Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I should point out that I am only “Lady Basildon” on Twitter; it is usually Smith, but I am pleased to have the Minister as a follower on Twitter. There are two orders before us today, but she has rightly addressed the one that I raised concerns about. We raised and discussed the other one, about the national security determinations relating to DNA and biometric information, in Committee.

The Minister is quite right that the order which I am speaking about, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013, was debated in Committee. I am sorry—I say this with regret and not as a criticism—that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is not here today; not because we are not pleased to see the noble Baroness, but because we discussed this in Committee. I said to him on 7 July that if I remained dissatisfied with the answers to our queries and concerns, then we would look to debate it on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord helpfully wrote to me, seeking to address those concerns, but some remain, which is why we are debating this again today,

As pleased as we are to see the noble Baroness, we therefore regret that the noble Lord is not able to be here today. However, no doubt the noble Baroness will have read the debate, will have seen the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, sent me, and will be aware of the concerns that I raised. She sought to air them today, but I regret that in her short comments she was unable to do so. I do not want to repeat the Committee debate—that would be unwelcome at this time on the last day of term—but I will summarise the concerns and explain why we remain concerned. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give further information and might seek to address some of the points that have been raised and not fully answered.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made the point that the Government needed to justify how the benefits offset additional bureaucracy, and the wider application of the code. Those two issues stand together. There is significant increased bureaucracy and cost for local authorities and the police, as I outlined previously. This is addressed in the impact assessment. In Committee and in his letter to me, the noble Lord addressed this. He said in his letter that the Local Government Association agreed that it was difficult to assess the costs involved. He then added that it was around £1.6 million each and every year, although given the information on the impact assessment, this is a conservative estimate and could be much higher. The impact assessment suggests that is the best estimate and that it could be as high as £3 million each and every year, and that the best estimate for the one-off transition costs is over £14 million and could be as high as £29 million.

In his letter the noble Lord also stated that the best estimate values had been shared between 350 local authorities and 46 police authorities. However, as both the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the impact assessment make clear, the impact assessment assumes that,

“many of the local authorities and police forces … are already operating broadly within its”—

that is, the code’s—

“guiding principles where they relate to existing obligations. Thus the additional burdens and bureaucracy are likely to fall where systems and the accountability for decision-making need to be strengthened to protect the public”.

That implies to me that the conservative estimate of £1.6 million annually and the additional £14 million transition costs are not being shared across all local authorities and police forces because when the costs in the impact assessment were estimated it was done on the basis that many—I think it was 25% to 50%—would not incur any additional costs.

A further difficulty which was raised in Committee but has not been addressed is that this order applies only to the public and not the private sector. The Explanatory Memorandum quotes the policy background and refers to the advantages of CCTV. It also refers to the disadvantages, including,

“the extent to which private lives are exposed to ever greater scrutiny by other individuals, organisations or the State, leading in some instances to a potential exposure to criminality, or more generally, to an erosion of personal privacy”.

The order is therefore being promoted as a protection of civil liberties against the power of individuals, organisations and the state. However, it does not apply to individuals, organisations and the state; it applies only to the state and public institutions. So if these guidelines are so essential to protect civil liberties, why does the policy giving effect to the Government’s principles outlined so boldly in the Explanatory Memorandum only apply to the public sector? Can the noble Baroness tell me what percentage of CCTV cameras the order covers? I know that previously the Minister said that this was because they were in a public place, but so are shopping centres; shop and office cameras look onto the street. Do the same principles apply to those CCTV cameras as to the ones that police and local authorities use? If I am to believe what I see on “Law and Order UK” and other detective programmes on TV, the police often ask for access to the information on these private CCTV cameras to collate evidence of criminal activities. So, in many cases, the use of those cameras and the people they film are identical.

The Government have made much of leaner, slimmer government and fewer regulations—they want to cut quangos—and yet here we have not only a new commissioner but significant additional regulations for local government and the police. I understood that the Government policy was that for each new regulation that was brought in, two would be jettisoned as the overall burden, as the Government call it, of regulation was reduced. I think that is a poor way to make policy. There are serious issues around regulation; it is not a numbers game. In his comments to the Committee, the Minister said that, in terms of bureaucracy and regulations, the rule of “one in and two out” does not apply to the public sector, only to business. That is a new one on me. I had not realised that the Government’s commitment to reducing bureaucracy, as they call it, was qualified. Given that this involves taxpayers’ and council taxpayers’ money, can the Minister tell me why the Government exclude the public sector in this regard?

A second point I have raised before and on which I am still not clear—perhaps the noble Baroness can help me—is that when I raised the issue of compliance with the principles the Minister’s response was that the legislation to establish the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner limited the commissioner’s role to encouraging compliance and that the legislation provided no enforcement powers even though it was the Government’s legislation. At an annual cost of £250,000, the Government are therefore setting up a commissioner to encourage local authorities and the police to comply with the new regulations, which will not apply to the private sector. However, although there is a statutory duty, there is no way that this commissioner, at a cost of £250,000—a quarter of a million—can enforce the regulations.

When I raised this in Grand Committee, the Minister sought to give me some assurances, but his answers gave me more cause for concern. To my question about enforcement he responded:

“Local authorities and the police will be under a duty to have regard to the code when exercising their functions…When a local authority or police force fails to do so, it will be vulnerable to judicial review for a breach of that statutory duty. The possibility of being subject to such a legal challenge will incentivise local authorities and the police to adhere to that statutory duty”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. GC293.]

There are 12 guiding principles within the code, seven of which are considered not to have any cost. Each one of those places an additional bureaucratic obligation on the police and local authority. Therefore, non-compliance with any of those 12 criteria or principles opens up the possibility of a judicial review, and judicial reviews do not come cheap. This statutory instrument allows for any public sector CCTV installation to be subject to a judicial review. I am not sure if the noble Baroness is aware of this, but local authorities are understandably becoming more risk-averse whenever there is a possibility of legal action or judicial review because they fear the costs. Experience tells us that the threat of a judicial review can lead local authorities to avoid decisions that can lead to a JR, even when they are likely to win, just because of the huge costs that are involved.

The Government themselves recognise this problem. They say they want to reduce the number of judicial reviews. The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, claimed that:

“The system is becoming mired in large numbers of applications, many of which are weak or ill-founded, and they are taking up large amounts of judicial time, costing the court system money and can be hugely frustrating for the bodies involved in them”.

The Government’s policy is to reduce the number of judicial reviews, but the Home Office policy is to give 12 grounds on which any CCTV application can be challenged by judicial review. I am really not comfortable with the threat of a JR being the only effective means of enforcement. I fear that the policy may well have the opposite effect to that which the Government intend by reducing the number of CCTV cameras, as councils seek to avoid risk.

We come back to the basic question that was asked in Committee, and I am still not clear on the answer: is this necessary? The impact assessment states that many of these bodies—local authorities and police—are already employing and using those guiding principles. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who is in his place today, when he said in Committee that,

“many of the issues that do matter in this are covered by the Data Protection Act, for instance accurate databases and things like that. So they are already covered elsewhere. Will having an extra commissioner really make a difference?”.—[Official Report, 17/7/13; col. GC286.]

The noble Lord’s letter to me also refers to the Information Commissioner’s role in CCTV. There is a lack of clarity here. The judicial review only refers to the 12 principles; if there is a role for the Information Commissioner and for judicial review, which could be from either the camera commissioner or a member of the public, could there be a case where there are two actions against the local authority or the police, one via judicial review and one via the Information Commissioner?

I am certainly not against oversight. We support oversight, but I come back to the first point I made, and the point made by ourselves and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in Committee, and by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee: do the benefits justify the costs, or are there other ways in which this can be achieved?

I urge the noble Baroness to take this back and please think again. I am sure that we all want to avoid unnecessary burdens and unintended consequences, but I fear that this order could achieve both.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. My apologies for using her Twitter moniker in the Chamber; I will avoid doing that again.

During the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act, Parliament debated and agreed the function of the commissioner and the scope and nature of the CCTV code of practice in so far as it applies only to the police, local authorities and other designated bodies. As we made clear then, the Government believe that the CCTV code will ensure that CCTV is deployed and used transparently, proportionately, and effectively. We want the police and local authorities to use CCTV to help cut crime. During our consultation, we received widespread support for it: 80% of respondents supported it. The Information Commissioner was also positive in his response, as was ACPO.

It might be worth me reading out a brief quote from ACPO’s response to the consultation on this code. ACPO said that the code,

“will help to bring in a consistent approach to dealing with the use of surveillance cameras. The use of twelve guiding principles sets out the Code in a straightforward way, which can be easily understood and implemented. The focus on transparency, access to and the security of images, as well as operational, technical and competency standards, making systems available to the police and the encouragement of the use of surveillance cameras as a forensic process, are all important facets of the proposed Code”.

The Government believe that it is an important step in ensuring the right balance between the rights of the public and the pressing need to fight crime.

The noble Baroness asked why the code covers only public authorities such as the police and local authorities, and some other enforcement agencies that are listed in the order. The list of relevant authorities is set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act, which was debated and approved by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament agreed that the project should begin on a limited basis, effectively covering local authorities and the police. The fact that it is limited in this way does not arise out of this order or the code of practice, but was in the original Act that was passed by Parliament. The code will be mandatory for only a relatively small proportion of CCTV cameras but we believe that it is right and proportionate for others to be encouraged to adopt the code because it is in their interests rather than to be obliged to at this stage.

The noble Baroness asked what proportion of CCTV cameras will be covered by the code. Although it will be small to start with, because it will be limited to the police and local authorities, the Government believe that all cameras operating in the public space owned by public bodies should be used openly, transparently and effectively, in line with the code. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner will review the implementation of the code, including its take-up by private bodies, and report to the Home Secretary and Parliament in 2015. Indeed, we expect the police and local authorities to be able to demonstrate the benefits of the code and to help raise awareness of it among those who would voluntarily adopt it.

The noble Baroness asked about costs. The Government believe that the costs of implementing the code are minimal. As she said, the costs cited in the impact assessment are estimated at £1.6 million per year across 350 local authorities; in other words, about £20,000 per year per local authority and £23,000 per year per police force. These costs are minimal in comparison to the budgets of these bodies. They are also average costs and will vary depending on the size and nature of the locality. The noble Baroness asked about how costs might vary from force to force and authority to authority. I do not have those details at this time but, as the impact assessment makes clear, we have based the costs per authority and per force on an average that has been acknowledged by the LGA.

We think that these modest costs are worth while in terms of the expected benefits that they will bring of better quality images to help investigate crime and bring criminals to justice, and greater public confidence. It might be worth me referring to a recent incident to do with the use of automatic number plate recognition in Royston in order to illustrate the benefits of the code and how the relationship between the Information Commissioner and the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner might work. Earlier this month, the Information Commissioner issued an enforcement notice against Hertfordshire Constabulary and its use of automatic number plate recognition. The ICO has ordered the force to review its use of ANPR cameras around Royston. It says that it has created a ring of steel that means no one can drive their car in or out without a record being kept. Although this predates this code, the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice will provide guidance for the police and others and enable the public to hold them directly to account for the proportionality and effectiveness of ANPR and CCTV. We understand that in this example Hertfordshire Constabulary will be working closely with the ICO to ensure that any future deployment of ANPR in and around Royston is proportionate in meeting a clearly stated and justified purpose.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister has raised a very interesting point, but I think she clarified herself when she said what is happening in a relationship between the Information Commissioner and the police. That is happening now, before this order comes into force, so is the order necessary?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Yes, the order is necessary. The reason I used that example to illustrate the point is that the Information Commissioner retains all his enforcement responsibilities regarding the Data Protection Act, both in respect of ANPR and CCTV. The point I was going to make is that the relationship between the Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Information Commissioner has been set out in a memorandum of understanding. If there were any issue around enforcement in the use of data protection, which was the example that I gave from Royston, then enforcement would remain the responsibility of the ICO.

The purpose of this code is to go further than enforcement. It is about ensuring that CCTV cameras, which make an important contribution to helping to cut crime, are used in the most effective way. It is about ensuring that the public can have confidence in the way in which cameras are deployed and can see that, in times of reduced budgets and competing priorities, each police force uses this very expensive equipment in the most effective way that it can.

The noble Baroness raised points about enforcement and judicial review. In terms of enforcement, the Information Commissioner retains his responsibility. The code itself is self-regulating. We did not want to bring in this code and introduce additional burdens unnecessarily on local authorities or on police forces. We wanted the code to ensure good practice and that the best use possible was made of CCTV. The Surveillance Camera Commissioner will be required to provide an annual report to the Home Office and that will be laid before Parliament. He will be able, through his transparent way of monitoring performance, to report to the public on how this equipment is being used.

Judicial review will operate in the same way as in any other context. A judicial review can be brought only by an individual who is directly affected by the public authority’s actions or decisions in relation to CCTV or by an interest group representing such individuals. The Protection of Freedoms Act makes no reference to the commissioner initiating legal challenges against public authorities and therefore this will not form part of the commissioner’s function or role.

As I said at the beginning, the purpose of this code is to strike the right balance between protecting the public and upholding civil liberties. We believe that it will help to ensure that the purpose of CCTV is clear to the public and that it will help to deliver the results that they have every right to expect.

Police: Neighbourhood Policing

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that neighbourhood policing is at risk of being eroded by budget cuts.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Government welcome HMIC’s report, which finds that police forces are rising to the challenge of reduced budgets. Crime is down by more than 10%, victim satisfaction is up and the proportion of police officers on the front line has increased. This Government have introduced a range of new measures to tackle community crimes and have empowered forces to respond to the needs and priorities of local communities. Decisions on how neighbourhood policing teams are resourced and deployed are now for each chief constable and their PCC.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, that slightly complacent Answer does not really address the Question I asked. The HMIC said that neighbourhood policing is the cornerstone of British policing, not something that it is simply nice to have. As police forces struggle with a further £2.4 billion of cuts, the remaining police are spending more time on paperwork and investigations and less in the community. The Police Federation fears that this leads to crimes not being prevented or reported. Do the Government value neighbourhood policing? If they do, how will they deal with this problem?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as I said, neighbourhood policing is indeed very important but it is right that police chiefs, in consultation with their elected PCCs, decide on the priorities for their area. Crime is down and satisfaction is up. Another thing that this Government have done to ensure that the public are able to hold their police forces to account is to give them greater information about the performance of their local police forces so that they can properly assess that performance and hold those police chiefs to account.

Human Trafficking

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising the subject of the work done by Mr Anthony Steen. I will certainly ensure that my colleagues in the Home Office are properly reminded of it after today’s Question Time.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the answers that she has given at the Dispatch Box today. This issue unites rather than divides the House. However, the scale of the problem is shocking. We are talking about children sold into slavery or prostitution, or who disappear altogether. Bearing in mind the Government’s proposal to withdraw from the policing and justice provisions of the European Union, will she discuss with her colleagues how we will continue our co-operation with other European countries, given that, as she said, European and worldwide co-operation is so important in tackling this issue?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, we have signed up to the European directive on human trafficking and will be fully compliant by next month. We attach such importance to this issue that we wanted to ensure that the work that we are doing to co-operate across all boundaries was properly reflected by our subscription to that EU directive. There is no suggestion that we would want to do anything to weaken our commitment in that area.

Children: Child Protection

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the Government’s response to the Children’s Commissioner’s report. It makes extremely grim and worrying reading that thousands of children and young people have or are being sexually abused, or are at risk of sexual exploitation. I am not sure that I heard the Minister condemn the Government’s source’s response to the report as being “hysterical” and I hope that she is able to do so. Does she agree with the comments in the report that many parents feel that they are ignored, or are assumed somehow to be at fault, if their child has been sexually exploited? Parents also must be involved in the solution.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that the parents of those who have been abused have an important role to play in helping us to tackle this serious crime. Certainly, the recommendations made by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in this report will be taken very seriously. We want to address this absolutely dreadful behaviour. We certainly will, as we already are, do everything that we can to make sure that this is addressed properly.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the amendment concerns the power to withhold information from the ISC and at what level the decision should be taken. The Bill states that the decision should be taken by a “Minister of the Crown”. The amendment proposes that it should be at the level of Secretary of State in the relevant department and not just a Minister of the Crown. The response I was given in Committee was that the Cabinet Office does not have a Secretary of State and therefore it would be the Minister of State. As somebody who was the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, that did not seem appropriate. Every department has a Minister who sits in the Cabinet. The reason for putting the amendment before the House today is to propose that, as a minimum, it should be a Minister who is at the equivalent level of Secretary of State. That would be justified because the explanation given by the Minister in Committee for lowering the threshold was not adequate given such a change in power.

We have sought to tighten up the drafting to make it clear in the Bill that in all but exceptional circumstances the power to withhold information from the ISC should be exercised only by a Secretary of State unless there is no Secretary of State in that department. In that case, it should be exercised by a Minister of comparable rank such as the current Paymaster-General who is a member of the Cabinet as well as the most senior member in the Cabinet Office. The amendment is simply to specify that a reference to a Minister of the Crown should be interpreted as a Secretary of State for that department except where there is no Secretary of State where it should be someone of the equivalent rank.

I hope that that is clear and I hope that the Minister can accept or at least reflect on this because it would be a significant change if it was not the Secretary of State seeking to withhold information. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I hope in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that I can give her some assurance so that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

The Bill provides that Ministers may decide that information should be withheld from the ISC on two grounds. First, the Minister may consider that it is “sensitive information” as defined in the Bill, which in the interests of national security should not be disclosed to the ISC, and secondly for the reasons that we just discussed.

Currently, under the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, information can be withheld from the ISC on the same grounds, but the decisions to withhold are taken, in part, by agency heads rather than Ministers. These powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used very rarely in the past, and we would expect the equivalent powers in the Bill to continue to be used sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances; however it is important that these safeguards are retained as there will continue to be material the nature of which is so sensitive that access to it must be very narrowly restricted in the interests of national security.

Where agencies’ material is concerned, the Bill provides that decisions to withhold information from the ISC must be taken by the Secretary of State. However, where the ISC requests information from another government department, a decision to withhold is taken by the,

“relevant Minister of the Crown”.

That means, for these purposes, such a Minister as is identified in the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC or, where no Minister is so identified, any Minister of the Crown.

The effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be that in circumstances where the Bill enables a Minister of the Crown to withhold information from the ISC, that power would rest with the Secretary of State for the department whose information is to be withheld, or for departments without a Secretary of State, a Minister of the equivalent level, identified in the memorandum of understanding.

The reason that we have included provision for the exercise of the power by a Minister of the Crown rather than a Secretary of State in respect of material held by government departments is that there may be some departments where there is no Secretary of State. The noble Baroness referred to this. For example, the post of Minister for the Cabinet Office is a Minister of State position rather than a Secretary of State position.

The current ISC has, over its history, taken evidence on, and made recommendations relating to, the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the central intelligence functions of the Cabinet Office. The Bill formalises the ISC’s oversight role for bodies such as the Joint Intelligence Organisation so the Cabinet Office can expect more requests from the ISC for disclosure of information in future. It is therefore important that a Minister of the Crown should be able to make decisions about when and what information should be withheld from the ISC. This may not just be about the Cabinet Office. It may be that, in the future, other government departments involved in security and intelligence functions will not have a Secretary of State. This provision would also cover those circumstances.

I appreciate the intention of the amendment, which is to ensure that the Minister of the Crown making the decision to withhold information from the ISC is of appropriate seniority. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that that is also the Government’s intention. We hope to publish, before Third Reading, a document which sets out the areas that the Government expect the memorandum of understanding to cover, premised on the assumption that the ISC-related provisions in the Bill are enacted, substantially, in their current form.

In that document, we will state that it is the Government’s intention that the Minister making such decisions should be of appropriate seniority and should have sufficient knowledge of the work of the department in question. The document will state that it is the Government’s intention that, for the Home Office, the Minister making such decisions should be the Home Secretary, for the Foreign Office the Foreign Secretary, for the Ministry of Defence the Defence Secretary and for the Cabinet Office a Minister of State. As I said, I hope that that gives the noble Baroness enough assurance for her to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance. That is absolutely right. If the committee requests the information, because the MoU will make it clear which Minister within a department is responsible for responding or deciding whether or not the department should provide that information, obviously the Minister has an obligation to respond to that request.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness has understood the central point that I am making and if she has, she has not answered it to my satisfaction. The query that I have with this amendment is the level of the Minister who can exercise a veto. I entirely agree that it is an exceptional measure that will be used only in exceptional circumstances. It takes the power from the agency’s head so that it rests with the elected representatives of the Government who are ultimately accountable to Parliament. But I have not heard from the noble Baroness an adequate justification from the Government as to why they have chosen to downgrade the level at which the veto is held from a Secretary of State to a Minister of State.

I mentioned the Cabinet Office because that was the department mentioned by the Minister previously. The noble Baroness responded and said that it could be another department that does not have a Secretary of State. The point being made is the level of Minister who can withhold information and exercise a veto against the ISC. It is entirely reasonable that it should be the Secretary of State or a Minister at the same level, not downgraded to a Minister of State level.

Late Night Levy (Application and Administration) Regulations 2012

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 8th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her contribution, as well as my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I will seek to address the points that have been raised. I start by saying clearly that the late-night levy does not affect any pub or club that is open during standard opening hours—that is, not open beyond midnight. We are talking only about premises that are going to be late-night premises. It is important that I restate that because often, when we get into debates of this kind, when we are talking we quite naturally assume that everyone else knows that this relates only to a specific portion of a particular sector rather than to everyone.

I thank the noble Baroness for her warm welcome. In fact, one of the few things that have not changed in my range of responsibilities in the past few weeks is being Home Office Whip, so in fact I am staying put on this one. It is always a pleasure to face the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box. I will try to address her points before I turn to my noble friend’s, which cover more specific points of detail, and it might be the simplest thing to take them in order.

The noble Baroness welcomed our commitment to review how the levy worked but asked why we said that we would do so a minimum of five years after it had taken place. To commit now to when we will conduct that review would be premature because we need to see how it operates before we can say that. However, I take the point on board; if the levy is not operating correctly, then we will need to review it sooner rather than later.

The noble Baroness asked about the 70:30 revenue split between the police and the local authority. I can confirm that the cost will be removed from the revenue before that split takes place. As to whether there will be any guidelines, or publication around those guidelines, so that a local authority prescribes costs at a reasonable level, we will specify in separate regulations the type of expenses that may be deducted by the licensing authority. There is a power in the regulations for a limit to be placed on the amount that licensing authorities can charge for certain administrative costs under the late-night levy, and this would be used only if it became clear that there was widespread overcharging of expenses by the licensing authorities.

I understand the noble Baroness’s wider point concerning transparency in how the money is spent, and people will want to see that. With regard to the use made by the police of the money they receive, I would expect the local police and crime commissioners, once they are in place and as part of their responsibility to make public how the police budgets are being used, to include some reference to this. However, that will obviously be a matter for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how many police officers will be employed as a result of the late-night levy. It is not possible for me to be specific on that but I would reiterate a point that I made earlier. While, as I have said and she has acknowledged, the late-night levy is being introduced as a way of contributing to a range of measures to tackle late-night binge-drinking and all its effects, we are not expecting it to cover all policing costs around the late-night economy. It will make a contribution.

The noble Baroness asked about premises which are not currently open between midnight and 6 am, or which may want to take advantage of the window that will be open to them. Some establishments may decide to change their opening hours in order not to be caught by the levy, and there will be an opportunity for them to do so without incurring any costs. However, if there are premises whose licences allow them to open only prior to whatever time period the local authority decides to introduce, they will be able to apply for temporary extension notices for occasional events, as they do now.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In those circumstances, I assume that they would not have to pay the late-night levy.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is correct. The noble Baroness asked who is covered by the exemptions—a point also referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. For the sake of accuracy, it is worth saying that the exemptions and reductions are not covered by these regulations; they are part of another set of regulations. However, the noble Baroness asked whether restaurants in particular would be exempt. A restaurant selling alcohol that was open during the period during which the local authority deemed the late-night levy would apply would be caught by the levy. However, excluded under the exemptions would be a hotel with overnight accommodation whose bar was open only to residents during the period of late-night levy that might be operational in another part of the authority. That hotel would not be caught.

My noble friend asked about exemptions. As I said, those are not strictly covered by these regulations, but I think that one of her points was to question why the exemptions are not by geographic area but by types of establishment—perhaps expressing her disappointment is a better way to define it. That is because it would be very difficult for the licensing authority to introduce the levy in that way. One of the things that we are trying to achieve is to make sure that this is the least burdensome that it can possibly be in terms of administrative cost. If a venue operating in a part of the licensing authority was caught by the levy charges, had opened in that levy’s time and had attracted any kind of policing need, policing costs would be involved by the very nature of the police probably having to leave the town centre to go to that area. However, there are specific exemptions, as my noble friend acknowledged. Venues such as country village pubs would fall under that heading.

The noble Baroness asked about the business improvement districts and how in particular they are caught by the exemptions. These matters are not the subject of the regulations today but we have made provision in separate regulations that business improvement districts with a crime prevention objective will be capable of being exempt from the levy, which addresses her concern on that. She also asked whether the licensing authority would have discretion on community premises. The authority will not have to make a new decision on community premises because they are already defined as a group of premises under the Licensing Act. If somebody’s premises fall under that heading, they are already identified as being premises of that kind.

Before I turn to the detail of my noble friend’s questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how many authorities we expect to introduce the levy. I think I am right in saying that the number she was referring me to was actually for the EMROs. As far as the late-night levy is concerned, we expect about 94 licensing authorities to take advantage of it.

As to the specific questions raised by my noble friend on why the licensing authority has discretion under Regulation 7(3), we believe that licensing authorities should have the discretion to adjust a holder’s liability if the licence is surrendered—for instance, because the licence holder ceases to trade. There is good reason for this. The availability of such discretion reflects the fact that the circumstances in which a licence holder may surrender the licence will vary considerably from case to case. For instance, a licensing authority might choose to exercise this discretion where the surrender is as a result of the licence holder suffering a long-term illness, but not in a case where a licence holder surrendered the licence in anticipation of it being revoked at a review hearing. We believe that it should be open to a licensing authority to decide that holders whose licences are revoked for contravening the licensing objectives should not be eligible for a reduction in their liability to the levy.

My noble friend also asked why premises under construction are to go into band C—a single band regardless of size—in Regulation 4(2). Premises that have a rateable value will be placed in the appropriate band. Regulation 4(2) addresses only those cases where there is no rateable value. Some premises, such as public parks or agricultural land, are exempt from rating. Where this is the reason that there is no rating, the premises are treated as being in the lowest band, band A. Where the premises have no rateable value because they are under construction, the premises are placed in band C.

Finally, my noble friend asked why, when there are two or more hereditaments, the rateable value is not the aggregate. The use of the higher band in Regulation 4(4), as opposed to the aggregate, is intended to reflect the way such a case would be treated under the current fees regulations as a matter of administrative convenience. It should be noted that this is expected to be a rare and temporary circumstance. Where there is identity of occupation, the premises will form a single hereditament.

I think I have covered the points that have been raised today. In conclusion, the levy is a key part of our work to rebalance the Licensing Act in favour of local communities. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is right that those businesses that benefit from selling alcohol late at night should make a reasonable contribution to late-night policing costs.

I am grateful for the support that has been voiced today by noble Lords.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2012

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 5th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation, Indian Mujahideen—IM—to the list of 47 international terrorist organisations that are listed under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary’s firm belief is that IM meets the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe it. This is the 10th proscription order amending Schedule 2 to that Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, she takes into account a number of factors which were announced to Parliament during the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000. The factors considered are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the UK. Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, the proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation. Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information on the organisation. This includes open source material as well as intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Decisions on proscription are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that both Houses must approve the order proscribing a new organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that IM is concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail of the evidence but I am able to summarise.

IM uses violence to achieve its stated aims of creating an Islamic state in India and implementing Sharia law. The organisation has frequently perpetrated attacks against civilian targets, such as markets, with the intention of maximising casualties. For example, in May 2008 a spate of bomb detonations in the city of Jaipur killed 63 and in September 2011 an explosion outside the High Court in Delhi reportedly killed 12 and injured 65. IM has sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. For example, an attack during a prayer ceremony in Varanasi killed a child in December 2010. The group also targets areas popular with tourists. For example, a shooting incident outside a tourist attraction in Old Delhi wounded two Taiwanese tourists in September 2010. The group also made an unsuccessful attempt to detonate an explosive device at the scene. The organisation has threatened to attack British tourists, so it clearly poses a threat to British nationals in India.

The proscription of IM will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters and will signal our condemnation of the terrorist attacks this group continues to carry out in India. IM is already banned by the United States, India and New Zealand; thus proscription will align the UK with the emerging international consensus. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism. IM has carried out a large number of attacks in India, resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties.

I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact. Because of this there is an appeal mechanism in the legislation. Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be deproscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions. A special advocate can be appointed to represent the interests of the applicant in closed sessions of the commission. There is ample evidence to suggest that IM is concerned in terrorism and I believe it is right that we add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisation under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the order before us today proposes that the Indian Mujahideen—IM—joins the list of 47 international terrorist organisations proscribed in the UK. I understand that a much smaller group of organisations operating in Northern Ireland is also proscribed.

It is a very serious matter for an organisation to be proscribed. It makes it an offence to be a member of that organisation, to support the organisation, to invite others to support the organisation or wear the uniform of the organisation. The uniform is not what we might think of in the traditional sense, but to wear clothes which might indicate that an individual supports that organisation. As the noble Baroness said, it is right that a decision to proscribe an organisation is never taken lightly. The consequences of proscription are serious, not least because it potentially criminalises every member of that organisation or group, so it must be reserved for the most dangerous groups, where there is clear evidence of terrorist activity.

Under Part 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be proscribed only if the Home Secretary believes that the organisation,

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism”.

I have read the information available about the organisation and listened to the noble Baroness, and we are confident that there is evidence to support proscription of the organisation, so we will support the order.

It is clear that the Indian Mujahideen is a terrorist organisation. The noble Baroness gave examples of the most appalling terrorist attacks that have taken place in recent years. It also shares responsibility for the general decline in security in parts of the Indian subcontinent. The group rose to prominence in 2007, but has been active since about 2001. I was looking at the background and history of the organisation. The noble Baroness will be aware that there are strong links between IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India, which was first identified back in 1977. I am not clear, and I am not sure that there is absolute clarity, about the exact nature of the relationship between the two organisations, but from what I have ascertained, the relationship between them may mean that their membership is fluid—if they are two separate organisations.

That is important because the Government have not included the Students Islamic Movement of India in the order. Was consideration given to including that organisation and do the Government consider that it is also a terrorist organisation? If the membership of those two organisations is that fluid, could members of the IM put themselves beyond the scope of the order by an IM branch or individuals converting back to the Students Islamic Movement of India and just change their membership? I am sure that that is not what the Government intend, but it would be helpful to have assurances that there is no such loophole in the order and that the Government have considered the issue and are confident that terrorists will not be able to evade the force of law through a legal technicality.

As the noble Baroness said, to proscribe an organisation, it is not sufficient that it be involved in terrorism. The Home Secretary has to take account of secondary considerations. She repeated them, and they are in the Explanatory Notes. She said that the Secretary of State announced them in 2000, but the Explanatory Notes state that they were announced in 2001, so we may need clarification that we are talking about the same criteria.

Is the decision to proscribe the organisation now the direct result of evidence suggesting an increase in the scale of IM’s activity? Can she—I appreciate that she may not be able to—say anything about the nature of the threat? I am particularly interested whether there is a specific threat from the organisation to UK citizens abroad or within the UK. Given the strong links, associations and connections between IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India, what is the Government’s assessment of either group’s activity in the UK and whether there is evidence of links between IM and other proscribed groups within the UK?

The final criterion in the Explanatory Notes to the order which the Minister mentioned is the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. The UK has proscribed the organisation now, following action already taken by India, New Zealand and the USA. What discussions have there been with these other countries? Was the UK asked to take this action by India and did the discussions that took place include references to the role of other organisations which I mentioned, such as the Students Islamic Movement of India? Are there also European consequences? I am not aware that any other European countries have proscribed or banned this organisation and I wonder whether the Government are in contact with our European allies on this.

Perhaps I might also ask one brief question about Hizb ut-Tahrir. The noble Baroness will be aware that before I came to this place I was in the other House for 13 years. At one point, during the first two years of Gordon Brown’s premiership, I was his parliamentary private secretary. I recall clearly that on Gordon Brown’s first outing at Prime Minister’s Questions, which is almost five years ago to the day, David Cameron, the then leader of the Opposition, chose proscription as his first topic for Prime Minister’s Questions. What Mr Cameron said then was very critical of the Labour Government. He said that Hizb ut-Tahrir,

“should be banned—why has it not happened?”.

When it was pointed out that evidence was required, Mr Cameron criticised that and said:

“What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation? … when will this be done? … People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/07; cols. 951-2.]

As I said to the noble Baroness, these are very serious issues and it is not appropriate to have shouty debates across the Dispatch Box on them, as we had on that occasion. However, can she confirm whether she knows whether the Prime Minister still holds the view that he held about five years ago? Are we likely to see a further order coming forward concerning that organisation? These are serious matters, and I know that decisions to bring forward such orders are not taken lightly without examining evidence. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that this order has our support.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and very much welcome her support. She obviously made a number of points, which I will endeavour to respond to. However, I am sure she will appreciate that this being the matter it is, there is a limit to what I can say because of the sensitivities of what is under consideration. As I said and as the noble Baroness restated, there is a very clear process in the Terrorism Act 2000 that is followed before any decision is made by a Home Secretary to proscribe a group. The noble Baroness asked, as a point of clarification, whether the other factors that the Home Secretary considers were first stated in 2000 or 2001. I can confirm that they were stated in 2000, so wherever the discrepancy is we will make sure that that is properly addressed and corrected.

Most of the noble Baroness’s comments were linked to the Indian Mujahideen and she suggested some connections between that group and another, the Students Islamic Movement of India, which also goes by the name of SIMI. As she will understand, I am afraid that it is not possible for me to comment on intelligence matters. We keep the list of proscribed organisations under regular review but, if I might give her some assurance, if there is evidence that the IM has reformed itself under a different name, any new name will be subject to the same process of consideration for proscription. The use of an alternative name that is not listed does not prevent the police and Crown Prosecution Service taking action against an individual for proscription offences. There is a body of open-source information on links between IM and SIMI, but this is not necessarily information which we would endorse.

The noble Baroness raised questions about Hizb ut-Tahrir in particular. Before I respond to that specifically, it is worth pointing out that it is essential that when the Government—or any Government—take action to proscribe or ban a group, they have sufficient evidence to ensure that however great the revulsion at what people are doing, action is taken under the letter of UK law and that we have sufficient evidence of that law being breached. If not, when these people appealed, it could be a propaganda coup for them if we were to take action that failed.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation that the Government have significant concerns about. We will continue to monitor its activities closely. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action under criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and they will do so. We will ensure that HUT and groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country; we will not tolerate secret meetings behind closed doors, on premises funded by the taxpayer. We will ensure that organisations are made well aware of HUT and of groups like it, the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business.

The noble Baroness asked me about consultation with our European partners. The UK has the largest Indian population in Europe, as I am sure she knows. Other EU member states have tended to follow the UK’s lead in matters like this. She asked whether any European Union countries had proscribed IM. None has, but we do not necessarily wait to be led in this context.

I shall see whether there is any issue raised by the noble Baroness that I have not covered, but I think that has covered everything. I repeat my thanks and I welcome her support for the order.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that IM should be added to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. IM has carried out a large number of indiscriminate mass casualty attacks in India. It has also sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. The number of victims of this organisation is over 150 and it is essential that we show our condemnation of its actions.

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 5th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with sensitively. I am grateful for all contributions of noble Lords to the debate. In particular I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for confirming the JCHR’s agreement that this remedial order is compatible, and for the remarks he made about the process.

First, it may be worth repeating some of the things I said to make clear a couple of points before I respond to questions raised and points made in this debate. The crucial point is that convicted sex offenders who have been sentenced to two and a half years or more will still automatically be placed on the sex offenders register for life. This remedial order does not change that. The ruling that led to the order came from the UK Supreme Court. In response to some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, it is worth making it clear that every UK court in the land that heard the claim found in the same way as the Supreme Court before it came out with its final ruling.

As I said, the incompatibility that was found was around the right to a review, not the right to be removed from the sex offenders register. I can see why some listening to the debate—not the noble Baroness—might have misunderstood that. The Government were disappointed with the UK Supreme Court’s ruling, but we take our responsibility to uphold the law seriously, and that includes human rights law. That is why, in deciding how best to respond to the Supreme Court, we put at the front of our consideration the rights of the law-abiding, those who have the right to live without fear of predatory sex offenders.

In line with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I was a little surprised at some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. The last Government established the UK Supreme Court and enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. That marked a change to our constitution which I am sure that her party would point to as a big step forward. But the other reason I was surprised at her remarks was because, after the Statement that has already been referred to was repeated in this House, her noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is very distinguished, described in an Oral Question he tabled on 17 March 2011 the ruling of the Supreme Court as “eminently reasonable”.

Referring not just to the comments that have been made in the Chamber today but speaking more broadly, none of us likes to be told that those who have done wrong also have rights. I certainly respect people’s anger and disappointment when they first learn about rulings which they feel will entitle people who they think of first and foremost as evil—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—to rights. However, a responsible Government have a responsibility to respond to that disappointment and anger with a proportionate way forward which meets people’s concerns, and that is what we are doing.

I turn now to some of the specific points that were raised and the questions put. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about inconsistency. As I have made clear on this remedial order to do with the sex offenders register, every UK court rejected the claim. I am sorry; I will start again by referring to prisoner voting rights, which she used to illustrate her claim of inconsistency. I have already said that every court in this land found in the same way as the UK Supreme Court with regard to the sex offenders register. On prisoner voting rights, every UK court that heard the claim that prisoners should have the right to vote rejected it. The only court that has found in favour of prisoners being given the right to vote is the European Court of Human Rights. There is a distinct difference and we are responding to the UK Supreme Court at this time.

The noble Baroness made several points about the risks associated with offenders having a right to appeal to be taken off the sex offenders register. Perhaps I may cover several issues. The first thing to make clear is that, so far as this process is concerned, the onus is on the offender to come forward and make an application. The offender has to decide that they want to make the application: it will not be done for them automatically. In doing so, they must make clear to the police why they feel they have changed in a way that makes them a suitable candidate for review. In considering their response, the police will naturally consult the other agencies involved when someone is placed on the sex offenders register and will take time to consider each case on its merits.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the rank of the officer who would consider this process: perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, did as well. I can confirm that the review will be carried out by a superintendent. That will be made clear in the statutory guidance on the review of indefinite notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act, which we will publish once the order comes into force. This will stipulate that the determination as to whether an offender comes off the register or not will be made by an officer ranked at superintendent or above.

The other important point relates in a way to the other statutory instrument being debated, and I will talk about that in more detail in a moment. Sex offenders who are on the register are categorised in different ways and are subject to a great deal of scrutiny and surveillance. This is not something that will be considered in isolation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about what happens if an offender who had come off the register offends again. First, any failure to comply with the register is in itself an offence. Secondly, if the situation she described were to happen, the offender would be reconvicted and sentenced according to the crime they had committed. They would again be subject to notification requirements. There is no question whatever that an offender who has committed a crime will not be required to operate within the terms of the sex offenders register.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The point I was trying to get at was whether someone who had been on the register as a convicted sex offender and had come off the register but was then convicted of a further sexual offence—but not one that would normally put them back on the register—would be put back on the register automatically.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I can follow up in writing if necessary, but these kinds of cases would be considered on their individual merits. If somebody had been on the sex offenders register for life, had succeeded in making an application for review and coming off the register, then committed a crime which would not automatically put them back on the register for life, then I would expect that the authority that made the decision to place them on the register would consider the fact that they were previously on the register for life. Someone who was put on the register for life and is then successful in having their case reviewed and comes off it will have done something which would, had the police known that they were about to do it, have disqualified them from coming off the register in the first place. Anything contrary to that would be surprising to me. If I need to do so, I will follow up in writing, but such a situation would not make a great deal of sense.

The noble Baroness asked about why we had determined 15 years as an appropriate time for an offender to make an application for review. I think that I covered that carefully in my opening speech by explaining that the evidence suggests that a sex offender, if they are likely to reoffend, will do so in the first few years following their release from prison. The longer the period that has elapsed after their release is, the less likely it is that they will reoffend. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the available evidence suggests that there is no specific scientific point at which it can be absolutely guaranteed that someone will not reoffend, but if there is any suggestion that they might do so, they would not be successful in being removed from the sex offenders register in the first place when they made their application for review. We are talking about 15 years after this person has been released from prison.

UK: Oil Refinery Capacity

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of UK oil refinery capacity in the light of the imminent closure of the Coryton oil refinery in Essex.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Government have assessed the impact on the security of fuel supply and energy resilience in the event that Coryton closes. London and the south-east are served by a number of supply points, and suppliers have plans in place to maintain their operations. There is a healthy global market with supplier diversity, and the UK has a further seven operational refineries. Consequently, there are no significant risks to the security of supply or energy resilience.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I really worry that the Government are being dangerously complacent on this issue. The Coryton refinery supplies 20% of the fuel to London and the south-east, and its closure will cause a £15 million hole in the local economy and the loss of hundreds of jobs. In a similar position, the French Government invested to protect its national refining capacity, but our Government refused to help and cited European state-aid rules and adequate capacity in Europe. Can the Minister explain why the French Government can support their industry but we cannot? Why are the Government relying on European and world exports at the expense of British industry and British fuel security?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, no one wants to see any business fail and in such circumstances our first thoughts must be with the workers—the people whose jobs are at risk, even though they have done their best to make Coryton efficient and competitive. Indeed, it is very disappointing that the administrators have not found a buyer for the refinery as a going concern. It is right for me to offer noble Lords some context to explain why that is the case.

Potential bidders are faced with high up-front investments to make the refinery viable for the long term. UK refineries are facing tough competition from others in Europe and Asia. The profit margins are low and there is overcapacity in the sector. Eight European refineries have closed in the past three years, and more are likely to do so. Also, the European refinery industry has become out of balance with changing domestic demands. Noble Lords might like to know that since 2000, petrol demand has fallen by 35% and demand for diesel has risen by 34%. We looked long and hard at whether state aid should be provided for Coryton but came to the conclusion that it would not be sustainable because of the existing overcapacity in the refining industry and declining demand for petrol. As to the long-term future, I would add that the department is working with the UK Petroleum Industry Association on a sector-wide UK refining study and intends in the autumn to set out a strategic policy framework for the UK refining sector.

Energy: Tidal Generation

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As part of the UK marine energy programme, the department is working with the Marine Management Organisation and Marine Scotland to establish a working group to consider the approach to planning and consenting for wave and tidal energy. I hope that that will address the concerns that my noble friend has raised.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful and thorough in her answers to questions today. One of the things that she said at the beginning is that there will be no public investment in tidal power. If we are to exploit this natural resource, private investors will need to have confidence in the Government’s commitment to renewables. Today in Westminster, hundreds of people, including investors, are lobbying and campaigning against the Government’s changes to feed-in tariffs on solar power which will decimate the solar industry. What action does the Minister think that the Government can now take to reassure investors that they are committed to renewable energy? Unless urgent action is taken, the Government will have failed in their promise to be the greenest Government ever.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

This Government are absolutely committed to being the greenest Government ever. On the solar feed-in tariffs that the noble Baroness mentioned, the changes that the Government introduced are precisely to ensure that that industry is sustainable and exists into the future. As to tidal stream and what the department is doing to work with the industry, it has put forward innovation funding of £20 million and it is working closely through the UK marine energy programme, which is chaired by the Minister, Greg Barker, and includes representatives of the technology developers, the utilities, the large industrial organisations and financiers. The Government are committed to supporting this new and emerging industry.