House of Commons

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 9 February 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

1. What steps she has taken to reduce administrative burdens on the police.

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

We have cut red tape and freed the police from central Government control to enable them to focus on their clear goal, which is to cut crime. The work we have undertaken to reduce bureaucracy could see up to 4.5 million hours of police time saved across all forces every year—the equivalent of more than 2,100 officers back on the beat.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

May I put on record my thanks to police officers across Basildon and Thurrock for all their hard work in keeping our community safe? Does this Government’s record show that when it comes to vital services such as the police, with true reform it is possible to do more with less?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reforms we have put in place are working, and crime is down overall by more than a fifth since the last election. I join him in saying that work to cut crime is being carried out by police officers and staff day in, day out, and I pay tribute to police officers in Basildon and Thurrock and across the country for that work.

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

Did the Home Secretary listen this morning to the senior police officer from Essex who said that such are the cut backs to the police that he cannot cope in many areas of his responsibilities, including looking after the roads and keeping them safe despite a growing number of casualties?

[Mrs May]

Comments about changes to police budgets and the impact that they will have on crime have been made over the past four years—in fact, in 2010 the shadow Home Secretary said that cutting back police budgets would inexorably lead to a rise in crime. That was the implication she gave, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that crime has fallen by more than a fifth since the last general election.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

21. My local police in Basingstoke have kept crime down even with the pressure on resources because they can determine how officers are deployed. Does the Home Secretary have plans to introduce any new targets that might take our officers away from those locally determined priorities?

[Mrs May]

No. My right hon. Friend is right, and in Hampshire since 2010, recorded crime has fallen by 26%—one of the highest falls across the country. I have no plans to reintroduce the previous Government’s targets, which meant that central Government were trying to tell the police what to do at local level, rather than allowing them to determine what suited their local areas and respond to the needs of local people.

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

The Home Secretary talks about freeing up police time, but is she aware of the barmy decision by Greater Manchester police to close Reddish police station and ensure that neighbourhood policing teams for Reddish have to parade on at the central Stockport police station? Far from freeing up police time to go on the beat in north and south Reddish, having to travel from the centre of Stockport to their beats is tying up the police. Is that not barmy and what will she do about it?

[Mrs May]

Operational decisions are taken by the police, but I seem to recall that the police and crime commissioner in Greater Manchester is a former colleague of the hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches. Perhaps he should talk to him about it.

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

Rather than reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and make sensible savings, the Home Secretary has chosen to inflict the biggest cuts to our police service of any country in Europe. Government figures out today show a sharp dip of 23% in the number of traffic police, and an increase in road deaths, including a 6% increase for children. Does she accept that she is letting the motorist down, and that under her tenure our roads are now less safe?

[Mrs May]

No. The hon. Gentleman comments on the cuts made to police budgets, but those cuts were necessary—as were spending cuts across the public sector—because of the situation left by the last Labour Government when we were left facing such a big deficit.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. What steps she has taken to improve the police response to drug crime.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

Thankfully, the long-term trend in drug use across the country, particularly in heroin and crack cocaine, continues to fall, but we must be vigilant, especially with synthetic drugs. I recently introduced a type of roadside drug testing, which is the first of its type in this country, and—I believe—the world.

[Bob Blackman]

I trust it will be remembered that there will be a record number of police in London by the end of March, thanks to the enlightened policies of the Mayor of London.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What further action will be taken to combat people who continue to drive under the influence of drugs, so that we can drive that scourge off the road?

[Mike Penning]

I was at Hendon training college only the week before last, and it was a pleasure to see the new recruits passing out. We will continue to bring technology forward. The police have been crying out for technology, at the roadside and in the station, to ensure we are as tough on drug-driving as we are on drink-driving. That is exactly what we will do.

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

I am sure the Minister would accept there is relatively free movement of drugs up and down and across the country. Is he in discussions with the devolved Administrations on the tackling of drug crime and the free movement of drugs?

[Mike Penning]

The National Crime Agency looks at organised crime across the country. I am very pleased to say that the NCA is now in Northern Ireland, something we have been waiting for for some considerable time.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The chief constable of Durham constabulary, Mike Barton, has called for a change in our drugs policy, arguing that we would best tackle crime, and gang crime in particular, by changing our approach. Will the Minister listen to the increasing number of experts in law enforcement who want a new way to deal with this issue?

[Mike Penning]

An increase in number of one, probably. I do not agree at all with the chief constable of Durham. I have told him so and I will continue to tell him. Drugs are a scourge in our society and we must do everything we can to crack down on them.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

20. On 28 August, I spoke to a resident at my advice surgery who had concerns about a property near their home being used as a cannabis farm. I relayed those concerns to the police and a raid took place on 10 September. Some 627 cannabis plants were found, conservatively estimated to be worth £250,000. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Lancashire police, in particular the ongoing Operation Regenerate, which is targeting organised criminal gangs and drug dealers in my area?

[Mike Penning]

I am aware of Operation Regenerate: it is a fantastic scheme, which forces around the country are trying to replicate. The seizure will mean fewer drugs on our streets, particularly the most abhorrent types of drugs that are affecting our constituents. At the same time, the money that was going to be in criminal hands is now in the Treasury.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

3. What steps she has taken to encourage people to become special constables.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I am sure the whole House agrees that special constables make a vital contribution to the everyday cutting of crime in our communities. We continue to support special constables. I would like all Members to help to recruit more special constables in every one of their constituencies.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I thank the Minister and endorse his comments. May I draw his attention to a special scheme, whereby the business community works with chief constables to release members of staff so they can become fully trained special constables in a short, concentrated period of time?

[Mike Penning]

I am aware of that scheme. Employer supported policing schemes, partnerships between employers and the police forces, are available around the country. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I heard a Labour Member say that they are never available when one wants them. The specials do a fantastic job when other people are not available. We should commend every single one of them.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Kent police specials, whose 248 members volunteered to work more than 100,000 hours of police duty in 2014 and rightly won the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service, the first special constabulary to do so? Is this not a model for how special constables can contribute a huge amount to making our streets safer?

[Mike Penning]

My right hon. Friend brings a lot of experience to this question and I commend Kent police. If I may, I would also like to commend Hertfordshire police, where I had the honour of presenting long service awards to specials and other constables. One had worked an equivalent of three years’ full-time service as a special, something I am sure we all commend.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

4. What progress her Department has made on deporting foreign criminals from the UK.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

We removed nearly 5,100 foreign criminals from the UK last year, and more than 22,000 since April 2010. More than 400 foreign national offenders have been removed under “deport now, appeal later” powers introduced in the Immigration Act 2014.

[Adam Afriyie]

If we are to have a country that is at ease with itself, deporting foreign criminals, while not easy, is absolutely necessary. The Home Secretary and her Department have done a great job and have shown great leadership in this area. That bodes well for the future of the country under any Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that if we are to have a country that feels at ease with itself even with minimal levels of immigration, we must continue to redouble our efforts to get rid of foreign criminals?

[James Brokenshire]

Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in this country should be in no doubt about our determination to deport them. That is why we introduced the changes in the Immigration Act. Despite the 28% increase in the number of legal challenges, we are deporting foreign national offenders, and the measures we have taken are speeding up that process.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) a couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the House was good enough to recognise the importance of the rights of children in deportation and removal cases. Does the Minister think it right that the Government are having more success in removing innocent children born in this country than in removing criminals from outside the country?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government have taken steps to ensure that deportation is appropriate, and some removal centres have family issues absolutely at their heart to ensure that where we remove those who should not be in this country, whether family units or otherwise, it is done appropriately. We have a proud record on reducing and dealing with the deportation of children.

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

19. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Assistant Commissioner Rowley and the Operation Nexus team, who do so much to find hardened foreign criminals in our country? Does he agree that it is vital to identify these people and, where possible, get them out of the country?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for highlighting the work of Operation Nexus, which has succeeded in removing 3,000 foreign national criminals by identifying them early in the custody suites and by working alongside our immigration enforcement teams and the police. This approach enables us to deal with any issues at the earliest opportunity and see that these people are removed.

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

Will the Minister confirm that in the last year of the Labour Government more than 5,500 foreign criminals were deported, but that every year since 2010 the figures have been lower? Why is this?

[James Brokenshire]

I can answer the hon. Lady’s question very directly—because there has been a 28% increase in the number of legal appeals. Despite all the appeals and legal challenges, however, we have removed 22,000 foreign national offenders. We are in no doubt about the Government’s resolve to deal with this issue. We introduced the Immigration Act and are speeding up the process. The Government are taking the right action.

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

5. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of community-led responses to crime and antisocial behaviour related to the night-time economy.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

Front-line professionals have new flexible powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including problems in the night-time economy. We have overhauled the Licensing Act 2003 to give people a greater say in licensing decisions in their area and to give local areas the tools and powers they need to deal with problem premises. We have also enabled local communities to secure a financial contribution from late-opening premises towards policing the night-time economy.

[Sarah Newton]

Will the Minister join me in praising the street pastors, volunteer first aiders, first aiders and safe space volunteers in Truro and Falmouth who, on Saturday nights, do so much to keep people safe and take pressure off our much-valued police officers and paramedics?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am delighted to praise the work of the safe space initiative in Falmouth and others like it, which provide an extremely valuable service. These schemes are run by local volunteers and officers who help with first aid. There are also the street pastors, which we also have in Haringey. I am sure that Members across the House would praise their work. The Government have also introduced the late-night levy power for local communities to use if they choose to do so. It enables local authorities to collect a financial contribution from businesses that profit from selling alcohol, and the funds raised can be used for safe spaces.

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

How many?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Seven.

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

In parts of my constituency, the night-time economy includes kerb-crawling and street prostitution. Local residents are trying to work with the police to control the situation, but it is becoming increasingly difficult, with the cuts to community support officers and front-line police officers and the local authority cuts, to work with local communities. What is the Minister doing to support them?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Lady will have heard already that crime is falling across the country and has reduced by one fifth since the coalition entered government. We have taken action. I have written to local authorities to remind them of their powers, and police and crime commissioners are there to use their commissioning powers in respect of crimes that need addressing in their local areas.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the level of modern slavery in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

This Government are determined to stamp out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. Research carried out by the Home Office estimates that in 2013, the number of potential victims in the UK was between 10,000 and 13,000. This was included in the Government’s modern slavery strategy published in November, which sets out the wide range of actions being taken across Government to tackle modern slavery.

[Margot James]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the West Midlands police on Operation Sentinel, which is leading a campaign this month to train 1,100 front-line officers to identify victims of modern slavery, safeguard them and raise public awareness of the signs of slavery and the need for people to report any suspicions they may have?

[Karen Bradley]

I absolutely will join my hon. Friend in congratulating the West Midlands police. It is exactly this type of initiative that will raise awareness and help us to tackle this dreadful crime. It is only by identifying the victims, and by people knowing how to identify the victims, that we will find them and give them the support they need.

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

Is the Minister at all concerned at the failure to ensure that the monitoring of private fostering arrangements for children from abroad actually takes place, which means that we could be missing completely a potential level of modern slavery?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but through the work in the Modern Slavery Bill and through the strategy, we are absolutely determined that we will find all victims of slavery; and for children we are trialling child trafficking advocates so that we can ensure that children get exactly the support they need to give them the best opportunity in life.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

7. What further steps she is taking to protect the UK from terrorism in response to recent attacks in Paris.

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

The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. We are committed to providing a strong, effective and appropriate security response to any terrorist threats to the UK. Since the shocking events in Paris, we have reviewed our security arrangements, stepped up protective security measures, including increasing patrols for vulnerable communities and sites to ensure effective security and safety. The police are confident that they remain flexible and able to respond to any increases in threat to protect all communities.

[Mr Burns]

Does the Home Secretary share my view that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill is a crucial element in the Government’s strategy to reduce the threat of attacks within the United Kingdom, as well as tackling the terrible problem of people leaving this country to take part in terrorist acts abroad?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill enhances our ability to deal with people across a range of aspects of the terrorist threat, enabling us temporarily to remove passports from people who are leaving the United Kingdom where it is thought they will be going to join terrorist groups to fight and potentially to train, while also taking action to ensure that those coming back who are a matter of concern will be able to come back only on our terms.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

In her evidence in Parliament last week, Sally Evans, the mother of a convert, Thomas Evans, who is now fighting for al-Shabaab in Somalia, said she had received no support from the authorities in dealing with his fateful decision. Both she and her other son, Michael, have been traumatised by what has happened. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to give more support to families such as the Evanses—but not just because it is the right thing to do, as it could also provide us with valuable information to prevent other young men from being radicalised in the way that Thomas Evans has been radicalised?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many families up and down the country can find that a family member has gone to fight, whether it be in Syria or Iraq, possibly with ISIL or the al-Nusra front, or to al-Shabaab in the case he outlined. I pay tribute to the families that have spoken out about their experience and are using it to try to help ensure that more young people do not go to fight with terrorist groups as their family members have. It is also important to give support to families that go through this trauma, as it can often tear families apart.

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

22. On tackling extremism and terrorism, will the Government work according to the 2013 report on tackling extremism, which emphasised the need for freedom of expression and respect for faiths? If that is the case, does the Home Secretary agree that we need to be careful not to mock people’s faith, as this can lead to intolerance and play into the hands of extremists and terrorists?

[Mrs May]

I agree. Freedom of expression and speech is a fundamental British value, but if taken advantage of by extremists, it can cause fear and set communities against each other. It is absolutely right that we expect people to respect each other’s faiths. There are people of many faiths in this country, and we want to see respect for those different faiths. That is crucial. I think that we should speak out for our values against those who would sow the seeds of hatred, intolerance and prejudice.

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

Surely the best response to the events in Paris is a considered, proportionate response. We must do nothing that would further compromise our civil liberties or the freedoms that we enjoy in this democracy. Will the Home Secretary listen to the many voices that have expressed concern about her counter-terrorism Bill, and ensure that that we do nothing—nothing at all—to question further the civil liberties that we enjoy in this country?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we wish to protect our civil liberties—the very freedoms that make our society what it is—and that we should respond proportionately to attacks when they happen, which is exactly what we do. I should point out to him, however, that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was going through the House before the Paris attacks. It was introduced in response to the rising number of people who have been going to fight in Syria in particular, who may be training out there or fighting and then coming back, wishing to do us harm. I believe that the Bill contains important powers, but that those powers constitute a proportionate response to the threat that we face.

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

Since the appalling attacks in Paris, my Muslim constituents have been talking to me about the climate of suspicion and hostility in which some of them feel they are living. We also know that Jewish communities are feeling more victimised and fearful of anti-Semitic attacks. What can the Government do to promote and strengthen relationships among our many very valued communities? Of course the deradicalisation and Prevent programmes are important, but there is a very important positive programme to be promoted as well.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is important to promote that interfaith working, and the relationships between different communities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has undertaken a number of activities with the aim of doing exactly that: encouraging respect for different faiths and between communities, and a greater understanding between communities. That is very important work.

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

The Home Secretary cut spending on community Prevent projects from £17.4 million to £1 million. She cut the number of areas delivering Prevent from 92 to 21, and in one year just four local authorities received funding for Prevent projects. At the same time, the Department for Communities and Local Government has funded just eight local integration projects, none of which is aimed at Islamic fundamentalism. Will the Home Secretary explain why local Prevent and integration projects have been so neglected under this Government?

[Mrs May]

I must tell the hon. Lady that her analysis is wrong. This Government did make a difference to the Prevent programme when they came to office. We observed that, all too often, people were seeing the Labour Government’s integration work under Prevent through the prism of the Government’s spying on them, and of counter-terrorism, so we changed the way in which Prevent operated. The Home Office has not cut its funding for Prevent, and I am pleased to say that Prevent programmes have reached more than 50,000 people in this country.

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

8. What steps her Department is taking to tackle identity crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We have developed a programme of activity to tackle the important issue of the manufacture and use of false identities, working closely with the national policing lead on identity crime.

[Sir David Amess]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill, which is being taken through its final stages in the House of Lords by Baroness Berridge, is vital to tackling the dire situation that is being caused by identity fraud?

[Karen Bradley]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his Bill, which the Government fully support. I know that, once it has completed its passage through the other place, it will make a significant difference to the tackling of identity crime.

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

9. What recent representations she has received on the level of rural crime; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

I have received a number of representations about crime in rural areas from hon. Members, members of the public and interested organisations. We do not underestimate the impact that crime can have on those who live in rural areas. That is why we support the National Rural Crime Network, and awarded it £40,000 last year from the police innovation fund to assist its work.

[Miss McIntosh]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that fly grazing is a heinous rural crime and is on the increase, and that it is frequently associated with other crimes such as stolen vehicles or driving without insurance? Will the Government introduce exactly the same law as applies in southern Ireland, to prevent these fly grazers from remaining for more than two days on any private land?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree that it is a heinous crime—and it is animal cruelty, in fact. Police and crime commissioners are making crime in rural areas a priority, and over 60% of PCCs in England and Wales have joined the National Rural Crime Network. That includes an online resource that allows police and partners and others to share information, training and case studies. Although we have no plans to introduce the criminal offence that my hon. Friend suggests, together with this kind of communication, organisations such as Horsewatch and Farm Watch can bring such crime down.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of changes in the level of cyber and online crime in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [Official Report, 23 February 2015, Vol. 593, c. 1-2MC.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

We take cybercrime very seriously, and the Government have committed £860 million over five years to tackling it. We are also working to increase the reporting of online offences to Action Fraud, and official figures show that the recorded number of those crimes has nearly trebled since Action Fraud was set up.

[Julie Hilling]

Two of my constituents lost £250,000 due to identity theft and were simply referred to Action Fraud where they were given no information. What is the Minister doing to improve the performance of Action Fraud and to boost the resources of each local police force?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady and I have had several conversations about Action Fraud and I welcome her comments on real-life examples and what is going on. I am working with Action Fraud on an improvement plan. As she knows, the City of London police now have responsibility for both Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, and since moving to the City of London police, Action Fraud has disseminated over 40,000 crime packages to local police forces. However, we can and must do more to ensure that the victim knows about what happens and feels they have been taken seriously.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Cybercrime knows no national boundaries. Is this not a good example where working closely with others in Europe through the European Cybercrime Centre and Interpol will help us better develop systems to tackle cybercrime and keep us all safe?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Europol is doing very important work to tackle cybercrime—that high-level malware-type crime that can have a major impact on businesses and infrastructure. Through the Serious Crime Bill we are introducing additional offences to tackle the serious misuse of the internet to impact on national infrastructure.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that there are now delays of more than 12 months in processing and investigating some cases of online child abuse that have been reported to the National Crime Agency?

[Karen Bradley]

I do not recognise that statistic. The NCA is working very hard, and we have seen from the success of Operation Notarise just what it can achieve. I work closely with it, and I know it takes this issue extremely seriously and it will make sure all crimes are investigated appropriately.

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

For many of my constituents who have experienced crime in respect of their commercial enterprises, Action Fraud’s response has been little more than a mapping exercise. Will the Minister urge the Metropolitan police and all police forces to put this sort of commercial crime right up on the agenda?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that we need all local police forces, including the Metropolitan police, to take that seriously. I would be keen to hear about the examples from his constituents in order to assist my work on the improvement plan we have put in place to make sure Action Fraud delivers what victims of crime need.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions she has had with police and crime commissioners on the priority they give to prosecuting and preventing human trafficking and modern slavery; and if she will make a statement.

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

My ministerial team and I engage regularly with PCCs on a range of issues. Most recently PCCs attended the international crime and policing conference which I hosted in January, and at that event the new designate independent anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Highland, gave a keynote address about the importance of tackling modern slavery. I am committed to working with PCCs to ensure that the police remain focused on this terrible crime.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

How many PCCs have made tackling modern slavery and human trafficking a strategic priority for their force?

[Mrs May]

PCCs have made a range of issues a strategic priority for their forces, as the hon. Lady will know. We are clear that the impetus for dealing with modern slavery is coming from the Government and that it is a priority for the National Crime Agency. Police and crime commissioners will of course set what they believe to be the most appropriate strategic priorities for their areas. I am interested that the hon. Lady wants PCCs to be interested in this matter, because her party wants to abolish them, and if that were to happen, they could take no interest in it whatever.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

12. What progress she has made on ensuring that the Security Service is adequately equipped to tackle terrorism.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

It is vital that our security and intelligence services should have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe. We have taken steps to maintain capabilities through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and we are increasing powers through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. An additional £130 million will be available over the next two years to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities.

[Julian Smith]

A terror suspect is arrested every day, and our intelligence services are crystal clear that they need greater oversight of internet communications. When will the Government bring the Communications Data Bill back to the House?

[James Brokenshire]

I pay tribute to the work that our police and security agencies do to keep us safe, and it is right that my hon. Friend should highlight that work in his question. Capability gaps identified during discussions on the draft Communications Data Bill have not been met, and we are clear that action needs to be taken. This issue needs to be addressed early in the next Parliament.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

13. What assessment she has made of the role of voluntary organisations in tackling radicalisation and extremism.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Voluntary organisations and communities can play an important role in confronting and challenging extremism. Local Prevent projects have reached more than 55,000 people since early 2012, and the Government have supported community-based campaigns such as Families Matter and Making a Stand.

[David Mowat]

The Minister will be aware of the successful work being done by the Warrington-based Foundation for Peace with young people who are vulnerable to extremism, many of whom have now moved on to become young leaders in their communities. That work is focused mainly on parts of northern England. Would he support a wider roll-out, and will he meet me and members of the foundation to discuss how that could be achieved?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of the Foundation for Peace, which I visited a couple of years ago. I am aware of its continuing work, and I would be happy to meet him and representatives of the foundation to discuss the steps that they are taking. We are clearly looking for good practice that can be shared around the country to confront and combat extremism and radicalisation.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the many voluntary organisations that stand up against racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Does he agree that we all have a duty to stand up against all such forms of racism and extremism, as well as against those far right extremists who are promoting racism within our society at the present time?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the responsibility that we all have to stand up against extremism and racism at a time when we are seeing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He is absolutely right to underline that call. Our work on Channel, which is about counter-radicalisation, focuses on all forms that might lead to terrorism, and some of the references that come through our Channel referral programme are indeed from the far right. That is why we take an all-embracing approach to our work.

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

14. What improvements she has made to the visa system for applicants from China and other key markets.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

UK Visas and Immigration has enhanced the visa service provided to visitors to the UK from China by improving our visa application centres, introducing online applications for independent travellers and introducing a comprehensive range of premium services, including a new, 24-hour service. The 24-hour service is also available in India, and it will be launched in other key markets later this year.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Lancaster university is one of the top 10 universities in the country and it educates more than 1,000 Chinese students a year. Will the new changes help those students?

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the approach that Lancaster university and other universities are taking. Clearly, we welcome legitimate students who are studying at our universities, and I am pleased that there has been a 4% increase in student visa applications from Chinese students. Our approach is very much about controlling immigration while attracting the brightest and best, including students to study at our universities.

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

One of the so-called improvements to our immigration system is the decision to require asylum seekers, including those from China, to make fresh submissions in person at Liverpool. Would the Minister care to dispute the comments of Dave Smith of the Boaz Trust, who rightly says that it appears to be pure discrimination and a cynical attempt to deter people from putting in fresh submissions?

[James Brokenshire]

I rebut that entirely. The proposal is about bringing into line arrangements that were already in place in relation to pre-2007 asylum applications. We have a specialist centre—a specialist unit—in Liverpool and it is ensuring that those further submissions are considered appropriately and effectively.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

15. What research her Department has undertaken on how architecture and urban design may assist crime prevention.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

We have not conducted any recent research in this area, but a strong body of evidence shows how the design and build of our homes, schools and public places can prevent crime and antisocial behaviour.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We do not need research to tell us that—it is common sense. Without sounding too much like that most estimable man the Prince of Wales, may I urge the Home Office to do more to encourage new urbanist principles in urban design that are developing on the continent: walkability; high density, as in European cities and as opposed to urban sprawl; and modernist projects? All these ideas of involving the community in their community can only help to defeat crime.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is almost indistinguishable from the Prince of Wales. We have no current plans to conduct research on the impact of modern architecture and design on crime and antisocial behaviour, but we keep an open mind on all ideas. A Home Office-funded project published in 2010 looked at the crime experience of six contemporary housing schemes and its findings led to the development of valuable design principles on creating safe places to live for use by the police, architects and others. Anyone using their common sense when commissioning and designing a building would, obviously, wish to design out crime.

[Mr Speaker]

I have long held the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in the highest esteem, but he will forgive me for saying that I had not previously noticed any particular resemblance.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

16. What steps her Department has taken to ensure that lessons are learnt from recent child sex abuse cases in Rotherham and elsewhere.

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

I have been absolutely clear that what happened in Rotherham was a complete dereliction of duty. We have taken immediate action to protect children in Rotherham, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has announced his intention to exercise his powers to intervene. I have been chairing a series of meetings with Secretary of State colleagues to consider the failures identified in Rotherham and the action we will take to address those issues at a national level. I will publish a report on the outcome of those meetings shortly.

[Mark Pawsey]

In her important and shocking report on what was going on in Rotherham, Professor Alexis Jay spoke about the need to establish teams involving children’s services and education and local authorities, as well as the police. Will the Home Secretary update us on some of the proposals that will be coming forward from the cross-government meetings of Ministers?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am sure he will understand when I say that I cannot go into too much detail at this stage, but the Secretaries of State meetings have brought the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Secretary of State for Education, the Justice Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Attorney-General and others together to look at what is a necessary cross-government approach on these issues. We have been focusing on the issues that Professor Jay highlighted in her report: the failure of local leadership; the culture of inaction and denial in the police and the local council; the failure of local agencies to work together to protect children; and the lack of support for victims. It is exactly in those areas that we will be looking at proposals and bringing those forward shortly.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

“Look North” reported this morning that charities such as Barnardo’s are reporting unprecedented demand following these high-profile scandals, which is putting a real strain on them financially. Is there any help the Government can give such charities in tackling this very important issue?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course, this has not just arisen in relation to what has happened in Rotherham; we have also seen, as a result of the child sexual abuse inquiry that I have announced, larger numbers of people coming forward to a number of organisations dealing with child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation. The Government announced before Christmas that £7 million was being made available for a number of types of organisation dealing with these issues, and that process is now open for bids to be received.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

17. What assessment she has made of the likelihood of terrorist attacks in rural areas of the UK.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

It is clear that the UK faces a serious and enduring threat from terrorism. I cannot comment on intelligence matters or specific threat assessments, but I can confirm that specialist joint police, ambulance and fire teams are in place with the capability to respond to terrorist attacks in the country.

[Mr Turner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many potential targets in rural areas, including reservoirs, sewage plants, communication masts and electrical substations? Rural populations would face enormous difficulties if such sites were attacked. Will he assure me that such infrastructure is included in anti-terrorism planning?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes. We have a longstanding programme in place to ensure that the country’s most critical infrastructure is protected against terrorist threats. I cannot comment on the details, but our priority is to ensure the continuity of essential services such as water, energy and telecommunications, which were referenced by my hon. Friend.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

The Government take the welfare of vulnerable people in the state’s care extremely seriously. Last week, I was glad to see the Home Affairs Committee support our steps to reduce the use of police cells as a place of safety for people with mental health problems. Our reforms helped cut the use of police cells by 22% last year, and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is currently conducting an inspection of the welfare of vulnerable people in custody, which will report shortly.

But the state’s care extends beyond police custody, which is why I have today announced an independent review of the welfare of those in immigration detention to identify whether improvements can be made to safeguard the health and well-being of detainees held in immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities and those being escorted in the UK. Detention is a vital tool, but the well-being of those in our care is always a high priority and we are committed to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.

Finally, concerns have been raised about the exploitation of domestic workers from overseas. I therefore announce an independent review of the visa arrangements for overseas domestic workers, which will be carried out by the barrister, James Ewins, who is an expert in modern slavery issues.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the Home Secretary for her reply. May I draw her attention to the reply that was given a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) in relation to internet-based crime and to the increase in telephone-based crime? In particular, I am talking about those who target elderly and vulnerable people and offer to stop nuisance calls, when in fact they are involved in a scam in which they extort large sums of money in fees and charges. Are the Home Office or the police service running any initiatives to counter that particular problem?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns that many people have about that type of crime. I am pleased to say that we have taken action on cybercrime, and we have set up the national cyber crime unit in the National Crime Agency. Both actions were taken by this Government. The unit has already had some success in looking at those crimes, particularly the ones that involve defrauding elderly people who are taking calls and responding to them. We have seen some success, but of course this is an area in which we clearly have more to do.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

T2. May I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s Serious Crime Bill? Among other measures, it will improve the safety of my constituents on the Isle of Wight and in other coastal communities by giving police and others the powers they need to really go after the Mr Bigs and organised crime gangs, including those that import illegal drugs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Serious Crime Bill, which contains a number of important measures to tackle those Messrs Bigs about whom he talks, including the ability to seize their assets. If we can deprive criminals of their assets, they are much less likely to be able to carry on with their criminal lives.

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

The Home Secretary should have called an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse by Serco staff at Yarl’s Wood 18 months ago, before, and not after, renewing Serco’s contract. Yesterday, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, national lead on counter-terrorism, said that the police face serious increases in pressure as a result of Syria and that

“We certainly need more money”.

Peter Clarke, former national lead on counter-terror, has warned that fighting terrorism depends on a “golden thread” through national, regional and neighbourhood police, yet the scale of cuts means that the thread is being broken. The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that the Home Secretary’s plans mean that 34,000 police jobs and more than 16,000 further police officers will go over the next five years. Does she agree that the police need more resources to tackle terrorism, and if so, why does she want to cut 16,000 more police officers?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that throughout our time in government we have protected CT police funding. She might have missed it, but late last year the Prime Minister announced that £130 million of extra money was being made available to the agencies and police to deal with terrorism.

[Yvette Cooper]

But Peter Clarke is warning about the impact on neighbourhood policing. The Home Secretary will know that online crime is going through the roof and 999 delays have gone up. The terrorist threat has increased, neighbourhood policing is being decimated, and there are fewer traffic police enforcing the rules and more deaths on the roads. On child abuse, in particular, there has been a 33% increase in the number of cases reported to the police, an 11% reduction in the number of cases passed for prosecution and year-long delays in dealing with online cases because the police and NCA do not have the resources and capacity to do the job. Let me ask her again: is this the right time to cut 16,000 police officers? Yes or no?

[Mrs May]

First, on neighbourhood policing, it is absolutely clear from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that forces can successfully manage to balance their books while protecting the front line and delivering reductions in crime. I remind the right hon. Lady once again that there has been a fall in crime of more than a fifth under this Government. The Labour party needs to get its story straight. On the one hand, the right hon. Lady stands up in this House and claims that more resources should be going into the police while, on the other, the shadow Chancellor, whom I think she might know, makes it very clear that under a Labour Government there would continue to be cuts.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

T3. Will the Home Secretary remind the shadow Home Secretary that without a strong economy we cannot have strong policing?

[Mrs May]

I am very pleased to accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. He is absolutely right and, of course, it is this Government’s long-term economic plan that is delivering the strong economy that delivers the public services.

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

T4. I suspected earlier that the Home Secretary would seek to blame somebody else for her cuts, but she is responsible for a reduction in Greater Manchester police’s budget of £134 million with a further £157 million to come out in the next three years. Will she acknowledge that it does not free up police time for officers to parade in one part of the division only to have to travel to another part of the division for their beat? Or is it that her mantra of freeing up police time is precisely what I suspect it is—bluster?

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

If anybody is blustering, I just heard it. At the end of the day, there is a Labour police and crime commissioner and a chief constable who decide where operational police are. There are more police on operations in Manchester today—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Your cuts.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman can say what he likes from a sedentary position, but it is a Labour PCC that is doing it.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T5. My right hon. Friend will be aware that in Harlow we have had more than 100 illegal Traveller encampments over the past year, causing huge amounts of misery for local residents. The chief constable of Essex says that he does not have enough powers to deal with that and cites the human rights of the Travellers. Will my right hon. Friend meet the chief constable and set out what powers there are for him to deal with this problem?

[Mike Penning]

This is a very important issue across our constituencies. I praise my hon. Friend for the work he has done to highlight the massive issues and massive cost of illegal sites. I will meet the chief constable of Essex again, but I, with the local government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), have written to him to highlight the powers that the police have and that they should be using them.

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

T6. The Home Secretary will recall that working towards departure dates was a key strategy in dealing with last year’s passport crisis. My constituent, Mr Reed, applied for his passport this year well within the time scale. When it did not arrive, he contacted my office. We contacted the Passport Office with a week to go and were told that the Passport Office is no longer working to departure dates but has reverted to processing passports on the basis of when they are received, rather than when they are needed. As a result, my constituent lost his holiday. Another summer is coming. Will the Passport Office be using departure dates in an effort to avoid the crisis that we saw last year?

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I am happy to look into the individual case that the hon. Lady highlights. The Passport Office is meeting all its current service standards in relation to renewals, so if a specific problem occurred in that case, we will certainly look into it.

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

T7. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s announcement today of a review of visa arrangements for people coming from overseas to work in people’s homes. Can she provide the House with a few more details about the review, including timings?

[Karen Bradley]

I can give my hon. Friend some further information. The terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Library, so they are available to see. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced, James Ewins, whom those who served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee will recognise as an adviser to that Committee, is carrying out the review. It is important to say that the measures to protect victims of modern slavery apply to all victims of modern slavery, irrespective of their immigration status. There are some people who give the impression that overseas domestic workers do not qualify for support under the modern slavery strategy. That is not the case.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In 2010 the House passed the Equality Act, which required the Department to undertake research into discrimination by caste and descent in the UK. Such discrimination has been proved by the research, but no regulation has yet been introduced and, as I understand it, the Department is consulting for a further two years or more in order to avoid placing regulations before the House. Will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that those regulations will be brought forward to outlaw this form of discrimination in this country?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of discrimination in relation to caste, which is a matter of some concern, I know, to a number of people. The issue is now being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, and further work is indeed being done. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on this matter are passed on to my right hon. Friend.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

There have been significant and difficult changes to the pensions for police officers and they will obviously want to have informed discussions with their families. Is the correct and sufficient advice from people with a knowledge of pensions available to police officers, or does my right hon. Friend think further action could be taken?

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter not only here in the House, but with me privately last week. I am working to ensure that police officers get the right sort of advice not only from the Police Federation, but from our own officials. I will make sure they get that because they need such information when making difficult decisions about the future.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

We know that as internet trading grows, there is a massive growth in online crime and fraud, including by organised criminals. How can the Government say that crime is falling when these crimes are not recorded in the crime survey? When will Ministers start to include them?

[Karen Bradley]

As the hon. Lady knows, fraud has historically been an under-reported crime. Action Fraud is trying to get reporting levels up. I am working closely with Action Fraud, City of London police and others to improve investigation rates and make sure that the victims understand what is happening.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her strong stand against anti-Semitism, but can she tell the House what further action she can take to make sure that the perpetrators are brought to justice for anti-Semitic attacks and any other forms of hate crime?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I am sure that everybody across the House is very clear that we deplore acts of anti-Semitism. I was pleased a few weeks ago to bring together the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of the College of Policing to discuss how they can issue better guidance to ensure that police officers deal with hate crimes and that we see prosecutions being taken forward so that those who are guilty of this terrible crime are properly dealt with.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that one in 20 cardholders in Britain have been victims of plastic fraud and that levels of fraud reported by Action Fraud have gone up by 10% over the past year. She says that she is trying hard to do something. When will she succeed?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady knows that we need to increase the reporting of fraud. The dedicated cheque and plastic crime unit, which is run by the City of London police and the Metropolitan police and works with Financial Fraud Action UK, is doing an enormous amount of work to improve that. Also, given that the UK has significantly higher levels of plastic payment than other parts of the world, we should be very proud of the great advances we have seen, including with chip and pin and contactless payment, which are incredibly safe here in Britain.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Last week the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that the regime governing UK agencies getting information from the US National Security Agency about the private communications of people in the UK was illegal and had been until last December. Will the Home Secretary ensure that any and all data that were held illegally by the security agencies, or any other agencies for which she has responsibility, are now deleted?

[Mrs May]

Last week’s judgment reaffirmed the IPT’s earlier ruling, which found that the current regime governing the intelligence agencies’ external interception and intelligence-sharing regimes are lawful and compliant with the European convention on human rights. Those activities have always been subject to strict safeguards, and the judgment was about the amount of detail about those safeguards that needed to be in the public domain. The IPT has made it clear that no further action is required.

Speaker’s Statement

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised a point of order after business questions last week relating to the interception of communications. The passage in the report of the interception of communications commissioner to which he referred concerns the operation of the statutory regime for the interception of communications and suggested possible additional safeguards for journalistic sources under that regime. That does not on the face of it raise any issue for the House. The House will be aware that the Wilson doctrine, to the effect that Members’ communications will not be subjected to surveillance or interception under that regime, has been reaffirmed by successive Governments. A prospective adjustment of the statutory regime for journalists cannot therefore have any direct implications for the operation of the Wilson doctrine. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the matter and pledged to return to him and to the House with a response, which is what I have done. We will leave it there for now, unless he feels an urgent desire—[Interruption.] He does. Very well.

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

The issue under discussion is the question of the collection of metadata—in other words, data on those from whom we have received calls. It matters particularly with regard to whistleblowers and the like. When my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) asked about that, he was told by the Cabinet Office in terms that metadata were not protected under the Wilson doctrine, so our constituents and whistleblowers are still at risk.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the additional point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, it does not seem to me obviously a matter for the Chair to seek to interpret the Wilson doctrine, beyond reporting to the House, as I have just done, that the prospective adjustment in respect of journalists does not appear to me to constitute any prospective change to the doctrine. I have a sense that he wishes to continue the debate—I say that in good humour and with respect—but I have nothing to add this afternoon. If he wishes to pursue the matter further, he might profitably do so with Ministers, who look all agog and in eager anticipation of the prospect of that dialogue. I doubt that there is anything to which they look forward more.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on tax avoidance and evasion by HSBC.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this question and to the information released today in respect of an HSBC subsidiary’s involvement in facilitating tax evasion during the course of the previous Parliament.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a long-standing approach to tax evasion that is based on collecting the tax and interest due, changing taxpayers’ behaviour to discourage them from evading in future, and enforcing the most appropriate and effective penalties. Overwhelmingly, this means providing disclosure facilities to encourage tax evaders to sort out their affairs, backed by civil penalties to fine them for the offence. This has been the consistent approach under Governments of all parties. This Government have supported HMRC’s approach by increasing investment in its enforcement capacity and by strengthening its powers, including increasing the maximum fines for hiding money in tax havens to 200% of the tax evaded.

This approach has been very successful in tackling tax evasion, whether by plumbers, barristers and medics in the UK or by the wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts. HMRC has collected more than £1.6 billion from 57,000 disclosures as a result of a wide range of UK and international initiatives. Internationally, since 2010, HMRC has brought in about £2 billion in previously unpaid tax as a result of the UK’s agreement with Switzerland on a withholding tax on Swiss bank accounts, and the international Liechtenstein disclosure facility. In a small number of cases, HMRC will institute criminal investigations into serial tax evaders and those who deliberately conceal information from it, but in most cases disclosure and civil fines are the most appropriate and effective intervention. That is how HMRC has approached the receipt of data from leaks and whistleblowers, including the Swiss HSBC data that were shared with the department in May 2010.

Using the civil disclosure approach, HMRC has systematically worked through all the HSBC data that it has received and has brought in more than £135 million in tax, interest and penalties from tax evaders who hid their assets in Swiss HSBC accounts. HMRC received data from about 6,800 entities, and that, after removing duplication, resulted in information on 3,600 businesses and individuals. Of those cases, over 1,000 were challenged and the cases were settled. HMRC believes that the remainder are compliant but continues to monitor their activities.

HMRC is examining whether it has all the same data that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has, and that we have seen reported today, and it will be asking the ICIJ for any data that we have not already been given. HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions that limited the department’s use of it to pursuing offshore tax evasion and prevented HMRC from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, HMRC has not been able to seek prosecution for other potential offences such as money laundering. However, the French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to their fullest.

HMRC’s powers to crack down on international evasion are being further strengthened by the new international common reporting standards, which more than 90 countries have agreed to as an extra tool for closing down the options for tax cheats to pursue this increasingly high-risk practice. This has been as a consequence, in part, of the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the G8. This is further evidence of progress made by this Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I cannot believe that I cannot hear the Minister. Please let him finish.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This is further evidence of progress made by this Government in tackling tax evasion and, indeed, tax avoidance—progress that was sadly lacking under the previous Government.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Financial Secretary’s remarks simply do not go far enough. We need much more detail from him as to what the Government have been up to since they were made aware of this information and why they have apparently failed to act over such serious allegations.

First, when the French authorities passed this information to HMRC, who saw it and what was done with it? Were Ministers informed and what communications did HMRC have with the Treasury and No. 10? If there was no communication, why not, given the seriousness of the issue?

Secondly, what information did the Government seek from Lord Green about the allegations of malpractice at HSBC and his involvement in them prior to his appointment as a trade Minister? The Financial Secretary said this morning that the information was in the public domain before 2010. What information was sought and received? Any failure by this Government to question Stephen Green before his appointment would be an inexplicable and inexcusable abdication of responsibility, and the Government must address that point.

Does the Financial Secretary agree that the minimum to be expected now must be an immediate statement by Lord Green, with a full explanation of his role in these allegations while at HSBC; his knowledge of them while he was a Government Minister; and all communication he has had on these issues with Government Ministers?

Thirdly, at any point during Lord Green’s stint in government, did the Financial Secretary or any other member of the Government discuss allegations of tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC with Lord Green? In 2011, HMRC was open about conducting investigations into the UK individuals on the so-called Falciani list. Can the Financial Secretary give a categorical statement about what discussions have been had between May 2010 and now between HMRC and members of the Government about such investigations?

This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to hear the end of this and I want the shadow Minister to be given the same courtesy as the Financial Secretary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This Government have failed to back Labour in our calls to crack down on tax avoidance, whether on stopping hedge funds avoiding hundreds of millions in tax on shares or on closing the eurobonds loophole, and now it seems that wrongdoing may have been overlooked on their watch. As Richard Brooks, a former HMRC tax inspector, has said, the Treasury and HMRC

“knew that there was a mass of evidence of tax evasion at the heart of HSBC”

in 2011, but they

“simply washed their hands of it.”

[Mr Gauke]

The essence of the hon. Lady’s speech was the accusation that wrongdoing has been overlooked on this Government’s watch, but events between 2005 and 2007 did not take place under our watch—the Labour party was in government between 2005 and 2007. The allegations relate to activity between 2005 and 2007.

The hon. Lady’s first question was on what was done with the information. I almost feel like apologising to the House for going through this information in such excruciating detail. A total of 6,800 cases were looked at and it was discovered that there were a number of duplications within those data: they were not clean data. That left 3,600 and there has been a full investigation of more than 1,000 of them—the remainder appear to have no case to answer—and a settlement has been reached. As a consequence, £135 million has been raised for the Exchequer that would not previously have been raised. If we put that in the context of the very many other measures that this Government have taken to deal with the problem, we will see that it demonstrates a Government willing to address it.

Let me turn to Lord Green. He was a very successful trade Minister and there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in or complicit with tax evasion activities. If we are talking about complicity and asking about what happened on someone’s watch, what about the City Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)? Sadly, he is not in the Chamber today. Indeed, let us look at the failure of the previous Government to address issues of tax evasion and tax avoidance. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am struggling to hear the Minister. I think it is beneficial for the Chamber that we all hear the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

The essence of the charge is that not enough has been done to address tax evasion or tax avoidance, but the reality is that this Government have consistently cleared up the mess that we inherited. It was the case that wealthy people could avoid paying stamp duty land tax—we have sorted that problem. It used to be the case that aggressive tax avoidance schemes were prevalent, meaning that people could sit on the cash for years while cases dragged through the courts—that has now been addressed through accelerated payments. It used to be the case that remuneration could be disguised through loans and other instruments and that no income tax would be paid—we have fixed that, although the Labour party voted against it.

This Government have enabled HMRC to increase yields from £17 billion in 2010 to £26 billion this year, which is dramatic progress. Just as we have dealt with tax avoidance, we are dealing with tax evasion—we are seeing progress on the exchange of information—and that is a very big improvement on everything we inherited.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is this not further proof that Labour’s fundamental changes to banking regulation at the beginning of its period in government did a lot of damage and meant that banks could not be regulated properly—most notably, they led to the collapse of a number of HSBC’s important competitors—and further evidence that Labour Members are blaming this Government for things that went wrong on their watch?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are many issues that Labour Members should apologise for, but the one issue that they have apologised for was their failures in bank regulation, and this is further evidence of that.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that on his watch, as opposed to any other, there are currently about 3,250 people examining benefit fraud while only 300 HMRC people are examining fraud by wealthy tax dodgers, many of whom give a lot of money to the Tory party? Why is there one law for the rich and one for the poor? It is time he answered.

[Mr Gauke]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s numbers are wrong. The biggest department in HMRC deals with enforcement and compliance. He may be referring specifically to the affluent unit or the high net worth unit, both of which are raising substantially more money now than under the previous Government. Again and again, the reality is that HMRC is now more successful in raising money from the wealthy and anyone else who tries to avoid their taxes.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards spent the thick end of 18 months looking into the activities and standards of banks, as well as the abject failure of regulation under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Does my hon. Friend agree that had the system in its report, which resulted in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, been in place, this would not have happened in the first place?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One element of this is that we have to look at the regulation of banks, and there were clearly weaknesses in the system that we inherited. Just as we have addressed weaknesses in the way that tax was collected, we have addressed weaknesses in the way that banks were regulated.

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

Tax evasion is illegal in this country and in Europe. How many prosecutions have resulted from the revelations of tax evasion at HSBC?

[Mr Gauke]

As I outlined in my remarks, the main focus for HMRC has been the use of civil penalties. That approach has been followed consistently under Governments of all colours. There has been one prosecution in respect of this evidence. It is worth pointing out that prosecutions as a whole are on course to increase fivefold in this Parliament.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Successive Governments have incentivised particular investments using tax inducements, only to be surprised when things are taken too far. Will my hon. Friend publish a report that shows the extent to which this debacle was created by tax inducements introduced by the Labour party?

[Mr Gauke]

There clearly have been issues with some tax inducements being used for avoidance purposes. To be fair, this matter relates more to tax evasion. None the less, it is important that legislation is tested and it is important that we now have a general anti-abuse rule, which we did not have in 2010, to ensure that reliefs and exemptions are not exploited in a way that is contrary to Parliament’s intention.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

In March 2012, a protocol was signed between the UK and Swiss Governments, changing the previous tax agreement. It included the provision for a one-off payment to cover past misdeeds and tax rates of up to 41%. Given the revelations from HSBC, is it the Government’s intention to look again at the protocol, or does the Minister believe that it is robust enough for what we are seeing?

[Mr Gauke]

The Swiss deal is on course to bring in £1.2 billion that would not otherwise have been brought in. Since the agreement was signed, we have made much further progress, with 90 countries, including Switzerland, signing up to the automatic exchange of information, which means that the era of bank secrecy is over and that it will not be possible to hide assets in the way that it was in the past. That is a consequence of the UK’s leadership on this front.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

While we are pursuing those who have benefited from the HSBC tax evasion scheme, what is being done to pursue those who designed and offered the scheme in the first place, and what questions are being asked of the auditors of the bank, such as why they do not appear to have blown the whistle on the scheme?

[Mr Gauke]

One challenge in this case is that the behaviour was carried out by a Swiss subsidiary in Switzerland. It is for the prosecuting authorities in this country and HMRC to decide whether any action can be taken against that HSBC entity. To make a wider point, the Government have taken a lot of action to strengthen the powers against those who promote tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, we are implementing reforms to tighten those powers, making it much harder for people to promote tax avoidance schemes.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

To the British people, this looks like one rule for the uber-wealthy and another rule for the rest of us. Will the Minister explain why there has been only one prosecution in five years?

[Mr Gauke]

Part of the issue is that, as I have said, HMRC has consistently used civil penalties as the most cost-effective way of collecting the revenue and changing behaviour. When these cases have been taken to the Crown Prosecution Service, it has taken the view that a successful prosecution would be unlikely without corroborating or additional evidence and just on the basis of the data from the leaks.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The last Government presided over an unsustainable boom in the financial services sector and, at that time, aggressive tax avoidance flourished. What steps has my hon. Friend taken to close the tax loopholes that were left wide open by the last Government?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises a good question, and this Government have closed 42 loopholes. We inherited a tax system in which not enough had been done to tackle tax evasion or avoidance, and we have addressed that over the past four and a half years. That is partly why the yield from HMRC’s activities has risen from £17 billion in 2010 to a forecast £26 billion this year.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that he first received the files on this issue in 2010, and explain why in the past five years he has not seen fit to come to the House and share information about it? Indeed, he would not be here today had he not been dragged here by the Opposition.

[Mr Gauke]

This information about HSBC has been in the public domain since 2007—that is when the leaks occurred. The whole story may have come as a surprise to the hon. Lady, but it should not have done.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is profoundly depressing that there is yet another scandal on the front pages to do with one of our banks, given the importance of a functioning banking system to our whole economy. It is also a bit depressing to watch people with the benefit of hindsight suggesting that they would have acted differently when in government. Will the Minister say how we can work across Parliament and all parties, to ensure a banking system that works for all small and medium-sized businesses that desperately require money to ensure ongoing economic growth?

[Mr Gauke]

I refer back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the work undertaken by the Banking Commission. I hope we have built a consensus around the significant reforms that occurred under this Government, which have put our banking sector on a much firmer footing.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Small businesses, which are the life blood of our economy, often complain to me about the lack of flexibility they receive when dealing with HMRC. How can the Minister justify promoting the former chief executive of a bank that was actively promoting tax evasion and avoidance to Ministers? What sort of message does that send to small businesses and wealth creators in my constituency?

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC has successfully run the time to pay arrangements over a number of years, which has provided support to a large number of small businesses up and down the country. Lord Green was a very good trade Minister—[Interruption.] Yes, “was”, because he is no longer a Minister, which may have escaped the notice of some Opposition Members. He was qualified to perform the role of trade Minister, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in any of these activities.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend clarify the fact that the previous Government introduced stamp duty intermediary relief in autumn 1997, and that the shadow Chancellor, who was then City Minister, extended that relief in 2007—relief that Labour now attacks? Is that a further example of confusion on the Opposition Benches about how to deal with tax avoidance?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. That confusion was followed by the weekend’s confusion whereby countries that do not have a public central register—as opposed to other territories that do not have a public central register—are on a blacklist. Clearly the Labour party desires to say something about tax, but it is a pity that the bar is not set a little higher for it to say something sensible about tax.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The thing about the Prime Minister’s appointment of Stephen Green as trade Minister is that unfortunately the Prime Minister has got form on appointments—we have only to think of Andy Coulson. Somebody comes along from a company that has been up to no good, and the Prime Minister does not ask the important questions; he does not carry out due diligence but just goes, “Oh, you’re rich, you’re powerful. Come on in, no questions asked.” Does the Minister feel any element of shame that instead of tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance, this Government have effectively promoted it by putting it in the Government?

[Mr Gauke]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is pretty desperate. He says we have not dealt with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Look at the record. Look at the way the yield has increased. Look at the rules that have been changed. Look at HMRC’s additional powers. Look at the culture change we are seeing in this country, in terms of tax evasion and tax avoidance. I just regret that 10 years ago there was such a lax attitude to these things. The Government of the time have to accept some responsibility for that.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of the previous Government to act on this matter fits with a pattern of inactivity on the deficit, on banking regulation and, again, on tax avoidance?

[Mr Gauke]

I think that is right. I suspect that the reason why the previous Government had a lack of grip and focus on tax evasion and tax avoidance was that there was simply the view that the public finances were going to be fine whatever, and that they did not really need the money and did not need to strain in this area. That is why there was a lack of progress. I am pleased that we are making that progress now.

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

I do not want to personalise this; I have always rather admired Stephen Green for very many reasons. What I dislike is the culture that this HSBC scandal represents. The ordinary people in my constituency work hard and pay their taxes. They would get into terrible trouble if they tried to get away with anything. The fact is that those like PricewaterhouseCoopers, Grant Thornton and the banks, who have done these dodgy deals for years, have never had to pay.

[Mr Gauke]

When it comes to feeling abhorrence at the culture of those who think that they can not pay their fair share and can avoid or evade their taxes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. It is necessary to take that on—to make changes in the law where necessary and ensure that HMRC has the capability to address these matters. People in businesses should pay the tax that is due under the law.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Labour first talked about introducing a general anti-abuse tax rule in 1997, but in 13 years did absolutely nothing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have now introduced such rules to deter the creation of abusive tax avoidance schemes?

[Mr Gauke]

I can indeed. The previous Government looked at this and said it could not be done. We have looked at it, and have put rules in place. Indeed, we are looking at introducing penalties for breaches of them as well. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

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

The Minister said a couple of times that there was no information or evidence against Lord Green at the time of his appointment. Can the Minister spell out exactly what due diligence was carried out at the time of his appointment?

[Mr Gauke]

On HSBC generally, there are clearly questions that need to be answered about what happened at HSBC between 2005 and 2007. HMRC has been taking action against about 1,000 people who were involved in this matter, where there is evidence that they have broken the UK law. HMRC will continue to take action in the event of any further evidence arising; I make that point about our approach. On Lord Green, what I would say is that he was a successful trade Minister. There is no suggestion, and no regulator has suggested, that he was at fault with regard to what happened with the Swiss subsidiary.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

The Government should be congratulated on the results they have achieved in collecting taxes that had been avoided and evaded because of a lax regime before they came to power. This is really two points. First, should blame be cast on this Government for something that happened, and does need investigating, when the previous Government were in power? Secondly, on the appointment of Lord Green, there was presumably at least the same level of due diligence as there was when the last Labour Prime Minister put him on his close business policy advisory committee.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes two good points. For the good of the public finances, we have taken tough action to deal with tax avoidance and evasion, and we will continue to do so, because that is what the British people expect of us.

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

Despite all the ministerial excuses, is not the truth that these tax cheaters and spivs—disgraceful people—are so connected with the Tory party that this Government will not take any action? They are allies of, and donate large sums to, the Tory party.

[Mr Gauke]

Putting aside the paranoia and conspiracy theories, let us consider the Government’s record and the steps we have taken, time and again, to ensure that those who should pay more in tax do pay more in tax. That is the reality.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This is an artificially generated question, because there is a general election coming up. Everybody in the House is against evasion, which is illegal, and successive Governments have closed loopholes on avoidance. In fact, this Government have been rather good at that. Is this not just a general election question?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is more worldly than I am, perhaps, but he raises an important point. We have tried to do many things to reduce tax avoidance and evasion, but I accept that we have not been able to go back in time and stop it happening before we came to office.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Ten years ago, when the Minister’s party was in opposition, Conservative Members, including the Chancellor, were calling for less, not more, regulation of the banks and the City. Will Lord Green be at the Tory party’s black and white ball tonight for the uber-rich, and will the Minister advise Lord Green, if he has any spare cash, to donate it back to the taxpayer, instead of to the Tory party?

[Mr Gauke]

I think the hon. Gentleman has just made the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) raised in the previous question.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Last week, Bill went missing. This week, it is Ed, who had sole responsibility for these issues in 2007. Why does the Minister think that no substantive action was taken in those years?

[Mr Gauke]

That is a very good question for the shadow Chancellor. It is a pity he is not here today.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Minister said that the information was passed to HMRC under conditions restricting what it could be used for. Will he enlighten the House on what those conditions were and whether Ministers were consulted about the nature of those restrictions?

[Mr Gauke]

The restrictions were essentially that the information could be used only for pursuing tax evasion prosecutions, not for other matters, such as money laundering prosecutions, for example. On the precise arrangements and conditions, it is worth pointing out that the first request for information was made by HMRC in February 2010, under the previous Government. I am not sure what conditions Ministers were consulted on at that point.

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

Like me, small businesses in my constituency paying their taxes get angry when they see big international corporations getting away with avoiding their taxes. Will my hon. Friend update us on the action he is taking to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax to HMRC?

[Mr Gauke]

On multinational companies, I would make three points. First, we are ensuring that HMRC’s large business unit has sufficient resources to monitor large businesses adequately. Secondly, we are leading on international reform through the base erosion and profit shifting project with the OECD. Thirdly, I would highlight the diverted profits tax measure announced at the last autumn statement, which has been consulted on in recent weeks, and for which we hope to legislate in the Finance Bill before the end of the Parliament.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The public cannot understand why the names of these self-confessed tax swindlers are remaining secret. Will the Government publish the list of those with whom HMRC has come to an agreement, so that the public can see it and we can check it against the list of donors to the Tory party?

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC is essentially performing the same process that has been undertaken for many years, including when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in office. It is consistent, for example, with the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, which was agreed by the previous Government, the point being that it is the most effective way of getting the tax, the interest and the penalty; of getting the money into the Exchequer; and of changing behaviour. I make no apology for HMRC pursuing that route as the first line, because it has proven to be effective.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Three years ago, HSBC was fined $2 billion for acting as money launderers for Mexican drug cartels. Those transactions, and those that we are discussing today, both happened before 2010. Is the Financial Secretary confident that the measures we brought in subsequently will stop either case happening again? Has he had a discussion with HSBC regarding continued transgressions of this type and its banking licence?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When it comes to banking licences, politicians should perhaps not be directly involved; we have a regulator for that purpose. Ensuring a change of behaviour in our banks is important. We have all been appalled by this behaviour over the last few hours––for some of us, it has been longer. This occurred some years ago, at the same time as we saw banks acting recklessly in a number of ways. It is really important for the banking sector to get its house in order. We know that the reforms we have undertaken as a Government can play an important role in ensuring that happens.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Let me ask a simple question. Was Lord Green interviewed about these matters by HMRC officials or the Cabinet Secretary at any time?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not aware of whether interviews were held on Lord Green’s appointment, either as a lord or as a business adviser, under the previous Government.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that in the years up to 2010, income tax receipts rose by 81%, while non-oil corporation tax receipts rose by 6%? Does he agree that an industrial-scale tax-avoidance culture arose, fanned by the prawn cocktail offensive, whereas this Government’s actions have helped to close the tax gap?

[Mr Gauke]

As a Government, we believe in low and competitive rates of corporation tax, but we also believe that those taxes should be paid. That is why we have strengthened the capacity of HMRC, why we are introducing the diverted profits tax, and why we are leading the way in international reforms of the corporate tax system.

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

The public are rightly concerned about the City financiers and hedge funds that donate large sums of money to the Conservative party, which is seemingly enriched by the tax avoiding and the dodgy dealings. The Minister says that it all happened on our watch. Why, then, in 2012, when this Government introduced the national loan guarantee scheme, did they not specifically exclude those companies that were based in foreign tax havens?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me address the issue of hedge funds. It was this Government who brought in some reforms to limited liability partnerships, which have resulted in a substantial increase in revenue from those partnerships, many of which are hedge funds.

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

Can my hon. Friend reassure those of my constituents who seek to reduce their tax liability by, for example, investing in individual savings accounts—whether it be through HSBC or anyone else for that matter—that they are doing nothing illegal, and that it is only those seeking to evade tax by deliberately concealing their income, thereby misleading HMRC, who are breaking the law and risking prosecution?

[Mr Gauke]

Tax evasion is a criminal offence, and action will be taken in that regard. I should add that we also take firm action against aggressive, contrived, artificial avoidance. Having an ISA does not fall into that category, which is consistent with what Parliament intended, but when people try to abuse the rules, we will take action.

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

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He has asserted several times today that Lord Green had no knowledge of, or involvement in, these issues as chairman of HSBC. That suggests to me that the Government asked those questions of Lord Green. In the interests of transparency, will the Minister now commit himself to placing in the Library all the information surrounding the questions that I assume have been asked, given his certainty in answering, so that we can be the judge?

[Mr Gauke]

I repeat that, as far as I am aware, no one has come forward with any evidence suggesting that Lord Green was involved in the activities of the Swiss subsidiary about which we have been talking today.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Of course it is right for us to do all that we can to recover taxes that have been either wrongly avoided or illegally evaded, but is it not just as great a scandal that the Labour Government allowed their friends in private equity—the same people to whom they tried to sell Royal Mail and the Post Office—to avoid tax legally by keeping capital gains tax so low that multi-millionaires paid less tax than their cleaners?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. There was a problem with the way in which our system was working, and, as my hon. Friend says, the fact that cleaners paid a higher rate of tax than some people in private equity demonstrates how the last Government went awry.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The Minister spoke about the leadership that the Prime Minister had shown on the issue of tax and transparency, but let us not forget that this was the same Prime Minister who said that he was relaxed about publishing his own tax return, and we are still waiting. Can the Minister update the House on his progress, and success, in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories? How many of them have committed themselves to, or ruled out, a public register?

[Mr Gauke]

We are still putting pressure on overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but all of them have signed up to the automatic exchange of information, which is a substantial breakthrough. I do not agree with the idea of putting all of them on a blacklist when France, Germany and the United States—indeed, 33 out of 34 OECD countries—have still not signed up to a public register. They are signed up, by and large, to a central register, but not yet to publishing it.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the last four years, as a result of tighter regulation and the closing of loopholes, an additional £31 billion has been collected in taxes from large businesses, and that much of it can be used to fund public services or pay down the deficit? Will he confirm that none of that happened under Labour?

[Mr Gauke]

As my hon. Friend says, £31 billion has been raised from large businesses as a consequence of HMRC’s compliance activity. That underlines our determination, and HMRC’s determination, to collect the tax that is due under the law.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister remind the House how much the Chancellor said would be raised by the Swiss tax deal, how much has actually been realised, and why he thinks the Chancellor got his sums so wrong, as he has in relation to so many other issues?

[Mr Gauke]

It was forecast that we would raise about £3 billion. The amount that we have raised so far is just short of £1 billion, and we expect that to rise to £1.2 billion. Other measures that we have introduced have raised more than the forecast amount, and that £1.2 billion would not have been raised had we not entered into the deal.

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

Does the Minister agree that it is Labour Members who have a record of avoidance? They avoid talking about the economy, they avoid talking about immigration, and after today’s debate, in which their disastrous record in government has been exposed, they will not be talking about tax evasion either.

[Mr Gauke]

I can only say that I hope the country can avoid another Labour Government.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The public are rightly disgusted by tax evasion and avoidance, but is not the simple truth of the matter that when we cut through all the bluster from the Labour party, this Government have raised billions of pounds more than the previous Government did in this area, and have collected a huge sum more than Labour ever did?

[Mr Gauke]

I think that is a very good point to end on. Despite all the bluster, the numbers point to the fact that this Government are more successful in dealing with these matters than the previous Government were. It is not about the heat and the noise; it is about delivery, and this Government are delivering.

Social Security and Pensions (Statutory Instruments)

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

16:20

[The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we shall discuss the following motion, on the guaranteed minimum pensions increase:

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

[Steve Webb]

Let me first deal with what is an entirely technical matter that we attend to each year and that I imagine we will not need to dwell on today. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015 provides for contracted-out defined-benefit schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 1.2%.

I should like to turn now to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015—and as we are about to spend nearly £3 billion of taxpayers’ money it is good to see that the Opposition Benches are packed. As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not here to discuss the Welfare Benefits Up-rating 2015 Order, which was made on 14 January. The 1% increases in that order were debated in Parliament during the passage of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013.

Let me begin with the basic state pension. Despite the difficult economic situation, this Government remain committed to protecting those who have worked hard all their lives. This is why we have stood by our triple lock commitment: to uprate the basic state pension by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. This year, as the increase in average earnings and the increase in prices were less than 2.5%, the basic state pension will increase by the full 2.5%; that is twice the increase in prices and four times the increase in earnings, which is the minimum required by law. So the earnings increase is what we are required to do by law, and we are increasing the state pension by four times that amount. Occasionally we have had debates about the triple lock and Labour has queried whether it actually bites. In a year like this, it really bites. There is a substantial increase in the state pension—far more than inflation or the growth in the average wage.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done on this issue. Can he confirm that this approach means the average pensioner will be up to £560 better off during the lifetime of this Government as a result of not using earnings but using this triple lock?

[Steve Webb]

I can, indeed. It is unclear what the previous Government would have done if they had carried on. As far as we know, they would have used the retail prices index until 2012 and then earnings probably from 2012. That is our best guess as to what they would have done, and that would have resulted in a pension of, as my hon. Friend says, more than £10 a week less than we will be paying.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister also confirm the straightforward fact that if the previous arrangement of uprating by RPI had remained in place throughout this Parliament, the state pension would be higher now than the figure in this order before us?

[Steve Webb]

I will come on to the issue of the use of the RPI, because the right hon. Gentleman knows the RPI has fallen into disrepute and no credible Government would have continued with the RPI, so the question does not arise.

The new rate of the state pension will be £115.95 a week for a single person, an increase of £2.85 from last year. We estimate this means the basic state pension will be around 18% of average earnings, and my hon. Friends might be interested to know that, as a share of the national average wage, that is the highest rate of state pension for over two decades. Thanks to the coalition Government’s commitment to the triple lock, a person on a full basic state pension will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said, receive around £560 more in 2015-16 than if the basic state pension had been uprated only by earnings during this Parliament. That commitment means that, since coming into office, this coalition has increased the basic state pension by about £950 a year.

The triple lock applies to the basic state pension, and the question is: what should we do for the poorest pensioners on pension credit? Under the law left to us by the previous Government, we are required to uprate pension credit only in line with earnings. We could therefore have done the legal minimum and put the pension credit up by about 0.6%. However, we thought that that was too little for the poorest pensioners. We wanted to ensure that the very poorest pensioners, those who are dependent exclusively on the guaranteed credit, would benefit in full from the triple lock.

Each year, the standard minimum guarantee must be increased only in line with earnings, which would have equated to 0.6%, but to ensure that the poorest pensioners benefited from the full cash value of the increase in the basic state pension, we decided to increase the value of the standard minimum guarantee by 1.9%, so that single people would receive an increase of £2.85 a week and couples would receive an increase of £4.35 a week. Consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay for this above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee have been found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income may see less of an increase.

This year, the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—and the other second pensions will rise by 1.2%. Labour froze SERPS pensions in 2010, but this will be the fifth year in a row that the coalition has uprated SERPS by the full value of the consumer prices index.

This year, the coalition will continue to ensure that those people who face additional costs because of their disability, and who may have less opportunity to increase their income through paid employment, will see their benefits increase by the full value of the CPI. So disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carers allowance, incapacity benefit and personal independence payment will all rise by 1.2 % from April 2015. In addition, those disability-related and carer premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits will also rise by 1.2%, as will the employment and support allowance support group rate and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. Pensioner premiums paid with working-age benefits will increase in line with pension credit.

We have been debating the use of the CPI on a more or less annual basis for the past four years. When we first switched to using the CPI, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) responded to the debate. He rather inventively accused us of being “ideologically driven” in our switch to the consumer prices index from the retail prices index. The choice of a price index for the uprating of benefits is not quite up there alongside the great battle between communism and capitalism, is it? At the time, however, he said:

“Changing permanently from RPI to CPI, other than in this year, and keeping things that way even after the deficit is long gone, is plainly not a deficit reduction measure—it is ideologically driven, and the Opposition do not support it.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1182.]

Since then, there has been a great deal of analysis of the suitability of different price indices, and his view that we should somehow clear the deficit—I do not know when, under his plan—and then go back to the good old RPI is no longer credible. I hope that he will set out his position on uprating when he responds.

The right hon. Gentleman is sceptical of my views on these matters—he hides it well, but he probably is—so I want to bring forward two witnesses. My first witness is Tim Harford, who presents the BBC’s statistics programme “More or Less”.

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

Very good!

[Steve Webb]

I know that my hon. Friend listens to nothing other than podcasts of “More or Less”. When Tim Harford was interviewed on the “Today” programme recently, he was asked what his favourite statistic was. The nation waited, agog to hear his reply. He said it was the CPI. So when the BBC’s go-to guy for statistical rigour and reliability was asked to choose from a multiplicity of official statistics, he homed in on the CPI as the epitome of a good statistic. We therefore make no apology for using it.

The national statistician, Sir Andrew Dilnot, commissioned Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to carry out a review of price indices. This year, we had four to choose from: RPI, RPIJ, CPIH and CPI. We have opted for CPI. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply that we should use RPI, perhaps because it is bigger, but it is interesting to note what Paul Johnson said about RPI, to which the Opposition are still wedded—or at least they were, the last time I heard. Paul Johnson’s recommendation was:

“ONS and the UK Statistics Authority should re-state its position that the RPI is a flawed statistical measure of inflation which should not be used for new purposes”.

He went on to state:

“Government and regulators should work towards ending the use of the RPI as soon as practicable.”

He made it absolutely clear that RPI was flawed and that we should restate that fact, which I am happy to do. He thought that RPIJ should probably be discontinued and that CPIH needed some methodological work to get it right. So CPI is the only credible index available to us. If the right hon. Gentleman implies in his response that we should use something else, I would like to know his basis. We believe the price index should be chosen on the basis not of whether it is high or low, but whether it is accurate. That has been the policy of this Government.

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

Does the Minister agree that through these tough times it is important that carers and people with disabilities are given the maximum—the CPI—increase to their benefits? Is that not the fair thing to do?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right; when we made difficult decisions about the general level of uprating, we made sure that the benefits for people with disabilities—the disability living allowance, personal independence payment and so on—were excluded from the 1% cap, and they will get 1.2% next April. It is worth saying, although I have not referred to it yet, that we base our April uprating on the previous September’s index, which was 1.2%. She will know that since then inflation has tumbled, with it being 0.5% in the latest figures published. I do not have a crystal ball and I have not seen the figures that will be published next week, but some are speculating that inflation could be closer to zero or even negative. In that context, making sure that people on disability benefits get last year’s inflation rate will, we hope, given that petrol and food prices are now falling, improve their real standard of living. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.

At a time when the nation’s finances remain under pressure, this Government will be spending an extra £2.5 billion in 2015-16; continuing to help support those who are not currently in work by increasing the main rates of working age benefits by 1%, and ensuring that pensions, and benefits designed to help with the additional costs of disability, are protected against the cost of living. Let me give the breakdown: about £2 billion more on state pensions, including an above-inflation increase for the basic state pension; £300 million more on disabled people and their carers; and nearly £200 million more on people unable to work because of sickness or unemployment.

In these orders, we continue to maintain our commitment to the triple lock—I would like that to be written into the law of the land in the new Parliament—meaning the basic state pension will be at its highest level as a percentage of average earnings for two decades; we continue to protect our poorest pensioners with an over-indexation of the standard minimum guarantee, so they too will feel the benefit of the triple lock; and we continue to protect the benefits that reflect the additional costs that disabled people face. On that basis, I commend these orders to the House.

16:32

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation and confirm that I do not plan to express concerns about the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015. I do, however, wish to comment on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015, on which he spent most of his time.

As we noted last year, this is a rather thinner debate than the corresponding ones prior to 2014. Much of what we used to consider in these debates is now covered by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013, which imposed a 1% uprating for this year, and so is outside the scope of these orders. Uprating this year is notable for one element at least: for the first time since its introduction, the so-called “triple lock”, which the Minister referred to on a number of occasions, has delivered a higher rise in the state pension than the formula in use up to 2010 would have done.

The term “triple lock” was intended to convey the impression of great generosity towards pensioners, but it is worth just reflecting again on the history of its use. In its first year it was announced but not actually used, because it would have delivered a pension rise that was too small and so the Minister overrode it and adopted RPI. He told us a few minutes ago that he did not think much of RPI, but he used it in the first year in place of the triple lock, because the triple lock would have delivered a small rise. He was sensible to override the triple lock, because clearly it would have been unwise to use it in that first year. In the following three years, the triple lock was applied and in each year it delivered a pension increase that was lower than the increase that would have been delivered under the formula in use previously—uprating in line with the increase in RPI.

This year, for the first time, the increase will be slightly greater than would have been delivered under the previous formula. The increase in this order is 2.5%—the minimum allowed under the current arrangements—whereas the increase in RPI is slightly lower at 2.3%. It remains the case that the basic state pension for 2015-16 would be higher than the figure in the order, under paragraph 4(3)(b), if the formula in use before the general election had been applied each year since then, instead of the triple lock. Contrary to the impression that is frequently given, the triple lock has in fact delivered a lower state pension in each year that it has been applied than the previous arrangement would have done. We are often told that the triple lock is this extraordinarily generous arrangement, when, in fact, it is less generous and delivers less to pensioners than the previous arrangement would have done.

[Steve Webb]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, let me say that we are paying a pension increase this April that is four times the rate of earnings growth and double the rate of headline inflation. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that that is not enough?

[Stephen Timms]

I am merely pointing out to the Minister that the increase is 0.2 percentage points higher than the increase in the RPI. Before the last election, the state pension was raised in line with the RPI. If that arrangement had continued each year since 2010, the state pension would be higher for the coming year than the figure in the order in front of us. I simply think that, in listening to his frequent protestations about how generous the Government have been to pensioners, the House should be aware that in every single year since 2010 the level of the state pension is lower than it would have been if the previous arrangement had stayed in place—except for the first year when they matched what the arrangement would have been before the election. That is surprising, especially in the light of the fact that Ministers keep on telling us about their generosity towards pensioners.

As well as the state pension, the order contains uprating details for universal credit. Those are currently largely of academic interest, because so few people are in receipt of universal credit. The Government announced in November 2011 that a million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014. That was an absurd boast, as we pointed out at the time. The Government have consistently failed to grasp the scale of what would be required to implement universal credit. The latest figure for universal credit claimants is 27,000. At the present glacial rate of progress, it will be 1,571 years before the transition to universal credit is complete.

In 2011, Ministers said that transition to universal credit would be complete by 2017, a date that was then six years ahead. Now we are told that the transition to universal credit will be complete by 2021 at the earliest, which is six years away. Expected completion has slipped by four years in four years. The National Audit Office reports that £344 million had been invested in universal credit IT up to 31 October 2014, but that the value of the assets created by that date was £125 million—little more than a third of the sum invested. Waste on such a large scale reflects just how much trouble this project is now in, and the problems continue. Last October, the Department predicted that there would be 100,000 people claiming universal credit by May of this year. I recently tabled a written question to inquire whether Ministers still thought that that would be achieved. The Minister for Disabled People, whom I am delighted to see in his place, answered the question on 26 January. He said:

“The latest forecast agreed with OBR still rounds to 0.1 million cases”.

So the figure has clearly already slipped again, and that is only since October.

This debate is the last of its kind before the election, so it gives us an opportunity to reflect on the cumulative impact of the Government's changes to benefits in this order and the previous ones. That task has been greatly assisted by the publication last month of the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies—the former employer of the Minister for Pensions—on “The effect of the coalition's tax and benefit changes on household incomes and work incentives.” It is a very revealing analysis. Let me quote the opening couple of sentences, which say:

“Tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition have reduced household incomes by £1,127 a year or 3.3% on average...These involve an average loss to households of £489 per year, comprising an average gain of £321 a year from cuts to direct taxes, an average loss of £333 a year from increases in indirect taxes and a £477 a year average loss from benefit cuts.”

Even the gain through direct taxes is outweighed by the loss through indirect taxes, never mind the bigger loss from benefit cuts as a result of this order and its predecessors.

The report goes on to state:

“Low-income working-age households have lost the most as a percentage of their income from tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition…Middle-income working-age households without children have gained the most”.

That is what the Government have achieved. Low-income households have lost and middle-income households have gained. That is not what the Minister and his hon. Friends used to argue for when they were in opposition, but it is what they have delivered in office.

The IFS found that households with children have been hit hardest by tax and benefit changes. The poorest households with children have lost more than 6% of their incomes and those without children in the middle of the income distribution have seen their incomes rise as a result of tax and benefit changes, as they have benefited from personal allowance increases and have not been affected by social security changes such as those to tax credits. Families out of work or with only one parent in work lost almost £2,000 a year as a result of the changes, while families with both parents in work lost between £1,000 and £1,500 a year.

The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), published new analysis from the House of Commons Library last week that shows that five more years of failure to make work pay of the kind we have seen in the past five years, with wages today on average £1,600 less in real terms than at the general election, and wages falling short of expectations to the same extent in the next Parliament as they have in this, would mean another £10 billion in social security spending on top of the figure already projected.

The Government’s own Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, in its second annual assessment of progress towards the 2020 child poverty targets, was scathing. It states:

“The impact of welfare cuts and entrenched low pay will bite between now and 2020. Poverty is set to rise, not fall. We share the view of those experts who predict that 2020 will mark not the eradication of child poverty but the end of the first decade in recent history in which absolute child poverty increased…We have come to the reluctant conclusion that, without radical changes to the tax and benefit system to boost the incomes of poor families, there is no realistic hope of the statutory child poverty targets being met in 2020.”

The Minister served, as I did, on the Public Bill Committee on the Child Poverty Act 2010. He argued then that the targets should be more demanding, but his legacy, and that of his colleagues, will be that there is no realistic hope of achieving those targets by 2020.

Should we be elected in May, our approach will be different. We will balance the books and get the national debt falling in a fair way. We also want the Office for Budget Responsibility to monitor and report on the Government’s progress in reducing child poverty. That is something that the OBR should do. We plan to restrict the growth of benefit spending through stronger, more balanced economic growth and more good jobs paying decent wages. We will tackle low pay and insecurity, raise the minimum wage and improve its enforcement, tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and expand free child care for working parents. We will incentivise payment of the living wage by employers by offering a 12-month tax break employers who raise their employees’ wages to that level. We will introduce our compulsory jobs guarantee to get more young and long-term unemployed people off benefits and into work.

We will reform the banks and end the dither on big decisions, such as airport expansion, with an independent infrastructure commission, and we will back British firms by cutting business rates for small firms and unashamedly arguing for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union. We have a radical plan for spreading power and prosperity across the country, including giving England’s city and county regions more power over their public transport networks and devolving £30 billion-worth of funding over five years to the English regions. We will tackle the housing crisis with a commitment to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020.

We could have recognised the case for a temporary use of CPI for benefit uprating as an element of a balanced programme of deficit reduction. We do not, though, support the Government’s decision to adopt CPI permanently. We do support the increase in the state pension in line with the triple lock, and as voting against this measure would have the effect of delivering no increase at all, I will not be asking my hon. Friends to vote against the orders.

When we look at the impact on poverty and on middle income households of the policies that have been adopted over the past five years, it is clear that it is urgently time for a change.

16:46

[Steve Webb]

With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will not be asking his hon. Friends to vote against the orders because he has sent them all home, as far as I can tell.

Let me try to deal with a few of the points that were raised. There were lots of comparisons between the rate we are paying and what would otherwise have happened, so to be clear about the £560 statistic, the comparison is as follows: the basic state pension—the £520 comparison—is the triple lock against earnings. That is what would have happened, compared with uprating in line with earnings, but there are several different benchmarks.

On the state pension, we cannot have these debates without refreshing our memory. One of the reasons that we have the triple lock and that 2.5% floor is that the Opposition, when in government, once raised the pension by a paltry 75p. They were so embarrassed by that that they had to have a £5 increase the next year. We do not think that is good policy, so we say that there should be a worthwhile increase each year, which is where the triple lock comes in.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the benchmark is lower than it would have been if we had linked the pension to an index of inflation which the Office for National Statistics report says is discredited, so why is that an interesting comparison? He says that the Labour party rejects the move to CPI, but presumably he is not committing to RPI as he is not allowed to make any spending commitments because the shadow Chancellor will not let him. “Vacuous posturing” is a rude phrase and I would not use it. The Opposition do not like what we are doing, but to imply that in a year when we are increasing the benefit by four times the average wage and twice the rate of inflation that that is still not enough is extraordinary.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to stand up and say, “We’d pay a higher pension,” fine. He is entitled to say that, but he has not said that Labour would pay a higher pension. He wants us to think that, but there is no money to pay a higher pension. He simply wants to imply that Labour would do so. He says that the Opposition reject CPI as the main measure, but he has not told us what it would be. How can people vote for the Labour party in anticipation of what it would do on the pension when it has not said what it would do on the pension? I hope that before the election Labour say what it would do. There was an opportunity to do so this afternoon and the right hon. Gentleman failed to take it.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of universal credit, a matter which is regularly debated in the House. He referred to the current rate of progress and said that it will go on for ever. He understands the importance of an accelerating process—the need to get a benefit right and to start with a limited group before applying it to a broader group, and that is exactly what has been happening with universal credit. It is worth saying that our projections for the numbers on universal credit are affected to some extent by the jobs revolution that is going on. As fewer people are unemployed, fewer people will be within the scope of universal credit. Every time we look at the numbers, falling unemployment is one of the factors that reduce the number of people on universal credit.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the IFS report. It was quite candid about a number of limitations. For example, it acknowledged that the figures it uses assume that everybody takes up their benefits, which we know is not the case, so that is an unrealistic assumption. Crucially, the report does not include spending on public services. We know that the poorest 20% of households get five times as much value in kind from public spending as they contribute in tax, so the fact that we have ring-fenced the key public services, such as health and schools, is of huge benefit to those at the bottom of the pile, but that is not something that the report takes into account.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned work incentives. The IFS report states:

“By cutting benefits for non-working families and increasing the personal allowance, the coalition has significantly strengthened average financial incentives to work for most groups.”

He says that there is a challenge, and of course there has been over the past four or five years. On one hand the Opposition say that we have not cut the deficit enough, but on the other hand they have voted against practically every measure we have brought forward to tackle it.

[Stephen Timms]

indicated dissent.

[Steve Webb]

The Opposition voted against the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which made the principal changes necessary for reducing the deficit. They recognise that, had they been in office, there would have been substantial cuts in public spending, and no doubt that would have included social security, which is one of the biggest single areas of public spending, but they have had the luxury of never having to say where the cuts would have been made. The right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that, had his party been in office, there would have been significant reductions in spending on social security, so he cannot compare the situation with some blank sheet of paper against some benign economic backdrop. In the last year of the previous Labour Government we saw record borrowing—£150 billion, which is an extraordinary amount of money—so the idea that they could somehow have closed the deficit without having any impact on people’s living standards is extraordinary and unrealistic.

Let us be absolutely clear about the comparison figures. On the issue of the level of the pension, compared with what it might have been, £560 is the key figure we should be using. What we have done through the triple lock, and through each successive measure, means that the pension is higher than it would have been under the policy that the Labour party told us it would implement—RPI to 2012 on earnings, which was in its manifesto—and higher than it would have been had we gone for earnings throughout. Obviously, the figures depend on which baseline one assumes. The idea that the Labour party, had it been in office, would have carried on with RPI, ignoring the statisticians telling them that it should not be used and ignoring the fiscal position, is simply implausible, because it is not a relevant benchmark.

These regulations are important because they pave the way for the next step in our efforts to restore the state pension to where it should have been—a decent amount that provides security and dignity for people in old age. What matters is what people get in retirement, relative to what they used to earn, and on that measure the state pension as a share of the national average wage, and the pension as a result of these regulations, will be at their highest level for more than two decades. That is something of which this Government can be proud. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Pensions

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Steve Webb.)

Social Security (Statutory Instruments)

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

16:53

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we shall take the following motion, on pneumoconiosis:

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

[Mr Harper]

I am sorry that the names of these regulations are not very catchy, but they are important none the less. I confirm that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The two schemes stand apart from the main social security uprating procedure, and there is no legislative requirement to review the level of payment each year. However, I am happy to increase the amounts payable for 2015 by the consumer prices index—that is, 1.2% as at September 2014, which is the same rate being applied to some social security disability benefits and industrial injuries disablement benefit. I was here for the previous debate when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions clearly set out why CPI, rather than the discredited retail prices index, is the right measure by which to increase these benefits. I do not propose to detain the House by repeating his very clear and detailed explanation.

The Government recognise that people suffering from diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos or one of a number of other listed agents may not be able to bring a successful claim for civil damages, partly due to the time lag between exposure and the onset of the disease, which could be as long as 40 years. As well as compensating people who cannot make civil claims, these two schemes fulfil an important role by ensuring that most sufferers receive compensation while they can still benefit from it.

The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 provides a lump sum compensation payment to those who suffer from one of five dust-related respiratory diseases, who are unable to claim damages from employers who have gone out of business, and who have not brought any action against others for damages. The 2008 scheme provides compensation to people who contracted mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation for that disease under the ’79 Act, perhaps because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme means that payments can be made quickly to mesothelioma sufferers at their time of greatest need.

Under both schemes, a claim can be made by a dependant if the sufferer has died before being able to make a claim. Payment levels under the ’79 Act scheme are mainly based on the level of the disablement assessment and the age of the sufferer at the time the disease is diagnosed. The highest amounts are paid to those diagnosed at an early age and with the highest level of disablement. All payments for mesothelioma under the ’79 Act scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate—the highest rate of payment. Similarly, all payments under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate and based on age, again with the highest payments going to the younger sufferers. In the last full year, April 2013 to March 2014, over 3,700 payments were made in respect of both schemes, totalling over £54 million.

These regulations increase the levels of support through the Government compensation schemes. I am sure we all agree that while no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by mesothelioma, those who are suffering rightly deserve some form of monetary compensation. I commend the regulations to the House.

16:57

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

I thank the Minister for his remarks. Labour Members welcome the uprating by 1.2% of payments made under these two important schemes. As he said, there is no requirement for those payments to be uprated, but it is surely right, at the very least, that those who receive awards under the schemes should see them rise in line with increases to social security disablement benefits.

As things stand, the uprating of the payments has to be confirmed by a Minister bringing forward legislation in the House in each year that uprating takes place. When the regulations were considered last year in the Delegated Legislation Committee that met on 24 March, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) suggested that the awards should be put on a statutory footing. The then Minister for disabled people, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said that the Government were actively reviewing the way in which uprating could be done in future. What consideration have the Government given to that approach since then?

For a number of years, when uprating regulations have been debated, the main item of discussion has been the differential treatment of dependants and sufferers under the schemes. Dependants receive lower awards than sufferers in three ways. First, the cut-off age for dependants to be in receipt of an award under these schemes is 67, compared with 77 for in-life claims. Secondly, some in-life claimants can receive a 10% enhancement under the 1979 scheme, although not the 2008 scheme. Thirdly, awards to sufferers are in any event set at a higher level than those made to dependants.

Those anomalies have long concerned hon. Members, and furthermore they are at odds with the treatment of civil mesothelioma claims for compensation in the courts, where dependants actually receive higher awards. As hon. Members will appreciate, the speed and ferocity of these terrible diseases means that differentials can operate particularly harshly. Some sufferers, for example, may feel under pressure to rush through a claim to ensure that the maximum amount can be secured for their loved ones—a truly distressing experience when the life that remains to them is so short—while others may simply be too sick to claim at all before they die, and some may not be diagnosed while they are alive.

In 2010, my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton took steps to eliminate the difference in treatment and began work towards equalising payments for dependants and sufferers. There has been no further progress, however, in narrowing the gap since then. I did not hear the Minister say anything about that, and it appears that it has once again been overlooked.

On 7 March 2013, when these schemes were considered by the Delegated Legislation Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), recognised the wish to equalise payments for dependants and for sufferers and said that the Government were keeping the issue under active review, but at that time he blamed the economic situation for lack of progress since 2010. What further consideration have the Government given to moving towards equalisation, and what sort of economic performance do they believe would create the conditions for reducing the differential?

My understanding—I think this was confirmed by the Minister, although I may have misunderstood him—is that the vast majority of awards are made to sufferers and only a small number to dependants, so what estimate has he made of the cost of full or partial equalisation between the two schemes? How much has been recovered from civil compensation compared with the cost of the schemes, and is there any scope this year to fund some of the cost of equalisation from the civil compensation recoveries?

These matters have been raised each year we have debated the regulations, and I hope the Minister will at the very least be able to assure the House that they are not dropping off the radar. They are of deep importance to sufferers and to their families.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead told us last year in Committee that the Health and Safety Executive would launch a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos and that there would be a full evaluation of that campaign’s effectiveness. Everyone knows the importance of repeatedly reminding people of the threat that asbestos poses—even today when so much is understood about its dangers—and how, in so many industrial and other settings, people continue to be at risk and exposed to it. Will the Minister update us on the progress of the HSE campaign and tell us what formal evaluation has been or will be carried out?

We certainly do not object to the uprating announcements that the Minister has made, but I hope he will be able to say something about the Government’s intentions in relation to becoming more generous to sufferers of some of the most terrible diseases that people can die of—diseases that are almost invariably contracted through no fault of the sufferer him or herself. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:03

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mesothelioma is a disease that affects far too many of my constituents. In fact, numerous studies show that some parts of my constituency have the highest percentage of asbestos-related disease per head of population in the UK by a considerable measure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green): of course, we welcome the uprating, but it is still some way from the compensation levels that people suffering from this awful disease should receive and deserve to receive.

I want to mention the Clydebank Asbestos Group in my constituency. While the Prime Minister faffs around with his big society project, its members just get on with helping their fellow Bankies and people across Scotland who have been diagnosed with this terrible disease. The Mesothelioma Act 2014 was very welcome—it was overdue—and it obviously means that many people can access compensation that they would not otherwise have had.

It is not acceptable that those responsible for poor working conditions or for exposing employees, tenants and others to asbestos can shirk their responsibility and live their lives without consequences, while too many of our constituents have succumbed to this terrible disease or have watched their loved ones die. I suspect that if we looked at the uprating of the payments compared with the profits of the insurance industry over the past year, we would see a significant difference, and that makes the case for making compensation levels far higher than those set thus far.

There is still a serious anomaly for veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma. It was brought to the Government’s attention by the Royal British Legion, as well as by me and other hon. Members some five months ago. It is a clear breach of the armed forces covenant because veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma are receiving only a fraction of the compensation paid to civilians—in some cases, up to £100,000 less—which is clearly unacceptable. I appreciate that this is an issue for both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence, but five months ago we were told that the matter would be looked at urgently and that there would be action. Will the Minister discuss that with his colleagues in the MOD as a matter of urgency?

17:07

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister’s speech, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to say a few words on this incredibly important matter.

I represent Chatham, where the former dockyard was involved in ship lagging for many years—centuries in fact—so the issue of mesothelioma is very dear to my heart and to those of my constituents. Chatham is one of the UK hot spots for mesothelioma, and for that reason I have been very passionate about the issue for many years, including before I entered the House.

Today’s announcement of the uprating of benefits for mesothelioma claims is obviously very welcome. It is fair to say that the Government have made great progress on compensating those who could not trace their insurer in the past. I know that that scheme is different from the one we are discussing now, but compensation and benefits for mesothelioma quite often get mixed up into one big pot, and people sometimes find it very difficult to navigate their way around the various schemes available. I appreciate the fact that the Government have made great progress in ensuring that people not subject to this scheme can find a way to get the compensation they are owed if they cannot trace their insurer, although some people who claimed benefits for mesothelioma but were then successful in the Government’s other scheme have lost 100% of the compensation to receive only 80% in return.

I want to touch on the points made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about research and other establishments. The research still has some way to go, and people are not necessarily coming forward to take advantage of existing research bursaries. I recently visited the university of Greenwich, which has a base on the Medway campus. It is doing great work on trying to identify ways to break the link in the chemical structures that form mesothelioma. As well as having a fantastic re-acquaintance with the chemistry I learned at school and learning what double bonding was, I was told of some interesting research that it had done into the number of research papers on mesothelioma. It found that in one year, there had been only 15 papers across the entire world, compared with thousands and thousands on other cancers. We clearly have a long way to go.

Traditionally, asbestos conditions, particularly mesothelioma, have been linked with industrial employment. We are now seeing an increase in the number of people from other sectors, particularly the teaching profession, who are becoming the victims of mesothelioma. Something like 122 former teachers died of mesothelioma last year.

It is important that people who are getting this incredibly painful cancer, and who will die very quickly as a consequence, are getting the money that they deserve. Although we have had long discussions about dependants—I note that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston raised this matter in her speech—there is still a long way to go before we give mesothelioma victims adequate compensation and the benefits that they deserve.

I welcome the uprating today. It is an incredibly important step forward. I am pleased that there will be no Division, because this is a sensible thing to do for those who get this horrible disease. There is so much more that we need to continue to discuss in this Chamber and elsewhere to ensure that people who get this horrible cancer, who will die quickly and painfully, are given the right amount of money and the compensation that they deserve, and to ensure that this Government and future Governments continue to support research into this incredibly important area.

17:11

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I, too, apologise for missing the start of the debate? I was taken by surprise by the starting time.

I wholeheartedly endorse what has been said by Members on both sides of the Chamber. This is an important step forward, but it is not the last word on the matter. Mesothelioma victims and those who represent them have struggled for years to get justice. They were disappointed when this Government chose to cap payouts at 80%. Nevertheless, it is progress. We have seen an all too slow but steady improvement from the days of the last Labour Government, when I was pleased to play a small part in setting up the 2008 scheme at the Department for Work and Pensions.

Progress has been made since then, but let us not forget that this House and this country owe a debt of gratitude and responsibility to those people and their families, because they gave their lives to national service in shipyards across our country to build the ships that kept us safe. Through no fault of their own, they put themselves in the care of employers who exposed them to this lethal, horrific disease from which they are still suffering. The country still has a duty of care to those sufferers, and their struggle for overall justice will go on.

17:13

[Mr Harper]

I will try to respond to all the questions that have been asked.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), asked about the progress that has been made to change the statutory position on uprating. That remains under review, but the House can see the Government’s view clearly from the fact that I am bringing forward the orders to increase the payments by the rate of CPI. As hon. Members have said, that reflects the importance of uprating the amount in line with inflation.

The shadow Minister and one or two other Members referred to the balance between the compensation that is paid to sufferers of the disease and that which is paid to their dependants. The main intention of the schemes was to ensure that financial support went to the people suffering from those diseases. They were set up as they were, with no fault having to be produced and a focus on the speed with which payments were made, to ensure that the support could go to the sufferer of the disease while they were still in a position to benefit from financial compensation.

When the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 was debated in the House—the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) referred to his part in that—I was a shadow Minister and the Bill had the full support of the Conservative Opposition. One issue was about ensuring that we were speedy in providing compensation, given the small gap between when someone is diagnosed with mesothelioma and, sadly, their inevitable death. We got compensation to people while they were still able to—I am not sure “enjoy” is the right word, but to benefit from it to the extent that that was possible.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston is right to say that most payments are made to sufferers rather than dependants: in 2013-14, 3,410 payments were made to sufferers and 360 to dependents. As my predecessor rightly said in the debate last year, the case for the equalisation of those payments was kept under review, and our most recent assessment is that it would cost a further £2 million a year. It is worth putting on record that in the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the 2008 schemes, payments substantially outweigh the money received from compensation recovery. There is no money sitting around to make those payments. The Government paid out more than £54 million of taxpayers’ money, and recovered just under £26 million. The two schemes together cost the taxpayer nearly £29 million, and in the current financial position one has to make difficult choices about funding these schemes. They are already costing £29 million, and it would cost a further £2 million to make those changes. However, we will keep the position under review.

The hon. Lady referred to what the Health and Safety Executive is doing to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos. I am familiar with that because I launched the current £1.13 million awareness campaign last October, which was particularly aimed at helping at-risk workers recognise that asbestos was relevant to them and their work. It encouraged them to seek reliable information about how they can protect themselves, and encourage and enable safer working with asbestos through behavioural change.

On the day we launched that campaign I went to a large company that sells products to small traders, who are often at risk when they carry out that work. We used information packs and information that small traders could use and access on their smartphones to answer questions about the type of properties they were working in and the risks they may face, and those I spoke to found that helpful. That campaign is due to end in March, and a fuller valuation of it will be undertaken before any decision is made about a further campaign in the next financial year. The HSE and those in the various trades that are affected by this issue take it very seriously. I was encouraged to see that there is a fair degree of knowledge about it, although not as much as one would hope, given the serious health consequences of not taking the issue seriously.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) made a point that was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which was that sufferers of this disease are not evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. They reflect industrial work patterns and are not evenly spread, and some Members who have spoken today will obviously have a larger number of constituents who are affected.

The hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire and for Barrow and Furness also referred to the new scheme that was set up last year. That is not what we are debating now, but in case hon. Members are not already aware—I am sure they are—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) has secured a debate on that issue this Wednesday in Westminster Hall at 9.30 am. I will be responding on behalf of the Government and will deal with any questions that hon. Members may have.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire raised an issue concerning the armed forces. If she will forgive me, I will take that away and raise it with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I am not quite sure what the answer will be, but I suspect that the most sensible way to progress is for either me or a Defence Minister to write to the hon. Lady and to put a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library. I have no doubt that she will be assiduous in pursuing us if that does not happen on a timely basis, or if she is not satisfied with the response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to the increasing incidence of the disease. There is a very long period between people being exposed to asbestos and being diagnosed and, sadly, dying from the disease. The latest available information suggests that the number of deaths will continue to increase and peak at about 2,500 in 2018, but will then start to fall, reflecting a reduction in asbestos exposure following its peak use in the 1960s and 1970s. The research she mentions is clearly important. If there are bursaries out there, it is obviously helpful if people take them up. More research by some of our best scientists would clearly be welcome to see if there is anything that can be done, once people have been exposed to asbestos, to stop the development of this dreadful disease.

I think that that deals with all the questions raised by Members on both sides of the House. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.



Social Security

Resolved,

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.— (Mr Harper.)

Business without Debate

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure

That the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure (HC 914), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Canon Sir Tony Baldry.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Ecclesiastical Property Measure

That the Ecclesiastical Property Measure (HC 915), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Canon Sir Tony Baldry.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Church of England (Pensions) (Amendment) Measure

That the Church of England (Pensions) (Amendment) Measure (HC 916), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Canon Sir Tony Baldry.)

Question agreed to.

Peanut Allergies (Announcements on UK Flights)

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

17:23

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

A few months ago, my constituent Helena Erwin and her young daughter Emily visited me at my constituency advice centre in Ballymena. Helena told me of her desire as a mother to ensure that her child was kept safe while travelling. Emily has a very severe peanut allergy that requires her to be kept away from contact with peanuts for fear of anaphylactic attack, which could be deadly.

The family only became aware of this condition when they were on a family holiday and Emily was taken seriously ill. Subsequently, her consultant reported that she has

“an instant and extreme allergic reaction.”

Any parent of a child who requires special attention or care knows that that means constant care and attention daily, which has a broad impact. That is the case with this child, Emily. Her GP told her mother that in future, for all air travel, she will need to inform the carrier of her daughter’s condition. Her older sister has been taught how to recognise signs of anaphylaxis and what to do in an emergency, and her contemporaries—cousins, family and school friends—have had to be told what consumables Emily cannot be exposed to. The adult members of her family have each been trained to use an EpiPen and know how to administer her medication, which must accompany her at all times.

The Erwins go abroad for work and recreation, and as a result of their travel experiences, Helena contacted me to raise awareness of the needs, particularly when travelling, of the many people who, like her precious daughter, suffer from anaphylaxis and could be helped by greater awareness and safety announcements, particularly onboard aeroplanes.

It is important to put things in perspective. In 2013, there were 1,300 emergency admissions to A and E units in English hospitals following adverse food reactions and shock, and there have been six deaths in the past 13 months across the UK from anaphylaxis caused by food. Today, when we board a flight, we hear several standardised announcements, all of which we are very familiar with and are designed for our own safety: “Fasten your seatbelts”, “Put your folding table away”, “Stow your baggage”, “Keep window blinds up for take-off and landing”, and “Put down your seat’s arm rest”. There are also announcements about when and where smoking is permitted, and where and when a passenger can use a telephone or computer. We are well used to these announcements; those are just seven that I, as a regular commuter to Parliament, hear each week while flying.

From time to time, but randomly—the crux of the issue—I hear allergy announcements. When I do, I accept that they are made for my safety and that of fellow travellers, and that they should be obeyed. However, it is the random nature of the peanut allergy announcements that has prompted this debate. The Minister and his Government can do something practical and positive to help. He can ensure that tonight we begin a process to achieve a consistent style of announcement on all flights, so that public safety is increased. I am not campaigning for prohibitions; I am championing the case for consistent safety announcements when required or requested by a traveller.

Let me tell the House about the current inconsistent state of affairs. I have with me a report on 36 air carriers that fly to the United Kingdom and their policies on food allergies and announcements. Is there one consistent approach? No, there are 36 different approaches. To be fair, some airlines are doing their best, but a consistent, universal approach would actually be welcomed by the airlines as a beneficial starting point.

I want to tell the House a little about what Emily experienced on a recent flight. I asked her mother to write out the details, and it is important that they be put on the record:

“We incurred a 6 hour delay. An aircraft and crew were flown in from Paris to take us home. It was very obvious from when we stepped onto the flight that the crew were not happy at being there. We spoke to the crew member who knew nothing about us and didn’t even understand what a nut allergy was due to the language barrier. I do carry a translation card but this was in Spanish and not French.

Eventually with much explaining from ourselves and some other passengers seated around us, the crew understood what we meant but refused to make an announcement. Their reason being simply they didn’t have to. My husband and I were by now beginning to get distressed as was our 6 year old daughter Lucy. We repeatedly asked and asked for the announcement to made, eventually we were told in a minute, other passengers were now starting to pass the information back and shouting at the crew on our behalf. The doors of the aircraft had been closed and my husband and I were now thinking about asking to get off the flight rather than take the chance. At this point the crew member agreed to make the announcement and when he made it was given a round of applause by all the passengers. As a family this was a very humiliating situation to be in and very upsetting for Lucy. About 2 hours into the flight the crew member actually apologised to us but we did not get an explanation why he wouldn’t announce it to begin with.

On returning home I...called the CAA and got speaking to a Doctor from the medical department. He gave me a few pieces of advice. He felt any risk posed to my daughter would be from 3-4 rows in front or behind me and had I considered policing these rows myself to see what people are eating? All this while I am responsible for 2 small children and also adhering to the seatbelt signs. Another suggestion was just don't fly. Take a boat!”

I think that tells its own story about the inconsistency, and shows that airlines require what I am suggesting. They probably need an impetus to drive them to come up with a policy that will work.

Since I secured this Adjournment debate, I have been inundated with calls and e-mails from people across the United Kingdom. The story of Andy Hyams is well documented. He and his suffering daughter were alleged to have been bullied off a flight because no announcement was made. It is easy to understand why a parent would not want their child to stay on a flight in those circumstances; they could not move away if there was a problem. If the issue arises in a hotel or in public, people can at least leave, but they cannot get off an aeroplane when it is in flight.

Another constituent, Francis, wrote to me to say that

“unless you actually go through the stages of death by anaphylactic shock until you are left with your lifeless child in your arms it is very hard to imagine what happens.”

Frank had that experience, and said that it was only when people saw it happening that they realised the huge need address this issue.

Another lady, Danielle Toner, wrote to me to say of airlines that

“yes some will make an announcement, others will not. When you have a child in a confined space with a life threatening condition I feel it is a must that airlines should be accountable for all passengers on their flights.”

I think she makes a very good point on behalf of her little six-year-old boy, who suffers from this condition.

These allergic reactions affect one in 50 children in the United Kingdom, and I think the Minister knows that something needs to be done about this now. Putting in place a requirement that a consistent announcement, agreed with the Civil Aviation Authority, be made on a passenger’s request should not be beyond the scope of this House, or the care of this Government.

I do not believe that new legislation is necessary, but if it is, there is an opportunity to make the Consumer Rights Bill, currently in the other place, the legislative vehicle to get this job done. I appeal to the Minister to put Emily’s law in place. Let us do something to make the airlines announce consistent messages on peanut and other food allergies, so that people can travel in safety and feel that they are not being hindered in any way or having their rights taken away from them. I appeal to the Minister to do something about this.

17:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on securing this debate about announcements relating to peanut allergies on flights entering and leaving the UK. I genuinely thank him for raising this topic, which is an important one. The responses he has had from his constituents and others show that many people around the country have been affected and have real concerns about their own or their families’ health.

The Government take the health and safety of air passengers and crew extremely seriously. The UK is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standards and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. Severe allergic reactions, such as those that may be associated with peanut allergy, can be frightening for those who experience them at any time, and particularly for parents and carers of babies and infants. Within the confines of an aircraft cabin, there are few options for relief. The distress can be particularly acute.

We have the greatest sympathy for those who suffer—or who witness the suffering of their loved ones—as a result of such extreme reactions, wherever they occur, but we must have regard to evidence relating to the incidence and cause of such reactions. There is little published scientific evidence concerning the risks of exposure during travel and the efficacy of any mitigating measures. The risk of nut or peanut allergy, including anaphylaxis, as a result of consumption by mouth is well documented, but evidence of allergic reactions resulting from the inhaling of the allergen is mainly confined to anecdotal case reports. However, I know that airlines try to reduce the risk of serious medical incidents, including allergic reactions, while people are on board their aircraft. It is already standard practice for carriers to request passengers to notify them before travelling if they have any medical conditions, including allergies, so that they can take appropriate action, such as ensuring that wheelchairs and other assistance are available.

Most airlines carry information on their websites which outlines their policy in relation to passengers with allergies. Some have taken additional measures, such as removing peanuts from their in-flight snacks—that has been done by British Airways, among others—or offering to broadcast requests to other passengers not to consume nuts that they have brought on board with them. EasyJet and Norwegian already deploy that strategy. However, few airlines are able to offer or guarantee peanut or nut-free meals. The Daily Mail website today draws attention to my hon. Friend’s constituents the Levitan family, and the problems that they experienced. There is a very fetching picture of the hon. Gentleman and me—and, on the same page, Madonna, who was attending the Grammys.

The International Air Transport Association, a trade body for airlines, has also published detailed information for allergen-sensitive passengers. It includes guidance on the applicable regulations, such as the requirements for aircraft to carry first aid and emergency medical kits, and for cabin crew to be trained in first aid. However, the guidance acknowledges that the detailed regulations are the responsibility of each country, and that there may be variations in the extent of the medical equipment that is carried or the training of cabin crew. Its advice to passengers includes recommendations that they contact a physician before travelling to discuss any related risks, contact the airline once the booking has been made, ensure that prescribed medication is carried in hand baggage, and arrive early at the airport to re-confirm any specific requirements that they have made. Comprehensive advice is also available on the Anaphylaxis Campaign and Allergy UK websites. The Government commend those organisations for their work, which supports the range of other practical help and advice that is available.

We recognise—and we have heard again tonight—that passengers sometimes face inconsistent responses from airlines when they notify them of their history of allergy, and we understand that that can lead to pressure to require all airlines to meet certain minimum standards of support. However, there is a very limited amount of evidence relating to the risk, and the efficacy of any specific mitigation measures. The Government would need to be certain that the benefits of introducing any new regulation, such as a requirement for airlines to make a pre-flight announcement, was proportionate, and would have a significant impact in terms of risk reduction.

I accept that air travel is qualitatively different from other modes of transport, in that there is less opportunity to seek respite from environmental factors by moving. However, aviation competes with other modes on some routes. The measures proposed by the hon. Gentleman would place a duty on one mode of transport—aviation—but not on others, such as ferries and international rail, which compete with it. We should also have regard to the extent to which any actions requested in an on-board announcement might unreasonably limit the freedom of other passengers. For example, a family might have brought their own food—such as peanut butter sandwiches —on to an aircraft, and might have no alternative food to give their children during the flight.

[Ian Paisley]

I am, of course, very aware of the issue of freedom. I do not think that anyone is campaigning for a prohibition, which is an important point. However, I have not once met a family who, having been told by others, “One of our children suffers from peanut allergies—please do not eat those peanuts,” would wilfully want to eat peanuts in front of them, I think that most people would comply with such a request if they knew that the health of someone who was exposed to peanuts would be at risk.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, the way ventilation works on aircraft may mean that a person who is seated well to the back of a plane and well away from the person with the allergy problem will not pose a risk. There is also interesting information about the effect on people when they smell peanuts. Their reaction may not be entirely an allergic reaction; if a person has had a bad experience before, they would certainly be feeling a degree of stress, which could be a risk to them. We should also not forget situations when peanuts have been served on a previous flight or people have had peanuts on a previous flight. Parents might sometimes want to check the seat so a toddler cannot find peanuts in between the upholstery and then consume it, thereby causing a problem.

We should not impose restrictions on other passengers without evidence that this would be necessary and effective. We should also consider that a carrier is unlikely to be able to guarantee an environment totally free of the trigger substance. For example, an aircraft may have had only superficial “turnaround” cleaning following a previous flight that day, possibly operated by a different airline, and a passenger on the previous flight might have consumed a product containing the allergen as other passengers may bring their own food with them which can contain the allergen.

Furthermore, the effect of such an announcement may be limited. I am slightly ashamed of this, but I am sure that I am not the only airline passenger not to devote my entire attention to each part of the announcements made every time I fly. In some cases language difficulties may also mean that some passengers do not understand the announcements.

Another issue is that if an announcement was to be made in relation to peanuts without clear evidence that the action sought reduced a real risk, there could be pressure to make announcements on other topics, for example other foodstuffs such as cooked fish and chickpeas, which have been linked to severe allergic reactions, or dog hairs which may be present on the clothing of passengers, or indeed an assistance-dog on the flight. The list of substances potentially causing an allergic reaction is long and includes strawberries, eggs, soya, milk and sesame seeds. Also, photosensitive epileptic reactions could be linked to some movies or video games that could be played by a passenger on a device during a flight in the vicinity of a person subject to such attacks.

Where action is to be required by regulation there needs to be an evidence base that it is necessary. I have today asked officials to write to the British Air Transport Association, which represents 80% of UK carriers, asking what its current policy is: whether the declaration should be made as a ticket is booked, which is the current situation; whether carriers should ban nuts from the foods they provide on their flights; and what type of announcement they should make and the practicality of that on some aircraft where the announcements are made via a drop-down video screen rather than by cabin crew over a microphone. I have asked my officials to try and get that information from BATA as a direct result of this debate.

Finally, it is only practical for any requirement to make such an announcement, if introduced under UK domestic legislation, to apply to UK airlines. As a result significant numbers of passengers flying in and out of the UK on foreign-owner carriers would not be covered by such a provision.

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has been prompt in deciding to call for the gathering of that information. Will he go a bit further and give me a commitment that when he has that information he will turn that research into some serious policy that will allow for a change, if the evidence is there—I accept that the evidence must always be there to make a decision?

[Mr Goodwill]

I hope we might not have to introduce legislation. I get the impression that, given the sensitivity surrounding this subject and the publicity it has received as a result of the hon. Gentleman’s actions, many airlines in this country, and indeed around the world, are looking at this and looking at what standardised announcement might be made. I therefore hope we can make progress without the need for legislation, but we will keep all options open, of course. Several of the cases that have received recent media attention and been the subject of correspondence with the Department for Transport have concerned foreign-owned airlines.

I mentioned earlier that the Government take passenger health and safety very seriously. We are aware of the concerns expressed in Parliament on this matter. When it was discussed in another place at the end of last year, I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Baroness Kennedy of Cradley on 18 November to discuss and, I hope, allay some of their concerns.

In order to inform this debate, the Department for Transport and the aviation health unit of the Civil Aviation Authority have committed to work with medical specialists in allergies to develop evidence-based guidance for airlines. As a first step, it is intended to commission a review of the scientific literature to evaluate the evidence for a link between environmental exposure to aerosolised food particles and serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in subjects who have been diagnosed with a food allergy.

The objective of the scientific review will be to identify what, if any, steps could be recommended on the basis of the existing evidence and to identify the need for any further research. In that way, the industry could not reasonably object that the regulation was arbitrary or unwarranted. The regulation would have clear benefits in terms of reducing risk, and it would be easier to secure consensus on any international action necessary to offer protection to those at risk. Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for providing the opportunity to bring this issue to the attention of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

17:46

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

Monday 9 February 2015

Insolvent Businesses (Supply of Essential Services)

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

Rescuing struggling but viable businesses out of formal insolvency helps save jobs and improves the prospect of creditors recovering some of what they are owed. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduced new powers to help insolvency practitioners secure essential IT and utility supplies to keep a business going while it is being rescued.

I have today laid an order to ensure that insolvency practitioners can retain the essential supplies they need to save viable businesses. There will be an impact on suppliers in the IT and utility sectors but I believe that by providing strong safeguards to ensure the supplier can have confidence they will be paid, we will ensure that the benefits of this measure far outweigh the costs. In particular:

The supplier will be able to seek a personal guarantee from the insolvency practitioner at any time to give them more certainty that the supplies will be paid for.

The supplier will be able to apply to court to terminate their contract on the grounds of ‘hardship’.

Guidance will be issued to insolvency practitioners to urge them to make contact with essential suppliers at the earliest possible time following their appointment to discuss their needs in relation to supply, to ensure that undue costs are not incurred.

The Government’s aim remains to ensure that a balance is struck between ensuring the rescue of viable businesses against the obligations placed on those suppliers that will be impacted by the order. The proposed changes will have effect in relation to contracts made after 1 October 2015.

The Government consulted on how those new powers should be exercised and whether the safeguards proposed were adequate to ensure that those essential suppliers bound to supply an insolvent business would be paid.

A total of 31 responses were received and I am very grateful for the time those respondents took to provide constructive feedback to the consultation. Almost all respondents expressed their support for the aims of the proposals with some suggesting ways to make the safeguards more effective. The draft order was amended in the light of comments received.

A summary of the responses received to the consultation can be found at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service.

[HCWS265]

Sharing Economy (London)

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

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

I would like to provide the House with further details of the coalition Government’s intentions for the reform of legislation on short-term letting of residential accommodation in London, through clause 33 of the Deregulation Bill.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 provides that the use of residential premises for temporary sleeping accommodation for less than 90 consecutive nights in London is a change of use, for which planning permission is required. London residents face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each ‘offence’ of failing to secure planning permission.

There are currently thousands of London properties advertised on websites for use as short-term accommodation. However, each is potentially in breach of Section 25 as it stands. The current outdated legislation is inconsistently enforced, leading to confusion and uncertainty for householders, as was apparent during the 2012 Olympics. These laws do not operate outside London, without any visible adverse effect. We want to update these laws to help boost the sharing economy, in light of the popularity of websites like Airbnb and Onefinestay to help people rent out their property on a short-term basis.

My Department has now published a policy document which responds to our review of property conditions in the private rented sector discussion document, and sets out the Government’s approach to modernising this outdated legislation, so that residents can allow their homes to be used on a short-term basis without unnecessary red tape. The Government have carefully considered the views put forward in response, and in the debates in both Houses, and in bringing forward changes we will also offer safeguards to protect London’s housing supply and residential amenity.

The Government want to enable London residents to participate in the sharing economy, and enjoy the same freedom and flexibility as the rest of the country to temporarily let their homes, without the disproportionate burden of requiring planning permission. It will provide income to householders who want to rent out their home—for example, if they themselves go on holiday. I believe this will be popular with London residents, as evident by the support for our planning reforms to make it easier for householders to rent out their spare parking spaces. A further benefit will be to increase the amount of competitively priced accommodation available for tourists to rent, promoting economic growth from tourism, as well as reducing the amount of under-used and otherwise empty property in London. These reforms will primarily benefit home owners; the changes will not affect any existing clauses in tenancy contracts which prohibit sub-letting by tenants.

In order to address the issues raised by the consultation, the Government intend to restrict short-term letting of residential premises to a maximum of 90 days in a calendar year, so that properties cannot be used for short-term letting on a permanent basis throughout the year. In addition, the Government also intend to put in place additional safeguards through regulations. These will include that to benefit from the new flexibility the properties must be liable for council tax (thereby excluding business premises); that the new flexibility can be withdrawn following a successful enforcement action against a statutory nuisance, and that in exceptional circumstances local authorities will be able to request that the Secretary of State agrees to small localised exemptions from the new flexibility, where there is a strong amenity case to do so. These are practical concessions that I hope will illustrate that we have carefully listened to the points made by parliamentarians in both Houses in recent months.

The policy document has being published on my Department’s website and has been placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS267]

School Estate (Investment)

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

Today, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and I have announced over £6 billion of investment to improve the condition of the school estate. Investing in our school buildings is a key part of the Government’s long term economic plan to secure Britain’s future. It will help to ensure children across the country can enjoy schools which are safe, good quality and fit for learning, and it will help to build a fairer society.

First, we will invest around £2 billion in rebuilding and major refurbishment projects, to address the needs of school buildings in the very worst condition. We can confirm today that 277 schools will have the condition need in one or more of their buildings addressed under the second phase of the Priority School Building Programme. As a result, thousands more pupils will see their learning environments transformed. This is in addition to the 260 schools being rebuilt or having their need addressed under the first phase of the programme.

Secondly, we are announcing today over £4 billion worth of allocations to schools, local authorities, academy trusts and voluntary aided partnerships to fund the improvement and maintenance of our schools. For the first time in years, we have reliable information on the condition of school buildings from the Property Data Survey—the most comprehensive survey of the school estate ever undertaken. All of those responsible for schools will now receive funding in proportion to the size and condition of their schools. Where necessary, we are providing additional support to those responsible for schools with the most severe condition need.

We know that being taught in school buildings in poor condition can have an adverse effect on pupil attainment. The reforms we are announcing today are a major step towards ensuring that all children have access to a learning environment which is safe and fit for purpose, no matter where they live.

We recognise that good investment decisions require certainty and stability. This is why the funding we have announced today will cover, for the first time, three years, from 2015-16 to 2017-18, giving local authorities, academy trusts and voluntary aided partnerships some much-needed certainty. They can now plan effectively and make good strategic investment decisions that deliver the best possible value for their schools.

Investment decisions have a direct and significant impact on local schools and their pupils and it is important that those decisions are open and transparent. We want to do more to empower local schools and communities to engage with and hold local decision-makers to account for their investment decisions. So we are announcing today that we will collect information from all bodies responsible for the maintenance of the school estate on how they have used their funding. The information will be simple, high-level and easily accessible to the public.

Today’s announcements bring us much closer to delivering the aims of Sebastian James’ Review of school capital—to ensure that our capital investment in the school estate provides excellent value for money and, ultimately, gets money to those schools and pupils that need it most.

Details of today’s announcements will be sent to those who will be receiving funding or investment and be published online at: http://www.gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the House Library.

[HCWS262]

Foreign Affairs Council

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I attended the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 29 January in Brussels. The FAC was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini.

The conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/01/council-conclusions-ukraine.

The HRVP convened an extraordinary meeting of the FAC to discuss Ukraine following the shelling of Mariupol on 24 January and the intensifying violence in eastern Ukraine. The FAC condemned the recent escalation of fighting and reiterated the urgent need for all parties to fully assume their responsibility and to ensure the full implementation of the Minsk agreements, which remain the basis for a sustainable political solution to the crisis.

I underlined the scale of the tragedy at Mariupol, the largest loss of civilian life during the crisis bar MH17. I emphasised that diplomatic efforts must continue and that Russia had sought to change facts on the ground. The EU must respond to deter further escalation.

The FAC agreed to extend until September 2015 the restrictive measures targeting persons and entities for threatening or undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (adopted in March 2014 and subsequently updated). The HRVP and Commission were tasked to present within a week a proposal on additional listings for decision at the FAC on Monday 9 February. I emphasised that this should include preparing broader economic measures.

Ministers asked that further preparatory work be undertaken by the Commission and the EEAS on any appropriate action aimed at ensuring a swift and comprehensive implementation of the Minsk agreements. In addition, the FAC tasked the HRVP, in co-operation with member states and EU institutions, to further improve strategic communication in support of EU policies and to explore options for the establishment of a dedicated communications team to lead these actions.

[HCWS263]

Immigration Detention

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

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

I have today commissioned an independent review into the Home Office policies and operating procedures that have an impact on immigration detainee welfare. Immigration detention plays a key role in helping to secure our borders and in maintaining effective immigration control.

The Government believe that those with no right to be in the UK should return to their home country and we will help those who wish to leave voluntarily. However, when people refuse to do so, we will seek to enforce their removal, which may involve detaining people for a period of time. But the wellbeing of those in our care is always a high priority and we are committed to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.

I want to ensure that the health and wellbeing of all those detained is safeguarded. Following the work I commissioned into the welfare of people with mental health difficulties in police custody, I believe it is necessary to undertake a comprehensive review of our policies and operating procedures to better understand the impact of detention on the welfare of those in immigration detention. The purpose of this wider-ranging review is to consider the appropriateness, and application, of current policies and practices concerning the health and wellbeing of vulnerable people in immigration detention, and those being escorted in the UK. I am committed to considering any emerging findings made by the review and to taking action where appropriate.

I have asked Stephen Shaw CBE, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales, and a widely respected expert in this field, to lead the review. The terms of reference can be found on the Home Office website and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS266]

National Crime Agency

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

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

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, was laid before Parliament on 29 January 2015. The Order extends relevant ‘NCA provisions’, ‘relevant civil recovery provisions’ and ‘relevant investigation provisions’ to enable the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland with full operational powers, including the ability to recover criminal assets, including the ability to request the recovery of assets overseas. The Order reflects a package of proposals that will create clear, transparent and significant local accountability that the Northern Ireland political parties have sought. They are the result of extensive work between the Home Office, the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office, the National Crime Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Following negotiations, led by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, I am extremely pleased to inform the House that on 3 February 2015, the Northern Ireland Assembly gave its consent to the making of that Order.

The Order reflects a package of measures to ensure police primacy, accountability and additional oversight of the NCA’s use of covert techniques in Northern Ireland. The consent given by the Assembly reflects its support for the Government’s aim that the people of Northern Ireland should benefit from a fully operational National Crime Agency, supporting the efforts of PSNI. I would like to put on record my thanks to Assembly members for their support.

[HCWS264]

Supplementary Estimate 2014-15

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Subject to parliamentary approval of any supplementary estimate, the Northern Ireland Executive Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL), net of depreciation, is increased by £155,587,000 from £10,829,801,000 to £10,985,388,000.

Within the total DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is summary opening position set out in the following table:

Supplementary Estimate 2014-15

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the Scottish Government’s DEL net of depreciation and impairments will be increased by £598,482,000 from £28,708,902,000 to £29,307,384,000. Within the total DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is set out in the following table:

Supplementary Estimate 2014-15

Monday 9th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Welsh Government’s (WG) departmental expenditure limit (DEL) net of ring-fenced depreciation and impairments will be increased by £157,433,000 from £15,170,933,000 to £15,328,366,000.

The following changes have been made to the Welsh Government’s departmental expenditure limit:

Devolved Administration Budget Exchange addition of £98,244,000 (£65,733,000 resource, £16,944,000 ring-fenced depreciation and £15,567,000 capital);

A claim on the Reserves for the following:-

Barnett Consequentials for 2014-15 Council Tax freeze for £18,819,000

Blue Lights Charities for £481,000

Coastal Communities Fund for £1,550,000

NATO Costs for £900,000

Structural Funds in West Wales for £3,807,000

Student Loans of £47,000,000;

A DEL adjustment to VAT on legal services of £-106,000;

A budget transfer from the Department of Energy and Climate Change of £1,456,000;

A budget transfer to the Department for Works and Pensions of £-1,000,000;

A budget transfer from DCMS in respect of Broadband UK for £31,275,000 (capital);

Autumn Statement: Barnett Consequentials of £1,344,000;

Business rate Barnett Consequentials of £17,423,000;

A cash management rebate of £184,000.

Within the total departmental expenditure limit (DEL) changes, the impact is set out in the following tables:

Grand Committee

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Monday, 9 February 2015.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard) (CB)]

My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

The first draft instrument before the Committee today, the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2015, amends the rules for the conduct of elections to the European Parliament to make two consequential changes concerning electoral registration and proxy voting that arise from the move to individual electoral registration—IER.

The instrument also provides for notices containing information about the completion of postal ballot papers to be sent, ahead of the general election in May, to postal voters whose postal voting statement was rejected at the European Parliament election in May 2014 due to an error made by the voter. I will set out the two consequential changes arising from the move to IER which was successfully introduced last year and which, for the first time, enables people in Great Britain to apply online to register to vote. More than 5 million people have now applied under IER, and two-thirds of them have applied online.

The instrument includes provisions which relate to the date relevant to assessing certain grounds for excluding electors from voting at European Parliament elections, including removing references to “15 October” as a relevant date for registration purposes. The instrument also requires proxies at a European Parliament election in Great Britain to be already registered to vote under IER at that election. This is intended to enhance the security of the voting process. These changes mirror provisions that have been applied already for other polls.

Electoral registration officers—EROs—are already required to inform electors after a poll where their postal vote has been rejected because the signature or date of birth used as a “postal vote identifier” that they have supplied on the postal voting statement failed to match that held on record—or because it had simply been left blank. This is to help ensure that these electors can participate effectively in future elections and not have their ballot papers rejected at successive polls because of a signature degradation or because they are making an inadvertent error.

These postal vote provisions applied for the first time at the European Parliament election in May 2014. Although over time we would expect the number of rejected postal votes to fall, because the provision has only recently been introduced we considered that it would be beneficial for those postal voters whose postal voting statement was rejected in May 2014 to be sent information about the completion of postal ballot papers ahead of the general election. EROs will be required to send this during a 10-day period beginning on 19 March 2015. This period has been set as an appropriate time for notices to go out ahead of the general election, and before postal votes could first be received at that poll.

The notice will set out information on the requirements for completion of postal voting statements to help ensure postal voters correctly complete them at future polls. I think that I am right in saying that roughly one in 40 postal votes was rejected at the European Parliament elections—and, clearly, that is a proportion that we very much want to reduce as far as we can. The notice will be for information only, and follow-up action will not be required from the voter, though it will be possible for voters to contact the ERO to resolve the issue that caused the postal vote to be rejected: for example, to correct the date of birth record for the elector held by the ERO.

I am aware that the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators have raised concerns about the proposal on the grounds that there is potential for voters to get confused if they have already made changes to their postal vote provisions following the initial notification, or if they have successfully voted by post in an intervening poll. We have listened carefully to these concerns, but we consider that the second notification will add value. For example, it will be helpful to postal voters who may have forgotten that they received the earlier communication or did not take action at the time they received it to update their personal identifiers. That is part of our answer to the communication from the Electoral Commission issued at lunchtime today.

Our objective is to enhance understanding among postal voters of the postal voting process, which will be timely ahead of the general election. It is simply telling those who have made an error in the past how to get it right, helping to ensure their future participation. I emphasise yet again that the Government’s intention for the forthcoming general election is to maximise the number of people registered, and then to maximise the number of those registered voters who vote successfully.

I turn to the other instruments before the Committee today: the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. These instruments will make refinements designed to improve the processes for making and verifying IER applications: first, by amending requirements as to the documentary evidence to be provided to the ERO when applying for the alteration of an elector’s name on the register; and, secondly, by making it possible for annual canvass returns to be made in a range of formats.

Under the existing regulations, an elector wishing to change their name on the electoral register has to submit a form to their ERO along with a marriage or civil partnership certificate, an overseas marriage or civil partnership certificate deposited with the General Register Office—the GRO—or a deed poll or amended birth certificate. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office discontinued its service of depositing overseas marriage or civil partnership documents with the GRO last year. The draft regulations remove the references to the specific documents and replace them with a reference to “documentary evidence”. It will be up to EROs to decide what evidence they deem to be acceptable in supporting a change. However, ministerial guidance will be available when the regulations come into force, which will set out examples of acceptable documents.

Under the draft regulations, information as to name, date of birth and national insurance number relating to all applications for registration or change of name made otherwise than directly through the IER digital service must also be sent by the ERO for verification against DWP records. The instruments slightly amend the statement in the HEF annual canvass form that the information given in response to the form will be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 to replace an incorrect reference to the application form with a reference to the annual canvass form. The existing regulations require returned HEFs to include a “signed declaration of truth” to confirm the validity of the information provided. This requirement for a signature effectively limits HEF returns to being a paper-only transaction. Under the draft regulations, the person completing an HEF is required to make a declaration of truth and give their name, but that declaration does not need to be signed. This will allow for the information in HEFs to be provided online or over the phone.

The draft instruments also delete the regulation which allows for register entries to be carried forward from one year to another, which will no longer apply under IER, and make a consequential amendment in relation to notices of alteration to the register relating to removals from the register when people have died.

In the Scottish regulations, in addition to the provisions set out above, there is a technical provision to amend a regulation on cancelling postal ballot papers by omitting a reference to local government elections in Scotland. This is not needed as the Scottish Government have regulations which cover absent voting matters.

The Electoral Commission has been consulted on these two instruments and was satisfied overall, but raised a number of comments to which the Government have responded to the satisfaction of the commission. The Information Commissioner’s Office has also been consulted but did not consider that the instruments raised any new or significant data protection or privacy issues.

In conclusion, the three instruments before the Committee today will play a part in refining the processes underpinning applications to register to vote as we continue successfully to implement individual electoral registration across Great Britain, and help support effective participation by postal voters. I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, explained to the Grand Committee, we have three orders before us today which are being debated together.

The first, which is the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2015, will enable and require EROs to write to everyone who had a postal vote at the European election last year and had that vote rejected due to discrepancies between the identifiers held by the ERO and what was completed and returned with the ballot paper.

All voters who had their postal vote rejected at that election will have been written to before, and this, in effect, is a reminder of the problem that led to their vote being discounted and gives them another period to correct the situation. I broadly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that that is a good thing to do, but I understand the concerns raised by the AEA and SOLACE in respect of voter confusion, if they have made changes following the previous communication from the ERO.

Does the Minister have the number of postal voters who will be written to—I know that he said one in 40, but how many is that? Is it millions or hundreds of thousands of people? Does he have a breakdown of how many postal voters per ERO? What assistance will the Cabinet Office give to EROs who have a particularly high number of people who need to be written to?

I see that the regulation applies only to Great Britain, so what are the provisions in respect of Northern Ireland? I also note that the political parties were not consulted on it. I think that that is very regrettable. There is considerable expertise in all the parties which could be valuable to the Cabinet Office and the Government. I know that the noble Lord will say that it is up to the Electoral Commission whether to consult with the political parties; I can tell him that it does not. It is a shame that the parties are not in some way involved in the process.

I, too, received the briefing from the commission at about 1 pm this afternoon, and I note that it is not very happy with the order. Will the noble Lord take back to the Electoral Commission that we expect to have its notes in a much more timely manner? No one could take them into account; they arrived literally an hour or two before the debate. It is a waste of time looking at them at this point. I do not agree with the point that it is making, but it is a waste of its time sending the briefing round so late.

The next two regulations amend the process for registered electors to change their name on the published register and for how information on the household inquiry form may be returned to electoral registration officers. I have no issues with these regulations, but I note again that no consultation with political parties has taken place, which is most regrettable.

The commission just does not consult parties on such matters, and the Cabinet Office is losing out on valuable feedback from people who can give a different perspective on these matters. Asking an organisation for its views does not mean that you have to agree with those views. It is a real failure that we do not involve parties much more in this stuff.

My only other comments are in respect of IER in general terms. I still worry that we are not quite getting there. I mentioned in the House last week that to have 30% of our 18 to 24 year-olds not registered to vote is a terrible situation for a mature democracy such as ours. I also said in the Chamber last week that if that was true in any other country in the world, the noble Lord himself would be saying that the British Government expect it to get that sorted and get those young people onto the voting roll. The problem is that this is happening here in our country—our own back yard.

What will the noble Lord be saying to the UN or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights—all bodies to which we are signed up and whose initiatives we support—if they decide that what we are doing is not good enough? Is he ready for an inspection to take place by those organisations before or after the general election?

Having said that, I am content to support the orders before us today.

15:45

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his comments and I recognise his very considerable expertise in this area. I used to think that I understood something about electoral law but I learnt that there is a great deal more than I do not entirely understand.

My understanding is that we are talking about more than 100,000 postal voters being written to—some 114,000 is the figure that I have in mind—and the cost of this, which is thought to be somewhere above £100,000, will be reimbursed. I do not have to hand the exact figures for which areas will be most affected.

There are all sorts of reasons why people do not complete their postal ballots correctly. I am told that one of the commonest problems is that husbands and wives, completing their forms over the breakfast table, often put them in the wrong envelopes and thus the forms have the wrong signifiers on them. However, there is a range of other reasons, including that if people are ill—if they have had a stroke, for example—their signatures change radically.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Another one is that people put down that day’s date rather than their date of birth. I think that that is the biggest one.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Yes, certainly. The noble Lord regretted the lack of consultation with political parties. The view was taken that these amendments to the regulations were sufficiently technical that they would not be of great interest to the political parties. However, I take his point and we will do our best to keep the Parliamentary Parties Panel informed of planned changes and not just of planned legislative changes.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I get the point that these changes are fairly technical, but the Electoral Commission has a political parties panel, which it was required to set up under PPERA. Having been a member of that panel and a commissioner, I am not really convinced that it is officially involved in these issues. I think that there are other things on which you could go directly to parties and that that would be beneficial to the Government and the Cabinet Office.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I take the noble Lord’s point and I think that it is a good idea in principle for the commission to give too much information rather than too little. I entirely take his point, and it has no doubt been absorbed by the officials concerned. I also take his point about the Electoral Commission’s comments having come in almost so late that there is nothing we can do with them. I am sure that that point will be referred back to the commission.

On the question of name changes on the register, we are very conscious that there are occasions—particularly, for example, with someone who is transgender or whatever—when one does not necessarily want to have one’s previous name out in public. Therefore, there is a whole set of issues concerning the delicacies, in some cases, of including previous names.

The noble Lord also raised the question of IER in general terms. I will say two things on this. First, the initial feedback from the National Voter Registration Day last Thursday is that some 160,000 people registered in one day. That is way above what has previously been the case. That was online. We do not yet know what has come in on paper but that is good news and we are continuing to work on it.

I reinforce that by saying that I addressed more than 200 students at York University on Friday afternoon, together with a panel of people from other political parties. I found that fascinating for a whole set of reasons. First, it was a crowded lecture hall with more students wanting to come than we had expected. Secondly, after it had concluded, one or two students came up to me and said, “Well, I was thinking of not bothering to vote this time, but maybe I will”. That is the problem we all have, and it is why, every time I get up in the Chamber having been asked a question on this, I say that we all have to be out there talking to as many groups of young people as we can to explain, first, how vital it is that they register, and, secondly, how important it is that, having registered, they then vote. That message has not got out to many of them and it is the underlying problem that we all face. The National Union of Students is doing a lot in that respect and we are working also with universities.

As the noble Lord will recall, the Government have just announced a further set of funding for various voluntary organisations to work, in particular, with vulnerable groups. As I said to some of the students at the end of our discussions on Friday, I have no doubt that when we come to the last possible date for registration, we will discover that a large number of young male students in particular—young female students and others are often better organised—will register at the last minute, and I very much hope that that will take us towards the high level of registration that we need.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:50

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

Noble Lords will be aware that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is the primary legislation concerning the disclosure of criminal convictions and cautions. It seeks to help the reintegration into society of offenders who have put their criminal past behind them. It does this by declaring certain convictions, after a specified period, as “spent”. Once a conviction has become spent, an individual is not required to declare it when, for example, entering most employment or applying for insurance. The reforms we made to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which allow many convictions to become spent sooner, were commenced in March last year and widely welcomed.

We are concerned today, however, with the exceptions order to the Act. This acts as a balance to the Act to maintain public protection. The exceptions order lists activities and posts which may present a particular risk of harm—for example, regular contact with particularly vulnerable groups, such as children—and exempts them from the protection of the primary legislation. This allows certain employers, bodies and proceedings to ask for the disclosure and to take into account certain spent cautions and convictions as well as any unspent convictions. In these sensitive areas, we consider that the need to protect the public outweighs the need to protect the ex-offender from disclosure of their fuller criminal record.

I should explain that the Police Act 1997 is the related legislation which sets out the process for the issue of criminal record certificates. Standard disclosures contain details of a person’s spent and unspent cautions and convictions, where there are any such convictions and cautions, with the exception of certain older and minor convictions which are protected from disclosure. Enhanced disclosures include, in addition, any locally held information which the chief officer of police considers is relevant to the purpose of the application. These criminal record certificates are issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Having set out that background, I will now explain the two amendments which we propose to add to the exceptions order. The first deals with individuals seeking counterfraud, investigatory and security management posts in NHS Protect; the second concerns individuals seeking to engage in regulated activity relating to children and vulnerable adults.

As to counterfraud, investigation and security management in the NHS, staff in the NHS undertaking the investigation of fraud, bribery and corruption, and the safeguarding of patients, staff and NHS assets, will have access to confidential information and medicines. They may also have contact with vulnerable persons. In addition, those who are engaged in counterfraud investigations have responsibility for the preparation of prosecutions and can be called to give evidence in court proceedings. In these circumstances their character history is relevant to the issue of witness credibility, which can prove critical in obtaining successful prosecutions.

These activities clearly give rise to public protection considerations and justify the disclosure of certain spent cautions and convictions so as to determine the suitability of an individual applying to do this work. To date, this area of activity has been dealt with under a wider provision in the exceptions order, which covers working in health services more generally, including contact with patients. Investigations into fraud and other criminal activity in the health service may not involve patient contact but will nevertheless require access to sensitive material. Recent changes to counterfraud and security management in the health service mean that certain administrative staff may now assist in investigations. Consequently, they will have access to some sensitive material. In the light of these developments, we consider that there should be a distinct provision in the exceptions order which not only deals with the new administrative group of staff undertaking this work but covers the area of activity so that the exception is both precise and clear.

The second amendment in this order relates to regulated activity. While this area of work is, of course, already covered in the exceptions order, there have been changes made to the definitions of regulated activity relating to children and vulnerable adults. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 made changes to the definitions set out in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. We now need to reflect those changes in this instrument. The exceptions order currently covers all individuals engaged in regulated activity relating to children, and all individuals engaged in regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults as defined prior to the amendments made by the 2012 Act, which in the most part narrowed these definitions. The earlier definition of regulated activity was kept for the purposes of the exceptions order, as the Government had made a commitment to ensure that employers would still be able to obtain criminal record certificates for those individuals who no longer fell within the amended definition of regulated activity.

However, while the 2012 Act generally reduced the scope of regulated activity, its definition of relating to children was also expanded to a limited extent. This remains the case today. For example, a person who provides healthcare or personal care on an occasional basis now comes within the definition of regulated activity relating to children. These individuals would not previously have been covered because this activity would not have met the relevant frequency conditions for it to fall within the definition of regulated activity relating to children.

In addition, the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend the definitions of regulated activity in that Act by order, subject to the affirmative procedure. In the future, it is therefore possible that the definitions of regulated activity could be amended to cover new roles. These would not then be covered by the current provision in the exceptions order, which refers to the definitions of regulated activity as they were at a fixed point in the past.

This amendment will therefore ensure that all those engaged in regulated activity can be asked about unprotected cautions and convictions when their suitability for this work is being assessed and that that remains the case for any future changes to the definitions of regulated activity made by order under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

I assure noble Lords that any such changes to the definition of regulated activity will be subject to debate in the House. I therefore believe it is unnecessary for an express amendment to made to the exceptions order for each new role added to that definition on the basis that any debate in respect of the order amending the definitions of regulated activity would provide the House in any event with the opportunity to consider the appropriateness of such changes, including the implication of those changes in respect of the ability of employers to seek information about certain spent convictions and cautions.

These amendments, while relatively minor in scope, are important for public protection purposes. They make sure that all those who are responsible for protecting the NHS and all those engaging in regulated activity are properly covered by the exceptions order. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee very long. As the Minister told the Grand Committee, this exceptions order makes amendments in relation to those concerned with counterfraud work, the investigation of offences and security management and to current regulated activities under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. I have read the order and the Explanatory Memorandum very carefully. I am content with this order which takes account of legislative changes and ensures that individuals in a position of trust, as defined in the order, can be asked about their unprotected spent convictions and cautions. This is a very good balance between helping individuals who have offended to return to meaningful work and the need to protect the public, as the Minister said. This is a very sensible move, and I am very happy to support the order before the Grand Committee today.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his constructive and helpful observations. As he said, this is not a party-political issue. These are necessary and proportionate amendments endeavouring to strike the balance in a difficult area, and they form part of this Government’s—I dare say any Government’s—ongoing commitment to keep safeguarding measures in step with developments elsewhere. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authorities) Order 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:02

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authorities) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to bring Network Rail’s public functions within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. This is a significant extension of the Act and the latest step by this Government to expand its scope in the interests of transparency and accountability.

We are committed to achieving greater openness and transparency in order to enable the public to hold those who deliver the services affecting their day-to-day lives to account through both the Freedom of Information Act and the wider transparency agenda. In relation to that Act in particular, the coalition agreement set out this intention, stating that the Government would,

“extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency’.

We have already taken a number of steps to meet this commitment since May 2010. In 2010, we extended the Act to academies, in 2011 to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, and in 2013 to more than 100 companies wholly owned by more than one public authority. The order to extend the Act to Network Rail is a further step along this road.

I recognise that some noble Lords may wish to see the Freedom of Information Act extended in further directions. There is certainly a case for its further extension, in particular to more bodies performing public functions through Section 5 of the Act. There is also a case for extending it to other bodies. For example, the Home Secretary has already announced her intention to extend the Freedom of Information Act to the Police Federation. This would require primary legislation and, in the absence of a suitable vehicle in this Parliament, the Home Secretary has registered this as a longer-term commitment which this Government intend should be fulfilled as soon as possible in the next Parliament. I hope, however, that no matter the views of noble Lords about other bodies which might be included in future, this change will itself be welcomed as a significant and positive step.

Turning to the detail of the draft order, Section 5(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act enables the Secretary of State to designate a person as a public authority if they appear to the Secretary of State,

“to exercise functions of a public nature”.

Where a body is designated as a public authority under this limb it is also necessary, under Section 7(5) of the Act, for the order to specify each of the body’s functions which appear to the Secretary of State to be of a public nature. Only those functions specified in the schedule to this order will be subject to the Act.

Network Rail is not a single legal entity but is made up of a group of companies instead, hence the need to designate the listed companies separately. The companies affected, which are listed in the schedule to the draft order, are Network Rail Ltd, Network Rail Holdco Ltd and Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Network Rail Holdco Ltd, which is the holding company for Network Rail, and Network Rail Ltd, the umbrella company for the group as a whole, are legally responsible for many of the same functions as Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, so they are also listed in the order. In practice, however, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd is responsible for the day-to-day delivery of Network Rail’s public functions.

The functions performed by these companies which are considered of a public nature are those relating most directly to the development and operation of the rail network. Network Rail’s network services function covers its ownership of the rail network and the related activities that it is licensed to carry out under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993. This includes the full range of activities carried out by Network Rail which enable our railways to operate, from large-scale projects relating to the construction or improvement of new lines to more locally focused works on, for example, individual stations, bridges or level crossings. It also includes the provision of information about train movements to train operators to enable them to meet their information obligations to the public.

In addition to owning all UK railway stations, other than those in Northern Ireland, Network Rail operates a number of major railway stations under a further licence issued under Section 8 of the Railways Act. The operation of these stations also constitutes a public function and is covered by the “station services” function listed in the schedule to the draft order. Finally, Network Rail’s provision and operation of light maintenance depots for the purpose of providing services, including the refuelling and cleaning of trains, also constitutes a public function and is covered by the order.

I appreciate that this designation is quite technical but, importantly, it covers rail safety issues in connection with the networks, stations and depots. The designation will also cover information about the management of Network Rail, such as pay. The Secretary of State has accordingly concluded that all these functions are of a public nature, for a number of reasons. Of critical importance to this decision are factors such as: the extent to which these functions are performed in the public interest, given the importance of the services which Network Rail provides to the travelling public; the extent to which Network Rail receives public funding; and the degree to which Network Rail is subject to government control, and is accountable to government and Parliament.

Network Rail provides a variety of other services which do not constitute public functions and are therefore not capable of being covered through this order. As self-funding commercial services provided in a competitive market environment rather than on a monopoly basis in the public interest, it would not be appropriate to include them. In any event, it is not possible to include such non-public functions through an order made under Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Article 2(2) of the draft order is intended to provide clarity about the services which are excluded from scope on the above basis. With the exception of permitting train companies to access and use stations and tracks, the order does not cover services for which Network Rail charges fees or receives other consideration. This includes, for example, the provision of consultancy or property services, such as the letting of shop units, railway arches and advertising space, not directly related to the operation of the railways.

Network Rail representatives have been consulted about the companies and functions covered in the order. They view its inclusion under the Freedom of Information Act positively and are in agreement with the Secretary of State about the scope of the draft order. Network Rail will handle requests submitted to it as if it were the single organisation that the public generally see it to be. We welcome the constructive way in which Network Rail has engaged with the Ministry of Justice in drawing up this order.

The Secretary of State has concluded that the three companies subject to this order exercise, in the ways I have described, functions of a public nature. As a result, I believe that it is appropriate for them to be subject to the same scrutiny as those performed by other public authorities so that they will become more open, transparent and accountable. Network Rail has taken very considerable steps to become more transparent in the last few years. It already publishes large amounts of information proactively and responds to information requests on a voluntary basis, as opposed to a statutory basis. This is highly commendable. This order builds on those solid foundations by providing a legally enforceable right to request information, so I hope that noble Lords will agree that this order is an important part of the journey towards greater transparency. I therefore commend this draft order to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has explained, this order designates the companies considered by the Secretary of State to carry out functions of a public nature within Network Rail as subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. As far as it goes, I welcome this order, but it has taken a long time getting here, and the Government should be going a lot further in respect of freedom of information. We have heard a lot about freedom of information from the Government. As the Minister said, it is mentioned in the coalition agreement, but progress has been slow in this area over the last five years.

Calls for the extension of FOI to cover Network Rail have been made for some considerable time. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Public Accounts Committee has called for it on a number of occasions. Will the Minister name the companies that are part of Network Rail that will not be subject to the provisions? Will he tell the Grand Committee why it has taken so long for the order to get here today? Who in Network Rail was opposed to the extension of these provisions? Was that part of the reason it has taken so long? It would be useful if he could tell the Committee whether this is a settled position or one that the Government intend to keep under review to see whether the scope of the coverage could be broadened in future. As a regular train user, being able to get further information on issues such as the shambles at London Bridge and how we arrived at such poor service for passengers is most welcome.

Will the Minister say something on the Government’s general thinking in respect of freedom of information? I know he said something earlier, but more would be helpful. Do the Government have a view about private sector companies that are delivering public services being subject to FOI, particularly about the public service they actually deliver? I am thinking of train operating companies, which in some cases are delivering such a poor service. I do not know how much train travel the Minister does in London, but my experience of travelling in from south London every day is of a generally poor service from companies who largely think that they are beyond any form of accountability.

I am also an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and the ward that I represent has dreadful problems with Crofton Park railway station, for example, and neighbouring stations. I have written to the Secretary of State for Transport and invited him to take a train with me from either Brockley or Crofton Park, but I am still waiting for a reply. If the Minister bumps into his right honourable friend, perhaps he could mention to him that I am still waiting for that reply. There is such an awful service at those stations that I would love to show him what goes on there. However, I am content with the order today and welcome it.

16:15

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments generally, although perhaps not all of them. As he knows, the Freedom of Information Act was part of the coalition agreement. It has now been extended to Network Rail in its various manifestations—those parts where there is a public function.

The noble Lord asked for a list of the subsidiaries that are not to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act because they do not perform public functions. He should stand by for a list. They are Network Rail (High Speed) Ltd, Doddle Parcel Services Ltd, Network Rail (VY1) Ltd, Network Rail (VY2) Ltd, Network Rail Certification Body Ltd, Network Rail Consulting Ltd, Network Rail Development Ltd, Network Rail Insurance Ltd and Network Rail Pension Trustee Ltd. I can give the noble Lord a little more detail of those and of the Solam group, the Station Office Network LLP, Victoria Place Shopping Centre Ltd and West Hampstead Square LLP. Those and other subsidiaries I can provide a little more detail about in correspondence, but he will realise that there are some subsidiaries that are not concerned, as I indicated in my remarks, with matters that we regard of a public nature.

The noble Lord was concerned that it has taken some time to bring forward an order of this sort, having regard to the coalition parties’ pledge. The issue has indeed been under consideration for some time. The decision to extend the Act to Network Rail was ultimately taken together with its reclassification to the public sector in September 2014. The order was prepared as quickly as possible following that decision.

On the argument about what our approach should be towards freedom of information generally and whether it is the Government’s plan to extend it further, given the limited life left of this Parliament there is of course not a lot of time to do that. It might help the noble Lord and the Committee if I explain that we agreed with the Justice Committee in its post-legislative scrutiny recommendation that contractual transparency provisions often provide a more appropriate means of ensuring openness than the formal extension of the FOI Act to contractors. Indeed, the noble Lord may have heard me explaining that in the context of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill in respect of some aspects of what the Government do. We think that this approach strikes a balance between transparency and reducing burdens on non-public sector service providers, including charities and small businesses. Information about contracts between public authorities and private companies is already available from public authorities that are in any event subject to the FOI Act. That is the general direction of travel.

The noble Lord asked about problems with the railways generally in London, and he would probably accept that that is better directed to the Department for Transport. I can tell him that the Office of Rail Regulation is carrying out an investigation into the Christmas engineering overrun at King’s Cross and how it was managed, and a report will be published after it has been considered by the ORR board. The chief executive of Network Rail, Mark Carne, has launched an industry-wide review into the timing of major works programmes and the passenger contingency arrangements for such works. The Government welcome this review and look forward to its conclusions. If I bump into my ministerial colleague, I shall of course be sure to mention the noble Lord’s discontent with the rail service as a whole.

I think that that answers all the questions posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. As I promised, I can provide a little further detail of those companies not to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. There are contractual provisions and, where they are not subject it is because, essentially, they are not performing a function of a public nature.

Motion agreed.

Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:20

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations propose small changes to legislation that will simplify company law in the area of buying back shares for private companies with employee ownership—a form of mutual in which a meaningful proportion of a company’s shares are owned by the employee. Examples of private companies with direct share ownership include the Arup Group, Mott MacDonald, Unipart, PA Consulting Group and the Childbase Partnership. The new regulations clarify the operation and accounting treatment of share buy-back procedures, which were first introduced in 2013, by addressing minor omissions in the original legislation.

The independent Nuttall review of July 2012 set out the economic and social benefits of employee ownership. The review identified three types of barrier to its growth: lack of awareness, lack of resources and legal barriers. I am pleased to say that all the review recommendations have now been addressed, and most of them implemented. For example, the Government have helped to raise awareness of employee ownership with active support for the UK’s Employee Ownership Day, held each year on 4 July. Last year, there were more than 100 events countrywide to celebrate and promote the benefits of employee ownership. I mention this because I know that noble Lords opposite have shown an interest in communication.

We have also worked with industry to produce model documents and guidance on employee ownership for employees, employers and their business advisers. Most importantly, the Government introduced new tax incentives for companies that wish to adopt indirect employee ownership, when shares are held in trust for the benefit of all employees. We believe that this will be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises grappling with succession planning, as these incentives make selling your company to your employees via a trust an attractive and viable option. The new tax provisions also introduced more generous allowances for employees of companies with employee benefit trusts that share their profits with employees—for example, the John Lewis Partnership.

Since the review in 2012, we have seen growing awareness of employee ownership. According to the Employee Ownership Association, the trade association for the sector, the number of employee-owned companies nationally is still increasing at an annual rate of 10%. One of the review’s specific recommendations was that legislative changes were needed to simplify procedures for buying back shares in employee-owned companies. Therefore, in 2013 changes were introduced that would improve the operation of internal share markets and support private companies with direct share ownership models.

I make it clear that today we are speaking about changes that allow private companies to buy back their shares more easily. Private companies that wish to encourage their employees to hold shares directly—that is, without the use of a trust—often seek to buy back shares from employees who exit the company to redistribute them to new employees. This allows the company to avoid the risk that, over time, shares earmarked for allocation to employees become predominately owned by former employees, or others outside the company.

Prior to 2013, companies were obliged to comply with a number of company law provisions that regulate this process. The legislation that we passed in 2013 streamlined it. However, our attention was drawn at a very late stage to a couple of small details within the legislation which lacked sufficient clarity. We were unable to make the necessary changes at the time but committed to addressing them in due course. The regulations presented for the Committee’s consideration today address these issues. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to present a further minor amendment to the 2013 legislation, which is also deregulatory.

It was found sufficient to consult informally on these changes. A formal consultation would have been disproportionate to their small scale and likely effect. However, a full post-implementation review of the substantive changes made in the 2013 regulations, as well as the amendments we are proposing today, will be carried out in 2016. This is in accordance with the commitment given in the impact assessment for the 2013 regulations.

I will not repeat the detail set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI but I assure noble Lords that the new regulations ensure that the Government’s intention of improving the operation of internal share markets, started in 2013, can now be fully met. These proposals are purely enabling. They impose no costs to business and familiarisation costs will be minimal. Given the small, technical nature of the changes, it would have been disproportionate to try to explicitly quantify their likely costs and benefits. Nevertheless, the analysis provided in the impact assessment for the 2013 regulations, which also covers some of these amendments, indicated clearly that the policy overall is anticipated to result in a net reduction in the costs to business.

I hope that noble Lords will support these reforms, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

There is a select group of noble Lords present today. We have no reason to oppose these regulations. I am happy to say that the Minister answered a question that I was going to ask, which was whether we have seen an increase in the number of companies. She pointed out that there had been an increase of 10% per year. I do not know what the distribution is in terms of SMEs and large companies. If the noble Baroness has that information, it would be interesting to know the breakdown.

The Minister referred to the internal share markets. I presume that we are not talking about things such as the Royal Mail share sale but that the regulations include companies like the John Lewis Partnership. I can see the need to buy back those shares to prevent a dilution of current employees owning shares in the company. Other than that one question, we are happy to give our assent to this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, as always, we seem to have a good understanding of what will interest noble Lords on some of these regulations, and it is refreshing that we have largely been able to answer the questions which naturally arise when putting through an instrument of this kind. I can confirm that these regulations do not cover the Royal Mail. I do not have with me the breakdown of the figures for smaller and larger companies but I will obviously ensure that I get that to the noble Lord.

I think we can conclude that these regulations meet the requirements of the Act and I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:29

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

My Lords, the order raises the level at which creditors can petition for someone’s bankruptcy from £750 to £5,000. Bankruptcy is, and should be, very much a last resort. We have been working to ensure that people can get debt advice at an early stage when they are getting into financial difficulty. The Money Advice Service has been given the task of co-ordinating debt advice provision and an independent review has recently been conducted on that role. We expect to announce the government response to this review shortly.

The Financial Conduct Authority is currently re-authorising debt management firms, which will ensure that a good service is provided to consumers struggling with debt. The national curriculum has made financial literacy statutory for the first time for 11 to 16 year-olds from September 2014—a change which I warmly welcome. The curriculum for mathematics has also been strengthened to give pupils aged from five to 16 the necessary skills that they need to make important financial decisions about mortgages and loan repayments. We have also taken steps to reduce the costs of debt solutions. We have made an order providing an increase to the debt and asset limits for debt relief orders, enabling more people to use this low-cost form of debt relief. Legislation has also been passed to allow debtors to apply directly to an adjudicator for bankruptcy, rather than to the court, to reduce the cost of the bankruptcy process for those in need of debt relief.

Forcing someone into bankruptcy for a relatively small debt is disproportionate. Bankruptcy can have a significant effect on families, and can lead to mental and physical health issues due to stress, not least when it results in the loss of the family home. Bankruptcy also restricts access to credit, can lead to loss of employment in certain professions and prevents a person acting as a company director. We therefore consulted on what the right level should be for a creditor to petition for someone’s bankruptcy. The current figure of £750 was set in 1986. There was strong support for that level to be significantly raised. Debt advice bodies highlighted that a relatively small debt can grow enormously when the costs of bankruptcy are added, such as insolvency practitioner fees and legal costs, which may run into tens of thousands of pounds.

For example, one couple with a £1,350 council tax debt eventually ended up with debts of £80,000 as a result of the process. In another example, a local authority was criticised for obtaining a bankruptcy order for a council tax debt of £1,105 without due regard for the consequences on the debtor. It should be noted that a creditor petitioning for someone’s bankruptcy is unlikely to see much of a return at all when the debt is under £5,000.

Bankruptcy cases may either be dealt with by an official receiver, when the case is straightforward or there are minimal assets, or by an insolvency practitioner, when the case is more complex. However, for both types of case, where the petition debt is below £5,000, the amount returned to creditors is very low. Once any assets of the bankrupt are realised in the bankruptcy, they are distributed in proportion between the different creditors in priority order. However, sadly, in many cases there is no dividend at all. Those returns also do not take account of the court costs and other legal fees which the petitioning creditor will face.

It is important that creditors should have appropriate options to recover a debt owed to them. For debts below £5,000, creditors still have a number of other routes to seek debt repayment, including obtaining a charging order over property or land, an attachment of earnings order if someone is employed or the use of bailiffs.

Responses to the call for evidence suggested a rise of between £1,500 and £10,000, with the highest number of responses favouring a rise to £3,000 or £5,000. In arriving at a limit of £5,000, the Government have attempted to strike a balance between the reasonable needs of creditors and the interests of debtors. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful introduction to this statutory instrument. It seems to be a sensible move for the reasons that she states. There is no point in forcing people unnecessarily into a bankruptcy procedure. The case that she quoted about local authorities is a worrying one. They seem to have forgotten to apply the common-sense rule and the law of diminishing returns.

I could not help reflecting on a recent Radio 4 programme which dealt with debt and which featured a young woman who had gaily acquired three credit cards, followed by a shop card. I wonder when we are going to remind banks yet again of their responsibility not to lead people into debt, although that is not in any way to say that these individuals do not have a personal responsibility. I was reflecting on the financial advice that we now give people, which is a good thing. We ought to remind them that credit card debt eventually needs to be repaid. The worst-case scenario is that, if they are unable to pay that debt, they will then move into payday loans, and we have been through that.

Therefore, the order strikes us as a sensible way forward. It is far better that people who get into debt and do not have much disposable income should be able to take a variety of routes, including debt relief orders. Other than those comments, we support this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I very much agree with him about the need for better information, which is why I said that I welcomed the change to the national curriculum. He is also right that the banks need to be responsible. That is why it is good that we have completely reformed and tightened up financial regulation. However, there is a clear case for this important measure and I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Protected Disclosures (Extension of Meaning of Worker) Order 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:37

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Protected Disclosures (Extension of Meaning of Worker) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 12 January. It will amend Section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring student nurses and student midwives into the scope of the whistleblowing framework, often referred to as PIDA, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, as this was the Act which introduced protection for whistleblowers. The Government are taking this necessary step to ensure that student nurses and student midwives who witness poor practice can raise a concern without the fear that their future careers will be jeopardised.

The Government are making this change in response to the scandals uncovered at Stafford hospital, where it was found that a culture of bullying and covering up led to unacceptable failures in care. The inquiries that followed this scandal revealed that there were many cases where staff could have spoken up about poor practice but did not feel able to do so. The student nurses at the hospital were also in a position to raise concerns about wrongdoing.

We are aware of at least one example where a trainee nurse tried to raise the alarm about the care of patients in a hospital and, as a result, lost her training position and was unable to complete her course. We cannot tell how many other students in this position have refrained from taking cases to employment tribunals, realising that the cases could be dismissed.

The Government’s call for evidence into the whistleblowing framework in 2013 concluded that student nurses and student midwives are just as likely as qualified professionals to witness poor practice or other wrongdoing in the provision of healthcare services. The Government believe that student nurses and student midwives should be able to report their concerns without the fear of losing their place on an academic course or that their future registration as a nurse or midwife may be threatened.

There is an obvious question about why we are extending the whistleblowing framework only to student nurses and student midwives, rather than to all students in the health sector. I assure the Committee that the Government intend to extend the legislation to all students in the healthcare sector. However, the drafting of that legislation is more complex and will take a bit more time to get right. It will require consultation with all the different professional bodies which register the various professions in the health sector and approve training courses. That will ensure that the legislation takes account of the differences in how students train and become qualified in each profession.

We are already undertaking that work. Of course, it is unfortunately unlikely to be completed within this Parliament, but I am sure that the next Government, whichever colour they may be, will support legislation that creates a culture of openness and transparency within the NHS.

I know that the Nursing and Midwifery Council and Public Concern at Work have worked hard to bring to the fore the issues that student nurses and student midwives face, so that they, too, can safely raise concerns about poor practice. The order is a huge step forward in the campaign for student nurses and student midwives. I hope that the Committee is minded to support the order.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the order. Of course, we welcome it. In a recent, much more lengthy debate, we raised other aspects of protected disclosure that we will come back to fairly soon at Report. The Minister can breathe a sigh of relief that I do not intend to raise any of those now, because that would be inappropriate. We welcome the order. It is a shame that we could not cover all students. I was going to ask about the timeframe, but the Minister has given it to me. We are where we are. Given the circumstances, we welcome this important step forward. It is a difficult decision for workers in the health service. We can see from all the case examples that have emerged how difficult it is to go down that route, so we definitely welcome this step forward.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. To reiterate, the Government are committed to supporting the important role of whistleblowers, who can play a crucial role in ensuring that workplaces and work practices, especially in the health service, are safe. I look forward to debating wider matters at Report on the small business Bill, and I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.43 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Monday, 9 February 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Salisbury

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

14:37

Nicholas Roderick, Lord Bishop of Salisbury, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Bishop of Worcester and the Bishop of Portsmouth, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Death of a Member: Lord Gavron

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:41

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Gavron, on 7 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our deepest condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Disabled People: Sports Stadia

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:41

Asked by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that sports stadia in the United Kingdom are made fully accessible for spectators with a disability.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are working to ensure that all spectators have equal access to sporting venues and services, and that the owners of stadia are aware of their responsibilities towards disabled spectators. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that the rights of disabled spectators are properly recognised.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, according to the charity Level Playing Field, only 15% of Premier League clubs are providing sufficient wheelchair space for disabled people, and access for people with other kinds of impairment is said to be “woefully inadequate”. The Equality Act 2010 makes it illegal for football clubs to treat disabled people less favourably than other customers, so is it not time to ensure that all football stadia are fully accessible so that disabled fans are supported? Should this not apply to every level of this beautiful game?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that more progress needs to be made. That is why the two departments’ joint survey of disabled sports fans is important, but there is also the issue of sports clubs. That is why the £1.9 million bid from the Equality and Human Rights Commission is designed precisely for a programme that includes support and guidance for improving the physical and cultural accessibility of sporting venues. Indeed, the EHRC is working actively with the Premier League, the England and Wales Cricket Board and rugby. It is very important that the momentum of the further work that needs to be done is continued very strongly.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I must inform the House of a major structural defect in the main stand at Chelsea: it was built facing the pitch. I apologise to all Chelsea fans. This is a serious issue. Derby County has gone the extra mile, and Cardiff and Swansea have done great stuff on access. Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium is best in class. What does my noble friend believe should be done to clubs which choose actively to flout the law and not make their stadia accessible? If it is good enough for the Gooners, it should be good enough for any club. What should be done?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, again, I entirely agree with my noble friend. It is one of the reasons why the joint departmental project is both seeking good practice and wanting examples of bad. It is not just about seating; it is about transport, ticketing, sightlines and the whole operation, so that we ensure that people with a disability have a much greater chance to enjoy their sport.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the one alibi which cannot work for the Premier League clubs is shortage of money? Is he aware that Manchester United, which received, according to the Daily Telegraph, £89.1 million in 2013-14, largely from television deals, and is expected to receive even more when the outcome of the present bidding is concluded, still provides only 43% of the spaces required under the accessible stadium guidelines? Is not the answer that the Government must legislate to make those guidelines mandatory?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord’s point—the noble Lord brings immense experience to this issue—that those large clubs with the resources really must do better. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism is speaking to all the sporting bodies, particularly the Football League, to ensure that this point is made on every meeting agenda. I hope that what we are doing now will be part of a cocktail of activity that ensures that legislation is not necessary, but if clubs of Manchester United’s wealth are not prepared to do better, then everyone will have to think about that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, in an earlier answer, my noble friend the Minister referred to the survey and said that this issue was about much more than the physical space for wheelchairs and other disabled spectators. Does the survey also assess the training of ground stewards and the percentage of ground stewards who have accessibility training?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I will check precisely and let her know. Clearly, all that side of things is important. It is one reason why the survey is not just of disabled fans but of clubs, so that we can understand some of the challenges and what more needs to be done to help the clubs.

[Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)]

My Lords, sport makes a significant contribution to the health and well-being of those who take part, and access should be available for everyone who wishes to participate and to spectate. Volunteers play an essential role in making this happen. Research recently published by the Join In Trust, which I chair, shows the benefits to both physical and mental health for those who take part in sport. It also found that a huge contribution is made to the economy, of some £53 billion per annum, from sports volunteering alone. What plans do the Government have to invest in and expand this valuable resource to our economy?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the track record is immense. We have only to look at the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Commonwealth Games to see how vibrant volunteering is. We want to develop that across a broad piece, but I shall certainly take back what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend in his earlier Answer gave a comprehensive and impressive list of things that people were undertaking and that the Government were doing. The slight danger in his Answer might conceivably be the implication that we were short of knowledge about what the problem was. When does my noble friend think that this will become an issue of political will rather than more and more about persuasion and trying to find out information that is readily available at the moment?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, one reason why we wanted to have the survey was that there was a lot of anecdotal evidence. We want firm evidence from both the clubs and disabled fans across a range so that we can properly address this matter. The survey concludes on 28 February. I hope that many more sporting clubs will contribute to that process. Then we can start to plan and remedy what has been unsatisfactory for too long.

[Baroness Billingham (Lab)]

I want to extend the Question to places other than sporting facilities. Will the Minister look at the need for handrails in areas such as theatres and cinemas as well as in sports stadia, because they are very important now? We are an ageing population, but we still love our sport.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I very much hope that all places the public wish to enjoy, whether the theatre, the cinema, sports stadia or wherever, are very mindful of safety. Certainly, within football, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and, indeed, the Level Playing Field of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, are all about ensuring better facilities.

Banking System

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:50

Asked by

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to rebuild confidence in the banking system.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, a successful and respected banking sector is of great importance to our economy. That is why the Government have taken wide-ranging action to ensure the integrity and stability of financial services in the UK. For example, the Government now require banks to ring-fence their riskier operations. They have also criminalised the manipulation of LIBOR and a further seven benchmarks and legislated to introduce a senior managers certification regime.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the latest Bank of England financial stability report indicates that this is not just about financial resilience but also about governance? As reports today in the Guardian and elsewhere demonstrate, it is governance that is such a failure at the moment. Will he say, very specifically, whether he agrees with the British Chambers of Commerce that we need a British business bank which would enable growth to take place in the UK economy? It is a very important proposal and one that ought to get urgent support.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, we do have a business bank. This Government have created one and it is growing very rapidly. As for standards, I completely agree that the standards that are adopted by bankers need to improve. Of course, the industry has itself recognised this by establishing the Banking Standards Review Council.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that the recently publicised excesses of HSBC’s Swiss subsidiary occurred under the regime of the previous Government. Does he believe that the system of banking regulation introduced by this Government would have made the excesses of HSBC less likely?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think that all those involved in banking before the crash adopted laxer standards than they now accept are necessary. I know from discussions that I have had with senior representatives of HSBC before today that the new regulatory regime is far more intrusive and has been forcing them to address the way they do business in a manner which I am sure all noble Lords will welcome.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, should not those who ran HSBC when it was selling tax evasion packages be held to account? By whom should they be held to account?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there are several elements of holding people to account. I think the shareholders need to hold them to account. If there has been any criminal wrongdoing it is obviously for the police and prosecuting authorities in the relevant jurisdictions to pursue those matters.

[Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will confirm that the agreement with Switzerland to reveal tax information was made in 2011, after the coalition Government took office. Does he believe that confidence in the banking system is enhanced by the fact that concrete evidence of a major bank aiding and abetting tax evasion was comprehensively ignored by the coalition Government?

[Lord Newby]

No, I do not. As for the first part of the noble Lord’s question, the agreement with Switzerland, which he seems to deride, has generated £1.2 billion for the Exchequer. That is £1.2 billion more than was being generated under the previous Administration.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, this information was available to the Government when they took office. How is it, then, that the former chairman and chief executive of HSBC during this period was made a government Minister?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the process by which people become Members of your Lordships’ House and are made Ministers involves them being vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the appropriate bodies within government. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Green, was involved in any of this sort of activity.

[Lord Soley]

The Minister cannot be allowed to get away with this. He is being incredibly complacent. The governance problem with banks has been there for years under all parties and it is fair to say that none of them has done enough about it. He is still not saying what he will do to ensure that the governance of banks, not just their financial resilience, is dramatically improved.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I have spent much of the past five years in this Chamber legislating to improve the governance of the banks. We have passed several major pieces of legislation to make long overdue improvements in the ways in which the financial services sector is managed. For example, we have introduced too-big-to-fail processes of various sorts, the ring fence and the bail-in, as well as new standards for senior managers in banks. All of these things will improve the way in which banks are managed and a number of them were actively opposed, when they were in government, by the previous Administration.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on another aspect of banking and confidence, is the Minister aware that a number of well respected charities, particularly those working in developing countries, have had their bank accounts closed without any explanation or notice? Is he aware of that and, if so, has he had any representations from these groups? If not, will he accept a delegation of some of the groups affected disproportionately by this measure?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I have not had any representations, and of course I would be very happy to meet a delegation.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister feels encouraged by the strong and vocal level of support that he has had from the Benches behind him. One thing that has been very notable is that not a Conservative has got to his feet, and I wonder why. Would the noble Lord agree that for banks to become respected they have to earn that respect? Would he also agree that they have a very long way yet to go?

[Lord Newby]

Yes, my Lords, I would.

Council Tax: Low-income Taxpayers

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:57

Asked by

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on low-income taxpayers of the changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme and reduction in funding for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, these are local schemes and it is for local authorities to ensure that the effect on specific groups of council tax payers is both proportionate and fair. We made a £100 million transition grant available in 2013-14 to help councils to develop well designed schemes and maintain incentives to work.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, in Newcastle alone, as a result of government cuts to council tax support, 18,000 working-age households, 4,500 of which are in work, have lost out, while 11,000 that were previously exempt have to pay 20% of the council tax and 7,000 that were formerly partially exempt now have to pay 20%. Arrears stand at £2.8 million. How do the Government justify this imposition on some of the most hard-pressed families and individuals in the country?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we have given councils wide powers to design council tax support schemes for exactly the kind of people mentioned by the noble Lord, and the vast majority of local authorities are applying the same system of premiums and allowances as applied under council tax benefit. Many are also offering additional protection to vulnerable groups.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain why a Government who talk so much about tax cuts are happy to countenance this tax increase on some of the poorest members of our society, many of whom are also struggling with cuts in benefits and tax credits and are too poor to benefit from increases in personal tax allowances? It is this Government who transferred responsibility to local authorities, with less money to fulfil those responsibilities.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness makes a point that I cannot agree with. Just recently we announced an additional £74 million for welfare support at local authority level. As we said we would, we have stressed localism and local empowerment, and we have delivered on that. Council tax bills have come down by 11% in real terms since 2010. That is worth up to £1,075 for the average household over this Parliament.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is for each local authority to decide which council tax support scheme they will have? Can he tell us what assessment has been made of the extent to which councils have been able to mitigate the reduction in funding for council tax support by using their new powers to levy additional council tax on empty or second homes?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend is quite right that this is about ensuring that local authorities are empowered. We have also taken steps to ensure that we have released a greater number of empty homes. There are additional measures that councils can take. For example, I have responsibility for countering fraud, where a bigger effort is being made. Councils currently lose £2.1 billion from fraud and error. There are council reserves of £21.4 billion. It is really for local authorities to decide their priority and to initiate schemes appropriately.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there are some areas of the country where incomes are now so low that even the market is abandoning some services in smaller towns? In those areas, the public sector has a particular responsibility. Indeed, the social mobility task force, which was set up by his Government, is saying that it is people in work with the lowest incomes who will be the biggest crisis for this country in the next five years. Will the Minister recognise that the level of cuts on local authorities is making it difficult for those local authorities to help to protect these people who the market has already abandoned?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Local authorities of course have a primary role in ensuring the welfare of all their residents. The noble Baroness talks about particular areas, but I believe that it is also important that local authorities work with the voluntary and private sectors to ensure the provision of services. This Government have sought to prioritise actual budgets so that local authorities can prioritise in their own local areas.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that initially some local authorities were treating disability payments—DLA and PIP—as though they were income replacement benefits in their local schemes, rather than support for extra costs: that is, they were treating them as income, which obviously reduced the council tax support. What have the Government done to address this concern, or do they see it as none of their business?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government have addressed all concerns. I think the noble Lord is being disingenuous about what the Government are seeking to do. We have ensured empowerment to local authorities to prioritise local spending. The impact and effectiveness of this policy, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, will be reviewed by assessing three years of full data. It is also important to mention that the Government have sought to bring council tax spending under control. Sixty per cent of councils in England have frozen or reduced their council tax this year as well, and the Government have made these freezes possible for five successive years. I think it is about time that we acknowledged that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have introduced universal credit, which we support, which seeks to bring together and simplify means-tested benefits for people of working age in a single benefit. Why, then, are the Government sabotaging that by extracting council tax benefit from the system and turning it into a postcode lottery, where the amount of help you get depends not on your need but on the accident of where you live?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sorry, but I do not recognise the noble Baroness’s description. I have already alluded to the fact that the Government will review this policy after three years. At that time, this element will be considered for possible inclusion in universal credit.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister just say yes or no: have the Government transferred responsibility at the same time as reducing the budget? Local government is tired of having freedom to dispense even less money than this measly Government allowed before.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

This Government’s priority is efficient local spending. That is exactly what we have sought to do with our transfer.

Gambling: Fixed-odds Betting Terminals

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:04

Asked by

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mitigate the misuse of fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, new regulations come into force on 6 April this year that will end unsupervised high-stake gambling on fixed-odds betting terminals. All players using FOBTs are now presented with a choice to set time and money upfront. We are keeping this issue under review and remain focused on identifying gambling-related harm, wherever it is found, and devising effective measures to bear down on it hard.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, one man recently laundered nearly £1 million in drug money through these machines in Coral betting shops in the north-east. Can my noble friend the Minister explain why the Government’s rather feeble plan to set the maximum stake to £50 or £100 will make any difference at all to money laundering or to the extensive gambling addiction that these machines cause, given that four out of five of those staking just a quarter of the proposed new maximum limit show signs of problem gambling?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as regards money laundering, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 places a duty on gambling operators to be alert to money laundering attempts and to report such attempts to the National Crime Agency. The Government expect all gambling operators to ensure that their anti-money laundering procedures are consistently and effectively applied to minimise risk and maintain good controls. On the point of the size of the stakes, the new measures will require those accessing stakes over £50 to use account-based play or to load cash over the counter. The Responsible Gambling Trust has said that in its view it is,

“overtly naïve and massively premature”,

to suggest that reducing the maximum stake size would help to reduce problem gambling.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in a casino you will have at least a croupier, an overseer and a manager, all monitoring the behaviour of a gambler, yet on most high streets you can have a small shop with two of these machines and one person behind a screen. Does the Minister seriously believe that the assurances given by the bookmakers can be met as regards monitoring problem gambling?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, clearly, we will see how those measures work. We very much hope that they will work, and we are looking to the gambling industry to ensure that it co-operates on this. Of course, as I said before, the measures require all players of FOBTs to be presented with a choice to set time and money, which we think is an important stage in ensuring a redress of this problem.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have been a strong supporter of localism, so will they listen to the views of some 93 local councils, who have asked the Government to be able to cut the FOBT stake to £2 because they are worried about anti-social behaviour, crime and problem gambling in their areas?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I know that DCLG is looking at that submission, and I very much hope that it will report on that shortly. However, of course we are also giving further powers to local communities by requiring planning applications to be submitted to local authorities for new betting shops.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, despite the new measures, it will still be possible for a gambler to spend £100 every 20 seconds? What further inducement could one give to people who have social difficulties and who are problem gamblers than to make it so easy to lose so much money?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the new measures will require those accessing stakes of over £50 to use account-based play or to load cash. However, interestingly, the Gambling Commission reported on Friday on its wish to raise the bar on social responsibility and working with operators to ensure that there is much more adherence to assisting people who gamble.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister see any connection between the gambling law and the problems of money laundering that have just been discussed, and what happened with HSBC five years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Green, apparently was running the shop and 5 million Swiss francs in cash were handed over in a plastic bag?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am a fairly even-minded person, but we are dealing with a question where, in 2000, there were no FOBTs and, by 2010, there were 30,000 FOBTs. That is the situation that this Government now seek to address. The deputy leader of the noble Lord’s party has admitted that what happened was a mistake, and we are now dealing with that.

Care and Support (Business Failure) Regulations 2014

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Care and Support (Children’s Carers) Regulations 2014

Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014

Care and Support (Market Oversight Criteria) Regulations 2014

Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015

Motions to Approve

15:10

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3 December and 17 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instrument, 19th and 21st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motions agreed.

Armed Forces Pension (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015

Police Pensions (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015

Public Service (Civil Servants and Others) Pensions (Consequential and Amendment) Regulations 2015

National Health Service Pension Scheme (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015

Teachers’ Pension Scheme (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2015

Motions to Approve

15:10

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motions agreed.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:11

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 1: Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) (civil legal services: excluded services), in paragraph 2(d) (proceedings in court of summary jurisdiction in relation to which funding for representation may be provided), after paragraph (xx) insert—
“(xxi) under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015;”.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 relates to the availability of civil legal services in Northern Ireland for hearings of applications to extend the 14-day time period in which an individual’s travel documents may be retained under the power in Part 1, Chapter 1, of the Bill.

Your Lordships will recall that, in Committee on 20 January, the House agreed to an amendment that extended the availability of legal aid to those subject to the temporary passport seizure power in England and Wales, subject to individuals meeting the statutory means and merits tests. At that time, I advised the House that we were discussing the matter with the devolved Administrations and that further amendments may be required.

Accordingly, this amendment is necessary to ensure that, subject to means and merits tests, civil legal aid may be available in relation to applications to extend a temporary passport seizure to a district judge in the magistrates’ courts in Northern Ireland, as set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. The Scottish Government have confirmed that civil legal aid is already available in Scotland under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. The secondary legislation which sits under that Act may require some amendment and that will, of course, be taken forward through the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 1 will amend paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 to bring the proceedings in Schedule 1 to the Bill within the scope of civil legal services in Northern Ireland. The amendment also ensures that advocacy before the district judge in the magistrates’ courts may be included in the civil legal aid that may be available for those proceedings. The amendment does not alter the statutory means and merits tests, nor does it make available civil legal aid for any other civil legal services in Northern Ireland. Legal aid is already available for judicial review proceedings in Northern Ireland, subject to individuals meeting the statutory means and merits test.

The Government consider that an amendment to the scope of the civil legal aid scheme in Northern Ireland is appropriate in these circumstances due to the important nature of the proceedings set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, the limitations on an individual’s ability to present their own case in these circumstances, and the absence of an alternative route to resolution.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights and a number of noble Lords have expressed an interest in this issue and I trust that this further amendment will also be welcomed by your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

15:14

Clause 26: General duty on specified authorities

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

2: Clause 26, page 17, line 39, after “to” insert “the exercise of particular functions or to”

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments 3, 7 and 8. These all relatively minor and technical amendments in relation to the Prevent duty in Part 5, Chapter 1, of the Bill.

Schedule 6 specifies those authorities subject to the duty. Amendments 2, 3 and 7 increase the flexibility here to allow for the duty to apply only in relation to the performance of certain of a specified authority’s functions that we chose to refer to in the schedule. We do not have any intention of altering the current descriptions in Schedule 6 at the present time, but these amendments will allow for the possibility of such nuances to be included in the future.

Amendment 7 seeks to provide a clarification that functions caught by this duty do not include functions exercised outside Great Britain. This matches the territorial extent of this part of the Bill.

Amendment 8 follows on from the government amendment tabled on Report, which required that the Prevent guidance be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This amendment allows for the power to issue such guidance to commence upon Royal Assent. This will ensure that the guidance can be issued and considered by Parliament at the earliest opportunity, prior to the duty itself being commenced, so that specified authorities have as much time as possible to make preparations in the light of the guidance before it takes effect. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome these government amendments, as I do all their amendments at this stage. I particularly welcome the proposal that only particular functions of authorities which are specified in the future may be caught. I wish I had thought of using the term “nuance” when I tabled a similar amendment at a previous stage about the current list of authorities.

I have a question for my noble friend on Amendment 7 and functions exercised outside Great Britain. I imagine that his notes include one or two examples of what that might comprise. I asked my noble friends sitting next to me whether they had any ideas. My noble friend Lady Ludford suggested that the measure might apply to the activities of UK Visas and Immigration. I do not know whether the Home Office would come down with a heavy fist on a Home Office body, but I am sure that it is a good principle. It seems that my noble friend may not have any examples, in which case I will let him off the hook as he has been so helpful on other matters.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her question on these amendments. We are happy to supply further examples but one which springs to mind is that of a university which has another campus outside the United Kingdom. However, if there are other examples which would be helpful to your Lordships, I am happy to write at a later date.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

3: Clause 26, page 17, line 41, after “to” insert “those functions or”

Amendment 3 agreed.

Clause 31: Freedom of expression in universities etc

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

4: Clause 31, page 20, line 12, leave out from “of” to end of line 13 and insert “a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”

[Lord Bates]

This is the third and final group of amendments. In coming to the end of Third Reading, it is appropriate that I conclude my remarks on the subject of academic freedom.

On Report, your Lordships’ House agreed a government amendment to require further and higher education institutions, when carrying out the Prevent duty, to have particular regard to the duty to secure freedom of speech contained in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. This will require higher and further education institutions, when considering all the factors they need to consider when complying with the Prevent duty, to place particular emphasis on the duty to secure freedom of speech.

A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, argued that we should add to that provision so that particular regard must also be given to the principle of academic freedom. As I set out at the time, the Government do not believe that such a reference is strictly necessary: the description of academic freedom in Section 202 of the Education Reform Act 1988 is essentially a subset of freedom of speech as set out in Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

However, your Lordships made the case that the principle of academic freedom itself should be explicitly referenced in the Bill. I committed to give this matter further consideration in order to provide reassurance. Therefore, I have tabled Amendments 5 and 6 to include “academic freedom” in Clause 31. This should provide unequivocal reassurance that the Prevent duty is not designed to undermine the principle of academic freedom. The Government have also tabled Amendment 4 to provide greater clarity as to which institutions the clause applies to. The new reference to Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 makes it clear which higher education institutions are required to pay particular regard to freedom of speech and academic freedom when carrying out the Prevent duty. I trust that this provides greater clarity for your Lordships.

As this may be, without tempting fate, the last point I make formally on this matter—I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, may wish to respond—I would like to place on record my deep thanks to your Lordships’ House for the consideration that they have given this very important Bill. We have spent seven days in Committee and we have had thirty-eight and a half hours of scrutiny. The Bill has been scrutinised not only by the excellent contribution of the current members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but by former council leaders, senior lawyers, former Law Lords, former judges, IT gurus, a former chief prosecutor, former diplomats, Cabinet Ministers, former Home Office Ministers, university vice-chancellors, academics, college heads, three former Cabinet Secretaries, two former directors of the security services and two former chiefs of the Metropolitan Police. That level of scrutiny has been reflected in some 237 amendments, which have been considered by your Lordships. People can therefore have some confidence that this important piece of legislation will leave your Lordships’ House in better shape than when it arrived.

I thank in particular Her Majesty’s Opposition—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and also my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for their contributions, their scrutiny and their liaison which has been ongoing throughout the course of our proceedings on the Bill.

It is appropriate that we conclude our discussions on this key issue, which is all to do with freedom of speech and academic freedom. It reminds us that while the purport of this piece of legislation is very much to keep us safe, we are ever mindful that we need to protect the very freedoms which the people who would seek to attack us want to take away. We cannot do their work for them and therefore we have refined and sharpened the Bill to make sure that it is suitable for that purpose.

As well as thanking all the Members who have taken part in your Lordships’ House, on a personal note I pay particular thanks to my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde for his assistance during the process, and also to the Bill team. I am sure that everyone—my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, the Bill team, and all your Lordships—would want particular thanks to go to those members of the security services, the police force, and the Border Force, who give of their time and safety every day to keep us safe from these particular crimes. All they ask in return is our support and the tools to do the job. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome Amendments 5 and 6, which write into the Bill the duty to,

“have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom”,

as defined in the 1988 Act, alongside the duty on freedom of speech, which was conceded on Report. I am really very grateful to the Minister. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I thank him for listening and taking action so late in the day. I am sure he groaned inwardly when I burst into his office last week. No doubt he thought that everything had been sewn up. I am therefore particularly grateful that he was prepared to take action and go the last mile so late in the day.

I also thank the Bill team and the lawyers for executing the decision so neatly. I am sure that they also groaned—perhaps not quite so inwardly. I also welcome the Minister’s latest letter to noble Lords, in which he made clear that:

“‘Particular regard’ is stronger than ‘due regard’ because it elevates the consideration to the top of the list of factors to be weighed up i.e. freedom of speech is the most important other duty, rather than simply another one to be considered, such as health and safety”.

It might be helpful if he could confirm that, so that it is on the record.

I have one final question: what is the timetable is for finalising the guidelines and bringing regulations before both Houses?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

For the sake of absolute clarity— because there has been a great deal of confusion about these aspects of the Bill—can my noble friend say whether it is correct that his Amendments 4, 5 and 6 make no difference whatever to the purport of the Bill, are merely clarifying and have no substance?

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I join in thanking the Minister for what he has done in reaching the right conclusion, particularly with regard to academic freedom. Balancing security with liberty and freedom is a very difficult business, and he has brought to this issue sensitivity, intellectual rigour and great listening skills. He has performed his function as a Minister in the most exemplary way, and I hope that others will follow suit. I wanted to thank him formally.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, as another of those who argued in favour of the amendments on academic freedom that were put before the House, I thank the Minister very much for his co-operation. Like others, I am pleased with the overall result, even though some of us would have liked implementation of the Prevent duty to be postponed for some time for a review of it to take place. However, we are very grateful to him for what he has achieved.

One of the issues that I raised with the Minister was whether the duty under the 1986 and 1988 Acts, which extend to further education colleges, included sixth-form colleges. I have had confirmation from the Bill team that the provision indeed includes those colleges. That results in a slightly anomalous situation in which sixth-formers in schools are not included within the general duty to promote freedom of speech in the same way. It is possible that there will be some follow-through from the Association of School and College Leaders, for example, to obtain further clarification from him.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the Minister and the Bill team for the amendments. As I said at earlier stages of the Bill, as someone who has had to deal with different codes of practice and work out which takes predominance over the other, the critical thing that came fairly early on in your Lordships’ House was the clear importance of the responsibility to hold on to the duty of freedom of speech. It was during that debate that academic freedom came up and I am very grateful that these amendments have been laid. Contrary to the question that my noble friend asked about whether this changed anything, I think that for people working in the academic world it is an important clarification. I received a number of questions from people in the academic community wondering exactly where these academic freedoms stood. Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister.

15:30

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, as one who pecked away as rather a nuisance in relation to Section 202 of the Education Reform Act 1988, I give special thanks to the Minister for his courtesy and understanding in this matter. There might well have been a technical argument that the wording of Section 43 of the 1986 Act already covered the point, because it refers to employees in the context of freedom of speech, but it would have been churlish to do so. I am very grateful to the Minister for his chivalry, courtesy, sensitivity and, indeed, his bounty and generosity in this matter.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, wish to echo the thanks to the Minister for his persistence and patience. I am also grateful to him for letting me know that he and his officials are discussing consultation with universities and students with regard to the guidance offered by the Minister. As it happens, I spent Friday with a group of young sixth-formers from, I suppose, every kind of ethnic and religious background, a substantial proportion of whom were Islamic. They all strongly took the view that it was very important to enable discussion and debate to take place at their age level. They suggested, very sensibly, that the Government could help by, for example, encouraging political parties and Cross-Benchers to suggest the names of people who might be willing to speak to sixth forms of that kind and to respond if a school asks for a speaker without itself having one in mind. That was a very good suggestion by these young men and women. I hope very much that the Minister will persist with his discussions with the officials. It is crucial that young people feel themselves involved and part of the whole effort to try to deal with terrorism in this country.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the latest amendments that he has tabled, which met very clearly points made by me and others in the debate on Report. I hope that he will not feel the need to answer too clearly the question put to him. In the professional field in which I practised for many years, clarifications were what you called changes of substance that you did not wish the Opposition to be able to say was a change of substance.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has been absolutely showered with garlands and bouquets. I am sure they are extremely well deserved and I am very reluctant to strike a discordant note—and I will not. However, I wish to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the guidance notes. Everyone is talking about academic freedom but in the Bill it is not just about academic freedom; it is also about freedom of speech on campuses and meetings held in universities. I am concerned about this because recently a degree of intolerance has sometimes been shown, with people trying to ban meetings in universities. Therefore, I have been a little worried about some of the things in the guidance notes.

The Minister will recall that I was puzzled, as was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, by his concept of non-violent extremism. I was not altogether convinced by the Minister’s reply as to what that meant. However, what really alarmed me was the substance of the guidance notes. I come to this very fresh, compared to people who have been looking at this for a long time. I drew attention to this business of having to give advance notice of what your speech was going to be about, and rating speakers from seven to 10—or one to 10—on how much risk there was of them causing a disturbance on campus. How do we rate David Irving or Marine Le Pen? These are very difficult judgments to make.

I went through a number of the provisions. In reply, the Minister just said, “Some people made a lot of fun of the guidance notes”. He did not answer any of the points. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, a lot of this is pretty unworkable. It reminds me, as I think it reminded the noble Lord, a little of some regulation put forward by the FSA and the FCA. There is a lot of box-ticking in this.

I am sure that the concessions the Minister has made on academic freedom are very important. I am sure that they have satisfied a lot of people. That is thoroughly to be welcomed, but I very much hope that the points made about the guidance notes will be taken into account in any reconsideration of them.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on putting the Bill into far better shape than it was in when it left the Commons, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House. It shows your Lordships working brilliantly together, as we do.

I agree with everything that my colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Lister, said about the clauses we are looking at now. I also say to my noble friend Lord Lamont that if he had been with us at Second Reading and in Committee, he would have been rather more assured that some of the aspects that concerned him about the guidance have already been debated at great length. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have taken those issues on board.

On substance, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that this is about clarification, which will make all the difference to perception. Perception is hugely important; I think of the 500 signatories who attached their names to a letter in the Guardian only last week. The Minister has responded with clarity, which is exactly what we all asked for. I thank him for that.

Finally, and with respect to my noble friend, I remind all noble Lords of the need to put pressure on whoever is in government after the forthcoming election to bring back to the House debate and legislation regarding data retention. This is an aspect that remains in the forefront of many noble Lords’ minds. It needs to be addressed further and as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, an acknowledgement of the Minister’s hard work, openness, patience and availability in numerous meetings applies not just to these clauses but to the whole of the Bill. He has been so helpful, as other noble Lords have said.

Having said that, I think it is right to say—noise from behind me suggests that I might be about to criticise the Minister; I am not—that there is a lot of work for the Government and local government, at all levels and in all sectors, to do. I will not be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has had a number of emails this morning saying that the writer is very concerned about the Bill, or making points about the need for tackling radicalisation to be done from the bottom up. Such emails also mention issues around discrimination and all the things that many of us have voiced at some length during proceedings on the Bill. At this point, while giving ourselves a pat on the back for having got to here, it is only right to remember that the work done outside the legislation is probably more difficult than the legislation itself.

I gave very brief notice to the Bill team of one question. If the Minister is not able to answer it, since it arises from his most recent letter, which is not on the record in Hansard, I will of course understand if he would prefer to answer it by letter. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about due regard, particular regard and so on. The letter says, in terms, that the particular freedom of speech awareness and the principle of academic freedom are not elevated above the Prevent duty. On the last day of Report, I think, we heard a very helpful explanation of what “due regard” meant. Having said that, the letter goes on a couple of pages later to say that particular regard is stronger than due regard. I found it a little difficult to reconcile the two parts of the letter. The Bill team started to explain it to me, but I needed to get into the Chamber for the start of these proceedings. If that is better dealt with by letter, to have the same status as the letter that gives rise to the questions, perhaps that would be the way to do it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister’s characteristically generous comments when he introduced these amendments illustrate his attitude to the whole Bill. I hope that the well-deserved praise that he has received so far does not damage his promotion prospects in the future, given where it is coming from. He said that the debate had lasted thirty-eight and a half hours. There were times when it flew by and there were times it did not, but it is a testament to your Lordships’ House—and I think noble Lords across the House, other than the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, have recognised this—that we have a substantially improved Bill from the one that we received, and with no votes, which is an interesting comment on the way we have proceeded in our discussions and debates both inside the Chamber and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to, outside the Chamber as well.

I thank the Minister for the number of occasions on which he has been willing to engage. We have all engaged with Ministers across parties in the past where we have engaged but have felt that they perhaps have not engaged in the same way. He has not been guilty of that on any occasion. He did engage properly. Even last Wednesday, I caught him at around midnight as he was leaving the Chamber, and he was willing to discuss the issue of academic freedom further. I think that says a lot about how we got to this substantially improved Bill.

My only question is to ask whether the Minister can place on the record the points that he made in his extremely helpful letter in that regard, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I think that would be very important. I thank him and his Bill team, who have been available at all times for discussions and debate. I think that is what has led to the improvements.

Can I make one plea? I have also received emails and letters about this. There is some misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill and how these measures will work. That is going to be very important. Legislation is one thing, but hearts and minds and understanding to make it work in practice in the way that it is supposed to—doing no less and no more than is intended—will be extremely important.

As well as the clarity that the Minister has given to the Bill as a whole, particularly on freedom of speech and academic freedom in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, the issues will now receive judicial review. That is extremely important. We pushed it to a vote in the Commons. We did not succeed, but we have succeeded in agreement across your Lordships’ House on that point during our debates.

On the issues of guidance, the fact that we have now increased parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative order is extremely important. I also recognise that during Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, several changes were made to that guidance. She recognised that it would have to be changed before it was presented to your Lordships’ House through an SI.

We support these amendments. We are grateful to the Minister for putting them forward. We also welcome the spirit in which this Bill has been debated and discussed and the changes that have been made. It is a significant testament to your Lordships’ House that, as I said at the beginning, we have a much improved Bill in comparison to the one we received, and with no votes, by negotiation and discussion.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments that have been made from around the House. There is no need for the noble Baroness to worry about damaging my career prospects. As I am reliably informed, I do not have many, having already exceeded my mother’s expectations for my career some years ago.

The noble Baroness made a very important point about the fact that we have considered 237 amendments and there has been no Division, but that is not to say that there has been no difference, change or argument, or really passionate debate. I think of some of the debates that we have had, particularly on academic freedom and communications data, to which my noble friend Lady Buscombe referred. We have had passionate debate all the way through, and as a result of that 40 amendments have been made to the Bill, which will now go on its journey to another place.

15:44

I guess that is probably part of the reassurance that I would offer to my noble friend. Certainly I would never wish to deal in platitudes. We had made progress in recognising that the guidance put out for consultation was going to be unworkable in that form, to be quite frank, so we conceded that there would need to be changes. An added layer of commitment to that was the decision that this would not just be issued by the Secretary of State in guidance next month but be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is an added guarantee and something that will be welcomed.

I am conscious that I was asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee to put on the record the comments made in paragraph 1 of page 4 of my letter, which states:

“If the further Government amendment is agreed”—

it just has been—

“it will also require academic institutions to have ‘particular regard’ to the academic freedoms referred to in section 202(2)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988. ‘Particular regard’ is stronger than ‘due regard’ because it elevates the consideration to the top of the list of factors to be weighed up”.

My explanation means that it elevates it to the top, not that there are no other factors that should be considered and that it trumps all; it should be given the very highest consideration.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams for her persistence on the issue of engaging students. That has been a very positive contribution in thinking through the shape of the guidance. We need to make sure that people see this not as a threat to freedom in any way but as a way of keeping our campuses and institutions safe, and keeping strong the values that we hold dear in our society.

In that regard, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked why the sixth form was being treated differently. The position reflects all other legislation that applies to the further education sector. It maintains the position of treating schools differently from further education, which has been the approach of successive Governments. The issue raised, therefore, goes far wider than the immediate provision in the Bill and may be something that a future Government will want to address.

I was asked about that guidance by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We hope to introduce the guidance in Parliament before the end of the current Session. That should be done so that people can start preparing and there can be greater clarity.

I think that my noble friend Lady Brinton responded to my noble friend Lord Phillips. I am seeking not to provoke him to rise to his feet at this point but to say that these are changes, and the more clarity that can be put on the record, either from the Dispatch Box or in guidance and codes of practice, the less likely it is that people will argue about this in the courts. They are more likely to see it as clear and how we ought to set about it and what the Government’s aim is. That will be for the benefit of all. With those responses, I commend the amendment.

Amendment 4 agreed.

Amendments 5 and 6

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

5: Clause 31, page 20, line 15, leave out from “applies” to end of line 17 and insert “—
(a) must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech, if it is subject to that duty;(b) must have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom, if it is the proprietor or governing body of a qualifying institution.”

6: Clause 31, page 20, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) When issuing guidance under section 29 to specified authorities to which this section applies, the Secretary of State—
(a) must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech, in the case of authorities that are subject to that duty;“(b) must have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom, in the case of authorities that are proprietors or governing bodies of qualifying institutions.(4) When considering whether to give directions under section 30 to a specified authority to which this section applies, the Secretary of State—
(a) must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech, in the case of an authority that is subject to that duty;“(b) must have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom, in the case of an authority that is the proprietor or governing body of a qualifying institution.(5) In this section—
“the duty to ensure freedom of speech” means the duty imposed by section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986;
“academic freedom” means the freedom referred to in section 202(2)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988;
“qualifying institution” has the meaning given by section 202(3) of that Act.”

Amendments 5 and 6 agreed.

Clause 35: Chapter 1: interpretation

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

7: Clause 35, page 22, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) “Function” does not include a function so far as it is exercised outside Great Britain.”

Amendment 7 agreed.

Clause 52: Commencement

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

8: Clause 52, page 32, line 40, leave out “29” and insert “30, section 31(2) and (4) and sections 32”

Amendment 8 agreed.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Taxation: Avoidance

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:50

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to an Urgent Question in another place on tax avoidance by HSBC. The Statement is as follows:

“HMRC has a long-standing approach to tax evasion, which is based on collecting the tax and interest due, changing taxpayer behaviour to discourage them from evading in future, and enforcing the most appropriate and effective penalties. Overwhelmingly, this means providing disclosure facilities to encourage tax evaders to sort out their tax affairs, backed by civil penalties to fine them for the offence.

This Government have supported HMRC’s approach by increasing investment in HMRC’s enforcement capacity and by strengthening HMRC’s powers, including increasing the maximum civil fines for hiding money in tax havens to 200% of the tax evaded. There was no evidence for the possibility of prosecution of HSBC from the data provided to HMRC. However, if further evidence comes to light through the evidence published today, HMRC will of course respond appropriately.

This approach has been very successful in tackling tax evasion—whether from plumbers, barristers and medics in the UK or from the wealthy hiding money in offshore accounts. HMRC has collected more than £1.6 billion from 57,000 disclosures as a result of a wide range of UK and international initiatives. Internationally, since 2010, HMRC has brought in around £2 billion in previously unpaid tax as a result of the UK’s agreement with Switzerland on a withholding tax on Swiss bank accounts and the international Liechtenstein disclosure facility.

In a small number of cases, HMRC will institute criminal investigations into serial tax evaders and those who deliberately conceal information from us. But in most cases, disclosure and civil fines are the most appropriate and effective intervention, and that is how HMRC has approached the receipt of data from leaks and whistleblowers, including the Swiss HSBC data that were shared with the department in May 2010.

Using the civil disclosure approach, HMRC has systematically worked through all the HSBC data that it has received, and has brought in more than £135 million in tax, interest and penalties from tax evaders who hid their assets in Swiss HSBC accounts. HMRC received data about 6,800 entities, which, after removing duplication, resulted in information on 3,600 businesses and individuals. Of these, more than 1,000 were challenged and the cases were settled. HMRC believes the remainder are compliant but continues to monitor their activities. HMRC is examining whether we have all the same data that the ICIJ has, and will be asking the ICIJ for any data that we have not already been given.

HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions, which limited the department’s use of the data to pursuing offshore tax evasion and prevented HMRC from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, HMRC has not been able to seek prosecution for other potential offences, such as money laundering. The French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to the fullest.

HMRC’s powers to crack down on international evasion are being further strengthened by the new international common reporting standards, which more than 90 countries have agreed to as an extra tool for closing down the options for tax cheats to pursue this increasingly high-risk practice”.

15:53

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear the House and the country are going to regard that as a fairly lame Statement in the light of the disclosures today. The Minister has not made any attempt at all to answer the questions that are being asked about past actions. We and the country want to know: why did the Prime Minister, first, appoint Stephen Green to this House when the information was already in the Government’s hands and, secondly, make him Trade Minister? Did they not address the issue of due diligence at all with regard to Mr Green’s past actions and responsibilities at HSBC, as chairman and before that as chief executive? When the information was received by the Government, why was it not acted on?

Why is it that we are now hearing from the Government that we have had one successful prosecution, but the French are talking about the very many successful prosecutions that they have carried out? Why are the Government now boasting about the fact that they have been able to persuade the French to release their information and be helpful to the British Government? That looks as if the French have set about the issue with the due seriousness and urgency that were required, and our Government have not.

Finally, despite what the Minister says about the actions being carried out, the amount of uncollected tax has risen year on year on this Government’s watch, from £31 billion in 2009-10 to £34 billion in 2012-13. When will this Government take real, meaningful action to tackle this tax gap?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I explained at Questions earlier, before the noble Lord, Lord Green, was appointed to your Lordships’ House, he went through the normal rigorous vetting procedure that is undertaken by the House of Lords Appointment Commission, and the Cabinet Office went through its normal procedure. As for prosecutions, my colleague’s Statement in another place explained that HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions which limited our use of them to pursuing offshore tax evasion, and prevented us from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, we have not been able to seek a prosecution for other potential offences such as money laundering. However, by pursuing the civil route, we have been able to recover some £135 million from people who were involved in this activity. The noble Lord is right in saying that, in monetary terms, the tax gap has increased very slightly but I think he will find that in real terms the tax gap has fallen.

15:57

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, in the course of his Statement my noble friend said twice, I think, that it is more appropriate to deal with these issues by way of civil proceedings. He mentioned that the amount recovered was a sum short of £200 million. My own experience—I must plead guilty to being a practising lawyer of 57 years’ standing—is very clear that one conviction of one major figure in one major bank for tax fraud, such as that which HSBC has been carrying out for many years, reverberates around the City and the world of business and the professions with infinitely more force and effectiveness than any amount of civil penalties, which none of those who are responsible for the malefactions actually pay from their own pocket.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked about civil as opposed to criminal penalties, and whether an exemplary hanging might not be a good idea. I explained the difficulties about prosecutions in this case, but we have successfully prosecuted people for LIBOR manipulation and we have extended the scope of the criminal law in respect of people in senior positions in banks. The noble Lord will probably have seen that the very threat of criminal action against directors of banks, even though pretty remote, has made a number of non-executive directors of banks extremely nervous.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, anybody who knows the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, as many of us in this House do, knows that he is a person of the utmost integrity and great ability. Do not these revelations about HSBC, profoundly shocking as they are, demonstrate two things, among others? The first is that enormous international conglomerates such as HSBC are impossible to manage as they need to be managed. Secondly, does not this revelation demonstrate the cultural change wrought by the neo-liberal orthodoxy which has been dominant during recent decades and under which personal material self-seeking has been elevated far too far above other values?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, if noble Lords have read the statement by HSBC in today’s Guardian—it may be in other newspapers, but that is where I read it—they will have seen that it is clear that, in 2005, HSBC was run as a very loose confederation and that the centre sought not to exercise very great control. That has changed very dramatically, and the new regulatory authorities are much more intrusive in ensuring that management at the centre has effective control throughout the organisation. It is clear that there was a wholly unacceptable culture in many of the banks. Both regulatory and legal change and activities by the banks in setting up their own body to monitor standards—as well as statements by senior management at the top of banks—are trying to reverse that culture towards the kind of culture that I suspect most people would expect their bankers to follow.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to several attempts by the Opposition to tie the name of my noble friend Lord Green to whatever was going on in HSBC Switzerland, which I know in intention he would not dream of defending. Does the Minister nevertheless accept that my noble friend Lord Green is a man of the utmost probity who has done an enormously valuable job as a Trade Minister for this Government? I have the privilege of working with him. His activities bring great benefit to this nation. Would it not be a little wiser, if we want to maintain the quality and integrity of our political discussion in this House, to avoid premature innuendo of the kind that we have heard frequently from the opposition Benches?

[Lord Newby]

I completely agree, my Lords.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, can I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said? I know my noble friend Lord Green, who I agree is a man of great integrity. I agree also that the acquisition by HSBC at the time of a great many companies, producing a loose federation, caused management stretch in terms of organising it—I think that it has learnt the lessons of that. It is important that people outside this Chamber understand the measures that this Government have taken to strengthen controls on banking behaviour.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is important to stress that, as a result of initiatives led by this Government, there will be in place automatic information exchange agreements with more than 90 countries within a couple of years, including Switzerland, which means that the kind of egregious behaviour which today’s revelations have brought to light simply will not be possible in future.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not a strange comparison—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I could not help noticing that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was not here at all for the Statement that my noble friend Lord Newby repeated at the beginning of this Urgent Question. It is our convention that it is appropriate for a noble Lord to be present in the Chamber if he wishes to ask a question about a Statement. As I have taken time in order to make this point, it is of course the turn of a Labour Peer to ask a question of my noble friend should they wish, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would not be in line with the Companion if he was to ask that question himself.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I heard the full Statement. Can I ask the noble Lord: is it not strange that in the United States—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, our convention suggests, as stated in the Companion, that noble Lords must be here in this Chamber to hear the Statement being repeated if they wish to ask a question of the Minister repeating that Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was not in the Chamber to hear my noble friend repeat the Statement.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Green, as everyone has said, is a man of great integrity. Can the Minister tell us whether the noble Lord was aware of the wrongdoing of the bank of which he was chairman? If he was aware, was the Prime Minister aware of that when he appointed him as a Trade Minister? If he was not aware, what judgment did the Prime Minister make about how effective he was as chairman of HSBC?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I have no idea what was in the head of the noble Lord, Lord Green, but I am aware that when he was appointed he was held in extremely high esteem by everybody who had ever had any dealings with him.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments

16:05

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Infrastructure Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Motion on Amendments 1 to 5

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 5.

1: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

2: Clause 9, 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.”

3: Clause 9, 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.”

4: Clause 9, 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.””

5: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, in discussing Commons Amendments 1 to 5, I shall also speak to Commons Amendments 24 and 42 to 45. I am very pleased to put forward this group of amendments, which I believe demonstrate the progress made since the Bill was first introduced and that the Government have listened to the views made known in this House and in the other place.

It is clear that we intend the route strategies to be a key building block for the second road investment strategy, which covers the period after 2020-21. The individual route strategies will help ensure that Highways England and the Government of the day are able properly to consider local roads, local transport, our cities and other modes of transport as the RIS is developed. As Highways England carries out the work on the route strategies it will have to work closely with local highway authorities, local economic partnerships, Network Rail and other local and national bodies. Through the statutory direction and guidance set out in the licence, the updated version of which was published on 29 January and attached to my letter of 2 February, which has been placed in the Library—I am sure noble Lords have studied it in depth—we have made it clear how we expect the route strategies to be developed and what they should cover, ensuring that integration and working with others will be a key feature of the process.

To provide even more reassurance, my right honourable friend the Minister in the other place moved Amendment 1, which puts route strategies on the face of the Bill. To quote my right honourable friend:

“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/15; col. 667.]

The arrangements that we have put in place give certainty that the route strategies will be prepared, and recognise the important part that they play in managing and planning for the future of the strategic road network.

Government Amendments 2, 3 and 5 deal with reporting to Parliament. I know that noble Lords have been keen to ensure that there is a transparent process for parliamentary accountability for the company, so I think it is best that I present Amendments 2, 3 and 5 together, as they reflect the full picture of the Government’s intention.

Amendment 5 places a responsibility on Government to report periodically to Parliament on the performance of Highways England. I have described before the combination of governance arrangements that provides choice in how it is applied while retaining levers for Ministers to intervene if the company fails to perform. If necessary, Ministers can intervene through the use of statutory direction and guidance, which must be published, to shape how the company must act or deliver requirements.

In addition, through Amendments 2 and 3 to the monitor provisions, we make it clear that the monitor may report on the effect of direction and guidance given to the company by the Secretary of State, and we insert a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any report published by the monitor. These further requirements on the Government to report to Parliament, and to furnish Parliament with the independent assessment of the Highways Monitor on the company’s performance, will make the process even more transparent and provides a very strong way of ensuring that the company delivers.

I turn to Amendment 4. On Report, we briefly discussed the issue of a change in the name of the Office of Rail Regulation name, when the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who I see is in his place today, proposed to rename it. On that occasion, I said that we had concerns about the prospect of renaming the ORR in the Bill. However, the principle of ensuring that the ORR has an accurate name remains a sound one. We accept that there is a risk of confusion if its name does not correspond to its functions, though, as I emphasised in previous debates, the ORR is at liberty to use different brand names for these different activities, and always planned to do so.

We have therefore decided to take steps to remedy such a situation. Amendment 4 gives the Government the power to rename the ORR once an appropriate name is agreed. The ORR is in the process of discussing options with stakeholders and staff. As I say, this amendment does not rename the ORR directly because of the complications involved in doing so. Instead, it inserts a new power in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, allowing the Secretary of State to rename it and make the necessary consequential amendments through secondary legislation.

Government Amendments 44 and 45 deal with transferred staff. Noble Lords will recall that on Report I made clear that the transfer of staff from the Highways Agency to Highways England would follow guidance under the Cabinet Office statement of practice, COSOP, and that this follows TUPE principles. I confirm again that the employment terms and conditions of existing Highways Agency staff will not change when they transfer but, in recognition of the assurance that many want on this point, Amendment 44 reaffirms this and, I hope, makes the Government’s intentions clear. I highlight that the Bill already provides protection that a transferring employee can terminate their contract if there is a substantial detrimental change to it after they transfer. This would amount to a constructive dismissal and the employee could bring a claim for unfair dismissal. This reflects regulation 4(9) of the TUPE regulations.

Amendment 45 is brought forward to reflect fully the intention of the TUPE regulations on this point. The amendment means that, where an employee resigns in such circumstances and seeks compensation, the employer is not liable to pay any damages in respect of any unpaid wages that relate to a notice period that the employee has not worked. It does not in any way prevent employees from claiming damages for constructive dismissal in other circumstances. The amendment provides a limited protection for the employer, and reflects regulation 4(10) of the TUPE regulations themselves.

I shall also cover government Amendments 24, 42 and 43, a group of minor and technical amendments which I shall briefly describe. Amendment 24 deals with transitional provisions. I brought forward an amendment in Committee in recognition of concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the power to modify primary legislation generally should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment 24 addresses a risk we have identified that might cause unremarkable transitional provisions and savings made under Clause 17 in Part 1 of the Bill to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure on the basis that they modify the effects of primary legislation. This was not our intention. The power would be used to ensure that processes or procedures started by the Highways Agency which are incomplete at the time of transition can be taken forward by Highways England. Transitional provisions are routinely required where functions pass from one body to another and to require a debate under the affirmative procedure for such regulations would be disproportionate.

16:15

Accordingly, Amendment 24 has been laid to ensure that transitional and transitory provisions and savings made under Clause 17(1)(b) attract the negative resolution procedure even if they may be said to modify the effects of primary legislation. Consequential regulations and other regulations under Clause 17(1)(a) will continue to attract the affirmative resolution procedure where they revoke, amend or modify primary legislation.

Amendment 43 deals with public records. The amendment adds strategic highways companies as a class to the list of those bodies whose administrative records are public records for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958. This will ensure that any records that are produced by the new company will be properly considered for transfer to the National Archives or destruction at a suitable point.

Amendment 42 deals with the Bill as a whole and is the standard-form provision added on Third Reading in this House to avoid issues of privilege. Privilege issues would otherwise arise because the Bill authorises expenditure and the charges, which are set out in the Ways and Means resolution. In accordance with standard procedure, the privilege amendment was removed at Commons Committee stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome many of these amendments. There is a sense of déjà vu about today because we spent many hours debating this. I recall amendments put down by several of my noble friends and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches proposing many of the changes now coming back from the Government. It is great that they have taken so much of our advice. I welcome it. Let us hope that this is a precedent for many future changes.

I am pleased that Amendment 1 starts to provide a link between Parliament, Government and the SHCs because that is very important. We talked about that. It may not be what we wanted but it is a start to getting there. I am also pleased that we have an amendment that says that the ORR can give advice to the Secretary of State on the effect of its guidance. That is good. I hope that the ORR will feel able to give advice on many more things than that. I am also pleased that the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on this—it is all obvious but it needs to be said—and it is important that this happens and happens regularly.

Would it not have been much easier to have changed the name of the ORR during the passage of the Bill rather than with all these amendments? However, I do not really mind and it does not really matter. That is fine. It is a shame that we have not been able to persuade the Government that the ORR, in addition to its work monitoring the SHC, should have powers to take action and require efficiencies as it is able to do for Network Rail. I hope that that will come one day as the ORR will have the capability to do that and it is a logical thing to do. It would be much better for an independent regulator to do it than to try to have the Secretary of State do it. We saw some problems with that with regard to the railways last summer. I also hope that in future we may be able to persuade whoever wins and becomes the Government after May that it will be useful to have the ORR responsible for road safety on the highways network as well. We did not quite get that far, but we are getting there.

Finally, I did not understand what the noble Baroness said about Amendment 45. It rather seems that if the staff of the Highways Agency do not feel that they will be properly reimbursed in whatever changes come they will be told, “That’s tough. You’re not going to get any compensation”.

However, this is a good step forward. We enjoyed the debates in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading and it was obviously a good use of parliamentary time. It is very nice to think that the Government have accepted many of the principles of what we proposed.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo quite a lot of what my noble friend said. We have moved in the direction of a report to Parliament and the role of the Secretary of State vis-à-vis the strategic highways company. I accept, I think, although like my noble friend I find the wording a bit peculiar, that that reinforces the application of the equivalent TUPE in relation to the staff of the Highways Agency.

The one point I am disappointed by, which my noble friend also mentioned, was that neither the Commons nor the Government have seen fit to strengthen the reference to road safety in the terms of the duties of the new company. It is a very weak form of obligation. It is slightly stronger than it was originally. The road investment strategy says that the Secretary of State must “have regard in particular” to the effect of the strategy on the safety of users. Later on it says that the company should “have regard”—no longer “in particular” —to the effect of the exercise of those functions on the safety of users. The phrase “have regard to” is the weakest form of legislative obligation. I had hoped that during the passage of the Bill we would strengthen that wording so that it would be an objective of the company and of the investment strategy to improve the performance on road safety. We have not got that and we are now at quite a late stage during the passage of the Bill but I hope that the Government will keep that under review as we go forward and the company is created. I do need to point out that I am a chair of the Road Safety Foundation. The anxiety that safety should be part of the DNA of the new body is broader than just among those who have any vested interests and certainly I would have thought that the Government could have moved further. However, on the rest of it, I thank the Minister for having moved a bit in our direction.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

I do not need to add much because my noble friends have emphasised certain weaknesses in the Bill as we are considering it today. That is not for want of trying. Both my noble friends—and I, from the Front Bench—were concerned about the issues that they have just emphasised. My noble friend Lord Whitty was concerned that road safety will not get the prominence in the Bill it surely deserves while my noble friend Lord Berkeley emphasised the significance of the Office of Rail Regulation. We all welcome the fact that there will be the possibility of a change of name as we could not see how the Office of Rail Regulation could intelligently deal with the road sector and operate under its present name. It is going to do so for a while, but at least the Minister has now ensured that there is provision for change at a later stage.

We support the thrust of Amendments 1 to 5, which we were pressing on the Government not so very long ago. We are still concerned that the Bill does not improve significantly the overall British performance with regard to roads, which clearly are a very important part of the national infrastructure. We know that other countries are more successful in establishing infrastructure. Those of us who from time to time are privileged to drive on the continent often appreciate the difference that obtains there. Even the French have begun at last to approximate to British standards of road safety. There was certainly a deficiency in the past. We support the five-year roads investment strategy that is underpinned by the Bill. It sets a long-term transport planning strategy to give the road sector the same certainty that the railways have. However, we have no evidence that justifies the main thrust of the Bill, which is unamended by these amendments, and the Bill is still overwhelmingly concerned to move the roads authority to an arm’s-length position. We were not persuaded of that argument through all the days of Committee and Report and I am not sure that those in the other place were persuaded about that fundamental part.

We are broadly in favour of Amendments 1 to 5. The Minister took a very serious and empathetic approach to explaining how TUPE was to be fulfilled with regard to the Bill. I understand Amendment 44 and could not endorse it more whole-heartedly. However, I am not quite sure what Amendment 45 is doing there and I therefore ask the Minister to spell that out in greater detail.

We are pleased at the progress that has been made. We think it was a long time coming, because we were debating this Bill several months ago and there is not much in these amendments that we had not articulated or advanced in argument at that time without winning too much support. We are pleased with the amendments that are before us and will be supporting them.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, to clarify, both Amendments 44 and 45 mirror TUPE arrangements. I confess that I am no specialist on TUPE, but I understand from those who are that for the purposes of the transfer of staff from the Highways Agency to Highways England, these amendments simply make it clear that staff will in effect enjoy the same level of protection that is available in the circumstances where TUPE arrangements would normally be in place. This is a reassurance that was asked for and one which has been very gladly given.

In terms of safety, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be aware that there are very few duties on the new strategic highways company, Highways England. One of those duties is to have regard to the safety of users of the highways. That is a strong statement in the Bill. He will be conscious that there is great emphasis on safety in the directions and guidance, and that the road investment strategy has a great focus on safety. Highways England has been set a target of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on the network by 40% by 2020. Many of the RIS schemes are specifically focused on safety improvements—for example, improvements to Junction 10 of the M25 to create a freer flowing interchange with the A3 because that junction currently has the highest casualty rates on the network.

16:30

We have also set aside ring-fenced funding of £105 million to undertake further safety improvements on the network, which will be spent on improvements to the existing network and taking forward new safety-focused innovations and technologies. So Highways England is only one part of this safety picture. We emphasise that it is important that all the various players engaged in this process have to focus on safety, and it seems to me that the various collective actions coming together achieve that.

In terms of the name, I think that we have come to a satisfactory conclusion—we have clarified that the name can be changed, and made it easy for that to happen. However, the Government chose not to impose that name on the ORR but to let it go through the process of talking with its stakeholders and its staff and deciding what name it thinks would be most appropriate. The Secretary of State can then make that name change through secondary legislation.

I thank all who have participated in discussion on all these issues. We have made real progress in both Houses and have collectively created a very strong foundation for Highways England. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that one of the primary purposes for creating an arm’s-length body was to provide the certainty of long-term funding which the railways have enjoyed. That, along with all the other measures we have taken, means that we have the prospect of a stronger transport network in the future underpinning our economy and future prosperity.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 6

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6.

6: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 6, I will speak also to Amendments 26 and 35. The Government are committed to cycling and walking, and making these the natural choice for shorter journeys. Government spending on cycling overall since 2010 has more than doubled compared with the last four years of the previous Administration: £374 million has been committed between 2011 and 2015. Spend on cycling is currently around £6 per person each year across England, and more than £10 per person in London and our eight cycling ambition cities. Furthermore, in November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a further £114 million for the cycling ambition cities and, through the roads investment strategy, a further £100 million between 2015 and 2021 for additional cycle provision on the strategic road network.

As I am sure the House is aware, in October we published our draft Cycling Delivery Plan. This is a 10-year strategy on how we plan to increase cycling and walking across England. This plan illustrates this Government’s long-term commitment to cycling and walking and it is in that spirit that the Government have laid this amendment which provides a duty on the Secretary of State to have a cycling and walking investment strategy for England.

Each such strategy will be set for a given period, and must specify objectives to be achieved and the financial resources which 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—ensure that it is reviewed at least once every five years.

We have also provided that the Secretary of State must consult when setting or varying a strategy, and must bear in mind the desirability for certainty and stability when considering whether to make a variation to a strategy which has been set. This amendment provides a legislative framework for an investment strategy. We also intend shortly to respond to the consultation on the draft Cycling Delivery Plan, published by this Government last year.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my comments on these three amendments reflect my comments on the first group. I welcome them. Again, we spent a lot of time debating them, and it is really good that the Commons listened to the very strong pressure from the various cycling organisations and persuaded the Government that the new clause under Amendment 6 should go in. It covers everything that one could have asked for. It follows on, as the Minister said, from the delivery plan. A duty to deliver a strategy was needed, and what is in these amendments is very good. Subsection (9) even says what happens if the Secretary of State does not produce a strategy, which is very welcome. It would be nice if the Minister could give an indication as to when the first one might appear. Is it this year, next year or sometime never? I know it is always difficult for Ministers to commit themselves.

One thing occurred to me on reading this amendment. I read it as applying to all roads, not just trunk roads, but maybe the Minister will confirm that. I know that there are not many cyclists on trunk roads, as most find it much too dangerous, but trunk roads are useful highways, connecting towns, villages and cities that are a little further apart with a bit more capacity and higher speed. In the Netherlands, they are making high-speed cycle lanes where people are expected to go a bit faster.

However, it is a really good start. I congratulate the Government on listening to all the pressure that has come from the cycling organisations. I look forward to participating and taking this forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I, too, very much welcome these amendments. As we discussed in Committee and on Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we felt that this was an important bit that was missing from transport strategy. The Infrastructure Bill is an excellent opportunity to put that right. The early clauses sounded very woolly to me, but as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, new subsection (9) makes it rather clear that this is expected to happen rather than being something that is optional. That is a major step forward. I assume and hope that this will go forward and that we will approve it as soon as possible.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I join the two noble Lords who have just spoken in very much welcoming these amendments. Throughout the passage of this Bill there has been very consistent pressure from the cycling organisations. They have established their case against a background, which we are all too aware of, where cycling is still too dangerous a pursuit in certain parts of the country, particularly in our great cities.

I always think of Lord Dormand, who was in this House for a number of years. When he was in the Commons, he used to cycle from Westminster to the National Executive Committee meetings at Walworth Road. That meant a journey around Parliament Square, the roundabout at the far end of Westminster Bridge, and Elephant and Castle. I thought that it was the most dangerous journey in the world as a cyclist, which is why, every week he threatened to do the journey, I sought to dissuade him. He always made the journey and always lived to tell the tale.

However, subsequently there has been an increasing number of cycling accidents, if not on trunk roads, often on large roundabouts, which are difficult to negotiate with a very slow vehicle such as a bicycle as you go past a number of exits from which other vehicles will make definitive and often rapid moves. We have a lot to do to make cycling safer, but I am pleased that the Government have been persuaded of the case that the cycling organisations, the general public and we on these Benches have pushed as hard as we could. We are delighted with the outcome that the Minister has described.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I join others in this House in saying that I am personally delighted with these amendments. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, when the Bill started here, there was slight frustration because the Cycling Delivery Plan was out to public consultation and we were somewhat limited in what we could do in those circumstances. That consultation has been completed, the Government will shortly give their response to it and the strategy itself will follow in due course. The plan is for all of England, not just the trunk roads, and it is anticipated that there will be a great deal of work with local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and all the other stakeholders as this progresses. This is another good example of co-operative working, across Benches and across both Houses.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 7 to 11

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7 to 11.

7: Clause 20, 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.”

8: Clause 20, 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.”

9: Clause 21, page 23, line 4, at end insert—
“NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.”

10: Clause 21, page 23, line 8, at end insert—

“Beaver, Eurasian (but not in relation to Wales)

Castor fiber”

11: Clause 21, page 23, line 9, at end insert—
“NOTE. The common name or names given in the first column of this Schedule are included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, the common name or names shall not be taken into account.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I shall begin with Amendment 7. As originally drafted, the definition of an “owner” of land in the Bill referred to a person who is entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the land or a person in possession under a lease. However, it was brought to our attention that this definition does not include owners of “inalienable land”, which is land that cannot be disposed of due to legal restrictions. This would mean that owners of certain land, which may include trustees, would be unable to enter into species control agreements or be made subject to species control orders, even though they may be the only or most appropriate persons with an interest in the land concerned. Amendment 7 resolves this anomaly by extending the definition of an “owner” beyond freeholders and leaseholders to persons who may exercise powers of management or control over the land.

Amendment 8 ensures that the environmental authority provides a clear statement to an owner that it considers that they have complied with all the requirements of a species control agreement. This “Notice of compliance” will provide certainty to an owner that an agreement is no longer in effect. We made a similar amendment on Report in respect of species control orders. On reflection, we now consider that this requirement should also extend to agreements.

Amendments 9 and 11 clarify that should doubt ever arise in a dispute or legal proceedings, the scientific name of a species listed in Parts 1A or 1B of Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is determinative rather than its common name. The wording introduced by these amendments is consistent with that which already appears in the existing Schedule 9 and other schedules to the 1981 Act.

16:45

Amendment 10 adds the Eurasian beaver to the new Part 1B of Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to England. Currently, it is an offence to release the beaver into the wild without a licence as it is a species that is not considered to be “ordinarily resident” in Great Britain. Defra ran a consultation exercise in 2013 on whether to add the beaver to Part 1B of Schedule 9 to the 1981 Act to ensure that licences for their release would continue to be required, should the completion of the trial reintroduction currently under way in Scotland result in the animals remaining in the wild. At that point, they would become “ordinarily resident” and thus would not require a licence to be released.

The majority of respondents supported listing the beaver on Schedule 9 to ensure that the current licensing requirements remained in place. Listing the beaver on that schedule will ensure that licences for their release will continue to be required, while their trial reintroduction is considered. However, listing it in Part 1B of Schedule 9 will ensure that species control provisions cannot be applied to any beaver in the wild where its release has been licensed by Natural England. This, of course, includes the family of beavers on the River Otter in Devon, which are now subject to an approved reintroduction trial.

I know your Lordships are interested in the family of beavers on the River Otter so I will take this opportunity to provide the House with a brief update. Natural England has now issued a licence to the Devon Wildlife Trust permitting the managed release into the wild of beavers currently resident in the River Otter, on a five-year trial basis. This trial will provide valuable evidence on potential impacts to inform any decisions to allow further releases in the future. This decision is subject to the beavers being confirmed as European beavers, and tested and found to be free of EM. Now that the application is approved, it will be important for Natural England and the Devon Wildlife Trust to ensure that the trial is implemented properly and monitored effectively. Our priority is to ensure humane treatment for the beavers while safeguarding human health.

I turn back to these provisions. Changes that we made in this House on Report will also ensure that where an environmental authority is minded to use these provisions in relation to a beaver in the wild that has not been licensed by Natural England, it must satisfy itself that there is no appropriate alternative way of addressing any adverse impact from that animal before proceeding.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Before my noble friend leaves that point, I ask what arrangements are going to be made in relation to Wales and why it is done in this way.

[Baroness Kramer]

I will address my noble friend’s point in a moment if I may. We intend to commence Clauses 21 and 22 shortly after Royal Assent to provide legal certainty that licences are still required for the release of beavers into the wild. Now, these matters are devolved and I understand that Welsh Ministers are currently considering whether to make a similar amendment in relation to beavers in Wales.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

Could my noble friend confirm that “a person” in new paragraph 5, which she is amending, is also a trust and a limited company?

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to put this point but it is a worry and it comes from my own period as Minister of Agriculture. I remember a case in which the rules about poisoning squirrels in Scotland were different from those in England. One has to make the delicate point that neither beavers nor squirrels know when they cross the border. I therefore hope that we have adequate methods of dealing with this issue, simply because it makes a nonsense of this if we do not have a common view where we have a common land border. I know in many people’s minds this is a trivial comment, but it is an issue for all these devolved concerns. I wonder whether we are totally satisfied with the careful relationships between the nations and the English Government—otherwise, people will find themselves technically liable for having broken the law, simply because of the fact that animals move where they wish to and do not obey anybody’s law.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, perhaps I can also tackle beavers? The bigger problem, diplomatically, would be if they crossed the Tamar, rather than the Bristol Channel to Wales. I will leave that aside for the moment.

Whether these are Eurasian or American beavers has been a question for some time. I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine this. It is presumably a question of DNA, rather than their accents. Can we hear from the Minister when this might be resolved? Presumably if they are not Eurasian, a much darker alternative has to be faced.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I apologise to the House because I am going to make a very technical and limited statement. We very much approve of this group of amendments but we have one concern, which has been articulated by those who know a great deal more about beavers than I know about anything. Consequently, we listened to their advice with the greatest care. It has come from a number of well intentioned sources—by “well intentioned” I mean those who want to ensure that our environment and natural life flourish. We are concerned about the welfare of species.

Our concern is that the European beaver—a native species that has established populations in the UK—has been excluded from the species control order. The classification of the beaver under Part 1B of Schedule 9,

“Animals no longer normally present”,

is regarded as bizarre. It lists them alongside the wild boar, hence our anxiety. 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 will know that we proposed an amendment in Committee, which was supported by a number of NGOs including Friends of the Earth, that the Government’s definition of invasive, non-native species should correspond to the European Union habitats directive, which was adopted in 1992. That will clarify exactly the status of the European beaver. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that representation is a worthy one and is taken account of by these amendments.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I have a number of clarifications, which I hope will satisfy your Lordships. Yes, the definition of owners includes trusts and limited companies. We found that places including, I think, Epping Forest and some National Trust properties would not have been covered. It was important to make that amendment and give that clarification.

On Wales, Welsh Ministers are considering this issue and will make their decision shortly, but your Lordships will know that it will be necessary in that process for the Welsh Government to debate an amended legislative consent Motion, which we await. In the mean time, it is still an offence under Section 14 of the 1981 Act to release a beaver into the wild in Wales, so I do not think there should be concerns about release as a result of the changes that we have made here.

It is important to recognise that where we have species that are formally resident—I know people do not like the phrase, but it describes the situation quite well—it is important that we consider releasing them only under licence. The beaver is perhaps a very good example. First, we do not know for certain that they are Eurasian beavers, although vets will be able to answer that question. More importantly, in continental Europe the species is afflicted with a really very terrible disease—a parasite known as EM. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships, but essentially the beaver is a carrier, and many mammals, including human beings, can be devastated by this parasite, which effectively eats your organs from the inside out. It really is important that this country remains EM free and that the parasite does not get out into the general population of foxes and other creatures, because the consequences would be very undesirable.

There is therefore very widespread agreement that the licensing process is the right approach, and where we reintroduce animals we want them brought in in the right way and to the right place with all the consequences considered. The reason for the delay in testing the beavers is fairly straightforward: they have had young kits which have been nursing, and now that the kits are weaned it is much safer to find the animals and bring them in for testing. We expect that to happen shortly.

I hope with that range of reassurances, your Lordships will be very comfortable supporting the Motion.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 12

Moved by Baroness Kramer

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 12.

12: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—

“Mayoral development orders

(1) Schedule (Mayoral development orders) (Mayoral development orders) has effect.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make consequential provision in connection with any provision made by that Schedule.

(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify the application of any enactment (but, in the case of an Act, only if the Act was passed before the end of the Session in which this Act is passed).

(4) In this section “enactment” includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978.”

Baroness Kramer: In speaking to Amendment 12, I will also speak to Amendments 25, 27, 37, 41 and 46. This group of amendments follows Clause 26.

I begin by noting that this group is the first of three new uncontroversial groups of amendments that were introduced by the Government during the Commons stages. The details of these amendments were not available during the time this House considered the Bill last year. I hope, however, that your Lordships will understand that it was important for the Government to seize the opportunity to include them in the Bill as soon as they were ready.

In relation to this group, there is an urgent need to ensure that the planning system continues to support development, including for housing. As a further contribution to this, the Government have introduced these amendments to recognise the opportunity to plan proactively for housing and growth in London. The clause will give the Mayor of London the power to make mayoral development orders that grant planning permission for development on specific sites in Greater London.

The process of making a mayoral development order would be initiated by the relevant local planning authorities: that is, any London boroughs or mayoral development corporation in whose area any part of a site is located. The relevant authority would apply to the mayor asking him to make a mayoral development order. Thereafter, those authorities would have to agree before the draft order is published for consultation and again agree the final order before it is brought into force.

The Government have worked with the Greater London Authority and London Councils, the body that promotes the interests of London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London, and listened to their suggestions. As a result of this collaboration, the proposed power provides a positive tool to support the delivery of development in London. Your Lordships will be acutely aware that there is very significant unmet housing need in London. Census data projects that London’s population will increase by 2 million between 2011 and 2036. The mayor has identified a need for between 49,000 and 62,000 new homes per annum between 2015 and 2026. Further alterations to the London plan have identified a capacity of 42,000 new homes per annum.

17:00

This represents very significant challenges for the mayor in helping to deliver the housing needed in London. Mayoral development orders have the potential to help accelerate the delivery of housing and other development, including the infrastructure that is needed to support new housing. The fact that mayoral development orders can be tailored through planning conditions will allow the mayor and the relevant local planning authorities to impose specific requirements on any development so that it meets local needs.

In terms of other aspects of their design and scope, mayoral development orders have been closely modelled on local development orders that allow local planning authorities to grant planning permission for development. Local development orders have been successful in the Government’s enterprise zone programme by simplifying and speeding up the planning process and increasing developer confidence. A new power to make mayoral development orders will build on the success of local development orders by enabling the mayor to support London boroughs that want to plan proactively for development but do not have the capacity to do so. The power will be particularly helpful in relation to complex sites that cross local authority boundaries.

In conclusion, mayoral development orders are a positive planning tool that will allow London local planning authorities and the mayor to collaborate effectively on planning to deliver housing and growth. I therefore ask your Lordships to agree to this new clause, which provides powers that will help to deliver the jobs and homes that London badly needs. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we can support the creation of a regime for mayoral development orders, which we see as being uncontroversial. We are certainly supportive of proposals that can improve the delivery of new housing in London, and we note that London Councils and the GLA have expressed support for MDOs.

From discussion in Committee in the Commons, it has been confirmed today that such orders have to be initiated by the London boroughs themselves, and a particular benefit will be supporting the development of complex cross-boundary situations. Can the Minister say a little more about the extent to which they might be used within a particular boundary and not on a cross-border basis? It is presumed that we will not get the underpinning regulations by the end of this Parliament, unless the Minister can tell us otherwise. We note that the negative procedure is to be adopted. Perhaps the Minister might say when they are expected to be ready.

On housing numbers for London, what the Minister said in the other place has been confirmed today: there is an annual shortfall in capacity of between 7,000 and 20,000 homes. It was less than clear from the exchanges at the other end the contribution that MDOs might make in addressing that shortfall. I think the proposition was that they might speed things up, but whether they will have broader impact will be interesting to hear.

A further point, for which there was no satisfactory answer, was how MDOs can contribute to more affordable housing. Can the Minister confirm that Section 106 agreements will not operate for MDOs? If that is not the case, how will MDOs impact on the obligation to provide affordable housing? If this is the case, how will it be assured that the provision of affordable housing will be forthcoming, and what is the mechanism? It would be helpful to have clarity on that point. Nothwithstanding that, as I have said, we do not oppose the new clauses and will support them.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, there is indeed a broad consensus across this range of issues. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these orders could be used within a local authority rather than just across boundaries. Indeed they can, and of course local development orders are already available to local authorities, but they may wish to tap into the additional capacity and capability that is available in the mayor’s office for particularly complex projects. There may be occasions when that happens, and our expectation is that it will be primarily for the kind of sites that are complex enough to cross boundaries. Obviously, that happens quite often in London. Secondary legislation will appear in due course—a phrase with which I am afraid the House is probably very familiar—but at this point I think we can say with some confidence that that will be in the next Parliament.

I share the noble Lord’s understanding of Section 106, and he will be aware that the voice of local authorities is very powerful on this issue in shaping the kinds of development that they see as appropriate for their communities. It is not the mayor imposing a vision on local authorities, but rather local authorities looking to use the capacity that is on offer from the mayor in order to move developments forward proactively. Its primary purpose in all the discussions with London Councils and others has been to emphasise the importance of accelerating new housing development across the city.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 13 and 14

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 13 and 14.

13: Clause 28, page 33, line 21, leave out “which is” and insert “the freehold interest in which was”

14: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, in discussing these amendments I shall include Amendments 28 and 36. These amendments deal with the Government’s public sector land programme, which has successfully released land for almost 98,000 new homes to date. We fully expect to meet our 100,000 homes target by March this year. Looking ahead to the next Parliament, we have an even more ambitious target, which aims to deliver land for a further 150,000 homes. This programme will be led by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, and will mean transferring a significant amount of government land into their ownership.

Clause 28 will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by the Homes and Communities Agency, the Greater London Authority and the mayoral development corporations will be able to develop and use land without being affected by easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 28 will bring the position of purchasers of land from the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs into line with those presently enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development. This in turn will enable us to increase the attractiveness of surplus public sector land to developers, thus ensuring that we can facilitate the development of much needed new homes and support economic growth by removing obstacles to development while achieving best value for the taxpayer.

I want to be clear, however, that where the HCA or the GLA currently retains the freehold in the land and leases that land to developers, the powers to override third-party rights and restrictions are already exercisable on that land under existing legislation. There has to date been a degree of uncertainty on this point, which I understand has resulted in delays to certain developments in London. Amendment 13 seeks to provide an assurance that where the HCA or the GLA retains the freehold of land, the powers to override third-party rights and restrictions in land already apply under existing legislation, and we are happy to provide that clarity.

I turn now to Amendments 14, 28 and 36. Perhaps I may move on to the related matter of the Greater London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on the transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. This important issue was raised in the other place during Committee and the Government promised to look urgently at the legislative options available to address it. We concluded that it was necessary to make a minor change to the GLA Act 1999 and have therefore made the proposed amendment.

Amendment 14 removes a prohibition in Section 31 of the GLA Act 1999 that prevents the GLA incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by its functional body, Transport for London. We are making this change to the GLA Act because the GLA has said that TfL’s powers are wide-ranging and therefore preclude the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport-related when undertaking housing or regeneration projects.

The prohibition excludes the GLA from incurring expenditure on projects that 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. Without this amendment, around 50 projects worth over £200 million would have to stop. This includes work which the GLA has been funding with the London borough councils to revitalise high streets, including in Deptford, Bromley and Cricklewood. It also affects new initiatives to deliver new homes such as housing zones and at Barking Riverside.

Amendment 36 allows for the clause to come into effect on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent and that it will apply in relation to expenditure incurred by the GLA before as well as after the coming into force of the new clause. This is because it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the GLA should have equivalent powers to the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency, following the Localism Act 2011. Amendment 28 limits the geographical extent to England and Wales.

Making these changes to the GLA Act 1999 is therefore essential to ensure that the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London. I beg to move that this House accepts these Commons amendments.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we consider these amendments uncontroversial and are happy to support them. We particularly see the thrust of Amendment 14 and the need to change what is clearly an unintended provision in the 1999 Act. It is indeed perverse if because of the existing powers the GLA is precluded from incurring expenditure on anything transport-related, such as transport-related projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in London. That cannot be right, which is why we support the amendments.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 15 to 19

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 19.

15: Clause 38, page 45, line 23, leave out subsection (5)

16: Clause 39, page 46, line 12, leave out “or delict”

17: Clause 42, page 47, line 39, leave out “the Scottish Ministers or”

18: Clause 43, page 48, line 34, leave out from “area”” to end of line 36 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);”

19: Clause 43, page 48, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 47

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Verma, I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 19. I will also speak to Amendments 29, 31, 33 and 33A.

Following discussions here and in the other place, the Government have tabled these amendments to remove Scotland from the scope of the provisions concerning the right to use deep-level land. Noble Lords will be aware that, as a result of the Smith commission’s recommendations and the Command Paper that has been published, it is planned that responsibility for mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction of oil and gas will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the next Parliament.

These amendments ensure that the provisions in the Infrastructure Bill do not change the current system that applies for granting access rights in Scotland. The Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament already have substantial control of onshore oil, gas and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulations, which are devolved. I hope that these amendments will be welcomed.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 20, 20B and 20C

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 20, do propose Amendment 20B as an amendment thereto, and do propose Amendment 20C as a consequential amendment to the Bill.

20: After Clause 43, insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

20B: Line 13, leave out from “must” to end of line 17 and insert “—
(a) lay before Parliament a copy of advice received under subsection (1) during the reporting period, and
(b) lay before Parliament a draft of regulations under subsection (3) or a report under subsection (5).
(3) Regulations under this subsection are regulations providing for section 38 to cease to have effect to such extent as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) No provision made in regulations under subsection (3) has effect in relation to anything done in exercise of the right of use conferred by section 38 before the date on which the regulations come into force.
(5) A report under this subsection is a report explaining why a draft of regulations under subsection (3) has not been laid.
(6) Regulations under this section may make such consequential amendments or repeals of sections 38 to 43 and this section as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

20C: Page 52, line 31, after “42” insert “or section (Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon budget)”

15:59

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with the House of Commons in its Amendment 20, as well as with Amendments 32 and 38. I shall also speak to the subsequent Amendments 20B and 20C, which the Government have tabled in this group. I restate this Government’s commitment 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. The Committee on Climate Change 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”.

The committee argues that this demand,

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

and 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”.

Notwithstanding this, concerns have been raised in both this House and the other place about how the UK’s shale industry will affect our carbon budgets. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place 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 produced onshore in England and Wales on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years.

The Government now seek to further strengthen this commitment by specifying that if the Committee on Climate Change advises that shale gas may adversely impact climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either make regulations providing that the right of use for petroleum and deep geothermal exploitation will no longer be available for future projects or report to Parliament on the reasons for not doing so. Amendment 20B and the consequential Amendment 20C seek to address this commitment. By introducing these amendments we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and very much welcome what my noble friend just said. I do not point at my noble friend in saying this, but I am always disappointed, given the truism about gas being the future, that we have not made more effort to make sure that, in the short term, gas is substituted for coal and that we have a far more rigorous gas industry than we have at the moment. That was the route forward, but we have been unable to put it to bed during the passage of the Energy Bill and now of the Infrastructure Bill. I hope that it is something that can at least be given greater attention after the election. However, I welcome these new clauses.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group touch on the role of the Committee on Climate Change in advising on the impact which combustion and fugitive emissions from petroleum have on the carbon budget. I understand that this was introduced in the other place as a result of a Lib Dem initiative, and we are fully supportive. We have always said that, if fracking is to take place, we would need the appropriate framework for regulation and need to consider a wider range of issues on which it will have an impact, including climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, was an important piece of legislation that subsequently established the Committee on Climate Change. We therefore support the Committee’s role in advising the Government.

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, sits down, can I just point out one thing that I want to get off my chest? The Climate Change Act was a great thing that the Labour Government did, but among the amendments that they did not allow was one about excluding traded EU ETS certificates from the carbon budget. That means that the power sector is still largely excluded from the Climate Change Act and carbon budgets. It is a big hole in the system and it is regrettable that those changes were never made.

[Baroness Verma]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their support for these amendments. I think that all noble Lords will agree that it makes great sense to ensure that we have the informed advice of the climate change committee.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 21, 21B, 21C and 21D

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 21 but do propose Amendments 21B, 21C and 21D in lieu.

21: Insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

21B: Insert the following new Clause—
“Onshore hydraulic fracturing: safeguards
After section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998 insert—
“4A Onshore hydraulic fracturing: safeguards
(1) The Secretary of State must not issue a well consent that is required by an onshore licence for England or Wales unless the well consent imposes—
(a) a condition which prohibits associated hydraulic fracturing from taking place in land at a depth of less than 1000 metres; and
(b) a condition which prohibits associated hydraulic fracturing from taking place in land at a depth of 1000 metres or more unless the licensee has the Secretary of State’s consent for it to take place (a “hydraulic fracturing consent”).
(2) A hydraulic fracturing consent is not to be issued unless an application for its issue is made by, or on behalf of, the licensee.
(3) Where an application is made, the Secretary of State may not issue a hydraulic fracturing consent unless the Secretary of State—
(a) is satisfied that—
(i) the conditions in column 1 of the following table are met, and
(ii) the conditions in subsection (6) are met, and
(b) is otherwise satisfied that it is appropriate to issue the consent.
(4) The existence of a document of the kind mentioned in column 2 of the table in this section is sufficient for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the condition to which that document relates is met.
(5) But the absence of such a document does not prevent the Secretary of State from being satisfied that that condition is met.

Column 1: conditions	Column 2: documents
1 The environmental impact of the development which includes the relevant well has been taken into account by the local planning authority	A notice given by the local planning authority that the environmental information was taken into account in deciding to grant the relevant planning permission
2 Appropriate arrangements have been made for the independent inspection of the integrity of the relevant well	A certificate given by the Health and Safety Executive that it— (a) has received a well notification under regulation 6 of the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995, (b) has received the information required by regulation 19 of the Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc.) Regulations 1996, and (c) has visited the site of the relevant well
3 The level of methane in groundwater has, or will have, been monitored in the period of 12 months before the associated hydraulic fracturing begins	An environmental permit has been given by the relevant environmental regulator which contains a condition that requires compliance with a waste management plan which provides for monitoring of the level of methane in groundwater in the period of 12 months before the associated hydraulic fracturing begins
4 Appropriate arrangements have been made for the monitoring of emissions of methane into the air	An environmental permit which contains a condition requiring compliance with a waste management plan which provides for the monitoring of emissions of methane into the air for the period of the permit
5 The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas	A decision document given by the relevant environmental regulator (in connection with an environmental permit) which indicates that the associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within protected groundwater source areas
6 The associated hydraulic fracturing will not take place within other protected areas	A notice given by the local planning authority that the area in respect of which the relevant planning permission has been granted does not include any land which is within any other protected areas
7 In considering an application for the relevant planning permission, the local planning authority has (where material) taken into account the cumulative effects of— (a) that application, and (b) other applications relating to exploitation of onshore petroleum obtainable by hydraulic fracturing	A notice given by the local planning authority that it has taken into account those cumulative effects
8 The substances used, or expected to be used, in associated hydraulic fracturing— (a) are approved, or (b) are subject to approval, by the relevant environmental regulator	An environmental permit has been given by the relevant environmental regulator which contains a condition that requires substances used in associated hydraulic fracturing to be approved by that regulator
9 In considering an application for the relevant planning permission, the local planning authority has considered whether to impose a restoration condition in relation to that development	A notice given by the local planning authority that it has considered whether to impose such a condition
10 The relevant undertaker has been consulted before grant of the relevant planning permission	A notice given by the local planning authority that the relevant undertaker has been consulted
11 The public was given notice of the application for the relevant planning permission	A notice given by the local planning authority which confirms that the applicant for the relevant planning permission has certified that public notification requirements, as set out in a development order, have been met

(6) The conditions mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(ii) are—
(a) that appropriate arrangements have been made for the publication of the results of the monitoring referred to in condition 4 in the table;
(b) that a scheme is in place to provide financial or other benefit for the local area.
(7) A hydraulic fracturing consent may be issued subject to any conditions which the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(8) A breach of such a condition is to be treated as if it were a breach of a condition of a well consent.
4B Section 4A: supplementary provision
(1) “Associated hydraulic fracturing” means hydraulic fracturing of shale or strata encased in shale which—
(a) is carried out in connection with the use of the relevant well to search or bore for or get petroleum, and
(b) involves, or is expected to involve, the injection of—
(i) more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or
(ii) more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.
(2) For the purposes of deciding the depth at which associated hydraulic fracturing is taking place in land—
(a) the depth of a point in land below surface level is the distance between that point and the surface of the land vertically above that point; and
(b) in determining what is the surface of the land, any building or other structure on the land, and any water covering the land, must be ignored.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply for the purposes of section 4A and this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specify—
(a) the descriptions of areas which are “protected groundwater source areas”, and
(b) the descriptions of areas which are “other protected areas”, for the purposes of section 4A.
(5) A statutory instrument which contains regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a draft of the first such regulations before each House of Parliament on or before 31 July 2015.
(7) The Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Environment Agency before making any regulations under subsection (4)(a) in relation to England;
(b) the Natural Resources Body for Wales before making any regulations under subsection (4)(a) in relation to Wales.
(8) These expressions have the meanings given—
“development order” has the meaning given in section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
“environmental permit” means a permit granted under regulation 13 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010;
“hydraulic fracturing consent” has the meaning given in subsection (1)(b);
“licensee” means the holder of the onshore licence for England or Wales;
“local planning authority” means—
(a) the planning authority to which the application for the relevant planning permission was made (unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers are responsible for determining the application), or
(b) the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers (if responsible for determining the application);
“onshore licence for England or Wales” means a licence granted under section 3 which authorises a person to search or bore for or get petroleum in those parts of the landward area (within the meaning of the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 2014) that are in England or Wales or are beneath waters (other than waters adjacent to Scotland);
“relevant environmental regulator” means—
(a) the Environment Agency, if the relevant well is situated in England, or
(b) the Natural Resources Body for Wales, if the relevant well is situated in Wales;
“relevant planning permission” means planning permission to be granted, or granted, in respect of development which includes the relevant well;
“relevant undertaker” means the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in whose area of appointment the relevant well is located;
“relevant well” means the well to which a well consent relates; “well consent” means a consent in writing of the Secretary of State to the commencement of drilling of a well.
(9) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 4 includes power to make such amendments of the definition of “onshore licence for England or Wales” in this section as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of any other exercise of the power under section 4.
(10) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—
(a) make such amendments of column 2 of the table in section 4A as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) make such other amendments of section 4A or this section as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of provision made under paragraph (a).
(11) A statutory instrument which contains regulations under subsection (10) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””

21C: Clause 48, page 54, line 26, after “37” insert “and section (Onshore hydraulic fracturing: safeguards)”

21D: In the Title, line 13, leave out from “provision” to “geothermal” in line 14 and insert “about onshore petroleum and”

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.

There is a clear and pressing need to ensure that this legislation is absolutely right. Shale gas is an exciting new energy resource for the UK, with the potential to provide greater energy security, growth and jobs, alongside playing an important role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Unlocking the shale industry is too big an opportunity to pass up. We all agree that it must be done safely and sustainably, but we cannot throw away the opportunity to create thousands of jobs and economic growth for communities across Britain.

The Government’s position comes from careful consultation of relevant experts and draws on many authoritative reports from the US. More specifically, it is based on reports by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and Public Health England, which have considered a wide range of evidence and looked at the UK regulatory system. Their advice has outlined the risks and concluded:

“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing … as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced”.

Following exhaustive discussions in this House and the other place, we have been considering the implementation and enforcement of operational best practices in the UK, which is why we accepted Amendment 21 during Report stage in the other place. We did so in order to show our acceptance of the intent of the 13 policy elements it sets out, but noble Lords—in particular, those with a legal background—will appreciate that, as currently drafted, the amendment cannot be included in the Bill. Although the courts would attempt to interpret the provisions, Amendment 21 is not viable as law and simply would not work in practice. Amendment 21 as currently drafted would have been wrong to accept, so we have been working hard to ensure that its spirit is maintained.

The government amendments in lieu are designed to ensure that the regulations we seek to introduce deliver the intended outcomes and support the growth of the shale industry while reassuring local communities that this will be done in a safe and responsible manner. They also ensure clarity for all interested parties by proposing clauses that are capable of being interpreted and enforceable.

Regarding the scope of our amendments, they will apply to hydraulic fracturing, which will be defined in UK law. Geothermal operations will be excluded, as the amendments are being taken forward through the petroleum licence, for which there is no geothermal equivalent. Conventional oil and gas well stimulation techniques will also be excluded—something that noble Lords will agree makes perfect sense, as these have been used for decades onshore.

The territorial extent of the amendments will be limited to England and Wales. In other words, Scotland will be excluded from the requirements of the new commitments. Noble Lords will be aware that, as a result of the Smith commission’s recommendations and the Command Paper published, it is planned that in the next Parliament responsibility for mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction of oil and gas will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I now turn to the commitments themselves. First, our amendments mean that the Secretary of State will not issue a well consent, something that is required by an onshore licence for England or Wales, unless it prohibits associated hydraulic fracturing from taking place in land at a depth of less than 1,000 metres. The right-of-use provisions will be left unchanged at 300 metres. In land at a depth of 1,000 metres or more, hydraulic fracturing will not take place if the licensee does not have the Secretary of State’s consent for it to take place—something I will henceforth refer to as a hydraulic fracturing consent. For the hydraulic fracturing consent to be issued, an application for it has to be made by, or on behalf of, the licensee. Where an application is made, the Secretary of State will only grant consent if he is satisfied that a number of conditions have been met.

Some of these conditions relate to the planning systems in England and Wales. In particular, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the environmental impact of the development has been taken into account by the relevant planning authority. He will also need to be satisfied that the relevant planning authority has taken into account, where material, the cumulative impact of the development proposed and any other development involving hydraulic fracturing to obtain oil or gas. He must be satisfied that the relevant planning authority has considered whether to impose a restoration condition in relation to the development and that the relevant water companies have been consulted before any planning permission is granted.

Similarly, a well cannot be drilled, and associated hydraulic fracturing cannot take place, within protected areas. The precise definition of protected areas will be decided at a later stage, as our clauses put a duty on the Secretary of State to bring forward secondary legislation to be laid before and approved by a resolution of both this House and the other place no later than the end of July this year. We must be very careful not to put in place restrictions in areas that do not achieve the intended aim of the condition or that go beyond it and needlessly damage the potential development of the shale industry. In order to satisfy himself that the conditions relating to planning have been met, the Secretary of State may rely on notices given by the local planning authority. A notice, which, in practice, means specifically that the process of an environmental impact assessment has to have been carried out, would be sufficient to satisfy the Secretary of State that the environmental impact had been taken into account.

Similarly, notices from the relevant local planning authority confirming that the cumulative effects of permitted developments have been taken into account where material, that it has considered whether to impose a restoration condition, and that local water companies have been consulted before a decision to grant the relevant planning permission is taken, would allow the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the relevant conditions have been met. It would also be sufficient to receive a notice indicating that the area in respect of which the planning permission has been granted does not include any land which is within protected areas, once these have been clearly defined. I note that the absence of these documents does not necessarily prevent the Secretary of State satisfying himself that the conditions have been met. This is to ensure that if, for example, the kind of notice listed is not available, the Secretary of State could grant hydraulic fracturing consent provided he is satisfied that the conditions listed in the clause have been met. I should stress that it is not possible for the Secretary of State to grant hydraulic fracturing consent if these conditions have not been met.

Other conditions that would need to be met concern the environmental permitting regimes in England and Wales. Consent will not be granted unless the level of methane in groundwater has been monitored 12 months before hydraulic fracturing begins. Arrangements have also to be made for monitoring emissions of methane into the air for the period of the environmental permit, and for the monitoring results to be published. The substances used, or expected to be used, in associated hydraulic fracturing have to be approved by the relevant environmental regulator.

17:30

In order to satisfy himself that these environmental conditions have been met, the Secretary of State may rely on permits granted by the relevant environmental regulator. These environmental permits must contain conditions requiring compliance with a waste management plan providing for the monitoring of methane in groundwater for a 12-month period prior to hydraulic fracturing, and of methane emissions for the period of the environmental permit. The permit will also need to contain a condition requiring approval of substances used in associated hydraulic fracturing by the environmental regulator. I note that the absence of these permits does not prevent the Secretary of State from satisfying himself that the conditions have been met. Again, this is to ensure that the Secretary of State could be able to grant hydraulic fracturing consent if satisfied that the conditions listed in the clause had been met.

With regard to the environmental permitting regime, hydraulic fracturing consent cannot be granted if operations are to take place within protected groundwater source areas. For the same reasons as outlined above, the precise definition of protected groundwater source areas will be specified in secondary legislation at a later stage. Our clauses put a duty on the Secretary of State to define protected groundwater source areas in secondary legislation to be laid in draft before and approved by a resolution of both Houses by no later than the end of July this year. Once this has happened, the Secretary of State may satisfy himself that this condition has been met through the receipt of a decision document given by the relevant environmental regulator, in connection with an environmental permit stating that hydraulic fracturing will not take place within these areas.

The three final conditions that need to be fulfilled before hydraulic fracturing consent is given concern notification, well inspections and community benefit schemes. On the first, before granting a hydraulic fracturing consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the public were given notice of the application for the relevant planning permission. The Secretary of State will look to the relevant planning authority to confirm that the notification requirements in respect of the relevant planning permission have been met. It is not feasible to require separate notifications for each individual resident as there would be no way for the Secretary of State to confirm that an operator had fulfilled this condition. If the Secretary of State were required to satisfy himself of such a condition despite being unable to obtain the evidence that he would need in order to do so, it would leave every hydraulic fracturing consent issued by the Secretary of State wide open to legal challenge by third parties.

On the second condition, appropriate arrangements have to have been made for independent inspections of the integrity of the relevant well. The Secretary of State may satisfy himself that this has happened if the Health and Safety Executive provides him with a certificate stating that it has received a well notification and the necessary information about the well, and that the HSE itself has visited the site of the relevant well.

Lastly, a scheme would have to be in place to provide financial or other benefit for the local area before the Secretary of State granted a hydraulic fracturing consent. This puts in legislation the requirement to provide financial or other benefits to the local area. We have already welcomed a package of community benefits that was brought forward by the industry, through which operators will pay £100,000 for each hydraulic fracturing site at exploration and 1% of revenues at production. Operators will publish evidence each year of how these commitments have been met.

We have worked tirelessly over the past week to come up with a set of clauses specific to the shale industry that, in keeping with the spirit of each of the points in Amendment 21, will provide the public with confidence that it is being taken forward in a balanced and responsible way. I hope my explanation of the government amendment in lieu satisfies noble Lords that this has been done. I restate that shale gas is an exciting new energy resource for the UK. It offers huge potential when countries all over the world are looking to greater self-sufficiency. Now is the time to seize, not lose, the opportunity to develop the United Kingdom’s shale industry. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Leave out from “do” to the end and insert “agree with the Commons in their Amendment 21 and do propose Amendment 21F as an amendment thereto”.

21F: Line 21, at end insert “and have consented to the carrying on of the activity”

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP): My Lords, I shall try to reintroduce the original Amendment 21 that went through the other place. It was a Labour amendment, supported by the Government. The Minister has said that this government amendment has the spirit of the original Amendment 21 but, to be quite honest, the Government have missed out some detail that is absolutely crucial. I am also quite interested in some of the scientific advice that the Government have taken; some noble Lords may know that in Wales there was a vote last week to pass a fracking moratorium, as there was in Scotland the week before, until the risks could be assessed. It is those risks that I would like to mention today. A scheduling farce has meant that there has been very little time to debate this, and no time for a vote on Report in the Commons.

I feel that the Government are doing a U-turn here. It is not good enough to pass something in one place and then change part of it quite substantially. There are two issues in particular that I want to raise. The first, crucial point is the possibility of fracking near groundwater sources. There is also the issue of trespass under people’s homes. The amendments that went through the other place were already probably not sufficient to protect against all sorts of risks, but at least they were there. The amendments submitted by the Government today may overturn even those quite limited protections.

On the issue of fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1 to 3—that is, the areas around aquifers that safeguard our drinking water—we have heard that the Government might possibly redefine those areas, but they have already been defined by the Environment Agency. There is no reason to redefine them when they have been defined for many years. Our drinking water needs protection; I cannot believe that anyone here does not agree with that.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

I hope that the noble Baroness will not forget to inform the House that groundwater, in aquifers, is very close to the ground—that is why it is called that—while the fracking occurs between one mile and a mile and a half deep, and that what she is saying therefore has no merit whatever.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Fracking of course risks earth tremors and earthquakes and therefore water could be polluted very easily, so I would argue that his comments have no merit.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Could the noble Baroness point me to any scientific research that supports what she is saying?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

It is very close at hand if the noble Lord would like to look at it. I can give him any number of sources; I do not have them to hand at the moment but I would be delighted to give them to him afterwards. I am sure that Friends of the Earth and so on would be very pleased to send him a briefing on all this, as they have gone into it extensively.

[Lord Turnbull (CB)]

I remind the noble Baroness of what was said in the Committee on Economic Affairs:

“On the evidence we have heard, there should be no risk that seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing would be of sufficient magnitude to constitute any risk to people and property”.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, who was then chair of the Environment Agency, reported to that Economic Affairs Committee that,

“groundwater contamination is the biggest environmental risk in the Act”.

The Labour spokesperson in the other place said that it was all or nothing: if the Government did not accept the amendment, including banning fracking near aquifers, the Labour Party would oppose fracking altogether. I look forward to that party reaffirming its opposition today. People might assume that as this is an unelected House, nobody watches what goes on here, but people do watch and they care out there. Fracking is a very controversial issue; people have already voiced their concerns and will continue to do so. A government U-turn on this is unforgiveable.

The second issue is that of trespass. I think there is a later amendment that deals with this, but it does not go far enough.

Groundwater contamination is one of the key environmental public health risks from fracking and is a huge risk to the well-being of the population. In some parts of the UK, more than 70% of public drinking water comes from groundwater. As for the Government promising to redefine groundwater source areas, that is a secondary legislation issue. The original idea from the Labour amendment was, however, that this should be in the Bill; it should be primary legislation, not secondary.

A leaked letter from the Chancellor had instructions to pull out all the stops to make for an easier life for fracking companies. This is probably not surprising when our Prime Minister has said that we are going “all out for shale”. I can accept that that side of the House is very gung-ho on fracking but I hope for something better on this side. The original Amendment 21 would also give us an opportunity to vote against the issue of trespass within this Bill.

Despite assertions that shale gas is a fantastic new source of energy, it is time for us to consider whether and by how much it would have a lower carbon footprint. It probably would not, if CO₂ and methane are included.

Fracking is one of those things that we can go for very hard when we do not know all the risks, but we have to understand that those risks exist. This House has a duty to people outside who know that there are risks. Some 360,000 people voiced their concerns about issues such as trespass. Many people also responded to a consultation on the risks of fracking. There is concern out there that I feel is not well represented in this House and I urge the Government to think again about this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that if Amendment 21E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 21G by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Turnbull]

My Lords, I confess that I am somewhat mystified why we are discussing a fracking moratorium. It was not in the Bill as it left the Lords and the Commons declined to insert an amendment. What is there left for the Lords to consider?

There are two approaches for analysing this issue. The first we might call the appeal to reason. That was the title of the book by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. What is the logic of the moratorium? It seems to me to be completely incoherent. It is argued, first, that we do not know enough to permit this technique to be deployed in the UK, but the moratorium would prevent drilling under careful restraints of the kind that the Minister has pointed out and it would prevent us advancing our knowledge. In my view, it is the logic of the GM-crop tramplers.

The next argument is that we cannot allow our shale reserves to be exploited as this would be inconsistent with the decarbonisation targets of the Climate Change Act. Setting aside the fact that our exploitation of shale is pretty immaterial in a world where China has said that its CO₂ emissions will continue to rise until 2030 and India refuses to set any such objective, this proposal ignores the fact that the largest part of gas usage is for heat in our homes and the feedstock for chemicals. That is not going to change for a long time given the slow turnover in our housing stock for several decades.

This morning, I looked at where the various sources of energy came from. At 11 am on a very cold and still day, we were using 46 gigawatts of energy. Of that, 6% came from wind and 43% from gas. This proposal ignores the fact that we need access to gas to provide the back-up when the wind does not blow in precisely these climatic conditions, which are repeated quite often each winter.

17:49

The second approach to analysis is the appeal to authority. Who supports it and who is against it, and to which witness do you attach the greatest credibility? The attempted Commons amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has commended, received only derisory levels of support and was based on the findings of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. The committee identified a number of environmental risks which in its view justified a moratorium—water extraction, wastewater disposal, fugitive methane, land use, noise and so on. We should remember, however, that the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs went over exactly the same ground but its conclusions were radically different. It saw substantial benefits to the UK and concluded that the environmental risks cited by the Commons committee were either not as serious as represented or could be managed by an effective regulatory framework.

Why do I attach greater weight to the Lords’ findings? It is not just because this is our House, or that I have greater faith in the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, than that of Ms Joan Walley, or that the Lords’ findings are consistent with those of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering; it is also because I believe that there is a structural flaw in the remit of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of departments contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development.

A decade ago, government documents on energy policy cited four objectives: consistency with our environmental objectives on climate change, enhancing competition, reducing fuel poverty and strengthening energy security. The problem with the EAC and, I would say, the climate change committee, is that they have concentrated on one of these objectives to the detriment of the other three. As a result, I believe that their recommendations are flawed.

I have some misgivings about the heavy apparatus of steps that have to be gone through and the safeguards which the Minister has set out for us, but provided that we operate within a four-pillar and not a one-pillar framework, I think we should support them.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the spirit of Amendment 21. As a former Energy Minister, an investor in the hydrocarbon sector and a former non-executive director in hydrocarbon companies, I have given a great deal of thought to whether I support the development of fracking in the UK.

Quite apart from the environmental risks in such drilling—and, although the degree of risk can be debated, there is always a risk when drilling for hydrocarbons, particularly given that we live on such a densely populated island—I think we should look at the broader picture. What has been ignored so far is the picture of global demand and supply that we are witnessing. The Chancellor has said that we should try to emulate the success of the United States with shale oil and gas. However, what we are witnessing globally today is a supply glut. The success of shale in the United States has partly contributed to that. Perversely, we are seeing that this glut is pushing down the price of oil and gas across the world—particularly oil—and the impact of that on a number of smaller companies is that they are going to the wall. We are already seeing a decline in shale oil production in the United States and we should not forget that with shale oil we have seen quite a dramatic decline over a couple of years. So there is a dramatic fall-off in investment in the United States in shale, a fall in employment, a number of smaller companies going to the wall and all the majors have now announced that they are cutting back investment in major oil and gas projects. Therefore my fear is that we are entering a period of greater volatility as regards energy prices.

To a certain extent the success of shale in the United States has been quite limited, both as regards scale and duration, and we are now entering a period of quite dangerous volatility with regard to investment. Therefore, although consumers currently benefit from lower energy prices for oil and gas, that may well be short-lived. In addition, with the majors pulling back on major investment and with a number of smaller shale companies going to the wall, once the existing number of companies have cut back on production in the United States, in two to three years’ time we may well see the price of a barrel of oil go back up to $200.

Therefore, if we look at the United States as a model for a number of the companies that are involved in shale—and a lot of the communities that will depend on that local investment—it appears that it is not seen as a wonderful model, so maybe it is not a model we should adopt for the UK. Shale takes a huge amount of investment to develop, and it has its environmental risks. In the UK it will take many years to go through the planning process, yet the success of shale can be relatively short-lived. In the mean time, we will have these huge peaks and troughs in the price of hydrocarbons.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

Will the noble Lord agree that if the oil or gas price shoots up, as he says, we should be all the more encouraging towards the shale industry in this country?

[Lord Truscott]

No, because that would be a short-term benefit. We should look at the long-term planning. That is the difficult thing with shale at the moment: it is destabilising the market for oil and gas, with the majors cutting back quite dramatically. You can have shale production, but it is short term. If, for example, you invest in a major field, it can take 10 or 20 years to develop—Kashagan in Kazakhstan, for example—it needs billions of dollars of investment, and takes many years to develop, sometimes decades. Companies have to be able to plan ahead, as that gives medium to long-term relative stability to the oil price. If you are talking about shale, you are talking about a two to three-year timescale for the development of a field, which does not provide the sort of stability we are talking about.

Of course, we should also look at increasing investment in renewables as well. Shale is one thing you can look at, but you can also look at investing more in renewables.

[Lord Turnbull]

The noble Lord may be confusing two different things: a well, which may have a short life, and a field. I can see that wells might run out quite quickly, but then other wells will be drilled, so that does not mean that the field runs out in the period as he is explaining.

[Lord Truscott]

What tends to happen is that in the United States, for example, a shale oil rig—a well—may cost $1 million to develop. You then drill in that well for a couple of years, and then you have to invest further in the next well in the same field. A number of shale oil companies in the United States at the moment face not getting the funding to invest in the next well, because it is very cash-flow intense. Therefore if you want energy security, shale oil and gas is not the way to achieve it. It is a very expensive short-term hit, and it adds to the volatility of the price of oil and gas. In a way, the success we are seeing in the United States is already unravelling. I therefore wonder whether it is worth the cost as regards the overall benefit.

We are also seeing the impact on businesses, both large and small, in the hydrocarbon sector. Ask any of the majors at the moment whether they are happy about where they are as regards medium to long-term planning, or go to Saudi Arabia and ask people what they think about the impact of shale oil and gas development in the United States and on the global market. You can say that they are game-playing, but nevertheless, it is destabilising. Is that the way we want to go? Is that a great success story? I am not so sure that when we look back on the development of shale in the United States it will look as successful as we all initially thought it would be. Therefore from that point of view, is what happened in the United States the right way for the United Kingdom to go? I am not so sure.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me whether he knows of any company of any size, in any part of the world, which invests to not make a profit?

[Lord Truscott]

That is exactly the reason. The noble Lord may know that that is why some companies are going bust—today Max Petroleum, which develops oil and gas in Kazakhstan, said that it was facing insolvency because it can no longer raise the funds to develop new fields. When the price of oil is under $50 a barrel—and we are already seeing the effect on companies such as BP, which is laying off people in Aberdeen because the price of a barrel of oil makes it uneconomic to continue to develop mature fields in the North Sea—we are facing a problem, are we not?

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this government amendment and thank my noble friend for clarifying some extremely important points. I am particularly pleased that it is now clearer that the clauses apply to hydraulic fracturing, with any ambiguity removed. However, there are some further points that I hope will be addressed in secondary legislation.

We have delayed shale exploration for too long. We have to get going so that we can show the public that there is nothing to fear. Once we start, the public will surely say, “What was all the fuss about?”. It is therefore extremely important that drilling boreholes for groundwater quality monitoring is delinked from the planning process. Permitted development rights under the general permitted development order can be used to install boreholes for monitoring water quality; that is common in the water industry. However, it is different for any development that is subject to environmental impact assessment regulations. Then, any part of the development, including the drilling of boreholes for monitoring water quality, cannot take place until full planning consent is granted. That would apply in the case of any development which includes hydraulic fracturing. It would mean, in practice, that no baseline data could be collected until full planning permission was granted, leading to a minimum of 12 months after planning before hydraulic fracturing would be permitted to take place. That would be a significant and unnecessary delay.

We should therefore allow baseline monitoring during the planning process for shale exploration. That would drastically cut the delay: doing the monitoring, then putting in the planning application, and monitoring while the planning process continues. Even if it is not a positive planning decision for industry, at least some useful data will have been obtained in the mean time during the monitoring process. More baseline data would be very welcome, so delinking from planning is a win-win whether the planning decision is positive or not. Can my noble friend therefore assure me that these concerns are noted in the amendments and will be strongly considered as the secondary legislation is formulated?

The treatment of groundwater protection zones was one of the worst outcomes of the amendments made in the other place. The Environment Agency already effectively prohibits operations in what is known as source protection zone 1, and in the lesser zones 2 and 3 the industry already has to make a convincing case to the Environment Agency. That strikes me as the right balance of regulatory oversight. That could impact on other industries, too. Shale operations take place well over 1,000 metres below any aquifer, whereas a lot more industrial activity from other sectors takes place on the surface, directly on top of the same source protection zones.

Moving away from the current regulatory framework of the Environment Agency regulatory position could have dire consequences for other industries. Furthermore, if a licence has already been purchased, it may be of no use whatever. There is no chance of that company receiving its investment back. Every investment is risky—rightly so—but this will make future investment in shale exploration all the more risky than it ought to be. Changing the rules after the licences have been awarded will not increase future licence revenue.

The government amendments mean that a decision on what is groundwater area is referred to secondary legislation. Can my noble friend assure me that those concerns will be taken into consideration as the secondary legislation is formulated?

[Viscount Ridley]

My Lords, I declare my interests in energy as listed in the register; they include coal, which is of course threatened by shale.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I think that the people whom we should be concerned about are not those looking for oil in Kazakhstan or the Saudi oil companies but the people who are struggling to pay their heating bills this winter. That is what this is all about: trying to get the cost of gas down. We need gas and, whatever happens, we will continue to need gas, as the Minister said on a previous amendment. We need gas for heating and will continue to need it—84% of British homes are heated by gas. Where there is fuel poverty, it is nearly always associated with electric, rather than gas, heating. We need gas as a chemical feedstock for the chemical industry; we need it to make fertiliser to feed the world.

18:00

So we have a golden opportunity. We have found one of the biggest gas resources ever, right under an area with high unemployment—the north-west of England—and not far from a concentration of our chemical industry. Some 10% of the Bowland shale gas could give us 50 years’ full supply of the gas consumption in this country. As we have heard, because of the community benefits funds being offered, it would offer great public benefit. It would lower our carbon dioxide output because it is certainly lower than imported gas, some of which comes in the form of liquefied gas, which has a carbon cost associated with it. It is certainly lower than coal in terms of its carbon emissions.

Much of the opposition to shale gas—some of which we have heard today—is based on myths that are popular among the upper middle class in grand rural areas. The myths are also very popular in Russia and are frequently repeated by Vladimir Putin in press conferences, because he does not like the idea of us getting our own cheap gas. We should listen to the words of the US Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, who said a year or two ago,

“I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater”.

He said that after tens of thousands of wells had been drilled and millions of fracking operations had happened in them.

It is clear that the opponents of fracking will do anything to delay and raise the cost to try to kill this industry. In that light, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is unnecessary and mischievous. It is just trying to put another hurdle in the way of shale gas by insisting that every resident nearby be written to. As has been said, it opens the way to legal challenge on everything. As it is, with all the regulations we have put around shale gas, it still may be touch and go as to whether we have killed the golden goose already. However, it looks as though we have not, yet—there is still an opportunity to have this wonderful, indigenous resource and to lower the cost of gas for people in this country.

We have put in place far greater environmental protection than for other industries. The situation with earthquakes and shale gas is that, if fracking shakes the ground, it has to do so 40,000 times less than the quarrying industry is allowed to do. That is completely mad: they are both earthquakes. I welcome the government amendments in lieu, which would adhere to the principle adopted by the oil and gas industry on environmental practices for many years: that is, the industry since Piper Alpha has always pursued the idea of goal setting rather than box ticking. It has already accepted or adopted many of the practices that are listed in these amendments. Crucially, the amendments also allow flexibility, so that the industry can learn, adapt and evolve as it is going on. That is why it is crucial to leave some flexibility in the Bill with respect to the definition of groundwater areas, protected areas and so on. As we demonstrate the safety of shale gas, we can adjust as we go on.

Finally, on the subject of trespass, I welcome the Green Party’s embrace of an extreme version of private property rights, of the kind normally associated with the libertarian right. However, the party goes too far, because imposing an offence of trespass on something that happens a mile and a half beneath your feet is like imposing an offence of trespass on British Airways for flying over your head. We sorted out that issue in the 1920s and decided that it was not a sensible use of the law of trespass. We should do the same with this.

These are sensible amendments.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the government amendments, because in effect they are in keeping with the spirit of the Commons amendments and ensure a practical application so that shale gas exploration will go ahead.

I will address as briefly as I can some of the assertions —and they were assertions—made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She was invited to give the source of what she alleged and was unable to do so. That is really unfortunate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I am perfectly able to do so, but sadly not at this precise moment. I am more than happy to do so in the future.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

With due respect, I do not think that is good enough. If we are going to enter into a debate in your Lordships’ House in which assertions are made that in essence the exploration of shale gas and fracking is unsafe, it ought to be backed up now with the evidence. The noble Baroness has had the opportunity to do so.

I try to enter this debate sharing the same concerns as the noble Baroness—concern for the environment and for the benefit to the public as a whole—and I do not take any assertions from the companies that might be involved in it: I go to sources such as Durham University, which is conducting an independent assessment, I look at the House of Lords report. We keep hearing assertions about earth tremors and earthquakes, but I thought we had nailed that in the last debate. There will be continuous seismic monitoring. Operations will stop if there is a tremor of 0.5, and at 0.5, believe me, the earth would not move for anybody in this Chamber, whatever they were doing, so to allege that the Government and this House are somehow colluding with an unsafe practice is totally irresponsible.

Let us remind ourselves that we are still going to be dependent on gas. By 2025, something like 70% of it is likely to be imported. Let us remind ourselves what happens with imported gas. First, it could be fracked elsewhere, where the conditions are not likely to be quite as well protected and monitored as ours are. Then it has to be liquefied, transported and then de-liquified to be put back into its gaseous state. Are we saying that is preferable to using our own resources? I do not understand that analysis and I do not think it is borne out.

[Lord Truscott]

Of course, not all imported gas has to come as LNG. Some can come directly through the interconnectors with the continent or through pipelines from Norway, for example.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I thank my noble friend, but a significant amount will still be LNG and I do not think that undermines my point. I know that my noble friend Lord Truscott has lots of experience, but I must admit that I was surprised by his analysis. Even if we are sceptical, it was a British geological survey, after all, which identified 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If we take only 10% of that as capable of being extracted, which is a reasonably modest assessment, that is something like 40 years’ supply of the gas that we use—and we are being invited to say that we should not even consider using it.

My noble friend suggested that it was all about the current price of oil and gas. Of course we should take that into account, but as he was invited to say, is he seriously thinking that companies will invest in shale exploration without any prospect of return? I talked to companies recently about this and said, “Aren’t you deterred by the current price?”. They said no, because they do not invest at today’s prices. They are talking about a plan that is likely to take five years. I do hope that the House will support the government amendment.

On protecting groundwater, of course we should be doing that. Again, I have looked at this carefully. Apart from the fact that there has been very little evidence of methane contamination from fracking, we are talking about a six-inch pipe being drilled down. When it goes through the aquifer, which is at approximately 300 to 400 feet, multiple layers of steel and concrete contain the gas on its way to the surface and prevent it escaping into surrounding rock and groundwater.

What about the myth about the chemicals? We should remind ourselves that 99.95% is just sand and water and that the 0.05% consists only of approved non-hazardous chemicals, one of which is polyacrylamide, which is used for contact lens solution. We would be unlikely to use that chemical for a solution like that if we thought that it was seriously hazardous.

I am just as concerned about the environment and the water supply as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but I am also concerned about those who, frankly in my opinion, misapply science and deliberately distort data rather than convey to the public the facts and the independent assessment, which is what this House should be doing. On those grounds, I hope that this House will overwhelmingly support the government amendments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the Labour Party’s position on this group of amendments, because what I hear is a gathering debate on the merits of fracking and I have no intention whatever of referring to that.

The essence of our position is to explore the difference between Amendment 21 and the other amendments in the group and to try to persuade the Government that their amendment may require fine tuning. However, we will not seek to divide the House on our amendment and we will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

On Monday 26 January, the Government accepted a Labour amendment to the Infrastructure Bill to overhaul the regulations for shale gas. This was a huge U-turn by the Government and a big victory for the protection of Britain’s environment. Labour has always said that shale gas extraction cannot go ahead unless there is a system of robust regulation and comprehensive inspection, but David Cameron has repeatedly ignored people’s genuine and legitimate environmental concerns over shale gas. Now, thanks to Labour’s amendment, the Government have been forced to accept that tough protections and proper safeguards must be in place before fracking can go ahead. I must make it clear that we are very pleased about the Government’s U-turn and think that it is in the best interests of the nation and the environment.

On Thursday 5 February, the Government tabled their own redrafted version of the amendment that is before the House today. Our position remains as it has been for three years: namely, that regulatory gaps need to be filled to ensure the right conditions are in place before any drilling to explore or extract unconventional gas is permitted. The Government’s amendment accepts a number of the regulatory safeguards that we proposed, which we welcome. However, it also excludes protections that were agreed to in the other place, most notably on the monitoring of fugitive emissions, notification of residents affected by fracking, and safeguards for protected areas and groundwater source areas. I must make it clear to the House that if the Government’s amendment is passed today, it will be challenged, if necessary, in the other place. Therefore, we will listen to the Minister’s response with great care, and it will be considered with great care by colleagues in the other place.

While the Government have said that their version of the Labour amendment redrafts, but does not substantially alter, its terms, I have a number of concerns. The original Labour amendment referred to fugitive emissions. The government version limits this to fugitive methane emissions. Does the Minister recognise that there will be other emissions arising from shale extraction, including CO₂? Why have they not included this in the scope of their amendment?

The original Labour amendment referred to mandatory environmental impact assessments. The government version refers only to the environmental impact, stopping short of a full EIA. Will the Government explain their rationale for this? What, in the eyes of the Minister, is the practical difference between a full EIA and the requirements of this proposed new clause?

The original Labour amendment referred to no fracking within or under protected areas. The government version refers to that only within protected areas. Does the Minister accept that this could still lead to hydraulic fracturing underneath national parks and other areas?

The original Labour amendment referred to a prohibition on developments inside groundwater protection zones. A definition of groundwater protection zones is already given by the Environment Agency, yet the government version refers to protected groundwater areas and suggests that these should be defined in a future statutory instrument. Why are the Government not using the existing definition?

The original Labour amendment required that residents should be notified individually. This is not required in the government amendment. The Minister has already set out some of the reasons for not accepting this requirement. It seems to me that she should go further in explaining why this requirement cannot be met. I believe that the requirement for individual notification exists in other legislation and that the practicality of the absolute concept which she used in her argument is overcome in other legislation. We certainly want to make sure that residents are fully informed and that there is a high probability of all individuals affected being informed.

I repeat that we will not divide the House on our amendment or support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

18:16

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I, too, will not make a Second Reading speech, as that stage took place last year. I very much welcome the Opposition’s amendment that was tabled in the House of Commons and the fact that the Government have brought back a version of it that is legally sound. In practical terms, I do not think that it adds a great deal to the environmental protections that we already have and which I consider are strong enough. However, it is good to clarify those and to make sure that the Bill has a more balanced approach to fracking.

However, I thank my noble friend the Minister for having excluded geothermal energy from the amendment, because the issues around that are quite different from those around hydrocarbon fracking and it is appropriate that these amendments do not deal with that particular sector. That is important because at last, after much effort by many people, that industry is starting to show dividends. Geothermal heat, which is relatively low-level in terms of ground exploration, is starting up under the renewable heat incentive. We have two planning permissions in the south-west for potential geothermal electricity generation. It would be tragic if that process stalled after the 20 years or more that a number of us have campaigned to make this very practical renewable energy come through and contribute to the UK’s energy. Clearly, certain regimes will have to apply to that process as well. It is excellent that the change on trespass has allowed that industry to move ahead as that was a major barrier. Therefore, I very much welcome these amendments and hope that the House will not divide on the issue and will decide unanimously to move forward quickly so that both industries can move ahead.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about the relationship between fracking and our ancient woodlands. Sadly, I fear that it is not really appreciated by everyone responsible for planning and building projects of all kinds just how precious our ancient woodlands are. Individual trees, if lost, can be replaced. It is true that there is a huge loss to its surroundings because it takes many years to replace a mature tree, but it can in time be replaced, as can avenues and shelter belts, however much they are missed initially. Indeed, some might argue that they are better off being replaced when they get to a certain stage.

Similarly, our forests are planted for their timber—technically a crop, albeit a long-term one. While they provide an excellent contribution to the environment over a period of years provided the right species are planted, they are routinely felled for timber and replanted.

Our ancient woodlands are centuries old. Thankfully, they have survived, largely by chance. They are precious in a unique way and are quite simply irreplaceable. It is essential that they are given very special treatment, which recognises their importance, the contribution they make to our environment, and the truth that once they have been destroyed, however clever we are, they can never be replaced.

Whatever the pros and cons on the subject of fracking, the simple existence of our ancient woodlands need not be a barrier, provided the companies concerned understand their importance and the public concern for them. I quote the Woodland Trust:

“While we believe that, as long as the geological fracturing activity associated with fracking takes place at great depths underground it is very unlikely to have a direct impact on any ancient woodland located above the fracturing sites, we do have concerns about the potential significant impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the drilling wells necessary to enable fracking to take place, and the associated infrastructure that may be put in place to access and transport shale gas/oil. We would therefore like to ensure that areas of ancient woodland are specifically protected so that licences may never be issued for fracking within or adjacent to these highly precious habitats”.

The Minister said that the protected areas have not yet been decided upon. I hope that she will think very carefully about our ancient woodlands. I urge her to indicate in her response, if she can, in the clearest possible terms that the Government accept that our ancient woodlands need very specific protection.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that these amendments do not do very much for the Bill. All these points were going to be covered anyway. I do not think that the process over the past two weeks has done politicians any good at all. It was a hurried amendment in the Commons and the Government, under Liberal pressure, gave way. We now have a cobbled together lot of amendments which did not give the other case a decent chance for discussion. If anybody reads last Monday’s Commons Hansard, it is not an impressive debate. We have not had a sensible opportunity here, although the whole framework of what we are discussing has been discussed ad nauseam in this House.

I would like to ask my noble friend, particularly about item 6 in column 1 regarding what will take place in other protected areas, how many miles of coal-mine tunnel are under protected areas in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty? Of course, we must remember that these would not have been allowed under this amendment: the fracking pipeline is only about 6 to 9 inches, whereas a coal-mine tunnel is considerably more.

My noble friend Lord Framlingham has just mentioned ancient woodland. Will marine nature reserves will be classified as protected areas? How many more restrictions will there be on the industry? My noble friend the Minister was absolutely right when she said that health and safety risks can be managed with best practices. We need to show those best practices for the rest of Europe to follow.

Returning to point 6, is this a precedent for future development? If you are not allowed to drill a 6 to 9-inch pipeline a thousand feet down, presumably the Government will not build HS2 which will go smack through the middle of the Chilterns, an area of outstanding natural beauty. There will be 11 kilometres of tunnels there. It will do considerably more damage than any whipstocking under an AONB from a small well. Presumably we will not have any more development. The Liberal party has closed the door on development in national parks and closed the door on the opportunity of growth. I think that a lot of people will use item 6 as a precedent in order to stop any future development at all.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about geothermal plants. People may have read an article in the Times last week on 2 February about the Eden project, which is trying to develop the geothermal plant mentioned by the noble Lord, drilling several miles underground. It says in the article—it is quite surprising to me—that the water that will come out will eventually be 180 degrees centigrade, which is well above boiling point. That is wonderful. It would heat 4,000 homes and all the biomes of the Eden project. I hope that this geothermal drilling—which is purely water based, I think; there are no chemicals or anything else—will not be caught by these various amendments. To quote Michael Feliks, chairman of the Renewable Energy Association’s geothermal group:

“It would be a shame if geothermal energy ended up as collateral damage in a debate about shale gas fracking.”

It is a completely different thing. It is drilling, and it should be allowed under the normal planning procedures rather than coming into this Bill at all.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, but particularly to noble Lords who have supported the government amendments in lieu of the amendments that were made in another place.

A number of questions were raised. I want to make sure that I respond to all of them, but there will be one or two questions that I cannot commit to answering now and on which I will have to write to noble Lords, such as the question posed by my noble friend Lord Caithness about the number of miles of tunnels going underground. I do not think that information is at hand, unless of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has the answer.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that our regulatory regime is robust. It will ensure that no hydraulic fracturing will be permitted where groundwater and drinking water supplies can be affected. We had a protracted debate not that long ago in which we made it very clear that this Government take very seriously that operations will take place only if all of the environmental impact assessments are met. I had hoped that I had laid out today very clearly in my detailed speaking notes our response to what the other House came up with on Report. We have bettered the amendments that the other place made, so that they will be able to stand up to legal challenge and to ensure that the safeguards that she and other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, have asked for can actually be delivered.

It would be wrong to return to the detail of a debate that has been well practised in this Chamber. The industry is already voluntarily doing a lot of what was asked in the amendments put by the Opposition. I am pleased with the response from my noble friends about what we have taken on board. It is never about a U-turn for a Government, it is about listening carefully and then making sure legislation works. If the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, wants to make a political point out of it, that is entirely up to the noble Lord. I would say, however, that it is really important that responsible and sensible Governments look very closely at legislation and then respond. I think that the general consensus in the House has been that we have listened, responded and returned with a much better set of amendments, which answer exactly what noble Lords opposite and their colleagues down the corridor have asked for.

18:29

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked what policies were in place for protecting groundwater. The Environment Agency does not allow drilling and associated fracking for shale gas in source protection zone 1 areas. This ensures that a high level of protection is accorded to drinking water sources. The amendment provides for protected groundwater source areas to be defined in regulations by the end of July. I made that point clear in my opening remarks. Perhaps the noble Baroness missed that point as I was speaking.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, went into a long debate about global oil prices. As with all things, particularly in this sector, we do not look for what is happening today. As with all industry investment, we have to look for what will come up in the next five or 10 years. Had the Opposition considered the fact that 20% of our power was going to go offline by 2020, we would perhaps be looking at a different mix of energy. However, today we need a diverse mix. Shale is not the panacea or the golden or silver bullet, but it has the potential to be part of that mix.

We as a Government have also been precise in saying that we need the renewable sector to grow. I am pleased to say that in just under five years we have seen real confidence come to the UK in investment in the renewables sector, which has grown rapidly, with growth in jobs and local economies.

My noble friend Lord Borwick asked about de-linking the drilling of groundwater holes from the planning process. I can confirm that we are actively considering whether the drilling of boreholes for monitoring purposes should be classified as permitted development. We consider this to be an important matter to address, and look forward to that happening in the next Parliament. I should like to commit to delivering on our promise but we need more time to work out the details of exactly what will be in secondary legislation. I know that my noble friend would want that legislation to be absolutely right in its wording, and to demonstrate yet again that we have the right protections in place. I know that he would agree. My noble friend asked about the protections accorded to groundwater source protection zones. I reconfirm that the Environment Agency does not permit activities where there is a significant risk that pollution of groundwater will occur, including in source protection zone 1 areas. The precise definition will be laid out in secondary legislation. I hope that that will happen soon in the next Parliament.

I have made my political points to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and will put them to one side. He also asked whether the Government will require environmental impact assessments. A note from the local planning authority would be sufficient for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that this condition has been met. This would state that the environmental information had been taken into account, which, in practice, would mean specifically that the process of environmental impact assessment would have had to have been carried out. The noble Lord also asked about other emissions in addition to methane. I undertake to write to him on that issue. I was asked whether there would be any exemptions for sensitive areas. Again, this will very much be in the secondary legislation, which, by the end of July, will state which areas will be protected.

My noble friend Lord Framlingham asked about planning permission in ancient woodland. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, a definition that includes ancient woodlands, and aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland—unless the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. My noble friend can be reassured that it will be only under severe circumstances that we would press to do anything where ancient woodland is there.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about marine nature reserves. The term “nature reserves” can, depending on the context, be applied to a variety of sites, including marine nature reserves and those with an international designation for their biodiversity. Again, “nature reserves” encapsulates a range of sites of special scientific interest. National nature reserves and marine nature reserves can come under the term.

The debate has been informative and I am pleased that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite made it clear in his opening remarks that the Opposition were not going to press on this issue. As regards Amendment 21G, he referred to separate notifications for individual residents but there would be no way in which the Secretary of State would be able to confirm that an operator had fulfilled this condition, as I said in my opening remarks. If the Secretary of State were required to satisfy himself of such a condition, despite being unable to obtain the evidence, it would leave every hydraulic fracturing consent issued by the Secretary of State wide open to legal challenge by third parties. Such a requirement would not, therefore, be a practical addition to the legislation.

More broadly, we wish this to be seen as a package that is informative to the community. I therefore hope that I have been able to satisfy noble Lords and that they will support the government amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I thank everyone who took part in the debate, even those who did not agree with me. There were valuable points of clarification from the Minister—for example, the fact that water companies will be consulted is crucial because fracking takes a huge amount of water. That is important in these days of a sometimes erratic water supply.

I said at the beginning that my main point of concern related to the groundwater source protection zones 1 to 3. The Government are not taking that issue seriously enough. Those zones were protected in the original Amendment 21 and I see no reason to remove them and include them in secondary legislation. I said that in my speech but perhaps the Minister missed it. Additionally, Labour has flip-flopped badly on this, and I cannot help but feel that it does not understand how important this issue is. If the Government are actually going to listen to the Environment Agency on many of these issues, why not listen to it on those protection zones and take it as accepted that those zones will not be fracked? I do not understand why that is so difficult.

I am also glad that fuel poverty was mentioned. This is increasingly on peoples’ agenda and more people are suffering from it. If we provided help with insulation, that would probably protect and help more people than worrying about only the cost of fuel.

This Government could take a lead from Wales and Scotland—as well as France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and even New York state—in opposing fracking, focusing on renewables and cutting energy waste. That seems a much more profitable way forward. Personally, I am against any fracking, but I equally accept that if it is going to go ahead then the protections have to be secure and strong. That is definitely not what this Bill supplies.

Of course, our water supply is absolutely crucial to our well-being, not only from a health point of view but also for farming and agriculture. It has to be protected. Again, I do not feel this Bill takes it seriously enough. In passing the Bill we are actually letting the Secretary of State decide on protected areas. I am a politician, and many people here perhaps are politicians, but even I would not trust a politician to decide on that. The Environment Agency ought to have the loudest voice here. I would very much like to divide the House on this—obviously—because I care very much about it. However, I am equally positive that it would be a crushing vote so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Amendment 21G (to Amendment 21B) not moved.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 22

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

22: After Clause 44, insert the following new Clause—
“Reimbursement of persons who have met expenses of making electrical connections
(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 19 (power to recover expenditure)—
(a) omit subsections (2) and (3);
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Schedule 5B (reimbursement of persons who have met expenses) has effect.”;
(c) in subsection (4), after “this section” insert “and Schedule 5B”.
(3) After Schedule 5A insert—
“SCHEDULE 5B
REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE MET EXPENSES
Power to make regulations
1 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision entitling the relevant electricity distributor to exercise the reimbursement powers in cases where conditions A, B, C and D are met.
(2) Condition A is met if any electric line or electrical plant is provided for the purpose of making a connection (the “first connection”)—
(a) between premises and a distribution system, or
(b) between two distribution systems.
(3) Condition B is met if a payment in respect of first connection expenses is made by one or more of the following persons—
(a) a person requiring the first connection in pursuance of section 16(1);
(b) a person who otherwise causes the first connection to be made (including by means of contractual arrangements).
(4) Condition C is met if any electric line or electric plant provided for the purpose of making the first connection is used for the purpose of making another connection (the “second connection”)—
(a) between premises and a distribution system, or
(b) between two distribution systems.
(5) Condition D is met if the second connection is made within the prescribed period after the first connection was made.
(6) “First connection expenses” are any expenses reasonably incurred by a person in providing any electric line or electric plant for the purpose of making the first connection.
(7) It does not matter whether the first connection, or the second connection, is made by an electricity distributor or a person of another description.
The reimbursement powers
2 (1) The “reimbursement powers” are—
(a) the power to demand a reimbursement payment from—
(i) a person requiring the second connection in pursuance of section 16(1), or
(ii) a person who otherwise causes the second connection to be made (including by means of contractual arrangements); and
(b) the power to apply the reimbursement payment in making such payments as may be appropriate towards reimbursing any persons for any payments they were expenses (whether that requirement arose by virtue of paragraph (a) or otherwise).
(2) A “reimbursement payment” is a payment, of such amount as may be reasonable in all the circumstances, in respect of first connection expenses.
Other provision about regulations under this Schedule
3 (1) The Secretary of State must consult the Authority before making regulations under this Schedule.
(2) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision requiring relevant electricity distributors to exercise a reimbursement power (whether in all cases or in cases provided for in the regulations).
(3) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision for the relevant electricity distributor to establish or estimate the amount of first connection expenses—or an amount of any aspect of those expenses—in cases where that distributor is not the person who made the first connection.
(4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (3) may not require any person to supply the relevant electricity distributor with information about any expenses incurred.
(5) Regulations under sub-paragraph (3) may provide for an estimate of an amount of first connection expenses to be calculated by a relevant electricity distributor by reference only to a combination of—
(a) expenses which that distributor would incur if that distributor were making the connection at the time of the estimate, and
(b) changes in prices since the time when the connection was actually made.
Interpretation
4 (1) In this Schedule—
“first connection” has the meaning given in paragraph 1; “first connection expenses” has the meaning given in paragraph 1;
“reimbursement payment” has the meaning given in paragraph 2;
“reimbursement powers” has the meaning given in paragraph 2;
“relevant electricity distributor”, in relation to the exercise of a reimbursement power, means—
(a) in a case where the first connection was made between premises and a distribution system, the electricity distributor that (at the time of the exercise of the power) operates that distribution system;
(b) in a case where the first connection was made between two distribution systems, the electricity distributor that (at the time of the exercise of the power) operates the distribution system into which the first connection has been, or is expected to be, incorporated.
(2) A reference in this Schedule to a payment in respect of first connection expenses includes a reference to such a payment made in pursuance of section 19(1).”
(4) In section 16 (duty to connect on request), in subsection (4), after “23” insert “and Schedule 5B”.
(5) In section 16A (procedure for requiring a connection), in subsection (5)(b)—
(a) omit “or regulations under section 19(2)”;
(b) after “19(2)” insert “or regulations under Schedule 5B”.
(6) In section 23 (determination of disputes)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) This section also applies to any dispute arising under regulations under Schedule 5B between—
(a) an electricity distributor, and
(b) a person in respect of whom the electricity distributor exercises the reimbursement powers conferred by the regulations.”;
(b) after subsection (1C) insert—
“(1D) No dispute arising under regulations under Schedule 5B may be referred to the Authority after the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the time when the second connection (within the meaning of Schedule 5B) is made.”;
(c) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a dispute arising under regulations under Schedule 5B falls to be determined under this section, the Authority may give directions as to the circumstances in which, and the terms on which, an electricity distributor is to make or (as the case may be) to maintain the second connection (within the meaning of Schedule 5B) pending the determination of the dispute.”;
(d) in subsection (4), after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendment 22, and will also speak to other amendments in the group, Amendments 30, 39 and 47.

Obtaining a timely and affordable connection to the electricity distribution network is essential for our growth and energy ambitions. It means that customers, including private citizens, renewables generators, house builders and commercial property developers get access to the network either to supply to or to take electricity from the grid when they need to. When seeking a connection, a customer can either use the local monopoly distribution network operator or an independent connection provider. There are around 194 independent connection providers. Over the years, they have gained a growing share of the connections market.

The Government support competition in network connections, as it gives customers greater choice and drives up standards across the board. The Government want to ensure a level playing field for independent connection providers. However, currently the legislation that makes up the second-comer regime potentially places independent connection providers and their customers at a disadvantage. The second-comer regime is based on a power and regulations under the Electricity Act 1989, which allows the recovery of expenses for electricity connections. It is designed to ensure the cost of connecting to the electricity distribution network is shared between different parties.

Specifically, the regime provides that where a customer—the second comer—connects to and benefits from infrastructure paid for by an earlier customer, the second comer can be required to reimburse the earlier party for a proportionate share of the costs. However, independent connection providers are not currently covered by this regime. This reflects the fact that they did not exist in any meaningful number at the time the original legislation was drafted. This means that customers who have their original connection provided by independent connection providers may not be able to recover any costs from the subsequent connecting customers. This in turn can make using an independent connection provider less attractive. This is an anomaly and the proposed amendment will update the power in the Electricity Act to ensure that it reflects the current market in connections by allowing a wider range of connection providers to be included in the second-comer regime. This change will support competition in the energy market and a fairer sharing of costs. To implement the change, subsequent secondary legislation will be required to amend or replace the Electricity (Connection Charges) Regulations 2002.

The new clause after Clause 44, Amendment 22, replaces the existing enabling power in Section 19 of the Electricity Act 1989 to confer on the Secretary of State a power to make regulations that will enable customers of independent connection providers to recover a proportion of the cost of a new connection from customers who subsequently connect to the same infrastructure. The power is included in a new Schedule 5B to the Act, which sets out in some detail the matters to be specified in the regulations. In particular, the regulations will allow for electricity distributors to administer reimbursements and, in some cases, to estimate the cost of connections for that purpose. This new clause also amends the power of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to determine disputes relating to connections to bring it into line with the updated second-comer provisions. As before, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to make regulations under the power.

18:45

The other amendments are consequential to the new clause. Amendment 30 makes provision for the new clause to extend to England, Wales and Scotland, Amendment 39 makes provision for the new clause to come into force on the day appointed by the Secretary of State in regulations, and Amendment 47 amends the Bill’s title. I beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in its Amendment.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendment 23

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 23.

23: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to abolish Public Works Loan Commissioners
In the Public Bodies Act 2011, in Schedule 1 (power to abolish: bodies and offices), after “Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.” insert—
“Public Works Loan Commissioners.””

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 23. In discussing Amendment 23, I will also include Amendments 34, 40 and 48. The Board of Public Works Loan Commissioners, commonly known as the Public Works Loan Board or PWLB, is a statutory body that dates back to the Public Works Loan Act 1875. It comprises 12 loan commissioners appointed by the Crown to administer making loans to local authorities. The commissioners are independent of government and unpaid by law. Under Section 4 of the National Loans Act 1968, the PWLB currently has a statutory lending limit of £70 billion. The current level of debt amounts to £64 billion. The original role of the loan commissioners was to approve and issue central government loans to certain categories of permitted borrowers. Under the 1875 Act and subsequent legislation, the commissioners have the power to refuse a loan on the basis of lack of security, and to appoint a secretary who can hold security and to whom the powers of the commissioners can be delegated. The commissioners are also required to issue an annual report to Parliament setting out details of loans advanced by the PWLB.

However, since 2004 decisions on borrowing have been fully devolved to local authorities under the prudential regime. As part of the local authorities’ self-regulated regime, local authorities are free to finance capital projects by borrowing without requiring government consent, provided they can afford to service their debts out of their revenues. This means that the decision-making functions of the PWLB commissioners are essentially obsolete. Local authorities are responsible for their own decisions on whether to borrow and how much. Further, the day-to-day operations of providing loans are now carried out by the Debt Management Office—the DMO—which is an executive agency of HM Treasury.

The commissioners’ functions and powers are delegated to the secretary of the PWLB, who is a civil servant at the DMO. The highly regarded prudential regime means there is no scope nowadays for the commissioners to exercise influence or discretion over lending to local authorities. The Government are therefore considering whether to abolish the Public Works Loan Board while ensuring that permitted borrowers, mainly local authorities, will continue to be able to access central government loans in the same way as now.

The purpose of including the PWLB in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011, which is what these amendments achieve, is to confer on the Government the power to make an order under the Public Bodies Act that would abolish the PWLB and transfer its functions to an eligible person, as defined in the Public Bodies Act. Let me assure noble Lords that the abolition of the PWLB, and the succession arrangements, will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny under the Public Bodies Act process. This proposal is purely about governance reform. The PWLB abolition will not impact on the prudential regime or local authorities’ existing loans with the PWLB, and local authorities will be able to undertake new borrowing from the successor body, as now, at rates that offer good value for money. Interest rates will continue to be a policy matter for HM Treasury.

Following the commencement of the provisions in this clause, the Government plan to publish a consultation document providing details of their proposals for abolition and succession, as required under the Public Bodies Act. After taking into account responses from the consultation, both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft legislation, which will of course be accompanied by the explanatory document, as required by Section 11 of the PBA. Abolition of the PWLB would remove bureaucracy and align the accountability for lending to local authorities with DMO’s existing responsibilities for day-to-day operational management. This is in line with the Government’s wider efficiency and modernisation agenda.

I am conscious that these amendments are so uncontroversial that this may be the last moment that I am on my feet in a discussion on the Infrastructure Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friends Lady Verma and Lord Ahmad, who have been stalwart in leading significant parts of the Bill. I thank your Lordships all across the House. The Bill has involved many different departments; individuals with different specialisation and Peers who have followed different issues have had to co-ordinate and manage across the complexities. They have done so brilliantly. I think we have collectively improved the Bill. It has also involved working closely with the other place. This is also an opportunity for me to say particular thanks to the Bill team, which has had to deal with some of the most extraordinary complexity in managing this whole process. Frankly, I think it has done it brilliantly.

I will of course wish to respond if issues are raised by any other Members of the House, but I did not want to lose the opportunity to say thank you, since I am aware that the amendments I am moving are so technical and uncontroversial that this may be my last time to speak. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am bound to say that when I saw references to the Public Works Loan Board being abolished a sense of nostalgia swept over me. It took me back to my first finance committee meeting of Luton Borough Council in 1976—noble Lords will remember that in those days if you turned up with a briefcase you were put on the finance committee straight away—and to the regular reports of the borough treasurer thereafter. Little did one realise that we were then in the comparative twilight of the commissioners’ existence.

The most recent Annual Report and Accounts, in describing the functions of the commissioners, says that they derive from legislation of 1875 and 1968, which has been referred to. However, the report also says that the PWLB’s existence can be traced back to 1793. It became established on a permanent basis in 1817. It is asserted that changes over time have made the PWLB less relevant, to the point where it is suggested that its purpose is redundant. As we have heard, its functions and powers have been delegated to the Debt Management Office. A significant development was the prudential borrowing regime introduced under the previous Labour Government, which obviated the need for local authorities to go through a credit approval process. In fact, the prudential borrowing regime has proved to be a major success and has demonstrated that local authorities act responsibly and prudently when it comes to exercising borrowing powers. The proposition is to include the PWLB in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011 so that the Government can use powers under that Act to abolish it and transfer its functions to an eligible person. It seems as though any necessary consultations are to take place under the PBA processes—presumably about “how” to abolish it, not “if”.

My colleagues in another place have already challenged the Government on why the consultation promised last July has not taken place. They have also reasonably sought to clarify what residual functions the PWLB undertakes. The foreword to the 2013-14 Annual Report and Accounts described the functions of the commissioners as being,

“to consider loan applications from local authorities and other prescribed bodies and, where loans are made, to collect the repayments”.

As a practical matter, as we know, these responsibilities have been delegated to the secretary—effectively the accounting officer. The PWLB borrows from the National Loans Fund to fund its loans. All interest and loan repayments are paid over to the National Loans Fund. Commissioners are prepared to lend to an authority up to the available capacity in its prudential borrowing limit.

It seems to us that although the functions have been delegated to others the PWLB’s nominal powers are surely not insignificant. At 31 March 2014 it held loans of approximately £63.7 billion, with corresponding liabilities of the same amount. Its powers to facilitate borrowing and manage loans must be significant, even though delegated. As my honourable friend Roberta Blackman-Woods MP stated in another place, we all,

“want assurance that there is good oversight”—

and transparency—

“of local government borrowing”.—[Official Report, Commons, Infrastructure Bill Committee, 13/1/15 col. 333.]

Perhaps the Minister would take the opportunity to say how she considers that this will be provided under any new arrangements. Having said all that, we certainly will not oppose these amendments.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, the consultation that will come under the Public Bodies Act is obviously an important step in the process to allow for full discussion of the kinds of issues that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has discussed today. At the moment the commissioners simply meet on an annual basis. They note the loans issued and review the annual report prepared by the officials. I think this House would agree that sometimes it is important to recognise reality and make sure that the formal arrangements match the actuality. We hope that this is a step in that direction.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may just add my congratulations to the Bill team on dealing with a Bill that has been one of the more absurd creations of government in recent history. The Department for Transport has been responsible for invasive species and for fracking. Long after Christmas time—if ever there was a Christmas tree of a Bill, this is it—we got a suggestion that we would have clauses on the Electronic Communications Code. It was once said in the other place, “Take away this bauble”. If that part of the Bill had arrived here, I would have repeated that phrase in relation to the clause. I congratulate the Minister on having piloted the Bill through, but I hope it is not a precedent for how the Government in fixed-term parliaments produce a measure that has everything in it including the kitchen sink.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I shall just say in passing that I take comfort in the fact that the work we have done in the Bill is of genuine value. I know that particularly from the transport areas in which I have been engaged. I really appreciate the input that has come from this House but I also think that the Government have taken the leadership in, for example, underpinning future funding of our road strategy. Fracking has an important role to play, but the framework necessary for it has been forwarded by this Bill on a wide range of matters that might have been overlooked. Something as simple as the mayoral development orders will let local authorities use that mayoral capacity to achieve the kind of housing projects that they want very much for their areas and their residents. It may be a complex Bill with many different items in it but I do think that we will be better for it. I thank the House.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 24 to 32

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 24 to 32.

24: Clause 46, page 52, line 32, after “17” insert “(1)(a)”

25: Clause 46, page 52, line 32, after “17” insert “, (Mayoral development orders)”

26: Clause 47, page 53, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) Part 1A (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies) extends to England and Wales only.”

27: Clause 47, page 53, line 27, leave out first “section” and insert “sections (Mayoral development orders)(2) to (4)”

28: Clause 47, page 53, line 27, leave out “28(11) and (12)” and insert “, 28(11) and (12) and
(Expenditure of Greater London Authority on housing or regeneration)(2)”

29: Clause 47, page 53, line 31, leave out “sections 38 to 43”

30: Clause 47, page 53, line 32, after “45” insert “, section (Reimbursement of persons who have met expenses of making electrical connections)”

31: Clause 47, page 53, line 33, leave out “and”

32: Clause 47, page 53, line 34, leave out “extends” and insert “and section (Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon budget) extend”

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 33 and 33A

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 33, and do propose Amendment 33A as an amendment to Amendment 33.

33: Clause 47, page 53, line 35, at end insert “, and
2 ( ) sections 38 to 43 extend to England and Wales only.”

33A: Line 2, after “43” insert “and section (Onshore hydraulic fracturing: safeguards)”

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 34 to 48

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 34 to 48.

34: Clause 47, page 53, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) Part 5A (Public Works Loan Commissioners) extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

35: Clause 48, page 53, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) Part 1A (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations.”

36: Clause 48, page 54, line 16, leave out “section 26 comes” and insert “sections 26 and
(Expenditure of Greater London Authority on housing or regeneration) come”

37: Clause 48, page 54, line 16, after “passed” insert—
“(ca) section (Mayoral development orders) and Schedule (Mayoral development orders) come into force—
(i) in so far as they confer power to make provision by regulations or by development order within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the day on which this Act is passed, and
(ii) for all other purposes, on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations,”

38: Clause 48, p 54, line 24, leave out “43” and insert “(Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon budget)”

39: Clause 48, page 54, line 26, after “37” insert “, section (Reimbursement of persons who have met expenses of making electrical connections)”

40: Clause 48, page 54, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) Part 5A (Public Works Loan Commissioners) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

41: Clause 48, page 54, line 31, leave out “or (b)(ii)” and insert “, (b)(ii) or (ca)(ii)”

42: Clause 49, page 54, line 41, leave out subsection (2)

43: Schedule 1, page 69, line 17, at end insert—
“Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51)
67A In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958, in the table at the end of paragraph 3, at the appropriate place in Part 2 insert “A strategic highways company for the time being appointed under Part 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2014.”

44: Schedule 3, page 87, 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.”

45: Schedule 3, page 87, 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.”

46: After Schedule 3, insert the following new Schedule—
“MAYORAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS
PART 1
MAIN AMENDMENTS
1 After section 61D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“Mayoral development orders
61DA Mayoral development orders
(1) The Mayor of London may by order (a Mayoral development order) grant planning permission for development specified in the order on one or more sites specified in the order.
(2) The site or sites must fall within—
(a) the area of a local planning authority in Greater London, or
(b) the areas of two or more local planning authorities in Greater London.
(3) The Secretary of State may by development order specify an area or class of development in respect of which a Mayoral development order must not be made.
61DB Permission granted by Mayoral development order
(1) Planning permission granted by a Mayoral development order may be granted—
(a) unconditionally, or
(b) subject to such conditions or limitations as are specified in the order.
(2) A condition imposed by a Mayoral development order may provide for the consent, agreement or approval to a matter specified in the condition to be given by one or more persons specified in the condition.
(3) A person specified in a condition must be the Mayor of London or a relevant local planning authority.
(4) The Secretary of State may by development order provide that, if the consent, agreement or approval of a person required by a condition imposed by a Mayoral development order is not given within a specified period, that consent, agreement or approval may be sought from a specified person.
(5) In subsection (4) “specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in the development order.
(6) The Secretary of State may by development order make provision for a person to apply for planning permission for the development of land without complying with a condition imposed on the grant of planning permission by a Mayoral development order.
(7) A development order under subsection (6) may, in particular make provision similar to that made by section 73, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(8) So far as the context requires, in relation to—
(a) an application for the consent, agreement or approval of the Mayor of London to a matter specified in a condition imposed by a Mayoral development order, or
(b) the determination of such an application,
any reference in an enactment to a local planning authority (however expressed) includes a reference to the Mayor.
(9) For the purposes of this Act a local planning authority is a relevant local planning authority in relation to a Mayoral development order or proposed Mayoral development order if a site or part of a site to which the order or proposed order relates is within the authority’s area.
61DC Preparation and making of Mayoral development order
(1) The Secretary of State may by development order make provision about the procedure for the preparation and making of a Mayoral development order.
(2) A development order under subsection (1) may in particular make provision about—
(a) notice, publicity and inspection by the public;
(b) consultation with and consideration of views of such persons and for such purposes as are specified in the order;
(c) the making and consideration of representations.
(3) A Mayoral development order may be made only in response to an application to the Mayor of London by each relevant local planning authority.
(4) A proposed Mayoral development order may be consulted on only with the consent of each relevant local planning authority.
(5) A Mayoral development order may not be made unless the order has been approved, in the form in which it is made, by each relevant local planning authority.
(6) If the Mayor of London makes a Mayoral development order, the Mayor must send a copy to the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable after the order is made.
61DD Revision or revocation of Mayoral development order
(1) The Mayor of London may at any time revise or revoke a Mayoral development order with the approval of each relevant local planning authority.
(2) The Mayor of London must revise a Mayoral development order if the Secretary of State directs the Mayor to do so (and the requirement for the approval of each relevant local planning authority does not apply in those circumstances).
(3) The Secretary of State may at any time revoke a Mayoral development order if the Secretary of State thinks it is expedient to do so.
(4) The power under subsection (3) is to be exercised by order made by the Secretary of State.
(5) If the Secretary of State revokes a Mayoral development order the Secretary of State must state the reasons for doing so.
(6) The Secretary of State may by development order make provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken by the Secretary of State before giving a direction or making an order under this section;
(b) the procedure for the revision or revocation of a Mayoral development order.
(7) A development order under subsection (6) may in particular make provision about—
(a) notice, publicity and inspection by the public;
(b) consultation with and consideration of views of such persons and for such purposes as are specified in the order;
(c) the making and consideration of representations.
61DE Effect of revision or revocation on incomplete development
(1) This section applies if planning permission for development granted by a Mayoral development order is withdrawn at a time when the development has been started but not completed.
(2) For this purpose planning permission for development granted by a Mayoral development order is withdrawn—
(a) if the order is revoked under section 61DD, or
(b) if the order is revised under that section so that it ceases to grant planning permission for the development or materially changes any condition or limitation to which the grant of permission is subject.
(3) The development may, despite the withdrawal of the permission, be completed, subject as follows.
(4) If the permission is withdrawn because the Mayoral development order is revoked by the Mayor of London, the Mayor may make a determination that subsection (3) is not to apply in relation to development specified in the determination.
(5) A determination under subsection (4) must be published in such manner as the Mayor of London thinks appropriate.
(6) If the permission is withdrawn because the Mayoral development order is revoked by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 61DD, the order under that section may provide that subsection (3) is not to apply in relation to development specified in that order.
(7) If the permission is withdrawn because the order is revised as mentioned in subsection (2)(b), the revised order may provide that subsection (3) is not to apply in relation to development specified in the order.
(8) The power under this section to include provision in an order under section 61DD or a Mayoral development order may be exercised differently for different purposes.”
PART 2
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
2 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
3 In section 56(5)(a) (time when development begun where planning permission granted by general or local development order) for “or a local development order” substitute “, a local development order or a Mayoral development order”.
4 In section 57(3) (planning permission not required for normal use of land where planning permission for development of land granted by development order etc) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
5 In section 58(1) (planning permission may be granted by development order etc) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
6 In section 62(2A) (applications for planning permission: references in subsections (1) and (2) to applications for planning permission to include applications under section 61L(2)) after “references to” in the second place insert “—
(a) applications for consent, agreement or approval as mentioned in section 61DB(2), and
(b) ”.
7 In section 65(3A) (notice etc of applications for planning permission: references in subsections (1) and (3) to applications for planning permission etc to include applications under section 61L(2) etc) after “references to” in the second place insert “—
(a) any application for consent, agreement or approval as mentioned in section 61DB(2) or any applicant for such consent, agreement or approval, and
(b) ”.
8 (1) Section 69 (register of applications etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (duty of local planning authority to keep register containing information about planning applications etc) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(cza) Mayoral development orders;”.
(3) In subsection (2)(b) (requirement for register to contain information about local development orders etc) after “local development order,” insert “Mayoral development order,”.
9 (1) Section 71 (consultations in connection with determinations under section 70) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2ZA) (references in subsections (1) and (2) to applications for planning permission to include applications under section 61L(2)) after “references to” in the second place insert “—
(a) an application for consent, agreement or approval as mentioned in section 61DB(2), and
(b) ”.
(3) In subsection (3A) (disapplication of consultation requirement relating to caravan sites in case of neighbourhood development order) after “granted by” insert “a Mayoral development order or”.
10 In section 74(1ZA) (directions etc as to method of dealing with applications: references in subsections (1)(c) and (f) to planning permission etc to include approvals under section 61L(2) etc)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “reference to” in the second place insert “—
(i) a consent, agreement or approval as mentioned in section 61DB(2), and
(ii) ”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) after “references to” in the second place insert “—
(i) applications for consent, agreement or approval as mentioned in section 61DB(2), and
(ii) ”.
11 In section 77(1) (reference of applications to the Secretary of State)—
(a) for “approval” substitute “consent, agreement or approval”, and
(b) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
12 In section 78(1)(c) (right of appeal against refusal of application for approval under development order etc.) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
13 In section 88(9) (provision for permission for development in enterprise zones does not prevent planning permission from being granted by other means) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
14 In section 91(4)(a) (provisions about general condition limiting duration of planning permission do not apply to permission granted by development order etc) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
15 (1) Section 108 (compensation for refusal etc of planning permission formerly granted by development order etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading after “local development order” insert “, Mayoral development order”.
(3) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”, and
(b) after “the local development order” insert “, the Mayoral development order”.
(4) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Where section 107 applies in relation to planning permission granted by a Mayoral development order—
(a) subsection (1) of that section has effect as if it provided for a claim to be made to, and compensation to be paid by, the Mayor of London rather than the local planning authority, and
(b) subject to subsection (1B), sections 109 to 112 have effect where compensation is payable by the Mayor of London under section 107(1) as if references to the local planning authority (however expressed) were references to the Mayor of London.
(1B) Subsection (1A)(b) does not apply to section 110(2) or (4).” (5) In subsection (2)—
(a) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”, and
(b) after “revocation” in both places insert “, revision”.
(6) In subsection (3B) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) in the case of planning permission granted by a Mayoral development order, the condition in subsection (3DA) is met, or”.
(7) After subsection (3D) insert—
“(3DA) The condition referred to in subsection (3B)(ba) is that—
(a) the planning permission is withdrawn by the revocation or revision of the Mayoral development order,
(b) notice of the revocation or revision was published in the prescribed manner not less than 12 months or more than the prescribed period before the revocation or revision took effect, and
(c) either—
(i) the development authorised by the Mayoral development order had not begun before the notice was published, or
(ii) section 61DE(3) applies in relation to the development.”
16 In section 109(6) (apportionment of compensation for depreciation: interpretation) in the definition of “relevant planning decision” after “the local development order” insert “, the Mayoral development order”.
17 In section 171H(1)(a) (compensation for temporary stop notice: application where activity authorised by development order etc) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
18 In section 264(5)(ca) (land which is treated as operational land of a statutory undertaker by virtue of planning permission for its development granted by a local development order etc) after “a local development order” insert “, a Mayoral development order”.
19 (1) Section 303 (fees for planning applications etc) is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the payment of a fee to—
(a) the Mayor of London in respect of an application for consent, agreement or approval as mentioned in section 61DB(2) or the giving of advice about such an application;
(b) a specified person in respect of an application for consent, agreement or approval for which provision is made under section 61DB(4) or the giving of advice about such an application.”
(3) After subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) If the Mayor of London or a specified person calculates the amount of fees in pursuance of provision made by regulations under subsection (1ZA) the Mayor of London or the specified person must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the fees does not exceed the cost of performing the function.”
(4) After subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In this section “specified person” means a person specified by development order under section 61DB(4).”
20 In section 305(1)(a) (contributions by Ministers towards compensation paid by local authorities) after “local authority” insert “, the Mayor of London”.
21 In section 324 (rights of entry) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State, a local planning authority or the Mayor of London may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of surveying it in connection with—
(a) a proposal by a local planning authority to apply to the Mayor of London for the Mayor to make a Mayoral development order, or
(b) a proposal by the Mayor of London to make a Mayoral development order.”
22 (1) Section 333 (regulations and orders) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (4) after “61A(5)” insert “, 61DD(4),”.
(3) In subsection (5) after “Wales),” insert “61DD(4),”.
23 In section 336(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert— ““relevant local planning authority” is to be construed in accordance with section 61DB(9);”.”

47: In the Title, line 15, after “incentives;” insert “to make provision about the reimbursement of persons who have paid for electricity connections;”

48: In the Title, 15, after “incentives;” insert “to make provision for enabling the Public Works Loan Commissioners to be abolished;”

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 7 pm.