Northern Powerhouse: Airports

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point. I agree with him: hub airports provide that connectivity and we are seeing that. I alluded to the growth of Manchester. We have seen Manchester become a hub airport for the region. Connectivity is about not just air connectivity but surface connectivity. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, I am glad to report that in terms of both road and rail we are providing just that connectivity across airports.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, are the Government still fully committed to producing their decision about London’s airports before Christmas?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises a question that he has asked before, and I will give him the answer that I have given before. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given an assurance that we will make a decision before Christmas. The other thing that my right honourable friend has underlined is that we need to consider the findings of the Airports Commission’s report extensively. It is an extensive report. We need to look at it in a detailed manner to ensure that there is no subsequent judicial review on any proposal taken forward.

Airport Security

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord—indeed, the whole House—that we continue to identify and work with airports across the world in not just minimising but ensuring that we seek to eradicate any security and safety risks for all passengers. Our first priority, however, is UK citizens, and we continue to work extensively in that regard; we did so even prior to this incident. On the noble Lord’s second point, of course we work with many Governments across the board, and in this case with the Egyptians. The Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Sisi last week, again indicated that Britain will offer full co-operation in whatever respect it can.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, Athens used to be the worst major airport in Europe from the point of view of security—at least, it was when I was Minister for Aviation. Is it still?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, I shall not go into specific names of airports. The appropriate response is that we are looking at security risks across the board, and it would be right and responsible to do so, to ensure, as I said, that we seek to eradicate any risk to safety. In the action that we took on Sharm el-Sheikh, the British Government’s view is clear. If we perceive that there is a risk to the safety and security of UK citizens, we will act—and we have done so.

Airports: London

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will now announce the date on which they will make public their decision about an extra runway for the London airport system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s position on airports capacity has not changed since the Airports Commission published its final report in July. The Government are currently reviewing all the evidence before coming to any final decision. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister has said that a decision will be made by the end of the year.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Heathrow is now full? Is he further aware that whatever decision is taken about the future of that airport, it is likely to be challenged in the courts? Is it not therefore sensible that, from an aviation point of view, a decision to publicise should be taken as soon as possible, preferably this afternoon before the six o’clock news?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is for the very reason that my noble friend has articulated—the importance of making a considered decision which is not subject to judicial review—that the Government are fully considering all the evidence in the commission’s report and will report on their final decision in due course.

Airports Commission

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost of the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, including the costs of commissioning and analysing the commission’s final report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, up until the end of August 2015, the cost of the Airports Commission is around £13.4 million across 2012-13 to 2015-16. This covers buildings, staff and IT costs, consultancy, publishing, travel and hosting public consultation events. The final cost will be known once the commission secretariat has been dissolved, following which we intend to publish the final figures. We do not hold estimates of the cost of commissioning or reviewing the findings and conclusions of the Airport Commission’s report.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, would it not therefore be a terrible waste of money if the Government were to reject the unanimous advice of the commission to go ahead with developing Heathrow through a third runway in such a way as to make it again the No. 1 international airport in the world, which it certainly was when I was Minister for Aviation?

London Airport: New Runway

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the start date for building a new London airport runway; and when they expect that it will be ready for use.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, following the Airports Commission’s final report, published yesterday, we are considering the commission’s full body of work before deciding how and at what pace to respond to its recommendations. In terms of delivery, the Airports Commission’s analysis indicates that the Gatwick scheme could be delivered by 2025, while the two Heathrow schemes could be delivered by 2026.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that my Question is a day late? I am sure that he is. Is he further aware that many of us who have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject believe that the Government are to be fully supported in saying that they will take a firm decision this year? I personally think that it should be based on the Davies report but I recognise that there is no commitment on that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I was going to say that my noble friend’s timing was impeccable—almost. He is quite right to say that now that we have the Davies commission report, as I said yesterday in repeating the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, it is right that the Government should now consider carefully the very detailed and balanced report. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday during Prime Minister’s Question Time:

“The guarantee that I can give … is that a decision will be made by the end of the year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/15; col. 1473.]

Davies Commission Report

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State accepted in the other place today that lack of airport capacity was holding this country back. Now that we do not have the alliance, we can rely on the new Conservative Government to implement this particular expansion. Can we now expect the Davies report to be the main determinant of the Government’s decision?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As my noble friend is aware, we commissioned the report in 2012 during the previous Government. I believe that was the right thing to do at that time. The issue of capacity in London and the south-east is something that we have been reviewing and looking at over the last 50 years. This was an extensive report, which looked at more than 50 different options and then whittled them down to the three on which it has reported. Of course it will be a primary consideration for the Government in thinking about the way we move forward on south-east airport capacity.

Airports: London

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Sir Howard Davies’ recommendations for London’s airports should be accepted, what assessment they have made of proposals to develop an airport in the Thames estuary already discounted by Sir Howard’s commission.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated at the CBI annual dinner on 20 May, when the Government receive the Airports Commission’s final report, we will take the decision to address the country’s aviation capacity requirements. We will consider the commission’s full body of work, including its conclusions on the Thames estuary, and decide how and at what pace to respond to any recommendation that the commission may make.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, the Government could have said that they have no plans to build what would be one of the largest airports in the world, and stick it in the middle of one of the best and most famous rivers in the world. They could have said whether that is their position but they have not done so, and therefore I have to ask the Minister: why?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It was the previous Government who set up the Airports Commission to explore all options and it is right that we wait until it has produced its report. I say to my noble friend that perhaps he will not have to wait much longer.

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EUC Report)

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, it was my pleasure to serve as both a member and the chair of the Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection. At the outset I thank my colleagues who served as members of that committee, who all brought extraordinary expertise and diligence to their work, and pay tribute to our staff. We were very fortunate in the clerks who served when I was on the committee and in our legal advisers, who were second to none. Having served for 13 years as a Member of another place, I think I can say without contradiction that the scrutiny role of the House of Lords in its European work is second to none and is recognised as such throughout the European Union.

On 17 July 2013, the European Commission published its long-awaited proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office. It is subject to the UK’s opt-in protocol, but the coalition agreement had already ruled out participation by the United Kingdom. I interject a personal note here. It seems to me to be quite a discourtesy in parliamentary terms to start a consultation process on 17 July in any year as Parliament has either risen for the Summer Recess or is about to do so. In order for us to do our scrutiny work properly, not only did it involve holiday time for staff, it meant that the committee had to come back when the House was not sitting to be able to fulfil its role. I hope that the European Commission will not persist with that kind of timetable in future.

Under the Commission’s proposal, the prosecutor would be made,

“responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment … the perpetrators of … offences against the Union’s financial interest”,

and would be empowered to,

“exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States”.

This organisation was going to be responsible for all fraud in the European Union. At its meeting on 11 September 2013, the Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection, which at the time I chaired, considered the Commission’s proposal for the first time and decided to issue a reasoned opinion, challenging it on the grounds of subsidiarity. In October of the same year, this House approved the sub-committee’s proposed reasoned opinion and because the number of reasoned opinions submitted by the national parliaments reached the “yellow card” threshold, the Commission was obliged to review the proposal. It is important to point out that this was only the second time that sufficient national parliaments had ever forced the Commission to undertake such a review.

We were consequently very disappointed when shortly thereafter, in November, following its review, the Commission produced a communication in which it decided to maintain its proposed European prosecutor as originally brought forward. There was not much in the way of a reasoned argument. Following this news, in January 2014, the sub-committee agreed to launch an inquiry into the ramifications of the proposed European public prosecutor’s office for non-participating states such as the United Kingdom—but of course, the United Kingdom is not the only one. While we had our doubts about the proposal, we were also very concerned about the impact it would have on the non-participating member states, of which the UK is one, and on the ongoing relationship with the European Union’s current anti-fraud body, OLAF, and Eurojust.

We began taking evidence in March 2014. We heard from leading academics in the field, representatives of the legal profession, the current president of Eurojust and one former holder of that position, and the current director-general of OLAF. The sessions concluded with evidence from the Home Secretary. We are grateful to all those who submitted evidence to our inquiry. Unfortunately, the committee’s planned timetable was somewhat frustrated in that while the evidence sessions were well under way, following the member states’ initial discussion of the Commission’s proposal, the then Greek presidency of the Council brought forward an alternative prosecutor’s proposal, addressing some of the member states’ key concerns. The Government submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on this alternative text in June 2014.

We took the decision to postpone publication to allow all those who gave evidence to the inquiry an opportunity to consider the rival text. The committee’s subsequent report was published on 3 November 2014. My committee found a number of very significant problems with the Commission’s proposal. We were worried about the principle that the prosecutor would be responsible for investigating and prosecuting all EU fraud crimes, to the exclusion of the national bodies responsible—what is referred to in the jargon as exclusive competence. This in turn would run the risk of the prosecutor being overwhelmed from birth by an excessive workload. We also expressed doubts about the proposed centralised structure.

Unfortunately, we did not see the presidency’s text as a panacea. The committee found that the rival text raised more questions than answers. There was a lack of clarity about sharing competence for these crimes between the member states and the relevant national authorities. We also thought that the attempt to mimic Eurojust’s collegiate structure was overly complicated. As for the position of the non-participating member states, neither of the texts considered during the inquiry addressed their position at all. However, the report warned that the proposed European prosecutor could seriously undermine the UK’s relationship with the European Union’s current anti-fraud body, OLAF, and with Eurojust.

Unsurprisingly, given their long-standing opposition to the European public prosecutor’s office, the Government shared many of the committee’s concerns. There is a great deal of common ground between the committee and the Government and, as we know, that is not always the case.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

I do not quite see why the committee was so surprised that it was all or nothing. As it is all going to be conducted under a different form of law from ours, it has to be, in the interests of fairness, all or nothing, does it not?

[Baroness Corston]

The main problem, as we saw it, was not only that the prosecutor would be completely overwhelmed but that no consideration at all was given to countries that, from the outset, would not play any part. I think that formed the basis of both our concern and the concern of the Government.

Given that there was a great deal of common ground between the Government and the committee, the Government agreed with nearly all our conclusions and recommendations. The only point of disagreement relates to the Home Secretary’s suggestion during her evidence that the United Kingdom might not be legally obliged to respond to requests for assistance from the European public prosecutor’s office. Given her doubts, the committee called for an urgent consultation by the Home Office on this matter. Sadly, our call was rejected by the Government. They cited as a reason the current lack of clarity over the prosecutor’s potential role. I accept, of course, that a lack of clarity pervades any discussion of the proposed public prosecutor’s office—indeed, this theme runs throughout the report—but I would suggest that the issue of co-operation between the European public prosecutor in whatever form and the relevant UK authorities—for example, in relation to European arrest warrants—is not going to go away.

Witnesses to the inquiry were quite clear that any weakness or failure by the UK authorities to co-operate with the European public prosecutor in this regard risked the UK being seen as a safe-haven for those suspected of committing offences against the European Union’s financial interests and for illegally obtained EU funds. The members of my former committee would not want to see the UK become, as one witness warned, the Costa del Sol of the 1980s for those who perpetrate criminal frauds against the European Union’s finances.

I again thank those who contributed to the inquiry and my former colleagues on the sub-committee, whose company I very much appreciated. No doubt we all agree that it is essential that the European Union and the UK consider the full implications of the establishment of the European public prosecutor, not only for those states that will not participate but for bringing to justice those people who commit fraud against the interests of the European Union. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to the work of the wider EU committees under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and, specifically in this context, to the work of the Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston.

The report is very thorough and comprehensive, and the body of evidence that it drew upon in arriving at its conclusions was substantial. Anyone who has had anything to do with EU institutions will recognise the high regard that is held throughout the European Union member states for the work of this House in carrying out scrutiny of proposals. It is therefore doubly disappointing that the concerns, which were clearly expressed in the reasoned opinion, were not taken more seriously. The yellow card system could perhaps have worked a little better in that regard. However, the Government have very much welcomed the report. The Home Secretary gave evidence to it, and we have responded to the committee and to its specific recommendations. I now want to cover some of the principal points raised during the debate.

The Government have consistently made it clear that we will not participate in an EPPO, and we have assurances from the Commission and all member states that our non-participation will be respected. We continue to take an active role in negotiations to ensure that it is, and those negotiations are ongoing. I was amazed to see that the idea of an EPPO had its genesis back in 2000 or 2001, so it has been going on for some 14 years. I do not understand why, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, people are not looking at the existing structure and making what we have work better rather than seeking to develop something that is new, untried and untested. That logic escapes the Government, as it has escaped the committee.

The negotiations are contentious and extremely fluid. The focus to date has been on Chapters I to V of the proposal. Participating member states regard these as internal business matters that concern only them. In their view, it is too early to have discussions about impacts on non-participating member states. The Latvian presidency is aiming to reach a partial general approach at the June Justice and Home Affairs Council, which it hopes will firm up the basic structure of the EPPO. Yet member states still have divergent positions on many of these issues.

There are other factors in play, many of which have been mentioned today. Under negotiation are separate EU measures, such as the directive in the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, known as the PIF directive, as well as the Eurojust regulation. The PIF directive in particular will affect how an EPPO would deal with cases on a day-to-day basis. It is therefore extremely difficult for us to know what effect an EPPO will have on existing EU co-operation mechanisms and systems. It is also still too early for the presidency and other member states to consider how an EPPO will impact on the UK. We totally accept that, as stated by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, there will be very serious implications for the UK, including Scotland, and these will need to be addressed and assessed. However, there will be a continuing need to engage closely in the negotiations, and where we deem that so-called internal issues directly affect the UK we will continue to strongly raise our concerns. We also continue to make it clear that we want to strengthen the existing—

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

The Minister says that there could be serious effects on the UK. Is one of those effects that we could have to go across to a different form of law?

[Lord Bates]

I do not think that is the particular effect that I was thinking about in this context. Clearly we have a system that works to a degree at the moment with Eurojust and OLAF as the two bodies that then refer back, in our case, to the Serious Fraud Office and the newly established National Crime Agency, which is doing very good work in tackling fraud of this nature. They are then prosecuted through a court in the UK. It is more that operational level which the Government are thinking about at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Yes. They are extraordinarily large and very worrying sums of money, and this Government remain absolutely committed to tackling that. We continue to support efforts by the EU anti-fraud office to tackle EU fraud, we value the role of OLAF and Eurojust, and we want to minimise disruption to current and future anti-fraud cases if an EPPO is created.

We understand that the EPPO-to-Eurojust relationship and the EPPO’s impact on OLAF will not be discussed until later in the negotiations. We also have no further information from the Commission on any plan for reform of OLAF. I appreciate that this lack of clarity makes assessment of the impact of an EPPO difficult at this stage. The Luxembourg presidency may be in a position in the latter half of this year to begin constructive discussions on EPPO interactions with other EU bodies, third countries and non-participating member states, but that is highly likely to depend on where things stand in June. As soon as there are significant developments, we will update noble Lords in the normal way.

[Lord Spicer]

We always used to be told that European criminal law would not incurse itself into our law, which is a different form of law. This is surely an example of the reverse; this is the incursion of European criminal law into our common law-based system. It is very serious from the point of view of this country, surely.

[Lord Bates]

These are important constitutional matters. I am looking across to the Benches where we have a distinguished constitutional academic and a distinguished former member of the Supreme Court, who may offer opinion, but I think I will slightly side-step the question.

Help is at hand.

Passports

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

Does my noble friend happen to know whether the communications problems between the Passport Office in Liverpool and the Passport Office in London have been sorted out yet?

[Lord Bates]

Yes, for overseas passports it is Durham and Liverpool and we have put in an extra 1,100 staff to clear the backlog and improve our performance. Of those, so far 500 have been appointed and the rest will be appointed in the next few months.

EU: Justice Opt-ins

Lord Spicer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for resisting further extensions of United Kingdom opt-ins to a European corpus juris.

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

My Lords, there is no proposal for a European corpus juris. Any proposals to extend EU jurisdiction in criminal law would be subject to the UK’s existing justice and home affairs opt-in, which allows us to choose whether we take part. Those decisions are taken in full consultation with Parliament.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, with the 35 opt-ins to the European criminal law now in place, and with the powers that the European court has to make law, are we not now in very real danger of losing the presumption of innocence, the jury system, case law and habeas corpus?

[Lord Bates]

We have been very clear that, as the treaty of Lisbon states, the presumption as regards criminal law should be that we operate by mutual recognition rather than harmonisation. We have taken very clear steps to say that, because we have the ability to opt in under the Lisbon treaty, we exercise that choice. That is the reason why the Prime Minister decided to opt out of 135 measures before opting back in to 35; otherwise, European Court of Justice jurisdiction would have extended to all of those. Therefore I recognise the noble Lord’s point, but the Prime Minister is arguing our case well.