petroleum” has the meaning set out in section 38(5B) of the Infrastructure Act [2015].””

This amendment would ban fracking (the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas) in the UK.

Amendment 66, page 45, line 36, 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.”

Amendment 82, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall be required to commission and consider reports on—

(a) The cumulative impacts of water use in hydraulic fracking of exploratory and productive gas wells;

(b) The cumulative impacts of flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracking activity; and

(c) The cumulative impacts on communities of road and vehicle movements from hydraulic fracking activity

Before providing any permissions for exploitation of petroleum on deep level land where one or more exploitation facility exists within one mile of a proposed site.”

Amendment 60, in clause 40, page 46, line 6, at end insert—

“(f) any substance used for the purposes of paragraph (d) must be—

(i) approved by the Environment Agency; and

(ii) publicly declared by the operator.”

Amendment 1, page 46, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) Before a well design is commenced or adopted in connection with the exploitation of petroleum, the right of use requires the Health and Safety Executive to inspect the well so as to satisfy itself that—

(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from the well; and

(b) risks to the health and safety of persons from it or anything in it, or in strata to which it is connected, are as low as is reasonably practicable.

(3B) Where the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that a condition in subsection (3A) is met, it shall give notice to the Secretary of State.

(3C) The Secretary of State shall publish the information received from the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with subsection (3A).”

Amendment 59, page 46, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) The right of use shall be conditional on operators ensuring the—

(a) safe conveyance of wastewater from the site to a safe place of storage;

(b) effective treatment and disposal of wastewater from the site; and

(c) publication of the details of the treatment and disposal of wastewater under sub-paragraph (ii).”

Government amendment 87.

Amendment 78, in clause 41, page 46, line 41, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Amendment 79, page 46, line 44, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Amendment 61, page 47, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) to compulsorily purchase properties in the event of blight from the activities of the extraction and exploitation of petroleum and geothermal energy in deep-level land.”

Amendment 80, page 47, line 4, after “the”, insert “minimum”.

Amendment 81, page 47, line 5, after “payments”, insert

“which shall be calculated as a percentage of the gross value of the gas extracted”.

Amendment 62, in clause 42, page 47, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert

“to persons of specified descriptions”

Amendment 63, page 47, line 22, leave out “within the area” and insert

“on the Parish Council noticeboard”.

Amendment 64, page 47, line 24, at end insert—

“(2B) Failure to display or publish notice under the terms of subsection (2) will negate any right to exploit or extract petroleum or geothermal energy.”

Government amendments 88, 89, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 103.

Amendment 69, title, line 10 leave out

“to make provision about maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the United Kingdom;”

This reflects the conclusions from an inquiry into the Environmental risks of fracking by the Environmental Audit Committee, whose report is published on 26 January (Eighth Report, HC 856).

[Amber Rudd]

I rise to speak to new clause 15 and amendments 98 and 103. Both shale gas and geothermal energy are exciting new energy resources for the UK, with the potential to provide greater energy security, growth and jobs, while also playing an important role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Lady during my speech. The provisions in the Bill provide for a right to use deep-level land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy. That will help us unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards a low-carbon economy.

Several hon. Members have brought forward new clause 4, which would place a statutory duty on the Committee on Climate Change to produce reports on the effect of shale on the UK’s net carbon emissions. Amendment 44 states that the right of use, and the carrying out of hydraulic fracturing, are conditional on the finding in the Committee’s reports

“that shale…exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions.”

The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain how public confidence in fracking is enhanced by the Government’s refusal to let the public see an unredacted copy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the impacts of fracking on the rural economy? Will she make a gesture today by saying that that report will be unredacted and put in the public domain?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will know that this matter is included in one of the amendments, which I will come on to discuss more fully later. Although I cannot make the commitment she is asking for, I will speak more fully on it a little later.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Three times now the Minister has referred to moving to lower carbon emissions in the UK, but what good is that if it results in displaced coal being available for use in other parts of the developed world? Whether the emissions come from coal being burnt in Germany or in the UK, they still contribute to climate change.

[Amber Rudd]

That is why, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have been so keen to get targets into Europe that apply across the whole of Europe. He will be aware that we are leading on those, and we will continue to do so. It is very important to lead by example, and he is right to raise the issue relating to Germany, which is why we are pleased to have a cross-European agreement. However, that does not detract from the importance of making sure that we do the right thing in this country.

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On that point about displaced coal, is it not a fact that it is displaced coal from north America that is contributing to a rise in the burning of coal in Europe? If we take matters into our own hands and develop more gas, we can reduce the amount of coal that is burned. It is coal that is the enemy of climate change and that is enemy No. 1. Gas is our ally in a green future.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point based on his clear expertise in this area. The Committee on Climate Change has said that for flexible power supply, the UK will

“continue to use considerable, albeit declining, amounts of gas well into the 2030s”

which will leave

“a considerable gap between production of North Sea gas and our total demand.”

It argues that that demand

“can either be met through imports or UK production of shale gas.”

It concludes that

“if anything, using well regulated UK shale gas to fill this gap could lead to lower overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than continuing to import LNG. It would also increase the proportion of energy produced within the UK, improving our energy sovereignty.”

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

The important thing that has come from these exchanges is that it is the use of carbon that causes the emissions. Therefore, it is crucial that we have a proper emissions trading scheme throughout Europe and that the source of the energy should be as low carbon as possible. Therefore, maximising the economic production from the North sea is an important first step.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is absolutely essential that we do also maximise economic recovery, and we will be coming on to that later in this debate.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Minister rightly said that the displacement of coal by gas could make a massive impact on reducing our carbon emissions. But it is also right to say that that is no good if countries such as Germany go down the coal route. Does she think she can persuade those countries to follow us in going towards gas more quickly?

[Amber Rudd]

We will certainly do our best. The UK is a leader in Europe in providing our own example and in trying to corral our European partners to ensure that we move to a low carbon economy.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will make a little more progress.

Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone have supported the findings of the Committee on Climate Change and in 2013, they published recommendations on how to reduce emissions from shale gas operations, which the Government have accepted. In addition, the Environment Agency has agreed to make green completions—techniques to minimise methane emissions —a requirement of environmental permits for shale gas production.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but first I want to outline what the Government are doing on this matter.

I am pleased to say that we have tabled an amendment that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of petroleum development in England and Wales, including shale gas operations, on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time, and it is not limited to a specific carbon budget period. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years. By introducing this amendment, we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that amendment. It goes halfway towards my amendment, which called for that to happen and then said that we should not allow fracking if it increased emissions. She spoke about the report from Dave Mackay, one of my constituents. Does she accept that he also says that

“in the absence of strong climate policies…we believe it is credible that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term emissions rates?”

If it turns out that we do see higher carbon emissions, will she agree that we should end fracking at that point at least?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am confident that our amendment addresses exactly that. The Committee on Climate Change will take a view on what it sees, now that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with it. I am encouraged by the fact that that obligation is now in place.

[Sir William Cash]

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is the Minister aware that, historically, the German nation has been providing massive subsidies—up to £4 billion a year—to its coal industry? She could do something in the Council of Europe about solving the problem that she has been describing. Will she do that?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his expression of confidence in our ability to work with our European partners to improve output in the UK and in Europe more widely.

[Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that David MacKay, to whom the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred, also reported that carbon emissions from shale gas are lower than those from liquefied natural gas, and that because the most likely effect of developing our shale gas reserves will be to substitute for LNG imports, the direct and immediate effect of allowing shale gas to go ahead will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a win-win for the UK in both potential economic benefit and reducing our carbon footprint.

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

In addition to all the advantages my hon. Friend has already mentioned, does she accept that we need to have a shale gas industry to go hand-in-hand with our wind industry, because wind-powered generators require gas generators to back them up?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right: having a successful shale gas industry is an important part of supporting our renewables industry.

New clause 2 proposes specific changes to the Scotland Act 1998. Although I understand the intention, the Bill is not the right vehicle to make those amendments. The new devolution settlement should be debated as a whole package in the next Parliament. Last Thursday, the Government published their Command Paper, “Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement”, which sets out that draft clause 31 will devolve to Scottish Ministers the regime for licensing exploration and extraction of oil and gas, and transfer to the Scottish Parliament legislative competence for the licensing of onshore oil and gas exploration and extraction. Responsibility for mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction of oil and gas in Scotland will also be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I assure hon. Members that those matters will be fully addressed through the broader process of reviewing the devolution settlement, to which all three major parties are committed. Whoever forms the next Government will take forward the draft legislation for further Scottish devolution. I announced in Committee the Government’s intention to table an amendment to remove Scotland from the scope of the provisions concerning the right to use deep-level land. We have now tabled amendments that will achieve that.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I note what the Minister says, and obviously I am keen that the powers be transferred as soon as possible, but does she not acknowledge that, as I and the Scottish Government have said on numerous occasions, there is a gap? Scotland has planning and environmental powers, but will not, if the Government do as she is saying they will, get powers on licences for some time yet. Will the Government give a guarantee that no more licences will be granted in the meantime? What is the position of licences already granted? Would it not be more sensible to support new clause 9, so that there is a moratorium until the Scottish Parliament can make a full decision on these matters?

[Amber Rudd]

I feel that the Government new clause deals with the specific issues that are relevant to the Infrastructure Bill. I understand—we all do—that many other measures may need to be debated, but the time for that will be after the next Government are in place, when there will be a fuller debate on proper devolution.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Minister said that onshore energy and fuels will be devolved, but when will offshore be devolved to the Scottish Government—Scotland’s oil?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but I must defer to other Departments on that. For now, I will deal with the specific issues on the table for the Infrastructure Bill.

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

The Minister is talking about new clause 2 and the devolution of licensing, which she says is promised and will be delivered as part of the Smith agreement. Given that the 14th round has been started but the licences not awarded, does it not make sense for those licences not to be awarded in Scotland until devolution has happened?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point—one that was not raised in Committee, although we did debate this fairly fully. I take the view that the Bill is not the place to do that, but it could be considered after the next general election.

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

The Minister has outlined a road map for further powers for Scotland in regard to licensing powers. What consideration have the UK Government given to giving similar powers to the Welsh Government?

[Amber Rudd]

The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that a set of commitments agreed by the four main political parties in Wales on the way forward for Welsh devolution will be in place by 1 March. These commitments will form a baseline for devolution after the election. I understand that a strong case is being made for devolution of those powers.

That covers the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 66, which seeks to render the application of the clauses to the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. In addition, the current Government of Wales Act 2006 clearly sets out that oil and gas are excluded from the list of devolved subjects, and the exploitation of deep geothermal resources cannot be considered to have been conferred under any of the subjects in schedule 7. We see no grounds on which this measure would currently be within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. That is the situation for now. Scotland and Wales will continue to have substantial control of onshore oil and gas, and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulation, as these are already devolved. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

New clause 6 and amendments 2 and 83 suggest that the national planning policy framework leaves gaps in respect of protected land, but this is not the case. Strong protections already exist for these areas and further protections are not necessary. A blanket ban, as proposed, would be disproportionate.

[Dr Huppert]

Is the Minister saying—she should be very clear on this—that there is absolutely no prospect of any fracking happening on any of this list of properties, and that anybody reading this debate should be clear that the Government have no intention of allowing that? Is that what she is saying?

[Amber Rudd]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me comment on that aspect in my own words, I hope that will reassure him.

The existing legislative framework provides a robust framework of protection for those sensitive areas. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require a developer to undertake a habitats regulation assessment whenever a proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on a special conservation area or a special protection area. These protections derive from European law and set a very high bar. The regulations are supported by the national planning policy framework, which recognises areas that should be given a high level of protection, even if the development is outside the site boundary. These include special areas of conservation, special protection areas, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites.

Planning guidance published last July set out the specific approach to planning for unconventional hydrocarbons in national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. The guidance makes it clear that planning authorities should refuse planning applications for major development in these areas unless it can be demonstrated both that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the public interest.

[Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that 18% of the UK’s sites of special scientific interest, 13% of the special areas of conservation and 14% of the special protection areas are covered by the 14th licensing round?

[Amber Rudd]

Let me add to my earlier comments that we have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that will reassure the right hon. Gentleman about the liability potential for any of the areas that I know he is particularly keen to protect.

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

I know that my hon. Friend will shortly respond to some of the amendments tabled in my name, but will she complete the sentence? Is she saying that there will be an outright ban on any fracking in national parks? Have the Government removed the words “except in exceptional circumstances”?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what we have done. We have now put in place an outright ban and will effectively remove those words.

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

Can the Minister clarify the situation in respect of ancient woodland? Will she also clarify the situation in respect of decisions by local planning authorities and whether, despite what she has just said, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to overturn those decisions?

[Amber Rudd]

That is something that I will have to look into. For the moment, I will make progress and hope to come back to the hon. Lady on that point this afternoon.

[Tom Greatrex]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist the House? The Minister seems to have suggested that an amendment is being made to the amendments before us. If that is the case, and what she has said about words being removed from the Bill is correct, will we have an opportunity to scrutinise that amendment?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is a matter of the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation. For the avoidance of doubt, I must say that no manuscript amendment has been tabled. The normal course would have been for it to be tabled prior to the start of the debate, and it has not been. I think that the best course at this stage is for hon. Members in all parts of the House simply to listen to the Minister’s speech. [Interruption.] There is indeed no manuscript amendment—I do not think that I can be clearer.

16:15

[Miss McIntosh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there, then, an amendment to that effect?

[Mr Speaker]

No amendment is required to prove that there is no amendment. That makes me think that the hon. Lady has been reading Heidegger—“the nothing noths”. There is no manuscript amendment, and consideration of this matter should not be clouded by thoughts of a manuscript amendment. I have been given no indication that there will be a manuscript amendment. It would be extraordinary, to put it mildly, for a manuscript amendment to be proposed or put forward for consideration by me or by professional advisers when the debate has already started. Things need to be dealt with in an orderly manner.

[Joan Walley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Amber Rudd]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will take the point of order from the hon. Lady and then the Minister can either respond to that or continue her speech.

[Joan Walley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the House would like some clarification as to whether what we are going to be voting on will be an overall ban. Members on both sides of the House have tabled many amendments seeking to bring that about. When, in an hour’s time, we vote on these amendments, we will not know whether we can be confident that the Government are really doing as they say. I would be grateful if the Minister, if not instantly, then in the next 45 minutes, could tell us what she is actually proposing.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course Members must listen to what the Minister has to say, but, for the avoidance of doubt, Members will be voting on that which is on the amendment paper. I do not mean this in any sense discourteously, but it is not for the Chair to seek to interpret amendments or new clauses, and I would not presume to do so. Each right hon. or hon. Member must make his or her own assessment of the merits or demerits, and implications, of new clauses and amendments and vote accordingly. We are voting only on what is on the amendment paper, not on that which is not on it. I call the Minister.

[Amber Rudd]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I will address new clause 7 on environmental impact assessments—EIAs—and new clause 19 and its various themes in turn. The Government share the desire expressed in new clause 7 and new clause 19(a) to ensure that the public are made fully aware of issues raised in EIAs before a planning application is submitted, and I can assure Members that this is the case. The comprehensive requirements for planning applications for which there is an environmental statement are already set out in article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, which requires that the environmental statement be publicised before a local planning authority can determine an application. Planning authorities are already required to ensure that mineral developments will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment. Where a development is likely to have a significant effect, an EIA is required. If any significant environmental effects are identified that cannot be mitigated, planning permission can be refused.

This approach works well in practice and is consistent with our European obligations. It ensures that an EIA, which involves substantial work often taking up to a year to develop, is undertaken only where it adds value. However, the Government understand the need to build public confidence in the shale sector. We therefore welcome the reassurance provided by the industry’s public commitment to carry out EIAs for all exploration wells that involve hydraulic fracturing. The industry has made a further commitment to produce an annual report listing the shale sites that have produced an EIA.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make some progress. I will give way again before the end of my comments, but I am conscious that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) might want to address some of the points that I have raised.

New clause 19(b) and amendment 1 are concerned with the inspection of wells. The Health and Safety Executive is the independent regulator. Its specialist inspectors assess operators’ well notifications and weekly operations reports throughout well construction. Final consent for drilling operations rests with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which will check that the relevant environmental agencies and the HSE have no objections before giving consent.

Health and safety legislation in the UK requires all well activities to be reviewed by an independent well examiner. There is an important principle that it is the well operator who retains responsibility for preventing any unplanned release of fluids. It is right that that fundamental duty rests with those who create the risk. The proposal that the HSE should approve each well could remove that responsibility. Rather than give a one-off approval, as is suggested in amendment 1, the HSE currently takes a lifecycle approach and can intervene at any time.

[Helen Jones]

Earlier, the Minister seemed to ask the House to rely on an order and on a commitment by the industry, rather than on putting the matter into primary legislation. If she agrees with what is in new clause 6, what is her objection to having it in the Bill?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. There is a lot that can be considered in primary legislation, but there is also a place for secondary legislation. We have decided that what is in primary legislation is sufficient.

I reassure Members that each shale site will still be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive during the exploration phase. I have agreed with the HSE that it will publish information for each visit to a shale site in its assessments.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I asked this on Second Reading and I ask it again today. Will those inspections be unannounced and rigorous, and will there be full transparency on what HSE inspectors find?

[Amber Rudd]

The short answer to that is yes. The purpose of HSE inspections is to ensure that there is safety and clarity. I believe that my hon. Friend will be reassured about that when he takes a closer look.

On new clause 19(c) and (d) and amendment 117, I reassure Members that we support the use of baseline monitoring. At issue is the appropriateness of the monitoring period and the requirements involved. The Environment Agency has the power to require baseline monitoring under the conditions that are set in the environmental permit. The operator reports that information to the Environment Agency, which places it on the public register.

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

rose—

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

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I will make progress, but I assure hon. Members that I will let them intervene before I finish.

The environmental regulator adopts a risk-based approach to its assessment that is endorsed by the Royal Society. In addition, as was announced in Committee, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to require operators to undertake at least three months’ baseline monitoring of methane in groundwater before hydraulic fracturing can commence.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I want to take the Minister back to what she said about the use of secondary legislation. She will know, having been a Member of the House for a number of years, that secondary legislation is dealt with in a Committee that lasts a maximum of merely 90 minutes. We need to enshrine the environmental safeguards in primary legislation. Why is she so obsessed with not doing that?

[Amber Rudd]

I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not have time to listen to the Committee, where we spent many, many hours debating this subject and many different subjects. That gave everyone a great opportunity to raise all the issues. There is no suggestion that there has not been enough time to address this matter.

[Andrew Gwynne]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you please rule on the Minister’s view, because she seems to be confusing the Bill Committee with an Order in Council committee, which lasts a mere 90 minutes?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair. Members must make their own assessment. The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment. For all I know, he might beetle around the Chamber to share it with others, but people will form their own assessment. Let us hear the Minister’s oration.

[Amber Rudd]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

On the announcement I made in Committee, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to require operators to undertake the three months’ baseline monitoring. That is a minimum of three months so, in practice, the Environment Agency may require a longer period of monitoring where appropriate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she mentioned that she would use the Health and Safety Executive. There have been cuts to its budget and numbers. It is reduced to doing just the occasional health and safety spot-check. How can that organisation be competent to monitor the provisions in the Bill?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is essential that the HSE can do its job well. We have had conversations with it and there is no suggestion that it cannot do its job well, but we will keep that under review.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In the Minister’s assessment prior to coming to the House, did she look at whether the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive need additional staff? If not, will she do so before she pushes the Bill further? We do not know what it costs to do that job properly.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is essential that the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive have sufficient staff. They have not raised that with me and have accepted the fact that they will have the responsibility, but we will keep conversations with them open to ensure they can do their job correctly.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make progress.

On fugitive emissions, I have spoken about the report produced by Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy Stone. Their report determined that, with the right safeguards in place, the net effect on greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas production will be relatively small. We report fugitive emissions from onshore energy extraction annually as part of our international reporting obligations on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. That is done in accordance with guidelines produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is audited annually by a group of international experts.

[Andrew Miller]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I may be wrong, but I just have a slight sense that this might be a point not of order but of frustration. We will discover.

[Andrew Miller]

There is a lot of frustration in the debate, Mr Speaker. In Committee, the Government made an extraordinary statement that there were some issues around baseline monitoring that the Minister regards as commercial-in-confidence. That is why I have tabled the amendment. Would it not be helpful if the Minister answered that point now, while she is dealing with that measure, rather than simply moving on?

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

That is not a point of order.

[Andrew Miller]

No, but it is on the record.

[Mr Speaker]

All sorts of things are helpful and all sorts of things are unhelpful, but they usually have one thing in common: that none of them is a point of order.

[Amber Rudd]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right and asks an interesting question. I reassure him that I have written to him and other members of the Committee about that point.

[Andrew Miller]

Where is the letter?

[Amber Rudd]

It was sent to every member of the Committee.

With regard to industry reporting commitments, fugitive emissions levels will be constantly monitored at all stages of development. The data will be made available in line with best practice and regulatory reporting requirements. However, to provide additional reassurance, I am pleased to announce that the Government will direct the Environment Agency to require operators to monitor and report fugitive methane emissions. In addition, the industry has confirmed its commitment to site-by-site reporting of fugitive emissions.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make substantial progress. I am concerned that other hon. Members will not be able to speak.

New clause 19(g), and amendments 3 and 65, are on depth limits. A company looking to develop shale or deep geothermal will need to obtain all the necessary permissions before it can proceed. The process of obtaining those permissions rather than the level at which we set the depth level will provide the relevant safeguards. There is no question of changing the existing regime governing access to land at surface down to depths of 300 metres.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

How can the Minister assure us about fugitive emissions and the safety of fracking when she proposes to give untrammelled access at 300 metres to developers, as she has just mentioned? Fracking lines travel far higher than 300 metres and cannot be detected in advance by the Environment Agency or others undertaking baseline monitoring.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raised that in Committee. We share his concern about safety and care for the community, but the Government believe that the Environment Agency is able to address that, and that we can rely on it to do so. In my conversations with the agency, it has given us that assurance, and it is the expertise that we have in particular in the UK that is so useful.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I wish to make some progress.

A company looking to develop shale or deep geothermal will need to obtain all the necessary permissions before it can proceed. It is the process of obtaining all those permissions, rather than the level at which the depth limit is set, that will provide the relevant safeguards—

[John Mann]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will not: I am going to make some progress.

There is no question of changing the existing regime governing access to land at the surface and down to the depths of 300 metres. Extending the depth limit would not improve landowners’ enjoyment of their land or achieve any increase in the level of protection.

On new clause 19(i) and amendments 78, 79, 80 and 81, the Government have been clear that communities hosting shale gas developments should share in the benefits that are created. The shale industry is at a nascent stage. We will need more exploration to go ahead before knowing exactly how communities will benefit. At this stage, we need to ensure that schemes are flexible. A voluntary scheme offers a multitude of benefits to communities when compared with a statutory system, enabling schemes to be tailored to communities’ needs. Any statutory scheme might not be suitable for every situation, and would be more difficult in future.

The industry, represented by UK Onshore Oil and Gas—UKOOG—has already committed to the community benefits charter, which will provide significant benefits to affected communities. Industry will pay £100,000 per hydraulically fractured well site at exploratory stage to communities, and 1% of revenue if it successfully goes into production.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Does the Minister yet have a definition of “community” in this instance?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend has raised that issue before and I hope that we will hear from him later. As he will be aware, we believe that that question is best decided later, when we have a charter in place that will address the issue.

[Andrew Miller]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she referred to a letter that she claims to have sent to the members of the Committee. I have checked my file—everything was sent electronically—and no such letter arrived in my office. I would be grateful if a copy of the letter could be made available to Members now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has clarified what he believes to be the position. The Minister may or may not wish to comment.

[Amber Rudd]

The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another copy.

The industry will need to show how it has complied with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators will need to publish evidence detailing how these commitments are being met. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied.

On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning and environmental permitting processes are already in place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the concerns that have been raised by the new clause.

New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of the application for environmental permits, the EA will require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they would pose an environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations is included within the environmental permit, along with information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public register.

I have already announced that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to publish information about chemicals it requires operators to disclose.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister indicate why she is not taking the opportunity to regulate and impose environmental requirements on other non-conventional gas extraction processes, such as underground coal gasification?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point.

New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for water demand and waste water management. The Government have considered this issue carefully and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, we are consulting on whether to make water companies statutory consultees in respect of these applications. Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes at the end of this month, we would seek to bring forward any necessary secondary legislation.

New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is the Government’s view that we will accept new clause 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the depth at the appropriate level for proper development.

On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase of properties in the event of blight, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes for planning, environmental permitting and health and safety already provide a very robust framework that ensures residential amenity is properly protected from any unacceptable effects of development. The protection of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely event that operations caused any damage, there are various options available. The landowner may be able to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, against any operator. I trust my explanation of this issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw the related amendment.

On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” document was a draft internal document, which was not analytically robust; it was a literature review of existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy work is current, draft documents are usually kept within government, because they do not provide a complete and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing information that is at the formative stage of being shared between Government Departments risks substantially undermining our ability to deliver effective policy.

DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of shale gas development for rural communities, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore my view that DEFRA should not have produced a document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free access to the information on which the draft paper was based, the Government have provided the full list of references. Following Committee, I consulted with a range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. Friend withdraws her amendment.

[Caroline Lucas]

What the Minister has said, essentially, is that DEFRA should not do research that might possibly become embarrassing if it become public. How on earth does she expect people to have any confidence in the Government’s policies on fracking if the Government cannot even put the research in the public domain?

[Amber Rudd]

I do not think the hon. Lady quite heard my comments. If somebody in another Department has prepared something, a junior member perhaps, and it was not appropriate for them to have done so, which is a comment I have fairly made, I do not think it is appropriate for it to be released. It could mislead the public. It is because I am so concerned about the public that we have taken this view.

[Miss McIntosh]

I think my hon. Friend would wish to put a message out to rural communities today that we take their concerns very seriously indeed. We must be seen to listen, in the House this afternoon, to their concerns. It is unfortunate that the report will not be in the public domain. My hon. Friend answered one point on my amendment relating to blight. Does she also accept that in the event a house could not be sold, there may be an option for the fracking company to compulsoily purchase that property?

[Amber Rudd]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government take very seriously the security, the safety and the right of good abode of everybody in the rural community, and we will keep that constantly in our minds as we move forward.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I am concerned that I still need to cover several amendments. If I may, I shall move swiftly on, and I hope that hon. Members with particular concerns will take the opportunity to speak later.

New clause 9 and amendments 49 and 57 propose a moratorium on the exploitation of onshore unconventional petroleum, subject to an impact assessment, and that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle. I am surprised by these proposals. It is far more sensible to explore the potential of shale and assess the impacts along the way, while ensuring that development is regulated and risks managed. I hope I outlined my confidence in that process earlier. On the amendment suggesting that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle, I reassure hon. Members that the right of use is limited to being no greater than access rights granted by landowners under the existing system.

Amendments, 51, 56 and 47 are not necessary. I have already outlined why the underground access provisions are required. Many other industries already access underground land beneath peoples’ homes, in order to lay cables and build infrastructure such as water pipes and tunnels. I ask that hon. Members do not press these amendments.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I shall not take any more interventions, as I must finish my comments.

Amendments 50, 68, 69 and 73 touch on the recovery of UK petroleum. Amendment 50 would delete clause 37, which puts into primary legislation a new duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas. The Government feel that oil and gas recovery makes an important contribution to the national economy by supporting jobs and growth. In June 2013, we commissioned Sir Ian Wood to review UK offshore oil and gas recovery and its regulation, and we have been making good progress implementing the recommendations.

The amendments would also place a moratorium on hydraulic fracking for shale gas to reduce the chance of our carbon budgets being breached. As I indicated, UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from our support for renewables. I hope hon. Members will find this explanation reassuring and will not press their amendments.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) for tabling new clauses 10 and 11. It is critical for any Government to secure reliable gas supplies, and we keep our gas security under constant review, but let me be clear: the risks to consumers are low. We still have significant levels of domestic gas production, pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, liquefied natural gas terminals and 10 gas storage facilities. Indeed, two new gas storage sites have opened for business in the last six months. This diversity of supply is how our gas needs are met.

Under the Gas Act 1986, the Government and the regulator have a duty to carry out their functions in a way that protects the interests of existing and future gas consumers, including the security of supply. Ofgem also has the ability to launch a significant code review, if it suspects a problem in the gas market. I respect my hon. Friend’s experience on these matters and take his concerns seriously, and on that basis, I will commit to including information about gas storage capacity in our annual statutory security of supply report to Parliament. I hope he will find that reassuring.

[Sir William Cash]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I will not, I am afraid, as I need to finish. I am sure other Members would like to speak.

On new clause 1, the Government welcome in principle the sentiment behind the proposed amendment to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 to make explicit reference to hydraulic fracturing, and I would like to reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue the work we have initiated and introduce any appropriate changes to the regulations in due course. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the new clause.

It is my firm belief that there is no need for new clause 19(e) or amendment 59, because the necessary protections are already in place. Outside source protection zone 1 areas, extraction activities will be permitted only if they do not pose a significant risk to groundwater.

In covering all the amendments and new clauses, I hope I have reassured hon. Members of the care the Government are taking to develop the best shale gas environment we can, for the benefit of the UK generally.

16:44

[Tom Greatrex]

I have to say at the outset that if Members and those watching our proceedings were short of confidence in the Government on this issue before we started the debate, they will be even more bereft of confidence after witnessing the last hour or so. What appears to have happened is that the Minister is seeking to amend an amendment on providing protection for areas that has not been put in front us. She says that she—or, rather, her ministerial colleague—has sent a letter that none of the members of the Committee has received. I am looking round to see whether any Committee members in their places today can confirm that they have received it. Finally, we appear to have received a mixture of a commitment from the Minister: she said that she will accept new clause 19 but went on to say that she disagrees with elements of it. Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause 19 is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked. All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen. It should be stopped until all those conditions are met.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was not a member of the Committee, but if it provides him with any reassurance, I did receive a letter late last week from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), about the Infrastructure Bill. As it was a letter sent to all MPs, I assume that if Members looked at their e-mails carefully, they would find they had received it as well.

[Tom Greatrex]

The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) will be well aware that the Minister to whom he refers is a prodigious correspondent. We get plenty of letters from him, but this was about a very specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) that was raised in the Committee and was relevant to his amendment. I do not see any members of the Committee here and I have checked my own in-box. If we have not received this letter, how can we take the Minister at her word and the Government at their word?

What we have seen so far this afternoon has been an absolute shambles. The Government have not got a clue what they are doing, leaving us in a difficult position. This Bill, and particularly this part of it, has attracted a huge amount of attention, and many Members of all parties wish to speak about it. It is not particularly party political, and many Members have concerns and have tabled amendments, yet it is not clear what exactly the Minister and the Government are saying. I feel sorry for the Under-Secretary who has spoken this afternoon, as she has been put in this position by her ministerial colleagues. They are good at giving quotes to The Sun about this issue, but they seem to shy away from taking part in any of our discussions.

[Joan Walley]

The Minister said that she had commented on every single amendment put forward from all sides of the House, but does my hon. Friend agree that we still do not know how even to raise in Parliament the points the amendments make, let alone vote on them because we are not going to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments that we have tabled?

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. We are here to scrutinise this Bill, and we have reached this stage after our debate in Committee with a whole stream of amendments on a range of relevant issues. We asked for two days and we have secured only one, and we are left with a very short time to try to deal with the issues. It is very difficult indeed for the House collectively to make a judgment on them. That is an indication of a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in bringing this Bill before us this afternoon.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I have no desire to embarrass the hon. Gentleman—I regard him almost as a protégé, so I would never want to do that. I have to tell him, however, that the letter in question, which he claims not to have received, was dated 20 January and was sent by me on the specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). It was addressed, by the way, to “the right honourable Andrew Miller, MP” and it says at the bottom: “I trust this is a response to your question and I am copying it to the Chair and members of the Public Bill Committee.” There must therefore be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). I know he is a decent and honourable man, so I take it that the matter is now closed.

[Tom Greatrex]

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, given that I seem to have just been anointed his protégé. That will have done me no good at all. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston cannot find any evidence that he has received that letter—[Interruption.] If he has not received the letter, it makes it very difficult for us to deal with these issues.

Let me return to the wider issue of what the Minister said a moment ago now in relation to the protection of certain areas, which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and others have raised in amendments. There seems to be a suggestion that the exception in the Bill would be removed, but no indication of how that would be done, given that the Bill has been through the House of Lords and we are now dealing with its final stages.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) has not only wasted 40 minutes of the House’s time, but has been dilatory in reading his Bill Committee letters?

[Tom Greatrex]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who has himself tabled amendments to this part of the Bill, would be much more confident about the Minister’s approach if it had not just been suggested that a change would be made in relation to the protection of areas yet we do not have that information in front of us. How can we have any confidence in such an approach, given that we have less than 40 minutes in which to consider a wide range of amendments?

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

The hon. Gentleman is being very courteous in giving way, but may I appeal to him, on behalf of my constituents, to try to leave these procedural matters behind and deal with the substantive issues about which they and other Members’ constituents are concerned?

[Tom Greatrex]

The hon. Gentleman is usually a stickler for procedure. This is about scrutiny of the Bill, and we need to have confidence in the way in which that scrutiny takes place. I think that it ill behoves the House to become involved in a situation such as the one that we have experienced during the last few minutes.

[John Mann]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is also about potential applications that are due to be submitted in the next month—including one affecting Misson in my constituency—and that the clarification or otherwise of the point that has been raised may well be a fundamental issue for the planning authority and the general public when it comes to making decisions?

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend has made an important point in a very cogent fashion.

Let me now deal with some of the new clauses and amendments. I am very conscious of the amount of time that we have left, and I shall try to be exceptionally brief so that others can speak.

There are two facts that are fundamental to any debate about unconventional gas extraction in the United Kingdom. First, hydraulic fracturing cannot be permitted to go ahead without robust regulation, comprehensive monitoring and local consent. Secondly, it cannot take place at the expense of our binding commitments on climate change.

As Members will know, 80% of our heating demand, and many industrial processes, are reliant on gas. This debate is not just about sources of electricity generation, although that is how it is sometimes portrayed. As the independent Committee on Climate Change has made clear, we shall need gas for some time to come. The issue is how much gas we use, and whether that can displace imports of gas in a way that does not breach our climate commitments. That has consistently been our position, and I have been making the case on behalf of the Opposition for nearly three years.

In March 2012, I set out a range of regulatory principles that would need to be addressed before fracking could commence, at a time when it was suspended. Since then we have pushed the Government on those specific points. For instance, as members of the Bill Committee will know, we did so during the Committee stage. Given the number of new clauses and amendments that reflect concerns and include specific suggestions, such as those in new clause 19, those concerns are widespread, they are not party political, and they are deeply held. It has always been, and continues to be, our position that the stewardship of these issues requires a Government’s approach to be careful, cautious and coherent. Such issues demand a responsible approach on the part of Government and regulators, not only for the sake of regulatory coherence, but to meet the higher public acceptability test and the legitimate environmental concerns that many people feel.

[Joan Walley]

Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the report that was published today by the Environmental Audit Committee? It examines the whole issue of the regulatory regime and how it can be made compatible with the carbon budget. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about how we could press the pause button, and ensure that the safeguards that he wants could be introduced?

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I did indeed have a chance to read her Committee’s report of this morning, and she explained how that was a rapidly produced but important piece of work which touched on the many issues I have raised concerns about. In the summary of the report, her Committee highlighted a number of issues in terms of methane emissions and monitoring and nationally important areas and water protection zones which are addressed in new clause 19, and I think her Committee has done the House a service in bringing those points forward.

[Caroline Lucas]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Greatrex]

I am responding to an intervention. I have said I will not have time to give way again, as I know other Members want to contribute to this debate.

As I said, those points are important. In terms of carbon budgets and meeting the carbon commitments, I would just refer to the evidence the Environmental Audit Committee got from the Committee on Climate Change about the way in which that can be done if it is done appropriately. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) will know that we have a commitment to a 2030 decarbonisation target in terms of electricity supply as well as maintaining carbon budgets. This is about how the gas we may produce fits within those budgets. I think that is something we can do, provided that we have the right regulatory framework and the right processes in place.

I do, however, have to say in respect of amendment 68 that I have a concern particularly in relation to the removal of the maximising economic recovery clause. That will have a serious impact in the North sea, which I know is of concern to many Members.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Tom Greatrex]

To be fair, I did say I was not going to give way again. I am conscious of time.

The Government said they were sympathetic to our new clause 1. We think it is very important to ensure that there is clarity and coherence in how permitting happens and in the responsibility of the Environment Agency in this regard. The Minister touched on new clause 2 and we had some exchanges on it. It is clear from the concessions that the Government made in Committee that there will be no change to underground access rights in Scotland without the approval of, and the decision being made by, Scottish Ministers. I welcome that change, but I reiterate to the Minister that it is very important that the licences in Scotland under the 14th licensing round are not granted at a time when we are effectively devolving the licensing process for onshore as well. I think she should reflect on that.

The Minister went through the subsections of our new clause 19 in detail. That new clause incorporates many amendments tabled by other Members from all parts of the House. She seemed to suggest that she would accept that amendment but that she still disagreed with parts of it. I am afraid that is not good enough because the entirety of that amendment needs to be agreed this afternoon, as it makes it absolutely clear that there will be no shale gas exploration or extraction until those conditions are in place. It is not a pick list from which she can decide which ones she likes and which she does not. It is intended to ensure that it is absolutely clear in legislation that those protections are in place. If this is, indeed, the Government’s case now, it proves that all the contributions from the Minister and others saying that they thought the regulatory process was coherent, correct and comprehensive during the course of the Committee and in discussions leading up to it have been demonstrated this afternoon to be entirely false. That underlines the importance of our taking a responsible attitude to these issues and making sure that they are properly covered. As I have said, that has been reflected by many others who have tabled amendments to this Bill, including Members of the Minister’s party.

A number of other amendments have been tabled by other Members, and I must say that I am disappointed in the response of the Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), to the DEFRA report. It is so redacted that it seems that it was written by someone called “Redacted”. It does not meet the concerns of the Chair of the relevant Committee, and the Minister’s total contribution to this debate so far has been to suggest from a sedentary position that what I say is not so. However, I have the report in front of me—“Shale gas rural economy impacts” by “Redacted”. That is how ridiculously redacted this report has become and it highlights why we have so little confidence in the Government, because they seek not to publish it and not to enable Members of this House to look at the cumulative impacts.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has tabled a number of amendments on that issue, mandatory EIAs and other matters, all of which we agree with. We also agree with the amendments on water companies, and those providing a statutory footing for community benefit, tabled by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and others. The Minister should properly consider those amendments.

17:00

This is a controversial subject in which there is much interest outside and inside this Chamber. It is one aspect of a Bill that contains many measures, some of which are supported and others not. It is absolutely the role of Government to address those concerns and to take on board the issues we have already heard about today and will continue to hear about for the next half an hour—not just from one party but from probably every party represented here.

The focus for the House and for the Government this afternoon is to listen to Parliament, to respond to the concerns and reflect on them, and to ensure that no fracking takes place until the wider confidence that is needed is applied in the regulatory framework—not partially, not with exceptions, not for some but not others, but in full, completely and comprehensively. For those reasons, I implore the Government to accept new clause 19 in full, and not to cherry-pick its subsections. If they fail to do so, we will divide the House on new clause 19 and other of our amendments.

[Mr Yeo]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular to my interests in the energy industry.

I want to contribute briefly on the subject of shale gas and fracking, on which my Committee has reported twice, in 2011 and 2013. Those were two detailed reports involving seven oral evidence sessions, two with Ministers, and visits to Lancashire to look at what Cuadrilla was doing, and to Texas to see an established shale gas industry’s operations. Our conclusions, which were based on a very careful analysis of the evidence, were totally different from those of the Environmental Audit Committee, whose consideration of the matter appears to have been rather briefer. We concluded that fracking is a safe technology from which Britain could benefit substantially by exploiting our shale gas reserves, if indeed those reserves turn out to be significant—something we cannot know without doing a great deal more drilling.

Far from attacking the Government for rushing on this issue—

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

We will be pushing new clause 9 to a vote this evening to ensure that we have a proper moratorium on fracking. Will the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative party colleagues support us?

[Mr Yeo]

No, I will not support that. A moratorium would not serve Britain’s national interests.

Far from attacking the Government for rushing on this issue, our concern is that they have been going rather slowly. We could speed up the process of encouraging fracking, so that we can establish whether it is indeed a valuable natural resource whose exploitation would be generally for the benefit of consumers and the environment.

[Miss McIntosh]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is arguably safer to take a cautious approach before proceeding with any fracking licences?

[Mr Yeo]

We should proceed as fast as possible, consistent with environmental safeguards, which the Government recognise to be essential.

Let me deal with this rather curious idea that allowing fracking somehow increases greenhouse gas emissions. It does nothing of the sort. It is common ground between supporters and opponents of fracking that the UK will use a lot of gas in the next 15 to 20 years. Since 2000, we have become extremely dependent on imported gas. By the mid-2020s, perhaps three quarters of our gas will come from abroad, and we will be competing in the Qatar LNG market, for example, with the likes of China and other Asian giants. So, allowing fracking will enable us to replace imports with domestic supplies, which will improve energy security—a very important aim of energy policy. Further, it will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions because, as David MacKay reported in September 2013, the net greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are higher than those from shale gas.

[Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking about the extent to which we are increasingly dependent on imports. By 2030, probably 75% of our gas will be from imports. Does that not make the case for our doing more now on gas storage, as set out in new clauses 10 and 11? It takes more than five years to build such facilities, and our vulnerability is increasing all the time.

[Mr Yeo]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I was very tempted to sign his new clauses on that point. Improving gas storage would not only greatly improve our energy security, but make it possible for some of the low-carbon, intermittent generating technologies, such as wind and solar, to be used much more widely.

There is no reason to suppose that decreasing our reliance on imports will lead to an increase in gas consumption. Consumers will not suddenly think, “Oh, as we’re not importing gas, we’ll turn the heating up.” It is a completely mistaken notion to think that allowing fracking has such malign consequences.

In any event, emissions in this country are now subject to the carbon budgeting process. It is greatly to the coalition’s credit that it has confirmed the fourth carbon budget. Achieving that rigorous set of targets will absolutely put us on the path to meet the EU target of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. That will be the case whether or not fracking occurs in this country.

My Committee looked very carefully at the environmental and safety concerns. We are satisfied that with the right robust and rigorous regulatory framework, fracking presents no danger to the integrity of the water supply, the health of local residents or the environment generally. The mistakes made by the fracking industry in the US in its early stages can easily be avoided in this country.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, according to all the projections produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the amount of gas used between 2020 to 2030 will be substantially less than at present—not none, but substantially less—and that the likely net effect of recovering gas by fracking is that it will be for export, not the domestic market?

[Mr Yeo]

I do not entirely agree. The fall in gas consumption in the UK will not take it below the level at which we require imports. Even if gas consumption goes down, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we will probably still import gas. For the reason I have just mentioned, if that gas is LNG, using our domestic supplies of shale gas would be beneficial in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

I note that the environment, health and safety concerns highlighted by the Environmental Audit Committee are not shared by the Environment Agency. I also note that Lancashire county council’s objections relate not to such concerns, but to noise and traffic movements. Those understandable issues arise in all sorts of planning applications, many of which have nothing to do with the energy industry.

[Andrew Miller]

It is worth pointing out that the hon. Gentleman’s arguments about safety are supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, the Geological Society and the British Geological Society.

[Mr Yeo]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that extremely pertinent point.

We have probably all received a great many e-mails on the trespass issue. It is worth pointing out that the coal industry has enjoyed such a right for generations, and there seems to be no reason why it should not be extended to the gas industry.

[Helen Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Yeo]

I should now make progress, because other colleagues wish to speak, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am concerned about the potential impact of subsidence from fracking. I represented Cannock and Burntwood for nine years, and I saw the effects of subsidence from coal mining. The coal industry did not require planning permission to undermine people’s homes.

[Mr Yeo]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am glad to have the opportunity to say how welcome he is as a resident in my constituency, where he has recently purchased a house. I assure him that any evidence of subsidence in his property will receive my close personal attention.

That brings me to the subject of earth tremors. When they were experienced in Lancashire, Cuadrilla acted very responsibly by immediately halting its activities while it investigated them. The investigation showed not only that the tremors were so light they could not be felt on the surface, but that they were at a level routinely experienced across the UK every week. The vast majority of such tremors are caused, as my hon. Friend said, by old coal mine works.

On the positive side, in addition to the improvements in energy security there will be a significant improvement in our balance of payments—not that many people seem to worry about the trade balance any more. If, as we hope, UK reserves turn out to be substantial, there will be significant employment opportunities as well. Equally importantly, there is now a real chance for the UK to lead Europe on the issue. If we press ahead now, others will follow but we will have an enormous first mover advantage. It could be UK regulations that set the standard right across the EU and UK businesses that dominate the supply chain.

I urge the Government to ignore today the siren voices calling for delay; to look objectively at the facts, which have been analysed by many learned institutions as well as by my Committee and other bodies; and to recognise the huge potential benefits of fracking, without exaggerating their impact, as I am afraid some of our less well informed supporters have done. Let us oppose amendments that would obstruct the development of a potentially valuable natural resource.

[Joan Walley]

I am conscious of the fact that we have about 20 minutes left for the debate, and that there are about 60 amendments on the amendment paper. It will be impossible for the House to do justice to the concerns of people across the UK about how the Government are going all-out on fracking.

I will respond to the points that the esteemed Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), made. His Committee did produce reports on fracking, but the concerns that the Environmental Audit Committee received related to the haste with which the Government are taking fracking forward and the fact that we have started out with a regulatory regime that has not been thought through from every different perspective. We have the Health and Safety Executive, local planning inspectors, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Environment Agency, and we have petroleum exploration and development licences, which the Department for Energy and Climate Change issues, but we do not have an overarching, integrated way of dealing with applications. From the evidence that my Committee received, we felt that the matter should be looked at from every single perspective. We need an overall strategic assessment, not individual case-by-case assessment of each application. Until that is sorted out, it is difficult to see how the system will be right for the country’s energy security and supply.

[John Mann]

An application was made last year in Lound, in Bassetlaw, a former munitions site. The county council, as planning authority, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive were all unclear about who should have responsibility for knowing the state of play with potential contamination, and the application simply bounced around between them.

[Joan Walley]

That is exactly the point—no one knows who has overall responsibility. The Environment Agency appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee to give evidence, but it was unable to take overall responsibility. Somebody has to, otherwise we will be dealing with liabilities long into the future.

I know that our time is brief, but I wish to raise the issue of whether there could be a moratorium. People out in the country see that we currently have exploration for shale gas going on, but not full-scale industrialised extraction. When that is in place, 10 or 15 years down the line, the issues will not have been properly thought through. Why do we not sort all of that out now? Why do we not have a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose both for exploration and for the larger-scale extraction that will happen later?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is right that we should be discussing that—actually, now is not when we should be discussing it, because it is an outrage that we have 20 minutes or so left for speeches on a matter that could have been discussed at much greater length before. We all know that half the time in Parliament we are not debating Bills and there are no votes, so more time could have been made available to discuss fracking at a much earlier stage, and the Government could and should have made more time available now.

[Joan Walley]

I agree with my hon. Friend about having more time. People in this country will not forgive us for not having the time necessary to scrutinise this Bill in detail. We could well end up with a fossil fuel industry in 15 years’ time, precisely when we should be phasing out fossil fuels. That is what we have signed up to in international agreements, but we could well end up with an industry that has not been properly regulated because of these failures on overall strategic assessments.

17:15

[Mark Menzies]

I endorse the comments the hon. Lady is making. I am now on to dealing with my fourth and fifth shale gas applications in my constituency. On Second Reading I made it clear to the Government that I wanted to see an overarching body that looked at end-to-end regulation—from start to finish—just as she is envisaging. The Government are still not out of time—they can still relinquish on that.

[Joan Walley]

As we heard from the Minister just now, there may well be time for further amendments, because clearly we have not got the amendments that we need to be looking at right now. When those further amendments are introduced, it is imperative that the Government examine that long-term issue, making sure, for example, that whatever a local planning authority is going to rule on it is not going to be overturned by the Secretary of State. That is the real danger we face. On something as controversial as this issue and this Bill, the current approach makes no sense. There has been consultation and people have been saying that they do not want these proposals coming forward in this way. It is a toxic recipe for the Government to be—

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has referred to the potential for further amendments to be introduced. I know we have had an iterative process here this afternoon, to put it mildly, but even I did not think there would be scope for the Government to introduce further amendments in this House. Will you rule on this issue and clarify whether the Minister is making a statement correctly or incorrectly?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me help by saying that it would be possible for the Lords to look at that and do something about the Bill at that stage.

[Joan Walley]

I am interested in that point of order because it sets out for us the situation we are in: we are going to be voting today in this House on something that is not before us, in the hope that the concerns that we do not have time to raise can then be addressed by amendments in the other place. That is just not the right way to make good legislation.

I am conscious that so many Members wish to speak, so let me just say that there should be a moratorium, that the Government have overlooked the needs of people all over the country and that without that public support this policy and this haste—going all out for fracking—is just a failed policy.

[Dr Huppert]

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and I pay tribute to her for her work on this issue and her call for the moratorium, with which I agree. We have the problem of using too many fossil fuels; despite knowing the harm that climate change is causing and is going to continue to cause, we still see a thirst to have more and more of them. The solution has to look different. Perhaps in the future it will be nuclear fusion—who knows? We are 25 years away from that, as we have been for about 50 years. We have to reach a situation where we have renewables and other low-carbon energy sources, and energy efficiency, so that we use less energy, be it for heating, transport or anything else.

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

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way only the once.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is no obligation to make sure that renewables are considered as part of large major infrastructure projects?

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed; we should be seeing a quest for more renewables. One of my concerns about the dash for fracking and for gas is that it can be seen as a substitute for a dash for renewables and other low-carbon technologies, which is where we have to get to. That is what worries me about all this. When we know from study after study of the huge amounts of fossil fuels that we have to leave in the earth because we simply cannot afford the harm that would come from burning them, why go to a mass effort to legislate to say that we have to take as much as possible out of the ground? That is not the right way to go. Carbon emissions, be they carbon dioxide or methane, are the biggest problems with shale gas and fracking.

It is very interesting to look at the scientific evidence on the comparison with liquefied natural gas. A comment was made about my constituent Dave MacKay and the range of carbon emissions. What he found was that the range of carbon emissions from shale gas overlaps with that from liquefied natural gas. There is no guarantee that we will see a reduction as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I will not give way, because many Members wish to speak.

Other concerns have been mentioned. I am talking about not the extreme claims that do not stack up but the real issues around this matter such as water usage.

[Amber Rudd]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously. We will introduce a further amendment in the Lords to place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider in every carbon budget period advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of UK shale development on the UK’s overall climate change objectives. If the Committee on Climate Change advises that shale development adversely impacts on climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either choose to deactivate the right of use provisions or to make a written statement to Parliament explaining the reasons.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that welcome news. I was going to talk about water usage, but I will turn to that matter instead. The Minister’s words effectively bring us closer to proposed new clause 4 and amendment 44, which were tabled by me and a number of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. They propose that we should not allow fracking if it leads to an increase in carbon emissions.

I thank the Government for new clause 15, which takes us halfway there, and this other amendment, which takes us even further. We will know, as a result of this change, whether there are higher carbon emissions. The change does not go quite as far as banning fracking, but it is, none the less, a welcome step. I will not now be pressing new clause 4 and amendment 44 to a Division.

I still feel strongly about new clause 6, but we are waiting to get clarity from the Department about exactly which areas are excluded. I hope that we will get that clarity later. New clause 9, on a moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum, was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who asked me to speak in support of it as she is unable to be here today. I believe that we should have that moratorium, and so am happy to support that new clause. I would love to hear what the position of the official Opposition is on it as they were not prepared to say. On amendments 50 and 51, which I also feel strongly about, the Opposition made it clear that they do not support them. We will see what happens if we have the opportunity to test the will of the House on those as well.

[Andrew Miller]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 117, which is in my name. In Committee, I brought to Members’ attention the Government’s own science and innovation strategy, which talks very clearly about openness. It says:

“Technology allows openness and public scrutiny of research that was not possible until now –going far beyond the ability to share a published paper through open access; the data and the information behind the paper can be made available to all.”

That substantive document, which was produced by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, sets out the case for openness. There are two areas of this debate where openness has not occurred. The first relates to the redacted documents from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is hardly consistent with the Government’s stated position. The second relates to the point made in amendment 117, which is that baseline monitoring data should be published

“in a form that enables it to be subject to scientific peer review.”

It can be done.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) referred to a letter—I thank him for giving me a copy of it because I had not seen it—but it does not address the substantive point of the amendment, which is that data should be published in a form that enables them to be available for scientific peer review. I am not talking about any old published charts and data. The data should be published in a way that the scientific community can use. There are established standards that are well understood by the Departments of the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I also ask the Minister to consider that matter with some care as the Bill progresses through the Lords.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If the letter was not clear that is my fault, not his. I am absolutely clear that the information must be made available in an appropriate and proper form and in the way that he describes.

[Andrew Miller]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and ask him to clarify that matter in the Bill.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments standing in my name, which were tabled in a personal capacity as the constituency MP for Kirby Misperton, where Third Energy proposes to apply for a licence in six weeks. At a public meeting attended by residents of the three villages affected, Third Energy admitted that there is a minuscule risk of contamination of groundwater. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to look extremely carefully at the contents of amendment 59.

My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the amount of monitoring that would be done three months before a licence application for drilling can be started. Is she aware of the worrying fact that at least one insurance company has stated in writing that it will not insure for public liability any landowner who allows the oil and gas industry or fracking companies on to their land? That raises the question whether during the monitoring stage and, in the long term, during the fracking stage, home owners will be able to obtain insurance.

Another point raised is about emissions after the fracking operation has finished. Third Energy seems to think that the land will revert to the landowner at completion of the fracking operations, but I believe that that is a misunderstanding. I shall be grateful if the Minister clarifies that matter.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend says that compensation for blight may indeed be possible, as proposed in my amendment 61.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry that there is such a lack of time to make a serious response to the amendments still outstanding for debate this afternoon.

I wish we could press amendment 51 to a vote, because that amendment would stop the Government’s proposed change to trespass laws. Some 360,000 people signed a petition opposing that change and 99% of those who responded to the Government consultation opposed it as well. To see the Government just flinging that back in people’s faces, simply not listening to the consultation, raises big questions about what the consultation is for and undermines the credibility of the process, as does the ongoing secrecy about the DEFRA report. I am not reassured by what the Minister said about it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

No—I am sorry, but I am short of time.

Labour’s new clause 19 does not offer the kind of protection it pretends to offer. It certainly does not offer any kind of moratorium, and it will be interesting to see whether Labour supports a moratorium. That is what people are asking for, hence the importance of new clause 9.

In summary, the big point is that it is simply not compatible with our climate change objectives to be exploring for yet more fossil fuels and to start a whole new fossil fuel industry as fracking does. By the time fracking comes on stream in 10 or 15 years, it simply will not be possible to be compatible with our CO₂ objectives. For those reasons, we must have a vote on new clause 9.

[Mrs Main]

I welcome new clause 7 and the Minister’s comments on new clause 19(a), (e) and (m). I have chalk streams in my constituency; they are a valuable water resource. The public need reassurance about contamination or pollution of such special sites, as they are rare resources in our country.

[Dr Whitehead]

I rise to voice my support for new clause 19, which I believe provides a substantial series of baseline starting points for any fracking to take place. If those baselines are not in place, no fracking takes place. That is my understanding of the new clause and it seems to me to provide very substantial protection indeed.

I am also concerned about the cumulation of fracking over a period. I tabled a new clause which addresses that. If we have substantial and extensive fracking to the extent that is envisaged in the Government’s rush for fracking, we may well find that we have 18,000 or 20,000 wells across the country, perhaps more than half of those in two particular parts of the country, with virtually no environmental safeguards on the cumulation of those arrangements, even if there are some environmental safeguards on individual fracking enterprises as they go forward. It is essential that should there be any cumulation of fracking, those safeguards are in place. New clause 19 provides protection both in the individual exploration phase and in the production phase. I would like to see—

17:30

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 15 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 1

Hydraulic fracturing

‘(1) The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, Schedule 1, Part 2, Chapter 1, is amended as follows:

(2) After Section 1.2 insert—

“SECTION 1.3

Hydraulic fracturing activities

Part A(1)

(a) carrying out exploration or assessments prior to hydraulic fracturing;

(b) drilling wells for use in hydraulic fracturing;

(c) process of hydraulic fracturing;

(d) decommissioning and long-term maintenance of hydraulic fracturing wells.””—(Tom Greatrex.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

17:30

Division 137

Ayes: 224

---

Labour: 217
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 320

---

Conservative: 275
Liberal Democrat: 41
Labour: 1
UK Independence Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

New Clause 2

Shale gas extraction: devolution

‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows:

(2) In Schedule 5, Part II, section D2, after “gas other than through pipes,”, insert—

“( ) The licensing of onshore shale gas extraction underlying Scotland.

( ) Responsibility for mineral access rights for onshore extraction of shale gas in Scotland.”’—(Tom Greatrex.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

17:45

Division 138

Ayes: 231

---

Labour: 219
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 324

---

Conservative: 277
Liberal Democrat: 44
UK Independence Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

New Clause 9

Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum

‘(1) All use of land for development consisting of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain shall be discontinued during the relevant period.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that an independent assessment is undertaken of the exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain including the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing.

(3) The assessment must take account of the impacts of the exploitation of the unconventional petroleum on—

(a) climate change;

(b) the environment;

(c) health and safety; and

(d) the economy.

(4) The Secretary of State must—

(a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

(b) publish the assessment

within the relevant period.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)—

“relevant period” means a period of not less than 18 months and not more than 30 months commencing on the date two months after Royal Assent;

“unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore.

(6) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A).

“(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain during the relevant period.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) “relevant period” and “unconventional petroleum” have the meaning specified in section [Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum] of the Infrastructure Act 2015.”—(Dr Huppert.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

17:58

Division 139

Ayes: 52

---

Labour: 22
Liberal Democrat: 14
Conservative: 6
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 308

---

Conservative: 271
Liberal Democrat: 33
UK Independence Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

New clause 19

Hydraulic fracturing: necessary conditions

Any hydraulic fracturing activity can not take place:

(a) unless an environmental impact assessment has been carried out;

(b) unless independent inspections are carried out of the integrity of wells used;

(c) unless monitoring has been undertaken on the site over the previous 12 month period;

(d) unless site-by-site measurement, monitoring and public disclosure of existing and future fugitive emissions is carried out;

(e) in land which is located within the boundary of a groundwater source protection zone;

(f) within or under protected areas;

(g) in deep-level land at depths of less than 1,000 metres;

(h) unless planning authorities have considered the cumulative impact of hydraulic fracturing activities in the local area;

(i) unless a provision is made for community benefit schemes to be provided by companies engaged in the extraction of gas and oil rock;

(j) unless residents in the affected area are notified on an individual basis;

(k) unless substances used are subject to approval by the Environment Agency

(l) unless land is left in a condition required by the planning authority, and

(m) unless water companies are consulted by the planning authority.—(Tom Greatrex.)

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 39

Petroleum and geothermal energy: right to use deep-level land

Amendment made: 86, page 45, line 34, leave out subsection (5)—(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment, which removes a restriction on the exercise of the right of use in Scotland, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland).

Clause 40

Further Provision about the right of use

Amendment made: 87, page 46, line 26, leave out “or delict”—(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment, which removes a limitation on a person’s liability in the Scottish law of delict in respect of exercise of the right of use, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland).

Clause 43

Payment and notice schemes: supplementary provision

Amendment made: 88, page 48, line 9, leave out “the Scottish Ministers or”—(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment, which removes provision that stops a statutory instrument under clause 41 or 42 from conferring functions on the Scottish Ministers, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland).

Clause 44

Interpretation

Amendments made: 89, page 49, line 4, leave out from “area”” to end of line 6 and insert

“means those parts of the landward area (within the meaning of the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 2014) that are in England and Wales or are beneath waters (other than waters adjacent to Scotland);”

This amendment, which secures that the right of use is only exercisable in those parts of the “landward area” which are in England and Wales or the adjacent waters, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland).

Amendment 90, page 49, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 17—(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment removes the definition of the expression “Scottish deep-level land”, as the expression is only used in clause 39(5) (which amendment 86 removes).

Clause 51

Extent

Amendments made: 96, page 58, line 13, leave out “sections 39 to44,”

This amendment removes the provision which specifies the extent of the clauses dealing with the right of use (as new provision is made by amendment 99).

Amendment 97, page 58, line 15, leave out second “and”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 96 and 99.

Amendment 98, page 58, line 16, leave out “extends” and insert

“and section (Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon budget) extend”

This amendment provides that NC15 will extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 99, page 58, line 17, at end insert “, and

‘( ) sections 39 to 44 extend to England and Wales only.”—(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment inserts new provision which specifies that the clauses dealing with the right of use will extend only to England and Wales (and so they will no longer extend to Scotland as well).

Clause 52

Commencement

Amendment made: 103, page 59, line 20, leave out “44” and insert

“(Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon budget)”—(Amber Rudd.)

This amendment provides that NC15 will come into force two months after the Bill is passed.

New Clause 14

Expenditure of Greater London Authority on housing or regeneration

‘(1) In section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (limits of the general power) after subsection (5A) insert—

“(5B) Nothing in subsection (1)(a) above shall be taken to prevent the Authority incurring expenditure in doing anything for the purposes of, or relating to, housing or regeneration.”

(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) applies in relation to expenditure incurred before as well as after the coming into force of this section.—(Stephen Williams.)”

This removes a prohibition in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 against the Greater London Authority incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by Transport for London. It applies in relation to expenditure incurred before as well after the coming into force of the new clause.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—National Infrastructure Commission—

‘(1) There shall be an independent National Infrastructure Commission.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the appointment, duties, functions and staffing of the National Infrastructure Commission.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may make provision for any consequential matter that the Secretary of State considers is necessary to establish the National Infrastructure Commission.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(6) In this section—

“National infrastructure” means infrastructure of strategic significance in or relating to the sectors including—

(a) transport covering ports, transport networks (including railways and roads) and aviation;

(b) energy;

(c) flood defences;

(d) hazardous waste;

(e) telecommunications;

(f) water; and

(g) such other sectors as are prescribed.”

New clause 12—Abolition of the Planning Inspectorate—

‘(1) The Planning Inspectorate is abolished.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), all the functions of the Planning Inspectorate are transferred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

(3) The functions of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to Wales are transferred to Welsh Ministers.

New clause 16—Use classes and demolition: drinking establishments—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987/764) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 3(6) add—

“(n) as a drinking establishment.”

(3) In the Schedule, leave out “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”.

(4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) is amended as follows.

(5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 under Class A: Permitted Development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”.

(6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 add—

“(c) the building subject to demolition is classed as a drinking establishment”.”

The purpose of this New Clause is to aim to ensure that any proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Currently such buildings can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted.

New clause 20—Community right of appeal—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Where a planning authority grants an application for planning permissions and—

(a) the authority has publicised the application as not according with the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or

(b) the application is not supported by policies in an emerging development plan;

certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) below are met.

(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permissions in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—

(a) the ward councillors for the area who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority, or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity;

(b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum by two thirds majority voting, as defined in Section 61F, covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates is situated; or

(c) any overview and scrutiny committee by two thirds majority voting.

(2C) The conditions are:

(a) the application falls within the definition of “major development”;

(b) the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment;

(c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission.”

(3) Section 79 is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “planning authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;

(b) in subsection (6), after “determination”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78 (2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 79 (2B)).

(4) In this section—

“emerging” means a development plan that is being examined by the Secretary of State, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage; and

“major development” means cases within categories defined in guidance produced by the Secretary of State.”

Government amendments 84, 45 and 46.

Amendment 53, page 27, line 9, in clause 28, at end insert

“provided that any designated property, rights or liabilities to be transferred pursuant to a scheme—

(a) have been classified as surplus;

(b) do not compromise land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment;

(c) do not extinguish any public right of way;

(d) are subject to transparent reporting of all aspects of the transaction to the Land Registry; and

(e) shall be subject to a test of viability that is underpinned by guidance and an open book approach.”

Government amendment 85.

Amendment 52, page 34, line 2, leave out clauses 30 to 32.

Amendment 54, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end insert

“and shall relate to buildings or developments of any size”.

Amendment 67, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end insert—

“(e) carbon abatement offsite must only be considered exceptionally, where:

(i) it has been demonstrated that the carbon abatement can not reasonably be met on the development site, and

(ii) the homes on the development site achieve a high standard of energy efficiency.”

Amendment 71, page 35, line 5, in clause 33, at end insert

“and where the requirement cannot reasonably be met on the building site.”

Amendment 72, page 36, line 21, in clause 33, at end insert—

‘(7) No variation to the requirement of the building regulations in respect of a building’s contribution to or effect on emissions of carbon dioxide may be made solely by regard to the number of buildings on any particular building site.”

Government amendments 91 to 93, 95, 100, 102 and 104 to 106.

Amendment 74, page 128, line 2, in schedule 8, leave out from “sharing” to end of line 4 and insert

“do not change its appearance.”

Amendment 75, page 132, line 20, in schedule 8, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 118, page 165, line 28, in schedule 8, leave out “or other vegetation”.

Amendment 119, page 165, line 30, in Schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.

Amendment 120, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.

Amendment 121, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, leave out from “lopped” to second “to” in line 42.

Amendment 122, page 166, line 2, in schedule 8, leave out

“or cutting back of the vegetation”.

Amendment 123, page 166, line 11, in schedule 8, leave out from “lopped” to end of line 12.

Amendment 124, page 166, line 13, in schedule 8, leave out “or cuts back vegetation”.

Amendment 125, page 166, line 16, in schedule 8, leave out “or vegetation”.

Amendment 126, page 166, line 24, in schedule 8, leave out

“or cutting back of the vegetation”.

Government amendments 107 and 108.

[Stephen Williams]

The group touches on an incredibly wide range of issues, but I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments and new clauses that have aroused significant interest across the House.

Government new clause 14 relates to the Greater London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I promised him that I would look urgently at the legislative options available to address this important issue. We have concluded that it is necessary to make a minor change to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and have therefore proposed the new clause.

The new clause removes a prohibition in section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act preventing the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by its functional body, Transport for London, if it relates to housing and regeneration. We are making this change to the 1999 Act because the GLA has said that, because TfL’s powers are wide-ranging, they preclude the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport related. This includes expenditure on transport elements of projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in London, which the GLA has been responsible for since 1 April 2012, when it took on the roles, land and contracts of the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency in London. The new clause will apply in relation to expenditure incurred by the GLA before, as well as after, the coming into force of the new clause, because it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the GLA should have powers equivalent to those of the LDA and HCA following the Localism Act 2011. Making this change to the 1999 Act is therefore essential to ensure that the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London.

Government amendment 95 provides for new clause 14 to extend to England and Wales only, and Government amendment 102 provides for the amendment to the 1999 Act to come into force on the day the Act is passed. Government amendment 85 relates to clause 29 and will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by the HCA, GLA and mayoral development corporations can develop and use land without being affected by easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 29 will bring the position of purchasers of land from the HCA, GLA and MDCs into line with those currently enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development.

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

May I welcome the new clause and thank the Minister, along with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for engaging with us on this important matter? It is extremely helpful to the GLA and much welcomed by the Mayor.

[Stephen Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend, a former Minister in the Department, for his intervention. We did indeed seek to concur with the GLA: it identified the problem, and now we have introduced the solution.

I turn to new clause 3 and Labour party policy on the proposed introduction of a national infrastructure commission. The Bill covers a range of important issues, but the debate we had in Committee on this proposal from the Opposition was one of the more thoughtful and interesting: we dealt not only with the intricacies of formulating infrastructure policy, but with the role of the Government and Members of Parliament in formulating a vision for rail, road, energy and other infrastructure development? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for re-tabling the new clause and allowing us to deal with these issues again.

18:15

We recognise that infrastructure development does not happen fast enough in this country, but, since 2010, we have started to turn this around and address the regulatory barriers that have held back delivery of our infrastructure networks. We have introduced the national infrastructure plan for transport, energy, flood defences, communications, water and waste networks, and we have agreed long-term funding settlements for public infrastructure investment. This has generated a new momentum in infrastructure delivery, and, as a result, more than 2,500 projects have been delivered during this Parliament. However, we are not complacent, and we understand that there is still much to do to reverse the long-running issue of under-investment.

[Andrew Miller]

In Committee, I brought hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, while we were debating the Bill, the Institute for Government published a document entitled “The Political Economy of Infrastructure in the UK”, which drew conclusions similar to those in the Opposition’s new clause. Has the Minister had a chance to read the document, and will he be replying to the Institute for Government?

[Stephen Williams]

In recent weeks and months, the question of whether to set up a separate body has been much debated in both Houses, and many people outside Parliament, including the Armitt commission set up by the Opposition, have contributed thoughtfully to that debate. All of that has informed our discussions, but the Government take the view that it is up to Ministers, accountable to Parliament, to set out the infrastructure vision for the development of our country. It is not something we should subcontract to another body; it should be up to us. Our constituents should make representations to hon. Members to inform our deliberations, rather than feeling they have to go to a non-elected body to make those important recommendations.

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

In the light of those remarks, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government were right to subcontract the issue of airport capacity to Sir Howard Davies?

[Stephen Williams]

It is tempting to debate whether there should be a third runway at Heathrow or whether it should be built at Gatwick—we have all seen the adverts on the tube and elsewhere in London—but I do not think you would want me to go down that path, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We recognise the need for one interconnected strategy for all our infrastructure networks.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister reassure my constituents in public, as the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has tried to do for me in private, that given a proposal such as the massive port development at Dibden bay, on the edge of the New Forest, which was stopped by a year-long public inquiry, the forest would be no less protected as a result of the Bill?

[Stephen Williams]

I can repeat the reassurance—because he has just given it to me—that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to my hon. Friend: the Bill will provide no less protection than currently exists in the planning system.

Following advances in delivery, the natural next step is to establish a long-term infrastructure investment strategy. The Government have already begun this process: we have developed the road investment strategy, which will treble spending on our strategic roads, and established an ambitious new energy market strategy to incentivise additional electricity capacity and support low-carbon electricity generation.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The Minister just mentioned the Bill’s relevance to the roads investment strategy, which I take to include the dualling of a large part of the A1 in my constituency. Am I right in thinking that the mechanism in the Bill gives some assurance that future Governments will have an obligation to continue with that responsibility?

[Stephen Williams]

My right hon. Friend is an astute parliamentarian and he takes every opportunity to raise the dualling of the A1 in his constituency. The Government have already made significant investments on that road, and I am sure that the next Government will see what more can be done to speed up travel through his beautiful constituency.

However, we have serious reservations about the model proposed by the Labour party today. As I have said, the Armitt review was clearly a genuine effort, from a well-respected source, to find a solution to the long-term infrastructure challenges that our country faces. None the less, its recommendations appear to establish a rigid, process-driven and bureaucratic body. There is a danger that this type of bureaucracy would stifle the innovative process needed to resolve the challenges facing UK infrastructure.

Establishing such a commission would also present significant complexities. For example, the commission’s assessment would be debated in the House and if the majority disagree with one aspect of the assessment and vote against it, the whole process, as we understand it, would have to start all over again. This kind of to-and-fro is clearly not what is intended by the proposals, and the uncertainty that would follow could be detrimental to the environment for infrastructure investment. There are other areas of the proposed commission about which we have real misgivings—not least the new powers that would enable the Government to give directions and guidance to independent economic regulators. This could severely threaten the trust investors have in the stability of the UK’s regulatory regime.

In conclusion on new clause 3, the Government have already begun to tackle some of the barriers to delivery, and this has led to £460 billion-worth of public and private investment planned over the course of the next Parliament and beyond. While the Government welcome public discussion and ideas for infrastructure strategy, changing the way we oversee and set UK infrastructure strategy must not be something we rush into without due care and thought. The concept of a national infrastructure commission proposed by the Opposition remains an unproven and untested idea.

Let me deal now with new clause 16, about protection for pubs, which I know has aroused a good deal of interest around the House. The Government are certainly aware of this strength of feeling, and as a constituency MP, I deeply understand people’s concerns that pubs that are valued by the community could be lost to them because of the regulatory environment in the planning system and elsewhere, which has not supported the community in the past. Several years ago, I campaigned in my constituency to save a pub called the Ashley Court hotel in St Andrew’s in Bristol, and there was nothing we could do about it as planning law stood at that time—back in 2008. We could not stop the pub’s owner from selling it to a housing developer, which demolished the pub, one of the best viewing platforms in the whole of the city of Bristol.

Now, however, there is protection in the national planning policy framework and in the Localism Act 2011, enabling people to list an asset as one of community value. The most popular use of this asset of community value legislation is for public houses, and we propose to go even further today.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is not the argument that the Minister has just made the perfect argument for new clause 16?

[Stephen Williams]

It is not, because the planning use class orders deal with the totality of asset use classes right across the country. What most of us would be concerned about—whether in Northampton or Bristol—is whether the assets of real value to our constituents, such as the pubs that are truly popular and provide a wide community benefit, whether or not they have a community hall, are at risk. That is more important than dealing with every single pub, whatever the circumstances. If my hon. Friend listens to what I have to say, I hope he will be reassured.

I draw attention to the written ministerial statement laid today by me and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is responsible for community pubs, on the introduction of secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity to build on the existing protections to help communities preserve those pubs that benefit the community the most.

As part of our steps to strengthen community rights, we have already given local people the opportunity to nominate assets to be placed on a local register of assets of community value—those assets that are most important to them. More than 1,800 sites have been listed in this way, over 600 of which have been pubs, making them by far the most popular type of asset to be listed.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

This news will be warmly welcomed in Mid Sussex, where we have had some real trouble on this front. Are there any criteria in the Minister’s excellent proposal relating to what councils may put on their community asset lists to be protected?

[Stephen Williams]

The Localism Act 2011, the regulations, the guidance issued by the Department and statements by Ministers are quite clear that all that needs to be done to prove that an asset is of community value is for 21 members of the public to sign a declaration to the local authority—to Mid Sussex district council, for example—saying that the asset is important to them. As long it is not a private residence or a form of other asset precluded in the Localism Act 2011, the council must list it as an asset of community value, and there should be no gold-plating of the regulations as they are currently drafted. It is a very straightforward procedure, so I encourage my right hon. Friend to encourage his communities to adopt this policy.

The listing allows the local community the opportunity to develop a bid to purchase the asset, should it come up for sale. We have seen some positive examples in the case of pubs—the Angler’s Rest in the Peak district and the Ivy House in Camberwell, for example—where listing has helped to prevent the pubs from closing. We want to do more.

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

I am interested in the Minister’s comments. My concern is that where a council chooses not to determine that a pub or any other asset is a community asset, there is no right of appeal. That is a real issue. If the council has a particular interest, could there not be conflict?

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend came to see me to discuss a particular example in her constituency. I believe the problem was that the local authority itself owned the piece of land in the Newton Abbot area. Ministers have been quite clear to local authorities that they should not put artificial obstructions in the way of listing assets of community value. There have been other examples where people have asked about requirements for business plans, but these are not contemplated at all under the Localism Act 2011, so local authorities should not be doing this. The provision is designed to be simple for residents to use and to be simple for them to identify an asset that is important to them. As long as the 21 signatures of support are obtained, the council should list the asset.

Although national permitted development rights are important in creating a flexible planning system, we recognise that there are cases were individual local consideration is merited. We will therefore remove the permitted development right that allows for the change of use from pubs to shops, financial and professional services, and restaurants and cafes or for the demolition of any pubs as long as they are listed as an assets of community value. This will mean that, for these pubs, a planning application must be made to a local planning authority before a change of use or demolition of a pub can take place. This gives the decision back to the council representing the local community.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My hon. Friend should be proud of his record in supporting local pubs, both nationally and locally. The announcement he has just made is very welcome—it is an improvement to the provisions on asset and community value use. On the theme of not putting undue obstacles in the path of protecting local pubs, surely it would be simpler to adopt new clause 16—instead of going through the process of the asset of community value, which has its risks and its problems, putting them in the path of protecting local pubs.

[Stephen Williams]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I can assure him that the Government have not pulled this rabbit out of the hat today as a sort of emergency response. This is something that I and my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government have discussed for some time, going back several months. The issue has been explored with the Campaign for Real Ale, which is an important partner for the Department, and particularly for me, in rolling out adoption of all these community rights across the country. CAMRA has run a campaign to urge its members to list a pub as an asset of community value. Its advice—and the Government’s advice—is completely consistent and joined up. If people think a public house in their village, suburb or, in my case, city centre is important, they should list it now. They should not wait for or anticipate a threat, but list it now.

That will protect a pub from any future change of ownership. Our proposal deals with the, in fact, quite reasonable criticism from CAMRA and others that the existing protection, although welcome, does not go far enough, because it does not include planning protection. Listing a pub as an asset of community value not only gives the community a chance to gain ownership of that pub, but secures the full protection of the planning system.

18:30

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

CAMRA fully supports new clause 16, which provides for a simpler, cheaper, less bureaucratic way of protecting pubs. The House needs to be clear about what we shall be voting on when we vote on the new clause, as we will. It is simply this: do we think that any application to change the use of a pub to something fundamentally different by converting it to a supermarket or a solicitor’s office, or to demolish it, should be dealt with by the planning process so that local people can have a say? If the pub is not viable, the application will proceed. It is a simple vote: do we think that that is an important principle or not? The Government’s proposal is complicated and unnecessary.

[Stephen Williams]

I think that my hon. Friend—who has a good record of campaigning on behalf of beer drinkers and community pubs—is trying to make our proposal sound complicated when we should be agreeing that what the Government are offering is incredibly straightforward. It should present a challenge to all of us, whether we are in Bristol West, City of Durham or, indeed, Leeds North West. If we cannot persuade 21 people to recognise that a pub in one of our constituencies is important, we shall not be doing terribly well as campaigners.

This is, in fact. a good campaigning opportunity. Members, who will currently be in campaigning mode, can go out into their communities and, possibly working with their local branch of CAMRA, identify pubs that are particularly important to them. Once the list is in place—and the procedure is very simple—the full protection of the planning system will follow.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am encouraged by what the Minister is saying. I was attracted to new clause 16, but I think that his compromise —or alternative—proposals have their attractions as well. He said earlier that secondary legislation would be introduced at the earliest opportunity. Will that happen during this Parliament?

[Stephen Williams]

Yes. In this instance, terms such as “earliest opportunity”, “shortly” and “soon” really do mean that. We all know that we are up against the buffers of a fixed-term Parliament, which is a very good constitutional initiative. When I say “at the earliest opportunity”, I mean “at the earliest opportunity”. In other words, we hope that the statutory instrument to which my hon. Friend has referred will be published and laid before Parliament in the next few weeks.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Has the Minister, or have the Government, given any thought to how the provisions relating to pubs could be extended to local newspapers?

[Stephen Williams]

Although a newspaper is an important community asset in the widest sense, it is literally here today and gone tomorrow. It is not a permanent, fixed, tangible asset in the community, so the Bill, as currently drafted, could not apply to it. However, the Welsh Government have yet to adopt all the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, although its provisions were available to them at the time. I therefore encourage the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Administration in Cardiff to adopt the provisions and protections that already exist in that Act.

[Andrew Miller]

The Minister said that he would introduce secondary legislation during the current Parliament. Given that there are only 32 or 33 sitting days left before Dissolution, does he intend to introduce secondary legislation that will become law during this Parliament?

[Stephen Williams]

That is certainly the intention, but I do not want to be drawn into matters of parliamentary procedure. This is a very straightforward change, which builds on provisions that already exist in the Localism Act. It does not require complicated legislation; indeed, it does not require primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman and others will know, today’s written ministerial statement will carry some weight in the planning system, and a statutory instrument will follow shortly to give full weight to it.

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

rose—

[Stephen Williams]

I give way to my fellow Williams.

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend said that the Welsh Government had not taken full advantage of the Localism Act. In my constituency, and in Wales in general, pubs enjoy the full protection of the planning law, and that includes a real presumption against the closure of the last pub in the village. Is the situation similar in England?

[Stephen Williams]

Yes. That is exactly the position with which we are familiar all over the country. I have visited several pubs in England that have been listed as assets of community value precisely because they are “the last pub in the village”. I urge my hon. Friend, as well as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), to put pressure on the Welsh Government to ensure that not only planning protections but “asset of community protections” are in place.

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

The Minister has told us that once a public house has been listed as an asset of community value, it will benefit from full planning protection. Will he explain exactly what “full planning protection” means in that context?

[Stephen Williams]

Let me repeat what I said earlier. If a pub is listed as an asset of community value, the owner will be required to obtain planning permission for either a change of use or its demolition. The owner of the pub in my constituency demolished it in order to build flats, but, at the time, planning permission was not required. Our new clause will provide the full protection of planning law, similar to the protection of other assets that are currently sui generis in the planning system. My hon. Friend looks puzzled, but I think that that is clear enough. The new clause will give the full protection for which campaigners are calling to listed assets of community value, but will not offer it to the whole community of pubs throughout the country.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for this morning’s ministerial statement. Does he agree that, while his proposal will protect pubs that communities really care about, new clause 16, although well intended, could cause pubs that no longer had the support of their community and were no longer financially viable to be boarded up, perhaps vandalised, and to be local eyesores for many months as a result of pointless bureaucracy?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman has a long and proud record of campaigning on behalf of pubs, and I am encouraged by what he says. I agree that new clause 16 would have those adverse consequences, as well as being flawed in other ways. It would have a detrimental effect on high streets and communities.

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

The Minister has not mentioned a very real risk that has been raised with me. Sandwell council is currently considering an asset of community value application for the Haden Cross Inn in Cradley Heath, but it seems to believe that the application involves a significant compensation risk.

[Stephen Williams]

That is similar to examples that I gave earlier, in which councils were conservative, with a small “c”, in their interpretation of the legislation. The Localism Act makes it clear that if 21 people come forward and say, “This is an asset of community value to us”, the local authority should list it unless the criteria set out in the Act apply. The Act contains nothing about compensation, requirements for business plans, or any of the other matters that campaign groups have brought to my attention. We are reviewing the Act, and I trust that all those concerns will be knocked on the head in due course.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The process described by the Minister seems incredibly convoluted, not least because if a listing application is made, the local authority will decide on the application, and it will then receive planning protections. Why not just give the planning protections in the first place, and allow the local authority to decide, through the planning process, whether or not the pub should be saved for the future?

[Stephen Williams]

Precisely for the reasons just outlined in an intervention from the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who has a very good record of campaigning in this area. A blanket protection for every single public house in the country, which is what the new clause envisages, would protect pubs that for various reasons are no longer enjoying the patronage of the community. In my constituency, lots of pubs have closed, but it is usually because of demographic change. Some parts of my constituency, which had a “white working-class community” 20 or 30 years ago, are now populated primarily by recently arrived Somalis and other people. Obviously the pubs in those areas have closed, and some have been converted to other uses, but some of them are still derelict. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that in all those circumstances, whatever they might be, full planning permission should be required simply to change the use of a former pub to something that may be of benefit to the community?

The Government are proposing to look at the public houses that are genuinely popular and valued by the community now, giving them the protection that is already allowed under the Localism Act, and further enhancing that protection under the planning laws, saying, “You cannot convert this pub into another use or demolish it without planning permission.” That should address all the worries that people rightly have about the pubs that really are important to them.

[Mr Binley]

Does my hon. Friend not realise that if a pub is boarded up and the issue goes to the local authority, the local authority will want to move pretty quickly to stop a building becoming derelict? That is not a problem, but does he also recognise that the owner of the building is often not the owner of the business that operates inside that building? Does he therefore share my concern that in certain cases pubcos in particular have sold out even though there was a need locally for the pub to exist?

[Stephen Williams]

If there is a need for the pub to exist in the community—whether in Northampton or somewhere else—I would encourage my hon. Friend and all colleagues to get that asset listing in now. That provision has existed since September 2012, and 600 communities have already used it. I would urge all colleagues to go out and identify the pubs that are important to them and their constituents, start a campaign to list them—that can be done very quickly and easily—and with the proposals we have announced today, full planning protection will follow.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I was very attracted to new clause 16 before coming to today’s debate, but having listened to the arguments and read the written ministerial statement today, it seems to me that this new clause is another classic case of this House over-legislating when legislation is already on the statute book. Is it not the case that what the Minister has outlined with his asset of community value is a classic example of localism being put into action—of using legislation we have already passed in this Parliament and trusting our communities, instead of things being broad-brushed always from Westminster?

[Stephen Williams]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. What we have been saying to local authorities around the country is that article 4 directions are already available to them to suspend permitted development rights. They have been reluctant to do that for a whole variety of reasons. The proposals we have outlined today should remove all that uncertainty and allow planning protection to go ahead.

18:45

The Government have of course already put various other measures in place to protect community pubs. We have scrapped both the beer and alcohol duty escalators, and cut beer duty in successive Budgets, thereby reducing the tax burden on the pubs and brewing industry and enabling economic growth. We have provided £250,000 in funding for business partners to help deliver more community-owned pubs and pubs which provide community-focused services. This funding has contributed to the number of co-operatively owned pubs more than doubling over the last two years, and many rural pubs now offer a wide range of community-focused services and facilities—for example, a community centre and library at the Brockweir inn in Gloucestershire and a community function room, keep-fit club and film club at the Packhorse, Suffolk.

We have also introduced various measures on business rates and put in place a statutory code of practice which will be enforced by an independent adjudicator. All of these measures demonstrate our continued support for community pubs as part of our broader strategy of lower taxes, less regulation and a growing economy to support a thriving and diverse pub sector.

I hope hon. Members will agree that our measures, including those announced today, provide a strong, clear framework for protecting pubs of community value. Given these protections, this amendment—while I recognise that it has the best of intentions behind it—is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and, as I have explained, in some cases would have an unhelpful impact on our high streets and communities. If this approach is not seen to work, we will return to it at a later stage, but at the moment we think it strikes the right balance to protect our most valued pubs.

I turn now to new clause 12 on the role of the Planning Inspectorate. I should say at the outset—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister and I appreciate that he has taken a great many interventions because many Members wished to ask questions and make points, but he has also taken up a very large chunk of this fairly short debate and I am conscious that many Members wish to speak. I trust, therefore, that as he turns to what is only the third new clause in the group, he will not have to address all 16 amendments.

[Stephen Williams]

Madam Deputy Speaker, your colleague Mr Deputy Speaker was in the Chair when I introduced my remarks. I assure you that I said very clearly that although this group of amendments raised a whole range of issues, including protection for the European beaver, I was not going to address every single one of them but would stick to the main ones. First, however, I should draw the House’s attention to the fact although it is not in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I should state as a ministerial interest that the Planning Inspectorate is based in Bristol West.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) tabled new clause 12, which proposes that the Planning Inspectorate should be abolished and its functions carried out directly by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Planning law requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out appeals and plan examinations. The Planning Inspectorate carries out this function for the Secretary of State. Consistently, two thirds of all appeals support the council’s decision; only 1% of all planning applications nationally are overturned by appeal. The inspector’s role is to undertake an independent examination or appeal on behalf of the Secretary of State. We believe that, in the vast majority of cases, this role is carried out to the highest standards. We are always happy to discuss informally better ways of ensuring that our planning policy is fully understood by inspectors and councils alike.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I appreciate that the Minister is saying that two thirds of council decisions are upheld, but is he aware that sometimes the Planning Inspectorate is used as bogeyman or fairy-tale villain by large-unit developers or town planners, and the effect is, “Come on councillors, be good children, hurry up with your local plan, put in large sections of greenbelt development; otherwise the Planning Inspectorate will get you”? Wittingly or unwittingly, the Planning Inspectorate is being abused in this way.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Stephen Williams]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and she clearly has loud support for that.

Following your exhortation, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will skip the various examples I have of different planning appeals around the country. What I am saying today is that the Government are committed to doing far more to publicise those recent cases widely, to provide reassurance that unsustainable development should be resisted.

We will use the Planning Advisory Service to ensure that our message is clearly understood: the national planning policy framework does not stand for development at any cost. It promotes positive planning and sustainable development. We must ensure that councils have confidence to exercise their responsibilities for the benefit of their communities.

I appreciate the intention of new clause 20, also tabled my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. It seeks to give communities and their representatives the power to intervene, or “appeal”, certain planning proposals if they oppose the local authority’s decision to grant planning permission. I entirely agree with the premise of giving communities as great a say as possible in planning, and this is at the heart of all this Government’s reforms. I therefore welcome the fact that on 22 January Angmering neighbourhood plan, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, was supported at referendum with a 97% yes vote on a turnout of 31%. It allocates sites for at least 100 homes, and is the 45th successful neighbourhood planning referendum.

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

What would the Minister say to people in Airmyn, in my constituency, who have just had a factory forced on them, against the emerging local plan? We know that councillors were put on the committee specifically to vote for that proposal. People are really angry. None of what the Minister has said will help those people, who want to appeal against this decision to build a factory on greenfield land in a village against the wishes of local people and local representatives.

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend has put his remarks on the record. He will know that neither I nor any other Minister in the DCLG can comment on a particular plan.

Government amendments 84, 45 and 46 deal with the control of invasive and non-native species. Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to speak about the European beaver and other interesting items that would have been in my speech.

I turn to the telecoms provisions that were introduced into the Bill in Committee, as we heard earlier. The House will have heard the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), give the reasons why the Government now wish to withdraw these proposals when he discussed the programme motion. Accepting Government amendments 91, 92, 93, 100 and 104 to 108 would give effect to what my right hon. Friend described at the beginning of our deliberations.

[Mr Raynsford]

When the Opposition urged the Minister’s colleague, who was leading on this issue, to do exactly that in Committee, the Minister who responded accused the Opposition of burying their head, ostrich-like, in the sand. Have Ministers now decided to put their heads in the sand—or do they admit they were wrong?

[Stephen Williams]

The right hon. Gentleman enjoyed, I am sure, the deliberations in Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Minister telling us about mobile telephone reception in Lincolnshire and having to stand on a chair in order to take a call. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, and the Government have listened very carefully to what was said in Committee and to the representations made by interested bodies. We have decided at this stage to withdraw the proposals as drafted, but this issue will have to be revisited.

I turn finally in this wide-ranging group of new clauses and amendments to the part of the Bill that introduces zero-carbon homes—a part of which I am particularly proud—and the Opposition’s amendments. Amendments 67 and 71 seek to give preference in all cases to on-site carbon abatement measures. That would cause uncertainty and cost to house builders, because the house builder and the building control body would have to agree a “reasonable” on-site energy performance level on a case-by-case basis before any development could commence. The house building industry needs to know the technical requirements and the costs it will face in order to plan for the future. That is why we set specific performance standards in the building regulations —standards we have already tightened twice during this Parliament, and which, as a result of the Bill, will be further tightened in 2016 to make sure that our constituents have the pleasure of living in not only a new home but one insulated to the highest possible performance standards.

With those brief remarks—not quite as brief as you would have liked, Madam Deputy Speaker—I commend the new clauses and amendments in the Government’s name and ask the House to resist those in others’ names.

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

As the Minister acknowledged, there are a lot of amendments on different topics in this group, and I will do my best to respond to the Government amendments and speak to the Opposition ones in as coherent and related a way as I can. However, I point out that we have just over half an hour left, and lots of Members want to speak. That again demonstrates that the Government have rushed the Bill and not left enough time for the House to scrutinise it properly.

Government new clause 14 is a technical amendment and provided that the Greater London authority is on board with it, we see no reason not to welcome it.

We welcome new clause 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). His proposals are in line with our localist policy to return decision making about permitted development and change of use class to local authorities and the local communities they represent. We are very much against permitted development being able to ride roughshod over the needs and wishes of local communities, so we welcome the amendment and concur that having to make a pub an asset of community value, or make an article 4 direction, is bureaucratic and burdensome on local communities and not at all necessary. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause provides communities with a straightforward way of saying what is happening to their local pub and whether or not they wish a change to be made.

On Government amendments 45 and 84, the Minister will know that in Committee we called for greater clarity on how the species control agreements would work in practice. For example, when would one be considered complete, and requirements no longer be needed? We therefore support amendment 45 and the Government’s clarifying this point. They have also clarified that landowners who cannot dispose of land due to legal restrictions will still be subject to these agreements and orders. However, important questions remain about the cost and implementation of species control orders that the Government need to answer in statutory guidance.

On Government amendment 46, we are pleased that they have excluded from the species control orders the European beaver, a native species that has established populations in the UK. However, the classification of the beaver under part IB of schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—“Animals no longer normally present”—is bizarre and lists them alongside the wild boar. It seems strange that, despite European beavers being recognised as a native species to the UK and a natural component of British river systems, they will need a licence from Natural England to continue to exist in the wild. The Minister knows that we proposed in Committee an amendment—supported by a number of non-governmental organisations, including Friends of the Earth—stating that the Government’s definition of invasive non-native species should correspond to the EU habitats directive adopted in 1992. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why they have not gone down that route.

I was very disappointed with the Minister’s response to new clause 3, which seeks to shake up the way we progress national infrastructure matters. It would establish an independent national infrastructure commission in order to offer strategic planning to meet our national infrastructure requirements, and provide a greater degree of devolved power to ensure that large-scale projects also relate, where possible, to local priorities. I was surprised that in Committee, Government Members—and indeed the Minister himself—were so dismissive of the recent CBI survey showing that, despite some advances in national infrastructure policy, the UK is still some way off delivering the transformational upgrades the country needs. There is a widely acknowledged view that we are lagging behind other countries on national infrastructure delivery.

New clause 3 seeks to bring an evidence-based assessment of our infrastructure needs before the House for approval. The process would be supported by sector infrastructure plans, and there would be a time scale for implementation. That would get us out of the parliamentary cycle, and away from the stop-start approach to national infrastructure. All we have heard from the Minister is more complicity and a lack of engagement about the need for a timely upgrade to our national infrastructure.

18:59

[Jonathan Edwards]

Many of the sectors listed in new clause 3 are devolved. Has the hon. Lady given any thought to how the new body will work in a devolved context, and will she give the House categorical reassurances that it is not about taking powers away from Ministers in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We hope that an independent national infrastructure commission could take information from all the devolved structures, which is why I mentioned the importance of devolution with regard to new clause 3.

Amendment 53 seeks to get further clarification from the Minister on land transfers to the Homes and Communities Agency. In Committee, it was far from clear what was meant by surplus land, and the Minister has given us no clarification about how surplus land would be categorised, or about whether it covers open and common space.

We also heard nothing from the Minister about whether the Government intend to promote best practice in improving the transparency of land transactions by reporting all aspects of the transaction of land to the Land Registry. The lack of publicly available information about land transactions, ownership and options on land markets makes it difficult to understand the extent to which land is controlled by those who intend, or do not intend, to develop it. We need to increase transparency, particularly on options, if we are to ensure that enough land is made available for development. The Minister had absolutely nothing to say about that matter today.

The Minister did not say anything about ensuring that better guidance is given on how we assess viability. Opposition Members are arguing that a clearer way of assessing viability might mean that more land was brought forward for development. One would have thought that that was an objective of an infrastructure Bill, but apparently it is not.

Amendment 52 seeks totally to remove the Government’s proposals regarding the transfer of local land charges to the Land Registry. In England and Wales, two searches are currently undertaken as part of the standard conveyancing process for the purchase of land or property. In short, clauses 30 to 32 will transfer responsibility for one of the searches, the local land charges search, from local authorities to the Land Registry. It is important to note that responsibility for collecting the information necessary for the searches will still be held by local authorities, which will have to pass the information to the Land Registry. Furthermore, local authorities will continue to be responsible for the second of the two searches—the CON29 search.

The Opposition believe that the separation and fragmentation of the service is misguided and poorly evidenced, and that it has next to no hope of achieving the Government’s stated policy objectives. Peeling off part of the service simply does not make sense and is likely to make the service worse, not better. It is telling that even the Government, in their own consultation, have struggled to find anyone in favour of the change. Indeed, they acknowledge that no one supports the proposals.

In the past few days, we have had correspondence from the District Councils Network, the Law Society, the Council of Property Search Organisations, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, the Association of Independent Personal Search Agents, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Public and Commercial Services Union and many others who are all totally against the changes. Even the organisations and companies that the Government suggest will benefit from the changes oppose them. Just last Friday, those organisations signed a letter to the Secretary of State calling for the proposed changes to be dropped. We agree with them, and we will divide the House on that issue at the appropriate time if the Minister does not make another prompt U-turn.

On amendment 67, we had a wide-ranging discussion in Committee on the carbon abatement provision in clause 33, but I have again been very disappointed by the Minister’s speech today. He will know that we made lots of strong arguments in Committee about why it is not sensible to exempt small sites from the allowable solutions requirements on the basis of the number of housing units. It is not exactly clear what the Government will do because the consultation has only just finished and, as far as I am aware, neither its results nor the Government response have been placed in the public domain. This is clearly not a sensible way to make policy, but if the Minister intends to continue to allow the exemption for small sites purely on the basis of the number of units, we would ask him to think again.

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

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the recent consultation was very cramped and gave nobody the opportunity to say that they did not wish there to be any limitation on the size of site or, indeed, of contractor?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point, which we did not rehearse very well in Committee. If we had had adequate time today, we might have considered the consultation’s shortcomings and the fact that people had to choose from a very limited number of options.

I should point out that we have great concerns about the general carbon abatement provisions. It is really important for the Minister to clarify what the allowable solutions measures will contain. That was not clear in Committee, so we sought clarification, but we still have not received any. Will clause 33 make it a definite requirement for all homes to be built to the equivalent of code level 4?

[Stephen Williams]

In case I cannot respond on that point later, I can say that it is definitely our intention that on-site requirements should come up to code level 4, and that those for allowable solutions should come up to code level 5. On sites and exemptions, we are obviously looking at the consultation. The number of units will be one factor, but we might look at company size and square meterage—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have had a great many interventions in this debate. I appreciate that the shadow Minister has had only a moderately long time in which to speak and that she has a lot to say. However, I must now appeal to all Members: we have 21 minutes left and a great many matters to discuss, so they must all speak quickly. If everybody proceeds with no repetition, hesitation or deviation, everyone will get to speak.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

It would be helpful if the Minister put some of those reassurances in writing.

Finally, as we know, the Government tried to rush through a poorly drafted reform of the electronic communications code, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny, as part of an uncosted deal with mobile phone operators that could lose the taxpayer £1 billion. It is good that the Government have listened to Labour, and that they have made a U-turn and are going back to the drawing board, but their incompetent failure to reform the code now puts the whole deal in doubt.

Reforming the code that governs the agreements between mobile phone operators and landowners is important for the expansion of mobile telephone access, and the Government need to get it right. We welcome the move to withdraw from the Bill the clause and schedules on the electronic communications code, and we are glad that the Government listened to us and to various organisations. We hope that they will now take the time to renew and update the code properly.

I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I will be brief, to allow other Members to speak. We clearly need more time to debate major Bills such as this on Report. It does us no credit that we have insufficient time.

I rise to speak to new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 12 is supported by more than 20 of my right hon. and hon. Friends and would abolish the Planning Inspectorate, and new clause 20 would create a new community right of appeal against adverse planning decisions.

I believe that the Localism Act 2011 was one of this Government’s most important pieces of legislation. It gives communities power, and the provisions on community assets are one example of that. I welcome the Government’s proposals to strengthen those provisions so that pubs may be protected, which is a sensible way forward. I also welcome the development of neighbourhood plans, which, as the Minister said, are now proceeding well, with community support, including in my constituency. They give the local community the power to decide where developments should go.

However, that plan-led system can sometimes be a developer-led system, which is not what we want. Localism can be undermined, especially by decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. In a good report issued before Christmas, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government said that it had received a great deal of evidence that the national planning policy framework

“is not preventing unsustainable development in some places”

and that

“inappropriate housing is being imposed upon some communities as a result of speculative planning applications.”

Such speculative applications, put in against the wishes of communities drawing up neighbourhood plans, are particularly damaging. Developers know that they have an opportunity to get permission for sites that they would not get permission for were the neighbourhood plan to go through. Too often, the Planning Inspectorate either upholds on appeal a local authority’s decisions to decline those applications or terrifies the local authority into submission, so that it gives permission because it knows that otherwise it would lose an appeal and would have to spend a great deal of money on doing so.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I entirely agree with the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s argument. Does he agree that it is immensely discouraging to communities trying to make local plans when their wishes are ridden over roughshod by the Planning Inspectorate?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend, who has been tireless in promoting the interests of local communities against such developments in his constituency.

The first problem is the Planning Inspectorate upholding or encouraging speculative applications. The second is that the inspectorate is interfering with local plans drawn up by planning authorities. The Conservative party’s manifesto at the last election stated:

“To give communities greater control over planning, we will…abolish the power of planning inspectors to rewrite local plans”.

That is exactly what we should now do, but the inspectorate is rewriting local plans. It is raising housing numbers in my constituency to beyond the level set out in the south-east plan, and it is causing delay at a time when responsible authorities are planning for a great number of houses—40,000 in the district council areas that cover my constituency, where there are 7,000 unbuilt planning permissions in one authority alone.

[Mr Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful and persuasive case. Let me be absolutely clear: if the existing regime is not satisfactory, as he describes, we will have a regime that is. New guidance will be issued that is stronger and more effective, that defends the interests of local authorities and that prevents the problems he has set out.

[Nick Herbert]

I very much welcome the Minister’s important intervention, and we look forward to that new guidance.

The Planning Inspectorate is meant to stand in the shoes of Ministers. I submit that Ministers could stand in their own shoes and take decisions themselves if they had to interfere. That would perhaps deal with at least some of the £40 million budget and 80 staff of the Planning Inspectorate.

19:15

My second proposal is that we redress the imbalance whereby communities do not have a right of appeal against planning decisions but developers do so. How can that be proper or fair? To redress that inequity, communities should be given a limited right of appeal against planning decisions that run contrary to the local plan or emerging neighbourhood plan. There would be conditions attached to that, but it would be a means of restoring trust and accountability and it would show that Parliament means what it says. When we set out to give local communities the right to make decisions, and when we say that we will give people local power, we should mean it. It is not good enough for bureaucratic bodies—in the main, we are pledged to abolish or reduce such bodies—to get in the way of that power and take decisions that should be made by local people.

[Mr Raynsford]

May I start by drawing attention to my interests, as declared in the register?

I agreed with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on one point only, which was his opening remark about the lack of time for this debate. I am afraid that I will not have time to explain in detail why he is totally wrong about the Planning Inspectorate, because I want to address two other issues. However, I have to say that over many years the Planning Inspectorate has delivered a highly professional service in assessing developments and giving impartial advice to Ministers, and it would be an absurdity to do away with such a body.

The first issue that I want to cover is the importance of a national infrastructure commission. I am disappointed by the Government’s rejection of that proposal, which was made in a cogent, well-presented and well-received report by Sir John Armitt. In case Members are not familiar with him, Sir John is widely recognised as one of our country’s leading experts in the field and was the chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which demonstrated remarkably well how to deliver a major infrastructure project in the most exemplary way, so we should pay attention to his recommendations. Those recommendations were not, as some opponents of them have claimed, about taking decision making away from Ministers or Parliament. On the contrary, Sir John’s report was clear that there should be a detailed and thorough appraisal, carried out by experts and then presented to Ministers, who in turn would have a responsibility to report to Parliament on their decisions in response to the infrastructure commission’s recommendations. That would be wholly democratic and ensure that proposals were properly considered by experts before being presented to Ministers, who would then come to Parliament with final decisions.

The second argument that the Minister made against the Armitt report was that the recommended procedure would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic. He conjured up the image of a recommendation being rejected by Parliament, and asked what would then happen. That is pretty rich coming from a Government who have just reduced by one third the total size of the Bill that came back from Committee. That was a fairly enormous decision to reverse a proposal that they had made a little while before, but we have not heard any suggestion that it is somehow a mistake. On the contrary, it is an example of Parliament working well in stopping Ministers doing something ill-considered. The basis of the Minister’s argument is unsound, but in any case, if Parliament is to take decisions, it must be right that it has the discretion to say no occasionally. That seems an entirely admirable principle.

I wish to conclude with a few words about zero-carbon outcomes. The Government are resiling from the commitments that were put in place under the previous Government to achieve those outcomes by 2016. There have been four backtracks. The first was the Government’s abandonment of code level 6, which was the original definition of zero carbon. The second was no longer saying that zero carbon is equivalent to code level 5 and must be delivered in all cases. They now say that the objective is code level 5, but it will be possible not to deliver it under two circumstances. The first is where allowable solutions include off-site contributions, rather than doing it on site—and even there, the Government are not adhering to the principle the Minister enunciated on Second Reading, which was that this should apply only where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver on site. The second relates to the small site exemptions, which are badly drafted and a loophole that could easily be exploited, not by small builders, but by any builders, to fail to deliver on small sites. There has been some serious backtracking by the Government, and if we are to achieve the zero-carbon objective and an effective response to climate change, we will need to revisit these issues in the next Parliament.

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

I rise to support new clause 16 and I will be brief. The Government have done a lot on pubs, but I wish to address the points made by the Minister and explain why new clause 16 is, on all fronts, a better and neater solution that the very welcome concession the Government have made.

Let us bust some myths. First, new clause 16 simply puts pubs on the same footing as laundrettes, theatres and—would you believe it—casinos and nightclubs, which currently enjoy more protection under the planning law than pubs do. Most people in this House would think that was very strange and needs rectifying. So there is an easy precedent for this clause and nothing draconian about it.

Secondly, we are being presented with the straw man of boarded up pubs lining our high streets as a result of the new clause. A local pub of mine, The Foresters, was known to be a drug den. It was turned into a Tesco and nobody shed any tears. Had new clause 16 been in place then, that would have simply gone through the planning process, as most things would do. Local authorities have every incentive to approve planning for a derelict site, and so we can discard that straw man out of hand.

Let us look at what the Government have already done. An article 4 direction is well intended, but in practice it is burdensome. People cannot apply for an article 4 direction for their pub unless it has already been threatened, and many communities will want to apply for an article 4 direction before it is threatened. Each article 4 direction is expensive, costing between £2,000 and £3,000 for local authorities, which are already stretched. If communities wanted to protect every pub in the country, the cost would be about £50 million to £100 million. However, a much more fundamental question lies at the heart of this issue: what is localism? In a welcome move towards localism, this Government decided that it is about local planners making decisions, as is the case elsewhere in localism. However, the Government’s concession seems to present it as a patchy, bureaucratic position, which also favours those with sharp elbows. I am deeply concerned that it will be inequitable in practice.

I am particularly puzzled as to why the Government’s default position is against, not for, community pubs. Most of us would consider that the default position should be for the community pub and in favour of the community, not in favour of developers, who can move far faster than communities, particularly our most vulnerable ones. Indeed, if the Government had implemented new clause 16 long ago, we would have avoided the confusion involving, and potential overlap between, assets of community value and article 4 directions. I very much welcome the Government’s move, but we have a short time left in this Parliament. Indeed, we are on last orders for our parliamentary time—[Interruption.] Thank you very much; I am here all night. There is doubt as to whether we would actually be able to make this proposal in time. I thank the Government for their welcome move, but new clause 16 does it better, it does it here, and this evening we have an opportunity to do it now.

[Dr Whitehead]

I congratulate the Minister on keeping a straight face while introducing his proposals for the Government to introduce zero-carbon homes. He knows that the proposals go away from zero-carbon homes, systematically and determinedly, and do not move us towards them, as had originally been intended under the code for zero-carbon homes, and the time scales and levels it proposed. As we have heard, we are moving away from code level 6 and down to code level 5. As the Minister says, code level 4 is regarded as the starting point for alleged zero-carbon homes, but there are exceptions within that relating to affordable solutions and the small site exemptions where fewer than 10 units are being built, which will affect about 20% of new builds. That is nothing like having zero-carbon homes for the future. The amendments try to put this at least some way back on track, and I urge hon. Members to examine them carefully and support them if they value zero-carbon homes for the future, as I am sure we all do, in making sure that our building stock is of the best quality we can get for future sustainability.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I rise to support two of the provisions tabled and ably espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). The first is new clause 12, where he has put the case succinctly; after all, we made a manifesto commitment to abolish the Planning Inspectorate. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the inspectorate is not taking sufficient account of local feelings in the judgments it makes.

I particularly wish to draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 20, which, as my right hon. Friend has said, builds on our localism agenda. The limited right of appeal to the Secretary of State is extremely important and would be of great benefit to my constituents in Sutton Coldfield, where there is massive opposition to the proposition that we should build between 5,000 and 6,000 homes on its green belt. Yet that opposition, expressed in marches across the countryside as well as in public meetings, has been entirely ignored by the local authority.

In proposed new subsection (2B), my right hon. Friend points out the importance of

“ward councillors for the area who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority, or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity”.

Giving that degree of local support to what the local community want is extremely important. I believe and hope that the Minister, perhaps on Third Reading, will be able to give my constituents some comfort on that.

The opportunity of genuine community involvement should be built in at every stage of planning the process; there should not just be the one-off chance that those responsible for development can choose either to respond or to ignore. Recently, when the inspector held an oral hearing at which I was able to give evidence on behalf of my constituents, he asked for more evidence to be adduced on the requirement for the colossal amount of building involved. We have always argued that there was not sufficient evidence to build on Sutton Coldfield’s green belt, particularly in respect of the inward immigration figures in the area. We draw some comfort from the decision by the Planning Inspectorate, but it is extremely important that the local community is able to have far more say than we do at that moment, at this important juncture in the life of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield.

[Greg Mulholland]

I shall be as quick as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had a conversation with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and I must thank him for his collaborative way of working, and his attempt to find a solution and get through to the Department for Communities and Local Government—alas, he failed. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) rather gave the game away when he said that what is being proposed is not a concession but something the Government were discussing and planning to do in any case. So this has nothing to do with a concession for today; the House needs to be clear on that. One serious point is that DCLG civil servants told the Campaign for Real Ale that the change that has been proposed—not a concession, as we know—would need primary legislation and could not be done through secondary legislation. There is a concern as to whether it could even happen.

New clause 16 is a much better solution. It is not partial and the Government’s solution would cost more, involve much more bureaucracy, take much longer and be considerably less effective. None of us wants red tape, but if hon. Members think red tape is acceptable for nightclubs, theatres and laundrettes, not supporting new clause 16 sends a clear message that not only do they not support local pubs, but they do not think local people should have a say. If hon. Members support pubs and support local democracy, they should vote for new clause 16, and if they do not, they should vote against.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I shall take a minute to tell hon. Members that we all need to see pubs protected and to see them thrive. What the Minister has done today is to say that if 21 people in a community want to protect their pub, they can do so and they can afford it protection under the planning laws. If a pub cannot get 21 people to support it, it is not financially viable. There is no need to have extra red tape and regulation as proposed in new clause 16. The Minister has, simply and succinctly, put the power back in the hands of pub goers, pub lovers and beer drinkers, and I commend him for doing so.

[Mrs Main]

My plea to the Minister is to consider issuing new guidance that will put an obligation on commercial buildings to have zero-carbon or low-carbon emissions. In my constituency, it is possible to have 3.5 million square feet of rail freight interchange, and not one single green initiative is necessary. We are considering such an obligation for homes, and we should be considering it for commercial premises too. Will the Minister please issue some guidance to be used during the planning process?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Like many people here this evening—

19:30

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 16

Use classes and demolition: drinking establishments

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI 1987/764) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 3(6) add—

“(n) as a drinking establishment.”

(3) In the Schedule, leave out “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”.

(4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) is amended as follows.

(5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 under Class A: Permitted Development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”.

(6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 add—

“(c) the building subject to demolition is classed as a drinking establishment”.” —(Charlotte Leslie.)

The purpose of this New Clause is to aim to ensure that any proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Currently such buildings can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

19:30

Division 140

Ayes: 245

---

Labour: 207
Liberal Democrat: 15
Conservative: 15
UK Independence Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 293

---

Conservative: 265
Liberal Democrat: 26

Clause 20

Environment control of animal and plant species

Amendments made: 84, page 13, line 8, at end insert

“or

(c) a person who for the time being exercises powers of management or control over the land.”

This amendment extends the definition of “owner” to include persons with powers of management or control over land.

Amendment 45, page 14, line 23, at end insert—

“Notice of compliance

8A Where an environmental authority considers that an owner of premises has complied with all the requirements in a species control agreement to carry out species control operations, the authority must give the owner notice to that effect.” —(Stephen Williams.)

This amendment requires the environmental authority to issue a notice to an owner once it considers that the owner has complied with all the requirements in a species control agreement.

Clause 21

Native and non-native species etc

Amendment made: 46, page 23, line 11, at end insert—

“Beaver, Eurasian (but not in relation to Wales)

Castor fiber”

—(Stephen Williams.)

This amendment aims to secure that, in England, the species control provisions will not apply to Eurasian beavers which are released into the wild under licence. It will continue to be the case that Eurasian beavers may only be released into the wild under licence.

Clause 29

Easements etc affecting land

Amendment made: 85, page 33, line 35, leave out “which is” and insert

“the freehold interest in which was” —(Stephen Williams.)

This amends clause 29(11) with the effect that the amendments made by the clause do not apply to any freehold disposals of land made before commencement by the bodies to which the clause applies. Those amendments will apply to land in respect of which a lease was granted by those bodies before commencement.

Amendment proposed: 52, page 34, line 2, leave out clauses 30 to 32.—(Roberta Blackman-Woods.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:44

Division 141

Ayes: 209

---

Labour: 204
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 330

---

Conservative: 283
Liberal Democrat: 44
UK Independence Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Clause 49

The Electronic Communications Code

Amendment made: 91, page 55, line 32, leave out clause 49.—(Stephen Williams.)

This amendment and amendments 106 and 107 remove clause 49 and schedules 8 and 9 which included provision replacing the telecommunications code in schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 with a substantially revised version called the electronic communications code, and made related consequential amendments. The existing telecommunications code will accordingly continue in effect.

Clause 50

Regulations and Orders

Amendments made: 92, page 57, line 15, at end insert “or”.

This amendment together with amendments 93, 100, 104, 105 and 108 remove the provisions about secondary legislation, extent and commencement and in the long title which were consequential on the provisions of clause 49 and Schedules 8 and 9.

Amendment 93, page 57, line 17, leave out from “Act,” to end of line 19.—(Stephen Williams.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this amendment

Clause 51

Extent

Amendments made: 95, page 58, line 9, leave out “and 29(11) and (12)” and insert

“,29(11) and (12) and (Expenditure of Greater London Authority on housing or regeneration)(2)”.

This provides for NC14 to extend to England and Wales only.

Amendment 100, page 58, line 20, leave out subsections (7) and (8) .—(Stephen Williams.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this amendment.

Clause 52

Commencement

Amendments made: 102, page 59, line 5, leave out “section 26 comes” and insert

“sections 26 and (Expenditure of Greater London Authority on housing or regeneration) come”.

This provides for NC14 to come into force on the day that the Act is passed.

Amendment 104, page 59, line 28, leave out subsection (8).

The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this amendment.

Amendment 105, page 59, line 31, leave out “, (6)(c) or (8)” and insert “or (6)(c)”—(Stephen Williams.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this amendment.

Schedule 8

The electronic Communications Code

Amendment made: 106, page 122, line 13, leave out schedule 8.—(Stephen Williams.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 91 also applies to this amendment.

Schedule 9

The Electronic Communications Code: Consequential Amendments

Amendment made: 107, page 177, line 17, leave out schedule 9.—(Stephen Williams.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 91 also applies to this amendment.

New Clause 13

Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies

‘(1) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) set a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy for England, or

(b) vary a Strategy which has already been set.

(2) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is to relate to such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; but a Strategy for a period of more than five years must be reviewed at least once every five years.

(3) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must specify—

(a) objectives to be achieved during the period to which it relates, and

(b) the financial resources to be made available by the Secretary of State for the purpose of achieving those objectives.

(4) The objectives to be achieved may include—

(a) activities to be performed;

(b) results to be achieved;

(c) standards to be met.

(5) Before setting or varying a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he or she considers appropriate.

(6) In considering whether to vary a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of maintaining certainty and stability in respect of Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies.

(7) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(8) Where a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy has been published the Secretary of State must from time to time lay before Parliament a report on progress towards meeting its objectives.

(9) If a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is not currently in place, the Secretary of State must—

(a) lay before Parliament a report explaining why a Strategy has not been set, and

(b) set a Strategy as soon as may be reasonably practicable.”. —(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment makes provision for the Secretary of State to set and vary Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Hayes]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 17—Route strategies.

Government new clause 18—Periodic reports by the Secretary of State.

New clause 5—Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) set a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy; or

(b) vary a Strategy which has already been set.

(2) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is to relate to such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate but must be reviewed as least every five years.

(3) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must specify—

(a) the objectives to be achieved during the period to which it relates; and

(b) the financial resources to be provided by the Secretary of State for the purpose of achieving those objectives.

(4) The objectives to be achieved may include—

(a) activities to be performed;

(b) results to be achieved; and

(c) standards to be met.

(5) The Secretary of State must comply with the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy and shall be responsible for updating Parliament annually on his compliance with it.

(6) If a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is not currently in place, the Secretary of State must—

(a) lay before Parliament a report explaining why a Strategy has not been set; and

(b) set a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy as soon as may be reasonably practicable.

(7) Schedule (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Procedure] (which contains provision about the procedure for setting or varying a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy) has effect.”

Amendment 4, page 1, line 4, leave out clauses 1 and 2.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 4, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 43, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

“(c) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment Strategy upon the condition and development of the local roads network;

(d) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment Strategy upon the provision of local transport, including increasing walking and cycling;

(e) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment Strategy on links with other nationally and regionally significant transport and infrastructure projects, including ports and airports, and;

(f) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment Strategy on the growth plans of city regions and sub-regional bodies.”

Amendment 7, page 3, line 16, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 18, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, leave out “A strategic highways company” and insert “The Highways Agency”.

Amendment 11, page 3, line 32, leave out “A strategic highways company” and insert “The Highways Agency”.

Amendment 70, page 3, line 34, leave out “the environment, and” and insert

“air quality and other aspects of the environment, and”.

The Amendment would add an explicit obligation on the Strategic Highways Company to address air quality, as recommended by the Sixth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Action on Air Quality, HC 212, paragraph 61.

Amendment 12, page 3, line 36, leave out clauses 5 to 7.

Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 5, line 34, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 14, page 5, line 38, leave out “a strategic highways company’s” and insert “the Highways Agency’s”.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 42, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 6, line 22, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 17, page 6, line 26, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Government amendment 112.

Amendment 18, page 6, line 29, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 19, page 6, line 35, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 20, page 6, line 37, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 21, page 6, line 39, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Government amendments 113 and 114.

Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 7, line 2, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 23, page 7, line 8, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 24, page 7, line 9, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 25, page 7, line 10, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 27, page 7, line 20, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 28, page 7, line 22, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 29, page 8, line 2, leave out clauses 13 and 14.

Amendment 30, in clause 15, page 9, line 32, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 31, page 10, line 10, leave out clause 16.

Government amendments 94 and 101.

New schedule 1—“Schedule

Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Strategy: Procedure

1 This Schedule specifies the procedure by which a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is set or varied.

2 The proposals in a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must include details of—

(a) the objectives to be achieved, including but not limited to—

(i) increasing the share of travel that is walked and cycled;

(ii) increasing the proportion of the population that regularly walks or cycles; and

(iii) improving actual and perceived safety of walking and cycling.

(b) the financial resources to be provided by the Secretary of State for the purpose of achieving those objectives; and

(c) the period to which the proposals relate.

3 Publication of the Cycling and Walking Strategy may be in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

4 The Secretary of State may only publish or vary a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy if the Secretary of State has consulted on the proposals with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

5 In performing functions under this Schedule, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of maintaining certainty and stability in respect of Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies.”

Amendment 32, page 60, line 2, leave out schedule 1.

Amendment 33, in schedule 2, page 87, line 11, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”.

Amendment 34, page 87, line 19, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 35, page 87, line 20, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 36, page 87, line 22, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 37, page 87, line 27, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 38, page 88, line 4, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 39, page 88, line 7, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 40, page 88, line 10, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 41, page 88, line 22, leave out “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”.

Amendment 42, page 88, line 25, leave out schedule 3.

Amendment 127, in schedule 3, page 89, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2A) The transfer scheme may make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision and may, if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer, make provision which is the same or similar.”

Amendment 76, page 92, line 5, at end insert—

“(d) that person is protected by the conditions set out in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.”

Government amendment 115.

Amendment 77, page 92, line 5, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 apply to the transfer of a relevant undertaking either.

(a) to a different company appointed as a highway authority under section 1 of this Act, or

(b) to any other equivalent public sector body established to undertake general duties of a strategic highways company.”

Government amendment 116.

[Mr Hayes]

I rise with some enthusiasm because, as the House knows, cycling has moved up a gear as a result of this Government. New clause 13 reflects the Government’s commitment to cycling and walking, and making these the natural choice for shorter journeys. The cycling fraternity has responded already. No less a personage than Chris Boardman described this proposal as representing

“a massive shift in thinking and, most importantly, commitment.”

He went on to say:

“It brings us one step closer to realising our vision for a cycling nation . . . Everyone who rides a bike should see this as the start of something really exciting.”

Government have to take difficult decisions, and not everything we do is universally popular, but when one gets such acclamation, one has to—I will not say milk it; that would be wrong—draw it to the attention of the House in a measured and humble way, which is what I intend to do in this short debate about cycling.

This is certainly an exciting move forward. Since 2010, the Government’s spending on cycling overall has more than doubled compared with the last four years of the previous Administration, with £374 million committed between 2011 and 2015. The Minister responsible for cycling—I do not count that among my encyclopaedic list of responsibilities—is the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). He has been a champion of this and should be recognised for his efforts and dedication in listening to the issues raised by cycling groups and responding to them.

20:00

Let us look at some of the facts. Spending on cycling is currently about £6 per person each year across England and £10 per person in London and our eight cycling ambition cities. In November, we announced a further £140 million for the cycling ambition cities, and, through the road investment strategy, a further £100 between 2015 and 2021 for additional cycling provision on the strategic road network. As I am sure the House is aware, in October we published our draft cycling delivery plan—a 10-year strategy on how we plan to increase cycling and walking across England. This plan illustrates the Government’s long-term commitment to cycling and walking. It is in that spirit that we tabled the new clause, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to have just such an investment strategy.

Each of the strategies, which cover England only, will be set for a given period and must specify objectives to be achieved and the financial resources that will be made available for that purpose. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will be required to report to Parliament on progress on achieving those objectives and, where a strategy applies for a period longer than five years, to ensure that it is reviewed at least once every five years.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

The Minister is making an important speech. He is setting out a very clear strategy, which is absolutely vital. Does he agree that it is not just the investment but the outcomes that will be so important for the nation, particularly in tackling the growing challenge of physical inactivity?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right; not for the first time, he highlights these matters. That is precisely why the reporting mechanisms implicit in the new clause are so significant. As he rightly says, it is not enough simply to put in the resources, although we are clearly doing that, as I have shown; it is also important that we measure the effect of those resources. As I said, the arrangements that we have set in motion ensure that these matters are reviewed regularly, and that when setting or varying the strategy we bear in mind the desirability of certainty and stability. We will consult on whether to make a variation once the strategy has been set. For those reasons, I hope that the whole House will join me in welcoming this exciting development.

[Dr Huppert]

On behalf of everyone else from the all-party cycling group, others who supported the new clause and all the organisations who have worked on this, I thank the Minister for the Government agreeing to do this, because it will make a big difference. Will he update us on what has happened to the draft strategy that came out last year? When should we expect a full-blown strategy to take effect?

[Mr Hayes]

The new clause, should it turn from a vision to a proposal to a law, will facilitate that strategy and escalate the process by which it is developed and delivered. Much of the work has been done, as the hon. Gentleman implied, but it has now been framed in the most appropriate place—that is, the Bill, which sets in motion a road investment strategy about which I shall wax lyrical in a moment. It would be ironic to have a road investment strategy without having a walking and cycling strategy alongside it. That case was made by cyclists here in the House and beyond, and it is a persuasive one. The hon. Gentleman can look forward to the achievement of his ambitions being carried out with alacrity.

New clause 5 and new schedule 1 on a cycling strategy are designed to achieve a very similar purpose to new clause 13. The Government’s new clause and amendments make the duty clearer. On that basis, I invite those who gave them life to recognise the progress that has been made and withdraw their amendments.

I turn to new clause 17 and the important issue of ensuring that the road investment strategy will take account of local issues. Opposition Members made that argument powerfully when we considered these matters in Committee, and the case was made both formally and in informal discussions across the House. The road investment strategy—as I need not remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you are intimately familiar with it—is a series of documents that sets out a long-term commitment to road investment, backs that with funding, and determines by empirical means where that money will make the most difference. It was said that the strategy needed to marry with much of what is happening on local roads, which are the preserve of local highways authorities. It was argued that if there were a mismatch between that local activity, and the decision making that takes place in those authorities, and the judgments that are made as part of the bigger strategy, there could be problems of inconsistency, overlap or perhaps even contradiction between local and national ambitions.

It therefore seemed important that the Government look at the role of route strategies in those terms, and that is precisely what we intend to do. The road investment documents that were issued in December, to much stakeholder acclaim, clearly demonstrated how the investments that we have prioritised will support cities by helping to connect housing sites, enterprise zones and other industrial developments. Just as we have committed to supporting ports, airports and the construction of High Speed 2, the road investment strategy is designed to give a degree of certainty, to build confidence, and to facilitate investment accordingly. This is a significant change in public policy. We are moving from the piecemeal annualised funding of roads to a bigger vision supported by bigger policy assumptions.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I very much welcome this plan, because for too long we have had isolated, year-by-year approaches. This will make a real difference, particularly in the north, where we have, for example, the A69 dualling scheme. That was approved for a feasibility study by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, but now we can plan for a long-term future supported by both local enterprise partnerships. Is not this part of the way forward?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is right. As I said, this is a significant change in terms of public policy assumptions. To be frank—this is not a criticism of a particular Government—post-war Governments have not always approached infrastructure as well as they might have done. There are all kinds of reasons for that, such as a nervousness about binding the hands of one’s successors or a reluctance to get these big decisions wrong. In democratic politics, there is a pressure towards delivering results in a five-year span—understandably, as we all have to be re-elected—and some of the decisions we are making in this strategy will have a payback over a much longer period than that. When building roads, rather like power stations and significant railway projects, the reward in terms of well-being and economic activity has a reverberating effect for many decades. As a result, Governments sometimes do not take these big but necessary decisions that serve the national interest.

[Sir Alan Beith]

There is no better illustration of the Minister’s point than the history of A1 dualling over decades. I commend the Government for building in a commitment to, and the means of achieving, a substantial part of that. We would like more to be dualled, but that is a very significant move forward.

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I am a frequent visitor to his constituency for recreational purposes. I tend to holiday on the north-east coast in Bamburgh and other places. I know the road north of Newcastle extremely well, and I am aware of the difficulties in terms of safety and congestion, although we have addressed the issues around Newcastle itself. As he will also know, I have visited the area as a Minister to see first hand some of the challenges and what can be done to overcome them.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will the route strategies include strategies on speed limits? If so, does my right hon. Friend intend to make greater use of variable speed limits, which have been quite successful?

[Mr Hayes]

Variable speed limits are part of the smart motorway schemes that we are doing immense work on. Indeed, I was speaking about them at lunchtime today. They reflect a greater understanding of and ability to alter the way in which people interface with roads through the provision of dynamic information, and allow us to make much better use of infrastructure once the investment has been made. The way in which people drive, what they drive and the way in which they interface with the information that is provided for them on the road will change considerably over our lifetimes and beyond. It is important that we do not allow any rigidity in public policy to inhibit the developments that will spring from such technological changes.

My right hon. Friend is right that variable speed limits are an important part of that future. He has been a great champion of them. Indeed, what greater champion of roads and motoring has there been than my right hon. Friend, who has shared many long evenings discussing just these kind of matters with me? I look forward to many more.

Through the route strategies, Highways England, the body that we are creating, will work closely with local authorities, LEPs and other bodies, including rail bodies, to develop the building blocks of future plans. It will ensure that local roads, local transport, our cities and other modes of transport are considered throughout the strategy development process. That is the point. It is a point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made in Committee. It was taken on board by the Government. People call me the people’s Minister, but I would rather be called the listening Minister, because I listen and respond to good argument, and I try to develop politics and policy accordingly.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

On that basis, I am happy to listen to the hon. Lady.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is clearly a well travelled Minister, just like the well travelled road. While he is in listening mode, I remind him that when he gave evidence before the Environmental Audit Committee on air quality, he said specifically that the remit of the new body he was creating would include environmental concerns. If he has read our report and listened to what we have said, he will know that we are calling for

“a legal duty to protect air quality”

and the introduction of

“a specific clause to that effect in the Infrastructure Bill”.

Will he tell us how he has listened and brought that to fruition?

[Mr Hayes]

Let me say two things, the first of which is how much I enjoy giving evidence before the hon. Lady’s Committee. I have enjoyed many exchanges with her on policy matters over a considerable period. Secondly, I will ensure that environmental considerations are built into all the strategic thinking and the development of all these plans. Air quality should be regarded as a salient that is taken into account in the building blocks, as I have described them, that we put together between local roads and the national strategy.

Furthermore, the hon. Lady will be delighted to know—indeed, I hope that she will be in the audience—that I will be making a speech in the next few weeks on precisely these issues: the environmental aspects of the strategy and how we need to develop a new paradigm in respect of the environmental impact of infrastructure development. I can tell that the excitement is building in the House as a result of that. I can see that she is excited enough to intervene again.

[Joan Walley]

Does what the Minister has just said amount to a legal duty? He has referred to the way in which some of the responsibilities for roads lie with local authorities and some with the new agency. Without a legal duty, it is impossible to see how there can be certainty—rather than uncertainty—that everything possible will be done to reduce air quality problems.

[Mr Hayes]

Even my audacity does not allow me to make up legal duties on the hoof. I shall take away what the hon. Lady proposes and look at the legal ramifications. I am clear that air quality and the environment are an absolute salient in these matters. As I said, I will ensure that those considerations are built into the development of the strategies, but far be it from me to say what I cannot subsequently justify. I do not want to make up a legal duty as I go along, and I know that she would not expect me to do so.

Notwithstanding what I have said about the importance of route strategies, I understand that there are those who would like additional reassurance that they will happen. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which will insert a reference to route strategies in the Bill. The Secretary of State will require a strategic highways company to prepare and publish one or more strategies on the management and development of the highways to which it has been appointed, which will be known as route strategies. The strategies must be published, as must the Secretary of State’s directions to the company, so we have provided that the process will be transparent and comprehensible. The new clause, along with the provisions in the statutory directions and guidance, which we have updated, provides reassurance, while giving Highways England the flexibility to adapt the route strategy process to meet the needs of cities, the country as a whole and the Government of the day. It is clear that, as a result of new clause 17, amendment 43 is not needed, so I ask that it not be pressed.

20:15

The title of the new body that will oversee the work of Highways England was raised in Committee. It was argued that the Office of Rail Regulation was, nominally at least, an inappropriate description of a body that will oversee road investment, as well as the rail strategy. In giving the Office of Rail Regulation new responsibilities over the roads sector, we risk causing public confusion over its remit. I agreed in Committee to reflect further and to return with a view on how such an undesirable situation might be avoided.

Amendment 114 will alter the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 to allow the ORR to be renamed through secondary legislation. It does not rename the ORR, but creates a power for the Government to do so. I have discussed the matter with the ORR. It wants to discuss it in a consultation. As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, when that was said, I took a step back because consultations bring forth images of curious names being devised by all sorts of curious people. I therefore suggested that the ORR hold a short discussion with its stakeholders, who would want to have a say in any such changes. However, that should be a short and straightforward process, and not a great national conversation. We do not need one of those in respect of the renaming of the Office of Rail Regulation. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield pointed out, it will not actually be a regulatory body in respect of roads, so we need to be careful about the name so that we do not cause the very confusion that we are trying to avoid or prevent.

My preference would be to call the organisation the office for rail and road. To give credit where credit is due, that was first suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I am an honest chap. I do not want to steal his thunder. It is a jolly good idea. It has a certain elegance, after all. Never underestimate the importance of style. Substance matters, but style matters too.

I urge Members to support Government amendments 115 and 116. I am determined that staff who transfer to the new organisation should not be disadvantaged in respect of terms and conditions. I have given assurances to the House that that is the case and intend, through the amendments, to reaffirm those protections and the stated commitment that the transfer of employees to Highways England will follow TUPE principles.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify the difference between staff transferring under TUPE and under his proposal in amendment 115?

[Mr Hayes]

I am coming to that. In shorthand, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want staff to be disadvantaged in any way, as I said. We will honour TUPE principles in this transfer of staff.

Amendment 115 makes it clear that when existing Highways Agency staff transfer to the new company, their employment terms and conditions will not change. I recognise that the changes that are planned for the Highways Agency will cause anxiety for existing staff. The amendment confirms that the existing rights and liabilities of staff will not change following transfer to the new organisation.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will make a little progress and then let the hon. Gentleman come back.

The Bill provides that a transferring employee can terminate their contract if there is a substantial detrimental change to it if they transfer. That reflects regulation 4(9) of TUPE. Government amendment 116 supplements that by providing that where the employee claims constructive dismissal in those circumstances, no damages are payable in respect of any unpaid wages that relate to a notice period he or she has not worked. I should stress that the amendment does not prevent employees from claiming for damages for constructive dismissal, but seeks to establish a common-sense position that damages cannot be claimed for a period of required notice that has not been worked. I should highlight that the amendment ensures that the provisions in the Bill properly reflect TUPE in that regard.

[Richard Burden]

I should like to press the Minister to clarify Government amendment 116. From what he has said, it seems that the intention is to put the TUPE principles into the Bill. The amendment contains the words “constructive dismissal”. It seems to me—this is certainly the advice we have had—that that is inappropriate. Will he look again?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman, with the courtesy he personifies, raised that with me before we came to the House today. I have committed to take another look at that through the parliamentary draftsman. There is no intention to disadvantage staff in that regard. I give that absolute assurance, but I will double-check the language, because language in such things matters. He and I are in discussion and I have committed to write to him as soon as possible, and certainly before the matter is discussed further, to clarify the use of the language to which he has drawn the House’s attention.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister clarify why he has used a formulation unused in any other legislation in the past? I have set out the various options in three amendments showing what the Government have used in past legislation to assure staff that they are transferring either under TUPE or under the Cabinet Office statement of practice, the TUPE-like agreement that the Cabinet Office agreed with the trade unions involved. Why are we not using the past formulations?

[Mr Hayes]

Originality and imagination are part of my style. I said style is as important as substance. The substance is in the Bill; the style is all my own. The important thing is that, having met staff representatives on 13 January, I am fully aware that there are other aspects they want me to look at. I fully recognise the concerns they raised. Some of those issues need to be considered further, and I have asked my officials to pursue those matters urgently. In the spirit that I have described, I will not allow staff to be disadvantaged by any changes. The House has my absolute assurance on that. Government amendments 115 and 116 reaffirm our commitment that existing Highways Agency staff terms and conditions should be protected, as I have described.

New clause 18 places a responsibility on the Government to report periodically to Parliament on the performance of Highways England. I have introduced this to reassure some who fear that Ministers will lose control of Highways England, and that they will have no accountability to Parliament if Highways England fails to deliver. It is absolutely right that the new body can get on and deliver the strategy that the Government devise, establish and agree, but let me be clear that should the implementation and delivery of the strategy require further involvement, direction or adjustment by Ministers, in concert with the House, the ability to make those changes must be established in the Bill. I am absolutely clear that Highways England must report to the House, and that Members on both sides of the House must have the chance to scrutinise its work. Ministers must have a role, indeed play a key role, in the delivery of the strategy.

It might be true to say that the greatest challenge we face is getting the delivery right. We have surmounted an important hurdle in developing a strategy founded on empiricism and backed with funding for the long term—more than £15 billion up to 2021—but it will happen only if we have in place the right resources, skills and partnerships, and the right range of other organisations, to make it happen. It would be inappropriate if Ministers and all hon. Members were not involved in that process. I expect directions to emanate from the Department for Transport periodically—it is not meant to be an exceptional power. I expect reports to be made to the House periodically. That, too, should not be a matter of exception. That was raised at length by the shadow Minister. The strong governance arrangements and framework we have put in place provide some of the measures he sought when he argued the case for greater accountability.

The use of directions in the licence will allow the Government to exert control over how the company exercises its statutory functions. In addition, as sole shareholder the Secretary of State can ensure that the company is properly led and governed. More detail is in the summary document published in December, but I will write again on some of those matters following today’s consideration.

Opposition Front Benchers and all Members of the House will be familiar with the new copy of the licence, which strengthens those provisions, and which was provided to hon. Members on 22 January and placed in the Library of the House. Let me say again that if there are problems with performance, I expect Ministers to make use of those directions; I expect Parliament to see the Highways monitor’s report on the impact; and I expect Ministers to ensure that Parliament is informed of how issues have been resolved.

It is obvious from the amendments that were tabled that I need to explain why we need to change the status of the Highways Agency and create an arm’s length body, and I am happy to repeat an argument I made earlier. Let me start with the point of view that some suggest—they suggest that we should do nothing more than implement a road investment strategy without changing the structure necessary to deliver it. Of course, the Highways Agency would make every effort to do so efficiently, and of course we would have some success in delivering that strategy, but we need to understand that if we are to deliver the strategy, we need to make significant changes to the existing arrangements.

The relationship between the agency and the Government has on occasions failed to reflect the wider interests of the economy and the long-term interests of taxpayers and road users. The measure is about providing a clearer, more strategic role for the Government, and providing a stronger, more certain framework, through the licence and the road investment strategy and the framework document, for the organisation mission to deliver those important infrastructural changes to our nation. By the way, those changes are not just about economic well-being; they are also about societal and communal well-being.

The industry is keen to see change both in the way funding is committed and in the way the Highways Agency is constructed. In the call for evidence for the Bill, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association said:

“Even with an apparently committed five year programme, not transforming the Highways Agency into an arms-length body could still leave it a target, should future Governments decide cuts to spending…The supply chain…has confidence that the creation of a Government-owned company would significantly reduce the likelihood of this happening.”

The CBI said that business welcomes the Government’s important decision to reform the Highways Agency to a more independent body, giving it greater funding certainty through fixed five to six-year funding cycles.

The road investment strategy provides a logical and credible commitment between two separate parties—the focus of the company is on delivering its operational objectives, and the focus of the Government is on providing a long-term funding stream. I know that some fear we will lose control of the reins of the company. That is why I have gone as far as I have in the framework document, the licence and the Bill. We will also of course have the monitor—the new body that will oversee the operation of the new arrangements. That is all in line with the conclusions of the Public Administration Committee’s recent report on the relationship between Government and arm’s length bodies, which said:

“Relationships should be high trust and low cost, but too often are low trust and high cost.”

On that basis, I resist amendments 5 to 42 which would remove the relevant clauses or reinsert the words “Highways Agency”.

20:30

In conclusion, the Bill will transform the quality of our roads infrastructure, secure delivery, drive growth and provide the network operator with the stability needed to deliver a better service for those who rely on and use our roads, as well as generating £2.6 billion over 10 years in additional savings. These changes will provide certainty for the industry and help it to get ready for the significant increases in investment over the next few years, with the confidence to recruit and train skilled workers. That confidence will mean that suppliers can build capability for the future and sign longer-term contracts with a new company at reduced cost to the taxpayer.

In short, these changes will lead us towards the effective, long-term planning and development of the world-class national road infrastructure that road users deserve. In that spirit and with that confidence, bold, but humble—because, as I said, we must listen and learn through the process of scrutiny—I am proud to commend the Government’s new clauses and ask that the other amendments, which would create a very different model, be withdrawn.

[Richard Burden]

Time is clearly short, so I will be as brief as I can be in having to cover a wide range of amendments and issues.

The Minister began by mentioning the walking and cycling issues covered by the amendments and new clauses. For too long, walking and cycling have been an afterthought in transport policy, given attention only when the end of the list is reached and the tick needs to be put in the box. There is now widespread consensus on the need for change. Getting more people walking and cycling will improve our nation’s health, tackle congestion and make our towns and cities better places to live.

We lag behind many other countries. Just 2% of overall journeys are made by bike and walking levels continue to decline. Some 64% of all journeys are made by car, but more than half of them are shorter than five miles, with a fifth being under a mile. We need to move walking and cycling to the mainstream of transport policy. We raised that point time after time in the other place and in Committee. In the other place, Labour secured an explicit consideration of pedestrian and cyclist safety in the Bill, and that is to be welcomed. In Committee, we pressed the Government to include a long-term strategy and funding for active travel, but sadly they voted against our plans. One always welcomes a sinner who repents, but if that was the Government’s intention all along, why did they oppose our amendments in Committee?

The Government’s change of course is a credit to the cross-party members of the all-party cycling group; to cycling groups such as British Cycling and the CTC; to transport campaigners such as Living Streets, Sustrans, the Campaign for Better Transport and the Campaign to Protect Rural England; and the Richmond group of health charities. They have all put the right kind of pressure on in the past two weeks to secure this change, which we welcome.

The new clauses and amendments tabled by the Minister are almost identical to those tabled earlier, with the exception that the original contained an explicit obligation on the Secretary of State to “comply” with the strategy. The absence of that word may not mean anything significant, but perhaps that could be clarified.

The Bill will turn the Highways Agency into a wholly owned Government company. We support road investment strategies to give the roads sector the same funding certainty as the railways, to enable efficiency savings to be delivered in the supply chain and to improve infrastructure planning. Most reviews of the Highways Agency—most recently the Cook review of 2011—have shown that the ending of stop-start Government funding could cut costs on the strategic road network, construction maintenance and management by 15% to 20%. We support that, but we will continue to ask the Government why we need a top-down reorganisation of the Highways Agency to deliver that strategy.

We have still not had the evidence for that. The only real evidence I have seen is an EC Harris paper in 2009, which found that motorway construction costs were higher per lane kilometre in the UK than in Holland, where the road operator is at arm’s length. If we look closely, however, we see that the additional costs in the UK were from CCTV, speed enforcement and vehicle recovery services, which are funded separately under the Dutch model. The additional costs also come from higher technical standards for pavements and structures, more complex ground conditions, design solutions and drainage provisions. Therefore, there is not the evidence to say that the Government need to have that top-down reorganisation. We are not convinced. We have debated this and scrutinised it in two Houses of Parliament, but there is no substantial evidence to prove that an institutional reorganisation, with estimated transitional costs of £100 million, is needed. That is why we will be moving to delete the clauses from the Bill today, while maintaining a commitment to the road investment strategy.

The Minister touched on accountability. I welcome the changes and amendments he has made. There are still some pretty fundamental questions, however, about primary accountability and responsibility. We cannot allow the Secretary of State to become a third party commentator on the performance of a company and the state of the road network: he must be answerable for it. The Minister has said that he completely signs up to that and I believe that that is his intention, but if so why are we having to debate a structure that separates responsibility for the road network from ministerial responsibility? In the absence of any real evidence to prove that this is needed, is it any surprise that many people are worried that this could become—not now, but in the future—a way of creating an increasingly contracted out, carved out and removed from public control structure? That is causing concern from organisations as diverse as the Public and Commercial Services Union, Prospect and the Alliance of British Drivers, right the way through to members of the British Chambers of Commerce. Our amendment would keep the oversight mechanisms of a monitor and road user watchdog in place, even if we did not go ahead with the reform of the Highways Agency.

The Minister talked about route strategies. He was right to do so, as they have been a major part of the discussion in Committee and elsewhere. Our concern is that, while reform and investment in the strategic highway network is absolutely necessary, we have to remember that the changes and the whole Bill affect just 2% of roads. The Department for Transport’s own research shows that 90% of the public are satisfied with those roads. That is not to say that there should be any complacency, but it does not affect the 98% of local roads that people rely on every day. It is here that we see the pothole epidemic, and it is here that we see record public dissatisfaction and congestion levels estimated to rise by 61% by 2040, so it is crucial that strategic road plans support city, county and regional growth plans and help councils to improve road conditions and to tackle congestion. Strategic roads must be co-planned with local networks and other transport modes so that we can really improve people’s everyday journeys and reduce traffic congestion.

I am pleased that pressure from Labour and transport campaigners has secured a greater priority for local roads and joined-up transport thinking in the Bill, and I thank the Minister for the movements he has made, but we need to go further. We need to get our entire transport system working as a connected whole. That is why we want Network Rail and the new company to sit down and map and plan road and rail routes together, and not only to take reasonable account of each other’s views. We want to ensure that local authorities and devolved bodies are represented at board level in the company, too. There are long-running difficulties in joining up local and strategic roads to get the network moving as one. We do not agree that “considering” local views and allowing local authorities to align their plans with a company is enough.

For that reason, our amendment 43 sets out some safeguards to ensure that the road investment strategy is a genuine co-product of plans with other transport networks, devolved growth plans and local transport provision, including walking and cycling, and to ensure that the road investment strategy is developed in consideration of the condition of local roads, a third of which, we know, are in urgent need of attention. Under the Government’s plans, £1.4 million per mile will be spent on the maintenance of strategic roads, but only £31,700 per mile is allocated to local roads. I hope that hon. Members will seriously consider the safeguards that we have argued for and which have been supported by the Local Government Association and others today.

Throughout this debate, it has been clear that infrastructure must be planned to meet clear economic, social and environmental objectives, but we have seen from previous debates on energy and planning that the Bill has often fallen far short of doing that. Along with groups such as the Campaign for Better Transport and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, therefore, we have pressed for obligations to ensure that strategic roads investment improves our environment. That means action to meet legally binding climate change targets by 2050. Worryingly, the Department’s forecast predicts that although road traffic emissions will flatten they will then start to increase in the 2030s. We need urgent action, therefore, to tackle air pollution, which is estimated to be killing up to 29,000 people prematurely each year, and vehicle emissions, such as particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, which are major sources of the problem.

The road investment strategy states that the new company should make progress towards reducing the negative impacts on air quality, but in the light of the Government’s record on air quality that is not very reassuring—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) alluded earlier. The UK is not compliant with EU limits on air pollution now. In November, the European Court of Justice said that urgent action was needed, but under this Government’s plan we will not be compliant until 2030, and that simply is not good enough. That is why we are asking for much greater action than is in the Bill; why we have committed to a national framework of low-emission zones to help local authorities tackle the problem; and why we are pleased to support amendment 70, which my hon. Friend tabled, and which would add an explicit obligation on the new company to address air quality issues.

I wish to say a word about transfers—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will want to say something about this as well. I welcome the Minister’s assurances in Committee that the terms and conditions of employees transferring will not diminish—I believe he meant it, and it was good he met the trade unions—but, as my hon. Friend said, one issue remains: if the TUPE regulations, or the mechanisms used to apply them in other reorganisations, are to apply, why has that not been enshrined in the Bill? As the Bill continues its passage, I hope that those issues will be addressed further, and I welcome the Minister’s clarification today that he will come back to us on the question of constructive dismissal, on which the Bill does not currently make sense.

The road reforms could have done so much more to fix Britain’s roads. A constituent of mine wrote to me last week:

“I have major concerns about the ill thought out proposals which will do nothing to assist the UK economically and will be of great concern to road users.”

I think a lot of people would agree with that. We need to ensure that infrastructure decisions are based on national independent evidence-based assessments, which could be done if we set up the national infrastructure commission; we need to facilitate more efficient joint road and rail planning, which could have been done had our amendments been accepted; and we need to join up local and strategic roads to get the whole network moving. Unfortunately, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. Its centrepiece, before all the others things were added, was another top-down reorganisation that cannot deliver the changes our road network needs.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate ends in 16 minutes, because the knife will fall at 9 o’clock, so it would be helpful if each Member spoke briefly to enable everyone to make their points. We will start voting at 9 o’clock.

20:44

[Guy Opperman]

It has been a long struggle for many of us, and I congratulate hon. Members of all parties on instituting, bringing forward and finally getting Government agreement on the cycling strategy, which I shall briefly address.

We have spoken in various debates over many years to get where we are, but as with all the best cycling strategies, if we stick at it and power on through, the destination is always worth the journey. I congratulate the various cycling groups behind the campaign. Speaking as someone who cycles to work here in Westminster and at home in the great county of Northumberland, I say that whether it be off road in Kielder or taking the highways and the byways, this is without a shadow of a doubt one of our finest assets.

This decision by the Government, and the reaching of cross-party agreement on it, will definitely be welcomed in Northumberland. There is a tremendous desire there for a cycling strategy. We have looked enviously at the city of Newcastle, which has enjoyed £6 million to £7 million of cycling investment. That is wonderful for Newcastle, but has been somewhat to the disadvantage of us in Northumberland. While we now have an integrated strategy, I genuinely feel that there is an opportunity for our constituents to get the cycling strategy that they so enthusiastically require.

Locals have already prepared strategies for Hexham, Prudhoe and other towns in Tynedale and Castle Morpeth. I am pleased to say that Northumberland county council has at last got into gear, and it needs to pitch to the Government for the funding; otherwise the cycling groups in my area will definitely be disappointed and potentially left behind. That is not something that anybody wants.

Let me finish by saying that I do not believe we can improve tourism without a cycling strategy; I do not think we can improve our health, the obesity problem and pollution without a cycling strategy; I do not believe we can improve the cost of living that is an issue for so many people without a cycling strategy; and I certainly think we could do great things to improve the quality of life if we had such a strategy.

[Joan Walley]

Everyone is aware that the Environmental Audit Committee has now drawn up three reports on air quality. We came up with a series of recommendations, clearly showing that there is no one single solution to the problem of improving air quality and that we need a raft of measures. Cycling and walking are certainly part of that, and I am very pleased with the progress that has been made. It is imperative for the Minister to do exactly what he said he would do, and give further serious consideration to the amendments tabled, following the Environmental Audit Committee discussions, about how placing a legal duty on the new Highways Agency is critical if we are to deal with the public health issues.

I see the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Select Committee, in her place. The whole House is aware that we have something in the order of 29,000 premature deaths a year. We know that air pollution is an invisible killer. It is vital that when the new agency comes to do its work, it does not just look at the environmental appraisal, but ensure that it has real teeth. We need real ways to plan roads and provide green walls to help reduce pollution, and to look at layout and public transport integration. The whole integrated approach to public transport needs to be taken on board. Without the legal commitment, which I hope will come forward in the other place, we cannot begin to tackle the problem of our being in breach of EU regulations. We must deal urgently with that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for saying that he would support amendment 70. At this stage, it is incumbent on us to see what progress can be made by the Government in the other place.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the cycling and walking strategy. It is not just a cycling and walking strategy; it is a cycling and walking investment strategy. As the Minister knows, good cycling infrastructure does not happen without that vital investment. I am particularly pleased to see the words “certainty” and “stability” in new clause 13. That is what it is all about, and it is how Holland achieved its objectives. It makes it appropriate for the Minister to be the Member for South Holland and the Deepings. Holland achieved its goals by having £24 a head of stable, long-term investment. If we can get that level of investment—£10 to £20 a head has been called for in the all-party cycling group—we can do the same. I pay tribute to all my colleagues in the all-party cycling group for the work they did, and I commend the cycling report. I warmly welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue with the Minister responsible for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place.

I think that we can expect an increase in the number of cycling journeys from 2% in 2011 to 10% within a decade, which will have enormous benefits for health. I hope there will be investment in not just infrastructure but training, and that cycle to work schemes will, in some form, be extended to young people. I warmly thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clause, and look forward to seeing the health and well-being of the nation improve as a result.

[John McDonnell]

On Second Reading I echoed the fear that had been expressed by Highways Agency staff that this was the first stage of a privatisation process. Since then, the Minister has written to various Members saying that the Bill will not privatise the agency or any part of it. It is true that the Bill contains no such provision, but the staff nevertheless feel that they are being packaged up into an organisation and that the second stage will be privatisation, along with tolling.

The Minister has also given an assurance that the roads investment strategy budget will no longer be annualised, but the chief executive has made clear to staff that the revenue budget for the maintenance of the new company will be annualised. Staff fear cuts and the prospect of being transferred to a company that will be privatised in due course.

It is crucial for committed, dedicated professionals who, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), have done everything asked of them by this and the last Government over the years to be secure in the knowledge that they will have a job following the transfer. Both Governments have normally provided that assurance by including a reference to TUPE in legislation. In some instances, however, that may not be appropriate.

TUPE usually obtains when a group of staff have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector. When the transfer is between Government agencies, or from the Government to an agency, a formal agreement called COSOP operates. It was initiated by the last Government, and has been confirmed by this one, and it is negotiated and signed off by the Cabinet Office. My amendment 127 provides that

“if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer”

the transfer scheme may

“make provision which is the same or similar.”

There is real anxiety about the fact that the form of words used by the Government does not include such a provision, and hence does not abide by the agreement reached by them and by the last Government with the trade unions.

Amendment 115 refers to

“all the rights and liabilities relating to the person’s contract of employment.”

The transfer of undertakings extends beyond the basic contract of employment to a range of other assurances that should be given to staff on transfer. That is why people are worried, and I feel that we will lose some very dedicated professional staff as a result of the lack of commitment that is being given to the staff who have served us so well. I urge the Minister to reconsider, and to translate into the Bill a form of words that has been used in every other Bill, relating either to TUPE or to similar arrangements. If he does not do so, the staff will remain anxious and concerned.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak at the end of the debate, and to see the new clause make progress.

As I think the House knows by now, the case for cycling and walking is incredibly strong. It is a great way to travel. It is environmentally friendly, healthy, reliable, cheap and fun. It cuts congestion, so that everyone else benefits as well. It boosts the economy, it saves money and it saves lives. Public Health England recently said that one in six deaths was due to physical inactivity. What we do to promote physical activity helps people to improve their health.

The all-party parliamentary cycling group set some targets during the Get Britain Cycling inquiry. If we achieved those targets, about 80,000 disability-adjusted life years would be saved each year by 2025. That is a huge number. When mental as well as physical health is taken into account, the financial savings would amount to between £2 billion and £6 billion, and the national health service would save £17 billion a year if we could reach the Dutch and Danish levels. That is worth investing in. That will save money as well as lives.

The case is strong, and that is why in our report we called for spending of up to £10—heading towards £20—per person per year. The report was supported not only by all the cycling organisations, of course, and by Living Streets, a pedestrian group, but by organisations such as the Automobile Association. All forms of transport want to see this happen, and business does, too. The director general of the CBI has called for a major effort to expand the dedicated cycle network, and it is very good that the Government have agreed and are doing the right thing by supporting this amendment. I thank the Minister with responsibility for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), in particular. I remember when the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and I tried to talk to him, and I am glad he has managed to deliver on what he knows is the right thing.

This amendment has been backed not only by the cycling organisations, but by health organisations—all of them, ranging from the British Heart Foundation to Age UK, to Macmillan, and to Rethink Mental Illness. This is clearly a popular thing to do, therefore.

This Government have made progress on the policy on cycling and walking. We have seen more money go in to this policy than ever before, and I welcome that. The £241 million from the Deputy Prime Minister is the largest single investment in cycling, but it goes nowhere near far enough. To get the benefits I spoke about, we must have the money going in. This strategy says there has to be some, but it does not say how much. My party is committed to the £10 per person per year that was agreed by this House and the cross-party group. It would also be something we would enshrine as part of our green transport Act.

I would love to see the other parties join in. I know that Back Benchers on both sides of the House are supportive, but I also know that the Front Benches on both sides are against this—or at least they have been so far. At the beginning of this year we saw an awful spat with the Conservatives putting out something saying that Labour is going to spend £63 million on cycling, as though that was too much. Unfortunately, we saw Labour respond by saying that that was nonsense and that Labour was not committed to spending any money on cycling. I hope both Front Benches will fix that, because I know their Back Benchers would like to see that happen. I know the shadow Minister was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for not committing any money to cycling. I hope both sides and all parties will join us in committing to cycling and walking, because it is not enough to have a strategy; we have to put the resources in and we have to make sure they are available. We can do that and we should do it, and it is something this House has voted for. I hope it will become a reality in the next few months and after the general election as well.

[Mr Hayes]

I will address matters in reverse order to add excitement. On cycling and spending, I said at the outset, but repeat for the sake of clarity, that this Government have committed to spend £374 million between 2011 and 2015. We have more than doubled spending on cycling compared with the last four years of the previous Government. As I said, about £6 per person each year across England and £10 per person in London is being spent as part of cycle city ambition. Of course we understand that the strategies have to be funded and that money matters, and the Government put their money where their mouth is.

On the circumstances of staff, let me be absolutely crystal clear once again that it is not our intention to disadvantage staff. Far from it. I want to ensure that they are treated properly and fairly in their terms and conditions and all that that means. There is no hidden agenda, despite what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) says; there is nothing under the bed that he should fear. The plan is to be absolutely straightforward, transparent and fair to all those staff transferring from the existing organisation to the new one. I have already said I will come back to the shadow Minister on the particular point he raised in his intervention.

Finally, we do believe a new body is necessary. This new strategy requires a structural change in the way the strategy is delivered. This is a complex argument, but I will try to make it as cogently as I can in less than a minute. It is probably true to say that the existing Highways Agency is too close to Government and too far away from Government. The new arrangements, with the framework, the licence and the statutory requirements to be put in place under this Bill, mean that this new body will be close to Government but far enough away to deliver the Government’s objectives. That is our proposal. I think it has force. It has been widely welcomed and I hope the Opposition will come to the view that most others have: that this is an idea whose time has come.

21:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 17

Route strategies

“(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time direct a strategic highways company to prepare proposals for the management and development of particular highways in respect of which the company is appointed (“a route strategy”).

(2) A route strategy must relate to such period as the Secretary of State may direct.

(3) The strategic highways company must—

(a) comply with a direction given to it under subsection (1), and

(b) publish the route strategy in such manner as the company considers appropriate.

(4) A direction under subsection (1) must be published by the Secretary of State in such manner as he or she considers appropriate.”—(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment inserts a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to direct a strategic highways company to prepare route strategies. The company must comply with such a direction and publish route strategies in such manner as it considers appropriate.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Periodic reports by the Secretary of State

“(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time prepare and publish reports on the manner in which a strategic highways company exercises its functions.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report prepared under subsection (1) before Parliament.”—(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish reports on the exercise by a strategic highways company of its functions.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 4, page 1, line 4, leave out clauses 1 and 2.—(Richard Burden.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:00

Division 142

Ayes: 203

---

Labour: 198
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 323

---

Conservative: 276
Liberal Democrat: 42
Democratic Unionist Party: 4

Clause 9

Monitor

Amendments made: 112, page 6, line 28, at end insert “, and

(c) the effect of directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State to a strategic highways company under this Part.”

This amendment provides that the activities of the Office of Rail Regulation may include investigating, publishing reports or giving advice on the effect of directions and guidance under Part 1 of the Bill.

Amendment 113, page 6, line 42, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must lay a report published by the Office under this section before Parliament.”

This amendment provides a duty for the Secretary of State to lay a report published by the Office of Rail Regulation before Parliament.

Amendment 114, page 6, line 42, at end insert—

‘(9) In Part 2 (Office of Rail Regulation) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, after section 15 insert—

“15A Change of name

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the body established by section 15 to be known by a different name.

(2) Regulations under this section may amend this Act or any other enactment, whenever passed or made.

(3) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument which contains regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”’—(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment inserts a new section 15A into the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 which provides for the Secretary of State to change the name of the Office of Rail Regulation by regulations. The regulations may also make amendments to legislation which are consequential on the name change.

Clause 51

Extent

Amendment made: 94, page 57, line 45, at end insert—

‘( ) Part 1A (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies) extends to England and Wales only.”—(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment provides for the new clause relating to Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies, which it is intended will form a new Part after Part 1, to extend to England and Wales only.

Clause 52

Commencement

Amendment made: 101, page 58, line 32, at end insert—

“( ) Part 1A (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations.”—(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment provides for the new clause relating to Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies, which it is intended will form a new Part after Part 1, to come into force by regulations.

Schedule 3

Transfer schemes

Amendments made: 115, page 92, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) Where in accordance with a scheme a person employed by a transferor becomes an employee of a transferee, the scheme must provide for the transfer of all the rights and liabilities relating to the person’s contract of employment.”

This amendment requires a transfer scheme to provide for the transfer to the transferee of all of the transferor’s rights and liabilities relating to a person’s contract of employment, where the person becomes employed by the transferee as a result of the scheme.

Amendment 116, page 92, line 19, at end insert—

“(3A) No damages are payable by virtue of a constructive dismissal occurring under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of unpaid wages relating to a notice period which the employee has not worked.”—(Mr Hayes.)

This amendment provides that, where a transferred employee claims constructive dismissal as a result of a substantial detrimental change made to the employee’s working conditions, no damages are payable in respect of any unpaid wages relating to a notice period which the employee has not worked.

Title

Amendment made: 108, line 15, leave out

“to make provision about the electronic communications code;”. —(Mr Hayes.)

The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this amendment.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

21:13

[Mr Hayes]

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

This is a Bill for the long term. As I said on Second Reading, Governments of all persuasions neglect the long term. Perhaps that is only human—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Perhaps Members leaving the Chamber could do so quietly. Secretary of State, that means you as well—we want to hear your eloquent Minister move the Third Reading.

[Mr Hayes]

It is bewildering, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Members do not want to stay and hang on my every word. It is bizarre. I know you agree.

On Second Reading, we said the Government were determined to put in place a strategy, backed by statutory changes, that allowed us to invest in this nation’s future. I was about to say that it is only human nature to focus on the immediate, on the imminent. It is easy to forget that the present is an illusion, as now becomes then in an instant; it is the past that matters and the future. As I said a few moments ago when we were debating the Government amendments, it is easy for Governments to neglect infrastructure investment for just that reason. This Bill looks beyond short-term political expediency to a future of greater investment—a future of more jobs, more opportunities and more growth. This Bill improves the funding and management of our major roads, streamlining the planning process, particularly for major projects, and so facilitating investment. It also supports house building; introduces rights for communities to buy a stake in new, commercial renewable electricity schemes; boosts our energy security and economic growth by making the most of North sea oil and gas reserves; and facilitates shale gas and geothermal development. This is a bold Bill, introduced by a far-sighted Administration.

A few moments ago, we debated some of the measures we will introduce to act on the road investment strategy—the exciting strategy I was delighted to be part of, alongside the Secretary of State for Transport, who is here, adding glamour and insight to our consideration today. He was its architect and under his stewardship it has come to pass. This is the most exciting road investment strategy for a generation, and this Bill makes the statutory changes necessary to deliver it. We have committed to Highways England remaining in the public sector. Let me repeat that this is not about privatisation; it is about a public sector organisation fit for purpose. We will not diminish the fundamental accountability to parliamentarians, which I am so keen will allow us to gauge, monitor and, if necessary, alter things over time, but without compromising the essential role of the new body to deliver the plans we have set in motion.

In addition, as the House knows, we have amended the legislation further to ensure better integration between local and national networks through route strategies. As has been celebrated throughout the House this evening, we have also committed to setting and reporting upon a cycling and walking investment strategy, acknowledging the strategic importance of those things for the first time. We have had more tributes tonight than a ’60s pop band for that change. In total, this paradigm shift to a longer-term vision for transport infrastructure will give the construction industry the certainty and confidence it needs to invest in people and skills for the future. That clear vision, with the confidence it breeds and the investment it will bring, is crucial to the health and well-being of our nation.

In planning we have a number of measures designed to help get Britain building. The Bill makes changes to speed up the approval of nationally significant infrastructure projects and to the discharge of planning conditions that will ensure planning applicants can get on and build without unnecessary delay. The small changes in the Bill will have an important cumulative impact: they will send a clear message to investors and developers that the steps to deliver these transformational schemes are as simple, sensible and straightforward as possible. We have responded to concerns and shared the draft statutory instrument on deemed discharge in advance. Our Land Registry reforms will enable proper record keeping and modern digital efficiency, with the aim of making dealings with property quicker, cheaper and easier.

On zero-carbon homes, the “allowable solutions” approach is cost-effective and practical, and it has been welcomed by the Home Builders Federation, the UK Green Building Council and Federation of Master Builders. We have also introduced new legislation related to planning. The abolition of the Public Works Loans Board removes—

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the issue of planning, may I ask him about new clauses 12 and 20, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert)? Obviously, there was no possibility for a Minister to respond to the points he and I made on those clauses, but if the Minister has a moment to say a word or two on them, I am sure my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield would be grateful.

[Mr Hayes]

I am delighted to amplify the remarks that I made in an earlier intervention and say that we do take very seriously the remarks made by my right hon. Friend and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). We will take the necessary steps to ensure that the spirit that underpinned those amendments is realised in respect of Government policy. I must say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has been a doughty champion of the interests of the people in his constituency in this regard. He is right that development needs to enjoy community support, to be proportionate and, in my judgment, to inspire and to elevate. Is that too much to ask for in our age? I say that it is not.

The introduction of mayoral development orders will allow the Mayor of London to assist local authorities to regenerate London. Across the nation, these planning reforms will help kick-start a new era of construction that is fit for purpose.

Tonight, we have also debated energy. Some of the measures that we have introduced are designed to assist our current and future energy needs. We will take a lead in improving global transparency in the extractive sector by participating in the extractive industries transparency initiative. Our country has an enviable record on the regulation of extractive industries. We have listened carefully to concerns about new forms of extraction and have put in place additional measures to reassure Members across the House. The House will have seen tonight that, because we are sensitive to those concerns, because we are responsive to arguments, and because we listen and learn, we will take on board the perfectly proper considerations of those who are as determined as we are to ensure that these things are done safely and securely and in tune with local interests.

[Mark Menzies]

As a Minister, my right hon. Friend has genuinely listened to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House. I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Government for taking on board some of the issues that I have raised, particularly in allowing the British Geological Survey to play a role, thereby ensuring closer, independent monitoring, which is very important for me in Fylde. Will he give me an assurance that this is not the end but a continuum of the process and that we will continue to see calls for rigorous on-the-ground inspections delivered by this Government?

[Mr Hayes]

This is an iterative business. No one has made the case more forcefully for their constituents than my hon. Friend. I was pleased to visit Fylde with him to look at these matters in some detail. He has worked tirelessly throughout this Parliament to represent the views of his constituents and to improve shale gas regulation. I commit to working with him to ensure that we take further the matters that he has raised.

That determination means that we will issue statutory direction to the Environment Agency on a minimum of three months baseline monitoring—that was an issue raised by the shadow Front-Bench team when we debated the matter in Committee. We will publish information on chemicals that the agency requires operators to disclose; require operators to monitor and report fugitive emissions for each onshore hydraulic fracturing site; and issue statutory direction to the Health and Safety Executive to ensure independent well inspection and public reporting for each onshore oil and well. The industry has committed to produce an annual report of shale sites and an environmental impact assessment.

We will seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change on the likely impact on carbon budgets and report each carbon budget period on the conclusions reached as a result of the advice given. Making water companies statutory consultees in respect of planning applications for shale oil and gas development via secondary legislation in this Parliament, subject to consultation, will also form part of our determined effort to ensure that these things are done properly, safely and securely. We have introduced new legislation to help with the sharing of costs for connecting to the electricity distribution network and to help strengthen competition in the connections market.

This Bill has been broadly welcomed by Members across the House. As I said earlier, Opposition Front-Bench Members have scrutinised the Bill in a mature and measured way because they understand, as we do, that infrastructure investment is about not a single Government or a single party but the future of our nation. Of course there are debates to be had, differences to be aired and arguments to be made, and of course scrutiny should improve and enhance thinking, and that is precisely what has happened in relation to this Bill. I am grateful for the conciliatory approach to the scrutiny of this Bill. Even when we have disagreed, it has been in a considered way. I therefore thank the Opposition Front-Bench team—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods)— for their challenge and understanding.

I wish to express my deepest thanks to my fellow Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for their constant hard work throughout Committee and again in the House today. That work is not just about what happens on the Floor of the House or in Committee; it is about the dialogue that takes place outside the Chamber to ensure that we get the provisions right, and my hon. Friends have played a full part in that dialogue with Members from all parts of the House.

During the passage of the Bill my colleagues and I have listened carefully, and where appropriate we have changed or added to its detailed provisions, but on its fundamental purpose we have stood firm, because we are absolutely convinced of the necessity of a step change in the way we approach infrastructural investment, its planning and delivery. This Government, with this Bill, confirm their courage and their willingness to put long-term thinking before short-term expediency. This Government, with this Bill, corroborate their confidence and their confident vision of a bold, ambitious nation.

Governments are of two types: timid and reactive, or bold and proactive. Politics needs to be confident. In the words of the great Conservative philosopher Edmund Burke—the Opposition will be delighted that I am ending with Edmund Burke—

“When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.”

This Government are ambitious not for themselves, but for Britain; not just for now, but for the future; not for piecemeal advantage, but for the people’s well-being, for the common good, in the national interest, driven by virtue, gauged by our determined successes, inspired by the people’s will. This is a Bill of which to be proud, a Minister honoured to articulate its strength, and a Government marking their place in history.

21:26

[Richard Burden]

Toward the end of his remarks, the Minister praised members of the Bill Committee and adopted a consensual approach, so perhaps I shall start in the same vein. I, too, thank all those who have contributed to debate on the Bill as it has gone through its various stages. In particular, I add my thanks to Labour’s team in the other place for the improvements they sought, and in some cases secured, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), with whom I led for the Opposition in Committee and again today.

I also thank all members of the Committee on both sides who scrutinised the Bill, but two in particular: my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). For both, this will have been their last Bill Committee, I suspect, unless they do something dreadfully wrong in the next few weeks. Both have given great service to the House. In fact, when we were both new in this place, the first Bill Committee I served on was also my hon. Friend’s first Bill Committee, so it is great that we have shared his last.

Finally, I thank the Minister and his colleagues, and all those who have contributed to today’s debate. We all know that infrastructure is critical to the UK’s future, from affordable energy in our homes to a modern communications system, or a transport system connecting people to jobs, opportunities and each other. Good infrastructure is vital to our economy and our quality of life. That is why it was so important to give the Bill the thorough scrutiny that it deserved. Given its wide-ranging nature, it should have had more than one day for Report and Third Reading; the way debates today have been truncated underlines that fact.

It is of course even more wide-ranging than what the Library briefing described as a “portmanteau Bill”, when it was introduced in this place. The Bill has had a new long title, and it has two more parts and many more clauses than when it was introduced. It ranges from the abolition of the somewhat mysterious Public Works Loan Board commissioners to invasive non-native species to the British Transport police, and everything in between.

Constructive criticism has strengthened the Bill, ensuring that a rushed and badly drafted reform of the electronic communications code governing mobile telephone infrastructure will be rethought. We have new requirements to support apprenticeships and training in road construction, and we have a walking and cycling strategy which is welcome and must be built on. Important actions that will follow from the Bill include the Wood review, whose implementation will be vital. If we needed reminding of that, the current situation in the North sea is such a reminder. In a victory for wildlife groups, communities in Devon and Scotland and the Opposition, we have protected the European beaver.

For making some of those changes and changes in other areas, including some of the roads clauses, I pay tribute to the Minister for the way that he has approached these matters. We still disagree on some key points, particularly on converting the Highways Agency into a Government-owned company, but he understands the need for scrutiny of Bills and he has made changes to the Bill in response to issues that we and others have raised. That shows how legislation can be approached. Sadly, that is the part of proceedings in this place that the public all too seldom see.

However, as we approached today’s debate, some things went badly wrong, starting with the timetable and the fact that we had only one day on Report. We have seen far too many last-minute changes to the Bill and things being tagged on without time for parliamentary scrutiny, despite the Minister’s best efforts. We saw it in the rushed electronic communications code, which ended up pleasing nobody and had to be rethought. It was not in the Bill in the other place; it came in more than halfway through the Committee stage and had to be withdrawn today. It was not necessary for that to happen. The issue should have been approached in a more measured way.

In relation to new regulations regarding planning and pubs, we tabled a thought-through amendment, but the response was a last-minute rushed statement to try to head off that amendment, instead of Ministers looking at what was being said, responding to that and enshrining it in the Bill. Most notable today has been the issue of shale gas extraction. I am pleased that the Government accepted our new clause 19, which introduces 13 conditions as vital protection if shale gas extraction is to be taken forward. The matter should not have had to be resolved today at the last minute with the Government finally accepting an Opposition amendment, presumably because they thought they would lose unless they did so. These issues have been raised in Committee and elsewhere, and they could have been resolved elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West has been raising them for three years. We now know that new clause 19 has been accepted and I welcome that.

I have to say to the Government that one or two comments made today suggested that although new clause 19 was being accepted today, when the Bill went back to the other place, there could be attempts to tinker with it—take a bit out here, put a bit in there. If the Government go down that road, they will be asking for trouble. That new clause was thought through. It is a package, not a pick and mix. I hope the Government will respect that as we go forward.

As the Opposition have continued to state throughout proceedings on the Bill, we face major infrastructure challenges—a population rising to 73 million in just 20 years’ time, the challenges of energy security, a chronic shortage of affordable housing, airports, roads and railways all straining under demand, and the threat that climate change presents to us all. There is a cross-party consensus on the need to address these issues, but all too often decisions are not taken, public support is not achieved and projects are not delivered.

We may be one of the world’s leading economies but we lag behind other countries that take a more strategic and long-term approach to infrastructure investment. As the noble Lord Adonis said last week, infrastructure investment

“will not happen on the scale required unless it is better planned, better led and better financed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 1392.]

During the Committee stage, the Institute of Government published a booklet called “The Political Economy of Infrastructure in the UK”, which concluded that we need to change the “institutional architecture” for infrastructure decision making. Labour Members completely agree. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham called for this House to back the proposal by Sir John Armitt, chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, for a national infrastructure commission that would look three decades ahead and consult across all sectors to provide an evidence-based assessment of infrastructure priorities in the UK. Parliament would be able to vote on these, and Governments would be held accountable for delivering them.

For me, the debates on this Bill have crystallised why that kind of evidence-based approach is needed so badly, from controversy about the priorities in the road investment strategy, to disputes about rushed electronic communications regulations, to the need for robust environmental and regulatory safeguards in relation to energy security. We need a more rigorous and independent look at infrastructure needs in energy, transport, telecoms and many other sectors. It is a travesty that the Government continue to oppose such a common-sense reform, which is backed by the LSE Growth Commission, EEF, the Institution of Civil Engineers, 89% of businesses surveyed by the CBI, and many more. By establishing that commission, the Bill could have set the UK on course for the challenges of the 21st century, but it has failed to do so. The repeated failure of the Government to address these issues in a sufficiently planned-out way is not good enough.

This could all have been very different. With a shared national purpose, long-term planning, proper public engagement and cross-party support for our world-leading engineering and construction sectors, we can deliver the improvements our country’s infrastructure needs. The 2012 Olympics were a model of that kind of approach. We urgently need the same framework for decision making and planning across national infrastructure. This Bill could have delivered that, but it has not done so, and we have a Government who are not going to do so. That is why it will take a change of Government in May to deliver the change that is needed.

21:37

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The development of an electronic communications code in part 7 has been closely followed in my constituency, because all too often the standard of infrastructure in the City of London and surrounding areas as regards mobile telephone coverage and broadband lags behind that which commercial tenants nowadays expect to find in a world-leading business district. It is vitally important that this situation be improved if London is to keep up with its global rivals in established sectors and in the emerging tech industries. In particular, we cannot allow the business heart of the capital to be left behind in state-of-the-art technology such as fibre optics and 4G—and eventually 5G when that arrives.

New rights to upgrade and share communications infrastructure could play a very important part in improving that situation. Could we introduce a simpler procedure for landowners to require the removal or repositioning of equipment, where necessary, in order to enable redevelopment to proceed? That might sound counter-intuitive, but at present, especially in areas such as the City of London with very high rates of development, there is a strong incentive for landowners to resist the installation of equipment such as telephone masts in the first place if they fear that the presence of that equipment will obstruct future redevelopment of the site.

I entirely understand the reaction by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), to the late tabling of amendments dealing with the communications code, now removed by amendment 91, and the fact that further time is required to consider the new code. That is necessary; let us get the code right if we can. It is also important to ensure that the code strikes an appropriate balance between landowners and network operators, because only by so doing will it be effective in bringing about the expanded coverage that we all so desperately require. I hope, however, that the process will not take too long, and that we can move forward swiftly with the introduction of a new code, having taken account of the views expressed by industry representatives.

[Mr Hayes]

Just for clarity, the Government will move ahead with the reform of the communications code. We will begin a full consultation in the next few weeks, with a view to bringing forward draft legislation, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend gave: to ensure that we have the agreement of all those who are most directly involved or affected and to ensure that there is agreement across the House.

[Mark Field]

I am very encouraged by the Minister’s words and I know that that will be true of many of my commercial constituents, as it were.

I ask the Government to consider two other things as this important work continues. The first is the position of infrastructure that has been installed before the new code comes into force, whenever that is. As I understand it, the new rules will not apply automatically to such dated infrastructure. Although I understand the reluctance of the Government to interfere in pre-existing legal relationships, I suggest that it would be beneficial to find some means of encouraging existing infrastructure to be brought under the new code as swiftly as possible.

Secondly, there are numerous cases in the City of London in which lengthy wrangling between freeholders and network operators over the terms and conditions for the grant of the necessary consents has delayed the installation of mobile masts or broadband facilities by several months. In the most serious instances, that has prevented business tenants from taking possession of new offices on time or forced businesses to occupy new office space with no functioning communications. Naturally, this is principally a matter of negotiation between private parties, and I would not expect any Government to interfere in such issues, so there are rightly limits to the extent to which they can furnish a solution.

However, when the Bill is enacted, there will be an opportunity under the code for the relevant industry bodies, which have been referred to, to encourage the adoption of model terms and conditions to deal with the issue. Although that is not a complete answer, it would be a constructive step and I hope that it is taken. The City of London corporation has held positive meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the matter and will be looking to provide further support where possible, potentially in conjunction with the Greater London authority.

I have spoken before in this House about the need to ensure that adequate investment in the electricity distribution network can be made to meet tomorrow’s demand for new connections, without imposing unreasonable costs on today’s consumers. This is not the occasion to delve into the intricacies of the matter. Suffice it to say that the need for action is increasingly pressing. In relation to my constituency, I am aware that the Government are working with interested parties such as Ofgem, UK Power Networks, the Greater London authority and the City of London corporation with a view to developing new models that might enable the necessary upfront investment to be delivered, with the costs being recouped from customers over time as new connections are made. It is not yet clear whether the amendments that were made in Committee to extend the second-comer rules to independent connection providers will prove directly relevant to that work, but if so, they are to be welcomed.

In conclusion, I commend the Government for the attention they have given to this important matter in part 7. I urge them to continue that focus to ensure that we get it right. As with telecommunications as a whole, this is a crucial, bread-and-butter issue when it comes to London’s future competitiveness as a commercial centre.

21:39

[Mr Weir]

Having heard the honeyed tones in which the Minister opened the debate for the Government, I feel a bit guilty about having to say that I still have severe reservations about parts of the Bill.

Not all the Bill applies to Scotland, but the main part of it that does is on energy. It is a great shame, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, that we had so little time to debate those issues today. We had serious concerns about some of them, but we were not given the opportunity to debate them fully. However, that is the way it goes.

On Second Reading, I referred to two issues with fracking in Scotland: drilling under people’s homes without consent and the complexities in Scots law in relation to that. I am pleased that the Government have moved on those issues. I welcome the Government amendments removing Scotland, but I remain concerned that they have not taken the obvious action of moving licensing powers from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Government.

All powers relating to fracking lie with the Scottish Government, apart from the crucial power of licensing. The UK Government say that they intend to move those powers under the Smith commission proposals after the next general election, but with the best will in the world the process of getting that Bill through both Houses will take some time, and it will be some considerable time before the powers are with the Scottish Parliament.

[Tom Greatrex]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said and new clause 2 on licensing, does he agree, as I suggested earlier to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, that it would be sensible for the Government to stop the 14th licensing round in Scotland so that any new licenses may be granted after the powers have been devolved, and a Scottish Government of whatever complexion can make those decisions?

[Mr Weir]

That is one of the few things on which the hon. Gentleman and I agree. I made that exact point earlier. My concern is that, currently, there are a few existing licences, but not many. The Department of Energy and Climate Change could grant licences between the current time and when the powers are devolved. That leaves us in a dangerous situation. All powers should be in one place. I am disappointed that the Government have not done that.

That was one of the reasons why Scottish National party members supported the moratorium on fracking. I have severe doubts about fracking, but we wanted that moratorium to ensure that work can be done before the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to consider it in great detail.

In Scotland over the weekend, the Labour party was telling us that it was very keen on a moratorium, and that it was going to stop fracking. Labour Members came down here today and abstained on that proposal. We are told that Labour’s new clause 19 will stop fracking in the UK. Frankly, it will do no such thing, as the Minister rightly said. Nowhere does new clause 19 mention a moratorium. As far as I can see, it does not even apply to Scotland. Unlike Government new clause 15, which had a consequential amendment to ensure it applied to Scotland, new clause 19 had no such consequential amendment. The new clause therefore does not apply to Scotland at all.

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said that the Minister had hinted that she might change the Bill in the Lords. She was a lot clearer than that. She said definitely that the provision on the depth of the drilling would be changed in the Lords. There is no moratorium, and new clause 19 does not apply to Scotland and is likely to be changed in the Lords in any event. We have not got very far with the Bill.

I remain concerned. I accept that the Bill has improved, but on fracking I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again in the Lords about the transfer of powers. Transferring them now will close the potential difficulty, put all the powers together and allow the Scottish Parliament to take decisions in line with the wishes of the Scottish people.

21:48

[Andrew Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for his kind remarks. Unless I commit a sin that means the Whips require me to do something else in the next few weeks, this will be the last Bill I serve on in Committee. I did so voluntarily, because I take a great interest in a number of its clauses, not least the one referred to by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). I followed his remarks carefully and agreed with virtually every word he uttered. I am sure he would agree that the draft presented to the Committee last week was grossly inadequate for its purpose. He described the issues in thriving urban areas that need to move quickly to accommodate the needs of developers and the economy, as well as the changing technologies in the telecoms space. Different issues arise when it comes to rural access. Access arrangements have been far from satisfactory, but the clause—drafted in haste—has resulted in this step backwards. That is regrettable because—as was said in Committee—this is long overdue.

I will get the Minister into trouble with the Whips if I go on too much, but he is a man of such integrity that in the last general election he even invited his Labour opposite number, who was at one time my agent, to go for a coffee to discuss how their business should be conducted. That is an example of how collegiate he is. I thought that he would get into trouble with the Whips again when he praised the Secretary of State. I thought that the Minister was going to say that the Secretary of State was adding his weight to the matter, but as I am of similar girth I can get away with that remark.

The Bill has some extraordinarily important aspects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, it covers an enormous area. The House will have to come back to the telecoms code and in the interests of all parties—including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—that will need to be done sooner rather than later, but with careful engagement with all the players.

I was especially interested in the clauses relating to hydraulic fracturing. In the dim and distant past when I worked in geology, I taught students how drilling technology works. I made the point in Committee that had we been using the technology today that we were using 40 years ago I would be against hydraulic fracking, but the technologies have developed to an extraordinary degree. We do not know enough about the UK’s general environment subsurface, so a huge amount of work is needed. In Committee and in the other place, amendments were tabled on baseline monitoring, and I am pleased that the Government have started to move in the right direction. It is possible to come up with a regulatory structure that works for the communities we seek to represent and in terms of the economics of the industry. To achieve that goal, the Government will need to think carefully about some of the issues and the underlying science.

The amendment that I tabled in Committee, about peer reviewing baseline monitoring data, is acceptable to the industry. It is in the interests of the Government and the country to reach cross-party agreement so that the data that go into the public domain are fully understood and we can argue from an evidence base, which we cannot do at present. When the first pilot well was drilled in my constituency, I got only five letters about it: three were technical questions and two were letters of objection. The second one, which was handled differently by the developer, resulted in a massive number of objections and a protest camp that is very firmly in place.

It is important that this House, the industry and the regulators engage with the public, so that there is a better scientific understanding of what can be achieved with the regulatory machinery we put in place. I have no doubt that that is an achievable goal. I hope those on the Government Front Bench recognise that when they seek to develop the Bill further in the other place.

Serving on the Bill with my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench and the rest of the Labour team has been a pleasure, as has been working on this topic with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). These are hugely important issues and Parliament must get them right.

Finally, there is a message to consider. Reflecting on the way the Bill has been conducted, it is important that the next Parliament looks carefully at the process we have gone through. There are better ways to legislate and perhaps the next Parliament can learn from that. I wish the Bill well in the Lords. I want to see the robust amendments retained so that the regulatory issues raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench can be protected and enshrined in the Bill. That will enable this important industry to develop in this country with the support of the public we seek to represent.

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The animation of the House knows no bounds when the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) seeks to take to the Dispatch Box.

21:57

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I simply want to affirm the thanks offered by those on the shadow Front Bench to all members of the Committee, which I omitted to do in my opening remarks, as well as to those who have taken a leading role, if I may put it in those terms, on both sides of the House.

Bigger, better, well-funded roads; more straightforward planning; safer fracking; a cycling strategy; and we have saved the beaver. What’s not to like? The Bill deserves its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Cinemas and Films

That the draft Films (Definition of “British Film”) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 December 2014, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Income Tax

That the draft Finance Act 2004 (Registered Pension Schemes and Annual Allowance Charge) (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 9 December 2014, be approved.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Health and Safety

That the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the UK ABWR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2014, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 15 December 2014, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 7 and 8 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.

That the draft Local Audit (Smaller Authorities) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

21:59

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I seek to present a petition on behalf of residents in Cartmel and neighbouring communities concerned about road safety outside Cartmel Priory school.

The petition states:

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that current traffic safety measures on the road outside Cartmel Priory School are insufficient and pose a safety risk to pupils and local residents and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 255 individuals.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to launch an urgent strategic review of traffic safety measures in the Cartmel area and the implementation of further controls and restrictions.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.

[P001423]

22:00

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Unauthorised Traveller encampments remain a major issue in my constituency and across the wider city area of Brighton and Hove. Many constituents feel that the city council does not have a robust plan in place to move on Travellers on unauthorised sites expeditiously, and that too often the needs and wishes of the existing settled community appear to be ignored. Many of my constituents believe that the city council, after years of trying to manage the issue, should be more actively using the powers available to it. The petition has been signed by thousands of local people, and a similar online petition attracted the support of 2,000 local people.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Brighton and Hove City Council to use the powers available to them to deal promptly with unauthorised traveller encampments in the city.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

Following is the full text of the petitions:

The Petition of residents of Moulsecoomb, Woodingdean, Rottingdean & the wider Brighton area,

Declares that Brighton and Hove City Council has powers to deal with unauthorised traveller encampments; further that the Petitioners believe that the views, concerns and needs of the existing, settled community on this issue too often seem to be ignored; and further notes that sensitive sites in the city seem to be repeatedly targeted every year, costing large amounts of taxpayers’ money to clear up.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Brighton and Hove City Council to use the powers available to them to deal promptly with unauthorised traveller encampments in the city.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001429]

Pakistan (UK Support)

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

22:02

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise in Parliament the horrific, evil and brutal attack on the army public school in Peshawar last month, and the UK’s support for Pakistan in the war on terror.

While the official 40 days of mourning—chehlum—have now passed, the people of Pakistan still weep for the tragic loss of innocent lives that day. The attack claimed the lives of 134 children, as well as the many teachers who lost their lives trying to save their children. Pakistan is a courageous nation that has had to face many challenges in its short history. It worked with the international community in defeating the Russian communist threat in Afghanistan, and stood with the international community after 9/11 in the fight against global terrorism. Its citizens and armed forces continue to face the daily threat from terrorist organisations operating across the border in Afghanistan.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Given the challenges that Pakistan has faced from national and international catastrophes, such as flooding and earthquakes, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the UK, given our relationship with Pakistan, to do all we can to support it through yet another difficult time?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of our two great countries’ relationship. As vice-chairman of the all-party group on Pakistan and chairman of the all-party group on Kashmir, and having visited the country and being a passionate and strong friend to Pakistan, he recognises the importance of that relationship and knows that the UK has always stood shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan, and will continue to do so. Pakistan is fortunate to have such people as friends and advocates here in Parliament.

Pakistan lost its courageous and talented former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to an act of terror. I had the privilege of working with Ms Bhutto as an adviser from 1999 to 2007. Natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes, have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. No one can question the resilience of this brave and courageous nation. The horrific and evil act in Peshawar has united the country and its political parties to come together in the national interest to defeat these evil organisations, with the country’s brave armed forces taking the fight to the terrorists.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I know that, like me, he went to the Pakistani high commission soon after this dreadful attack to sign the book of condolence and express our sorrow at this tragedy. Will he join me in paying tribute to organisations across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom that organised their own books of condolence, vigils and fund-raising events for the victims—including the Burnley and Pendle friends league that organised an event I attended at the people’s centre in Brierfield?

[Rehman Chishti]

Yes, it is a privilege and a pleasure to do that. I know that my hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party group on Pakistan, has done everything he possibly can to build the relationship between our two great countries. I know that the former high commissioner, who I see in the Public Gallery, will remember his many meetings with my hon. Friend. It is right that people across the UK came together to show solidarity with the people of Pakistan at this difficult hour.

This was a cowardly terrorist attack by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan which struck at the youngest and most vulnerable, and it is a reminder that Pakistan remains on the front line against terrorism. God forbid if Pakistan should fall as a front line in fighting terrorism, as the world will become a dark and unsafe place, with suffering affecting each and every part of it.

It is important to clarify one thing. The TTP, like many other terrorists, has often been described as “Islamist extremists” or “Islamist terrorists”, thereby linking Islam to them, which is what they want. We should be clear and refer to them and any other terrorists who want to link their evil acts to Islam simply as “terrorists” and “extremists”. That is it. They are terrorists and extremists, and we should not give them the credibility of linking this great religion with their evil acts.

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

May I gently suggest that my hon. Friend might want to go one step further? These extremists never hesitate to call other Muslims with whom they disagree “unIslamic”. Although I see the point of my hon. Friend’s argument that these people are not Islamist and not Islamic, just calling them terrorists and extremists is not quite enough. We need some context, so may I suggest “unIslamic extremists” as a possible denomination for them?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is an expert on defence matters, and I have great admiration and respect for him. I take on board the point he makes. Everyone around the world wants to make it clear that these individuals are terrorists and extremists. When I comment on these matters on television, I often get e-mails saying I am a non-Muslim myself for calling them terrorists. We know who the terrorists and extremists are in this context.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The events in Peshawar were very salient and pertinent when they hit the news headlines. Is it not imperative, when it comes to discourse on this issue, that people should always remember globally—not just in the UK—that regardless of their background, whether people be Sunni, Shi’a or of whatever denomination, many of these organisations kill people of an Islamic faith? That is the crucial point.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall pick up that point in due course. It is one made by the former Foreign Secretary, our right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who said in 2013 that the people who have suffered the most as a result of terrorism are Muslims. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) is absolutely right, and I would like to congratulate him on the work he does in strengthening our two countries’ great relationship.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when people commit these atrocities in the name of Islam, they also betray—sometimes catastrophically—the vast majority of law-abiding decent Muslims in this country, who then have to defend themselves? Does he agree that that is a double betrayal for those Muslims?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When individuals carry out these evil atrocities in the name of Islam or of religion, they undermine the wonderful, peaceful, tolerant Muslim community around the world and in our great country. I know that he does a brilliant job in building the great relationship between our two countries, and I know how much importance he ascribes to it. When I was in Pakistan in 2012, walking through Karachi, I was surprised to see that he was there at the same time.

I welcomed recent articles by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia, the former Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom and head of the Saudi intelligence service, who has suggested that we call ISIL—or Daesh, as it is called in Syria and Iraq—Fawash, which means “obscenity”. The organisation proclaims itself to be an “Islamic State” because it wants to be linked to Islam, but there is no such thing as an Islamic state. Let us not give those people any legitimacy. Let us call them what they are: terrorists and extremists who believe in an obscene ideology.

Pakistan is not alone in facing such horrific, brutal, evil atrocities carried out by terrorists, as we saw only a few weeks ago when gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris. In Belgium, police have foiled a plot to attack police, and in 2013 there was a brutal attack on a shopping mall in Kenya. Since 2003, more than 40,000 civilians and more than 6,000 security forces in Pakistan have been killed in the continual war on terror.

The former Foreign Secretary said in a speech in 2013:

“Muslim communities are bearing the brunt of terrorism worldwide, at the hands of people who espouse a distorted and violent extremist interpretation of a great and peaceful religion.”

Terrorist groups such as the Taliban claim to be Islamic, but that interpretation bears no resemblance to Islam, and is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world. The Koran teaches us to be tolerant of others and to live in peace. Chapter 5, verse 32 says that

“if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind”.

Recent events have shown us that our freedom of speech can never be threatened or destroyed through violence, and that there can be no justification for the causing of death or the use of violence. However, we also need to be tolerant and respectful of other people’s religious beliefs, whatever they may be. Faiths such as Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha’ism and Islam—to name just a few—are cherished by billions of people around the world. Rights come with responsibilities, and we need to be careful not to mock other people’s religions. Doing so can lead to intolerance, which feeds into the terrorist extremist agenda of wanting to divide communities and societies, and makes our society a less safe place for all.

Those are not my assertions, but the assertions of a great man with great intellect, wisdom and a passionate desire to serve humanity, which are there for all to see. I refer to Pope Francis, for whom I have great admiration and respect. He spoke about this very issue recently, saying that the right to liberty of expression came with the “obligation” to speak for “the common good”.

The United Kingdom has continued to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are affected by terrorism, and has always been a strong friend and ally of Pakistan. The Prime Minister summed up our close relationship when he said

“in this battle the friends of Pakistan are friends of Britain; the enemies of Pakistan are enemies of Britain.”

After the Peshawar attack, the UK offered its assistance, and I know that the Department for International Development has collaborated in the provision of counselling for those who have been affected.

Many people in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province have become displaced and we should consider how best the UK and DFID can help in that region, in particular with the temporarily displaced persons. Pakistan has played a part in helping the international community tackle the threat of terrorism. There are many examples, including the capture of Ramzi Yousef, one of the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre bombing, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of al-Qaeda’s most senior operatives, who was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing as well as the failed Bojinka and shoebomber plots.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important ways in which the UK Government, through DFID, can work together with the Government of Pakistan is through support for the education system, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, where there is tremendous UK support for Pakistani schools?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is right, and as a member of the International Development Committee, he well knows that the UK has always supported Pakistan at difficult moments. On education and health, Pakistan is the largest recipient in terms of education, and he is right: if we want to give somebody hope, opportunity, aspiration and a life without being sucked into extremism or radicalisation, we must give them education. The UK has always supported that and will continue to support Pakistan in that respect.

At the forefront of the battle with terrorism, Pakistan faces several major challenges. With a porous border with Afghanistan, around 40,000 people make the crossing every day, putting pressure on security checks, especially at the two main crossings at Torkam and Chaman. I understand from discussions with Pakistan officials that they would appreciate assistance to enable them to monitor the border more effectively, including the provision of additional technology and intelligence gathering and sharing. Some other suggestions include technology such as biometric scanners, night goggles and GSM intelligence gathering. The UK currently provides a GSM tracking vehicle. I believe this vehicle was crucial in tracking those who were responsible for the terrorist attacks in Peshawar and is crucial in helping to destroy the terrorist networks and leaderships in Pakistan.

The UK has already assisted Pakistan in developing counter-terrorism capabilities through the counter- improvised explosive device programme, but IEDs continue to be a threat in the region. Only two weeks ago, an IED attack killed four security force personnel in Pakistan’s Lower Kurram.

Greater assistance is also required to help return the large number of refugees to Afghanistan. Since 2002, the UNHCR has facilitated the return of 3.8 million registered Afghans from Pakistan, but there are still almost 1.5 million registered refugees in the country, with unofficial figures suggesting the total could be more than 3.5 million—the largest protracted refugee population in the world.

Pakistan also needs international co-operation to tackle extremists groups who may operate from abroad. There are, for example, real concerns about some elements of the Balochistan Liberation Army—the BLA—who it is said are co-operating with extremists to enact violence in Pakistan. Hizb ut-Tahrir has openly attempted to recruit Pakistani military officers to revolt against the Pakistan army, and Pakistan needs assistance to tackle Hizb ut-Tahrir’s finances and supporters operating from outside the country.

The Peshawar attack on a school was also a direct assault on education and the country’s future generations. It was a reminder that there are still those who want to prevent children in Pakistan from learning. Seeking knowledge and education is, as many religious texts—Hadiths—make clear, an obligation on Muslims, both men and women. I know that the Government have continued to support Pakistan through aid, with 4 million primary school children benefiting and more than 20,000 classrooms being constructed.

Pakistan is still on the road to reform, and there is still much work to be done to improve its own institutions and create a more robust law and order system. This includes assistance with police capacity building, canine training in explosive detection, computer and mobile forensic labs, counter-IED jammers and body armour. The Peshawar attack was the worst terrorist attack Pakistan has suffered, and only through co-operation and collaboration, standing shoulder to shoulder with one of our key partners, with whom we share a long history, can terrorism be defeated.

With that, Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for giving me the chance to have this debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has the agreement of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to contribute, but of course, time must be left for the Minister to respond, so a pithy contribution would be orderly.

22:21

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate. I shall speak quickly as I have only a couple of minutes and the Minister will want to take his time.

I just wanted to outline a few facts. People forget that when Pakistan joined our war to deal with the Russian threat in Afghanistan and the invasion, one consequence, apart from the instability and violence, was that 10 million people who were left homeless in Afghanistan came to Pakistan, so Pakistan had to bear that burden. Also, in the war on terror, Pakistan has suffered economically—some £30 billion to £40 billion over the last 20-odd years. It has suffered more than 30,000 civilian casualties and tens of thousands of military casualties.

Of course, what happened recently in Peshawar was dreadful, but it is great to see that the Government—this one and the previous one—have always had a very good relationship with Pakistan. I hope the Government will continue to work with the people of Pakistan, and in particular with the people of Peshawar.

22:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for bringing to the House this debate on our support for Pakistan since the terrible attack on the army public school in Peshawar on 16 December last year. It is right that this House debate developments in the 40 days since that attack on Pakistan, which is a key ally and close friend of the United Kingdom.

The attack robbed parents, families and friends of their children. As parliamentarians, we struggle for meaningful words in response to an attack of this scale. It offends our values as democratic politicians, and threatens our work for the rule of law and the peaceful development of nations. As parents, uncles, aunts or grandparents ourselves, we try to comprehend the staggering losses borne by so many families in Peshawar: the silence they face in place of the irrepressible noise of childhood, the empty spaces at so many family tables. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the time:

“Nothing can justify such an horrific attack on children going to school. The UK continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with the government and people of Pakistan in the fight against terrorism and extremism.”

This attack reminded us of the one constant rule of terrorism: those who suffer the most are the citizens of countries blighted by extremism—the men, women and children kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria; the communities living in mortal fear of ISIL in Syria and Iraq; and the boys and girls in Pakistan living in the shadow of the Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups, children for whom school should be a safe haven.

My hon. Friend asked me what the UK has offered Pakistan since the attack and what more we can achieve together. I can assure the House that we continue to work with the Pakistani Government across a range of issues—a multi-track approach—but we must help Pakistan to tackle the root causes of violent extremism. Part of that is our work on promoting inclusion, economic development, education and health services to lift Pakistan’s people out of poverty and fill the societal cracks in which extremism festers and grows. We are also encouraging Pakistan to reduce the space for extremist ideologies.It is fair to say that Pakistan cannot beat terrorism alone. The scale of the challenge is huge, and the UK is a key partner of Pakistan in that fight. Let me outline some of the ways in which are helping Pakistan.

We are supporting Pakistan’s economy. Part of my job is to show British businesses the opportunities that working and investing in Pakistan can offer. In my speech, I very much want to counter the impression that appalling incidents, such as the attack on the school, can generate. As my hon. Friend knows well, Pakistan and Pakistanis offer visitors a warm welcome. Their generosity and hospitality are legendary, and must transcend such violence. We already have solid business links and strong growth projections for our bilateral trade and investment, and we must not let that slip from our grasp.

This morning, I had the pleasure of making the opening remarks at the third annual UK-Pakistan trade and investment conference. We know that the majority of Pakistanis want the same things that people everywhere want: an education for them and their children; the chance to have a good job; and the chance to live in a peaceful and prosperous state. We have a trade and investment road map that sets out our joint targets for economic growth and for growth that will begin to address that need. Our Prime Ministers have set out a joint bilateral trade target of £3 billion annually by the end of this year. It is a challenging target, but we think it is achievable.

We must support the families of the victims caught up in such atrocities. The Department for International Development is working closely with the provincial government and the UK charity Merlin to provide psychological support services to the victims, families and wider community affected by the Peshawar school incident. That will enable up to seven psychological family centres to be opened, allow home visits to be made to affected families and establish a child psycho-trauma centre at Lady Reading hospital in Peshawar to treat the most serious cases.

We must support and strengthen the democratic process in Pakistan. That is critical not just for the future of millions of Pakistanis, but for the security of the region and our security in the UK. In 2013, millions of Pakistanis voted in a general election and, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, one full-term democratically elected Government passed power to another. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first Head of Government to visit Pakistan after that historic election in June 2013, emphasising the UK’s support for this process. It was a victory for democracy and welcome progress, and that is not what the terrorists want.

We must support Pakistan on education and health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said in an intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham knows that we are supporting education and health through our DFID-led aid programmes. The programmes help to give the poorest people in Pakistan access to public services, and they promote peace, stability and democracy, as well as macro-economic stability, growth and jobs.

We are supporting Pakistan’s national security, and my hon. Friend covered several areas in which we are providing support. However, time is against me. It is a shame that we do not have longer to debate this important matter, but I hope that the issue will be brought back to the House.

As my hon. Friend knows well, our countries share strong connections through our extensive diaspora links. There are more than 1.1 million people in the UK of Pakistani heritage, and more than 1 million trips are made annually between our two countries. The diaspora makes a significant contribution to British life, with many famous, successful and prominent people across sport, culture, business and, of course, Parliament. That familiarity between us is what makes so much of our family, Government, military and business relationships easy, and it is what makes the Peshawar school attack so painful for us.

We know that there is rarely, if ever, a purely military solution to terrorism. Many countries, including the UK and Pakistan, are engaged in a long-term effort to deny terrorist groups the space to operate, to help vulnerable countries to develop their law enforcement capabilities and to address the injustice and conflict that terrorists exploit.

Muslim communities often bear the brunt of terrorism, as has been said in the debate, at the hands of people who espouse a distorted and violent interpretation of a great and peaceful religion. My hon. Friend was right to point out that terrorism and Islam are not the same. We believe that our British values uphold the idea that people of different faiths and cultures can live together in peace. We know that the fight against terrorism will be protracted, but we know that by working together with our friends and our allies, we can win.

Question put and agreed to.

22:29

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 26th January 2015 Petitions

Monday 26 January 2015

State intervention in care proceedings

Monday 26th January 2015 Petitions

The Petition of Mary Kidson, a mother living in Herefordshire,

Declares that she was prosecuted for poisoning her daughter on three counts in Worcester Crown Court. Further declares that on 28 October 2014 following an application from her counsel that she had no case to answer, the court decided that she had no case to answer on any of the three counts. The fundamental point was that the medicine that she had been administering initially without prescription, but later with prescription was not to have been seen to have done any harm to her daughter; instead was seen to have had some positive effects. In essence, she was being prosecuted for doing something that the UK doctors thought was the wrong thing to do, even though the evidence was that it was not doing any harm and in fact was improving her daughter’s medical condition. Further declares that her daughter’s statement in respect of the criminal proceedings stated that the medication “made [her] feel fine” and that “the worst time was when I suddenly stopped taking my medication.” Further declares that her daughter was made subject to a final care order on 23 June 2014 on an uncontested basis. Further that the Petitioner has since contacted the children’s authority for the area and they have indicated that their view has not shifted notwithstanding the decision of the court that she had no case to answer. Further declares that her daughter’s mental health has suffered severely as a result of the care proceedings and her being removed from her mother’s care. That the original state intervention from Children’s Services started on 5 March 2013 and that the Petitioner originally instructed a local firm of solicitors, Thursfields, who she perceived as working hand in glove with the local authority for whom they worked on other cases. Her legal advisers and Barrister Nkumbe Ekaney QC put pressure on her to concede Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 Threshold Criteria were met and she did so even if the criminal proceedings later made it clear that no harm was suffered as a result of the medication. That Dr Gardner, an expert jointly instructed by the court as part of the care proceedings concluded that her daughter would be best cared for by her mother and that this had been clear throughout the proceedings. Losing confidence in her legal practitioners, she uninstructed Thursfield in mid December 2013. It appears that the local authority then persuaded the Crown Prosecution Service to issue criminal proceedings and that those were driven by the Petitioner resisting the care proceedings.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, the Health Select Committee and the Education Select Committee review the law to determine why it is that a state intervention both on the criminal basis and in care proceedings can proceed and do so much harm to the child that it is supposed to protect when there is in fact no case to answer.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.]

[P001430]

Housing Development in Cheadle

Monday 26th January 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,

Declares that residents of Cheadle oppose excessive levels of housing development; further that the Petitioners believe that the prospect of new site allocation plans is simply unacceptable; further that the Petitioners believe that permitting for 1,320 houses up to 2031 is still well above local demand and unworkable; further that the Petitioners believe that there is much opportunity to develop nearby regenerating sites and the Potteries with affordable housing in the heart of existing road, rail and canal infrastructure, while protecting the environment and agriculture; further that recent housing proposals have been submitted to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council to build up to 190 houses on land off Thorley Drive in Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the Thorley Drive site is inappropriate and it is currently a group of fields used, for example, for grazing; further that the Petitioners believe that the access to the Thorley Drive site is dangerous as it is already very difficult for drivers to get out of the end of Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the surrounding road network cannot support the increasing number of cars and traffic which relate to developing the town with housing completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocation of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation of 240 dwellings north of Cheadle; and further that the Petitioners believe that there are not the facilities or the infrastructure in place for the proposed housing.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to intervene in this matter to ensure that housing proposals that sit outside of the currently identified sites for completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocations of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation for 240 dwellings north of Cheadle are rejected over the planning period until 2031 and further that the Petitioners request that the House urges the local council to reduce the housing allocation for Cheadle, preferably by moving a percentage to the Potteries and with no further development of Greenfield sites.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Sir William Cash, Official Report, 11 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1088.]

[P001411]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

Through our reforms in the Localism Act and National Planning Policy Framework, the Government have ensured that local plans set the structure in which decisions on particular applications are taken locally. To support this, we have encouraged local authorities to get up-to-date plans in place as soon as possible as this is the most effective way of managing development within a local area. Local plans will guard against ‘speculative’ or unwanted development by setting the framework in which decisions on particular proposals are taken (whether that decision is taken locally or by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal).

This Government do not set national housing targets or require councils to provide more houses than are needed. Our abolition of regional strategies decentralised decision making on matters such as housing provision to local authorities and communities, enabling them to plan for growth and other priorities in their areas. We are supporting this process through the duty to co-operate which requires councils to work together constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in planning for strategic matters in their local plans.

The Framework only asks local councils to identify and plan to meet the objectively assessed needs of their communities based on robust evidence. When preparing plans, councils should assess the development needs for their areas and identify appropriate sites for development to meet this need. The Government trust local councils to make the right decisions to ensure that the options taken forward in plans are justified and take into account local people’s views.

Anyone with an interest in a local plan may make representations on it. The council must consider the representations before deciding whether to submit the plan for public examination in front of an independent inspector. Anyone with an interest in the plan may request to appear at the hearing.

Examination will test in particular whether a plan is consistent with national policy, and recognises constraints such as the need for provision of infrastructure and the prioritisation of the re-use of brownfield land. It also considers adherence to legal requirements, what account has been taken of public views, and whether the strategy that the plan proposes is the most appropriate in the light of reasonable alternatives.

The Government understand that Staffordshire Moorlands district council has been consulting on possible site allocations following the adoption of its local plan core strategy in March 2014, and in advance of the production of a single comprehensive local plan covering the period 2016-31.

It would be inappropriate for the Government to comment on individual plan proposals, or on particular applications, lest they come before the Secretary of State or one of his inspectors for decision in the future.

Upon the submission of any planning application for development, the council must advertise the application by site notice and on their website. At such a time residents of Cheadle may object to the proposal, and the council must take these views into account in reaching a decision.

Written Statement

Monday 26th January 2015 Written Statements

Monday 26 January 2015

Community Pubs

Monday 26th January 2015 Written Statements

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

Pubs play an important role in our local communities. They provide valuable local hubs that strengthen community relationships and encourage wider social interaction, with each pub also being estimated to contribute £80,000 to the economy annually.

We have demonstrated our continued commitment to community pubs through the introduction of a broad range of financial and wider support including:

scrapping the beer and alcohol duty escalators,

cutting beer duty,

funding business partners to help deliver more community-owned pubs and pubs which provide community-focused services,

removing red tape that hindered pubs holding live music,

doubling small business rate relief, and increasing the temporary business rate discount for pubs with rateable values below £50,000 from £1,000 to £1,500 for 2015-16,

cutting corporation tax and National Insurance for employers,

giving pubs greater flexibility over weights and measures, allowing beer and wine to be served in different sizes, and

giving publicans tied to, pub companies new rights under a new statutory code of practice.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Spencer Williams) and I are today announcing that we want to go further than this, and increase protections to prevent the loss of those pubs that provide the most community benefit.

Through the community right to bid, we have invited communities to nominate buildings and land which add most value to the local community, to be listed as assets of community value, giving them a greater stake in the future of those assets. We welcome the fact that people across the country have come together to nominate over 600 pubs, making pubs the most listed type of asset. Listing triggers a moratorium on any sale, enabling local people to develop a bid to buy the pub and ensure its continued contribution to their community. We urge communities to consider which pubs they wish to see protected before they are at risk.

The Government will also be undertaking a post-implementation review of the Localism Act’s right to bid during 2015, to see how we can further improve and streamline the nomination process in light of its successful implementation. A third of all listed assets have been pubs.

National permitted development rights are an important part of the planning system; providing flexibility, reducing bureaucracy and allowing the best use to be made of existing buildings. However, the passion for community pubs as demonstrated by the significant numbers listed as assets of community value highlights the need to enable local communities to consider planning applications for the change of use of a pub of particular local value.

We therefore plan to bring forward secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity so that in England the listing of a pub as an asset of community value will trigger a removal of the national permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of those pubs that communities have identified as providing the most community benefit. This provides the right balance between protecting valued community pubs, but avoiding blanket regulation which would lead to more empty and boarded up buildings. Blanket regulation could also have adverse consequences on the asset value of pub buildings, harming the financial viability of the pub industry. This Government recognise the economic, environmental and social benefits of allowing redundant buildings to be converted into productive uses without excessive red tape.

This will mean that in future where a pub is listed as an asset of community value, a planning application will be required for the change of use or demolition of a pub. This then provides an opportunity for local people to comment, and enables the local planning authority to determine the application in accordance with its local plan, any neighbourhood plan, and national policy. The local planning authority may take the listing into account as a material consideration when determining any planning application.

Local and neighbourhood plans should be consistent with and reflect the strong support for pubs in the National Planning Policy Framework. This encourages local planning authorities to plan positively to support the sustainability of communities. This includes plans to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, and to promote strong rural economies through the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, including pubs.

These changes mark the next step in our ongoing support for those pubs that are so very important to local communities. We believe it will provide greater protections for pubs, and give communities a say in their preservation. But the planning system can only do so much: planning rules cannot keep open pubs which are not making money. Our broader strategy of lower taxes, less regulation and a growing economy are the best way to support a thriving and diverse pub sector.

[HCWS221]

Grand Committee

Monday 26th January 2015 Grand Committee

Monday, 26 January 2015.

00:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, good afternoon. I start with the usual announcement that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Monday 26th January 2015 Grand Committee

Committee (6th Day)

Relevant documents: 11th and 13th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 144: Protected disclosures: reporting requirements

Amendment 62

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

62: Clause 144, page 124, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) In section 43B (disclosures qualifying for protection), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a “qualifying disclosure” includes instances where a worker is thought to have made a disclosure for information.””

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group—I shall speak to them all together—seek to improve protections for whistleblowers. Twenty years ago, the Nolan committee highlighted the importance of,

“encouraging a culture of openness”,

in organisations to tackle and prevent malpractice. Since then, successive Governments have recognised the importance of this. The previous Labour Government brought in the Public Interest Disclosure Act and this Government have said repeatedly that they want to protect and encourage whistleblowing. The Prime Minister, for example, said:

“We will always back whistleblowers when they challenge poor standards, particularly in large organisations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/14; col. 257.]

However, there are still significant gaps in the current protections for those making disclosures in the public interest. These gaps in protection not only discourage individual cases of whistleblowing and damage individual whistleblowers quite unfairly; they also inhibit the creation of an effective culture in organisations that encourages transparency.

Large organisations that serve the public in both public and private sectors are powerful institutions. They are often driven by a potent internal culture and every case of whistleblowing challenges the powerful vested interests that run such organisations. As I have said in these debates, too often after a scandal is revealed, after the abuses have been tackled and the guilty punished, and after all the fine words about whistleblowers have been spoken, it is all too easy for those dominant interests in these organisations to revert to carrying on much as they did before. The powerful never like being challenged.

Repeated failures within the NHS, for example, have highlighted not only how important whistleblowers can be in protecting the public, but how difficult they can find trying to expose incompetence and wrongdoing. These problems are not confined to the NHS. For all the police wrongdoing after the Hillsborough disaster that has now been exposed, for 20 years no one blew the whistle. No one blew the whistle on the scandal of MPs’ expenses, even though the Fees Office in the House of Commons was well aware of the scams that went on. Whistleblowers need effective protection if the public interest is to be secured and there is clearly a need to do more. I hope that the Government will take advantage of a rare legislative opportunity to plug the gaps in protection for whistleblowers, which these amendments aim to do.

I am grateful for the support that I have received from my Cross-Bench colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friends on the Labour Front Bench. I am also grateful to the Minister and her officials for sparing the time to discuss these amendments with me in advance of today’s Committee. I hope that the Government will now respond to these amendments, to which I shall speak relatively briefly.

Amendment 66 simplifies the concepts of allegation and disclosure of information, and tackles the confusion that has arisen from the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Cavendish v Geduld, where an artificial distinction was made between a worker making a disclosure of information, which was protected, and the making of an allegation, which is not protected. It is unfair to expect non-legally trained workers to choose the precise wording to ensure that their disclosure is one of information rather than merely an allegation. The Cavendish v Geduld decision provides a convenient way for bad employers to ignore the concerns raised by claiming that the disclosure represents an allegation, as opposed to information. Moreover, the decision undermines one of the Public Interest Disclosure Act’s key policy aims, which is that protection should be most easily obtained for disclosures to the employer.

Amendments 63 and 67 seek to tackle the continuing problems of so-called gagging clauses. Even though the current law renders gagging clauses in any agreement void, there is evidence that further clarity is required. It is difficult to know exactly how extensive this problem is because of the confidential nature of severance agreements, but the experience of Public Concern at Work, the whistleblowing charity, suggests that many still feel gagged, even though these clauses may not be applicable in law. The National Audit Office also recently looked at this issue and concluded that many individuals believed they were gagged as a result of the events leading up to the signing of the agreement, including: the culture of the workplace; the attitude towards whistleblowing; the wording of the agreement itself; and because it was often not made clear to individuals that confidentiality clauses would not prevent them making disclosures on concerns of public interest. The National Audit Office looked at 50 agreements from the public sector, 49 of which were found to include a confidentiality clause which, in the end, prevented the individual discussing the terms of the agreement. It judged that none of the agreements would have legally prevented the whistleblower raising a concern, but its report gives several examples of how individuals nevertheless felt gagged.

Amendment 64 seeks to extend the protection for whistleblowers to student healthcare professionals. Students in these professions, with the fresh insights they bring to their work, are often well placed to make disclosures in the public interest. The case for extending whistleblowing protection to them has been extensively rehearsed. I do not intend to repeat it today, as I under- stand that the Government have already made a commitment to extending these protections. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee what progress they are making in doing this.

Amendment 65 seeks to tackle the problem of job applicants who find themselves denied employment opportunities because they have made a disclosure in the public interest. If an individual is labelled as a whistleblower, it can be difficult for them to get work because they can find themselves, in effect, blacklisted, not through a formal, central database but informally. This is a particular problem in small industries and within small communities. Unlike in other areas of discrimination law, job applicants are not considered workers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which provides protection where a worker secures a position and is then victimised, forced out or dismissed if the employer becomes aware of an instance of whistleblowing in a previous job. The amendment seeks to plug the loophole, which was identified in BP plc v Elstone, where the Court of Appeal stated that this situation was created because the drafting of the Act had not considered the situation of a job applicant being victimised for raising concerns in a previous job. The amendment addresses this anomaly. It might be helpful to the Committee to remember that an employer who is unaware that an applicant blew the whistle in a previous job would not be in breach of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This is because, to succeed, the worker would need to prove not only that they had made a protected disclosure in a previous job and the prospective employer knew this—perhaps through a reference check or because the applicant informed the prospective employer of their whistleblowing past at interview—but also that this led to the decision not to recruit them. Without this causal link being demonstrated to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, there would be no case to answer. The amendment seeks to put this beyond argument.

Amendment 62 seeks to extend protection to those victimised for being falsely accused of whistleblowing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act does not protect a worker dismissed or victimised because the employer wrongly believes that they are a whistleblower. The worker cannot, therefore, link a disclosure to the dismissal or victimisation. This is an obvious anomaly and, in addressing it, the amendment follows the precedent of the Equality Act, under which legal protection for sexual orientation can still apply, even though an employer wrongly believes that someone is homosexual or heterosexual and discriminates on that assumption. Although the Equality Act is prohibitive legislation and the Public Interest Disclosure Act is not, other changes, such as the recent ones on vicarious liability, have borrowed from discrimination law. The amendment suggests a similar approach in relation to those who are wrongly identified as whistleblowers, without suggesting that being a whistleblower should be seen as a protected characteristic.

Amendment 68 seeks to embed a code of practice into statute, so that it will be taken into account by courts and tribunals. This was a key recommendation of the whistleblowing commission, chaired by the former Appeal Court judge Sir Anthony Hooper, which did invaluable work in this area in 2013. It drafted a 15-point code of practice, which provided practical guidance to employers, workers and their representatives and sets out guidance for raising, handling, training and reviewing whistleblowing in the workplace. A statutory code of conduct would send out to all organisations, in the public and private sectors, a powerful signal about the importance that Parliament attaches to providing adequate support for whistleblowers. This should help to drive the necessary cultural change within organisations to encourage whistleblowing.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 68ZA to 68ZF, which work together to set up a new office of a whistleblowing ombudsman. I am even more grateful than I usually am to the clerks for their invaluable help in drafting these amendments. Despite their length, they are essentially probing amendments, aimed at eliciting the Government’s attitude towards setting up such a whistleblowing ombudsman or some similar organisation. Establishing this was another important suggestion made by the whistleblowing commission. Its work, and the range and scope of the amendments that I have put forward today, suggest that providing adequate protection for those making disclosures in the public interest is a continuously evolving challenge.

Establishing an ombudsman, which need not involve expensive and elaborate bureaucracy, could provide an effective way of responding to this challenge. It could receive concerns and investigate retaliation against whistleblowers. It could also offer a form of alternative dispute resolution in whistleblowing cases. This would mean that whistleblowers would not always have to wait for such rare opportunities for legislation as this Bill to receive the protections that they deserve and the public need them to receive. It may also help to avoid the delays and costs of court and tribunal cases. I do not expect the Minister to make a pledge this afternoon, but I hope that she will at least feel able to commit to exploring positively and constructively the creation of such an organisation. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I have my name to most of these amendments. I was not able to get my name to those starting with Amendment 68ZA, which relate to the whistleblowing ombudsman, but I support those as well.

I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has said about this group of amendments. Amendment 62, as we have heard, aims to give extra protection to individuals who are falsely accused of blowing the whistle because the employer erroneously assumes that they were the source of the disclosure, based on a previous incident or a reputation for challenging poor behaviour or malpractice in the past. It is wrong that employers should be able to penalise people when they have simply jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions, perhaps or perhaps not based on something that happened in the past. It would be the purpose of this amendment to avoid that possibility, or at least to give those who have been damaged by employers making such unsubstantiated assumptions a remedy.

Amendments 63 and 67, as we have heard, will help to alleviate some of the misconceptions around the protection afforded to whistleblowers under Section 43J—the anti-gagging provision—which was inserted in the Employment Rights Act by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. As has been said, the legal principles on which Section 43J is based are not the problem; it is that the section could be drafted more clearly. Instead of providing an oblique defence, the new provision in the amendment would act as a shield, preventing information that may point to malpractice, wrongdoing or a health and safety risk being buried in secret settlements. Clearer wording that could be understood by an individual who is not legally trained may well break down this potential barrier for the worker and be of benefit to the employer, as their duties and obligations in this area will be rendered all the clearer.

15:45

I also support Amendment 64, for two reasons. The first is that students are expected under their professional obligations to report concerns over patient safety. Not to do so would jeopardise their future registration, but students are not covered by the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act—which I shall refer to as PIDA from now on—although we expect them to act in the public interest. That seems wholly unfair. My second reason is that the law should encourage those with information of a public interest nature to pass it on to those with the authority and responsibility to act. Students are often a fresh pair of eyes going into departments and workplaces, seeing malpractice or poor practice that other members of staff may simply overlook or accept as par for the course. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

I support Amendment 65 because the loophole it seeks to close causes real hardship for those affected by unfairly denying those who blow the whistle future job opportunities. Essentially, there is little legal protection for a whistleblower within the recruitment process. Such a situation only undermines the PIDA’s policy aim of creating an open culture within workplaces. Workers who have moved on to a new job may find that they have been unfairly labelled as a troublemaker. Most employers will see whistleblowers as of benefit to their organisations. That should certainly be encouraged, but there should also be sanctions for those employers who seek to damage those who have come forward in the past.

Amendment 66 is technical, but vital if PIDA’s central policy aim is to be delivered. That aim is to encourage concerns raised to be dealt with by the organisations themselves, which is the best way to avoid incidents spiralling out of control and reaching scandal proportions. Having a wholly artificial distinction between making a disclosure of information and merely making an allegation can lead to workers not having the confidence to ask even a simple question of their employer about a dangerous or illegal situation. The current definition would mean that a worker would not be protected if they are victimised for, for example, asking their employer whether the ferry that they are working on is allowed to sail with its bow doors open, or for simply stating that there are insufficient staff on their shift. That is entirely unsatisfactory, and the amendment would help to deal with it. I support it.

Possibly the most important of this group of amendments on whistleblowing is Amendment 67. A code of practice underpinned by law would be of great benefit to workers and employers. The simple 15-point code proposed by the whistleblowing commission will bring clarity to the worker, who will have a guide as to what is expected of their employer’s whistleblowing arrangements, while the employer will be clear on what the arrangements should be. The amendment will reinforce the good work already done by the majority of well run organisations in Britain, while giving courts and tribunals a consistent basis for applying sanctions to those who fall short of a reasonable standard.

Finally, I also support the amendment that would establish a whistleblowing ombudsman, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to this innovative proposal. I wholly support the creation of an ombudsman, as there appears to be a gap in accountability between a whistleblower raising a concern and the response they then get from the regulator or the employer to the public interest issue. PIDA focuses only on the victimisation of the whistleblower. That is vital, but it does not deal with how the concern is then addressed. A body such as an ombudsman would complement the Government’s measures to produce regular information from regulators on whistleblowing by holding those bodies to account. With those remarks, I support all the amendments in this group.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for being a little late for the beginning of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but I will say a few words in this debate. Generally on this side we are supportive of moves that provide extra protection for whistleblowers. Clearly, people who feel that they have to whistleblow must be protected and must have the remedy for being protected. Listening to the debate, I think that the idea of having some form of national code that would supersede the many codes that have grown up is on the face of it a good thing. I will say only that speed is always of the essence in these cases. If they are allowed to drag on, they become very bureaucratic —the individuals are put to huge inconvenience and stress while their grievances are dealt with. My only concern about setting up another regulator or ombudsman is about whether that would just create a bureaucracy that would add to the burden on those who try to deal with these issues, and would slow up the process in which grievances can in general be dealt with quickly. Obviously I will be very interested to hear what the Government have to say in response. We are broadly sympathetic to this tightening up of legislation in this area and the encouragement it should give to genuine whistleblowers.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, we support these amendments. I will preface my remarks by reminding us that in many circumstances this is a matter of life and death. Often the whistleblower finds that his or her life is turned upside down for a considerable period of time and they are put under enormous stress. The lives of the general public can also be affected, as we know from some of the first cases, for example that of the paediatric unit in Bristol. We know that when large organisations get it wrong, they put people and the public at risk, sometimes in extreme circumstances. It is right to remind ourselves of that, and of how much courage it takes for an individual in a large organisation to bring themselves to the point when they feel they have to whistleblow. They might have gone through the procedure of trying to alert their first line manager or even somebody further up the management chain, and still have failed to get any recognition that there was a real problem to be addressed.

We therefore think that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Wills are reasonable; they are justifiable in trying to sort out whether a worker is in fact a whistleblower and is ensured protection. That is extremely important. The amendment enables workers who have been wrongly identified as having made a protected disclosure to be protected under PIDA. Trying to ensure that gagging clauses are finally rooted out is surely another important amendment, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it. The National Audit Office concluded that many individuals believed that they were gagged regardless of whether or not this was actually the case. Anything that makes that situation clearer and provides adequate protection surely is worth while.

I do not think I need to take much time over the question of whether or not we should include student medical professionals. It seems necessary and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it.

Amendment 65 deals with blacklisting. Although we believe that there should be a further inquiry into the general nature of blacklisting, my noble friend Lord Wills has suggested a very reasonable approach to what happens to an individual who, having already lost their job through no fault of their own, finds themselves in a situation where they are unable to gain any further employment, which is surely appalling.

Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that there is not a get-out clause where an employer can suggest that instead of something being a disclosure of information where there is a protected circumstance, that can be got round by considering that it in fact was an allegation, which does not give the employee protection.

I do not need to go into an awful lot more detail because my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Low, gave a very detailed analysis. But I will deal with the point about the whistleblowing ombudsman, if only to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Low. One can always make the point about another layer of bureaucracy but when somebody finds themselves in the position of being a whistleblower, we would like to think that these situations are dealt with speedily and promptly but all the evidence tells us that unfortunately these cases go on, in many cases for years, and surely at the end of the day what the individual wants is justice. Having somebody who is genuinely independent as the last port of call is a worthwhile suggestion.

For those reasons, we support these amendments and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, as a new Member of the House, it has been fascinating to follow this Bill through Committee. I am sorry I was unable to speak at Second Reading but I just wanted to say that I support the Bill as a whole, and Clause 144 on whistleblowing. However, listening to noble Lords, there seems to be a lot of new material here that could hold up this important Bill. I should like to hear from my noble friend the Minister what else may be planned outside the Bill on this very important issue.

16:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the power in Clause 144 is just one of a number of changes the Government are making to improve the whistleblowing framework. In particular, we are acting in this Bill to ensure that prescribed persons—mainly regulators—report annually on whistleblowing. The purpose of this is to make the existing process, which of course is provided for in the Employment Rights Act 1996, transparent and more effective. I think it is an important provision.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is very passionate about this subject. I valued the meeting we had to discuss his very wide-ranging amendments and understand the issues around whistleblowing right across the piece. I reassure him that his desire to improve the way whistleblowing is handled is shared by this Government.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for his comments, including his emphasis on openness, which is, of course, a feature of this clause, and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on her first intervention in this Committee and for a typically acute question, which I hope I will be able to answer.

This is an important debate. The Government are determined to protect and encourage whistleblowers. Indeed, I take this opportunity to congratulate the whistleblowers at Mid Staffordshire NHS in particular, but others too, on their courage—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young. Attitudes must change, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has highlighted, quoting the Prime Minister. That is why we are making a number of statutory and non-statutory changes in this Parliament to change the culture and improve and promote the whistleblowing framework. I believe that these changes, mainly outside the Bill, should be given the chance to take effect, and perhaps I can highlight them as I go through and comment on the various amendments.

I will begin, if I may, with Amendment 68. The Government agree that a code of practice and guidance for employers would help to promote the whistleblowing framework. This is why we are currently working with key stakeholders to create improved guidance and a non-statutory code of practice. We intend to publish these before the end of this Parliament. I strongly believe that educating employers on the benefits that whistleblowing can bring to an organisation will contribute to a positive cultural change in the way whistleblowing disclosures are handled.

Until now, the Government have expected the legal framework alone to drive behavioural change by encouraging employers to embrace whistleblowing, but clearly, from the evidence that we have, not least the examples that the noble Lord presented, the law alone is not having this effect. This is why the Government are taking steps to provide detailed guidance setting out how the law should be interpreted. We will keep this under review, and if this is not bringing about the change that we expect to see, we will consider introducing a statutory code of practice.

Amendments 64 and 65 look to amend the definition of a worker to include students in the healthcare sector and job applicants. This is a good call, and I can confirm that as a result of the Government’s call for evidence of 2013, we are making a change to bring student nurses and student midwives into the scope of the whistleblowing framework. It is the Government’s intention for this to be in place by 6 April. The statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament, and I believe there is a debate in the other place on 3 February.

The Government wish to extend the definition of “worker” further to include all students within the healthcare profession, although further work must first take place to design a legislative solution that works for the different professions within this sector. The different regulators in the healthcare sector have varying arrangements for registering professionals and training people, all of which needs to be taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, encouraged us to cover all healthcare students in the scope of PIDA. I can say that the Department of Health is beginning discussions with the relevant professional bodies about this work, and I am happy to undertake to keep him informed of progress, if that would be helpful.

Amendment 65 would extend the definition of “worker” to cover job applicants as a way to prevent whistleblowers being blacklisted and struggling to find new employment. The Government agree that those who have previously blown the whistle should not be disadvantaged when seeking new employment opportunities. That is why we are in the process of identifying the most suitable solution to address this issue, but it is a complex area, and we must ensure that any legislation would not have unintended consequences, such as creating an unfair burden on employers to prove either that they did not know that a person was a previous whistleblower or, if they did, that whistleblowing was not the reason for not hiring them. These kinds of scenarios could make recruitment processes unfair, burdensome or bureaucratic, and we have to see what we can do to get around that.

We must also ensure that employers are not unfairly exposed to the risk of tribunal claims from job applicants: for example, if they had no knowledge that an unsuccessful job applicant had previously blown the whistle, but found themselves drawn into an employment tribunal case, having been accused of causing detriment to a whistleblower.

I appreciate noble Lords’ input to suggested drafting of the legislation through this amendment, but there is work to be done to get this right and it will take time, beyond this Parliament, to reach a suitable solution. It would not be right to add this half-cooked work to a Bill designed primarily to help small business and not to introduce new burdens for employers. If this work is to get the support we need, we have to get it right.

Amendments 63 and 67 look to provide clarity to whistleblowers on gagging clauses, which I believe can be achieved without new legislation. The Government have made very clear that gagging clauses are completely unenforceable when there is a public interest concern to disclose. The new comprehensive guidance for whistleblowers, which I have mentioned, will emphasise that settlement or severance agreements do not prevent ex-employees from raising public interest disclosures. This is set out in Section 43J of the Employment Rights Act, so it is a speedy solution.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, and I discussed the lessons of the useful report published by the NAO in 2013, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Although this confirmed, as he acknowledged, that gagging clauses do not prevent workers from raising legitimate public interest concerns, it also showed that the workplace culture, or lack of information, often leaves the worker feeling gagged. I accept that point, so the Government are introducing a number of measures aimed at changing cultural attitudes to whistleblowing. This should help to ensure that workplace environments do not leave workers feeling that they are unable to make a disclosure.

I turn to Amendment 62. The whistleblowing framework is in place to protect those who have blown the whistle: for example, the investment banker who has reported fraudulent practice in his bank or the construction worker who has exposed health and safety laws being ignored. Those who have been dismissed for any reason other than making a public interest disclosure and believe it to be unfair would need to seek redress under unfair dismissal provisions. From the research the Government carried out in 2013, through a call for evidence, this has not come up as an area for concern. Therefore, the Government consider that there is no case for this new legislation at present. However, if noble Lords feel there are issues in this area that need to be addressed, I would be keen to know, and to have examples, so that we can look at them.

Amendment 66 proposes to include “allegations” within the meaning of a disclosure of information. The Government agree with the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in 2009, in the case of Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld, that the legislation should protect individuals who make a disclosure conveying information, not those who simply raise an allegation or expression of concern. For example, a worker stating simply that they had concerns that an employer did not follow health and safety laws would be making an allegation. If that same worker explained the reasons and facts—such as a door being wedged open, putting people at risk in the event of a fire—this would meet the criteria for it to be a public interest disclosure. This is quite a small change.

Amendments 68ZA to 68ZF would provide for a whistleblowing ombudsman and set out provisions as to how this would operate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate this. Its purpose would be to investigate failures in dealing with whistleblowing. However, I fear that if the ombudsman were drawn into investigating all issues reported by whistleblowers, its remit would be unmanageably broad. It would potentially span all issues covered by the many regulators as well as all criminal activity that the police would investigate. The equivalent US office is huge, and given the remit this would be a major undertaking, but as the noble Lord helpfully made clear, this is a probing amendment. I also noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about doing things speedily. This is right and relevant.

In his powerful speech on his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, set out details of the functions that an ombudsman of this nature would have and provided a good checklist. Annual reporting and best-practice guidance were on that list. As I have already said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, the Government are already putting these measures into effect.

However, the Government recognise that one of the main issues that people have with the whistleblowing legislation is that it is not designed to address the issue reported by the whistleblower; it is designed mainly to address the employment dispute that might arise as a result of someone blowing the whistle. The noble Lord and I discussed this.

I am glad to say that the measure in this Bill will go some way to help ensure that the issue that is reported by the whistleblower is dealt with. Clause 144 introduces a duty on regulators and professional bodies that are listed as prescribed persons to report annually on the whistleblowing disclosures made to them. I believe that this will improve transparency in the way that disclosures are handled. Of course, culture matters, too—in fact, it probably matters more than anything, as Mid Staffordshire showed us—which is why we are well advanced on our national code.

I understand the noble Lord’s concerns and appreciate the work that has gone into preparing for this discussion, which is why I have tried to respond at length. We are making progress. We need to change the culture around whistleblowing, especially in the public sector, which seems to be behind best practice externally.

We are working across government and with external stakeholders to make sure that we get our guidance on whistleblowing right. Those stakeholders include Public Concern at Work, with which I know the noble Lord has worked closely to understand the concerns of those who blow the whistle. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendments.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. I am grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in it and for the support for the amendments from all sides of the Committee. I am also grateful to the Minister for such a thorough, comprehensive and thoughtful reply.

I am not really surprised that the Government feel that they already have all these issues covered in the Bill and are therefore going to resist the amendments, but I take some comfort from what I thought was a positive approach on the part of the Minister. I noted that she said that if the Government feel that the measures that they are taking for a non-statutory code of practice do not work, they are prepared to look again at a statutory code of practice. We may return to this issue on Report to get a little more clarity on how often the Government are going to review it and what their measure of success or failure will be before they are prepared to consider a statutory code of practice.

I do not want to delay the Committee any more because this has been a helpful and constructive debate. I will read carefully what the Minister has said. I note that she did not completely rule out the idea of a whistleblowing ombudsman; she thought that the way in which the proposed new clauses had been drafted was too broad. I understand her concerns about speed and bureaucracy, but I do not think that they are inherent in the concept. What I may do—I give the Minister and her officials due warning—is look at this again and see whether I can crystallise some of the issues around the ombudsman to get a little more detail on how the Government may want to proceed. I thank all noble Lords again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

Amendments 63 to 67 not moved.

Clause 144 agreed.

Amendments 68 to 68ZF not moved.

16:15

Clause 145: Financial penalty for failure to pay sums ordered by employment tribunal etc

Amendment 68ZG

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68ZG: Clause 145, page 125, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 126

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in this group. It is as well to remind ourselves what an employee has to go through even to get to an employment tribunal.

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act created a number of hurdles that people have to pass. First, they must go to early conciliation at ACAS. If that breaks down, they are issued with a certificate to say that conciliation has been unsuccessful and they must go into the employment tribunal system. An entry fee has to be paid to the employment tribunal service. If they want to take it to a full hearing, there is an additional fee. We do not believe that it is just or fair for a pregnant woman who has been discriminated against at work, for example, to have to pay £1,250 to enter the employment tribunal system.

After going through an incredibly stressful time, including an often expensive employment tribunal, someone might be given a compensatory award that says that they have been wronged at work. The employer must remedy that problem but might decide not to pay. There are a number of hurdles that someone has to get past to be paid, which is why we must try to find a way of remedying the problem, particularly in cases where an employment tribunal sitting in front of a judge has declared that the employee deserves to be compensated and the wrong must be righted.

Amendment 68ZH says:

“Any payments made under this section by the employer must be paid to the employee to the extent that the relevant sum has been fully paid before any sums are payable under the penalty notice”.

Ironically, fines might well be paid to the Government as a result of an employer failing to comply but the compensatory reward could remain outstanding. The Exchequer might benefit but the individual has been denied justice in that the compensatory award has been ignored by the employer. That is why we are recommending that in these circumstances that sum should be dealt with first. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this.

Then there is the question of naming and shaming. We already have a number of circumstances in other legislation where employers are named and shamed. With regard to the national minimum wage, the circumstances in which employers are actually prosecuted or even named and shamed are very few and far between. That is why we believe that this clause ought to include,

“a provision for the publication of the name and other particulars of an employer who does not pay the relevant sum as per the conditions of the notice”.

I beg to move and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I support the principle of these amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s detailed response. It is right that the Government have introduced a number of reforms on employment tribunals, but in doing so they have introduced fees. I understand that the Government are in the process of starting an inquiry into the impact of those fees. We know that the number of people going to employment tribunals has fallen dramatically, so we need to know the reasons for that.

The principle of fees seems to be right in terms of deterring people from making frivolous claims, but we need to ensure that the integrity of the employment tribunal service is open to people with genuine claims, even if they have low means. Therefore, if we are tightening up on the fees, we should be looking closely at the payment of compensation so that the individuals who are awarded compensation get the money as quickly as possible, and preferably ahead of the fines that subsequently could be due on the employer for not having paid that money earlier.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments. I believe we share the same aim—that of ensuring the best outcomes for individuals who have been through an employment tribunal, and ensuring that they receive their awards. Our research indicates that, without enforcement, only 40% of awards are paid within six months. That is clearly scandalous. Our financial penalty clause is intended to incentivise prompt payment of employment tribunal awards and to prevent employers ignoring judgments by employment tribunals. It applies to all tribunals, awards and settlements conciliated by ACAS. Employers who have not paid the award will receive a warning notice from the enforcement officer. By paying the award in full, promptly, they will avoid a penalty. However, if they do not pay in full, they will be hit with a penalty of 50% of the award. If they continue not to pay, or to pay only part of the award, they can receive further penalties, each of 50% of the unpaid amount, as well as incurring interest on the outstanding award. We consider that encouraging prompt payment in this way is an effective way of dealing with a problem that we agree exists.

Before I return to the amendment, I will respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about employment tribunal fees. It is reasonable to move away from funding being provided largely by the taxpayer towards a more balanced process, whereby the £74 million cost of administering claims to the employment tribunal system are met in part by those who use the system and benefit from it. However, it is important to emphasise that the Government have been very careful to ensure that fee waivers are available for those people of limited means in order that they are not excluded from seeking redress through tribunals. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has already mentioned, helpfully, the Government—

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I hear what the Minister says, but surely there ought to be some concern—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned—about a situation where, in some regions of England, the number of employment tribunals has dropped by 80%? Surely that is not an indication that 80% of claims were vexatious. Does she really not have any concern in this situation that fees are deterring people from bringing what could be completely fair and justifiable cases before an employment tribunal? The evidence we hear from trade unions, which are normally the buffer between the employee and employer, is that that is exactly what is happening.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord intervened to register his concerns, which to some extent I share. That is why the Government have committed to reviewing the introduction of fees. We are considering the scope and timing of the review, and will bring forward our plans in due course. We need to understand what is going on here, of course, but I was trying to make a general point about trying to improve things. The provisions in the Bill are another example of our efforts to do just that—to ensure that there are fair results and that people who are given awards receive them in due time.

I turn to each of the amendments, acknowledging the spirit of them, but obviously, as is usually my wont, looking to make sure that we do not have any perverse effects. I will start with Amendment 68ZG, which is designed to include costs in the calculation of the money that is considered to be owed for the purposes of the penalty. It is worth noting that “costs” or, sometimes, “preparation time” awards—where people are not paying for attorneys—are made in only a tiny proportion of cases. Costs awards are not related to the compensation for the breach of employment rights—for example, in a case of discrimination—but to the way in which one of the parties has behaved during the tribunal process. A good example would be the deliberate, repeated late disclosure of documents. Indeed, last year only 242 costs orders were made to claimants—in the context of more than 42,000 claims. The Government do not believe that adding costs to the calculation will add a significant additional incentive to pay. But I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s intention and will consider further whether we need to make a change ahead of Report.

Turning to Amendment 68ZH, we are clear that a penalty regime must incentivise prompt payment in full and not inadvertently reduce the likelihood of individuals gaining their full award. Allowing the penalty to be used to offset the award, as proposed in the amendment, would not, we fear, incentivise prompt payment of the award in full, which is our objective. The point of the penalty is to act as a deterrent and a sanction for non-payment. Conflating money owed to the claimant with a civil penalty would cause confusion and might raise questions about which liability had been met when money was paid. We believe it would be better to keep the civil penalty separate from the money owed to the individual. The clause already encourages an employer to make full and prompt payment to avoid a penalty altogether. As I have explained, the only way in which an employer can avoid a penalty is to pay up in full once they receive a warning notice. This seems to be the most effective approach.

Amendment 68ZJ seeks to introduce a naming scheme. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is already a scheme for the national minimum wage. We are considering naming as part of the Government’s overall approach to increasing the full and prompt payment of tribunal awards. We need to carefully consider the options to ensure that we find the most effective response. I would be happy to update noble Lords on our thinking ahead of Report.

Turning to Amendments 68ZK to 68ZM, I reassure the noble Lord that unpaid awards are already recoverable through the county court, or the sheriff court in Scotland, as they are treated as judgment debts. There is also a fast-track scheme in England and Wales where a court enforcement officer can pursue the money on the claimant’s behalf. Furthermore, interest accrues on those unpaid tribunal awards at 8% per annum. So there is an incentive to pay promptly and in full.

Finally, in response to Amendment 68ZMA, I hope I can provide further reassurance. As I have outlined, there are already a range of mechanisms by which an individual is able to enforce their tribunal award. In addition, under Clause 145, a government-appointed agent will impose penalties for non-payment. The penalty scheme we are introducing through this clause offers an alternative, cost-free way to ensure that the claimant gets the money they are owed. Therefore, the Government do not consider that there is a need to set up a further mechanism at this stage, but we shall continue to monitor the situation following implementation of the new penalty provision.

I hope that my explanations, including about our wider plans, have provided reassurance to the noble Lord and that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Young, replies, I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word or two about Amendment 62ZMA. I am afraid I was not quick enough on the draw before the Minister rose to reply. I thought that more noble Lords would intervene on some of the earlier amendments so I missed my cue.

Since I am speaking slightly out of turn, I will not make all the points that I might have made in support of the amendment. I am very grateful to have heard what the Minister had to say but there is a considerable amount of concern about the effectiveness of regimes for enforcing the payment of awards. A number of suggestions have been made for addressing this problem. I wonder if the Minister might be prepared to meet me before Report to talk through some of the options and to see if we cannot slightly firm up the provisions that are already there and find a formula or mechanism which might be slightly more likely to deliver results than what is in place at the moment and, indeed, what is proposed by the Minister.

16:29

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his comments. I would of course be delighted to host a meeting and go through these important issues—what we are doing, what we are not doing and how to find the best way forward in this important area so that the penalties work and the awards are paid.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Are we satisfied? No, I do not think we are entirely, although I welcome the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Low, of a meeting; that is a useful and practical possible way forward. The research carried out in 2009 by the Ministry of Justice, which administers the system, showed that 49% of those employment tribunal awards—almost half—went unpaid in the first instance before any enforcement action was taken through the county court system. If it were 4% or 9%, we might say, “Okay, it’s not doing too badly”. Each case represents an individual who has fought their way through all those hurdles, got through to the employment tribunal and won an award but, no matter what the penalties are, they do not yet seem to be convincing the majority of employers. It is even worse in Scotland.

We still have real cause for concern. I have raised the fact that we have seen a dramatic decrease in people being prepared to go to a tribunal, and this seems to be adding insult to injury when they actually do go there. Nearly half the employers are able to say, “We can ignore it. We’re not bothered. We’ll see if we can weary the individual to the point where they won’t continue”. I am sure that some will not go through the county court because by that time they will have had enough. That is our concern.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I reiterate that I also feel that the current situation is scandalous—I think that is the word I used—and the question is how we can best find measures that will solve the problem and bring the rate of payment in such areas much closer to what one might expect in other areas of the law. I hope that our meeting might assist with that.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I think that I have made the necessary points, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68ZG withdrawn.

Amendments 68ZH to 68ZMA not moved.

Clause 145 agreed.

Clause 146 agreed.

Clause 147: Amount of financial penalty for underpayment of national minimum wage

Amendment 68ZN

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68ZN: Clause 147, page 136, line 39, leave out “£20,000” and insert “£50,000”

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

In this situation we have another worrying set of circumstances with regard to underpayment of the national minimum wage, a situation that we have protested about on numerous occasions. There have been only a pitiful number of prosecutions of people who have failed to pay the minimum wage, and even the naming and shaming has not exactly resulted in a large number of employers being brought to the attention of the public and their credibility, image and brand being exposed for failing to meet their obligations under the national minimum wage. That is why we have suggested that the penalty should be increased from £20,000 to £50,000.

As we say in Amendment 68ZQ, we believe that the Secretary of State should provide,

“an annual report to Parliament on the effectiveness of … enforcement of the national minimum wage”.

Does the current enforcement regime have the necessary resource to police the situation and go on to enforce it? As we then say:

“the level of the financial penalty for underpayment, including but not limited to its impact on compliance”;

should also be reported on, as should,

“changes in provisions relating to the national minimum wage improving other measures of pay in the labour market”,

as proposed subsection (c) says. In addition, having looked at how enforcement currently takes place, which is via HMRC, we believe that it would be more effective if it was enforced by local authorities. There are a number of examples where local authorities currently enforce at the local level, whether on environmental issues or food safety. It seems to us that they would be much more effective than HMRC is. I look forward to hearing the ministerial response to these amendments.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I thought that the Government were doing much more than the noble Lord, Lord Young, indicated to enforce the minimum wage. That has been led by the Secretary of State and the naming and shaming is an important element of it—there has been considerable publicity. The Minister should perhaps spell out a little exactly what the Government have been doing in this area and the Opposition should not take all the credit. They deserve the credit for introducing this measure, but the Government are committed to seeing it enforced, and seeing that people are paid appropriately.

Finally, it should be said that this is a Bill for small businesses and, as we saw in the previous discussion, there is a danger as to affordability when it comes to the paying of fines, particularly by small employers. Those should be appropriate, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister will say about enforcement. I hope she will confirm the Government’s commitment to making sure that the minimum wage is firmly enforced.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I was certainly in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on his last remarks, but I find it rather strange that he should pray in aid of his argument that any fines should be affordable by the small businesses concerned. Small businesses have no need to incur any penalties whatever; all they have to do is abide by the law and they will not be forced to pay a penny more than they are legally obliged to do. There is no merit to that argument. If you do not want the fine, pay the national minimum wage.

While I suspect that the Government will resist the move from £20,000 to £50,000, my point in respect of the amendment has two prongs to it. One is that I want to know why there should be an upper limit at all at £20,000. Why is there a need for an upper limit? In earlier parts of this clause, it says that the total amounts should be in respect of the amount owed to the individual. But if there is an upper limit of £20,000—and goodness knows what kind of employer would incur a debt of failure to pay the national minimum wage in excess of £20,000—why should we use that as a cap? What is the logic, first, for having a cap at all and, secondly, for that to be the figure? If £20,000 is not to be a sufficient disincentive, £50,000 might just about do the job, and for that reason this amendment ought to be accepted by the Government.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment and I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. The worst thing for a small business that is obeying the law is that there is another business down the road that is not. There has been quite some fragmentation at the bottom end of the labour market since 1998 and we know that the way people are employed—or quasi-employed—is now much more dubious in terms of what they are entitled to and how you can check on it. Where people are not being paid the minimum wage for the hours that they work, it is important that the authorities can both check on it and enforce it. I fear that, at the moment, there are not many resources for doing either. Strictly speaking, the wages inspectorate is part of this as well as HMRC, but this is not top of its priorities and the number of prosecutions in this area has been very limited. I am not denying that there have been noises from BIS and from the noble Baroness’s fellow Ministers on this front, and I welcome that. However, the reality is that are a lot of people who are either on zero-hours contracts, which we will debate in moment, or on various other quasi- terms which they cannot argue with the employer and whose money is below the rate they should be getting.

The Agricultural Wages Board used to have a particular inspectorate—it was not even five people at last knockings —but when the board was abolished last year we received assurances that that resource would be transferred into HMRC. I understand that no such increase has actually occurred, either in the wages inspectorate or HMRC. Regarding HMRC, I would be reluctant to agree with Amendment 68ZR that enforcement should go entirely to local authorities. HMRC often has a way in because it sees the books, so I would keep a role for it. That could be followed through in rather the same way as local authorities follow through environmental health legislation by being given more of a role in that respect. Local authorities would also need the resources to be effective in this area.

We need to recognise that the present situation is not adequate. The enforcement resources that would be subject to the annual report are not adequate either. Having a maximum penalty of £20,000 is also not a deterrent for a lot of employers who operate on the murkier side of the labour market. It is not always small companies that are doing this; it is often large companies, or their sub-contractors, or labour-only suppliers who are paying below this rate. We therefore need a step change. Amendment 68ZN would go a considerable way to providing a degree of deterrence. Amendment 68ZQ would mean that Parliament would at least know what the level of resources in this area ought to be and actually is. On Amendment 68ZR, I would hope that local authorities would have some role, but HMRC and its resources are also an important element.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps she could clarify whether it is £20,000 per person or £20,000 for the company. I do not think there is any difference between us. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, is right to say that the most effective way of ensuring compliance is by actually prosecuting. So far, the number of prosecutions is very small and is not even steadily rising. Now that HMRC has the information on tax avoidance, we have the power and the tools to make sure that businesses comply. I hope that the Minister will say something in her reply about how we ensure that we use the full force of HMRC and that action is taken against the very few businesses that do not comply.

16:38

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a couple of words in support of these amendments. I was a member of the first Low Pay Commission when it was formally established in 1998. We obviously spent some time on the issue of enforcement. The difficulty was that the people who were in industries that did not pay a statutory minimum wage were very often reluctant to complain in the first place. Certainly, in some of the textile industries that we visited, it became fairly clear that if anyone put their head above the parapet, not only would they eventually lose their job in their own workplace but they would not find a job again in any textile industry within travelling distance. I am sure that that is not unique to textiles, so it will always be a major problem to enforce this and to get people to make a formal complaint and take that kind of risk with their future.

The Low Pay Commission is also keen for there to be a very good system of accessible information for people who want to know what their rights are. The original information issued by the Low Pay Commission was very good. Unfortunately, this Government changed it so that it was no longer fit for purpose. That was a statement made by the Low Pay Commission—that the website was no longer fit for purpose—so it is hardly surprising that the number of complainants is not only not rising but is probably falling in relation to the increased number of people in the labour market as a whole.

As my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Whitty have said, the casualisation—or further casualisation—of the workforce makes this extremely difficult to enforce. My view is that the more headline news you get about successful prosecutions and fines, the more likely people are to put their head above the parapet. It always amazed me when people used to say about the previous employment tribunal system, “Oh, the penalties that you can get are £50,000 a year”, which was ridiculous; the level at the time when I was chair of ACAS was £5,500. That was the average settlement, not the headline figures that newspapers would imply. The reality of the minimum wage and its enforcement is so far removed from the kind of discussion that we are having today that it is almost difficult to know where to start. I urge the Minister to think about accessible information, and perhaps to consult the Low Pay Commission to ensure that it is adequate for both applicant and respondent.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his amendments to Clause 147, and for giving us the opportunity to debate the important subject of the national minimum wage. I have heard a number of concerns raised by the Opposition about the underpayment of the national minimum wage. I hope that my notes will cover what the Government are doing about that.

Clause 147 is an important step towards ensuring that employers comply with the national minimum wage legislation. It will amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 so that the maximum penalty that can be imposed through a notice of underpayment will be calculated on a per-worker basis rather than per employer. This will substantially increase the penalty for employers who owe large arrears to a number of workers. My noble friend Lord Storey asked this question, so I am pleased to confirm that the penalty of £20,000 is per worker.

By applying the penalty to each worker, employers owing high arrears to a number of workers may be issued with a greater penalty overall, as well as a higher maximum penalty. The higher penalty will deter employers from breaking national minimum wage law in the first place, ensuring that workers receive what they are entitled to and to come down harder on those employers who continue to break the law.

I will now respond to each amendment. Amendments 68ZN and 68ZP are designed to increase the maximum civil penalty available for non-payment of the national minimum wage from £20,000 to £50,000 per worker. I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Watson, had to say on this subject, and we welcome the recognition from the Opposition that there is a need to increase these penalties but we do not see the evidence to set the upper limit at £50,000. As the impact assessment for the measure sets out, 6% of cases in 2013-14 involved total arrears in excess of £20,000. None of these cases was anywhere near the upper limit suggested in the amendment.

Under the Bill, the penalty will be applied on a per worker basis, as I said. When you look at the cases where HMRC issued a notice of underpayment in 2013-14, the change means that in almost every case, the employer would have been issued with a penalty equivalent to the total amount of arrears they owed, rather than having the overall penalty capped at £20,000. As a result, the amendment would have had very little impact on the level of penalties in those cases.

However, I reassure noble Lords that if, in future, there is evidence to suggest that a higher maximum is needed, we can make that change through secondary legislation. I hope that I am giving reassurance to the party opposite that if we think in future that £20,000 is not enough and we need to raise it, we can bring in secondary legislation to increase the penalty.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

How many cases were in court for underpayment of the national minimum wage last year?

[Lord Popat]

I will certainly come back to the noble Lord on that in a minute.

I turn to Amendment 68ZQ. It is designed to impose reporting requirements on the Government’s approach to national minimum wage compliance and enforcement, as well as the impact of the minimum wage on wages more broadly.

I welcome the Opposition’s continued interest in this area and their desire to ensure that the system is working as well as it can. However, we believe that we are already transparent in our approach to reporting on the effectiveness of the national minimum wage and its impact on workers’ wages. Every autumn, the Government submit evidence to the independent Low Pay Commission, including an assessment of the national minimum wage’s impact on the labour market. That evidence is considered by the Low Pay Commission before it makes its recommendations to the Government. If new minimum wage rates are to be set, Parliament has an opportunity to debate them before they are introduced in October. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment is not necessary, as it simply imposes obligations that will duplicate reporting that is already taking place.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 68ZR, which would give local authorities power to enforce the national minimum wage. The Government already have an enforcement body dedicated to the national minimum wage, with a strong track record in this area.

I will respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Young. Since it started that work in 1999, HMRC has identified more than £54 million in arrears for more than 229,000 workers during more than 65,000 employer interventions. We are doing a lot more. The Bill, as my noble friend Lord Stoneham said, is to give small businesses help and support. We have gone as far as we can to make sure that employers do not break national minimum wage legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked how many cases of arrears there were last year. In 2013-14, there were 680 cases, with total arrears of £4.6 million.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said in response. I do not think that we are not totally satisfied with it. I may have missed in the exchange over the figures the Minister’s response to our view about enforcement by local authorities. Can he confirm what attitude is taken towards that?

[Lord Popat]

Towards what?

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

Towards regulations devolving the enforcement of the national minimum wage to local authorities, as proposed in Amendment 68ZR.

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, we have a very strong HMRC enforcement regime. We do not see any point in giving the power to local authorities. However, HMRC has regional offices to enforce the legislation. Of course, many other government departments play an important role in enforcing it.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that a lot of people on the minimum wage do not have the information and that some people do not have the ability to work out what their entitlements are? What steps can be taken therefore, in a form which informs the employee, to the point where they are getting what they are entitled to and do not have to seek any external assistance, whether through an inspectorate or otherwise? It is a duty and a responsibility that the spirit of the national minimum wage when it was introduced should be upheld. It was introduced to be helpful rather than to be put in a legal straitjacket whereby people are not getting the underlying justice that was its intention.

[Lord Popat]

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, raises the important issue of how we help to ensure that people are paid the minimum wage and what guidance we give them on working out by how much they are being short-changed. Since 2013, we have published detailed new guidance on calculating the national minimum wage, which is available on the GOV.UK website. We have also updated several GOV.UK pages which hold information about the national minimum wage. This includes new information about current and future national minimum wage rates, a worker’s checklist, guidance on work experience and internships, information on the increased penalty for breaching the national minimum wage and the revised criteria for naming and shaming employers who breach national minimum wage legislation. Therefore, quite detailed information is available for workers to help them work out by how much they might have been short-changed in cases of people being paid less than the national minimum wage.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

A propos the Minister’s final point, is there not also the employment rights helpline, which we introduced? Does the Minister have information on the level of complaints or reporting of failure to pay the minimum wage on the employment rights helpline?

[Lord Popat]

I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord with that information. I do not know whether it is available on our websites.

I have just been given some information on how many calls have been received on that subject. From the beginning of 2014 to October 2014, the number of inquiries that we received was 10,086. The number of complaints that we received relating to the national minimum wage was 1,550. I will certainly write to the noble Lord with more information on this subject, which we appreciate is quite important.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I thank the Minister for his response. We will take into account the points that he has made and reflect on whether we need to come back to any or all of these issues on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68ZN withdrawn.

Amendments 68ZP to 68ZR not moved.

Clause 147 agreed.

16:59

Amendment 68ZS

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68ZS: After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—
“National minimum wage
(1) Section 17 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (non-compliance: worker entitled to additional remuneration) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (b) insert “including any relevant remuneration the worker would have received in respect of holiday pay or other leave pay”.”

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, we suggest that this new clause be inserted into the Bill. In the case of non-compliance, we believe it is justified that,

“any relevant remuneration the worker would have received in respect of holiday pay or other leave pay”,

ought to be included as part of the national minimum wage assessment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and, indeed, for his succinct introduction, which I do not think I can quite match in responding to the amendment, which introduces a new clause to include holiday and other leave pay within the calculation of the minimum wage.

The Government do not consider that the amendment is necessary. That is because under the Working Time Regulations, a worker is entitled to a week’s pay for each week of leave, and there are already routes of redress if these payments are not made. A worker who believes that they have been underpaid can make a claim to an employment tribunal. This claim has to be submitted via ACAS, which will first offer early conciliation. Where holiday pay has not been paid, workers have a choice as to how they may claim the money they are owed. They can bring an action against their employer under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations or they can bring an action for unlawful deduction of wages under Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act.

Both claims are brought in the employment tribunal. Where the worker is entitled to other leave pay which forms part of his or her wages, he or she will be able to claim any underpayments through an action for unlawful deduction under the Employment Rights Act. In addition, the early conciliation system allows for disputes over pay to be resolved before recourse is made to the tribunal, so without litigation. If a worker believes that he or she has not received the correct holiday pay, he or she can contact ACAS, which I am sure will be very helpful and will offer early conciliation. If that is not successful, a worker can take a claim to an employment tribunal. ACAS offers helpful guidance on holiday pay on its website.

The Government firmly believe that the holiday pay arrangements currently in place are sufficient and there is no evidence to suggest that enforcement in relation to holiday pay should be extended to the National Minimum Wage Act. I did, however, pick up the point from the earlier discussion that perhaps people do not always know what the routes for information and redress are. In writing to noble Lords, as I promised to do on the earlier amendment, I would be happy also to set out the arrangements on holiday pay so that people have a full understanding.

I hope that the noble Lord has found my explanation of the avenues that exist reassuring and will therefore agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. We think there is a connection in that employers who fail to pay the minimum wage are often also in this situation, where they do not respect full holiday pay and leave entitlements. We will take into account the response and consider whether to come back to this on Report. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68ZS withdrawn.

Amendment 68ZT

Moved by

[Baroness Donaghy]

68ZT: After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—
“Internships
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the use of internships within the UK labour market.
(2) The report shall include details on, but is not limited to—
(a) the definition of an internship with reference to other forms of voluntary work and work experience;(b) the growth of internships in the labour market over the past five years;(c) the incidence of internships by industrial classification;(d) the range of contractual arrangements that apply to internships; (e) the average and median length of internships;(f) the proportion of internships that are paid;(g) the range, average and median pay for paid internships;(h) the expenses and allowances made available to internships;(i) the impact of internships on social mobility;(j) the subsequent career choices made by interns;(k) the relative progress in employment of those who have undertaken internships.(3) This report shall be published within one year of the commencement of this Part and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, Amendment 68ZT asks the Government to publish a report on the whole issue of internships. Clearly, it is a probing amendment, and I make it clear that I am not against internships. Paid internships are not only fair but can be argued to be good for business, as they allow all to compete on an equal footing for valuable experience. Across all sectors, those firms offering paid experience get more applications from a broader range of candidates. By offering the minimum wage, or even the London living wage, firms are able to secure the most able workers.

However, where internships are informal and unpaid, they are likely to be unstructured and unhelpful for the intern and for the company. The proliferation of unpaid internships is now a barrier to social mobility and is blocking routes into higher-paid jobs for young people from low-income backgrounds. Although information on internships varies, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, of which I am a member, estimates that 21% of businesses offering internships do not pay their interns. According to the Sutton Trust, it is estimated that across the UK 22,000 interns are working unpaid at any one time. Data from the trust show that 31% of recent graduate interns are working for no pay. In the 2012 report on fair access to professions, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission noted that unpaid internships are concentrated particularly in the creative industries, the media, and financial and professional services.

The Sutton Trust report continues by stating that an unpaid internship can cost an individual £926 a month in London, or £804 a year in Manchester, on a six-month work placement. The cost of working for nothing rules out all but those from better-off families and discriminates against the majority of young people, who cannot afford to work for free. The trust goes on to say:

“All internships longer than one month should be paid at least the National Minimum of £6.50 per hour, and preferably the National Living Wage of £7.85 (or London Living Wage—£9.15—in London)”.

I am not making any particular proposals on this issue; I am simply indicating what other organisations support. If I am asking for an inquiry, it would be rather inconsistent for me to state what policies I particularly supported. The trust wants internships to be advertised publicly rather than being filled informally, and recruitment processes to be fair, transparent and based on merit. That reflects a statement issued by BIS regarding internships, so I do not think it contradicts anything that is already BIS policy.

An Ipsos MORI poll of 1,700 adults in England for the charity suggested that 70% felt that unpaid internships were unfair as only the wealthy could afford to take them, and some 55% agreed that internships of up to six months should pay at least the minimum wage, with 73% supporting it for placements of more than a year. The YouGov polling shows that 65% of businesses support the proposal to end unpaid internships, presumably because it gives an unfair advantage in certain cases if you do not level the playing field. Bodies such as the Institute of Directors, UK Music, the Royal Institute of British Architects and a range of bodies representing the PR and creative industries also support getting rid of unpaid internships. Alan Milburn, chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has called on policymakers to adopt a four-week limit on unpaid internships. As I have said, BIS supports an open, fair and transparent process of appointment to internships and indicates:

“Anyone who is a worker is entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage, this includes interns who fall into the worker category”.

Thereby hangs the problem. The lack of clarity about what constitutes an internship is frustrating the application of the National Minimum Wage Act.

In conclusion, internships are becoming essential for access to many professions. Because a high number are unpaid and unaffordable to those from ordinary backgrounds, too many young people are being excluded from the opportunities that they deserve. Although I accept that there will always be a need for casual labour in a flexible labour market, the current position is unfair and disproportionate. A civilised society should be prepared to look at the obvious nooks and crannies in its system, not least if it might go some way to solving our poor productivity record. I cannot help but think that the increasing casualisation of our labour force and our poor productivity record have something in common. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I came along this afternoon intending to support my noble friend Lady Donaghy on this amendment and I shall attempt to do so, but I regret that so comprehensive has been her advocacy of it that it has left me with little to say. Perhaps I might stress two or three of the points that she made.

One of the aspects that worry me is undoubtedly the fact that unpaid internships are, by their very definition, exclusive to people who, by whatever means, are able to have their costs of living covered while they undertake them. That necessarily makes them exclusive and is unfair. Some people would say that life is unfair; yes, of course it is, but in terms of employment we can try to make the playing field as level as possible. I see no reason why anybody undertaking an internship of more than one month should not be paid. Up to one month, it may be genuine work experience; beyond that, it is a bit more. While the person may find personal benefit, the employer gets a benefit as well. That very important point should be looked at.

There is also a rather disturbing trend now of companies emerging that will charge people a fee for placing them in an internship. That is worrying and, while some of them are paid, you may have to pay even to get on to an unpaid internship. I do not believe that that is right. There are also situations where auctions for internships are held. They sometimes involve charities and, on the face of it, that is worth while but, again, it suggests that it is not an appropriate way to bring anybody into the workforce, paid or unpaid. I regret that development.

Most of all, it is important that anybody doing a job should be paid the rate for that job. Some Members of this House and some Members of the House just down the Corridor need to look at their own practices in this respect, because it has been revealed that there are more than a few unpaid internships within the Palace of Westminster. That does not set any kind of positive example for keeping anybody on beyond a month. With those brief remarks, I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of my colleague and noble friend Lady Donaghy.

17:15

[Lord Storey]

I very much thank the noble Baroness for tabling this important amendment. In doing so, she brings with her a wealth of experience in this area. We know of Members in both the House of Lords and the other place who employ interns—I was conscious of that when I first came to Parliament—but you can do that only if your parents can look after you financially. If you are living on a council estate in Sheffield, Liverpool or Glasgow—let us keep the full nations in and also say Swansea—your chance of doing an internship in Westminster would be non-existent. We also know that if you do an internship in Westminster, it is an opportunity for real career advancement.

My view is that all internships should be open and accessible, and freely advertised. They should be paid after an agreed period, at minimum wage, and be for a set period so that we level the playing field and it will not be just the rich and wealthy who can afford to provide those opportunities for their children. Everybody could have that opportunity as well. But there are real difficulties in this area; it is not quite as simple as we think. I thought, “Great. Interns should be paid”, et cetera, but then we have to think carefully through the issues. That is why this probing amendment is so important.

What is the position of work experience? As a former employer, I remember that local schools would send pupils for two weeks’ work experience. What about volunteering and genuine volunteers? A close friend of mine volunteers every Saturday to work in the local Oxfam charity shop. How does that work out? Some young people generally want to volunteer—with no ambition to follow a career in that area but because they have a social conscience. The other issue is: how does that fit in with sandwich courses at universities, where people will go from university as an intern for a full year? Those things need to be carefully considered because of the interrelationship between them, and because of the issues of taxation and finance involved.

My only concern about the amendment is that it calls for a report in 12 months’ time; I think that it needs to be sooner, rather than later. When the Minister replies, I hope that we will hear some supportive sounds about the probing amendment.

Finally, I was quite surprised that when I tabled a Written Question asking how many interns there were in Westminster, the Government were unable to provide that information, which seemed to me bizarre.

[Lord Mitchell (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s probing amendment. I have to make a declaration of interests. I am chairman of a company called Instant Impact. The principal business of that company is the recruitment of graduates from universities, which is obviously close to what we are discussing today.

“The condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life”.

Those are not my words, but those of an unlikely source, US Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, a staunch right-winger and not one we would expect to support the nanny state. Who among us could disagree with that?

Of course, in the Labour Party, we believe passionately that everyone should have an equal chance to succeed, no matter what his or her background may be, but the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are wedded to the same mantra: whatever our birth may be, each of us should have the same opportunity.

When most of us were young and seeking our first jobs, it really did not matter whether we had worked as interns. Indeed, the term barely existed. Sadly, all that mattered was where the candidate went to school and, more importantly, where the candidate went to university. In my case, Ealing Technical College probably did not stack up too highly. A good degree was a help, but not a necessity. A gentleman’s third-class honours was still acceptable with a wink and a rueful smile. That was true then, but no longer.

Today, the CV has become a rite of passage. It must be fine-tuned and honed, with not so much the right school, but certainly the right university and, without question, the right level of honours degree. The soft factors also count: sporting activity, cultural pursuits and charities supported. In a highly competitive world, whatever makes you stand out and interesting will help you to land the job you want. These days, young people need to include job experience on their CVs. They need to show that they have worked for a series of organisations and that they have become well rounded individuals. One of the ways that they do that is by becoming interns.

To the wealthy and well connected, getting their sons and daughters into suitable internships is relatively easy. I bet that many of us in the Room today have address books that other people would kill for. We have access to everyone who counts and, even if we do not, we have no problem in working the network to make sure that we get our children or grandchildren through the door. Some of us are able to fund our children if they do not get paid for their internship. After all, we can argue that it is the final part of their education and goes with the territory.

As a result, whole swathes of our economy are riddled with unpaid interns. The media, fashion, advertising and the new social media companies recruit unpaid interns at will, simply because they can. As has been said, how many Members of Parliament or Peers in our own Palace of Westminster have unpaid interns working in their offices or their constituencies? I do not know the answer but I would bet that the number is much higher than most of us suspect.

What happens if your parents do not have the contacts or are simply unable to fund you while you are working for nothing? I hope that the Government accept my noble friend’s amendment because we need more information about whether people are being exploited. If they are, I hope that the Minister will commit to looking at a four-week limit, as suggested by Intern Aware. I should like to hear the Minister’s views on this. I hope that she does not suggest—as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, did, when the noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked a Question in the House a few weeks ago—that we should refer to the Government’s Graduate Talent Pool for an answer. I have never heard of it and nor has anyone else I know. It really does not feature on the intern recruitment side. I also ask her not to suggest that HMRC has the powers to intervene and that it can hunt down any offenders. It is stretched to capacity, and anyhow it has other fish to fry.

There are many organisations that support the four-week limit. Axa, a major insurance company, says that a four-week limit to unpaid internships will ensure a fair opportunity for everyone. Ernst & Young says that young people deserve to be paid for the work that they do on internships, and if they do not, it is reprehensible. The wonderful Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, a small business—which is not so small these days—says that it is completely reprehensible for companies to expect interns to work without pay. The ACCA has asked for an end to unpaid internships. RIBA expels members who use unpaid interns. UK Music says that interns should always be paid at least the national minimum wage. Lastly, the Times said in a recent editorial that the,

“abolition of unpaid internships is worthy and desirable”.

Under current national minimum wage law, an intern is entitled to pay only if they are working under a contract; of course, for a contract to exist it needs consideration. That means that if an intern receives nothing except expenses from their employer, the national minimum wage will not apply. The worst employers are exploiting this loophole and, under the law as it currently stands, there is little that can be done. The dice are loaded against those who cannot afford to take unpaid internships. The solution is not to discourage rich people from helping their children but to do a lot more to help clever kids who do not have wealthy parents.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for raising this issue and giving us the opportunity to have a debate. She brings great knowledge and experience of all employment matters, notably as a former chair of ACAS and now from her work at the CIPD.

Internships can and do provide valuable opportunities for young people taking their first step in the labour market, and we wish to encourage them. Speaking for myself, last July I had the very happy experience of taking an intern from a modest social background here in the House of Lords, and over the years I took a good number of interns when I worked in retail, as part of sixth-form studies or college vocational assignments. I tried to take people who might not otherwise get a chance to come in and get work experience; that is a great thing that employers, and indeed the public sector, can do.

The term “internship” is of course a relatively new concept—and, I am afraid, like so much else, a bit of an Americanism. As has been said, there is no definition of internships in UK legislation. Individuals undertaking an internship may be workers, employees or volunteers, depending on the reality of the situation and not their job title or what an employer decides should be set out in a contract.

The flexibility of our labour market is a source of pride and there are currently more people in work than ever. In the past year alone the number of people in work rose by 512,000, so employment is now at a record 30.8 million, providing valuable opportunities to young people. Of this remarkable growth, eight out of 10 were employees and eight out of 10 were in full-time jobs. In a labour market as flexible as the UK’s, there are a multitude of possible employment relationships that suit the employer and the individual, and this has to include short-term placements, internships and work experience. There is no single test to determine whether a contract of employment exists and whether an individual is an employee. Only an employment tribunal can determine whether a contract of employment exists. I appreciate that sometimes this can be confusing and unhelpful. Last October, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a review of employment status—rightly, I think—to ensure that these issues are considered. We hope that the review will conclude in March.

The noble Baroness’s amendment asks the Government to publish a report which would assess the growth of internships over the past five years, their incidence by sector, their average length and the subsequent career choices of interns. We are not convinced that it makes sense to write the requirement for a report into the Bill. Internship and work experience policy is a matter for the Government to consider as part of their normal work on employment policy. As I have said, we are looking at the issue in the context of a review of employment status, conscious of the need to preserve good practice in relation to work experience, where it exists.

I understand the concerns raised about pay and social mobility, and that some young people will not know about the opportunities or be able to find internships. I assure noble Lords that the Government are keen to work with employers and young people to ensure access to high-quality graduate opportunities and that is why we fund the Graduate Talent Pool service—which more people have probably heard of now, as a result of the Question in the House answered by my noble friend Lord Popat and because of the discussions on this Bill. The service is free to employers and graduates and provides information on all aspects of internships.

My noble friend Lord Storey asked about volunteers. Genuine volunteers who are not workers and who willingly give their time for free are exempt from the national minimum wage. The Government’s Social Mobility Business Compact seeks to influence business to remove barriers to social mobility and to promote open and fair access to opportunities. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lord Storey seem to be seeking. There are a number of strands to this, including work experience and paid internship opportunities. We are involving education providers—schools, colleges and universities —so that they build up links with business and other employers, including charities, which is another important area.

There is an issue about the entitlement to the minimum wage and I should explain that an intern’s entitlement depends on their employment status. If the intern is an employee or a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage from day one, and all other rights attached to their employment status. If the intern is a volunteer, they are not entitled to the national minimum wage but can receive reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. This may be the only way that people can get work experience. I worry that regulation could be perverse in its effect, especially with small businesses which probably cannot afford the great schemes we have been talking about that are provided by the big accountancy and insurance companies and so on. It is quite a complex subject.

17:30

Obviously, we need to ensure that interns are not used as a way of avoiding the national minimum wage, which has been a sense of the discussion this afternoon. HMRC prioritises calls from interns to the Pay and Work Rights Helpline, and I reassure the noble Baroness that HMRC will investigate every complaint. We recently increased HMRC’s enforcement budget from £8 million to £9.2 million, and will also increase the budget by a further £3 million in 2015-16, which will take the total to £12.2 million. The extra money will go towards increasing the number of HMRC compliance officers to identify businesses that exploit their interns who should qualify for the minimum wage by not paying them the appropriate rate.

There is a place for unpaid work experience; for example, for students working for one year as a required part of a UK-based higher education course. Another example would be participants in some government schemes, such as the Government’s traineeships programme, which is designed to provide training or work experience, or to help in seeking or obtaining work. However, we recognise that when the terms and conditions of an internship make that person a “worker”, they are entitled to the minimum wage. However, we do not require everyone on work experience to be paid the minimum wage. They are learning, broadening their experience, and businesses that provide them with the opportunities are making a social and usually local contribution. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, volunteering and sandwich courses and so on must be supported. In looking at those issues, we have to bear that in mind. On volunteers, I further clarify that an employer can take on an intern on an unpaid or expenses-only basis only where the intern is not a worker or where some other exemption applies. I have already talked about student work placements.

In conclusion, discussion of intern policy is an issue of the day, and will be taken forward in a number of forums now that the debate has been started and the numbers seem to be growing. It can be very valuable, and of course we need to ensure that the national minimum wage is observed. I hope that the noble Baroness has found my comments helpful and that she will agree to continue the discussion with me outside the Bill, but for the moment I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Mitchell]

One word I did not hear—and I was listening very carefully—was “exploitation”. The feeling many of us have on this issue is that young people who are desperate to make sure that their CVs look good so that they can say that they have had the right experience are prepared to be exploited to make sure that their CV looks good. Many employers out there prey on them, and in many cases those situations where people are not paid can last for long periods of time. More than anything else, we want to address that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for that further clarification. There is a lot of common ground here. We need to address certain issues and, clearly, we are all keen to stamp out exploitation.

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his comments. Of course, there is no intention to interfere with the perfectly well known volunteer system or with anything to do with sandwich courses in universities. I think we all know what we mean when we talk about these cases, but we are not very strong on analysis, and we need to pin that down.

My noble friends have certainly pointed to the exploitation issue—that somebody can be very willing because of the future opportunities that an internship can give them. Because their family can support them they might grit their teeth and say, “Well, let’s put up with this for a few months, because it will open doors that otherwise will never be opened”. It is still exploitation. The vast majority of people that I am talking about do not even get through the front door; they do not even get through the door to enable themselves to become disgruntled, so that they can go for enforcement or to various websites to ask about it. They are outside this semi-privileged circle. That is the issue that I want to pinpoint.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

It certainly has not been my experience—and I used to work outside London—that all internships are a gilded circle. Internships and work experience are quite broadly based in the cities of Britain, which is a very good thing. I am keen that that should continue in big firms and small firms, in the public sector and in the voluntary sector. We have to be careful that we do not take steps which, with the best will in the world, have a perverse effect, so it is right that we should debate these issues. Like the noble Baroness, I have a lot of passion to make these things work and to encourage more opportunities for more people.

[Baroness Donaghy]

I thank the Minister for that comment. I think that we are not too far apart on the need to identify and be more objective about what we are talking about. I am referring all the time in this amendment to unpaid internships. As I have said, I think that there is an element of exploitation. Perhaps any report or further discussion that we might have could look at some time limits that are acceptable. I am grateful for the Minister’s comprehensive reply. I will look at that in more detail but at this stage beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67ZT withdrawn.

Clause 148: Exclusivity terms unenforceable in zero hours contracts

Amendment 68ZU

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68ZU: Clause 148, page 137, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations containing provisions and measures enabling and facilitating the enforcement by workers of the rights conferred under this section.
( ) Those regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament in draft before being made, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I shall speak to a number of the amendments in this group as well as say a few words by way of a general introduction. The rise in the use of zero-hours contracts is a trend that should concern Members across the Committee. While a small number of people find this type of contract suitable, too many people from across the UK are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who are exploiting this type of employment. The increasing reliance on this form of employment does nothing to promote the jobs that the country needs. For many employees, zero-hours contracts present huge drawbacks in comparison to permanent regular work. There is no guaranteed level of regular earnings to provide any certainty over meeting bills or planning for the future. By our very nature, we human beings need stability and certainty in our lives; these types of contracts do not offer that. The need to respond to calls to attend work, frequently at short notice, disrupts life outside of work and places a particular strain on families and on arranging care for dependants. One of the most concerning aspects about the explosion of such contracts is that women are likely to be disproportionately affected by them.

Zero-hours contracts by share of the workforce are most common in: the arts, entertainment, and recreation services—2.5% of the workforce; in accommodation and food services—2.2% of the workforce; and in healthcare services—1.2% of the workforce. Not surprisingly, they are most common among people in caring and leisure occupations, where it is 1.7%, and among the less skilled—1.4%. These industries have high percentages of female employees.

We welcome Clause 148, which introduces an exclusivity ban in zero-hours contracts. This is a welcome step forward from a Government who had to be dragged kicking and screaming on this issue, but they have fallen far short in bringing forward measures which tackle the exploitative use of such contracts. This does nothing to change the practices of companies that base their entire workforce management strategy on them. Our Amendment 68ZU would reinforce the powers of the Secretary of State. Amendment 68ZW, perhaps in time-honoured fashion, would delete “may” and insert “must”—I cannot think where I have encountered that before—while Amendment 68ZAB would extend the powers of employment tribunals.

This is a huge problem area, and we need to remind ourselves that workers in these circumstances find themselves in situations where they do not attract sick pay, holiday pay or national insurance contributions. While we would not deny that there are some circumstances where zero-hours contracts might be relevant and applicable, the numbers that we are currently encountering place a huge burden on the workforce. This disproportionately affects them in terms of the employment rights and benefits that the vast majority of the workforce would expect to be theirs as of right. In those circumstances, I beg to move.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

This amendment is all very well but I am not quite sure where it is leading us. It is not very specific. The Government have included clauses to stop people being excluded from doing other work while on a zero-hours contract, which seems to go to the heart of one of the principal problems. Here we are talking in general terms about an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed-hours contract to a worker who has worked regular hours for a continuous period. I am not sure where that is leading to. It is very general, apart from saying, “What we really want is to get rid of all zero-hours contracts and put everyone on a permanent contract on a 40-hour week or 35 hours a week, or whatever it is”. That is not actually what zero- hours contracts are being used for.

I accept that there is some bad practice, which we want to see eliminated. Where there is discrimination or unfair practices, we should work at that. The principal source of exploitation is where people are excluded from doing other work by these contracts. Some of these contracts have worthwhile benefits, as we have seen during the recession. One thing that the recession has done is to enable people to share work around when it is limited. I suspect that as the work comes back, as it is clearly doing as we move out of recession, some of these problems will begin to fade in their severity.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I want to make it clear that this is an attempt not to rule out zero-hours contracts but to introduce some reasonable ground rules. I shall give the Committee some statistics that it might find interesting. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research last November noted that 83% of staff on zero-hours contracts had been engaged for longer than six months, and 65% had been engaged for two years or more. We have a situation in which 65% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been on them for two years or more; that is not a short-term need. If someone has been employed for that length of time, does the noble Lord really not think that they should be entitled to basic rights such as holidays, sick pay and pension contributions?

We are not embarked on a Don Quixote-like mission, tilting at windmills and hoping to abolish all zero-hours contracts, but we are on a mission to ensure that there is some fairness and reasonable ground rules. We are suggesting that if someone has been employed on a zero-hours contract for a reasonable period of time, it indicates that there is a permanent need for this type of employment. In such a case, they ought to have the employee rights that workers on full-time contracts would enjoy.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I thank the noble Lord for his speech and his intervention. I accept that there are issues here which we need to deal with but we are putting very general terms in here. One thing we do not want to do is to lose some of the flexibility which people have benefited from over the last couple of years, when work has been in short supply. One major problem is in the local authority area, where people are doing social care work. The Government should obviously look at and deal with this area, because they have the means to do so through their contracts, but I am not sure whether these general terms that are being looked for will actually do the job.

17:45

[Baroness Donaghy]

I want to say a brief word about this because I must admit that I have a personal dislike of the phrase “zero-hours contracts”. Casual labour has existed for a very long time. It has had different names and different fashions have been followed. I think we are all aiming to ensure that while we do not completely get rid of a flexible labour market, basic employment rights are available to those who have spent any significant length of time in a particular job. We know what we are talking about here, do we not? There is the story of the burger operative—or whatever they are called—who was told that he was not working when not serving a customer. His pay was therefore suspended so that he was receiving pay only when he was serving customers. The argument then was, “Of course, the franchisee went beyond his remit”. That is a marvellous excuse made by some national brands; they can blame a local manager for doing something when the tone has probably been set at national level.

This could be extended to all sorts of other areas by saying, “You are not actually working”. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, used to work for the National Union of Railwaymen. I wonder if the same would apply to a train driver who is not driving his train while stopped at a signal, and therefore should perhaps not be paid until such time as the signal is green. That was how ridiculous some of these practices were on the ground. To go back to the reality of the casual world of work, as we know it in this country, those practices are not really funny. They are quite serious examples of exploitation so I make no apology for supporting my noble friend Lord Young on these amendments, if only to try to get to a situation where we are paring back all these gimmicky phrases and looking at people’s basic employment rights.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for these amendments and for the debate we have had on this part of the Bill, which went slightly wider than the amendments. I ought to say that Labour did nothing about zero-hours contracts for 13 years. The number of them went up by 75% between 2004 and 2009. What we have done is to carry out a review into these contracts, so that we can deal with any abuse. As a result, we are banning the type of contracts which mean that employees are not allowed to work for any other employer, while still allowing people such as students to benefit from the flexibility that they offer.

We introduced Clause 148 to deal with this mischief and I am glad to hear the noble Lord’s support for it and my noble friend Lord Stoneham’s perceptive analysis. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, rightly tried to improve our English and not talk about zero-hours contracts. It may be that like one of the terms we were struggling with earlier, the term is an Americanism. Wikipedia does not give its origin but I will hunt it down.

At present, an individual subject to exclusivity terms in their zero-hours contract cannot seek work elsewhere, regardless of whether the employer offers only occasional, minimal, or even no hours of work. Exclusivity terms are unfair for the individual who, as a result, is prevented from boosting their income or building on their work experience. Frankly, it is also damaging to the economy because it prevents people from reaching their full employment potential.

As my noble friend Lady Harding made clear at Second Reading, from her own experience of running a supermarket in Yeovil, zero-hours contracts are an important element of a flexible, vibrant labour market, and they work for employers and individuals alike. I even heard the shadow Business Secretary agreeing that sometimes people quite like to use them. However, I think that we also agree that people working under such a contract must get a fair deal.

The ban on exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts, as set out in the clause, is straightforward. From the moment the clause commences, individuals can simply ignore an exclusivity clause and work for another employer as well if they wish. There is no process, no admin and no need to discuss this with the employer—I am not sure that people understand this—and any attempt by the employer to stop a second or third arrangement would be unenforceable. This is a major change and a reduction in employer flexibility, but one that we believe is right.

Amendment 68ZU seeks to provide a route of redress for zero-hours workers who need to enforce their rights, allowing for regulations to set out the details. The clause already provides for an order-making power that will allow for this.

Amendment 68ZW seeks to make the use of that order-making power mandatory. However, given the fact that routes of redress will be delivered through the order-making power, I am sure that the Committee will agree that in this case the amendment is unnecessary. The Government will have to bring forward regulations; otherwise, the ban on exclusivity terms in zero-hours contracts will have no meaning. For this reason, I do not believe that we need to make this amendment. The regulations that will be possible under the order-making power will also be able to address the issue of redress that is covered in detail in Amendment 68ZAB; that is, that an employment tribunal will have the power to consider claims related to the exclusivity ban, including providing remedies to the individual and issuing penalties to the employer. The Government recently consulted on using the order-making power. We are currently finalising the details with a view to publishing the government response shortly on how we plan to tackle avoidance.

Amendment 68ZZ suggests that the definition of an exclusivity term is too narrow. However, the Government have looked at this and consider the description in new Section 27A(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which will be inserted by Clause 148, to be sufficiently broad. It covers any provision in a zero-hours contract that prohibits working for others, as well as terms that require an individual to seek permission from their employer to do so.

I believe that our approach will deal sensibly and effectively with both avoidance of the ban and routes of redress for individuals on a zero-hours contract who suffer a detriment. I hope that on this basis the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

The Minister indicates that the Government have had some consultation and regulations will be published. I wonder if she will give some timescale for those.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we shall be publishing them shortly.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

Prior to Report?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I will take that point away and do my best.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

Right. Obviously, as we said earlier, we welcome this measure. We are probing a bit to see whether or not the controls that the Minister referred to and the powers of the Secretary of State are sufficient. We will take into account the points that she made in her response, and we will consider whether we need to return to these issues on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68ZU withdrawn.

Amendment 68ZV had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 68ZW not moved.

Amendment 68ZX

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68ZX: Clause 148, page 137, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provisions—
(a) giving zero hours workers the right to be awarded financial compensation of amounts, and in circumstances, to be determined by the Secretary of State;(b) giving employment tribunals powers to enforce their judgments, including the award of any applicable compensation as referred to in paragraph (a), or imposition of any applicable penalty, in cases involving zero hours workers; and (c) imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods, of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State.”

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, again, this amendment seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s powers and to make it more explicit in the legislation. That is justifiable in the circumstances and we have identified the relevant provisions. There is some flexibility in it, so zero-hours workers have a right to be awarded financial compensation, of amounts to be determined by the Secretary of State. Employment tribunals are given powers to enforce their judgments, which is relevant and reasonable in the circumstances. Returning to an issue to which I referred in an earlier contribution, it imposes an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed-hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period or a series of continuous periods of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State. We are not seeking to do away with flexibility; we recognise that that is appropriate in some circumstances. However, we believe that at the moment zero-hours contracts are, in many circumstances, a bridge too far and that they deny workers basic employment rights.

Amendment 68ZAC is intended to ensure that workers are fully enabled and empowered by understanding the nature of the zero-hours contract, so the employer has to provide basic information about terms and conditions for all zero-hours workers within two months of their start date. Again, we think that is a reasonable requirement. We regard a contract of employment as an inalienable right of workers and we seek to extend that right to those on zero-hours contracts. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. The daughter of a friend works for a burger company and is on a ZHC. She does not know until the previous Friday what hours she will get for Monday. She cannot plan her life; she cannot budget; she cannot buy any large goods; she cannot study. She cannot do another job alongside it—I am delighted that the Government are moving to stop that ban continuing—and, if she were not living it home, she could not rent, as landlords want evidence of steady income. The Unite union, which has done splendid work on this, was told by a call-centre worker, who had worked for a multinational firm for five years: “I am only informed if I have shifts one week in advance and the hours I am given can range from nought to 48. I feel regularly anxious about whether I will be able to pay the rent and put food on the table.” She too is on a ZHC. A third person on a ZHC, a lone parent, expects, and is expected, to work on Fridays and had arranged and paid for childcare, as she must. Her shift was cancelled an hour before and she was told to work on Saturday instead. She had to pay for the childcare she did not need on Friday but could not find childcare for the Saturday when she needed it, so she refused. Her hours were cut the following week as punishment.

As my noble friend Lord Young said, we estimate that nearly 2 million people are on ZHCs in cleaning and domiciliary care, retail, hospitality, catering, call centres, construction and customer services, with wages at or around the minimum wage. Some 75% of those on ZHCs find that their hours vary every week and 40% are not allowed to work for anyone else, although we welcome the fact that this Bill begins to address that problem. They are on call—unpaid—and required at an hour’s notice. They are hoarded but not used, a sort of just-in-time stock control applied not only to tinned tomatoes but to staff. Of course, after six months they should be given a proper fixed-hour contract. We may be in a 24/7 economy, which needs a flexible labour market, but, as Pickavance argued in his report, fluctuating demand—the excuse for flexible labour and ZHCs—is largely predictable.

18:04

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, why does Boots need zero-hours contracts but not Marks & Spencer? Why McDonald’s, Burger King, JD Wetherspoon and Subway but not Pret A Manger? Why Sports Direct but not Halfords? Why Cineworld but not Center Parcs? Why, apparently, Lloyds but not Barclays?

Ministers often state—I am sure that we will hear this today, as indeed we did just a moment ago—that zero-hours contracts are preferred by some workers, but they always overstate that. A few welcome such contracts—students, perhaps—and my research shows that the recently retired, looking to top up their pensions, are happy with their flexibility. I also accept that there may be a place for zero-hours contracts in better-paid jobs at the upper end—in IT, for example; in FE, where extra teaching cover may be necessary; for irregular arts events; and even for nursing banks. However, all the evidence from other groups that I have seen—a pile this high—is that staff want the right, whether or not they take it up, to regular hours. At the minimum wage end, ZHCs are lazy, exploitative management by employers and HR staff who want to take short cuts in their own jobs and short-change other people’s jobs.

I ask the Committee to think about the implications for those on ZHCs who also need help from the benefits system, which is largely why I am engaging in this debate today. Say that over a month, a lone parent on a ZHC works 20 hours in the first week, 15 in the second, 10 in the third and 22 in the final week. In weeks one and four, because she is working more than 16 hours, she gets working tax credits from HMRC to top up her pay. In the two middle weeks, working 15 hours and 10, she does not get tax credits. If she gets fewer than 16 hours a week, she may be able to claim JSA from the DWP—if, of course, she is available for work, but on an exclusive contract you are not able to do that. So what does she live on in those two middle weeks? Tiny earnings, topped up by payday loans because she has no rights to top up by benefits.

Not surprisingly, according to the Resolution Foundation, nearly 1 million people are spending more than 50% of their disposable income on debt repayment —debts taken to smooth their income in a zero-hours world. Each week there are different earnings to report to different government departments: in my example, weeks one and four to HMRC, weeks two and three to the DWP. This is all paid in arrears, of course, so the money does not come when you need it. What is more, each month you have different earnings to report to the council and local authority for your housing benefit and your council tax reduction. It can take weeks to process each claim, and that too will eventually be paid in arrears. In the mean time—I should perhaps declare an interest here as chair of a housing association —your rent arrears may grow and you face eviction.

How many of us could live like that, dealing with three or four different agencies week by week as well as the employer, never knowing what your earnings and income will be, what any benefit top-up will be and when any of it may arrive? Are we then surprised that many lone parents prefer the security of low but predictable benefit income to the snakes and ladders of ZHCs? Universal credit will help, but its payment methods—claims filed only online, with no possibility of correcting errors, and a single monthly payment made in arrears—will worsen many people’s plight.

It seems therefore right and fair, as Pickavance recommended, that you should be able to move on to a fixed-hour contract after six months so that you know what your income will be.

It seems right that if you remain on ZHCs, you should, if a shift is cancelled at short notice, be given compensation for loss of earnings, travel expenses and, possibly, childcare. Of course, employment tribunals must be able to require exploitative employers to conform. We need proper contracts to corral the cowboys. The sadness is that so many of those cowboys are high street names which we have held in high regard—no longer.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and the opportunity further to debate aspects of zero-hours contracts. I am also grateful for the clarification by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that he does not want to get rid of all flexibility. I was also very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, joined our discussion. Her three case studies demonstrate the need for Clause 148.

As I set out in our previous debate, the Government recently consulted on the matter of avoidance and routes of redress, including powers to go to employment tribunals and seek compensation. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that that is already possible under Section 27B in Clause 148.

Amendment 68ZX would require employers to offer fixed-hours contracts once an individual has worked regular hours as determined by regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned six months. Before I respond, let us reflect on how those with zero-hours contracts feel about their employment. The CIPD survey published in November 2013 found that many individuals chose to work on a zero-hours contract and were found to be more content than those in permanent employment. I accept that there will be hard cases but these are overall comments. Zero-hours workers, when compared to the average UK employee, are just as satisfied with their job, happier with their work-life balance and less likely to think that they are treated unfairly.

To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, fluctuating demand is not predictable. My noble friend Lady Harding told us about that at Second Reading from her experience. Even the noble Baroness acknowledged that there are sectors of the workforce and individuals—students, those in IT, the recently retired, and many others—who are happy with zero-hours contracts, and, of course, happier to have a job than not to have a job. Imposing restrictive criteria over how a zero-hours worker can be employed may have the perverse effect of discouraging employers from creating jobs at all.

I appreciate that that is not the noble Lords’ intention, but I know that the Committee will understand the risk of unintended consequences, because it is something that we consider a lot when we are trying to legislate in this House. There is a clear risk that employers will simply let people go, or offer no work at the end of a qualifying period to avoid converting the contract to fixed hours. It would also be very difficult to define what is meant by “regular hours” in all those different industries.

The Government have already made some changes in this area. The flexible working regulations were amended in June 2014 to ensure that any employee can request flexible working. That is just as relevant to someone on a zero-hours contract as it is to a permanent member of staff. If a zero-hours worker is an employee and can show 26 weeks’ continuous service, they can make a request for formalised hours or a particular shift pattern.

Amendment 68ZX also requires a right for zero-hours workers to be provided with financial compensation. As I understand it, that power is already provided for in the clause.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The Minister says that people are satisfied with that. I was just checking my statistics from the CIPD, in which only one in five older people prefer the contract that is being offered them; the other four-fifths would like regular hours. The problem is that you cannot run a second job alongside a first—which is the point of Clause 148, which we all welcome—unless you know what your hours in the first job will be. It is very simple. Unless you have the ability to turn it into a reliable, regular, predictable contract, with the exceptions that we all agree may well be necessary—in IT, arts events, so on and so forth—the freedom you are giving in Clause 148 will be partly illusory. You cannot do it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification. This is not an easy area. I also note that she made a number of good points about bad employer practices. I will mention something we are doing that may help on all these points. We have already encouraged business groups and unions to develop codes of practice. Those need to be sector-specific and industry-led, as we think that creates the most impact. A one-size-fits-all solution from the centre will not work, for exactly the reasons that we are debating this afternoon. The guidance would include, for example, in what circumstances a zero-hours contract is appropriate and where it is not, and the kind of considerations mentioned by the noble Baroness will be relevant.

Amendment 68ZX also seeks powers for employment tribunals to enforce their own judgments. Well established court-based enforcement options are already available to enforce employment tribunal awards, such as the fast-track system or county court in England and Wales and the sheriff courts in Scotland. The primary function of the employment tribunal is of course to provide a forum in which parties can resolve their disputes and obtain a judgment. The employment tribunal does not have responsibility for the enforcement of the awards it makes to individuals. Tribunal-led enforcement of its own awards would represent a fundamental departure from the normal principles of civil justice and enforcement. If the enforcement of employment tribunal awards for zero-hours claims became a tribunal-led affair, many other employment tribunal and civil court users would begin to question why the tribunal or court did not pursue or enforce its judgments or awards.

Amendment 68ZAC suggests that zero-hours workers should be provided with information about their basic terms and conditions within two months of their start date. I agree that employers should provide their staff with clear terms and conditions, and I reassure noble Lords that employees are already entitled to a written—or, I think and hope, online—statement of the particulars of their employment arrangement. That entitlement applies to individuals on a zero-hours contract if their employment status is that of an “employee”. However, the Government acknowledge that there is a wider issue about whether all workers, regardless of their employment status, should be entitled to a written statement. That is being considered as part of the review of employment status, including the risks, impact and opportunities involved in any new arrangements, which I mentioned when we were discussing interns. Officials will report to Ministers on the outcomes in March.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also talked about the interlink between zero-hours contracts and jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit. Universal credit was of course designed to be responsive to fluctuations in earnings—it is different in that way, and to my mind better—so, for people who are working, financial support will be reduced at a consistent and predictable rate. In weeks where a claimant has lower or no income from their zero-hours contract, universal credit payments would increase.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

The point is that if you are going to be paid only at the end of the month, what do you live on in the mean time? Just to make it clear, your universal credit payment will be paid in arrears at the end of the month. However, you learn only at the end of the second week that you do not have the income. Although I absolutely agree that UC will reflect the total earnings over the total month, what do you live on in weeks two and three?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Baroness makes a point that bears on the universal credit payment system in the round. I think that the clause is actually helpful, compared to the status quo, if we make these changes on zero hours. I am advised that universal credit is paid in real time, so if the claimant informs the system in real time, they will get the money. I must apologise that I am not a welfare expert, I am a Business Minister.

18:15

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Whether it is the handwriting or whatever, it is certainly the case that UC will be based on real-time information, but the payment will be made at the end of a month in arrears. Therefore you have the problem of income-smoothing when you have unpredictable hours, and we know that the hours of 75% of people on ZHCs vary every week. That is why, going back to Clause 148, I ask how you can run a second job with unpredictable hours if your first job has unpredictable hours. Your two employers may want you at the same time, but neither employer may want you at another hour.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. In a sense, that is a problem for employers, who could previously have a zero-hours arrangement that was exclusive. As I explained in opening, we have decided that that should not be the case in future. I am sure that the new arrangements will take some thinking about and settling in but, as far as I am concerned, if you are on a zero-hours contract, you can offer your services to—I do not know—two fashion magazines rather than just one. That is an excellent move forward. In any event, many people on zero-hours contracts who benefit so much from them, especially those in the categories that we were talking about, are not looking for universal credit, as the noble Baroness acknowledged.

I have probably taken this as far as I can this evening. I have tried to set out why we are proposing this, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I was interested when the Minister said that one of our amendments, seeking compensation if shifts were cancelled at short notice, was catered for in the Bill. I had another careful look and I presume that she is referring to new subsection (5)(c) on page 138, which states rather broadly:

“requiring employers to pay compensation to zero hours workers”.

It does not state in what circumstances. I would welcome some clarification. If that is not possible today, it is still an important issue that requires an answer in writing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue. I was going to deal with it in my response, but decided not to because of the complexities. I can give him some comfort but the best thing is to consider the questions that he has asked and write to him and copy that to other noble Lords, because this is obviously an important issue.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I think the noble Baroness for her response. It has been an interesting debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for her usual forensic analysis. We will need to consider our response in the light of the Minister’s answers. Although we do not necessarily have an agreement on this, we are seeking to improve the Bill. We are not seeking to abolish flexibility or all zero-hours contracts but we seek to create a fairer scenario for workers employed in those circumstances. With those caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68ZX withdrawn.

Amendment 68ZY

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

68ZY: Clause 148, page 138, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) Such workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system where the relevant worker’s annual earnings exceed £3,000 per year.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment to analyse the relationship between the flexible labour market and the benefit system that is supposed to support it and which often fails to do so. Some 6 million people in this country have part-time or flexi-hour jobs, and well over 1 million—probably nearer 2 million—are on ZHCs. Most are on or around minimum wage. Unite estimates that half of all workers under 30—that is 3.75 million—are on ZHCs and other short-hour contracts.

As I have said in relation to a previous amendment, of those who are on a ZHC, 75% find that their hours vary every week; only one in five have the same hours and thus the same pay each week. Many do not know on Friday what hours and what pay they will get on Monday.

We have already discussed the abuses that workers may face: unpredictable hours, low pay—nearly 60% of those on ZHCs earn less than £500 per month, with no proper contract, no reliable income, shifts cancelled at an hour’s notice and no ability, which the Bill addresses, to work another job alongside it. There is one other downside that has been largely overlooked and which applies not only to ZHCs but to any part-time job: the interaction more fully with the benefits system. The CIPD, whose figures I have with me, found that 37% of people on ZHCs—that is, 400,000 people—as well as hundreds of thousands of others in short-hour jobs work fewer than 16 hours a week, most at or around minimum wage, in any one job. Tesco was recently recruiting some 800 staff. Ninety-six per cent of the vacancies were for part-time positions, deliberately designed to save the company paying employer national insurance and thus saving Tesco some £100 million a year, even though that left many of its employees without national insurance rights.

Snapshots of Jobcentre Plus show that the majority of jobs usually advertised are part-time, which can mean that those filling them do not come within the national insurance system. As I am sure the Committee knows, for you to come within the NI system you have to earn at least £5,700 in any one job, although you and the employer do not pay NI rates until you are earning at the primary tax threshold of £7,500. Cruelly, and completely irrationally, if under the new freedoms you run three £5,000-a-year jobs alongside each other—for example, cleaning, work in the lunchtime sandwich shop, local newsagent or launderette, or bar work—although your £15,000 income from your three £5,000 jobs is amalgamated for tax purposes it is not amalgamated for national insurance purposes and you are outside the system. I estimate that some 200,000 people are caught this way. We can argue the statistics but I have had the privilege of being a member of a working party on this subject, chaired by the IFS and set up by the Minister’s right honourable friend in the other place, Steve Webb.

The Bill rightly allows people to run two ZHC jobs alongside each other but that will substantially increase the number of people caught. Although their amalgamated income would take them over the NI threshold, because they have to earn more than £5,700 in any one job, they are still penalised. Such jobs are not temporary contracts for entry-level jobs. As my noble friend Lord Young said earlier, half of those doing them stay for more than two years and one-quarter stay for more than five years in such ZHCs.

Who are they? People can be credited into the national insurance system if they are unemployed and on JSA or ESA, if they have children under 12, if they are caring for older people for more than 20 hours a week or if their household income is so low that they will qualify for universal credit.

Who then is excluded from coming within NI? They may be young people living at home. Rather than live off benefit, which would bring them into NI, they are bravely patching together an income that does not. If you are unemployed you get NI, but if you piece a living wage together through two or three jobs then you do not.

They will, in particular, be middle-aged women with children over 12, whose partner’s income floats them off universal credit but who have one, or three, part-time jobs, all below the lower earnings limit, which they have fitted around their family life and caring responsibilities for years. Does it matter? Why am I banging on about this? Without NI, you lose statutory rights to sickness, holiday and maternity pay. Above all, you fail to build your 35 years towards a full state pension. This mattered less until the spring because, in the past, married women could derive a state pension from their husbands—the 60% dependency pension. In future they will not be able to get a pension through him, or through their own work, even if they are working 30 hours a week in three ten-hour jobs. They will go into retirement with much lower pensions. If you lose seven years of NI contributions, and many women in their 40s and 50s may be working without NI contributions for seven years or so, your state pension on retirement drops, on current figures, by £30 a week for the rest of your life.

I have tried, and I am still hopeful that another Government may be able, to amalgamate a couple of mini-jobs for NI purposes, just as they do for tax, to bring a worker into NI. I recognise that in the past the difficulties in doing this were with divvying up the employer’s contribution among two or three mini-job employers and collecting the appropriate information about hours of work. I acknowledge that those two roadblocks were real but we are allowing the self-employed to acquire the full new state pension without an employer’s contribution, so that problem has disappeared and, as the Minister has said, we are collecting real-time information for UC so we can track it all. We could therefore treat people with ZHCs as though they are self-employed or, if they are working less than 16 hours in any of their jobs but at least that in total, they could be regarded as meeting JSA work conditionality and be credited in. We could let older workers, especially women, revisit their national insurance record at the point of retirement to make good any shortfalls, whenever they had occurred, and not confine their ability to do that to the last six years of working life when family pressures—and, therefore, their exposure to a bundle of mini-jobs that did not bring them into NI—may well have occurred much earlier than this.

The coalition Government have, wrongly, refused all such possibilities. With this amendment, I am trying another path to again get people on ZHCs into the national insurance system. Revisit the lower earnings limit, the point at which you come into national insurance. It is currently £5,700 but you do not pay it until £7,500. You could abolish the LEL altogether. After all, if you are on JSA, ESA or UC you come into the national insurance system as of right, without paying a penny and, at that point, without working. It is therefore arguable that there is no point in the LEL any more. However, if that is too radical, I make a more modest suggestion that anyone earning £3,000 a year in any one job—that is £60 a week, or around 10 hours per week at minimum wage—should be credited into NI. A few weeks back, I tabled a Written Question asking what the net cost of this would be, given that so many people are credited into NI without any wage from work. I did not expect it to be high. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, helpfully replied that the information was not available, which I find hard to believe. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Newby, here; perhaps by now the Minister has had the datasets sorted. That is the reason for this probing amendment.

More positively, we know that the best predictor of anyone in a full-time job is that they held a mini-job the year before, and that a zero-hours contract job of around 10 hours may be a stepping stone back into the labour market for older women. It may, over time, add to our tax and NI receipts.

However, the real case for the amendment is a moral one. We are—some of us—happy to have a flexible labour market in which all the risk passes to the worker, who is then exposed to an exploitative labour market and a rigid and inflexible social security system. Even with this Bill, and even being able to work a couple of ZHCs together—which will be difficult, given that you cannot predict the hours in either of them—you still have to get above the LEL in any one of them to come within NI, so the risks of losing years of your state pension accrual remain.

The flexible labour market will send hundreds of people into retirement with an incomplete state pension, simply because issues such as these are off the Government’s radar. I beg to move.

18:30

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 68ZY. My noble friend Lady Hollis has been tenacious in seeking to achieve fairness for a section of the workforce that is excluded from the national insurance system.

As my noble friend explained, this group of workers is caught by the rules whereby someone has to earn, in a single job, an amount above the lower earnings limit—£5,700 a year—to come into the national insurance system, although they do not have to pay national insurance contributions until they earn more than £7,500 in a single job. If, however, they have two or more short-hours jobs—mini-jobs—all of which pay below £5,700 but which may involve them working, say, 30 hours a week, they cannot add the wages of those jobs together to get above the lower earnings threshold and into the national insurance system. The amendment is simple. It proposes lowering the earnings threshold for entering the national insurance system to allow many more of the growing number of workers on mini-jobs and non-guaranteed hours to get into the national insurance system.

In the past, it was thought that perhaps 50,000 people, mostly women, were affected, as they sought to get an income by putting together a series of mini-jobs. But the scale of the problem is now far greater because of the increase in the use of zero-hours and minimum guaranteed hours contracts in the economy, which can deliver little or no wages in some weeks if little or no work is offered. Workers may need several casualised jobs to get an income but then find that not one of them pays above the £5,700 entry level for the NI system.

According to the ONS’s Annual Business Survey in January 2014, there were some 2.7 million zero-hours contracts, of which 1.4 million provided work to people and 1.3 million did not. The 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study revealed that 23% of workplaces with 100 or more employees used zero-hours contracts. My noble friend has provided far more detail on the growing evidence available but it is clear that the number who find themselves excluded from the national insurance system will increase.

A modem welfare system has to be inclusive and responsive to the realities of the contemporary labour market. Over the years, Parliament has recognised the unfairness of locking certain groups of people out of the national insurance system and has amended the rules accordingly. As my noble friend listed, mothers of children aged under 12, disabled people, carers, a grandparent caring for a child whose mother works, and the unemployed on JSA are credited into the national insurance system. It seems all the more unfair that there is a group of workers whose pattern of employment and earnings does not deliver wages in any one job sufficient to meet the entry point of £5,700 for the NI system and they cannot add their wages from their other jobs to get through the turnstile. A hundred pounds per week, which is below the lower earnings limit, equates to almost 16 hours on the national minimum wage, so a person with more than one such mini-job could be working a significant number of hours but still be excluded.

Universal credit is income-based so it will not provide a comprehensive solution to this problem. For example, if a single person is earning more than £4,000 a year in any job, they are above the level for universal credit so they do not get credited in. However, £4,000 is significantly below the lower earnings limit of £5,700 and if not one of their mini-jobs pays above this level, they still cannot get credited in. My noble friend gave us another example. If a partnered woman is working but has no single job paying wages that reach £5,700, and if her husband is in work and they have two children aged over 12 when his earnings float him off universal credit, the woman cannot get credited through to the national insurance system. The need to address the position of such women is made even more urgent because from April 2016 these women will no longer be able to gain state pension though their husbands, as the married women’s dependency pension will cease. They will be locked out either way you cut it. Yet the ONS report revealed that women make up a greater proportion of those on zero-hours contracts, and that people who report being on such contracts are more likely to be younger and, I presume, to be single.

The Secretary of State, Vincent Cable, and other employer bodies such as the EEF, the CBI and the IoD argue that zero or no guaranteed-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market and that employers need flexibility in today’s global economy to manage the consequences of economic downturns. If that is the case, the issue of workers who accrue income across one or more contracts but cannot enter the NI system is here to stay. It means also that it is here to be addressed. The right of businesses to employee flexibility should not deprive workers of access to the national insurance benefits system—but that is exactly what it is doing and will do, unless the problem that my noble friend has so tenaciously and consistently articulated is addressed.

It is argued that such zero-hours contracts are required to meet a short-term need of employers but the persistency of zero-hours contracts is evidenced by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, whose findings indicate that of the workers affected, 65% have been on such contracts for two or more years, 40% for five or more years and 20% for 10 or more. The employer’s need may be short term but the employee’s contractual position can be long-term and bring a long-term lock-out from the national insurance system. The Government’s ban on exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts allows people to work for more than one employer but will not provide a definitive solution to the problem. The freedom to have several contracts does not provide entry into the national insurance system if none of them produces a wage above £5,700.

My noble friend Lady Hollis has faced varied rebuttals from the Government on her proposed solutions: that it is not reasonable to try to share employer’s NI across mini-jobs; that the women will still not want to pay class 1 contributions; that there are only a few of them; that their situation is temporary; that they have time to make up missing years; that universal credit will solve it and that, if all else fails, there is pension credit. That persistent rebuttal is becoming increasingly hollow, though, since both the Secretary of State and business itself confirm that there is an integral need for these minimum and no-guaranteed-hours contracts as a functioning part of a modern labour market, so we need to find a solution.

I repeat: over the years, Parliament has recognised the unfairness of locking certain groups out of the NI system, including the state pension, and has amended the rules accordingly. As my noble friend has advised, it has rightly accepted that those who are unemployed and in receipt of benefits such as JSA, have no employer and do not pay national insurance are in the national insurance system. Those who are lucky enough to get a single job earning £6,000 or £7,000 do not pay national insurance contributions but are also in the system. Lowering the lower earnings entry point to allow many more of the growing number of those on mini-jobs and no-guaranteed-hours contracts to enter the national insurance system has the merit of simplicity and is the fair thing to do.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, after that forensic double examination, I cannot help reflecting that I am glad I am not responding. I support the amendment because it raises a significant issue. I also want to add the point that here are a Government who say that the best thing we can do is to encourage people to get into work, and I think that that is right; people who are locked out of the employment market, for whatever reason, face a real challenge. So these are people who are determined to work, which is what the Government want them to do, and determined to make a contribution not only for themselves but for their families, yet they are being penalised. The case being made is a valid one. We recognise by the nature of the contributions that this is quite a complex issue, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Such expectation, my Lords. I know that the question of NI eligibility raised by the amendment is one about which the noble Baroness is deeply concerned and has been for some time; this is not the first time the issue has been raised in your Lordships’ House by her and others. I hope that I can reassure them that the Government are already actively considering this matter, and I look forward to working further with her on this outside the debates on the Bill, to see how best it can be addressed. We are in no sense claiming that this is not a valid issue.

I know that officials from a range of government departments have already been in discussion with interested parties, including the noble Baroness, over recent months, and this work has been considering the evidence base around the matter of national insurance eligibility. As the noble Baroness is aware, it remains a work in progress and we believe that we do not yet know enough to make a sensible legislative change at this point. There are many complex issues regarding the scale of the problem and how to address it.

The noble Baroness raised the figure of 200,000 people who might be affected by the problems that she has so graphically described, but these figures do not align with DWP analysis, which suggests that 50,000 individuals are affected and that the group is disproportionately made up of under-25 year-olds. The noble Baroness laughs but the DWP is not coming up with a low figure for the sake of frustrating her; that is its best view. That is why we need to do more work on the issue.

18:45

The amendment specifically seeks to change the position for zero-hours workers who have annual earnings above £3,000. The issue of low earners not gaining entitlement to contributory benefits is, however, not one exclusive to those on zero-hours contracts, and as such it is right to consider it as part of the wider work already under way. The amendment would mean that a person on a zero-hours contract who earned £60 per week would gain access to contributory benefits. However, someone who worked a limited number of guaranteed hours each week—that is, not on a zero-hours contract—earning £110 per week, would not. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would agree that that would at best be a partial solution.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry—I did not understand that sentence at all. Would the noble Lord care to explain to me why somebody on £60 a week would be in the contributory system, while somebody on £110 would not?

[Lord Newby]

I am drawing the distinction between somebody who is on a zero-hours contract at that level of income and somebody on a higher level of income, on a straightforward contract, which might pay £5,000 a year. The noble Baroness’s amendment deals solely with people on zero-hours contracts—that is what the clauses deal with.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No—that is not a correct statement. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that this is a problem. My amendment says:

“Such workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system”,

and that does not exclude others. I would obviously expect, as the noble Lord absolutely rightly recognises, that that would apply to people on ZHCs. However, as I made very clear in my opening remarks, this affects all those on short-hour or part-time contracts, where in any one job they are not over £5,700, but could by aggregation or in this way, by lowering the LEL, come within the NI system. If we believe in encouraging people into work, we should do this.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I was not suggesting that the amendment would exclude the possibility of further provisions being made for people who are not on zero-hours contracts. However, the amendment would amend a clause that deals specifically with zero-hours contracts—that is what the Bill deals with. It is not dealing with people who are on straightforward contracts for, say, five hours a week. That is the point I am making, that this is partial. I am not saying that that means it is worthless; I am simply saying that it is a partial solution, even if the Government were to accept it.

I reiterate what both noble Baronesses have said, that individuals with earnings below the lower earnings limit, whether on zero-hours contracts or not, are not without some protections already. At the highest level, individuals have to reach the lower earnings limit in only 30 years of a 49-year working life to qualify for a full state pension. Those who reach state pension age from 6 April 2016 will require an additional five years. That means that the individual can fall below this limit for a significant number of years—up to 14—and not be penalised in retirement.

Of course, there are also the other protections, which both noble Baronesses have referred to. Not only income that is above the lower earnings limit counts towards eligibility for a full state pension. Many national insurance credits also count towards that entitlement. For instance, NI contributions can be credited where a person is unable to work full-time due to ill health or because of caring responsibilities. These can be awarded to those receiving certain benefits, such as child benefit or working tax credits, to help build entitlement to a state pension. While we cannot be certain, it is highly likely that many individuals whom the noble Baroness is seeking to benefit are getting national insurance credits during those years in their working life where their earnings fall below the lower earnings limit.

I know that the noble Baroness is keen to make changes as soon as possible, but more work is clearly needed to understand the full extent of the issue. In any event, as I have said, this amendment, which deals only with zero-hours contracts, does not and would not resolve the issue entirely in the way that the noble Baroness wishes. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to continue working closely with the DWP and HMRC on this matter so that they can have the benefit of her very considerable experience and we will eventually reach a satisfactory solution. However, I submit that the way we should do that is not through this Bill and this amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thank my noble friend Lord Young, and especially my noble friend Lady Drake for her powerful speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made three points in reply to which I need to respond. The first was that work was in hand on the working party chaired by the IFS—which, as I said, his right honourable friend Steve Webb set up—on how best the problem should be addressed. Not so. We were told explicitly that all that we could do was collect the data on how many people might be affected, not come up with any policy recommendations. I noticed that when I suggested half a dozen, they were not included in the minutes.

I would be delighted to have the wider remit that the Minister suggested, because that would indeed allow us to take the issue forward. Instead, it has hung around his second point, which is the number coming from DWP of 50,000 as opposed to my figure of 200,000. I am not sure about the propriety of my citing this information in the Moses Room, but if he checks the minutes and the additional information based on research of P14s from HMRC and his department, he will probably find that it is estimated that 130,000 people will be above the current LEL in any one pay period, which could be a week or a month, but over the course of the year will be below LEL, so they are in addition to the 50,000. In addition to that, it was suggested to the working party that about 30,000 or more, possibly far more, are untouched or uncaught because they work for very small employers—the newsagent’s shop, and so on—and are not within the PAYE system. Put those figures together and you get to more than 200,000, my original figure of some two months ago.

The Minister’s third point was that the amendment was very partial and that there was a wider problem with part-time workers more generally. I absolutely agree; he is right. I will be delighted if, as a result, I have persuaded him that the Government need to come back on Report with a comprehensive amendment, a freestanding clause which will address the issue more widely. I invite him to do so, because that is what he has been suggesting and would be consistent with his position in his reply.

At the core—okay, we are arguing between ourselves —is that it cannot be right, first, that someone who is not employed comes into the national insurance system but someone who may be working 30 hours a week cannot do so. Secondly, it cannot be right that when we have a flexible labour market—we have all agreed that a flexible labour market in a 24/7 economy is necessary—all the risks, including the risk of losing a sizeable chunk of your state pension, should fall on the shoulders of the worker, usually a middle-aged woman. That cannot be right. I regard it as immoral. If we want a flexible labour market, and most of us accept that there is a need for it in places, we should ensure that the national insurance system supports those people to do what the rest of us want, wearing our hats as consumers. If we do not, I think that we are behaving immorally. I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister would agree.

I am very happy to continue to discuss numbers on the working party. I am very happy that the Minister will recommend to his right honourable friend that we enlarge the terms of reference of that committee and therefore come up with policy recommendations, and I would be very happy if the Minister were minded to produce some of those recommendations on Report as a government amendment. I would then be very content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68ZY withdrawn.

Amendments 68ZZ to 68ZAC not moved.

Clause 148 agreed.

Clause 149: Regulations in connection with public sector exit payments

Amendment 68A

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

68A: Clause 149, page 139, line 5, leave out “The Treasury may by regulations” and insert “Regulations may”

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, Clauses 149 to 151 give Her Majesty’s Treasury powers to make UK-wide regulations with regard to public sector exit payments. Amendments 68A to 68N and 101A will provide Scottish Ministers with equivalent powers to make regulations to recover exit payments made by relevant bodies in Scotland. They do not enable Scottish Ministers to make regulations affecting payments made elsewhere in the UK. I can confirm that that the Scottish Government have seen these amendments in draft and are content with them. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I see no reason to oppose the amendments.

Amendment 68A agreed.

Amendments 68B and 68C

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

68B: Clause 149, page 139, line 9, leave out “Treasury think” and insert “person making the regulations thinks”

68C: Clause 149, page 139, line 31, leave out subsection (6)

Amendments 68B and 68C agreed.

Clause 149, as amended, agreed.

Clause 150: Section 149(1): further provision

Amendments 68D and 68E

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

68D: Clause 150, page 140, line 1, leave out from second “a” to “or” in line 2 and insert “prescribed public sector authority”

68E: Clause 150, page 140, line 3, leave out “public sector office so prescribed” and insert “prescribed public sector office”

Amendments 68D and 68E agreed.

Clause 150, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 68F

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

68F: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make regulations to be exercisable by the Treasury or Scottish Ministers
(1) The power to make regulations under section 149(1) is exercisable—
(a) by the Scottish Ministers in relation to payments made by a relevant Scottish authority;(b) by the Treasury in relation to any other payments,(but this subsection is subject to subsection (2)).(2) Where the relevant Scottish authority is the Scottish Administration the power to make regulations under section 149(1) is exercisable by the Treasury (instead of the Scottish Ministers) in relation to payments made to—
(a) the holders of offices in the Scottish Administration which are not ministerial offices (read in accordance with section 126(8) of the Scotland Act 1998), and(b) the members of the staff of the Scottish Administration (read in accordance with section 126(7)(b) of that Act).(3) In this section “relevant Scottish authority” means an authority which wholly or mainly exercises functions which would be within devolved competence (within the meaning of section 54 of the Scotland Act 1998).
(4) Regulations under section 149(1)—
(a) if made by the Treasury, are subject to negative resolution procedure;(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the negative procedure.”

Amendment 68F agreed.

Clause 151: Power of Secretary of State to waive repayment requirement

Amendments 68G to 68N

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

68G: Clause 151, page 140, line 38, leave out “virtue of” and insert “regulations made by the Treasury under”

68H: Clause 151, page 140, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Scottish Ministers may waive the whole or any part of any repayment required by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 149(1).”

68J: Clause 151, page 140, line 42, after “regulations” insert “made by the Treasury”

68K: Clause 151, page 140, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) make provision for the power under subsection (1) to be exercisable on behalf of the Secretary of State by a prescribed person,”

68L: Clause 151, page 141, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) The exit payments regulations made by the Scottish Ministers may—
(a) make provision for the power under subsection (1A) to be exercisable on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by a prescribed person,(b) make provision for a waiver to be given only—(where provision is made by virtue of paragraph (a)), and(i) with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, or(ii) following compliance with any directions given by the Scottish Ministers,(where provision is made by virtue of paragraph (a)), and(c) make provision as to the publication of information about any waivers given.”

68M: Clause 151, page 141, line 3, after “regulations” insert “made by the Treasury”

68N: Clause 151, page 141, line 5, leave out paragraph (a)

Amendments 68G to 68N agreed.

Clause 151, as amended, agreed.

Committee adjourned at 6.57 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Monday, 26 January 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Ofsted: Academy Chains

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to give Ofsted the powers to inspect the management of academy chains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, when inspecting an academy in a chain, inspectors can and should consider the effectiveness of the governance arrangements and the school improvement support provided by the chain. Ofsted also carries out inspections of groups of academies within chains. These are an effective means of considering the management of academy chains and ensuring academy chains are held properly to account. The Secretary of State has written to HMCI recently, setting out our views out on this, and the letter is available on our website.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has belatedly been forced to make some concessions on this matter. However, can the Minister explain why we continue to have one set of rules for the people who run academy chains and another set of rules for local authorities? The latter are assessed on their strategic leadership of their schools, which of course is essential to the schools’ performance and improvement. So why do we not assess academy chain managers on the same basis as local authorities?

[Lord Nash]

There have not been any concessions. It is completely unnecessary for Ofsted to inspect chains’ head offices. Its batched inspection methodology, which it has used in a number of cases, is working extremely well. Ofsted has a great deal to do. As of September this year, it is taking in-house all its subcontracted inspectors, who do the vast majority of its inspections, and it is unnecessary to ask it to do a further task that is not needed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Could my noble friend explain to the House what role the new regional commissioners will have in relation to academy chains and Ofsted? For example, if Ofsted finds that a school is not being supported as it should be by its parent academy chain, whose responsibility is it to remonstrate with the academy chain and make sure that it gets that support?

[Lord Nash]

The regional schools commissioners are responsible for looking at the performance of academy chains, particularly schools that are doing poorly. They are in close touch with all academy chains. Each regional schools commissioner has a responsibility for an academy chain, and it will be their task to make sure that appropriate support is brokered and, in extreme cases, to help to broker a change of sponsor.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State’s letter mentions an inspection framework for the management of academies. Exactly what inspection framework is meant?

[Lord Nash]

The Secretary of State’s letter in relation to chains talks about it not being necessary to introduce a new inspection framework. There is a clear framework for inspecting all schools in this country.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that he is surely right? Local authority inspections are one thing but, in addition, there are a whole host of charitable foundations that have Ofsted inspections—but that is, again, in a different framework.

[Lord Nash]

Yes, I was merely referring to the fact that the letter that the Secretary of State refers to talks about a new framework and that we have not got a new framework for the inspection of chains.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that the overwhelming success of the majority of free schools and academies is the strongest evidence yet that allowing autonomy and freedom to schools and heads is the best way in which to raise standards?

[Lord Nash]

I entirely agree with my noble friend: free schools are our most successful group of non-selective state schools, with 24% rated outstanding. We are told by Ofsted that we have the highest-performing school system that we have ever had. The performance of the first batch of primary academies is much higher than that of local authority maintained schools, and secondary academies open for any length of time are clearly also doing better.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on a fear that local authority schools have a much higher percentage of children with special needs, particularly those with special needs that affect their behaviour? The Minister very kindly wrote to me, giving me the percentage improvement in free schools and academies, but many schools contact me to say that their local academies and free schools do not take as many children with difficulties and problems, and that, in addition, those schools get better funding.

[Lord Nash]

I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness again with more details on this. However, as far as I am aware, most academies, particularly the 1,000 schools that we have taken out of local authority maintenance over the past four years, many of which were languishing in failure for years, have very high rates of pupils with SEN, EAL and free school meals. However, I am happy to write to her with more details.

NHS: GP Salaries

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:42

Asked by

[Lord Trefgarne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the average salary paid to general practitioners working within the National Health Service.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, in England, in 2012-13, the average income for a contractor GP was £105,100 and for a salaried GP £56,600—both before tax. A contractor GP is a practitioner who entered into a contract with the NHS as a single-hander or as part of a partnership. Eighty per cent of GPs are contractors.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. In view of these quite respectable salaries, might it not be reasonable to expect a little bit of work in the evenings and on Saturdays?

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, the Government recognise that GPs work hard but that some patients would like more convenient opening hours. We have invested £50 million in piloting improved access to general practice this year, which will benefit 7.5 million patients. A further £100 million of investment will follow next year, which will mean that even more patients can have access to longer evening and weekend hours.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the increased remuneration for GPs was part of structural and other changes in the NHS which took hundreds of thousands off the waiting lists, reduced the maximum waiting time from three years to 18 weeks, halved the incidence of hospital acquired infections and increased the efficiency and service in our accident and emergency units to 98% over a decade, and that, if all those beneficial changes have now been reversed, that cannot be placed within the context of doctors’ wages?

[Baroness Jolly]

Certainly those changes under the last Government are well recorded but GPs wages have been falling every year in real terms since 2005-6. The expenses-to-earnings ratio increased from 62.7 to 63.7 and the additional funding announced at the end of last year will support general practice and out-of-hospital care more widely to improve infrastructure and pilot new ways of working.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, following the Royal College of General Practitioners report in June 2014 about the difficulty of getting doctors to practise in areas of deprivation, what progress has been made to ensure that poorer areas have the requisite number of GPs?

[Baroness Jolly]

I can tell my noble friend that today has brought good news. NHS England, Health Education England, the Royal College of GPs and the BMA today published a 10-point plan to boost GP numbers. As part of this, NHS England is working with the BMA and the royal college to explore a time-limited incentive scheme to offer additional financial support to GP trainees committed to working for three years in areas where it is hard to recruit GPs.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, in view of the answer that the noble Baroness has just given, I wonder whether she was listening to the Radio 4 report at lunchtime today—I am sure that she was not and has many better things to do—about the extreme difficulty that these schemes are having in recruiting trainee doctors into general practice. Indeed, the University of Leicester attempted to recruit 250 doctors, if I remember rightly, but fell about a third short of that number. In those circumstances, is it appropriate for us to be casting a jaundiced eye on what these people are paid?

[Baroness Jolly]

I am not sure about the salary and I am sorry that I missed the programme. We are aware that there are certain areas where we feel that there are not GPs and there should be more GPs. We are working really hard and, as I said, this new incentive is in place as of today and will, we hope, be able to solve that problem.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain why GPs in this country are paid substantially more than GPs in France, despite the fact that the standard of medical care in France is at least as high as it is in this country, if not higher? I speak as someone who from time to time receives medical care in both countries.

[Baroness Jolly]

I suspect that the French GPs do not have such a competent union.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that sooner or later we will have to tackle the issue of developing a comprehensive primary care service in this country that operates for 24 hours, around the clock and seven days a week, which is a much bigger issue than GP salaries?

[Baroness Jolly]

Community and primary services are being looked at in the round by NHS England with a view to seeing what changes need to be implemented to effect, I guess, the way in which we work in modern times.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

Is the noble Baroness aware that the number of patients being seen by general practitioners is rising year-on-year? Is she also aware that the amount of bureaucracy is becoming overwhelming for GPs, who are spending up to 50% of their time uselessly filling in forms and papers? Could they not spend more time seeing patients?

[Baroness Jolly]

Yes, indeed. Again, we are working hard with NHS England to try to reduce the sort of form filling and bureaucracy that GPs are currently having to do so that they can spend more time with their patients.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise that many GPs are thoroughly demoralised by all the attacks on them by ill informed politicians? What is more, without mentioning which party it was, a certain group criticised GPs and said, “We know what you are doing. You are on the golf course playing golf rather than doing your work; so we are going to pay you only for what you do”. The GPs thought that that was rather a good idea and it resulted in a 25% pay rise.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I am sorry, I missed the question in the whole of the tale.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Reid for once again setting the record straight on this issue. Moreover, in Labour’s last year in office, 98% of patients were being seen by their GPs within four hours. Does the Minister agree that the key problems that need to be addressed were set out in the Nuffield Trust’s recent report—an emerging crisis in the GP workforce, not enough GPs being trained, more trainees now working part-time, more existing GPs planning to retire early, and the numbers just not keeping up with those of hospital doctors?

[Baroness Jolly]

There is a whole mix of issues. Morale is clearly one, but it is our view that the 48-hour target did not work. From 2007 to 2010 the percentage of patients who were able to get an appointment within 48 hours when they wanted one declined from 86% to 80%. This Government take a different approach. We are trying to focus on local solutions rather than top-down targets. According to the latest data from the GP patient survey published in January this year, 84% of patients were able to book an appointment at their GP surgery when they needed one and 91.8% of patients got an appointment at a time that was convenient to them.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, going back to the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who made a fundamentally important point, she said that the work of GPs was being looked at by NHS England. As I understand it, NHS England is answerable, in some form or other, to this Government. Does my noble friend accept that if there is to be the sort of fundamental and comprehensive change that not only the noble Lord, Lord Laming, but a lot of other people believe to be necessary, that change will have to be agreed on a cross-party basis rather than on a narrow, government basis, whoever happens to be in Government?

[Baroness Jolly]

Yes, consensus is already a good idea. I am sure that the next few months will see all of us airing our differences. But in some areas—the one that comes to mind immediately is the area of joined-up services between health and social care—there is already quite a lot of agreement.

Defence: Type 26 Frigates

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to place an order for any Type 26 Frigates before the General Election; and if so, how many.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, we are working positively with BAES to maintain momentum on detailed ship design, cost, technical integration, supply chain and shipbuilding on the Clyde. Our common aim is to achieve greater maturity in designing the capability needed by the Royal Navy while maximising taxpayers’ value for money. We expect to make an announcement before the end of this Parliament. We are planning to replace the 13 Type 23s on a one-for-one basis.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Interestingly, Japan is an island nation dependent for its existence on the sea, rather like the United Kingdom, but it does not run global shipping and is not responsible for 14 dependencies worldwide. It has just decided, in this very dangerous and chaotic world, to increase the number of destroyers and frigates in its navy from 47 to 52. Does the Minister think, in view of the fact that we have only 19 destroyers and frigates, that replacing the 13 frigates with the Type 26, bearing in mind that the oldest of them is seven years beyond its design date already, is very urgent? At the very least we should order long-lead items for those 13 now.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, it will be for the 2015 SDSR to consider how best to deliver the capability that the Royal Navy requires in the long term, but to ensure that the Navy gets the number of Type 26s and the capability that it requires we must be certain that we have a mature design and build programme before committing to an initial order size. I can assure the noble Lord that we expect to make decisions on some of the longer-lead items shortly.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, would it not be a good idea for some of these frigates to be built other than in Scotland, in view of the uncertainties surrounding that place?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the Type 26 will be built by BAE Systems on the Clyde. Complex UK warships are built only in UK shipyards and we have no plans to change this. Although the contract has not been awarded, we have been clear that from 2015 the Clyde will be the UK’s only shipyard that builds complex warships.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord tell the House what the incremental cost is of maintaining and refitting the Type 23s, which would not have been necessary had the Type 26 programme come forward on time? If the reason for the delay in the programme is lack of money, as I suspect, why on earth have the Government underspent in their defence budget in this Parliament—against a much reduced, severely reduced, some of us think irresponsibly reduced defence budget? The Government have underspent by nearly £400 million; the exact figures were given to me in a Written Answer the other day. Is that not a dereliction of duty, both to the country and to members of the Armed Forces themselves?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the figures that he requires, but I can assure him that we want to get the Type 26s and the capability that the Royal Navy needs, to get value for money for the taxpayer, and to have a very strong British shipbuilding industry.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, there are reports that the delays referred to by other noble Lords are due to arguments about the growing sophistication and weight of the Type 26s, which has vastly increased costs. BAE Systems originally put the weight at 5,400 tonnes, which has now risen to 6,500 tonnes. Fully loaded, they are expected to weigh 8,000 tonnes. Costs have risen by £100 million per frigate. Can my noble friend say what action the MoD is taking, following Sir Nick Houghton’s comment that there was,

“an expensive habit of over-specifying our equipment needs”?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. As an example, we acknowledge that there have been in-service reliability issues with the Type 45 destroyers’ power and propulsion systems. I can assure my noble friend that we have learnt lessons. We are addressing them as we take forward the Type 26 programme.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Can the Government indicate to what extent a decision to order Type 26 frigates before the election, and the number of them, pre-empts options on the future strategic role of the Navy under the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which has yet to be undertaken? Could the Government indicate their assessment of the extent to which there will be an export market for the Type 26 frigates and whether there have been any expressions of interest?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, bilateral conversations are ongoing with a number of international partners to explore opportunities for co-operation on the Type 26 itself, as well as on its design and on the systems that are planned to be fitted to it.

Schools: Foreign Languages

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:57

Asked by

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of progress in teaching foreign languages in schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, the inclusion of a foreign language in the English baccalaureate measure has raised entries from pupils in England by 20% since 2012. We are reforming GCSEs and A-levels in foreign languages, with new teaching from September 2016, to ensure that they are demanding and relevant to employers, and further and higher education. From September last year, maintained primary schools have had to teach a foreign language to pupils from the age of seven.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that one of the many advantages of learning a foreign language is the practical benefit to trade and diplomacy? In the case of non-European languages such as Cantonese, Mandarin and Arabic, where the sounds and structure are very different, is it not easier for children to learn them if they are taught them from a very early age?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with my noble friend about the importance of these matters. It is clear that developing language skills helps cognitive development. Offering more children the opportunity to learn Mandarin, for instance, will help to encourage mobility between the UK and China, and the long-term success of our economy. The Prime Minister has pledged to increase substantially the number of people learning Mandarin Chinese. The Confucius Institute at the IOE is leading the way in this regard.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the Question is about progress. The problem is that we have no real idea about that, because there is no benchmark either to help schools to interpret the national curriculum guidelines consistently, or for pupils to know what level of competence they should achieve at the end of each key stage. Will the Minister agree to consider introducing a light-touch measure for progress linked to the Common European Framework and apply it to all key stages?

[Lord Nash]

In April last year, we published a set of key principles for assessment, produced as a result of consultation on accountability. We also announced last May a new package of pupil assessment methods developed by teachers for their fellow teachers. Schools are able to develop whatever methodology of assessment they like. However, I will take note of what the noble Baroness says and look at that further.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

Will my noble friend tell me what the Government are doing to ensure a supply of well qualified and competent teachers of modern languages, both at primary and secondary level?

[Lord Nash]

I am delighted to answer my noble friend’s question. We have increased the bursary available to people with a first class degree in, for instance, languages, to £25,000. We are providing £2 million to fund nine projects across the country that will help primary and secondary teachers teach the new modern language curriculum at key stages 2 and 3. The National College for Teaching and Leadership facilitates an expert group for languages and also has a pilot scheme for subject enhancement in primary schools.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is the quality of foreign language teaching, particularly in primary schools, that remains a key challenge? I note what he has just said, but that teaching has been characterised by some as being “rusty O-level” and only a page or two ahead of the children. We all support the idea of extending foreign language teaching to primary schools, but it should not be at the expense of quality. Given what the Minister said, is he satisfied that enough extra resources are being put in to make that kind of teaching a distant memory?

[Lord Nash]

We believe that they are, but obviously we will keep this matter under review. We do feel that we need to redress the situation in languages. The European Survey on Language Competences in 2012 showed us that our 2011 GCSE students were the worst at languages across all the countries surveyed.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, particularly in Canada, for example, schools are bilingual? Are there any plans to try to get more bilingual schools in England, particularly in some of the European languages?

[Lord Nash]

I am sure that the noble Baroness will be delighted to hear that we have introduced six new bilingual schools under the free schools programme— notably the Bilingual Primary School in Brighton; the Europa School UK near Abingdon; the Judith Kerr Primary School; the La Fontaine Academy in Bromley; and the London Bridge School. Later this year, the Marco Polo free school will be opening.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I have expressed concern in the past about the changes in teacher education and the increasing difficulty of national planning. In view of the shortage of language teachers, does he envisage a situation where there will be a complete shortage of language teachers in certain parts of the country, and how does he plan to rebalance this particular problem? Will he speak to the university colleges of education and the church colleges about the importance of teacher education?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness about the importance of the matter. More than 1,800 places for modern language teacher trainees are allocated for 2015-16, which is an increase of 4%. As I say, we have substantially increased the bursaries, which were brought in for language teachers by this Government.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, for how many of our secondary and primary school pupils is English a second language, and is the Minister confident that we have sufficiently able teachers of English to make sure that, when children leave primary schools and go on to secondary school, they are fluent in the English language?

[Lord Nash]

We are very focused on increasing the quality of literacy in this country. Our phonics programme is now acknowledged to have been a substantial success. We have focused the national curriculum, particularly in primary schools, much more on language skills.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

Will the Minister say whether any resources have been made available to schools to bring in native speakers? It used to be that teaching assistants—for example, French, German, Italian or Spanish assistants—were available and could be funded, particularly in secondary schools. My guess is that in primary schools they would be even more useful. Is there any effort to make that happen?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely good point. We have given the British Council, for instance, £500,000 to recruit foreign language assistants to work in the UK. Currently, some 1,250 foreign language assistants have been recruited for English schools, and the British Council is working with Hanban to introduce a number of Chinese language assistants into the country.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Given the multicultural identity and diversity of ethnic backgrounds of people in the United Kingdom at present, there must be hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people, including, I suspect, hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, who are bilingual. What thought have the Government given to, or what action have they taken on, mobilising this resource by focusing either on recruitment or on some form of potentially creative, if informal, educational process to make sure that we use the resources that our multicultural society has given us?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I have talked about what we are doing in terms of teaching assessments, but I will look at the point he has made in more detail.

[Baroness Trumpington (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government consider special courses for foreign students wishing to learn the va et vient of English parliamentary language?

[Lord Nash]

That is certainly something that we will look at.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, given that there has been a substantial increase in foreign language teaching in primary schools, are the Government concerned about the drop from 84% in 2012 to 76% in 2013—and what specifically are they doing to make sure that primary foreign language teaching does not drop further?

[Lord Nash]

I am not entirely sure that I understand the point; I may have to pick it up in correspondence.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord another opportunity to answer the very pertinent question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the proportion of primary school children in England for whom English is not their first language. I think that the Minister inadvertently forgot that question.

[Lord Nash]

We are fully aware of the high proportion of primary school pupils in England for whom English is not their first language. Many schools are suffering with pupils who come to the country not speaking any English at all. With regard to which languages pupils may study at primary school, of course they could study their native language but that would probably not pass muster with Ofsted in a broad and balanced curriculum.

Local Government (Review of Decisions) Bill

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:15

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time—a first time.

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

State Pension Regulations 2015

Universal Credit (Work-Related Requirements) In Work Pilot Scheme and Amendment Regulations 2015

Motions to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 November, 1 December and 3 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant documents: 16th and 17th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 January.

Motions agreed.

Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2015

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:08

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 22 January

Motion agreed.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

15:09

Relevant documents: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 8th Report from the Constitution Committee, 14th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 12 agreed.

Clause 13: TPIMs: travel measure

Amendment 70

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

70: Clause 13, page 8, line 28, after “restrictions” insert “and what restrictions to impose”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 70, I shall speak also to Amendment 71—slightly less fast-tracked legislation than that which my noble friend the Chief Whip sought to take through the House just now.

Under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Secretary of State can impose restrictions on an individual leaving a specified area—the so-called “travel measures”. Clause 13 provides that the Secretary of State must publish factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to impose such restrictions on an individual. My amendment would add not only the restrictions but “and what restrictions to impose”. The area to which I have just referred is not defined, quite understandably, but it could be anything from a small postal district to a very large region. This is a probing amendment, seeking reassurance about the factors that will be applied to the decision as to what the area is, as well as whether to impose the travel measure. I appreciate that the Secretary of State’s decision will have to be a reasonable one, but I am looking to find a way not only to make the criteria objective, but as far as possible, transparent.

Amendment 71 would add to proposed new subsection (1A) of Section 23 of the 2011 Act the provision that, where there is a travel measure, an individual who breaches it is not guilty of an offence—because breaches of the TPIMs measures are offences—if he contravenes the measure,

“with reasonable excuse and in exceptional circumstances”.

I have in mind, again in probing, how an individual who leaves a fairly confined specified area will be dealt with if, for instance, there is a medical emergency involving either himself or a family member living with him, or if there is a sudden severe illness of a family member who is living at the family home and not at the place where the individual has been relocated. Quite understandably, he will want to get there as fast as possible and not have to take time seeking a permit allowing him to do so. It is a humanitarian and reasonable matter that one might well have in legislation. If my noble friend gives me assurances about how these things have been dealt with in the past—they are not new—and understanding has been shown so that a prosecuting offence has not been pursued, I will be happy with that. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments, which allow us to have a discussion on the travel measure that can be imposed on a TPIM subject.

Amendment 70 would amend the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish factors to take into account when deciding whether to impose restrictions under the travel measure. This would add an additional requirement to publish factors on “what restrictions to impose”. The purpose of the requirement in the Bill is to indicate the types of factors that the Secretary of State may consider when deciding whether to impose the travel measure. In each instance the location and size of any boundary will depend on the individual case. The factors that the Secretary of State may consider could include: national security considerations necessary to prevent or restrict involvement in terrorism-related activity; the original location of the TPIM subject, and by virtue of that, their family connections; the ability to access services and employment; the proximity to airports or ports; and the proximity to other TPIM subjects or prohibited associates. Any restrictions would have to be necessary and proportionate, as the noble Baroness rightly reminds us. The Secretary of State will publish these factors at Royal Assent and a copy will be placed in the Library.

Amendment 71 would allow a TPIM subject to use a “reasonable excuse” in exceptional circumstances to justify leaving the United Kingdom. In such circumstances, a prosecution for breaching the TPIM notice could not be brought. All other breaches of a travel measure—or any other measure—already allow for a reasonable excuse. The reality is that, if a TPIM subject leaves the UK without permission, they will be absconding from their TPIM notice. This is a very serious matter, as I am sure the noble Baroness would agree. It was the problem of absconsions which led to the creation of TPIMs as a successor to control orders. These individuals may very well pose a danger to the public in this country or overseas. We maintain that there is no reasonable excuse for leaving the UK without permission.

If a TPIM subject has a legitimate need to leave the UK, they can seek permission from the Secretary of State. There should be no circumstances where they leave the country without prior agreement. This morning, I discussed with officials the length of time that such measures might take. The experience is that these exchanges, permissions and interactions tend to take place on a very speedy basis. In the circumstances, we would not anticipate that there would be a problem in securing that permission.

I trust that, with that explanation and those reassurances, my noble friend may feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, that is very helpful. I wondered whether my noble friend might refer to the need to have a passport to travel outside the UK, which would probably have been dealt with as part of the arrangements for the individual. I will read through the list of considerations which my noble friend gave in response to my first amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 70.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Amendment 71 not moved.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14 agreed.

15:15

Clause 15: TPIMs: appointments measure

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

72: Clause 15, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) The individual may request a person or persons to be specified in place of the person or persons previously specified.”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendment 74. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also has an amendment in this group.

Clause 15 deals with appointments which an individual can be required to keep. Following comment from the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, this takes advantage of the legislation in order to require individuals to attend appointments, for instance, in connection with deradicalisation. I really do not like that term: perhaps I might say appointments that would help the individual return to or lead a more comfortable and normal life. Amendment 72 would add that the individual could request somebody other than the specified person.

Different individuals respond in different ways to different counsellors, if I can use that term in a very wide sense. This work has to be dealt with case by case, and it would be a pity if it were to fail because of the individual and his counsellor simply not getting on and there not being a sensible opportunity to change the personnel. We all know of people who we simply cannot rub along with for reasons that sometimes we cannot even quite identify.

Amendment 74 would provide, in connection with such appointments, that the Secretary of State would be deemed to have given permissions for travel to enable the individual to attend appointments and, crucially, will not unreasonably withhold permissions to attend appointments relating to deterring other people from involvement in terrorist-related activity. We are all aware—it is a matter of common sense—that returning fighters may have a positive role in deterring other people. In the debate on Thursday on the latest proscription order that has been introduced, the noble Baroness gave an example of a woman trying to return to this country who was disillusioned with what she had found—I think—in Syria. That sort of disillusionment should be harnessed, and I would like to find every way of making this legislation positive as well as inevitably negative. I hope that my noble friend can assure the Committee in that connection.

I gave the Bill team notice of this matter this morning—if it has not yet reached the Minister, I will understand if he cannot answer—and will pick up an issue that the independent reviewer raised. This matter was also taken up by the JCHR: the question of privilege against self-incrimination. The Government’s response to the independent reviewer’s report was to say that this would not be appropriate. The Government referred to a “blanket approach”. Can the Minister unpack that a little today? I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, our Amendment 73 is in this group. As has been said, Clause 15, on appointments for people on terrorism prevention and investigation measures, allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings with such persons as the Secretary of State may specify, at such locations and at such times as the Secretary of State may by notice require. The specified persons may choose the time and place of the meeting. The clause is expressed in general terms and the purpose of the amendment, which is a probing amendment, is to give the Government the opportunity to say more about what kind of meetings an individual would be required to attend, for what purposes or objectives and over what period of time. It would also be helpful if the Minister could say if assessments will be made of the outcome of these meetings and to whom the assessments, if they are made, will be given.

Our probing amendment provides for the Secretary of State to be able to instruct an individual on a TPIM to attend deradicalisation programmes, since we think it is important that the Secretary of State should be able to require people to attend Channel meetings and appointments and possibly those relating to other parts of the Prevent programme. However, I hope that in his response the Minister will not only address the specific point covered in this probing amendment but talk in more depth about how the Government envisage using powers under Clause 15.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will put some remarks on record that I hope will answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and then deal with some of the points made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these matters.

Amendment 72 seeks to amend the appointments measure by overtly stating that a TPIM subject may request an alternative person to the individual specified by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will consider whether an appointments measure is necessary for a TPIM subject for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. If a TPIM subject wants to meet a particular person, such as a counsellor, there is nothing to prevent them from making their own arrangements to do so, as long as the measures in their TPIM notice are not breached. In addition, the TPIM Act 2011 already provides the ability—under Section 12—to vary the measures in the individual’s TPIM notice, or for the Home Office to grant permission for the subject to do something they would otherwise be prohibited from doing.

The choice of people or organisations—a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—that a TPIM subject is required to meet will be decided on a case-by-case basis. To develop that a bit further, the types of people who it might be appropriate to recommend particular meetings with include probation officers, somebody from a job centre, if, for example, they are looking for work, or another of the individual’s mentors. As my noble friend said, the point is that we want people who return to the UK to be reintegrated into mainstream society because we believe that they can be very important elements in the prevention strategy aimed at those who might follow in their footsteps. This consideration would include whether such requests might lead to more genuine engagement or were aimed at undermining the effectiveness of this measure, or whether any national security concerns were raised.

Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite, would amend the appointments measure in Clause 15 that allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings as specified by the Secretary of State. The appointments measure is a broad power that allows the Secretary of State to require a TPIM subject to meet relevant organisations or people who can contribute to their ongoing management and integration. The measure includes the ability to require TPIM subjects to meet specified people to assist with their deradicalisation, including, but not limited to, providers of the Channel programme, for example. It is therefore unnecessary to specify explicitly that this is available via the appointments measure.

Amendment 74 seeks to specify that the Secretary of State may not unreasonably withhold permission for a TPIM subject to attend appointments related to deterring other people from involvement in terrorism-related activity. The purpose of the TPIM notice is to protect the public from terrorism and to prevent the TPIM subject from engaging in terrorism-related activity. If the measures are no longer necessary, the TPIM notice must be revoked. Therefore, anyone on a TPIM notice remains an ongoing national security concern. This being the case, we do not consider TPIM subjects necessarily to be good people to mentor others. However, if a TPIM subject chose to speak at a meeting to deliver a deterrent message, he or she could do so as long as it did not breach any of the measures in his or her TPIM notice. If it did breach any of the measures, or he or she encouraged people to engage in terrorism, of course they could be prosecuted.

Turning to the specific point—I am grateful to my noble friend for sending the notice to the Bill team ahead of this debate—about David Anderson’s report on TPIMs, the new measure will be an important part of the management of TPIM subjects and will mean that they must meet organisations and other persons as required by the Home Secretary. Its primary purpose is not to gather evidence to prosecute TPIM subjects. Nevertheless, it would be undesirable to create a situation where a TPIM subject provided clear evidence of committing a crime—including terrorism—but where, due to a statutory bar, that evidence could not be relied on, in any circumstances, in criminal proceedings.

In addition, the criminal courts have the power to exclude evidence where to allow it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings. We consider this to be a sufficient safeguard to ensure that information obtained in these meetings cannot be unfairly used against the individual. However, we will consider on a case-by-case basis whether appropriate assurances can be provided about how information obtained through the appointments in these measures will be used.

I was asked whether the assessments would be reported back—and, if so, to whom. Where appropriate, assessments will be provided to the Home Office. The ongoing necessity for meetings to continue will be kept under review depending on the nature of the meetings. Some may be one-off while others may be regular over a prolonged period. I think that the overarching message of the response to these amendments is that each case will be different and therefore, in order to be effective, each TPIM will need to be tailored to the individual concerned. With that additional information and explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

15:30

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the response. On the last point which is not the subject of an amendment, I am glad to hear that questions of reassurances about evidence are and will be dealt with case by case. I had perhaps not understood the context of this, and that that might be the case. I am glad to hear it.

I hear what my noble friend said on my other amendments in the group and I do not think that it is necessary to detain the Committee, other than to comment that a change of counsellor/mentor/adviser will be within the provisions for review, which I think is how my noble friend explained how a change might be made. It is useful to understand that that might be the procedure. However, I am glad to see that it is appreciated that, for this to be successful, it must be a very personal matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

Amendments 73 and 74 not moved.

Clause 15 agreed.

Clause 16: TPIMs: miscellaneous amendments

Amendment 75

Moved by

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

75: Clause 16, page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“( ) At the end of section 9(2) (review hearing) and section 16(6) (appeals) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, insert “save that, in the case of a TPIM notice which requires the individual to reside at a specified residence which is not in an agreed locality and with which the individual has no connection, in reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision that condition A continues to be met, the court must reach its own decision whether, on the balance of probabilities, the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.”

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 75 is not a probing amendment. This is for real. Perhaps the most challenging feature of Part 2 of this Bill is the reintroduction of internal relocation orders into the TPIM regime, which many of us would regard as a regrettable necessity. Amendment 75 concerns what should be the appropriate level of judicial oversight in these cases and would, I believe, go some way to take the sting out of the highly toxic question of internal relocation.

The amendment is designed to give effect to one of the independent reviewer’s 10 recommendations made in his March 2014 report into TPIMs—recommendation 3. Put simply, although I fear I shall have to explain the amendment a little more fully in a moment because, on its face, it is less than crystal clear in its effect, the position is this. Under the present TPIM regime, one of the four conditions that has to be satisfied before a TPIM order can be made—it is called Condition A—is that the Secretary of State “reasonably believes” that the person concerned,

“is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.

That is the particular condition which is referred to in Section 3(1) of the 2011 Act, which in turn is what Clause 16(1) of this Bill relates to.

At present, if a TPIM order is made, the courts can review it or hear an appeal ultimately against it only on a limited basis. The court is expressly required by the statute to apply the principles of judicial review. In other words, the court decides only whether the Secretary of State was acting reasonably or perversely in reaching her belief. The court does not have the jurisdiction to reach its own conclusion. This would continue to be so if Clause 16(1) is enacted in its present form.

Personally, as I made plain in what I regret was my rather overlong speech at Second Reading, I can see no true distinction between the Secretary of State reasonably believing something and her being satisfied of it on a balance of probabilities. But the more important point for present purposes is this: even if there is a difference, the decision as to the person’s involvement in terrorism under Clause 16(1) as it stands, subject only to the limited scrutiny of judicial review, is one solely for the Secretary of State and not for the courts. Like the independent reviewer, David Anderson, I believe that the decision should be for the courts, especially—I emphasise “especially”—in those cases where the Secretary of State is to deploy that most disruptive of measures, now to be made available to her, internal involuntary relocation—“internal exile” as it has been called. Indeed, that was the term used at Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.

Make no mistake, these orders—because we used to have them in control order cases—are deeply resented, not least, of course, by the persons’ families, who can be very severely and very harshly affected. They contribute worryingly to what some civil liberty and minority groups call the “folklore of injustice”. At Second Reading , the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, called it the “folklore of oppression”. It was, said David Anderson, perhaps unsurprisingly, only “with a heavy heart” that he came to the recommendation that this measure should be reintroduced as now is provided for by Clause 12 of this Bill.

My amendment is tailored simply to apply to those TPIM orders that require relocation. It provides that in these particularly troubling cases it will be for the court to reach the final, substantive decision, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether the person being internally exiled is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity.

I should make it plain that there is nothing particularly novel or radical about this proposal. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 introduced control orders in place of the original discredited Belmarsh regime of the internment of foreign suspects without charge and without trial on an indefinite basis. The 2005 Act, by Section 4(7)(a), provided in terms that the court could confirm a derogating control order only if,

“it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the controlled person is an individual who is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity”.

That is precisely the position which, I suggest, should be achieved here.

As Mr Anderson pointed out at paragraph 6.16 of his 2014 report, the Government had already accepted in relation to the earlier proposed ETPIMs legislation—the enhanced TPIMs scheme, which in the event never came into being—that at the High Court review of such enhanced orders the Home Secretary should be required to prove the suspect’s involvement in terrorism on the balance of probabilities—again, just as I suggest should be the position here.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, at paragraph 4.14 of its report on the Bill just this month, welcomed the introduction of the balance of probabilities test, but added that,

“in order for this change to make a real practical difference, we recommend that the TPIM Act be amended to require the court also to consider whether the balance of probabilities standard was satisfied, in place of the current, lighter-touch judicial review standard. Such an amendment would give effect to the unimplemented part of the Independent Reviewer’s recommendation”.

Mr Anderson himself, at paragraph 6.17 of his 2014 report, having doubted whether his proposed change—from the Secretary of State reasonably believing the suspect’s involvement in terrorism to the court being satisfied of this on the balance of probabilities—would have made a difference in any of the earlier TPIM cases, importantly added:

“It would however help reinforce the legitimacy of TPIMs, by enabling the Government to say (as it cannot at present) that a TPIM notice may only be upheld if it is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court that the subject has been involved in terrorism”.

My proposed amendment, as I have explained, is in fact rather more limited than Mr Anderson’s recommendation. Rather than applying to all TPIM orders in future, it would apply only when internal relocation is one of the measures ordered. There is of course no such phrase as “internal relocation” or “involuntary relocation” in the Bill—it is not used in Clause 12 or indeed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2011 Act, which Clause 12 amends. Therefore my amendment, I hope accurately, has had to spell out the particular circumstances which constitute the internal relocation and where it would apply.

I hope that the House will support this amendment and indeed that the Minister may himself come to see its merits. It would, I suggest, send out an important message that we in this House recognise the very real problems that result from internal relocation orders and are concerned to balance the need for them, as best we may, by strengthening the safeguards against their inappropriate use. The court should be given this additional responsibility in its oversight role. The independent reviewer’s recommendation ought not lightly to be rejected. The fact is that I have yet to hear or read of any cogent, coherent basis for rejecting it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I have spoken about internal exile, as I choose to call it, on a number of occasions in this House. I am persuaded by the independent reviewer that, because of the threat faced by this country at this time, there may be the rare occasion when one would want to disrupt the connections and associations in a particular place of someone subject to a TPIM order. It should be used on the rarest of occasions, and the standards that the courts should look to in making the decision should be high.

I support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has said. We should see this idea as a huge departure from what we would consider normal. For people to be taken away from their families and the place that they know and sent to live somewhere else in the country is a very hard thing. We have to recognise that sometimes it will disrupt good associations as well as negative ones, so that they are no longer with their mother or father, or with some of the people who are voices of sanity as distinct from siren voices. It surely makes sense to say that this is such an exceptional step that there should be this additional safeguard, which has been proposed by one of our most senior retired judges.

00:00

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has moved his amendment with his customary cogency and clarity, and I agree with him and with the remarks that have just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Over the years I have had the opportunity to visit people who were subject to relocation orders under the control orders regime. I have seen that, in some cases, the relocation was accepted with good grace; in other cases, however, particularly those where children were involved, it caused great disturbance and much resentment. I have also taken the trouble to read all the judgments in the relocation cases that went before the courts under the control orders regime. My instinct is the same as that of the judges who heard those cases. If you read the judgments, although the judges were not required to do so, I think in every single case—from memory at least—they applied the standard that is set out in this amendment for completeness and in order to make it clear that they approved of the relocation in the circumstances of the case.

I agree with the comments that have been made, that we should be extremely reluctant to order people to relocate, because of the disturbance that it causes to their family and because they are very dislocated as a consequence of that relocation. As a general proposition, all restrictive measures under counterterrorism legislation should be exercised only when there is a clear necessity to do so, and the balance of probabilities is a good test. With those comments in mind, I hope that the Minister will at least accept the principles behind the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, whether it be probing or otherwise—it is the principle that counts.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to strongly support the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. These measures are things that you only do in very, very special circumstances and under very controlled conditions, but the removal of them from the old control orders regime—we realise now—was a mistake and an error. I absolutely think that we have to put these measures in place to ensure that people are protected in these circumstances.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to add just a small point in support of what my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood has said, and that is to stress the word “legitimacy” which he used in the course of his address. It is crucial that this particular system should not be open to challenges in the court to any extent; one must try to the maximum to minimise the risk of challenges. This is a very difficult area, as shown by these cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, just referred. It is the interaction between Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, which deals with detention, and Article 8, which deals with respect for the family life of everyone. Where you get these human rights in play, it opens up the possibility of arguments being raised by way of challenge to orders of this kind.

The strength of the amendment which is being suggested is that it cuts back the open door—if I might put it this way—to challenges, and limits them in the most sensitive of all areas, which is the kind of relocation to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention. It is right that this is not a probing amendment. It is actually a very important point to try to secure these TPIMs in a way that makes them robust enough to stand up against possible challenges which, if the amendment was not made, would be very likely to come.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my support for the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is for real, to use his own term. I was reading a little—obviously I do not have the experience of other noble Lords, including my noble friend—about control orders at the time they were to be abolished and TPIMs introduced. One could not help but feel quite disturbed by some of the experiences undergone and the impact, as has been said, not only on the individuals subject to the orders but on members of their families so, as I say, I support this amendment.

I have just one question for the noble and learned Lord. It is about whether it is necessary—he must consider it is because he has included them—to have the words about the individual having “no connection”. As I read it, but I might have missed something, the amendment to Schedule 1 to the 2011 Act takes out the references to having a connection with a locality because the 200-mile limit is being introduced. If that is so, and we are losing references to there being a connection in the Schedule, is that reference necessary in the amendment?

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)]

My Lords, I think noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have acknowledged that, because of the situation in which we presently find ourselves, powers of this sort are regrettably necessary. However, as noble Lords have said, their legitimacy is critical, and the rigour with which conditions are examined before they are imposed and the nature of that imposition itself are of the utmost importance. For all those reasons, I support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the noble and learned Lord’s remarks. I support the amendment and the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I have a question for the Minister. Members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am one, with heavy heart agreed that we had to agree with the independent reviewer, but we said:

“We look to the Government to be proactive in bringing forward ideas about how to mitigate the alienation and resentment likely to be caused in some minority communities”,

by relocation. I would be very grateful if the Minister could give the Committee some idea of what ideas might be brought forward by the Government.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always with some trepidation that I rise to speak in a debate where I am the only non-lawyer to contribute, so I was particularly grateful to hear my noble friend speak, so I am not the only non-lawyer contributing to this debate. All noble Lords have made the point that relocation with a TPIM should be an exceptional provision. That has been the case. We were very disappointed when the Government removed the relocation part of TPIMs and the old control orders. Nobody likes the idea. As the independent reviewer said, this is something that has to be done in the interests of public safety. My understanding is that they are used only rarely. If my information is correct, currently only one person is subject to a TPIM provision.

Not being a lawyer, I have a couple of questions for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. I think one of the reasons why the Government have made changes here is because they consider that substituting,

“is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities”,

for “reasonably believes” is a higher legal test. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said that is not the case. I am not a lawyer, so I leave it lawyers to have that debate, but it would be helpful to have some clarity about whether that is in law a higher legal test than “reasonably believes”. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that in effect this is already happening and is how the courts see their role at present. If that is the case, it would be helpful to have some facts on that.

My other point was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is about individuals subject to the relocation part of a TPIM having no connection. My understanding is that part of the reason would, in some circumstances, be that the person would have no connection with the area they were going to to ensure that they were not associating with people they had engaged with in the past who had led them into terrorism-related activities or potential terrorism-related activities. That is not an easy thing for anybody, and nobody welcomes somebody being moved to an area where they have no connection, but if we were to rule that out in all circumstances, that might be quite difficult. I would be interested to know a bit more about this. I think there is widespread support for a very high test that should be used only in exceptional circumstances, but I am interested in the Minister’s comment and welcome further clarification from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for having spoken in this debate. I say that I am grateful as a general courtesy. It has not been an easy debate to speak to, and I ponder whether my response will be sufficient to ease noble Lords’ and the noble and learned Lord’s concerns. I shall just raise some points with the noble and learned Lord on his amendment, but I give advance notice that this is one issue on which we need to reflect more.

I am particularly cognisant of the support that the amendment has received from my noble friend Lord Carlile, as a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, as well as from my noble friend Lord Macdonald, who reviewed the legislation in 2011. He looked at its adequacy, which led in a way to the introduction of the more focused TPIM. Then, of course, there is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. So there has been a range of voices. I shall put some points and answer some questions and then take it from there.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this matter; he has tremendous expertise in this area. Replacing the previous text at the point in the Bill does not amend the standard of evidence that the Home Secretary must apply when considering whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism. I underscore the point that all noble Lords have made—the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kennedy, made it—that this is a regrettable necessity. The amendment would therefore have the effect of requiring, for TPIMs that include relocation, the court and the Home Secretary to make independent judgments on whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism, but on different bases. It is therefore highly likely to lead to some confusion. It also removes the enhanced safeguard of raising the standard to that of the “balance of probabilities” for TPIMs which do not include relocation.

The Government recognise that the enhancements to the TPIM Act in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill were not part of the package of measures agreed by Parliament in 2011. It is therefore right that we consider whether the current legal threshold of reasonable belief continues to be the appropriate test for the imposition of a TPIM. We have concluded that the threshold should be increased for all TPIM notices to recognise the stringent preventive measures that may be imposed. Given her remit in relation to a range of aspects of terrorism, the Home Secretary remains best placed to make the decision to impose a TPIM notice to protect the public from terrorism. It is therefore right and proper that it should continue to be for the Home Secretary to decide whether a TPIM notice should be imposed, as it has been since 2011 and as it was under the previous system of control orders established in 2005.

I well remember the noble and learned Lord’s speech at Second Reading. He apologised, but I think that we were all immensely helped when he talked about his experience of how control orders were often struck down by the courts when they were actually brought forward. The TPIMs were therefore an attempt to limit the incidents in which they could be introduced on that basis, by introducing time limits and raising the threshold test, as well as allowing them to have access under supervision to the internet and telephony.

The court will continue to be required to review the Home Secretary’s decision as to whether the conditions for imposition of a TPIM are met—and the court must now, as part of its review, satisfy itself that the Home Secretary could make that decision at the higher legal threshold. This comes to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked whether it is a higher legal test to have a “balance of probabilities”.

Although I tread deferentially in the company of distinguished lawyers, certainly my understanding is that you have reasonable suspicion, then reasonable belief and then, above that, a higher threshold of the balance of probabilities, which is where we are heading now. The courts will continue to apply an intense level of scrutiny to the decision-making process on the issue.

15:59

I turn to some of the specific points that were raised. A relocation measure will be included in an individual’s TPIM notice only if it is necessary to prevent or restrict the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. This is in line with the long-standing use of this type of power under both the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and currently under the TPIM Act 2011.

This clause also implements the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s recommendation that the definition of terrorism-related activity in the TPIM Act should be narrowed. As David Anderson stated, at present a TPIM notice could be imposed on someone who is three stages removed from actually committing a terrorist act: the giving of support to someone who gives encouragement to someone who prepares an act of terrorism. Therefore, we have tried to narrow this down in the TPIM.

Clause 16 amends the definition of,

“involvement in terrorism-related activity”,

so that it does not include conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the individual concerned to be involved in conduct which facilitates or gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or which is intended so to do.

On the courts’ involvement, there is general cross-party consensus that the Home Secretary is best placed to make the decision to impose a TPIM order to protect the public from terrorism, given her remit in relation to a number of terrorism-related activities. Following the increase in the legal threshold to a balance of probabilities, the court must, as part of its review, now satisfy itself that the Home Secretary could make that decision at the highest legal threshold—which is, in a sense, judicial oversight of the review of the Home Secretary’s decision.

As regards relocation, a TPIM’s subject’s family may move with them if they wish to do so. On a purely humanitarian level, support would be available to the individual and their family to assist in their move and with the costs of obtaining any additional property that they may have to acquire.

It is correct that enhanced TPIMs would be imposed to a higher standard of the balance of probabilities. This is exactly the same as the change being made in this Bill. The function of the court in the ETPIMs proposal is essentially the same as in this Bill. Therefore, I reassure the noble and learned Lord that there is no difference between the model in the draft ETPIMs Bill, to which he referred, and the measures which we are debating today.

I realise that I have skipped through a number of points. I have given an undertaking to reflect on the contributions made by noble Lords in this debate and perhaps to meet the noble and learned Lord before Report, should he be willing to do so. In view of that, I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I am grateful to the Minister for that considered response. I am perhaps even more grateful to all those who spoke in support of this amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I will, of course, look afresh at the correct matching of my wording with that of the amended paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2011 Act when we come back to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked whether there is a higher test involved in balance of probabilities than that in reasonable belief. This runs parallel to a point made by the Minister just now. When we come back to that, I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us an illustration of where, on the facts, you could reach a different conclusion on reasonable belief from that on the balance of probabilities. I maintain that there is no distinction.

However, that is, frankly, almost an irrelevance. Regarding my amendment, I do not in the least mind—I am completely agnostic on this—whether one leaves in Clause 16(1) as it stands and adds the wording suggested in my amendment after it, or, as the amendment proposes, leaves out the subsection and inserts my wording in its place. I do not mind whether the Secretary of State makes a decision—as initially she is bound to do—by way of reasonable belief or as a conclusion on the balance of probabilities. What matters is that the decision of hers should then be subject to review or appeal by the court, not on the basis of judicial review but on the different basis of her having to establish to the satisfaction of the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the person concerned has been engaged in terrorism-related activity. That is a real difference, and I will say, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that if he looks back at Mr Anderson’s 2013 and 2014 reports on TPIMs he will see that that was the position that was going to be arrived at regarding enhanced TPIMs; it was going to be for the court—whatever the Minister decided—then to reach its own conclusion on the balance of probabilities.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who brings huge expertise, having been a distinguished independent reviewer, suggested that actually there is not all that much distinction between the judicial review standard that a court is presently required to adopt and an appeal by which the court would have to be persuaded on this issue and reach its own decision. The court does its best by way of judicial review and, in an area as sensitive and relevant to human rights as this, the court will of course go out of its way to adopt as intrusive a standard of judicial review as it feels it can. However, it simply cannot—it would be disobeying the statute if it tried to—substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary of State.

I hope that that meets most of the points that were raised. Of course I am prepared—and am grateful for the offer—to talk to the Minister. We have only a week between now and Report on this part of the Bill. Of course I am not going to press the amendment today, but it may well become necessary to do so a week today, unless the Minister sees the light—if I may put it that way—and is prepared to shift the Government’s position. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed.

Clause 17: Retention of relevant internet data

Amendment 76

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

76: Clause 17, page 10, line 32, after “or” insert “is necessary to”

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick. I shall speak also to Amendment 77. In this grouping, there is also Amendment 78 of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.

The Explanatory Notes refer to data that are “necessary” to attribute internet protocol addresses to a person or device. However, that word does not appear in the Bill; I believe that something similar happened in the draft Communications Data Bill in 2012, which was picked up by the committee on the draft Bill. There is a tendency to put “necessary” in Explanatory Notes but not to transfer that to the Bill. Amendment 76, therefore, at least seeks to apply the test of “necessary” to communications data that could,

“assist in identifying, which internet protocol address … belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication (whether or not a person)”.

At least it tightens up, somewhat, the scope of communications data—relevant internet data—required.

I have seen an itemisation of possible data—I confess that I do not know what the origin was, but it refers to possible data which would be required to be retained. I state just for interest that it includes,

“account-to-IP address mappings for broadband … source IP address and port for NAT on mobile and cloud networks … MAC addresses on cloud WiFi networks … source port information in server logs”,

and:

“MAC addresses from end-user equipment”.

This is above my technical pay grade and I think we need some clarity about what sort of information is being required. Therefore, in Amendment 77 we are requesting that when the term “other identifier” is used, meaning an identifier used to facilitate the transmission of a communication, what qualifies as “other identifier” should be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

I have seen it cited that there has been consultation with industry on these matters. Certainly, the Internet Services Providers’ Association has complained that it was not consulted on this section on the collection of IP addresses. It posted something on its website on 24 November, so something may have happened in the intervening two months, but it certainly felt at that time that it had not been consulted. Of course the association would be qualified, as the experts, which I am not, to know what is being talked about here and what is, indeed, necessary and essential to identify an IP address.

I mentioned at Second Reading that the Bill refers to,

“the sender or recipient of a communication (whether or not a person)”.

I still believe that it is somewhat misleading to suggest that a person can be identified from an IP address. Even with a static IP address allocated to a particular device or subscriber, you would at best know who the subscriber was, but you would not necessarily know who was using the device at a particular time. It may not have been the subscriber; it may have been a friend, a relative or a business associate. If it is a dynamic IP address I understand that there can be tens of thousands of people who could have used it. Even with this other information, even if you can identify the device that was using it at 4.12 pm on a Tuesday afternoon, it is still not clear that you can, of itself, then identify the person using it. You would need other investigations—police investigations—to ascertain who precisely was using the device.

I hope that I have conveyed the meaning of Amendments 76 and 77, which seek to put greater precision into the Bill as to what further communications data are being required to be kept.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, our Amendment 78 in this group seeks to make it explicit that the extra data retention provided for in Clause 17 does not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of identifying a user from the internet protocol address. The amendment is not meant to impact on the rest of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act.

Clause 17 amends the definition of “relevant communications data” in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. The clause expands the definition of “relevant communications data” to include an extra category of data—described as “relevant internet data”—in Section 2 of the DRIP Act, to allow the Secretary of State to use powers under Section 1 of that Act to bring in regulations to ensure that this “relevant internet data” is retained by communications service providers. Essentially, the Government are using this fast-track primary legislation to amend emergency primary legislation from last July to enable the Secretary of State to bring in secondary legislation relating to a clause in this Bill, which extends the current provision on data retention.

16:14

The change in the rules on data retention is, it seems, a response to the increasing incidence of one IP address being allocated to numerous devices. I stress that we accept that this extra category of data will be an important tool for law enforcement, including protection of national security. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is therefore not always possible for the law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any specific point in time.

Amendment 78 is designed to ensure that the text of Clause 17 matches the explanation given in the Explanatory Notes: that the extra data is only that needed to,

“allow relevant authorities to link the unique attributes of a public Internet Protocol (IP) address to the person (or device) using it”.

In Committee in the other place, the Home Office Minister said that the Bill already limited the scope of Clause 17 in the way proposed in this amendment. The Government also said that they did not intend to issue new regulations following on from this Bill because the change in the definition of “relevant communications data” would alter the meaning of the 2014 regulations. Therefore, the combination of this primary legislation and the existing secondary legislation is meant to be sufficient to bring about a change in the types of data retained by communications service providers. Our view is that this could create confusion in interpreting the regulations, which we surely want to avoid. We believe it would be better if the Government accepted the amendment to achieve clarity.

We also have concerns about how we can allow for the retention of internet protocol address information without demanding the retention of web logs. Clause 17 is meant to cover the identifier for the recipient of a communication. That is supposed to cover e-mails, but not web logs. Can the Minister explain how communications will be separated from web logs, bearing in mind that, for example, a distinction would have to be made between visiting a web page and using that page to send an e-mail?

In addition, what is the definition of “a communication”, including in relation to contact on social media? Does receiving a Facebook “like” or a Tinder “match” count as “a communication” for these purposes? I hope the Minister can provide assurance that the legislation is sufficient to make distinctions of this kind regarding the apps and websites that so many people now use. On Report in the other place, the Home Office Minister said in response to the points we made, including the need to define a communication:

“A communication can include any message sent over the internet”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/15; col. 236.]

That begs the question of what is the definition of a message in this context: does being tagged in a photo on Instagram count as “a communication”, which the Government now define as any message sent over the internet? What about being mentioned in a tweet: does that count as “a communication”? I hope that the Minister will be able to give a definition of what is and is not included as any message sent over the internet, now that the Government have given that as the definition of a communication.

At Report stage in the other place the Home Office Minister said that if he had any further reflections on the points that we had raised, he would write further. No subsequent letter has surfaced from him. As well as responding to the questions I have raised, perhaps the Minister here will say whether we will or will not be receiving a further letter from the Minister in the Commons.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment. I will try to address the key points and then come back to the questions that she and the noble Lord have raised.

To be clear, communications data are the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content. They are a vital tool in the investigation of serious crime, including terrorism, and in safeguarding the public. Gaps in communications data capability are having a serious impact on the ability of law enforcement and the intelligence agencies to carry out their functions. We shall talk about these wider issues in the next group of amendments, but it is significant that communications data have played a very important role in every security service counterterrorism operation over the last decade. The data are used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. That is what we are talking about at present.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, Clause 17(3)(c) contains a statement about what is not data for the purposes of the Bill. I think that that is a legal definition of a web log; so there is specific mention in the Bill of what cannot be accessed under this provision.

However, the provision in the Bill is on the issue of IP addresses. Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure that communication service providers know which data should go to which customer and route that accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a home or company. However, as my noble friend Lady Ludford referred to, they are usually shared between multiple users—hundreds or even thousands—and allocated automatically by the provider’s systems. The amendments seek to ensure that the scope of this provision is limited to the retention of data that are required to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address, and I am very pleased that on that principal issue there is not a great deal of difference between us. It is important that this provision goes no further than is absolutely necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using that data at any given time.

At this point, I should say to my noble friend Lady Ludford that in essence we are talking here about adding another essential piece of the communications jigsaw. We are not actually saying—and I do not think that anyone is making this claim—that somehow an IP address on its own will be sufficient to identify what has happened. However, alongside other communications data—for instance, other CCTV footage or other surveillance evidence that may be there—this could be helpful in identifying who was where on a particular device and communicated with whom at a particular time.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked for examples of access data that may be required. An example is port numbers, which are akin to a house number, where an IP address is akin to a postcode. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, could probably give us a tutorial on the technical points; I could probably do with one at some point. Other types of data include the MAC address—the identifier of a particular computer—the time, the location and so on. Those are the types of data covered by “or other identifier”, and that is set out in the Explanatory Notes which accompany the legislation and in the addendum to the draft data retention code of practice, on which the Government have recently consulted. The code of practice sets out very detailed safeguards concerning how data can be collected. The consultation began on 7 December and concluded last week, and we look forward to informing the House of the findings very shortly.

The way in which an internet service provider identifies its individual customers varies from company to company depending on how their systems work. It is therefore important that the legislation is drafted in such a way as to enable us to work with individual communications service providers so that they retain only the data that they need to resolve an IP address. Our ability to do so would be limited by the amendment, which specifies the items of data to be retained in secondary legislation. For that reason, we cannot agree to the amendment.

The amendments seek to ensure that the provision goes no further than IP resolution, and I am able to confirm that the provision is already limited in this way. Clause 17(3), to which I have already referred, defines the data to be retained as data which,

“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.

At this point I should say that, although we are talking about the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, this provision will be of significant assistance to those who are seeking to tackle, for example, the worrying growth in accessing child sexual exploitation online. That is an important element here.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the Minister for Security, my honourable friend James Brokenshire, will be writing. The Minister in the Commons dealt with all the salient issues. We of course reflected on the points raised in the debate, but there is nothing that we see as requiring further clarification at this stage.

The noble Lord also asked whether the combination of primary and secondary legislation is confusing. This legislation is accompanied by a retention of communications data revised code of practice for those implementing the legislation. The Government also work closely with communications service providers. This will ensure that there can be no confusion about how the legislation can be applied.

My noble friend Lady Ludford asked whether any consultations with communications service providers have taken place. The answer is yes—probably not at the time that she was talking about, when the Bill was going through the other place, but certainly since then. We regard communications service providers as an integral part of this whole process and we want to work very closely with them.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how we define a communication and whether it includes messages sent by social media. Any messages sent over the internet, including via social media platforms, will have associated communications data. That has always been the case under existing legislation. Where those data are generated or processed in the UK by a company subject to the data retention notice, they can be used to resolve an IP address—that is, they can be retained under this Bill. Those data could then be accessed only where it was necessary and proportionate to do so for a specific investigation. However, that is quite separate from the content of a communication. What was said or written in, for instance, a Facebook message or a FaceTime call could not be retained under the Bill.

Similarly, the Bill ensures that we cannot ask internet access companies to keep a record of internet services that a given user account may have accessed, known as web logs, even where the data could be used to help resolve IP addresses. Any data which cannot be used to identify or assist in identifying the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of this provision. A requirement to retain data may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

Accordingly, while I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments, I do not agree that they would add to the tightly drafted provisions that we already have. With the explanation that I have given and with my responses to the questions, I hope that I have offered sufficient assurances to noble Lords and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

16:30

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend’s extensive reply and explanation. I am still somewhat uneasy that the terms of the Bill are permissive in that the data may need to be retained if it may “assist in identifying”, which is quite loose language. Will my noble friend explore whether there is any way of getting further precision? Presumably the limit of the extent of the kind of data we might be talking about is known, and I feel that what the data are should be spelt out somewhere, even if it is a broad list, so that everybody can understand this matter—I shall join him in the tutorial that he has invited the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, to carry out, as I have already frankly admitted my own ignorance. It is not helpful to have potential legislation when people do not know what data on them will be retained. It seems reasonable to ask my noble friend to reflect further on the idea of importing the words “necessary and proportionate”, which I think he used, into the Bill and/or to consider further whether it is possible to spell it out in regulations. In awaiting, I hope, that further reflection, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

Amendments 77 and 78 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Amendment 79

Moved by

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

79: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Part 3AEnsuring or facilitating availability of dataEnsuring or facilitating availabilityPower to ensure or facilitate availability of data
(1) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) ensure that communications data is available to be obtained from telecommunications operators by relevant public authorities in accordance with Part 3B, or (b) otherwise facilitate the availability of communications data to be so obtained from telecommunications operators.(2) An order under this section may, in particular—
(a) provide for—(i) the obtaining (whether by collection, generation or otherwise) by telecommunications operators of communications data,(ii) the processing, retention or destruction by such operators of data so obtained or other data held by such operators,(iii) the entering into by such operators of arrangements with the Secretary of State or other persons under or by virtue of which the Secretary of State or other persons engage in activities on behalf of the operators on a commercial or other basis for the purpose of enabling the operators to comply with requirements imposed by virtue of this section,(b) impose requirements or restrictions on telecommunications operators or other persons or provide for the imposition of such requirements or restrictions by notice of the Secretary of State.(3) Requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, include—
(a) requirements (whether as to the form or manner in which the data is held or otherwise) which ensure that communications data can be disclosed without undue delay to relevant public authorities in accordance with Part 3B,(b) requirements for telecommunications operators—(i) to comply with specified standards,(ii) to acquire, use or maintain specified equipment or systems, or(iii) to use specified techniques,(c) requirements which—(i) are imposed on a telecommunications operator who controls or provides a telecommunication system, and(ii) are in respect of communications data relating to the use of telecommunications services provided by another telecommunications operator in relation to the telecommunication system concerned.(4) Nothing in this Part authorises any conduct consisting in the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by means of a telecommunication system.
(5) In this section—
“processing”, in relation to communications data, includes its reading, organisation, analysis, copying, correction, adaptation or retrieval and its integration with other data,
“relevant public authority” has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
(6) See—
(a) section (Application of Parts 3A and 3B to postal operators and postal services) for the way in which this Part applies to public postal operators and public postal services, and(b) section (Interpretation of Parts 3A, 3B and 3C) for the definitions of “communications data” and “telecommunications operator” and for other definitions relevant to this Part.”

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 79 standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Blair, Lord West, and Lord Carlile, I shall speak to all the amendments in the group through to Amendment 99.

This is an exceptional series of amendments that has been tabled in your Lordships’ House today, and I recognise that for some it seems an unacceptable use of parliamentary time. I make no apologies at all for doing this, as we face a very serious situation indeed in our country at present. Our legislation is not up to date to meet it, and it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that it is at this critical time. It is common ground across the House that the threat is now very significant. We are in the front line and we need to address that.

I start with a bit of history. Noble Lords who have taken an interest in this subject will be familiar with my amendments because they have been lying around for the past two and a half years. They are part of the Communications Data Bill that the Government published in draft two and a half years ago. In keeping with best parliamentary procedure, they invited the Joint Committee of both Houses to examine and report on the Bill, under the distinguished leadership of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who I am delighted to see in his place today. If I say that that Joint Committee reported two years ago, and in terms of dealings in Parliament, nothing has happened since, it might be thought that the problem has gone away but, of course, the opposite is the case.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, is in his place. In his maiden speech, the noble Lord, a distinguished former director-general of MI5, said that after an extremely difficult period, by 2013 he thought the worst was over. He now admits that he was wrong. The threat in many ways is obvious. Before Paris and Belgium, the Government raised the threat level to severe. Intelligence showed what might be coming. We could easily have been Paris or Belgium. Thankfully, so far we have not been exposed in the same way, except for the tragedy of Fusilier Rigby, but it is a very brave man indeed who says that at the present time we would not be.

I believe that it was Andrew Parker, current director-general of MI5, who said that there are probably about 2,000 people in this country who are either supportive of or actively involved in promoting terrorist activities. I have lived a little bit of my life in the field where terrorism was a major challenge to this country but I never had to deal with suicide bombers. Some of the developments that now exist are of a scale and a difficulty—and a fanaticism, in the jihadist threat—that is of a different dimension to that which we previously faced.

It is easy to think that perhaps we are going through a rather bad phase, but I do not think anybody would seriously believe that about the current problems, particularly in the Middle East. The events just this last weekend in Yemen show yet another country that seems to be in chaos and confusion. I saw with interest—I had forgotten—that we are now in our fifth year with Syria in a state of chaos. If anybody in your Lordships’ House is brave enough to say when any of those countries presently in chaos will return to some measure of normality and peace and calm, I simply do not believe them. The evidence is that, with all the current distress and difficulties, it is going to get worse.

How do we face this challenge? How do we face the explosion of new technology that means we are up against terrorists who are extremely adept at using any new means of communication that is, perhaps, beyond our reach or, certainly at the present time, beyond our legislation? It is interesting that, at the moment, we are facing this challenge on the basis of legislation that is 15 years old. It is worth remembering that this is the 25th anniversary of the internet. We have to take on board the explosion in new developments since then and the possibilities for communication under new technologies.

I want to deal with one point straightaway. As soon as we start talking about access to communications data, people think—I am certain some very distinguished noble Lords think—somebody is going to listen to telephone calls. However, it is nothing to do with the content. It is to do with who, where and when certain contacts and certain patterns of contact are established. It is on that basis that the intelligence plays such a vital role. It includes the use of things that not all your Lordships—that certainly includes me—are masters of. I am not a tweeter. We have Facebook and Twitter. Somebody tried to explain WhatsApp to me; somebody else tried to explain Snapchat. I do not know about them, but it is absolutely clear that the terrorists and jihadists do. The understanding is that part of the reason for ISIL’s amazing advance across Syria and into Iraq was that their communications were so good and the way they kept together was entirely due to one or other of the last two systems that I mentioned, which they handled with great intelligence.

The problem that we now face is not boots on the ground. That never was the answer to this sort of situation. It is the problem of getting good intelligence. I have tabled what was available to me and my noble friends who have joined me in this enterprise. It is the original draft Bill that was carefully examined by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who I am delighted to see in his place. He was another distinguished member of the Joint Committee that examined that Bill, as was the noble Lord, Lord Jones. They proposed a number of important amendments. The Joint Committee submitted its report to Parliament two years ago. I understand that those criticisms were then considered carefully by the Home Office and were largely, if not totally, accepted. I also understand that amendments have now been suggested that go a very long way to meeting the important observations of that Select Committee. But they have not been available.

We face a crisis in security. There is a major threat and at the same time we have antiquated legislation that badly needs updating. We have done our best by drawing the attention of the House to this issue and by tabling amendments to include complete clauses of the previous Bill that were available to us. I hope that before Report the Government will either table amendments themselves or otherwise make the revised Bill available to Back-Benchers in this House to examine. Amendments could then be tabled so that this House has the opportunity to debate the matter. It will be the only opportunity that we will have in this Parliament and for this year, while the nation is at risk and the threat to our citizens is real. This is the only time in which we can tackle that.

I have carefully read the excellent report of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. It carries a number of criticisms which are covered in our amendments, some of which are quite significant. The most significant is what was called the snoopers’ charter. It covered far too wide a range of purposes. It not only covered national security and crime but made data available to local authorities to pursue things such as abuse of fly tipping, housing benefit and a whole range of other matters. It was also made available to the Inland Revenue to pursue tax offenders of one sort or another. Against this crisis and because of the quite exceptional nature of what we are proposing, my colleagues and I who tabled these amendments propose deleting all of those additional purposes in the Bill. We have included only national security and serious crime. I hope that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that those are the critically important issues. Let us remember that what we are doing is not completely new and unprecedented. The principle has been established of data collection. We are bringing it up to date with the new challenges that the new technologies have brought.

I am not alone in having serious concerns. In another place, when the Home Secretary made her Statement two weeks ago following the events in Paris, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Foreign Secretary and current chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee said that new technologies were preventing the agencies from exercising the capability they used to have. Jack Straw, who was, unusually, responsible in his time for all the agencies because he was both Home Secretary and then Foreign Secretary said that it was,

“beyond argument that the legislation … has to be revised … so that we can resolve this issue as soon as possible”.

In his further remarks he asked for close co-operation to resolve this communications data issue,

“as soon as possible, and ensure that the intelligence and security agencies and the police have the capabilities today and tomorrow that they had in the past under legislation freely agreed by this House?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/15; col. 875.]

I say “Hear, hear” to that.

I quote—also from this report—a very good response by the shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to the statement made by the Home Secretary two weeks ago. She said:

“Governments need to keep our people safe so that we can enjoy the very freedoms that our democracy depends on”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/15; col. 871.]

She went on to say:

“We agree that the police and the agencies need to get the intelligence to keep us safe and that they need updated legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/15; col. 873.]

16:45

I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, when she said that she had a strong preference for targeted investigation and data collection, rather than blanket surveillance.

I quote another supporter of this cause: the Home Secretary herself said:

“Let me be absolutely clear: every day that passes without the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill, the capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminish; and as those capabilities diminish, more people find themselves in danger and—yes—crimes will go unpunished and innocent lives will be put at risk”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/15; col. 871.]

Unfortunately, a bit of a hiccup in the coalition government situation has prevented this happening. It is the duty of Parliament to resolve that: first, your Lordships’ House and then the Commons, because this is not just a House of Lords matter. It has been suggested that with these amendments the House of Lords is usurping the position of the House of Commons. Any amendments that we carry will go to the House of Commons and they will have time—looking at the hours being spent there at the moment—to give it proper consideration. I hope that is not too unkind. In this situation Parliament should act.

There is undoubtedly, from all the advice that we get, a very real risk of a serious outrage in this country. If there was an attack here like the one in Paris, and it became apparent that if the powers of the agencies had been kept up to date it could have been prevented, huge criticism of Parliament would follow—and rightly so.

I hope that people realise that this is an all-party amendment. I do not regard this as a party-political issue, I regard it as an issue of national security. I hope very much that your Lordships’ House will recognise the responsibility of us all as Members of these Houses of Parliament and take urgently needed action while we have the opportunity—because of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, for which these amendments are fully in scope—to carry this through. So I will listen carefully to the debate. In the light of the contribution by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I very much hope that we can carry this forward along the lines that he proposed so well and that we take the necessary action. I beg to move

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I placed my name in support of Amendment 79 with those of the noble Lords, Lord King of Bridgwater, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and Lord West of Spithead. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord King, has said. I am not a party politician but this issue is far beyond politics. I put my name down in order to place in the records of the House the significance of communications data to the police and security services, which are now specifically mentioned in subsection (6) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 87. Those three agencies and the police are the agencies—the only ones—to which this communications data section will now apply.

Those agencies’ needs must be understood. They have been subject to a great deal of obfuscation, both witting and unwitting. The police and the security services are not asking for new powers. Rather, they are asking for the retention of what they already have but are now losing. They need the ability to determine, in specified circumstances, which telephone or other device has been used where, when, and to communicate with whom. This is an investigative tool of equal significance to DNA and fingerprinting, but changing technology is eroding that ability.

This is not the first time we have faced such a threat. I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, in the early 1990s, and we were then discussing the fact that mobile telephones were appearing and were destroying the ability of the police and the security services to carry out lawful interception. Fortunately, that technology was overcome and new measures were brought in—and that is what people in these services are asking for now. The situation is that mobile telephones and the internet are merging. All the different apps for phones mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord King, along with all the other services, are increasingly being used across the internet via something I now know more about than I ever wanted to—a system known as VoIP, the Voice over Internet Protocol. This makes all those transmissions untraceable. I will not specify them, but they are being used in methodologies that Members of this House will be using most days. They are already changing things and we are losing our technological edge on terrorists and criminals.

We are not asking, as I heard a senior politician say on the radio recently, to listen to or to read every message, phone call and visit to an internet site by every person in Britain. A moment’s thought would show that that is completely and utterly impossible. We want to retain for one year data about where and when a particular device has been used, and to communicate with what. If suspicion emerges about a device or its user, that data can be interrogated.

I want to point out the reason for our insertion of the words “serious crime”, because this is not just a terrorist matter. Let me give two examples of capabilities that are now disappearing. A teenager goes missing in Sussex. She has had episodes of self-harm and she was last seen heading towards Beachy Head. All teenagers, whether or not they are capable of self-harm, are likely to have their phone with them. That phone will locate the child—but in a few years’ time, it will not. I cite the example of a dead body found in a field with signs of violence. One of the first things that the senior investigating officer will say is, “Get me the phone data”. What he or she wants to know is which phone has been carried across that field in the past few days. Which phone has been within a few hundred yards of the site of where the body was found? That information is what the police need in order to be able to identify the murderers by the technology that betrays them. At the moment, we can do it in most cases, but we are gradually losing that capability.

I turn to an actual case. Noble Lords will remember the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport. It had been preceded two days before by an attempted atrocity in central London, at the Tiger Tiger nightclub. The Metropolitan Police were 20 minutes behind the bomber when he reached Glasgow airport—and the way they did that was through tracing the phones.

The noble Lord, Lord West, recently mentioned the phrase “snoopers’ charter”, and referred to it as sanctimonious claptrap; I agree with him. In this amendment we have limited those who could exercise this kind of power to the security services and the police when investigating or preventing serious crime. They are not snoopers but lifesavers. Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord King, said. I could usefully put before noble Lords how the Home Secretary finished her Statement to the House of Commons:

“It is too soon to say for certain, but it is highly probable that communications data were used in the Paris attacks to locate the suspects and establish the links between the two attacks”.

Given my professional background, I, along with my colleague and noble friend Lord Condon, can say, “Almost certainly”. The Home Secretary went on to say:

“Quite simply, if we want the police and the security services to protect the public and save lives, they need this capability”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/15; col. 871.]

I agree.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment in support of the noble Lord, Lord King, along with those of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Blair. I will mention some history as well, which is important because of the time lags and time. In 2009, when I was Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism, I was made aware that changes to communications technology meant that a record of communications information would no longer be held by the communications service providers and that technology was changing the type of data that were available. This information was held purely as it was needed for the companies’ billing procedures—that is why they kept it—and, as such, was available for use by properly authorised state officials, in particular for prosecution of serious crimes and in terrorism cases. New technologies and methods of communication meant that firms were beginning to, and going to, charge differently.

Over time, communications material, which, as has already been said, was used to help to gain convictions in over 95% of serious criminal cases, was going to be lost—a very serious and irrevocable loss that would impact on the security and safety of our nation and our people. To try to ensure such information would be kept, and to access these new technologies, we started to draft a new communications data Bill. There was then an election, the coalition came into power, and the coalition drafted a new Communications Data Bill which was passed to Parliament for pre-scrutiny, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord King. It had many flaws and underwent considerable redrafting —the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will, I am sure, talk about this later—to ensure that there were sufficient safeguards and so on. Indeed, the Home Office, as the noble Lord, Lord King, has mentioned, did a considerable amount of work to rectify all the faults with that Bill. Subsequently, for political reasons, it was kicked into touch. We find ourselves today, some six years—not two and a half years—after we started to try to draft legislation that would ensure no loss of what we already had, having done nothing but expend a great deal of hot air. Week by week we are losing the ability we once had; for example, to place a criminal close to the scene of a crime on a certain day, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blair.

The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both said in the past few weeks that this legislation is needed urgently—and they are right. So why is nothing happening? Well, yes, there are reviews going on, not least by the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Mr Anderson, and that is very sensible. But perhaps as a nation we should move more expeditiously on such a crucial matter.

One of the great strengths of this House is that it contains globally admired experts on almost every issue under the sun, and it can also act as a conscience for the elected Chamber in the other place. The noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Carlile and Lord Blair, are acknowledged experts in this field and clearly their advice has to be taken very seriously. They have identified this window of opportunity to rectify the growing shortfall in our ability to prosecute crime, whether criminal or terrorist. Do we really want murderers, people traffickers, serious organised crime and terrorists to be able to communicate and plot out of the reach of our law enforcement agencies? Do we want them to be able to avoid detection and prosecution in a way that they have not been able to in the past? The answer, surely, has to be no.

That does not mean that there do not have to be sufficient safeguards; for example, to ensure data that are properly looked after, as the communications providers have indeed always had to do, and to decide how long such data need to be held for. In addition, we need to investigate the costs because companies will be keeping data they no longer require for themselves so will want to charge us—they will probably want to overcharge us—for the privilege. The Government should be very hard-nosed on this point.

Much has been, and will be, said about individual privacy but, as the European human rights legislation points out, privacy is not an absolute right. There is much emotive claptrap using words such as “snooper”. It is, in that context, interesting to note that the judges at the tribunal looking into the allegation that GCHQ is involved in mass surveillance have just reported and were all absolutely clear in their judgment that there is no “mass” but rather only highly “targeted” surveillance properly authorised. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned, the data we are looking at here are not the contents of the letter, but what I would call the outside of the envelope. To be quite honest, the people we should be really worried about looking inside the envelope are various private companies, firms and ne’er-do-wells—not the Government.

17:00

I am sure that numerous amendments to this amendment need to be debated, as the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned, and added before this can become law. But if we have the will, there must be time to do it. The other place, more so than the Lords, has almost no serious business before the general election and can surely create time to get this legislation right and put into law. The urgency over communications data legislation, described by the Prime Minister as “crucial” for national security, is pressing. Do we really need more studies? They sometimes seem to me to be a way of kicking difficult issues into the long grass. Our nation’s security is too important to play that game. It has been six years so far, with almost no movement. This could end up making even Chilcot seem fast. Surely, in the two months available, Parliament, in particular the other place, can mobilise itself to pass legislation, with all the right protections, that ensures that we remain able to prosecute those who would do society harm but which looks after the privacy of the individual.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that it falls upon me to be the first to break the all-party consensus. I disagree, reluctantly, with the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord King and Lord Carlile and the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord West. The 21 amendments would incorporate practically the whole of that original draft communications Bill—called at the time the snoopers’ charter—into the Bill before us and into law. Before any noble Lords think I have gone soft and wet on terrorism, I will quote the introductory remarks of the conclusions of the Joint Committee’s report:

“It is the duty of government—any government—to maintain the safety and security of law-abiding citizens, so that they may go about their lives and their business as far as possible in freedom from fear. This is not only in the public interest; it is in the interest of law-abiding members of the public. For this the law enforcement authorities should be given the tools they need. Reasonable access to some communications data is undoubtedly one of those tools”.

That is what we said two years ago; I stand by it today. What we said in looking at that draft communications Bill is relevant today because, with 21 proposed new clauses, this is almost a Second Reading:

“Our overall conclusion is that there is a case for legislation which will provide the law enforcement authorities with some further access to communications data, but that the current draft Bill is too sweeping, and goes further than it need or should. We believe that, with the benefit of fuller consultation with CSPs than has so far taken place, the Government will be able to devise a more proportionate measure than the present draft Bill, which would achieve most of what they really need, would encroach less upon privacy, would be more acceptable to the CSPs, and would cost the taxpayer less. We make detailed recommendations accordingly”,

on how to do that. That is what we said two years ago; I still stand by it.

The problem we faced a couple of years ago when looking at the Bill was that, with the best will in the world and with the right intentions, the Home Office misdirected itself. Its main concern was to make sure that the Bill was future-proof. RIPA was passed in 2000, while our Joint Committee was looking at this in 2012. The Home Office concluded that it was not going to get a new RIPA every year, so if we were to pass a Bill in 2012 or 2013 it would have to be so wide-ranging in scope that it could encompass every new technological gizmo which might come along. Bear in mind that the ghastly—that is not the committee’s opinion but mine—Facebook and Twitter were invented only between about 2005 and 2007, years after RIPA was passed. The Home Office rightly considered that, if we passed a Bill in 2013, we should make it so that it could encompass any future technological change which came along. That was a fatal mistake at the Home Office and, because it made the breadth of Clause 1 so obscure and so wide to capture everything, people called it the snoopers’ charter. That was not pompous rubbish. The way the Bill was drafted meant that it could be called the snoopers’ charter if the agencies wished to make it so.

Initially the Home Office could not tell us what its real concern was on the grounds of confidentiality, and not letting the terrorists and the bad guys know. Within a couple of weeks most organisations that came before us, including the police, said that all they wanted were “who”, “where” and “when”, the things they used to get from the original telephones and the mobile telephones. They did not want all the wide-ranging theoretical powers which Clause 1 and the proposed new clauses here could give them. When we came to look at that in terms of the internet, we came across the crucial areas of contention, which were IP addresses and web logs up to the first forward slash. It would seem quite straightforward for someone on my committee to say yes to permitting access to web logs up to the first forward slash. Even if someone was checking up on me and I logged on to bbc.co.uk, that is all you could get. You would not know what else I was on to because after that came the content—the “what”—of the communication.

It was also pointed out to us that if I was logging on daily to Alcoholics Anonymous, you could not see the rest of the pages, but that in itself could give a message that this person was logging on to that website on a daily basis, and there was a bit of content involved in that. My committee determined—absolutely rightly, in my view—that it was for Parliament to decide on those issues. We could not allow the draft Bill with its very broad-ranging Clause 1—which my noble friend has replicated here—to stand without Parliament being able to say specifically, “Yes, we like that bit and we want to have IP addresses and web logs” or not. It was impossible to extricate that. If noble Lords wish to put down an amendment to ban web logs, it would be impossible to draft the amendment because we have no clue to which bit of Clause 1 we should do it.

Our recommendation was that that clause should be split up, with a specific sub-clause to give the House of Commons and us in this House a chance to vote yes or no on whether we want IP addresses or web logs. I took the view that if we did it that way then on balance, with a bit of grumbling in both Houses, the Government would probably have got web logs and IP addresses in that Bill, because Parliament would have been deciding. My committee did not want to pass some general obscure Clause 1, pat ourselves on the back that we had balanced freedom and responsibility and given the security services the powers they needed, to find a few months later a policeman or someone from the Security Service popping up and saying, “Aha, what you did not realise is that we have this additional power hidden in here”.

That was what caused people to call the provision the snoopers’ charter. We were very fortunate in that the Home Office took on board most of our recommendations. I was privileged, and I believe my noble friend—well, I call him my noble friend—Lord Armstrong of Ilminster was also privileged to see some of the revisions that the Home Office made. I would say that it took on board 95% of what the Joint Committee recommended. If that measure had then gone on to become law—it hit political problems in the coalition—no one could rightly call it the snoopers’ charter.

In paragraph 292 of our report we said:

“Whether clause 1 should allow notices that require CSPs to retain web logs up to the first ‘/’ is a key issue. The Bill should be so drafted as to enable Parliament to address and determine this fundamental question which is at the heart of this legislation”.

I believe that the revised Bill the Home Office were working on would have given us that opportunity. We do not have that opportunity today and it is damaging to go forward with these proposed new clauses—

[Lord West of Spithead]

I am interested in why the noble Lord believes there is no opportunity for us now, within this two-month period, to actually utilise the work that the committee has already so admirably done, and the work that has been done in the Home Office, so that it can be incorporated into a sensible new Bill that covers all these worries?

[Lord Blencathra]

If the Home Office were to come along with a whole range of those clauses as proposed in our Select Committee report, I would be the first to commend them and to propose them. In the political climate coming up to the election, it may not be possible to produce those clauses and get the consent of both Houses of Parliament. There may be time, but there is severe political difficulty in trying to bounce those new clauses on an unsuspecting public or legislature at this stage.

I congratulate my noble friend on some other key issues in his proposed new clause. He is right to dump all those extraneous public bodies which our committee was very concerned about. The Home Secretary repeatedly says, and rightly so, that she needs the data Bill to tackle terrorism, paedophilia and serious crime. That is the mantra. The committee agreed, but there should not be 600-odd public authorities in the Bill which are allowed to use some of the powers. They do not have the full powers of MI5 and M16—of course not—but it tarnishes the importance of the big players getting access to data if local councils are in there. Of course local councils say that serious crime is involved. They say that fly-tipping is not just someone chucking an old mattress over the hedge of a farmer’s field because gangs are making millions from it, so it is serious crime and local councils want to be in there. I say that they should use other measures rather than a Bill which has constantly been touted as dealing with paedophiles, terrorists and serious crime. In that case, the organisation which is responsible for putting the little lion on British eggs should not be included either. It is: it made a case to be included because apparently, if it is done improperly or wrongly, the EU may cut off £20 million of our funds, and therefore it is serious crime. A distinction has to be made between serious crime related to gun running, people trafficking and big money and the rest of crime.

My noble friend has included the police and the two security services. My committee recommended that we should include the National Crime Agency, HMRC, which also does a lot of work on this, the United Kingdom Border Agency—or whatever we call it now—and the FSA, whatever that is called now too. Those big bodies make up 99% of all requests for data. The other 1% are all the extraneous other bodies.

The committee also made some other very important recommendations which touched on many other aspects of my noble friend’s proposed new clauses. The committee believed that the SPOC—single point of contact—system is far better than anyone ever expected. Nearly all of us on the Joint Committee felt that we could not have the SPOC system as it would be one policeman going up to another and saying, “Hey, Sarge, sign this on the nod and we’ll get access to data”. When the committee visited the Metropolitan Police, we were delighted—perhaps I should have said amazed first—to find that the system was exceptionally good and exceptionally well run and should be no cause for concern. The police, being the police, of course invented a computer program. No one officer can move on to the next stage to authorise the collection of data until all the boxes have been filled in—not ticked, but filled in. Then another policeman has to review it. In some ways, we should have guessed that the inevitable bureaucracy of the police would come up with a system which was pretty fool-proof and pretty safe. In fact, the committee recommended that the police system was so good that the other extraneous organisations should go through the police and the system should go out to tender. I hope the Met would get it. If the Met got that tender, it would be running a rather good SPOC system in the rest of the country. I hope that placates the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Condon, because I am opposed to some of the rest of the proposed new clauses.

If we go ahead with my noble friend’s proposed new clauses, I am very concerned that we will hit a huge storm of criticism that we are introducing the snoopers’ charter by the back door.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

So far, no one who has spoken in this debate has referred to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 99. It is the sunset clause for 31 December next year. So it will go, but it will go because the other legalisation goes anyway. In other words, after the election, we know that both Houses have got to spend a lot of time on this because of the sunset clause. Surely putting the sunset clause in this group, plus the other amendments from the Home Office, meets a lot of the objections that anyone could make to this because this is not a free-for-all for ever. We are legislating to say that at the end of next year it goes and Parliament has to replace it.

17:15

[Lord Blencathra]

The noble Lord makes a very good point about the sunset clause, which might reassure many of us in this House and perhaps in the Commons, but I do not think it would reassure the masses outside, who are concerned about the so-called snoopers’ charter coming back. If a sunset clause introduced all the flawed measures—and they were flawed in nearly every clause of the draft Communications Data Bill—some would be concerned that that sunset clause would be added to a year later, amended and put in again and again. Once those flawed measures were on the statute book, I would have little confidence that any Government would wish to remove them. After a huge battle, when they had got them on to the statute book, why would they go back and rewrite it? Perhaps I am being slightly too cynical there.

We would do enormous damage to the cause of getting a proper rewritten RIPA if we went ahead with these new clauses today. Of course my noble friend is right: I would be subject to enormous criticism if, by opposing these amendments today, there were some terrorist incident in the next 18 months that could have been prevented if the Security Service had access to some Facebook pages that my noble friends’ amendments would have facilitated. However, I am more concerned about the long-term damage. If we go off at half cock with these clauses today, we may create a climate whereby it may not be possible to bring in a proper, rewritten RIPA in a few years’ time. Everyone agrees that RIPA needs to be rewritten; it is long past its sell-by date. We need a really good new Bill, and these new clauses should not be part of it—with all due respect to my noble friend.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow such a cogent and interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has immense knowledge of this area of work as a result of his chairmanship of his committee, which produced an excellent report. I will return to what he said presently.

I do not know how many of your Lordships have had the opportunity to watch the remarkable German film, “The Lives of Others”, which depicted the dangers that the Stasi brought on its whole country of a society bedevilled by surveillance at every level. It is a lesson to us all. Surely we all start from the position that any unnecessary surveillance and invasion of privacy by surveillance, interception of communications or looking at metadata that illegitimately affects the rights of individuals must be avoided. That is certainly the position that I start from. I think that almost everybody in this House starts from that position, whether or not they agree with these amendments, which I support.

The fact is that there is a gap in the capacity of the relevant services at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, with his great experience of the police, illustrated very clearly. That gap has not been filled. I am not sure why it has not been filled, or why the Government are so reluctant either to take on board these amendments or to produce an alternative. I hope that it is not party politics. My plea to your Lordships, whether they belong to a political party or not, is not to allow party political considerations to interfere in an issue about national security, which surely must be judged only on the merits and without political prejudices taking part. That is certainly my approach to this matter.

We heard during the course of the very helpful opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord King, that for the country to be safe, a very limited number of relevant authorities, for a limited purpose, should have these powers. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as he so often does, put his finger on an important aspect of the amendments: we are not asking that these amendments should endure for ever; we are simply filling a gap that exists until the sunset clause comes into effect. That gives plenty of time after the election in May for both Houses of Parliament to reconsider these matters and to produce what may be more enduring provisions.

There is one peculiarity about what has happened in recent months. In July in this House, both the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, referred to the fact that the Home Office—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said this earlier—had been very co-operative in considering and dealing with his committee’s criticisms of existing proposed legislation. As he reminded us just now, and as he said in the House in July, it had accepted 95% of the changes recommended by his committee. The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, told us at that time that they had seen a draft Bill, and they put that on the record. Nobody else has seen that draft Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said at that time that he had seen a draft Bill that by no stretch of the imagination could be called a snoopers’ charter. Those were his words. I see him nodding in agreement.

It is my view that the Government should now produce that draft, amended or replacement Bill so that we can see what was offered, and so that if they object to the provisions in these amendments we can come back next week and table amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others have agreed are not a snoopers’ charter, meet requirements and fill the gap of which I have just spoken. Indeed, if that draft Bill was made available, and we were able to consider it, and possibly table amendments by next Monday, there may be no need to reconsider matters after the general election, although, speaking for myself, I would still prefer to see a sunset clause requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses so that we could be sure that what had been enacted was fit for purpose and was safe.

I close by, I regret, repeating something which I said a few days ago in your Lordships’ House, because I think it merits being repeated. I absolutely congratulate whoever thought up the term “snoopers’ charter”. Rather like the term “poll tax”, it was a piece of branding genius. Unfortunately, unlike the term “poll tax”, it does not remotely accurately describe what was being suggested. It presupposes malignancy in that distinguished service that has served this country so well and that was recently headed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who I am glad to see in his place opposite. The term “snoopers’ charter” implies that the noble Lord would rub his hands in the morning and say, “Now let’s have a look at Alex Carlile’s shopping list and credit card purchases—oh, and who he’s been calling and what internet sites he has been on, because it would be fun to know what he’s been up to”. That is simply a caricature of what the Security Service and the police do.

Today, some figures have been published on the number of people who have gone to take part in violent jihad in Syria in recent months, country by country. I will not trouble the House with the full table, but it is alarming because it shows that there are other countries in the European Union and elsewhere from which violent jihadists have gone in greater proportionate numbers than even the United Kingdom—the Netherlands is one example—although the United Kingdom figures are alarming. When the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, Mr Parker, who has given us his warning on these matters, gets up in the morning, they are the kinds of people he is concerned about. They are the kinds of people to whom attention is given in attempting to ascertain the metadata and, as a result, their movements.

Your Lordships will recall that as a result of the Paris incident, it was revealed, as the newspapers rather naively put it, that the wives of the two brothers involved had communicated about 50 times with one another on their mobile phones. I doubt very much that it was the wives who had been communicating, although certainly their mobile phones had been used for the purpose of communication. I venture to suggest that if that information, given the history of those two brothers, had come to the attention of the Security Service here and had been acted upon—and, of course, those are two important ifs; I do not mean to criticise the French services, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Evans, would confirm are generally very competent indeed—it is just the sort of information that could have prevented an attack in the United Kingdom. However, there is a gap and it needs to be filled.

I close by saying to the Minister that if he is not prepared to accept these actually rather restricted amendments, which have been offered in good will to try to protect the national security of this country and the safety of its citizens, let him now tell us what alternative the Government have agreed to so that we can now deal with this issue once and for all, without darning the sock.

[Lord Condon (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the four noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments for renewing and re-energising the parliamentary debate about these issues. I will be relatively brief.

I think everyone agrees that there is a gap in the legislation that needs to be filled. I do not disagree with any of those who have spoken so far, not because I am vacillating but because they are all right in what they are trying to say and in their ambitions. We desperately need a clear legislative road map that leads to filling the gaps that are putting our country at risk. Ideally, that road map would lead to legislation before the general election, and that is the spirit of the amendments before us. However, I accept the reservations put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his committee.

The fight against terrorism and serious crime is not a police and agency fight but a whole-country fight and an international fight, and in the context of our own country we need a critical mass of public and communications industry support for new legislation. The legislation cannot be too far ahead of the wide feeling of support and that they are the right measures at the right time for what we need. I hope that the Minister in his response will be able to give us a sense of how this road map might be laid out. As I say, that would ideally be before the general election, but I suspect that more realistically it will have to be after it. We will therefore be looking to the major parties to set out just what they are prepared to do in this field.

What is absolutely certain is that there is a horrendous gap that gets bigger each day and prevents the agencies that we task with keeping our country safe from doing their best in this field. So I thank again those who brought forward these amendments. This is a vital time for our country to get this matter right.

[Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the National Crime Agency. Unfortunately, I can neither confirm nor deny the contents of the shopping lists of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but he is quite right in saying that we are not here talking about what would amount to a snoopers’ charter.

I have some considerable sympathy for the purpose behind the amendment. It seems to me that there has been a failure in the system to provide the appropriate powers alongside the appropriate controls that will enable the agencies and the police to continue their jobs of keeping us safe from terrorism, as well as, importantly, from serious and organised crime. It was always my view as regards the draft Communications Data Bill that it was at least as important for law enforcement as it was for the intelligence agencies, because the evidence provided by communications data is enormously important and is used again and again in the courts. This is not just an intelligence issue; this is an evidential issue to ensure that justice is properly done in the courts.

17:30

Nevertheless, I have some caution about the amendments and I shall explain why. My first note of caution is that we should not imagine that this solves the problem. This is a very specific, small part of the technical challenge that we face in the new digital era in which we are living. This provides one part, but the most important element, as has been reflected in some of the public statements by members of the intelligence services in recent months, is to do with internet services which are not provided through traditional telecommunications, but are provided in other ways; the data and the legal jurisdiction are held not in this country but overseas. It is over the interception of those that many of the problems arise. Even if we were to accept these proposals, it would plug one particular gap among a very significant number of gaps.

[Lord West of Spithead]

It is important to note that it does fill part of the gap. I know, having been a Minister for three years, that in the security world the agencies always say we need so-and-so and then they say, actually we need this and we need that. Yes, we do need to do these things with the various servers and providers abroad, but this is also an important part.

[Lord Evans of Weardale]

I accept that this is a very important element, but it is not the answer to everything.

My second note of caution is that we need to maintain public confidence as we go down this route. That is as important for law enforcement as it is for counterterrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the masses who are concerned about the snoopers’ charter. I have to say that the polling evidence I have seen does not necessarily demonstrate that the masses are enormously concerned about this issue. On the whole, the masses seem to be more concerned about their security than about the human rights issues that some people focus on. Nevertheless, there is an issue of public confidence and I do not wish to diminish that.

Despite those notes of caution, I support the amendment. I support it because it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, a restricted measure, not a blanket measure. I support it because it is drafted with a sunset clause, so that we are filling, as it were, a legislative gap until the totality of the issues can be properly considered in the light of the subsequent publication of various reviews that are under way. I think that it will fill a gap for that period. It seems to me to be a useful, rather than a hugely expansive measure, and one which has appropriate safeguards, so I support it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am not speaking here on a party-political, but on a personal basis. I want to tell noble Lords, first, about my personal experience of terrorism. It is not first-hand, either in terms of being a member of Special Branch or the security services, or having seen the aftermath of what took place directly. However, part of my role in the Metropolitan Police following the 7 July bombings was to talk to officers who had had to go down on to the tracks where terrorists had exploded these bombs and bring out the victims of those terrible atrocities. I know what we are talking about here in terms of terrorism and I use the Underground system every day.

In our earlier discussion on Amendment 75 and internal exile, as some put it, noble and learned Lords, in particular, as well as other noble Lords, emphasised the need for legitimacy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked about the European Convention on Human Rights and the right to a private and family life. My concern is that the introduction of these amendments in this way may not be seen as legitimate by many people outside this place. A process has been set in motion. There is a process for reviewing RIPA, for example, and the whole landscape of the intelligence services. That process is in place.

The other issue that noble Lords—and, indeed, two who tabled this amendment—talked about in relation to internal exile is the danger of alienation and resentment. This follows the comments by my noble friend Lady Warsi in yesterday’s Observer about how engagement is essential. We need to engage with communities, not create alienation and resentment. My fear is that the way in which these amendments are drafted is likely to cause exactly that negative effect. My noble friend Lord King, in his opening remarks, said that we are facing a very serious situation. That is common ground. As I have said, I know from personal experience the sorts of dangers that we are facing. However, there is no common ground, I suggest, about the best way to deal with that serious issue.

There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about events in Paris. My understanding is that the information and intelligence that security services got was through mobile telephone communication between the two groups of terrorists which co-ordinated their attacks by that means. There is nothing in these amendments that would give the security services or the police the powers to identify that sort of communication. It exists already. Every day, not only the police and the security services, but other agencies specified in the amendments also have the power, as we speak, to identify who called who on a mobile phone, where and when. So despite all this talk about Paris and how the attacks could have been prevented, these amendments would not appear, on the facts as I know them, to make any difference to the situation.

Terrorists may be adept at using technology, as my noble friend Lord King said, but my understanding is that a lot of terrorists, particular the sort responsible for recent attacks—whether we are talking about the tragic death of Lee Rigby or about Paris—are using very old technology. The problem, as my noble friend Lord King rightly said, is getting good intelligence. That is about developing links with the Muslim community and with communities where the extreme right wing operates, and gaining their trust and confidence in order to get that intelligence.

[Lord West of Spithead]

Does the noble Lord not agree that in, I think I am right in saying, 100% of all the cases where we have stopped a terrorist plot in this country, it has been intelligence via the web or by some SIGINT means that has enabled us to identify the group in order to then carry out action?

[Lord Paddick]

My understanding is that that is absolutely not the case. There were numerous cases—though it may be going back some years to Irish republican terrorism—where most of the plots were foiled because of intelligence from communities, not because of anything that was intercepted. I understand that the situation is changing, but the noble Lord was not correct when he said that in 100% of cases of terrorism that were thwarted in this country it was as a result of intelligence interception of that kind.

[Lord West of Spithead]

If I may say so, it was the case during my three years as a Minister. It was very different, of course, from the time of the IRA, which we had completely and thoroughly penetrated.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Paddick]

I am sorry, but I have not yet finished, noble Lords will be alarmed to hear.

Noble Lords have said that there is a gap in the capability of the security services and the police in terms of getting similar intelligence that they get from cell site analysis at the moment using mobile phones. My understanding is that the emergency legislation that this House passed towards the end of last year and the measures contained in this Bill, unamended, help to bridge that gap. Intelligence on who is communicating with whom at what time and where can be secured using the IP address provisions contained in the Bill, without the proposed amendments. I am not technically advanced enough to say whether that is the case; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether, or to what extent, the gap that has been identified by other noble Lords will be filled by the Bill as it stands.

The noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, talked about the significance of communications data. Again, my understanding is that the legislation, as put forward by the Government, is designed to fill that gap.

The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, then spoke about how the draft Communications Data Bill was kicked into touch for political reasons. If the noble Lord means a balance being achieved between human rights—the right to privacy and a private life—and the powers being given to the security services and the police, I would say that that is an absolutely legitimate political reason.

On mass surveillance, if we are talking about internet service providers retaining web logs and information about every website visited by every individual based in the UK, so that the information can subsequently be accessed in a targeted way by the police and the security services, are we saying, if we accept these amendments, that that can be done simply by the security services or the police providing some legitimate reason why they want to access that information—without any judicial intervention or a judge deciding that there is a legitimate reason to access that data? Are we saying that that is what we want and accept?

People have made fun of the fact that the security services are not going to access where people have done their online shopping. But who in this House believed, when they passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, that the police would use that power to establish the identity of confidential press sources? If we pass this very broad legislation, how can we say that there will not be some reason found in the future for the police or the security services to use the legislation in a way we never intended for it to be used?

If noble Lords think that I am being party political, that is a matter for them. I was a police officer for 30 years. I encountered terrorism on a second-hand, rather than first-hand, basis. Unless we have the right balance between rights to privacy and powers for the police and security services, large swathes of communities in this country will no longer co-operate with the police and the security services. That will be an even greater loss of intelligence than any gap that currently exists in the powers of the police and the security services.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the House faces three choices. The first would be not to accept these amendments and not replace them with anything else—in other words, do nothing. I think that the “do nothing” option is the worst that we could possibly follow. In the current situation it is not possible to argue that we do not face growing danger as a result of declining capability against the background of a growing threat. It seems to me that we have a duty to respond to that. I think it a pity that the Government have not brought forward their own amendments on this, but they have not done so yet. I believe that doing something is what this House ought to do. I commend those who have brought forward these amendments.

The other two options are: follow these amendments and vote them into law—it would then be important to accompany them with a sunset clause—or wait for the Government to bring forward something else. That choice depends on the Government’s intentions. It would be preferable for us to be able to vote on something more refined and which incorporated more of the work done by the Joint Committee. I have not been privy to any of the legislation as redrafted. The draft data communications legislation has remained with its poor reputation as a result of the Government not having indicated what they might do to refine the powers therein.

17:45

I hope that we will not do nothing. So the options that we face lie between the Government indicating what their intentions are, whether those powers would meet some of the objections—there are some objections to the raw powers in the draft amendments—and whether legislation and the refined powers the Government might bring forward would adequately cover the points at issue. I am not particularly concerned about whether we include organised crime at this stage. This is a counterterrorism Bill. The issue that we are tackling is national security. We should stick to our last and focus on national security. We should ensure that the powers, in so far as they will do the job, are directed at that and do not try to stray wider.

I agree with those who say that, even when we have legislated more powers into existence, we will probably have to come back to this in data communications legislation—and even when we have done that, we will not cover all the possibilities that could arise. It is beyond this country’s capabilities to cover all the contingencies by law. We require international co-operation. There will still be things that we will not be able to cover, even with that. We can go a good deal further to increase our citizens’ security by passing into law some legislation that we badly need. I was not a fan of the data communications legislation when it came out; I thought it far too sweeping. So it is very important that it responds to those who are concerned about the erosion of civil liberties.

It is perfectly possible for the House, with the Government’s help, to pass a piece of legislation that is apposite, which takes us further forward than we are now and which gives us some powers that we do not currently have. I hope it will. I am sure that we will then return to this issue in the data communications legislation—there will be matters there that we cannot cover in this legislation. It is not simply a matter of removing from the future data communications Bill all the legislation applicable to terrorism and national security, but we could take an important part of those powers and incorporate them into legislation in the Bill. I hope the Government will help us to do that.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, the issue raised by this group of amendments, long as it is, is straightforward enough. We rely on the police and the intelligence and security agencies to protect us and our liberties from the threats to our way of life presented by terrorism. Their ability to do so depends to a large extent on their ability to have access to the data derived from the use of communications by the would-be terrorists.

The regulation of the use of communications data was last reviewed 15 years ago. Since then there have been great changes, as many speakers have said, in the technology of communications, the significance of which, for the regulation of communications, needs urgently to be reviewed.

The threat from terrorism has unquestionably increased. The sophistication of those who use communications for malign purposes has also increased. As we have been told, the efficacy of the activities of the police and intelligence and security agencies in this area have been impaired by the activities of Mr Edward Snowden.

The Government published the draft of a new Communications Data Bill earlier in this Parliament, two or three years ago. That was scrutinised by a Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament, chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—since I was a member of that Committee, perhaps I may call him that. That committee made extensive criticisms of and recommendations for the draft Bill and the Government accepted almost all of them.

There is reason to believe—indeed, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has already said, he and I have seen—that the Home Office produced a revised version of the draft Bill, to take full account of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. Unfortunately that revised Bill has not been allowed to see the light of day, let alone been submitted to Parliament for consideration. That will not now happen until there is a new Parliament. If a revised Bill is not introduced until after the election, it might be that it cannot be passed until well into 2016. That would be another year’s delay, which we can ill afford.

The present Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill provides an opportunity to put into effect, within the next few months, the measures proposed in the revised Communications Data Bill, insofar as they affect the response to the enhanced threats from terrorism and the agencies responsible for countering those threats. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. The amendments also provide for a sunset clause that would ensure that the whole matter is reviewed early in the new Parliament. Since we do not have the revised version of the draft Communications Data Bill, those responsible for these amendments have had to rely on the original Bill. No doubt the amendments are to that extent defective. But Parliament should not be denied the opportunity of considering whether and how to achieve the changes required immediately and without the delay consequent upon waiting until the next Parliament.

I expect—though I cannot commit them—that those who are putting forward these amendments would be prepared to withdraw them if the Government would undertake this evening to introduce on Report revised versions, taking account of the criticisms and recommendations of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s pre-legislative scrutiny committee, but also adopting the proposals in the amendments for confining the changes to the police and intelligence and security agencies and providing a sunset clause ensuring that the issue has to be considered in the wider context of a review of the regulation of communications data by the new Parliament. With that qualification, I fully support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord King, and his colleagues.

These amendments provide an opportunity to address without delay acknowledged shortcomings in the effectiveness of the present regime. It is suggested that they would be an unacceptable intrusion on the liberty of the citizen. That can be much exaggerated. It is not government agencies that will store the data, and those agencies will be able to obtain access to the stored data only subject to demonstrable need and justification and subject to rigorous procedures and controls that were examined and found fit for purpose by the committee—as my noble friend Lord Blencathra has said.

Even so, they will of course represent some potential interference with the freedom of action of those whose data are extracted from the store. But those are or may be the people whose freedom of action we wish to limit or restrain, because their intentions are malign and, if realised, will compromise the life, liberty and happiness of the rest of us. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but if vigilance fails or is frustrated, it is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that pay the price.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I confess that I do not really know where to start. I think it is true that all the previous speakers are former members of what I would call the security establishment: they are former policemen, former Home Office Ministers or former spies—I am not sure in which category I would put the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I think I am the first to speak more as an individual and a non-politician; my history before I came to this House was quite outside of politics, in business.

As we have heard, these amendments regurgitate large parts of the utterly discredited draft communications data Bill. They seek to slip into the Bill large parts of the highly controversial snoopers’ charter, word for word. With just one exception, the amendments fail to correct any of the many significant, fundamental and deal-stopping flaws identified by the Joint Select Committee on the draft Bill that reported at the end of 2012. I had the honour of being a member of that Select Committee under the very able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The committee sat for five months; it met 20 times, including three times in the Recess; it interviewed 54 witnesses and received 19,000 e-mails from members of the public. As we have heard, its members included two former Cabinet members, Lady Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary, one noble Lord who has since become a government Minister, an ultra-loyal Conservative MP and a former Conservative Home Office Minister. That was hardly a hotbed of lefty liberals. The committee reached a unanimous verdict that the draft Bill was badly written, far too broad in scope and badly costed, and noted that the security agencies would do better to make better use of the information they already had.

That last observation is made particularly pertinent by the revelations following the atrocities in Woolwich and Paris, in which all the terrorists were well known to the security agencies long before the events. In all, there were about 100 criticisms of the draft Bill in the Select Committee’s report and many of them were serious and fundamental. As far as I can see, these amendments deal with just one of those criticisms, which means that they are still infested with the remaining 99 flaws. I will not detain the House by going through each of them, but noble Lords may read about them at their leisure in the report, which I commend to the House.

When Edward Snowden released his revelations, about six months after the Select Committee reported, we learnt that GCHQ’s Project Tempora is the world’s first “full-take” data interception system, collecting 100% of internet traffic—content as well as metadata. Former committee members were surprised, and some were angered, by that revelation because during the committee’s proceedings Home Office officials had three times claimed that there was a 25% capability gap in what the agencies could collect—although those same officials were not able to justify that figure of 25%, even in private sessions. Snowden showed that the 25% so-called gap probably does not exist at all and that in fact the agencies are already, and have been for some time, acquiring far more data than the draft Bill would have delivered—and without the knowledge or consent of Parliament and the people.

18:00

However, the biggest reason that this Committee should have nothing to do with these amendments is that they are a gratuitous affront to parliamentary democracy. These 18 pages of amendments would have huge implications in terms of intrusion by the state into the private lives of innocent citizens. The Select Committee found it very hard to believe the Home Office figure of £1.8 billion as the cost to the taxpayer, and, as I have said before, there are serious doubts about the efficacy of these proposed measures. Yet here they are, with a proposal to slip them into this Bill—I remind the Committee that this is a fast-tracked Bill—at two days’ notice and after the other place has completed its deliberations on the Bill. All that is left is ping-pong, which I cannot believe provides the right circumstances in which legislation of this importance and of such controversy should be considered.

Notwithstanding the many faults that these amendments inherited from the snoopers’ charter, the Committee must consign them to the dustbin of history because Parliament cannot possibly give them the consideration they absolutely need.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I was detained at a board meeting.

This House has given me many occasions to feel both alarmed and surprised. Today is no exception, first, in describing Tinder to my Back-Bench friends during an earlier part of the debate and, secondly, in rising to speak against four noble Lords for whom I have the greatest respect and who have offered me enormous friendship since I entered your Lordships’ House. I should like to cite three brief reasons why I oppose the amendment.

First, I wholeheartedly agree that we need a more detailed, complex and timely debate around this enormously complicated issue. The Government were slow to react compared to the quick review by America of the oversight and security services post-Snowden. This Government have looked lacklustre in their response. However, different processes are under way.

I declare an interest as being part of a panel set up by the Deputy Prime Minister and administered by the Royal United Services Institute. The Information Commissioner work is also continuing and we have the emergency legislation referred to as DRIP, which has already been talked about this afternoon. I believe it is very important that those pieces of work reach the next stage and that the debate in Parliament puts all of them into the mix.

Secondly, it is easy to underestimate the power of the public’s view on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord West, mentioned that he thinks that the public are fairly disinterested in this issue but I disagree wholeheartedly. A YouGov survey found that only 6% of people believe that the Government have a coherent data strategy but that it affects them directly. Another poll whose results I saw recently said that just 2% of people trust the Government when it comes to their data. That is immensely important for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, most eloquently espoused earlier—to build trust and engagement among exactly the groups that this legislation is trying to reach.

More than that, perhaps I may give two technical examples that make me believe that such trust is so vital. There is now a move towards more and more use of the dark web—a place where it is very difficult to collect any data—and towards more and more encryption. At one end of the spectrum is a small start-up—actually it is not so small any more—called Wickr. This was started by a woman in the US and it enables communications to remain completely secure. Imagine sending a message that is never stored on any server anywhere. Not only does it disappear remotely in your hand but also it never stays on the network. She has had enormous success in building her app—quite understandably for many people, who believe that they should have a private mechanism for communication and that the Snowden revelations have shown that systems are not safe or secure. Then, more in the mainstream, we have Facebook, which has recently asserted that it is starting a sub-site on the dark web—the unregulatable and uncontrollable web—so that its customers can feel safe.

If we do not listen to what the world is doing and move and engage with it, allowing people to feel that their concerns around security are being addressed, there is a danger that we will take a retrograde step with communications Bills, such as with this amendment.

Finally, I believe that we need to engage much more deeply with both civil liberties groups and the industry itself. Here, I agree with a recent statement by President Obama, which I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating. At the press conference in Washington which he shared with our own Prime Minister, he said in answer to a question about surveillance and about whether there was a swing to security from privacy:

“In six years I and the Prime Minister have seen a constant threat stream across our desks—the pendulum doesn’t need to swing but we need a consistent framework. There needs to be a debate about the laws and the discussion needs to involve the tech industry, who have responsibilities not only to security but also to the customers who use their products, and it also needs to involve the civil libertarians who are tapping us on the shoulder”.

I urge the Government to address the very real concerns of the general public on the one side and the security services on the other, particularly about the boundaries and framework for data collection, but I urge them not to do so by way of this amendment.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, there are objections of both process and substance to these amendments which make it inopportune and injudicious to cut and paste this amendment into the Bill—to “bounce” it into the Bill, in the words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, whose speech I thoroughly commend. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has just mentioned, there is an issue of trust. We all know—it is commented on with great regularity—that there is very little trust in politicians and parliamentarians. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, even though she would like an updated communications data Bill, referred to the poor reputation of the existing model. However, it is the existing model, shorn of the safeguard of judicial authorisation and scrutiny and the safeguard of restrictions on the exercise of powers, that it is proposed should be inserted in the form of these amendments.

I have counted five current reviews of investigatory powers, which make it bad timing to proceed with the substance of these amendments. As I understand it, there is one by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, another by the Intelligence and Security Committee, another at the request of the Deputy Prime Minister by the Royal United Services Institute, another by Sir Nigel Sheinwald on the international aspects, and one by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, into the use of RIPA to identify journalists’ sources. With all those reviews going on, I think it is rather disrespectful to them to say, “Well, we won’t wait for those conclusions but we’ll stick into this Bill all this new capacity to collect communications data”.

Mention has been made of the capability gap. The 2012 committee report said that the Government failed to share with the committee the research findings behind their assertion of a then 25%, going on 35%, capability gap, and that such a figure was “unhelpful and potentially misleading”. Therefore, we simply do not know what the capability is. My noble friend Lord Strasburger mentioned the revelations of the Tempora programme. I am not sure why we bother to legislate half the time, as GCHQ seems to go a great deal beyond the scope of any Bill.

The report also said:

“Part of the gap is the lack of ability of law enforcement agencies to make effective use of the data that is available”.

That is not my assertion but the assertion of a very thorough and wise Joint Committee report. I agree with it that addressing that ability should be a priority.

There was also mention of the failure to consult communication service providers and internet service providers, and there have been recent complaints, which I mentioned earlier, by the Internet Services Providers’ Association about the lack of consultation. Before any redrafted legislation is introduced, the Joint Committee recommended extensive and meaningful consultation,

“once there is clarity as to the real aims of the Home Office”,

which would be quite useful.

[Lord West of Spithead]

While I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about the various studies, does she agree that over six years, which is how long it has taken us to address this starting to lose data, is rather a long time? It is slightly longer than it took us to defeat Hitler, and it is a long time to keep on looking at other things. Do we not have to take some action if we are to achieve something?

[Baroness Ludford]

I thank the noble Lord for that remark, but I understand that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has a target date of May—four months away—to produce his report. I am sure that we can wait four months.

I would also mention the huge expense that these amendments would produce. One can also query the value of a sunset clause. If hundreds of millions of pounds had been spent on the project by December 2016, it is likely that Parliament would say, “We have spent so much already, so we might as well carry on”.

The noble Lord, Lord King, quoted me as preferring targeted to blanket surveillance. What I meant was not what he has put forward in his amendments. He has removed some of the organisations, but I understand that there is still no specification that it is the security services and the police; the reference is to “purposes”. Other agencies could be pursuing matters for the purpose of serious crime, so the provisions would not be limited to the police and security services. By targeting, I meant not limiting it to certain “purposes”; I meant it to limit the scope of Amendment 79, which replicates Clause 1 of the draft Bill.

As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, it was the huge breadth of that Clause 1, which is now reflected in Amendment 79, which was so objectionable. The Joint Committee said:

“It is hardly surprising that a proposal for powers of this width has caused public anxiety”.

Even the Intelligence and Security Committee said that more detail was needed on the face of the Bill, but that detail is not in the amendments put forward today. The Joint Committee concluded:

“Clause 1 therefore should be re-drafted with a much narrower scope, so that the Secretary of State may make orders subject to Parliamentary approval enabling her to issue notices only to address specific data gaps as need arises … We do not think that Parliament should grant powers … on the precautionary principle”—

the idea was that new ways of communicating would come along. That was an extremely wise conclusion, yet the amendments consist of precisely the breadth of that Clause 1.

The Joint Committee was particularly exercised over the possible requirement to keep web logs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, wanted,

“Parliament to address and determine this fundamental question”,

specifically. Amendment 79 does not allow us to address that specific and fundamental question. In the mean time we are legislating on IP addresses in this Bill. Neither I nor any of my colleagues have objected to that, although we wanted to tease out some of the detail.

The Joint Committee also said that there were huge technical and civil liberties concerns about the collection of third-party data and the lack of detail on that in the Bill. The report states:

“United Kingdom CSPs are rightly very nervous about these provisions”.

They simply could not understand the implications of having to collect data from third-party suppliers who happened to cross their networks.

18:15

For all the reasons of both process and substance, it is impossible to consider putting theses amendments into the Bill. For example, the filtering arrangements are fully reflected in the amendments put forward today. The Joint Committee characterised this as a “request filter”, and said that it was really not so different from the single, centralised state database proposed by the previous Government in 2008 that both coalition parties opposed. The report said that the reason why it was not so different from the centralised database, even though the data would be stored by all those private companies, was because it,

“can be equated to a federated database”.

It would not be in one centralised place, but essentially it was very similar. It would make it possible to perform profile searches and to do data mining. It would involve risks amounting to general monitoring, which would be contrary to the EU e-commerce directive—I am sure that everyone is very unhappy that we could be in breach of EU law—and there would be a temptation to go on fishing expeditions.

We need to take that report very seriously. Parliament appointed a committee of both Houses to look at the draft Bill. It did a painstaking and thorough job and said that the Bill would not wash. It is far too broad and dangerous to privacy and civil liberties. Yet the amendments today simply cut and paste. I realise that part of the exercise is to try to provoke the Minister into saying something that noble Lords might consider helpful—or not quite so helpful—but we are faced simply with a cut and paste of the 2012 Bill, with its huge breadth, lax definitions and terminology rooted in a pre-internet age. We should not accept the amendments. Whatever case there might be for a redrafted communications data Bill—my noble friend Lord Blencathra called it a snoopers’ charter, so I feel able to call it a snoopers’ charter, whatever some noble Lords might say—that case has not been made today. We have the old version and it is highly inopportune to accept it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendments for many of the reasons outlined here today. First, they are unnecessary. We have heard a lot about gaps, targeted and not blanket surveillance and bringing things up to date. This is, of course, absolute nonsense. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the Met and presumably the other agencies already have the powers they need—powers that, I suggest, go far beyond what they need. We heard a lot today about Paris and Lee Rigby, but in fact all my information says that the shortcomings of the pre-investigation in Paris and in the Lee Rigby tragic murder were due not to a lack of surveillance but to a lack of good police work. That is what was fundamentally missing. It was not about not having enough recordings or surveillance. It was about a lack of information and a lack of talking to marginalised community groups. The cross-party committee which reported in November on the handling of the Lee Rigby killers exposed major internal failings in the way that agencies pursue leads. It found that both men had been known to the agencies for years—one had even been considered a priority—but basic issues such as delays, poor communication and bad record-keeping caused the problems, not the surveillance of the suspects.

Although these amendments are obviously within the letter of the law, they seem to me to be fundamentally undemocratic in the way that they are being brutally pushed into our parliamentary process. This seems to me a way of short-circuiting real scrutiny. It is great that they were looked at before, but they still need looking at again; if they are—I hope the Minister is listening—they absolutely must be looked at by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It should look at these amendments before there is any more discussion in either of these Houses.

For me, this snoopers’ charter reduces our rights, and surely that is exactly what the terrorists are after. Terrorists want to impact on our society and on every single person who does not believe the way that they do. That is what we are letting happen here. It is absolutely mad. The Mayor of London recently referred to “this civil liberties stuff” in the most dismissive way, as if that is negotiable—that civil liberties are not terribly important when we compare them with the threat of terrorism. That is exactly when we need our civil liberties. That is what we in the West should be known for.

There is also the cost. My experience of the Met over the past 15 years is that it cannot deal with the data that it already has. I have asked many questions about its databases and the information that it gets from them. The Met does not know how many databases it has—it cannot tell me how many to the nearest hundred. Also, it often cannot search its databases. For example, I had the dubious pleasure of being on its domestic extremist database, I think under the regime of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and I hope that I am not on the database anymore—the Met has changed its definition of what a domestic extremist is—but who knows because I cannot get the information. However, the Met cannot search that database for serious criminal activity. Because the definition was changed to relate to serious criminals, if you ask, “Can you look through the database and find out how many serious criminals you have?”, you will be told, “Oh, we haven’t logged that, so we can’t do that”.

Not only are we expecting the Met staff to deal with more data when they cannot sort and file the data that they already have, but, I would argue, they have enough powers. The noble Lord, Lord Blair, talked about some very tragic incidents where more surveillance might actually solve a crime or find a lost child. In fact, the police already have these powers. They have them under RIPA and, in my view, they are already misusing them. Under RIPA they do not have to go to a judge to ask if they can put surveillance on somebody; they just have to go to a chief inspector in a nearby unit and ask, “Could you sign this for me? It’s surveillance on somebody or other”.

We should not be thinking about giving more powers to our spies and to the police. We should be very careful about this. We should think about taking back some of those powers and making sure that we persist in keeping our civil liberties and human rights and do not let the terrorists take them away from us.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, I was surprised that at an early stage in his speech the noble Lord, Lord West, suggested—until he revised the figure—that communications data were employed in some 95% of criminal cases. My experience from the years when I was responsible for prosecuting serious crime and terrorism was that the figure was 100%. I cannot remember a serious criminal case, and I certainly cannot remember a terrorism case, in which communications data were not used. Of course, there is a difference between data which are employed to detect terrorism and data which are then used as part of a prosecution to convict terrorists. Certainly, so far as the latter is concerned, there was a vast amount in every case.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, will remember some of those cases which occurred when he was director-general of the Security Service. The men who tried to commit mass murder on London’s Underground are serving long prison sentences. The men who wanted to detonate a bomb containing radioactive material in Oxford Street are serving long prison sentences. The men who wanted to put a bomb in Bluewater shopping centre at half-term when it would be particularly busy are serving long prison sentences. In the case of the men who wanted to put a bomb in a nightclub—the Ministry of Sound—two were recorded by members of the noble Lord’s service. The leader of the gang said to one of his colleagues, “No one will be able to criticise us for blowing up a nightclub; all those slags dancing around”. This is material which is of the utmost importance in criminal prosecutions.

It is also true, of course, that technology is changing and our capacity to monitor this sort of material must change with it. I accept that, but I do not believe that these amendments are the right vehicle for achieving that change. These amendments suffer from the deficiencies which the original Bill suffered from; in particular, they are insufficiently specific. I agree with everything that the noble Lord said in his compelling speech a few minutes ago. These amendments are deficient for the same reasons that the original Bill was deficient and I shall not support them. This is not, as my noble friend Lord Carlile said, a party political matter. It is a matter of analysing the material and determining whether it is fit for purpose. With respect, I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones that we must do something. We must do the right thing and I do not think that this is the right thing. In everything, we must maintain balance and proportionality. No one has argued in this debate that we should not have a mechanism whereby the security services can access material of this sort. The question is what sort of mechanism.

The security services in recent years, and perhaps in years long gone by, have been led by people who understand the tension between security and rights. When I was DPP and the noble Lord was the director-general of the Security Service, I enjoyed the discussions we had on this topic. Sometimes we disagreed about precisely where the line was drawn, but we agreed that there was a line. One of my fears about these amendments, as with the draft Communications Data Bill, is that they draw the line in the wrong place. One result of that would be an adverse impact on our great security institutions. There is no doubt that the security services in this country enjoy enormous public support, which is unfamiliar even in democracies such as France. It is clearly understood by people in this country that the security services are after “them and not us”. In other words, they are interested in targeting those individuals who are trying to do us wrong rather than the rest of us. The danger of breadth in legislation of this sort is that, if the idea gets about that the security services are interested in everybody’s communications, not just the material of those subject to investigation who are being targeted because it is believed that they are involved in crime, then the sense which the British people have of their security institutions will begin to alter in subtle ways, and not for the good. I would caution those who argue that legislation of this breadth is needed because it is future-proof. We must take great care with legislation that is enacted in the context of the sort of public confidence issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, indicated.

People are interested in these issues. They express their interest in different ways, but there is a feeling abroad that the Government and the security services are becoming nosy. I do not believe that that is true, but if we enact legislation that appears to people to be unnaturally broad, we run the risk of feeding that monster. I shall oppose the amendment.

18:30

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I sense that the House probably wants to come to a conclusion, so I will not delay noble Lords long. Very powerful speeches have been made both in favour of the powers in these amendments and against them. But I note that the speeches that have been made against have been made against these particular amendments—the ones that were taken out of the draft communications data Bill. Something else has happened in the mean time. An admirable process was followed on this Bill. It was submitted to a Joint Committee and that committee reported on it and its defects. The Intelligence and Security Committee also considered the Bill with classified evidence and we similarly identified some defects. Since then, a revised Bill has been prepared. The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, have seen that Bill and they consider that it meets 95% of the criticisms that were in the original Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, went so far as to say that if those clauses had been presented he would not have objected to them.

There is therefore a Bill waiting. The urgency has increased. The threat is now much higher. If the Government consider that this is a serious threat—they say that they do—it is their duty to produce that Bill and take action on it quickly if that can be done before the election. The arguments that have gone against these amendments do not go against taking that course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made another powerful argument, which was that if legislation were hastened it would create resentment and possibly opposition among the people whom we need to carry with us. But I disagree with her in this respect. She said that that may accelerate the bad people going to the dark web, but I think they will go there anyway. We are dealing with very sophisticated people. The argument that she makes simply underlines the fact that we are running behind the development of technology. The fact that we cannot go all the way to dealing with it should not prevent us doing what we can. That is an urgent matter.

The House will not be surprised to hear that I could not find myself in agreement with a lot of the things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but in one respect I do agree with her. What worries me most is the cost of this legislation, which, if I recall rightly, is put at £1.6 billion. That is money that could be well used on other aspects of the Prevent process. I am torn about whether this is the best use of the money. But I take the view—the noble Lord, Lord West, argued about being hard-nosed with the providers—that it ought to be a duty of the providers to retain these records. It is not something that the taxpayer ought to pay for. The providers make a great deal of money out of these services. If they are required to keep these records at a cost, they may bid a little less for the licences, but I am prepared to take that risk. It should be a condition of the licences that records of this sort should be retained which can be consulted.

My final point underlines something said by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. We are not talking about the Government or the authorities holding these records. If people are writing to Alcoholics Anonymous, the Government will not have access to that information. They will access these records only when they are looking for people they have reason to believe are preparing terrorist acts or serious crimes. People who are going to Alcoholics Anonymous have no serious cause to be concerned.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am curious about two of the sources of opposition to what my noble friend Lord King and others have proposed. One is that we somehow have plenty of time and that we do not need to rush. Terrorism is time-related, but it is not time-limited. The terrorist threat was there yesterday and the day before. It is certainly there today and it will be there tomorrow, I am afraid, and I fear the day after tomorrow as well. We do not have the luxury of time that many have suggested.

The other point that surprised me so much is the one about public concern. Of course, it is very easy to say to the public that there is a danger of a snoopers’ charter, which will interfere with everything that you are communicating and is very much against your interests. We know that technically that is simply not true. It is a fear and concern that has been fanned by politicians, quite often for their own purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, was so right to draw attention to the fact that a draft Bill has been prepared. As far as I can make out, that has been deliberately suppressed by one party for presumably some sort of political reason. It has not been brought forward for discussion. If you ask the public to choose between reducing the risk of death from terrorism to themselves or others whom they do not know, or a possible invasion of their privacy or the privacy of others whom they know or do not know, I have little doubt as to what they would choose.

There are ways in which the security of this country is not being maintained when the Government would like to maintain it. I take one example. It is clearly in our interests in the world of terrorism that we should know who crosses our borders—out as well as in. We have been given an example of the people who go to do jihad and all the rest of it. The fact is that a big attempt was made with the e-Borders programme. A contract worth £750 million was given to Raytheon in 2007. It ran into tremendous difficulties and in 2010 the contract was cancelled. Since then there has been a great deal of judicial toing and froing and arbitration. The net result appears to be a debt to the taxpayer to be paid by the Home Office to Raytheon of £200 million. Something like that failed when it was tried. Let us at least do things that we think can be done. Do not let us say that we have until the day after tomorrow as things may happen tomorrow.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I appreciate that this debate has gone on for some time, so I will try to keep my intervention short. These extensive amendments have been proposed in many ways by people whom I consider to be institutions, so I am therefore hesitant to stand up and speak on them. They have been proposed by people for whom I have much admiration. But it concerns me that they are being bolted on to what is already a difficult and in many parts controversial Bill, at the end of a Parliament in what will be a toxic political year and in an expedited way. It is probably not the best way in which to bring these matters forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that if there is a better version of this Bill out there in the ether of government it may have been better to have considered that version rather than the one before us today.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for her expert understanding of the IT community and developments in that community. It always surprises me that just when we think that we will be able to deal with an issue the industry finds a way that leads us to think—after that legislation has been passed—that we probably will not. In those circumstances it is important that we ask whether what we are going to do is needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, made some very important points about evidence gathered and the basis on which we secure prosecutions and convictions for people who are now serving sentences. Is it absolutely true that this kind of communication is the missing link, right now, in preventing terrorist actions being successful? The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised the issue of the two ladies who are married to the two men in France and were communicating with each other, how we did not have those data, and how, had we had that information, it might have provided the missing link that alerted the French security services. I, for one, am not convinced. Sisters-in-law spend hours gossiping to each other all the time. I am not sure that that would have been the moment when the bright light came on to say that a terrorist act was going to be committed—because two women married to two men are speaking to each other.

The gathering and retention of these data is for the purposes of national security. Again, noble Lords, or the Minister, may be able to clarify what this means. I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord King, earlier, about the definition of national security as it relates to this amendment, or part of the Bill, and we could not find such a definition. Perhaps somebody could bring one to my attention. However, for the purposes of national security something that could be interpreted as very wide and broad, and which could change depending on the political persuasions of Ministers at any time, is a very wide provision and so requires consideration.

I hear the point which has been made: “We do not have the time”, but I also think that our security services have, through the number of plots they have foiled up to now, shown that they are able to operate within current constraints and keep us safe. While we need to give them more power, over time, to make sure that they continue to keep us safe, it is important that those powers work and are needed by the people who are an essential element of our fight against extremism and terrorism.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who, in many meetings, used to be the biggest voice of reason on these issues. He spoke of the amount of support and co-operation that was received from the British Muslim communities in the fight against terrorism, and how that was an essential element of ensuring that we were kept safe. I speak as somebody who has been on the receiving end of what could be described as profiling or as a general concern about keeping us safe. I probably get more random checks than many Members of this House and my husband is never going to catch an internal flight in the US. He never arranges a meeting on the day he arrives in the US, because he knows he is going to miss his first internal flight. It is, therefore, important that whatever powers come into play are effective, and that they do not send out a general sense of alienation among those communities which we need to keep on board. I made that point in my piece at the weekend, saying that we must seriously look at how the Government start to engage in a much broader and deeper way with the British Muslim communities, who are going to be part of the solution.

A recent radio phone-in asked whether, if your husband, wife, partner or “relevant other half” asked you to hand over your mobile phone to him or her right now so that they could look at absolutely everything on it, you would be prepared to hand it over immediately. Or would you think: “I probably need to delete a few things from this phone before I hand it to them”. Perhaps that is a question that we should all go away and think about. If we cannot just hand things over to those whom we consider to be our “relevant other halves”, knowing that our data are completely safe with them, although there may be consequences, then we should be much more careful about handing over that power to government—the different colours of government—who could, over time, go into realms that we would not want them to go into.

18:45

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this has been a long debate with some powerful and informed speeches. I take issue with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said at the beginning of his comments. I think he was referring to something that had been said to him about this being an unacceptable use of parliamentary time. I totally disagree. In fact, my criticism is that we do not spend enough parliamentary time discussing issues that are of primary importance to both our security and our liberty and to finding the balance between them. Your Lordships’ House has enormous expertise, interest and experience on these issues, which this debate has shown very clearly.

Whatever one’s views on specific amendments, it has become clear that the general view is that legislation is being outpaced by the speed of change in technology. We have had a serious and very thoughtful debate today about the balance between security and privacy in what our security services and police require, and how we can legislate most effectively from an informed position, with public understanding and consent. Technology changes rapidly. That means that we, as parliamentarians, have to respond to those changes and ensure that legislation meets the challenges that those changes bring.

Last July we brought in emergency legislation, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act. My noble friend Lord West referred to a six-year delay. Some of the points he was concerned about were brought forward in that legislation, which was due to a European Court ruling that struck down something that we had put in secondary legislation rather than primary legislation. We were able to address that in DRIPA—as it is affectionately known—and we supported that Bill to ensure that the existing capability was maintained. However, we were then highly critical of the Government's use of the fast-track procedure, as they had ample opportunity to bring that legislation before the House sooner. We said then—and it was very evident—that an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to such serious and important issues using fast-track processes was unacceptable.

At our instigation all parties agreed on a thorough statutory review, to be undertaken by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, into the capabilities needed to meet changing technology, and on the oversight and the safeguards that are necessary to ensure that any legislation is both necessary and proportionate. In addition, the Intelligence and Security Committee is examining how we can properly balance both security and liberty in online communications.

However, a theme of this debate since we started it is the question of where the Government's plans to tackle this issue are. Over two years ago the Government withdrew their Data Communications Bill following serious criticisms from the Joint Committee of both Houses which had been set up, and was chaired, as we have heard, by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—a highly qualified committee of parliamentarians, including future and former Ministers. I reread this report over the weekend. The committee’s criticisms of the Government’s Bill were serious and far-reaching: the Bill’s provisions were too sweeping and too broad, it paid insufficient attention to privacy issues, and it went much further than it needed to. The report criticised the safeguards and the definition of communications data, and it was highly critical of the Government’s analysis of the costs and benefits, describing some of the figures as “fanciful” and “misleading”. It was also critical of the additional personal powers provided to the Home Secretary. That is very serious criticism.

At the same time, the committee was explicit about its necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his powerful contribution, quoted it. It said that,

“legislation which will provide the law enforcement agencies with some further access to communications is needed”.

The committee suggested a more balanced proposal to be brought forward for consideration and recommended improvements to the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, that information would be presented to Parliament and it would be for Parliament to decide that balance and where the line must be drawn. But that was over two years ago, and the Government have not brought forward any further proposals to give Parliament that opportunity to decide. Last week the Home Secretary told the other place that she had accepted the recommendations, but we have had no explanation as to why she has not come forward with revised provisions other than the limited measures in this Bill and those in the 2014 DRIP Act.

Now, as the general election looms and despite the excellent work of the Joint Committee, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have started to speak out about the need for new powers but have not produced any evidence to Parliament, have not initiated a serious debate on the detail, and in more than two years have not produced, so far as I am aware, a new draft Bill. But we have heard today that there is a draft Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, have seen it, but has anyone else? Has the Minister seen the draft Bill, which apparently the Government have sitting on the shelf?

I say to those who want to characterise this debate as being about either those who care about security or those who care about liberty that they are doing the public a serious disservice. I really do not like the term “snooper’s charter”; the issue is bigger and far more serious than that. The police and our agencies need the capacity to capture intelligence information that will foil terrorist attacks. They need to be able to respond quickly to identify, for example, the last known location of a missing child or a murder victim. They need to know who sends abusive images of children, and they need to monitor potential terrorists. They also need to build their capability to tackle online fraud and cyberattacks, which are escalating all the time.

Some of the tools, particularly in relation to the retention of communications data, are controversial and cause concern. If we want the public to support such powers, we need to provide more information about why they are needed, how they will be used and how privacy will be protected. That is why we have to be prepared to have an open and honest public debate about the framework, the principles and the safeguards to ensure that these powers cannot be abused. Obviously such a debate has to be sensitive to the necessity of not exposing intelligence capabilities and should recognise the fact that some details must remain secure so as not to endanger national security or criminal investigations. Any legislation has to be necessary and proportionate, and it has to strike the balance between security and liberty. It is not an either/or. The public are entitled to expect both, and they are entitled to expect us to determine that balance from an informed position.

It is widely accepted that there has been a technical revolution in how we communicate and that the law and the oversight framework are now out of date. We need to understand how far and how quickly new technologies are outstripping the legal framework. We also need to understand how the use of new technologies has blurred the distinction between communications and content, as well as between domestic and international communications using mobile phone and tablet apps. The last debate we had on this in your Lordships’ House showed that many noble Lords are still confused about the difference when communicating through web apps. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred to the challenges posed by the dark web. How many of us here today, apart from the noble Baroness, can claim to have the expertise that is needed to consider all the details of these issues? We need to understand not only the legal implications but the privacy and technical implications.

David Anderson’s report examined the details of issues such as authorisation, access, storage, technical capabilities, checks and balances, safeguards and so on. We are clear that following both that report and the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Government must take action. Indeed, there is a time imperative to do so before the DRIPA provisions expire in 2016, at which point new legislation must be in place and fully operational. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill introduces further measures to address the issue of identification of a device that is used for communications at an IP address, given that in many circumstances multiple users will be sharing the same IP address. We support those changes. We have been clear that we are willing to work with the Government to discuss capabilities and safeguards, the powers that are needed, and the checks and balances that are required to ensure that the detail between protecting our liberty and protecting our security is right, and we want to engage the public in that debate.

But the Government have not initiated that debate. They have had the opportunity to do so, and apparently the legislation for that is on the shelf in the Home Office, gathering dust. That is why noble Lords have tabled their amendments today. However, what they have been unable to do in the time available and without access to the resources and information of government is what the Home Secretary has promised, and that is to adapt the original proposals to take account of the concerns and criticisms of the original Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lords have made the judgment, which is justified in part, that people are more accepting of measures that deal with terrorism and serious crime. However, when we look at some of the detail and examine the report of the committee, we can see that there are a number of other issues to which the attention of the Committee should be drawn.

Interestingly, one of the criticisms in the report was not of the purposes of the Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, did say that the number of organisations that can have access should be limited, but of something that goes much deeper. The Government’s view was that wider powers may be needed in the future, but the committee rejected the notion that Parliament should grant powers on the precautionary principle and thus without a current and pressing need.

I will not go into the detail about the individual clauses before us today because other noble Lords have spoken about them, but it is clear that they have not been able to take into account the recommendations for changes made by the Joint Committee. Perhaps I may mention just one because it raises a serious issue. In the detail of the amendment before the Committee today, no provision is made for the recommendation of the Joint Committee that any legislation should provide for the wilful or reckless misuse of communications data to become a specific offence that is punishable, in appropriate cases, by imprisonment. That is a recommendation of both the Justice and the Home Affairs Select Committees of the other place. Although if passed these amendments would be returned to the Commons, they have not been properly discussed and debated. This is complex and detailed legislation that requires proper scrutiny and expert advice. To have such clauses in fast-tracked legislation whose Report stage will be taken next week makes that difficult.

I have already referred to the assessment being undertaken by the independent reviewer, David Anderson. His review needs to address the serious points that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Blair and Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lord West. He also needs to deal with the points raised by the Joint Committee more than two years ago. We insisted on that statutory review and all three parties supported it. It is extremely unfortunate that we are in a position today where the Home Secretary has made no proper public or parliamentary response to the Joint Committee on the independent review, which was started just last summer at our instigation and where currently we have no proper process for consultation or the detailed scrutiny of proposals. That was yet another complaint of the Joint Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, talked about a road map. The Government need to set out a proper process for this. We need to see detailed legislative proposals from the Government, along with a summary of the capabilities and the safeguards to take account of the issues raised last time. We need to ensure that the measures are sustainable and enjoy broad public consent, otherwise we will undermine confidence in the vital work that the agencies do, and companies whose co-operation is needed will find themselves under pressure from their customers to find ways around the legislation. So although we do not think that these amendments are the right ones—I think this was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord King, who spoke of the amendments that he would be prepared to incorporate for the Joint Committee report—because they do not fit into a wider government process, we do think that this is an extremely serious debate. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, this has been an extremely good debate, and in that spirit the actual sequence of events here is worth considering for a moment.

The Government brought forward the Bill currently before the Committee seeking a broad, cross-party approach to these matters. I and the Home Secretary are grateful that the Opposition agreed to the semi-fast-tracked procedure and a shortening of the intervals between the various stages so that it could make its way on to the statute book and thus give the security services and the law enforcement agencies the extended powers which they have been seeking. These include the temporary seizure of passports, temporary exclusion orders, the right-to-carry schemes on the air side, the IP addresses that we have been talking about, as well as the Prevent strategy measures. Basically, in approaching this, we have tried to listen to the various bodies that have spoken to us. We have listened to the views of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and we have brought forward the legislation which is now before your Lordships’ House.

Going further, we of course recognise that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, as was mentioned by several noble Lords, is something that is desperately in need of review. People recognise that. The world has moved on since the year 2000. There is a real fear that the pace of technology, in the phrase of a number of noble Lords in this debate, is outstripping the legislative and security capabilities of our country to keep us safe. That is the context in which we find ourselves.

19:00

In that respect, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord King for the opportunity that his amendments have afforded the House to reflect again at some length on these very important measures. He does so, having been five years as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or Secretary of Defence—

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Seven—

[Lord Bates]

His seven years’ experience there, as the noble Lord tells me, and seven years as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee add additional weight to what the noble Lord says. We will listen very carefully to what has been said.

There does not seem to be much doubt about the threat that is faced. The threat that we face was very eloquently put in a number of contributions: the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, talked about the evidence used in real convictions; cases of communications data were given by the noble Lord, Lord Evans; and some practical, real-life examples were given by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. There are some very strong arguments that show that there is a need for us to look again at communications data.

Then of course we heard from my noble friend Lord Blencathra and we heard from the committee which reviewed the original legislation. It is important to get on record that elements of the original draft Bill considered by the Joint Committee are contained in this Bill. The IP resolution element was something that was in the draft Bill. It is not something that has been shelved; we felt that we could bring it forward with the necessary safeguards and it was brought forward. The noble Lord’s hesitations and questions very much remain, and we are very much committed to working with him and will seek to address his particular concerns.

I want to come back to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned. I preface these remarks—context is all with this—by saying that, first, we have to get a message out to people that we are talking about, in all of these things, the actual communications data and not the content. The content of the data will rightly require, whether it is an e-mail or a telephone call or an envelope, a warrant in order to be looked into. What we are talking about is tracking the communications data.

In the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which went through last year on a fast-tracked basis, Section 7 of that relatively short Act provides that:

“The Secretary of State must appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers. … The independent reviewer must, in particular, consider … (a) current and future threats to the United Kingdom … (b) the capabilities needed to combat those threats … (c) safeguards to protect privacy … (d) the challenges of changing technologies … (e) issues relating to transparency and oversight … (f) the effectiveness of existing legislation (including its proportionality) and the case for new or amending legislation. … The independent reviewer must, so far as reasonably practicable, complete the review before 1 May 2015”.

If we had such a review from David Anderson before your Lordships’ House at this point, that would be of immense benefit in reaching these judgments. Your Lordships have touched on all the areas on which the independent reviewer has been asked to undertake a review and report. Those are the pertinent issues which have concerned Members who have spoken in this debate.

In the view of the Home Secretary, in the view of the Prime Minister and certainly in my view, the case is made for a communications data Bill to come forward. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, asked us to set out the clear road map as to how we were actually going to proceed. The road map has already begun. It began with the data retention elements in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act last year and it continues in the counterterrorism Bill which is before your Lordships’ House. As a result of that legislation, it will require action once the report from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is received. In reality, that will probably mean that, very early in the new Session of Parliament, the House will have to turn its mind to this. Certainly, it is the absolute intent of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that it should do so as a matter of urgency.

Some people have said that that will necessarily take a year, or a year and a half, to the period of the sunset clause, but we do not anticipate that it will be necessary to take that long at all. In fact, as far as this counterterrorism Bill is concerned, which is perhaps a wider measure as far as others are concerned, we have managed to move this through, albeit at pace, but it will still have gone through scrutiny in a period of, say, three to four months from its introduction in the other place to its receiving Royal Assent, should your Lordships choose to pass the Bill.

So our position would be one of being deeply appreciative to my noble friend for introducing these amendments and of being particularly grateful for the quality of the debate and the contributions—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, who is giving a most helpful speech, but can he confirm that David Anderson will be shown a copy of the draft Bill which met the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and can we please see a copy?

[Lord Bates]

I can certainly say in response that a copy of the Bill will be, if it has not already been, made available to him. It would be unthinkable for him to undertake this review into this serious matter without actually having sight of it. So I will certainly put that on record as the government position. As to our ability to share it more widely at this stage, I would be grateful if I could come back to the noble Lord on that when I have an opportunity to check—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but can my noble friend confirm that, in coming back to us, he will do so in time for us to be able to consider tabling further amendments to this Bill?

[Lord Bates]

That is a more difficult question, which I am sure is why the noble Lord has pressed me on it. That is not something I feel able to give a commitment on at this stage. However, he is certainly right to put his finger on the point that we have someone there in David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whom we have charged in statute with a particular responsibility. Of course he should have sight of all information which would be relevant and pertinent to the requirements that we asked him to undertake on our behalf last year.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I note the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Can I ask for an assurance that the Official Opposition will also be given sight of the draft Bill? When we return after the election, whichever Government are in power, they will want to start work on this immediately. It would help if all sides of your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons had access to the detail of the draft Bill.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness will perhaps understand if I need to just check with people on a slightly higher pay grade whether that is a commitment which I can make. I will certainly look at the issue with regard to the independent reviewer. I will certainly give an answer by Report to the very reasonable question which has been put forward.

A number of questions have been addressed in this debate, but I am conscious that we have spent considerable time on it. I will give an undertaking and say that this is not something that we want in any way to be seen to be distancing ourselves from. We want to put it under active review, and it is under active review. The contributions which have been made in the debate this afternoon on these amendments have afforded us an opportunity to air these issues and to identify where the gaps in agreement are, as well as where the gaps in capability are. We will reflect on those. I may have more to say at Report on that, but in the interim—

[Lord Rooker]

I do not want to delay the Minister, but let us not beat about the bush. I do not speak for anybody other than myself, but I listened to every single speech, and those opposed to these amendments seem to be in favour of them being amended in line with the views of the committee that looked at the draft Bill. Will the Minister go back to the Home Secretary after this debate and make the request on behalf of this House for us to see, if not the draft Bill, the amendments to the amendments by Wednesday or Thursday this week, so that this House can make its mind up as to whether or not it wants to debate them and ask the other place? At the end of the day, Parliament has to decide but, as he knows, we are up against a time limit. Will he go back and say to the Home Secretary—these need not be his views, as he can just say he is the Minister with the message—that the House has asked whether it can see this information in time to do something with it?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before my noble friend responds, and without making any comment about whether we should or should not be shown things, I do not think it is appropriate to characterise all the opposition to these amendments as solely being about the way in which they have been put. My noble friends have made points of principle which we should not ignore.

[Lord Bates]

I also acknowledge the noble Lord’s experience as a former Minister—I am surrounded by former Home Office Ministers and Security Ministers in this debate. The specific point is whether there could be further provisions. The noble Lord says we should not beat around the bush. The issue here is that we are contemplating measures at a fairly late stage in a Bill which contains a number of measures which we desperately want to make sure get on to the statute book. We do not want to risk this Bill and all the provisions in it at present, as we think they are vital. In fact, we consider that they are more vital than the simple addition of these amendments—as desirable as we may see them individually—to the Bill. We do not want to do anything which would jeopardise the process. There has to be a recognition that the other place—I am sure the noble Lord, as a distinguished former Member, would recognise this—would feel that it was being required to look at 21 amendments, running to some 19 pages in a 53-page Bill, on a fast track and with ping-pong between the two Houses on consideration of Lords amendments. It might feel, rightly from a constitutional point of view, that that would be a difficult thing for it to agree to. I am simply airing the issues.

The noble Lord asked specifically whether the draft Bill which has been shown to the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, can be shared more widely. I have undertaken to the noble Baroness that I will go back to the department and discuss that, and I will certainly come back with an answer as to whether that is possible. However, for the reasons which I have articulated—while recognising and appreciating the spirit in which these amendments have been put forward, which we absolutely share—I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.

19:15

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has responded to the long and very important debate that we have had on these amendments. It was a model ministerial reply, for which I am extremely grateful, particularly at the last minute.

Nobody would accuse the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of ever beating around the bush, and the directness of his approach to the Minister was extremely helpful in elucidating one point, as to whether this would possibly jeopardise the other Bill. A senior and distinguished former holder of the office that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, held said to me that she thought that this amendment was more important than all the measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. The Minister has advanced the alternative view—so obviously views can differ on that—but I do not think that we should underestimate why we are doing this Bill at all on a fast track, which is down to the recognition by the Government of the seriousness of the threat that we face. There is no question but that the situation has changed very significantly indeed and we are suddenly aware, in a way that we were not perhaps even six months ago, of the gravity of the threat. Nobody in this House has any excuse for not knowing what “severe” means in the threat level that was introduced by the Government a little while back: an attack is likely, if not necessarily imminent. That is what we are facing up to today.

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this very important and very difficult debate. I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. I respect entirely the views of other noble Lords, who are desperate to protect civil liberties, privacy and the ancient traditions of freedom in this country. All that is very important indeed. The Minister referred to my previous experience, and what I do know is that the moment you get a terrorist outrage is when all the wrong things are decided. The pressure comes on that something has to be done, and it is much better to have decided in advance what you are going to do, in a measured way. Otherwise, whatever people say about privacy, the rights of the individual, freedom of speech and all those things, if there is a serious outrage, the criticism then will be: “Where are the security services? Why has Parliament not done its job? Why have they not got what they need to meet the situation?”. It is common ground in the current situation we face, I think, that there is a serious threat, because two things have happened: the threat has increased very significantly and, at the same time, technology has galloped forward. We are very fortunate to have the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in the House. She illustrated just how grave that threat is from the new technologies. I do not begin to understand the dark cloud, but those are the threats that we may now be facing.

The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was extremely helpful. He said one thing which I would rather like to repeat: I think some people have criticised the criticisms of the amendments that we have tabled. I did that myself; I was the first to say that these are the only ones we could table because they are in the draft Bill, but we know that it is within the Government’s capability to actually insert improved amendments and clauses which would even pass the scrutiny of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the members of his committee.

The challenge we all face in this very difficult situation, with this awful evil of terrorism that is imposed on us, is to strike a balance between liberty, security and privacy in a civilised, democratic society. It is not just me saying this; I quoted those distinguished Members of another place as well, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, who have supported the position we are aiming for from the offices that they held. Of course some people say they are just all the securocrats, but what you will find about securocrats is that sometimes we know a little about it. Sometimes we know what some of the problems are when you try and improve security or some of the problems you get when you fail to improve security.

I think the discussion we have had today has been very helpful and worth while. We have Report coming in a week and we must think very carefully about where we go. One thing I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who said we could have a report by May, is that of course in May we have the small matter of a general election. This House is rising late in March. I notice the Minister’s optimism that once we come back, depending on who is in government, this could be whistled through. Realistically, if the opportunity that this Bill gives us is missed—and it is completely within the scope of this Bill to make these provisions—we are going to have another year in which we put our nation at risk, when terrorist outrages could be prevented if the security forces and the security agencies had the support they need. There have been a lot of tributes to the security agencies here and in this instance, with the threats that they face, I believe that the balance comes in favour of ensuring these additional abilities to deal with the new technologies which the out-of-date RIPA arrangements do not provide; I believe we need to look at this very seriously. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 79 withdrawn.

Amendments 80 to 99 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.20 pm.

Museums: Funding

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:23

Asked by

[Lord Monks]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the future position of museums in regional areas, in the light of the withdrawal of national funding from 2015-16 onwards.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the plight of museums in general and the People’s History Museum in Manchester in particular. I need to declare an interest. I am chairman of trustees at the People’s History Museum.

These are difficult days for museums and for other arts and cultural organisations. One in 10 museums is considering selling parts of its collection and more than half have cut staff. Funding bodies, be they local authorities, national government or universities, are feeling the cold blasts of austerity. In 2010 the Department of Culture, Media and Sport announced that it would identify options for relinquishing control and sponsorship of certain museums which could in future be regarded as the responsibility of local communities. It was the wish of DCMS not to leave any museum on this list high and dry. The People’s History Museum in Manchester was on that list, and we have been feeling high and dry.

Today—quite by coincidence—the DCMS has notified the director of the museum that it will provide the museum with £100,000 for 2015-16. This is a welcome move by DCMS and the Government, and with our fundraising it secures our future for 2015-16—but it still leaves unresolved the following question which is high in our minds. Why is the People’s History Museum the only national museum without secure future income streams? What happens in 2016? Even this year, by the way, we have lost £50,000; currently we receive £150,000 from DCMS. The campaign to establish a proper recognition of the People’s History Museum as a national, not a regional, museum goes on. We have a breathing space but we do not have the answer.

Why is the People’s History Museum important and why should it be of central interest to this House and to Parliament in general? The museum tells the inspiring story of the struggle of working men and women to win the right to vote. Not, I think all noble Lords will agree, a local or a regional issue. Not a Manchester or north-west issue, but one which embraces the whole of the UK. Indeed the need, the duty, the privilege to vote is a vital contemporary message in this era of low turnouts and apathy about politics.

Judging by the number of hits he received on social media, Russell Brand’s statement on “Newsnight” that he does not intend to vote attracted an astonishing amount of support, especially among the young. To combat that cynicism, we should tell the story at every opportunity of how the universal franchise was won. The story—familiar to many in this Chamber—ranges from John Wilkes and Tom Paine, through the abolition of slavery and the Peterloo massacre, the Great Reform Act, the Chartists, the Corn Laws, the emergence of trade unions, Gladstone/Disraeli debates, Labour’s origins, the suffragettes, and the founding of the welfare state. The story is told with wit and flair and attracts increasing numbers of visitors—more than 100,000 last year.

Importantly, the museum also houses the rich archive of the Labour Party; the Conservative Party archive is at the Bodleian, by the way, and the Liberal Democrat one is at the LSE. The Labour archive rather reflects the fact that Labour did things in a more bureaucratic way than either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats by writing documents, taking minutes and having collective files rather than individual, personal ones. It was described by Matthew Parris in the Times as a “treasure trove”—and it is. It is all there and there is some terrific material.

The museum also incorporates the National Museum of Labour History, which started in London, and has a glorious collection of old union banners and memorabilia of all the great struggles of the Labour movement over 150 years. But now the PHM looks set to lose at least some of its national funding this year and all of it after 2016. It is not the only museum being threatened in some way or other because many, as I have mentioned, are having a hard time—but some have found ways to maintain DCMS funding. Some have allied with one of the great London museums; for example, the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester has linked up with the Science Museum Group in Kensington. The Horniman Museum in south-east London—near where I live—has managed to keep a direct line to DCMS funding.

The PHM does not have obvious national partners. We have tried the British Museum and the British Library, but both have problems of their own. We would feel like orphans in the storm were it not for the solid support of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, which provides marvellous support—as do the TUC, trade unions and the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has given substantial help with our new and impressive buildings.

To be fair, Ministers have been reflecting on how to help and have now done so to a degree, but the hesitation and the absence of a longer-term settlement are feeding the view that there is an anti-northern bias within the Government when it comes to the arts—and an anti-Labour one, too. Why are we to be left in the cold when others, including the prestigious Bodleian and the LSE, receive regular national help with their funding?

The PHM focuses primarily on the right to vote and trade union history, but it is neither sectarian nor tribal. William Hague, Charles Kennedy and Matthew Parris have opened exhibitions. In the current, successful “Sponsor a Radical Hero” campaign, Margaret Thatcher, controversially, and Winston Churchill and Lloyd George, rather less so, have been sponsored—and they, and others, will be honoured with a plaque on the wall in the museum alongside the name of the sponsor. Other Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders remain open for sponsorship, so roll up and see me afterwards, and I will fix a good price. I am very grateful to a number of my noble friends for sponsoring their own radical hero. If any other noble friends are interested, perhaps they could see me afterwards.

The right to vote is a precious privilege. As Jack Jones, my predecessor as chairman of the trustees, often said, the right did not fall off the Christmas tree. It had to be fought for, and people died for it. Indeed, when we consider the queues in polling stations in new democracies, such as in post-apartheid South Africa or more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, there can be no place for cynicism about democracy. I hope that Ministers fully share this view and understand the role of the PHM as part of our country’s role in bringing democracy to the world.

I hope that Members of this House will reflect on the fact that in the march towards universal suffrage our predecessors were usually the bad guys huddled on the wrong side of the battle, defending privilege and unsatisfactory status quos. They fought long and hard against the abolition of slavery, for rotten boroughs and to exclude the rising middle classes of the new industrial cities. Then they were against democratic rights for working men and then women. Tonight there is a chance for some collective redemption, a chance to join the right side of history for a change, by sending a strong message that the story of the British road to democracy as told by the People’s History Museum—a national museum in Manchester, not a Manchester museum—its collections and its messages should be honoured and supported. I urge the House to send that message.

19:33

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate. I have three minutes, and I will speak about the Bowes Museum, another museum in the north. It is among the two or three largest regional museums in the country. It is acknowledged in James Stourton’s definitive book as holding extensive collections of the finest quality. It is in Barnard Castle, County Durham. Its iconic mechanical swan is its mascot. I was for nine years chairman of the trustees. Now I am a fundraiser and donor, so these words are my personal views, not the museum’s.

Failing finances have caused changes in governance. The most recent was 17 years ago, when County Durham was trustee and manager. The county judged that it was unfair to expect it to finance so large a museum. As a result, the present private trust was set up, with County Durham as the core funder providing 25% of revenue expenditure. All went well for 10 years. The enormous building was repaired, much was done to the collections, and an excellent café and shop were established. The number of visitors rose from 65,000 to 120,000. We were looking forward to an exciting future. Unfortunately, things changed in 2010. County Durham, again judging that its commitment to the Bowes was too great a burden, began to lower its core grant year by year. It is now down from 25% to 15% of a reasonable budget. Anything less than £2.5 million will leave the Bowes operating far below its potential; 25% of £2.5 million is more than £600,000, whereas the museum expects less than £400,000 this year.

Meanwhile, the Bowes has increased its income and raised money from charitable trusts and from Arts Council-sponsored programmes. It is a Catalyst participant and has crowdfunded through Kickstarter and Art Happens. None of this has cured the shortage of curators. Nothing much can be done without curators. Unless there is positive action the Bowes will become becalmed, and the threat of a change in governance will re-emerge. The outcome is likely to be a return to the county. Nobody wants that. The DCMS could accept that the Bowes be nationally supported. A grant of £600,000 a year—which is very modest in relation to other DCMS obligations—would transform the position. It has always been difficult to see why the DCMS has not tackled the question, “Is it reasonable to expect County Durham to be the sole core funder of the Bowes?”. This question is urgent and needs an answer. I trust that my noble friend will agree that discussions and action are needed.

19:37

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to my noble friend Lord Monks for raising this issue. I rise for two reasons. First, I had the privilege of having a tour of the People’s History Museum and I was exceedingly impressed by the contribution that it makes. It made me reflect upon the situation that we find ourselves in in London. We are so privileged to live in London. We have access to some of the finest museums in the world, and we have free access to them. That is a great privilege. It certainly contributed to some of my autodidactic education, when I visited the British Museum on a regular basis and a number of the national galleries. The plea that is being made is very reasonable.

Secondly, my noble friend made the point that the People’s History Museum focuses on national issues: the right to vote, universal suffrage and the history of the Labour movement. The Government have said that they recognise the importance of strengthening the regions. In the other place, the Chancellor talked about extending rail networks in the north. In my view, this is just as important an issue in relation to the well-being of people who live in the north-west as in relation to its national contribution. I hope that the Minister will take that point into account when he replies. How do we recognise the cultural contribution that regional museums make and the importance of them engaging with local schools and colleges, which the People’s History Museum does? How important do we rate that in ensuring that the museum has a viable future?

19:39

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for securing this important short debate. I come at it from two perspectives. My base and my home are in the north-east of England, the location of many of Britain’s finest museums, Bowes being just one among a number, all of which are in some difficulty or other due to the current funding position. Secondly, I am the former deputy general secretary of the Labour Party. As noble Lords heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, earlier, the party’s comprehensive archive is located there—and, if for no other reason, the People’s History Museum is definitely worth a visit from noble Lords.

The analysis of the current funding of museums leads to a number of common themes and threads. First, on all museums and galleries there is a significantly increased force of self-reliance on income generation. That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; all manner and means of securing additional income are important. However, it is not in any way going to substitute from the core funding of such institutions. Secondly, there is a massive increase in dependence on benefactors. To follow up the point about the privileged position referred to earlier, London benefits—in proportion about 70% to 30% in terms of benefactor income to galleries and museums compared to the rest of the country. Thirdly, there is an erosion of lottery funding, which is seeping into core funding outside of its added value original concept, its purpose being not to substitute core funding but to supplement and add value in all aspects of cultural life across Britain. Fourthly, there is a widening gap between the imbalances of funding available to and in London and in the rest of the country.

Since the end of the 20th century, lottery funding has benefited Londoners by about £142 per head compared with about £45 outside London. Additionally, local authorities outside London have provided 32% additional income to arts funding grants, as opposed to the 6% added additionally within London. The overall figure per capita inside London is about £65 per head of arts funding, compared to £5 per head across the rest of the UK. Those imbalances grow year on year. Then, of course, there are additional hidden costs and subsidies to cultural life in London, such as the cost of travel to London, the use of hotels, restaurants and other facilities when people increasingly visit London as opposed to the rest of the country—and the imbalance is further compounded.

Austerity is biting and will continue to bite year on year, particularly outside London, which will have a worsening consequence for the regions of England year on year. The imbalance is evident and the Government need to examine it and come up with a plan for action as to how they will go about restoring the balance back to the rest of the country compared to London. As a last resort, museums and galleries have been forced to sell off precious items, which should be stopped through government action.

19:43

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, surprised me in his opening remarks by describing the Liberal Democrats as not being bureaucratic. That is something that I have never heard them accused of before, although the Liberal Party may have been able to stand up for itself—but I thank him for that.

When the noble Lord talks of the importance of regional museums, or museums outside the centre of London—the first megacity, and the one that dominates our transport structure, which things go in and out of, making it easier than actually travelling across the country—he is, of course, right. There are good reasons for this historically, and we should be trying to change it where we can. However, we are where we are, and I for one am not going to suggest that the National History Museum is moved. I do not think that many other people would either. Indeed, if the noble Lord would care to try it, I would quite like to watch, because it would be a pretty good show. But the regional structure should be seen as underpinning the rest of the museum service—the creation of local history and local knowledge, no matter where that national museum is based. This is a very important resource, and we must try to make sure that it feeds in.

I am sure that in the People’s History Museum there is some very interesting stuff about agricultural workers and their attitude towards the vote, different from workers in earlier unionisation—and how that would tie into different practices in regional museums in my part of the world, Norfolk. There would be a different structure and dynamic there; all of them are required to make the whole work properly. So I suggest to my noble friend that it is vital that the Government take this on board and look at it as a whole.

Let us be perfectly honest. When I looked at funding, I was astounded at the number of potential sources. There are two lottery funds, five different ones from Europe that I found—I gave up after that. Then there is the National Trust and there are local authorities. I could go on for quite a while on this, but there are lots of them. How on earth can a smaller museum under a stressed bureaucracy and a stressed service, looking after curators, get the best out of these streams? It is not surprising that those at the centre with better resources will get more. What steps are being taken to make sure that all local museums have access to the national funding available for museums? That is something that goes across parties and Governments—that with these divergent streams, the best should get more.

I have talked about sport on many occasions. We discovered in the early stages of the lottery that tennis clubs did rather better than football clubs for resources. If you have the people there and the resources to fill out the forms, you will do well. Please can we bring this together and look to get the best out of it? The noble Lord has put his finger on a problem that has been there for a long time.

19:47

[Lord Sawyer (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for initiating this debate. I have pleasure in supporting him.

The issue around the People’s History Museum is essentially a problem of definition, affecting the level of funding. Because it is said that it is not national, its funding is reduced. That seems a bizarre decision to me, quite frankly. How can a museum that portrays the history of the people of a nation not be a national museum? I would like to hear more on that from the Government Front Bench. Some say that the funding is affected because it is in the north. Again, I would like to see the Government deal with that; I cannot believe that it can be true.

This museum is rather special—it talks about the people’s past. It is a young museum, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, and a vigorous museum. It is an exciting museum because it tells the story of the people’s history—the struggles in the past of the Chartists and the Suffragettes, and the forming of the trade unions—in a vibrant and accessible way, which is how the story should be told. And it is also, believe it or not, a new story. The history is from the past, but the story is new, because in the past these stories of ordinary people had been hidden from history. Even in my days at school, they were pushed to the margins by kings and queens and other choices made by the ruling class. It is the story of those who have made, built, served, tilled and went to wars, and it is a story that must be told continuously through future generations.

Most interestingly, the story that the museum tells mirrors the story of the museum itself. As my noble friend Lord Monks, said, the museum has only just been born. It was only in the 1970s that I remember personally—as I know the noble Lord, Lord Monks, also can—trade union people in the East End of London going around collecting banners, leaflets and other artefacts to try to build a museum for a history that we had almost lost, because nobody thought that it was important enough to preserve. So those people did us a great service when they put that museum together, and it has gone from strength to strength.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks touched on another important theme—namely, that the history of the parties opposite have their histories safe and secure in Oxford and London. I have no problem with that. The party directly opposite opposed most of the advances that are celebrated in the People’s History Museum. I can forgive it for that. But with its past all nicely and warmly secured in Oxford and in London, would it not be nice, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, to show some generosity to the working classes and make sure that our museum that we want to celebrate and look forward to having a great future has the same kind of support?

19:49

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Monks on bringing this debate to the House. The People’s History Museum is a fantastic national and international museum—you can see that when you visit it. Having said that, as a fellow Mancunian, I am very pleased that it is located in Manchester and the north-west, and I think that my noble friend is probably also pleased about that.

At the time that the funding of the People’s History Museum changed, I was the chair of the National Coal Mining Museum for England, which was affected by the same regulations. I make this my first point as I think that it is the source of the difficulties experienced by the People’s History Museum. In 2010, the Government decided that some of national museums—those that were not covered by an original statute—would be funded in a different way. I think that my noble friend Lord Monks described it as the DCMS relinquishing control and sponsorship. If my memory serves me right, every single one of the affected museums was a national museum outside London. The national museums in London were not affected by this provision.

My museum was affected in the same way. It meant that an awful lot of time and effort had to be put into securing a partnership in order to survive. The Coal Mining Museum already had a partnership with the Science Museum. However, the People’s History Museum, which did not have that alignment, has experienced a lot of difficulty. Even in our case, the time, effort, resource and the legal work involved in making that new relationship work was not worth the effort. To tell the truth, the reason it was done was to reduce the number of quangos, because that was the government commitment at the time of the general election. That is not a great episode in the reputational history of the DCMS.

I will make two further brief points. Regional museums, or museums in the regions—whichever way you wish to look at it—are very important. We are very proud of our national museums, which are some of the best in the world, but we now worry about the gap between the north and the south and between the regions and the capital. This is one example of where we have not quite got that right. Regional museums are important not just because they tell a story but because they are part of the cultural fabric of their cities, towns and villages, which helps regeneration, promotes social and cultural cohesion and helps give us a better education service.

Although I applaud the work that the Arts Council has done since it took on responsibility for museums, if you look at the ways that museums now seek funding, for example through grants, you will see that the regions find it more difficult than London. Philanthropy is not as easy if you are a regional museum, and money from local authorities is not as available as it used to be. For all those reasons, regional museums are having a tough time. I am delighted to draw that to the House’s attention in this debate.

19:53

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

The noble Baroness is entirely right: local museums, as I prefer to call them, reinforce a sense of identity and community. I am very sorry that I have not been to the People’s History Museum, but doubtless I can put that right. Naturally, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the debate and wish him every success in maintaining what is clearly a very important national asset.

My love of history, and my inspiration for entering politics, came from visiting the Wilberforce House Museum in Hull as a very young boy—William Wilberforce is my parliamentary hero—and seeing what motivated him to begin his great campaign for the abolition of the slave trade and, later, of slavery. That gave me a sense of local pride, as well as knowledge and determination. Now I have the great pleasure of living in Lincoln—my native county is Lincolnshire—which has two very splendid museums: The Collection, which tells the story of Lincolnshire from the Romans and, indeed, before; and the Usher Gallery, which was given by a local benefactor in the first part of the last century. It was there that I first acquired my love of art when I saw the wonderful collection of watercolours by Peter De Wint, who did so much painting in Lincolnshire.

Now, as chairman of the Historic Lincoln Trust, I see another value of the local museum. Many people do not have the chance to come to London. I paid my first visit to a London museum when I was about 18. Local museums can often borrow items of great importance from national museums and galleries. This was seen to splendid effect last year when the Lindisfarne Gospels went to Durham.

This year in Lincoln, as part of our Magna Carta celebrations, we are amassing a wonderful collection from great national and local collections which will tell the story of some of the great figures in Lincolnshire’s history. It will contain marvellous topographical views and treasures from Lincolnshire houses and churches. If local museums did not exist, one could not stage that sort of exhibition.

I make a simple plea to my noble friend who will wind up the debate. No country can begin to call itself civilised if it does not maintain its great historic buildings and sustain its local museums and collections. That, I hope, is something on which we can all agree, wherever in the House we sit. I end by again wishing the noble Lord, Lord Monks, success with a museum which I still hope to visit.

19:56

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my friend Lord Monks for securing this debate on the future of regional museums. It gives me the opportunity to join him in making a plea to the Chancellor and the DCMS to revisit the coalition Government’s 2010 decision to “relinquish control and sponsorship”—or, in non-weasel words, “cut funding”—for non-national museums, as they see it.

Why? Because the policy has ended up directly impacting on just one institution—the Manchester-based People’s History Museum. The other six affected institutions continue to receive public funds, whether directly or indirectly. On the face of it, the change in “sponsorship” arrangements looks incredibly vindictive. What is it about the People’s History Museum that Ministers dislike? Is it because of the museum’s focus on working people’s campaigns for rights in the workplace, equal and fair pay and the right to vote? If that is the case, I cannot think of a worse time to do this, with 100 days to go until the general election—a time when issues such as zero-hours contracts, migrant worker exploitation and the non-registration of poorer voters are all stark reminders that stories of working people’s struggles are as relevant now as they ever were.

The People’s History Museum is not just culturally important, it is economically important and viable. It is an incredibly good value-for-money investment. It raises grants locally, generates commercial sponsorship and donations and gets support from Greater Manchester’s local authorities. Taking away 15% of its budget in one go, when interest and visitor numbers are rising by 10% plus a year, would be a travesty.

It is often said that all history, like politics, is local. We should also celebrate, when and where we can, the work of small local and regional museums. Therefore, I will spend a moment or two reminding colleagues of such institutions and the value they bring to learning and understanding, and regeneration. Back in 1990, as Labour’s leader in Brighton, I inherited a shambolic mess of a seafront, with little vision or idea of its place in what was then sometimes seen as a declining seaside town. That year, as leader of the council, I persuaded a socialist visionary, Andy Durr, to become a councillor once again. He had a plan to turn our seafront around with a mix of public and private money.

Central to this was a “people’s history” of the work and struggles of the local fishing community and its contribution to our city by the sea. That initiative, still developing 20 years on, was clever. Brighton now has a vibrant seafront cultural quarter populated by arts and artisans, quality seafood outlets, galleries, bars and 24-hour basketball. Our city was regenerated and part of its heritage restored—a people’s history rediscovered, reinvented and put to work.

History does not record whether the current Chancellor ever met Andy Durr when he was mayor, but if Mr Osborne had done so he would have learnt the value of investing in living heritage. Just like the People’s History Museum, Brighton’s Fishing Museum is one piece in a larger national jigsaw. Losing one part of that puzzle is not just frustrating; it means that the whole picture misses out and is never quite complete. Removing support from the People’s History Museum will be a loss not only to Manchester and the Labour movement but to our national story.

20:00

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a proposal: move the DCMS to Manchester. Some parts of the BBC are up there, it is not the end of the world and the quality of life for X amount of income is higher than it is for many people in London.

I should like to follow a remark of my noble friend Lord Sawyer. There is semantic confusion about the word “regional”, as if something cannot be national if it is in a region. People describe this debate as being about regional museums. I put a question to the Minister: apart from moving the DCMS to Manchester, does he agree that it is nonsense to say that a museum cannot be a national museum if it is in Manchester or anywhere other than London?

I labour this point because the funding criteria are dangerously close to being taken into this black hole of semantic confusion. Those criteria are to do with national museums. Does the Minister think that the criteria are being correctly applied by the DCMS, or is it because senior DCMS officialdom and Ministers are London-oriented and so cannot see that the criteria are being misapplied? The criteria are that if something is not national it receives a different funding flow, yet “national” can equal Manchester.

My noble friend Lord Monks is certainly not just pressing a special case, although I totally identify with it. I pick up a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for whom I have the highest admiration; he was for many years chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group, of which I am proud to be vice-chairman. Now the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who lives in Yorkshire, is the chairman. We have the immense privilege of going on visits all around London. It can, of course, be said that the British Museum is not just a national museum but a world museum. London has a total quasi-monopoly of all the greatest national museums, yet even now the number of people living in London is not exactly 80% of the population of the United Kingdom.

I close by quoting Melvyn Bragg—the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—who noted in a broadcast that capital cities should irrigate rather than drain. This is the issue that we have reached in the broader context in this country at the moment: an imbalance in Britain. “Rebalancing our cultural capital” is not a play on words; it means moving the capital.

20:04

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Monks, and very much welcome his initiative in having this debate on the role of regional museums and his passionate support for the People’s History Museum.

However, I would like to focus on a slightly different issue—not on regional museums such as the People’s History Museum, which ought to be funded nationally, but on the plight of local museums and galleries. The one that is very close to my own heart is the Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery in Carlisle, where I was brought up.

When I was a young lad, the museum was a haven of peace and a window on a much wider world, and it played a very important part in my growing up. Since then, it has greatly expanded and become a wonderful modern museum of border history, Roman history and Carlisle’s history as a railway city. It also has a lot of very good 19th-century art, including some Pre-Raphaelites, and a very good natural history section.

But the financial situation that the museum faces is extremely serious. It is supported by Carlisle City Council, and in 2010 Carlisle was able to afford to give the museum £1.2 million. Under the current financial plan, that support will fall to £750,000 next year, and if the pressure on local authorities gets even more serious, it could fall further. I do not see any way in which a local museum and gallery like Tullie House can survive without municipal support; there simply is no alternative. Tullie House was built in the days when there were wealthy people in Carlisle such as mill owners and factory owners who were able to endow the museum. That is no longer the case in our hollowed-out regional economy, I am afraid. Public support is therefore absolutely essential.

Could I make three quick suggestions? First, the Arts Council must prioritise much more out-of-London galleries and museums. For the big national institutions in London, it is not as though the streets are paved with gold, but there is much more opportunity for obtaining sponsorship. Secondly, the national institutions should support local galleries much more in lending them artefacts and exhibits so that they can have popular exhibitions. Thirdly, the role of local culture and museums in economic development should be recognised in promoting tourism, and in the budgets that are available for economic development, priority should be given to promoting cultural activities in the regions.

20:08

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for securing this debate—and what an interesting debate it has been. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that I very much regret the indisposition of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and we very much look forward to his early return.

There are an estimated 2,500 museums in the United Kingdom: independent museums owned by registered charities and other independent bodies; local authority museums, owned by town, parish, city, or county councils; university museums; regional museums; and national museums. The DCMS directly sponsors 16 museums and galleries, 13 of which are national museums—the presence of which spans the country. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Lea of Crondall, took us all to task about the importance of museums outside London. I thought it was worth saying that National Museums Liverpool represents a wide range of cultural interest in the area. The Royal Armouries, the Tate, the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum all have sites outside London. The Royal Armouries has sites in Leeds and Portsmouth, the Tate has galleries in Cornwall and Liverpool, and the Natural History Museum has a collection in Tring. In total, DCMS has funded £2 billion for the 15 museums and the British Library over the life of this Parliament.

In addition, the Government also provide funding to museums in the regions through the Arts Council, which is the development organisation for English regional museums, responsible for helping to support museums across the country. The Arts Council directly funds 16 significant regional museums, which are considered to be major partners. These act as examples of best practice in management and curation of collections, and play an important leadership role through partnerships with other museums and galleries in their regions. In total, the Arts Council has funded £200 million in grant in aid towards support of its major partner museums over the life of this Parliament. Partners include the York Museums Trust, Manchester City Galleries and the Penlee House Gallery and Museum in Cornwall.

My noble friend Lord Eccles spoke of the Bowes Museum. I was interested to see that the two museums in County Durham, the Bowes Museum and the Beamish Museum, will jointly receive £2,180,748 over the period 2015-18, for instance. In addition to the major partners it funds, the Arts Council also administers a variety of other grants, including a museum resilience fund worth £10 million in 2015-16. This aims to support a step change for the sector by enabling regional museums to become more sustainable and resilient businesses, focusing on development opportunities across the sector and recognising that excellence and the potential for excellence can be found in museums of all sizes.

A number of noble Lords raised the hugely important issue of benefactors and philanthropy. I absolutely take the point that some London museums have been extremely successful; we want to ensure that this success is replicated across the country. The Arts Council takes its responsibility for supporting museums across the country extremely seriously and balances funding across the whole country. That is very important. A number of noble Lords talked about a lack of balance. All I am hearing at the briefings I get from the Arts Council is that it is absolutely clear about the need to ensure that the regions are well supported. We should also remember the huge contribution made by the Heritage Lottery Fund to support museums and galleries through capital projects and through their various funding streams, which support skills development and acquisitions.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, rightly mentioned the museum that he has worked so tirelessly for. The fund recently awarded £95,000 of funding to the People’s History Museum, through its Collecting Cultures programme, to enable the museum to take forward its Voting for Change project, focusing on the movements and campaigns for the franchise. Last December, Museums Sheffield successfully applied to the Heritage Lottery Fund for £697,000 to support Weston Park museum’s A Bright Future project. The Government also provide support to small capital projects in many museums through their partnership with the Wolfson Foundation. Most of the funding from that partnership has been distributed outside London.

The Government’s review of non-departmental public bodies in 2010 examined a number of government-funded museums and their continued direct funding from government. As a result of this, it was decided that five museums would cease to be funded directly by DCMS. Of these, the funding responsibility for three was transferred; the Museum of Science and Industry was transferred to the Science Museum Group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, rightly mentioned what I think I can call her museum, the National Coal Mining Museum, which also now receives funding from the Science Museum Group. The Tyne and Wear Archives and Museum had its government funding channelled through the Arts Council, as it already received Arts Council funding as a major partner museum. All these museums have continued to thrive, bringing in increasing number of visitors.

It was decided, as a number of noble Lords have said, that DCMS should relinquish sponsorship of the Design Museum and the People’s History Museum. The Design Museum is now well advanced in its plans to relocate to the former Commonwealth Institute building in Kensington in order to expand its activities, a move that it will complete in 2016. Many noble Lords have spoken tonight about the People’s History Museum. The Government recognise the People’s History Museum and many other museums as important custodians in caring for their collections and encouraging access to, and awareness of, many aspects of our cultural and social history on which the objects, archives and artworks can help throw a light. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, spoke extremely powerfully about these issues.

The People’s History Museum has been identified by its designated status as an outstanding collection, as have around 130 other collections across the country. It has a great deal to offer both at national and local level, and this is recognised by its strong public support. I commend the museum for its proactive approach to managing its situation. I note that government funding has never been the primary source of funding for the People’s History Museum; indeed, it is a museum that it is very successful in its own right at working with other agencies to access funding sources. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about political motivation. From the briefings I have seen I do not think that the museum’s director feels that that is the motivation. That ought to be put on record.

This debate is extraordinarily timely: the department has engaged with the People’s History Museum and the Arts Council over the museum’s future arrangements. I am pleased to confirm announcements that the department will make £100,000 available for the People’s History Museum for 2015-16. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for expressing his welcome for that. It will be channelled through the Arts Council and is intended to help the museum as it moves towards a new and sustainable model of funding.

I would be the first to accept that difficult decisions have to be made. Indeed, many museum services will, of necessity, be considering how best to respond to these challenges through efficiencies and innovative and creative ideas. There is clearly an opportunity to encourage the development of philanthropic funding and to build a healthier and more diverse funding model for museums. My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to what the Bowes Museum has been doing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, referred to the need to ensure that this mix of funding can be replicated across the country, not just in London.

Our national collections do not operate in a vacuum from the rest of the sector. They lead and are partners in hundreds of collaborative projects with museums, heritage and community organisations and educational establishments across the country. The sector is committed to increasing the wealth of loans across the county. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Cormack in particular referred to that. I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said about Carlisle and what my noble friend said about Hull and how important museums are to young people. The local museum is very often the beginning of a very long adventure and enjoyment. Many of these partnerships are based on the loan of objects, such as the Great Bed of Ware going from the V&A to Ware Museum. There was a huge increase in the numbers that visited Ware Museum because of that. There are many other examples.

There is also a focus on the sharing of skills, expertise, education and learning, and working with communities. Participation with museums can bring many benefits to individuals and communities, including as learning resources. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, referred to schools, but schools and health services can all benefit from their relationships with their local museum. National Museums Liverpool has recently been at the forefront of this with its House of Memories project, which provides training to carers of people living with dementia.

Museums and their contents are at the heart of our culture and heritage. They are extremely important to the nation. Not only our regional museums, which I mention specifically because that phrase was in the title of the debate, but all museums have such an important role to play. Regional museums provide a world-class cultural service to communities around the country, and, in partnership with national and Arts Council major partner museums, there is a great future for them. Much of the main thrust of the debate, which was so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, was about the People’s History Museum, but I wish all the museums well. These are challenging times, but, having met a number of people from the sector, I think they are extraordinarily creative and able. We are extremely lucky to have such capable people running our museums.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

8.20 pm

Clause 18: Authority-to-carry schemes

Amendment 100

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

100: Clause 18, page 11, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) An “authority-to-carry scheme” made by the Secretary of State shall be set out in regulations.
(1B) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument, and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to make schemes requiring a carrier to seek authority from the Secretary of State to carry persons on aircraft, ships or trains that are arriving or expected to arrive in the United Kingdom or leaving or expected to leave the UK. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for an authority-to-carry scheme made by the Secretary of State to be set out in regulations, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered that Clause 18 constituted,

“a significant delegation of powers to the Secretary of State, since authority-to-carry schemes will have the effect of regulating the persons who may lawfully be transported by a carrier to and from the UK”.

The Home Office has stated that authority-to-carry schemes are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny because,

“there will be provision on the face of the Bill providing guidance as to the circumstances in which a class of passenger may be specified for the purpose of the scheme”.

No doubt the Minister will indicate in his response where this guidance appears on the face of the Bill and whether the Government feel that this represents sufficient guidance on how and in what circumstances the powers should be used. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that, unless the Home Office provided more compelling evidence on why the power to make schemes should not be scrutinised by Parliament, the Bill should be amended so that the powers are exercisable by statutory instrument.

This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to say rather more about the need for these powers and why they consider that they should not be scrutinised by Parliament. There are already similar statutory provisions in existence that apply only inbound to the United Kingdom, as I understand it. Will the Minister provide some information on how these existing powers have been used, how frequently they have been deployed, in respect of how many people, what nationalities and classes or categories have been affected and from which locations they have been travelling to the United Kingdom? Will the Minister also set out the extent to which the provisions in Clause 18 are an extension of the existing arrangements—in other words, exactly what are the additions in Clause 18 to what we have already?

I am sure that the Government will be more than aware of concerns that have been expressed that the provisions in the Bill could be used to exclude passengers or crew of particular nationalities or particular classes or categories, and that if these powers are not used in a sensible and proportionate manner they could enhance the likelihood of radicalisation, particularly among nationalities or classes or categories affected, who might come to the conclusion that they were being picked on and singled out, with a resultant potential increase in feelings of alienation and a potential decrease in the desire to provide crucial co-operation.

It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to that point and the others that I have made. This probing amendment gives the Government the opportunity to place on record how and when, and in respect of whom, they intend the powers in Clause 18 to be used and why they consider them necessary, as well as the opportunity to respond to the point on parliamentary scrutiny made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, to pick up the noble Lord’s penultimate point, Clause 18 says in terms that the scheme must specify various classes in subsection (2).

I have tabled Amendments 101 and 102 in this group. The first is narrower than the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, but would require regulations to encompass the requirements of a scheme whose breach may attract the imposition of a penalty. We are told that there will be regulations imposing penalties. It seems to me that the regulations for the underlying requirement, at the very least, ought to be within the regulations before one and that it is not appropriate for there to be regulations imposing penalties if the requirements themselves are not subject to the same sort of parliamentary process.

My second amendment would provide, not in detail, a more structured procedure than is suggested by subsection (4): the opportunity to object to a proposed penalty. It suggests that a reference to an appeal would be more appropriate. If there are to be penalties there should be arrangements for challenging them and possibly even for third party or perhaps judicial determination—but whatever there is, the rather loose terminology of “object to” is inadequate.

[Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I have a couple of points on Amendments 100, 101 and the rest of the group. Under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012, the Government have the powers to refuse entry to an individual. It is not clear why classes of passengers are targeted in this Bill. Will a whole group of people be covered under the new legislation? I say that because I have some experience. When I was travelling from Birmingham Airport last year, the immigration officers were stopping, under the Immigration Rules, the entire PIA flight to Islamabad—including myself. I was questioned about where I was going and whether I was carrying any money while I was going to Pakistan.

I fear that, without scrutiny by Parliament, these extra powers could be used against a group of people of a certain ethnicity. I fear that the perception of the British Pakistani community, Pakistan International Airlines and other airline carriers which occasionally carry people who could be suspected under the Terrorism Act will mean that entire families travelling on these airlines could be affected. Will the powers be used proportionately and will they be targeted? The Government already have powers to impose penalties on airlines for carrying certain passengers or to stop passengers getting on to flights. Therefore, I support the amendment and seek more clarification.

20:30

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the points raised in relation to Part 4 of the Bill, including the amendments in the names of my noble friends and that tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition. Perhaps I may start with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

The noble Lord asked what new power this provision has that the current legislation does not. The Bill will make provision for a new authority-to-carry scheme or schemes for passengers arriving or expected to arrive in the UK or departing or expected to depart from the UK. The current statutory arrangements apply inbound to the UK only. The Bill will also extend the operation of authority-to-carry schemes to a broader range of individuals, including British nationals, who pose a terrorist or terrorism-related threat to the UK.

The noble Lord also asked how many people will be affected by this. We do not comment on specific numbers. However, since the introduction of the security and travel bans authority-to-carry scheme 2012, we have stopped the travel of a small number of people whom we have judged may pose a terrorist or terrorism-related threat to the UK.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, about perception and the fact that these authority-to-carry schemes have to be used sensitively. I hope that it helps that so far they have been used only in relation to a small number of people, but I take his point. I hope that my answer later will go some way to reassure him.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Ahmed, asked about the classes of individuals whom carriers are liable to be refused authority to carry. I will take individuals travelling to the UK under the new scheme. They include individuals who are assessed by the Secretary of State as posing a direct threat to the security of aircraft; individuals who are subject to a temporary exclusion order, which we have talked about previously in our debates on the Bill; EEA nationals and accompanying/joining third-country national family members of EEA nationals who are the subject of an exclusion or deportation order under the immigration regulations; third-country nationals who have been, or are in the process of being, excluded from the UK under the Immigration Rules; nationals who are the subject of a deportation order; nationals who have been or would be refused a visa; and individuals otherwise inadmissible to the UK, including those seeking to travel using invalid travel documents. I hope that that goes some way to show that the powers are targeted specifically and that they are not intended to cover huge swathes of people.

Amendment 100 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and Amendment 101 tabled by my noble friends both seek to achieve the same effect: more direct parliamentary scrutiny of an authority-to-carry scheme made under Clause 18. Amendment 100 would require a scheme to be set out in regulations and approved by Parliament subject to a negative resolution but would make the scheme and the regulations to enforce it subject to a separate and different parliamentary process. Amendment 101 would require that draft affirmative regulations, laid before Parliament to impose penalties for breaching a scheme made under Clause 18, should include the requirements of that scheme.

The approach taken in the Bill mirrors that in Section 124 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 under which the current scheme and its regulations were made in 2012. The Government’s policy intention is that any new authority-to-carry scheme, or any amendment to an existing scheme, will be laid in Parliament with draft affirmative regulations which refer to the new or amended scheme. I recognise the concern noble Lords might have that, as drafted, there is only indirect scrutiny of an authority-to-carry scheme itself. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed a similar concern in its report, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned. The Government are at present considering the report of the committee and we would like to reflect on the concerns of noble Lords so that we can return to this issue at Report. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 100 and that my noble friend will not press Amendment 101.

Amendment 102, tabled by my noble friends, would require that regulations imposing penalties for breaching an authority-to-carry scheme must provide for a carrier to be able to appeal a penalty. The legislation already provides that the regulations may allow for an appeal, but the amendment would leave out the provision that the regulations must provide for a carrier first to be given an opportunity to object to the penalty. The approach we are proposing in the Bill mirrors that taken in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012, under which any breach of the current authority-to-carry scheme would be penalised. Where a penalty is imposed, the carrier must have the opportunity to appeal. If the penalty is reduced, remains unaltered or is increased, the carrier has the right to proceed to appeal. However, our intention is that the carrier must object before they can appeal. There is no question that a carrier that objects to a proposed penalty for breaching an authority-to-carry scheme will have the right to a judicial appeal. That will be set out in the regulations, subject to affirmative resolution. In the light of those assurances, I invite my noble friend not to press the amendment.

Finally, government Amendments 120 and 121 amend Clause 42 of the Bill so as to bring the aviation security powers in Part 2 of Schedule 2 into force on Royal Assent rather than at a later date by commencement order. Those powers in paragraphs 9 to 11 of Schedule 2 strengthen and enhance the ability of the Secretary of State to issue security directions to airlines flying into the UK and to create, through regulations, a related civil penalty regime for airlines that fail to comply. In doing so, this amendment brings the implementation of these powers into line with those in Part 1 of Schedule 2, covering passenger, crew and service information, which would already come into force on Royal Assent. The threat to aviation from certain terrorist groups is well documented and continues to evolve. We already work closely with foreign Governments and airlines, as well as UK operators, to make sure that the necessary security measures are in place and are being effectively implemented, but these measures will enhance our ability to do that.

I hope your Lordships will therefore agree that it is right and sensible to have these strengthened and clarified powers available at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, I invite your Lordships to support these amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am left a little puzzled as to why there should be an opportunity to object before an appeal. I can see that that would be to the benefit of the Secretary of State—the benefit of the authority implementing the scheme—but the way in which it is worded suggests that it is intended as some sort of benefit for the carrier. My noble friend may not have the information to explain that further at this stage, but he will understand why I went down that route. The presentation of the provision fits with the explanation, but it seems as though it is for the benefit of the carrier, yet the carrier has the right to appeal. I would be glad to have that confirmed.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I may be able to help. It is right that Clause 19(4) says that procedures for imposing a penalty,

“must provide for a carrier to be given an opportunity to object”.

We are keen that the carrier should be able to object first and, if necessary, move on to an appeal later. It is in the Bill because, I am told, this is the way that it is normally provided for. It may, in particular, make provision for allowing an appeal. We prefer that they object first and then are able to appeal. As I said, I can give an assurance that the method for appealing will be in the regulations.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response. Given that he indicated that the Government would consider the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to which I referred, I will not seek to pursue Amendment 100.

I will make one point about why I hope the Government will consider carefully what the committee said, which I am sure they will. The Minister said that the existing powers had not been used to affect large numbers of people. I think he used the expression “huge swathes of people”. That is one of the concerns that needs to be properly allayed, and it was a concern referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. Clause 18(2)(b) says,

“the classes of passengers or crew in respect of whom authority to carry must be sought (which may be all of them or may be defined by reference to nationality, the possession of specified documents or otherwise)”.

In noting that the categories are “by reference to nationality”, that gives the prospect of the “huge swathes of people” to which the Minister has referred. It is important that in looking at this matter in the light of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s views—as the Minister has said the Government will—the Government’s response firmly nails down that the reference in Clause 18(2)(b) should not be interpreted as meaning “huge swathes of people”. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed.

Clause 19: Penalty for breach of authority-to-carry scheme

Amendments 101 and 102 not moved.

Clause 19 agreed.

Clause 20 agreed.

Amendment 103

Moved by

[Lord West of Spithead]

103: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause—
“Unmanned aerial vehicles
(1) A person commits an offence if that person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which shall lie with him) operates or controls an unmanned aerial vehicle, and—
(a) for the purposes of terrorism, the vehicle is fitted with—(i) any firearm,(ii) any explosive (whether in the form of a bomb, grenade or otherwise, and whether a manufactured or adapted device),(iii) any article (not falling within either of the preceding paragraphs) made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person or for destroying; or(b) he operates the vehicle within an area which the Secretary of State designates as restricted under this section.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate areas in which the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles may be restricted or prohibited in order to reduce the risk of terrorism-related activities within the United Kingdom.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) The Secretary of State must review the operation of this section and lay a report before each House of Parliament at least annually after the section comes into force, which must include a review of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles—
(a) in connection with terrorism-related activities, and(b) by any public body or agent in connection with countering terrorism-related activities.(5) In this section—
“unmanned aerial vehicle” means any unmanned aerial vehicle controlled or overseen by a human operator, and
“terrorism” has the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 1.”

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones. A number of factors made me feel it was necessary to introduce the amendment. The first is that there is no definition of unmanned aerial vehicles. They are commonly known as drones although it tends to upset people in the military if you call them that. I have found it difficult to consider anything of 20 grams or less carrying a man. That is so inconceivable that I think the term “drones” can be used. There is no definition in existing primary or secondary legislation. The closest to a definition is “small, unmanned aircraft”, which is in Article 253 of the Air Navigation Order 2009.

20:45

The second thing that made me feel that we need to start moving down this route is the huge and rapid march in technology. We discussed earlier the whole issue of communications data and how quickly that is changing. The same is true in this area. In 2009, when we were setting up the whole package for Olympic security, we were worried about hang-gliders and unmanned aerial vehicles, but we were talking about quite big unmanned aerial vehicles, which were not necessarily that reliable. Now we have very small, highly reliable and very complex little aerial vehicles which you can buy for as little as £300 to £500. People with access to money—for example, terrorists—can buy lots of them. That is really quite important. Being able to get them so cheaply is apparently known as the Maplin’s factor, which I understand is some sort of store. I was not aware of that; I thought it was something to do with a seaside resort in Wales.

Thirdly, the Civil Aviation Authority has always had rather a light touch on regulation of these things, partly because in the past they were not really such an issue. It stresses that small drones,

“with an operating mass of 20 kg or less are … exempt from the majority of the regulations”,

which is quite worrying.

There is also an increased public interest and concern in the potential for misuse of small drones. That was shown very well in the Independent on Saturday, which gave a lot of examples that have also come out in the media elsewhere. There was a small quad copter flying within 25 metres of a passenger aircraft at Southend and the co-pilot assessed that its conduct was deliberate. The drone was flying at it and there was a very high risk of collision. At Heathrow, an Airbus A320 suddenly realised that it had a UAV very close to it when it was at 700 feet. The drone had not shown up on air traffic control, not surprisingly, because it is so small. That was reported with an incident rating risk of category A, which is the most serious risk of a major accident. There are numerous examples, in France particularly, of these things flying over nuclear power stations and the like. There is a worry.

My reason for tabling the amendment is that there is no specific criminal terrorism offence regarding unmanned aerial vehicles as there is for aircraft, outside of very general Civil Aviation Authority restrictions under ANO 2009. In particular, drones are not covered by Section 4 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, entitled “Offences in relation to certain dangerous articles”, which has been used as a precedent. That is a worry. We are not grasping this and including it in our legislation. I am not a great one for legislation—I hate legislation—but we need to look at this.

Similarly, while there are some no-fly zones around the UK, we need to identify, consider and regulate them in the sense of being aware of these very capable small drones and their use, particularly in the context of counterterrorism. I have given a lot of examples already, but someone in the aviation field got in contact with me today and said that they were worried that if a number of drones—something like 10 or so—were flown at the ILS system at an airport when the weather was not good, it would shut down the ILS system. Noble Lords can imagine the impact that that would have on an aircraft that was landing.

When the Birmingham Policy Commission conducted a study on the security impact of drones, which was chaired by Professor Sir David Omand, it examined specific risks that he felt needed to be addressed by legislators such as the use of drones carrying improvised explosive devices. They would be easy to make because you need only a very small amount of explosive or a chemical or biological agent. These are things that we have not had to focus on much recently and we hope that we never have to, but they are a real danger. Certainly, for part of my time as a Minister, I was constantly looking at concern about the use of these. Indeed, going back into the late 1990s, we stopped an attack on the north London water supply with ricin, so these are very real dangers that we need to think about.

The public are now becoming aware of drones. A drone strike would probably have more symbolic influence and effect on the public’s morale than the impact of what it did. Bringing down an airliner would be bad, but any incident would have quite an impact on the public.

There is a need for much more informed and open debate—outside the cross-government RPAS working group—on the risks and the response. I am not impressed, I say to the Minister, that the result of our bids for FOIs and information from that group has been very poor. There needs to be more open debate and transparency.

We have been in touch with the CAA. We know that it has very well known difficulties enforcing even the current light-touch regulation to do with drones, but it said that it would quite welcome specific criminal offences because this could supplement its work on reproducing its controls on aircraft. We think that it would acknowledge that its regime was designed before what I call the Maplin factor, and that therefore it does not really address counterterrorism. For those reasons, my amendments are necessary: we need to do this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I saw that report in the Independent, and, living quite near to Heathrow as I do, I felt it particularly vividly.

The noble Lord’s concerns are well founded. I wonder, however, whether it is not simply a matter of designating areas where the flight of drones is restricted, period, rather than dealing with the burden of proof—whoever carries it—regarding whether a drone is being flown for the purposes of terrorism. I suspect that the answer will be: “Thank you for raising it and a lot of people are looking at it”. I hope that that last bit is true. My comment is that it might be better to deal with it over the wider point and not to get into the confusion of whether it is terrorism related. The outcome could be pretty similar whatever the purpose.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, unmanned aerial vehicles, as has been said, are used in a military context and by public bodies in the UK, and for surveillance, among other uses. Surveillance UAVs are regulated, although, as my noble friend Lord West of Spithead has said, some people question how effective this regulation is.

I will comment in particular on the use of small non-surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles. UAVs weighing under 22 kilograms are entirely unregulated. They can be bought and sold freely. There is no tracking mechanism. Perhaps most importantly, they can easily be purchased for self-assembly, which makes them easy to modify, perhaps for the kind of purposes set out in my noble friend’s amendment. There is a big concern around airports. As has been said, a UAV got within a few feet of an Airbus jet leaving Heathrow. Even a small UAV could cause engine failure in a jet, in the same way as a bird strike, even if not being used for obviously hostile purposes. While airports have extensive protection from lasers, and even from surface-to-air missiles, there is no specific provision, as I understand it, for UAVs. Apparently, this is a concern of the British Airline Pilots Association and air traffic controllers, and suggestions have been made for UAV no-fly zones around airports.

I hope that, in their reply, the Government will be able to show that they have assessed the risks and are taking appropriate action because, subject to what the Minister says in response, it is not obvious that there is a coherent direction of policy, at least on smaller UAVs if not larger ones, with the light-touch regulation to which my noble friend Lord West has referred.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord West, for bringing his particular experience to bear on this important issue, which I certainly agree is a matter of growing public concern. The noble Lord particularly mentioned the effect on the public of something going wrong, and it is clear that people are taking an interest.

The growing use of unmanned aerial vehicles is being driven by their increasing versatility and affordability, as the noble Lord mentioned. Their use raises a number of issues, including those of safety, privacy and the potential security threat which they could pose. A good deal of work is going on with the Government at the moment. As I think the noble Lord mentioned, the Government have established a cross-Whitehall group co-chaired by the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence, and including the Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for the regulation of UAVs, to look at the safety, privacy and security implications. If the group identifies any issues where new legislative powers are necessary, they will be addressed. However, I have noted the noble Lord’s comments about information being made available and I will take those back.

I can reassure the Committee that, from a legal standpoint, there are already air navigation rules in place to regulate the use of unmanned aerial vehicles. Existing restrictions include, for example, that an unmanned aircraft fitted with a camera must be flown at least 50 metres away from a person, vehicle, building or structure. It must not be flown without permission within 150 metres of congested areas or any large group of people, such as a sporting event or concert. Unmanned aerial vehicles are not permitted to fly in areas where they may cause danger to manned aircraft and it is prohibited to drop an article from a UAV so as to endanger persons or property.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned blanket bans on certain areas rather than making this specifically terrorist related. I agree with her. There are specific powers under the Air Navigation Order 2009 which enable the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on flying in particular areas, including for safety or reasons in the public interest, which could include security. That will take into account the example mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord West, of areas close to an ILS system at an airport. Crucially, the 2009 order makes it an offence to contravene any of the air navigation articles. A number of additional offences would currently apply to the arming of an unmanned aerial vehicle for the purposes of terrorism. These include offences related to the use and possession of firearms, weapons or explosives, or the preparation of terrorist attacks.

All that being said, the use and potential misuse of unmanned aerial vehicles is an area that the Government are monitoring closely. We will continue to consider whether it is necessary to introduce new offences related to the use of UAVs. I thank the noble Lord once again for raising the issue and thus allowing me to provide these reassurances. On the basis that the existing legislation is sufficient and that any potential gaps are being considered by the cross-government group, which I am sure will take account of this short debate, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

20:59

[Lord West of Spithead]

I thank the Minister for his response. Before I come to that—because I was a little disappointed—I will say that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is absolutely right. We have to be quite careful about how we go about this. Indeed, I have got no praise for the way I have put my amendments, but I believe that this needs to be looked at. The Minister makes the assumption that we are happy with current legislation, but current legislation is not adequate. Certainly the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline pilots association do not think it is. We need to think hard about this. Overall, the noble Lord was on side with my worries, but—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Again, I am sure that the cross-government group that is considering gaps in legislation will take account of this debate, including the noble Lord’s comments.

[Lord West of Spithead]

I thank the noble Lord for that. At the moment, some of these things are slightly opaque. That is the problem. It is very difficult to find out what is going on. It would be much better if we had a clearer view with a more open debate about it. It is interesting, for example, that the Military Aviation Authority has just published RA 1600, which is a reclassification of some drones and it is paving the way for much greater use of military drones in UK airspace. So when we have a lot of military drones operating there, again, the risk of these other drones becomes even greater. This is something we have to get our mind around.

Interestingly—I had not thought about this before—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned tracking mechanisms, which of course are making huge leaps and bounds in technology. You can get ones that are really tiny. Maybe that would be a way, if the drones showed up on secondary radar, for example. I do not know whether that has been looked at—and the reason that I do not know whether it has been looked at is that there is no openness in terms of discussion, which worries me.

I will need to reconsider the Minister’s comments and think about them and look at Hansard. Until I have done that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed.

House adjourned at 9.02 pm.