Monday Volume 591 26 January 2015 No. 99

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Monday 26 January 2015

£5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2015 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 545 26 JANUARY 2015 546

Mr Duncan Smith: What went wrong was the Youth House of Commons Contract, full stop. The money used for the YouthContract actually went to invest in people who had greatest Monday 26 January 2015 disadvantage, and when we set up our other programmes, including the Work programme, we outperformed anything the Youth Contract had. Furthermore, work experience The House met at half-past Two o’clock was not available to young people under the previous Government for any great length of time, whereas we have had more than 50% of people on those work PRAYERS experience programmes go back to work. More young people are in work now than when we came into office; [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] they were left by the disaster of the previous Government.

Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): Young people remain at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market. Oral Answers to Questions The statistics published last week show that for the third month in a row overall unemployment came down but youth unemployment rose. Does the Secretary of State have any new proposals to tackle this problem of currently WORK AND PENSIONS rising youth unemployment?

The Secretary of State was asked— Mr Duncan Smith: I do not know whether the right Innovation Fund for Young People hon. Gentleman has actually looked at the figures correctly. He will find that under this Government youth unemployment has fallen; there are now more young 3. Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): What people in work; and youth unemployment is at a lower recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of level than the previous Government left us in 2010, the innovation fund for young people. [907175] after they crashed the economy. I might also remind him that they used to put young people on short-term The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain programmes. As soon as they did that, they took them Duncan Smith): I set up the £30 million innovation fund off the register and started them as though they had four years ago to test cutting-edge projects for helping begun looking for work then, rather than being six months disadvantaged young people: some of those most at risk in. The previous Government gerrymandered the figures of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or and they still failed. training—or falling in with gangs. Using social impact bonds, these projects are now proving they can deliver a return on the investment; 16,600 positive educational Stephen Timms: At the time of the general election and employment outcomes have been achieved, each the rate of youth unemployment was two and a half one an improvement in a young person’s prospects. times the overall level of unemployment. Since then, the relative position of young people has steadily worsened, Stephen Mosley: One key factor of the innovation to the point where last week the youth unemployment fund is the use of social investment. How effective does rate was 2.9 times the overall rate of unemployment. my right hon. Friend think social investment has been? Judging by his answer, the Secretary of State may not What future does he foresee for social investment in have noticed that youth unemployment is currently future projects from his Department? going up. Is it not now high time for a compulsory job guarantee, so that young people have the chance of a Mr Duncan Smith: The interesting thing about this job at the start of what should be their working lives, development, which I hope has support on both sides of instead of spending years on unemployment benefit? the House, is that these social investment bonds have advanced dramatically in the past four years, making Mr Duncan Smith: The reality is quite different from the UK now a world leader in this, with lots of different that set out by the right hon. Gentleman. Youth Governments coming to ask how to implement it. With unemployment is down 171,000 on the year—nearly a the tax relief that we have granted to social investment fifth; 7.1% of all young people are unemployed and not bonds, the future funding in many of these projects will in full-time education; and the number of young people involve more and more decisions being able to be taken on jobseeker’s allowance has fallen every month for that by local government; it will be able to set individual past three years. The truth about this is quite the projects up and fund them, without recourse to government, opposite to that he suggests. The previous Government but with a return. So we will be paying for things that left us with young people unable to get work experience happen rather than things that might happen—that is and unable to get jobs, and a real stagnation problem, the key. with young people not being able to get the skills necessary. Youth unemployment is now falling. Youth Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): But employment is rising—[Interruption.] No; since the ending the wage incentive part of the Youth Contract last Parliament youth unemployment has fallen. Youth eight months early was a tacit admission of its failure. employment is rising. Once in a while it would be nice if Only 10,000 young people completed the contract, whereas the right hon. Gentleman got up and said, “You know 160,000 were budgeted for. Can the Secretary of State what, the last Government got it wrong. Thank you for tell us what went wrong? getting it right.” 547 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 548

Mental Health (Employment Opportunities) Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman is right. One thing we are doing through our Disability Confident campaign 4. Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): What progress he is ensuring that employers are aware not only of those has made on supporting people with a mental health with physical disabilities but of those with mental health condition to find work. [907176] problems. There was, for a period, a statutory bar on Members of Parliament serving in this House in this 8. Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): respect. When I was in Opposition I challenged the then What progress he has made on supporting people with Justice Secretary on the matter, and this Government a mental health condition to find work. [907180] have now delivered change to ensure that we set a good example. We now say that if someone has a mental The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper): health problem, they are just as capable as anyone else The Government are committed to helping people with to work both as a Member of Parliament and as staff in mental health problems into work. We are piloting a the House. number of innovative approaches to employment support for those with mental health problems, and the Access Mr Speaker: On that matter, the Minister of State to Work mental health support service can help people wisely heeded the recommendation of the Speaker’s with a mental health condition who are absent from Conference on Parliamentary Representation, which work or who are finding it difficult to get back into enjoyed all-party support. work. Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Mark Menzies: Mental health issues in Fylde are as Voluntary-sector organisations working with the most serious as they are anywhere else, so what plans does the vulnerable claimants are expressing concerns that people Minister have to support further people with mental with mental illness are still over represented among health conditions throughout the Disability Confident those being sanctioned. Does the Minister accept that campaign? there is still a problem here, and what more can he do about it? Mr Harper: I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentions the Disability Confident campaign. I have invited Members Mr Harper: Just before I answer the hon. Lady, let me from both sides of the House to talk about Disability say that I am happy to agree with you, Mr Speaker, that Confident at an event in the House on Wednesday. your conference showed great leadership, which we Specifically on mental health, I had the privilege last were happy to follow. I think that it is wise to acknowledge Thursday to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend that from the Dispatch Box—[Laughter.] The Secretary the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and to of State says keep going. The hon. Lady makes a meet with the work coaches in the jobcentre and with serious point about sanctioning. We have to make sure those who have been on some of our pilot programmes in the Department and Jobcentre Plus that if someone to hear about the success we have had in encouraging on employment and support allowance does not engage people with a mental health problem to get back into with the help they are given, we understand why they do work, or to avoid having one in the first place. not engage with it and then deliver proper support. Last week, when I was looking at the pilots, I was trying to Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister join me in recognising see how we better engage with that mental health support the importance of the voluntary sector in helping those to ensure that we give people the support both to stay in with mental health issues to get back into work? work, and to get back to work, if they have a mental Organisations such as Relate in my constituency work health problem. tirelessly to improve mental health and provide vital counselling that allows people to get back into work Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): I was delighted and progress with their careers. to welcome the Minister to the Olive Tree café which provides opportunities for more than 30 people to rebuild Mr Harper: I am happy to pay tribute to organisations their confidence and skills. That has been achieved such as the one my hon. Friend has just mentioned. The through a successful social enterprise. How can we important thing is to have a proper partnership with share that best practice? Jobcentre Plus, voluntary and third-sector organisations, the NHS and employers working together to ensure Mr Harper: My hon. Friend invited me to visit the that we stop people from falling out of work if they Olive Tree café in his constituency on a day that I also develop a mental health problem, and that they can get spoke at a mindful employer event, which again focused back into work if they do so. on mental health, at the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): I cannot be the We can use our Disability Confident campaign to get only person in the House today who finds it utterly those messages out there. My hon. Friend, by using the heartbreaking when people come to their surgery unable benefits of this House, has ensured that the message will to find work. Those people are often more than capable be heard far and wide. of working but, because of a fear of stigmatisation and an absence of support, they are unable to find that Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): In the past year, a work. I praise the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) number of people have written to me who are finding it for setting an example in this area. Following on from hard to stay in work because they are getting very poor the good work of Waitrose and Tesco, can we not do support in the workplace, and sometimes they are having more in this House to set an example, because we are difficulty accessing mental health support. What discussions after all a major employer? has the Minister had with employers and his colleagues 549 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 550 in the Department of Health about how we can tackle in their constituencies. Will she ensure that jobcentres that? If those people cannot stay in work and become always support jobs fairs, to ensure that as many jobseekers unemployed, they may have difficulty getting back into as possible come to them? work again. Esther McVey: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, that assurance. I congratulate him on holding a jobs to which I would say two things in reply. First, people fair. He is right to draw attention to the fact that who are in work can be referred to the Access to Work Conservative MPs in Yorkshire have been putting the mental health support service, to get support delivered Labour MPs to shame for not holding as many job to them to enable them to stay in work. Secondly, the fairs. Because of those events and our welfare changes, NHS now recognises that it has an important part to and because of the success of our long-term economic play here, and for the first time we have set out access plan, more jobs were created in Yorkshire last year than requirements for mental health services, which will start in the whole of France—something I am sure my hon. this April. Friend is particularly pleased to hear.

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Why Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) rose— is no help available to get people with mental health problems back on to employment and support allowance, Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is a when they have voluntarily come off ESA and gone on considerable distance from Shipley and Yorkshire, but to jobseeker’s allowance, wrongly believing that they no doubt he will say he has a half-sister there, or were fit to work, only to be sanctioned for failing to something. comply with their jobseeker’s agreement because of their mental illness? Wayne David: I am an only child, Mr Speaker. With regard to Shipley and Yorkshire, can the Minister Mr Harper: One of the things that our work coaches say how many of the jobs she mentioned were part-time, in the jobcentre are able to do is flex the claimant on zero-hours contracts or on the minimum wage? If commitment people make according to the claimant’s she is not sure of the figures, does she agree with me health condition. What should happen in such cases is that a heck of a lot of jobs are in those categories? that, if the individual remains on JSA, their work coach can alter the conditions to deal with that. If the hon. Esther McVey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking Gentleman has specific examples where that has not that question, because I frequently hear the myths put happened, I would be delighted if he wrote to me so about by the Opposition. I can assure him that 80% are that we can look into those cases. full-time jobs and 75% are managerial and professional jobs. These are very good jobs for excellent people who Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Just at the time are trying to support their families in Shipley and across that many young people leave full-time education, those the UK. battling mental health problems are also having to navigate their transition from adolescent to adult mental Employment Opportunities (Northern Region) health services. Is it not essential that those services are there to support them at the very time we are looking to 6. Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): them to embark on their working lives? What steps he is taking to improve job opportunities in (a) Huddersfield and (b) the northern region. [907178] Mr Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are doing several things in that respect. First, we are The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): As looking at properly joining up the education, health part of this Government’s long-term economic plan, we and care assessments people have at school and the are committed to developing the northern powerhouse. disabled students’ allowance application made when We are investing heavily in infrastructure, science and they go to university. We are also working closely with technology, and culture to rebalance the economy by the Department of Health to make sure that mental closing the long-term gap between the north and south— health services are properly integrated with the world of something the Opposition did not manage to do. work. Mr Sheerman: Some of us are a little wary of short-term Job Creation (Yorkshire) gimmicks, especially short-term jobs fairs. In Huddersfield we have had an Enterprise Foundation promoting small 5. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): How many jobs were business start-ups that last, and it continues to be very created in (a) Shipley constituency and (b) Yorkshire effective. Has the Minister seen the Centre for Cities in 2014. [907177] report, which shows clearly that the investment and job growth seem to be largely, though not entirely, in London The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): In the and the south-east? If she looks at the report, she will year to September 2014, employment rose by 6,500 in see that it is the great northern industrial cities that have Shipley and nearly 30,000 in Yorkshire. suffered over a number of years. What is she doing about that? Philip Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those great statistics. Late last year, I organised a jobs Esther McVey: Again, I am delighted to answer the fair in Shipley that had employers there with more than question; again, the information was out of date. The 300 current vacancies. She will be aware that many information for that report closed in 2013 and covered Conservative MPs in Yorkshire have also held jobs fairs the previous 10-year period, when the Government 551 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 552 whom the hon. Gentleman supported were in office. business; she set up her own and won awards for it, and The latest figures would show that 60% of jobs created her dad set up his own business in the 1930s which went are outside London and the south-east. I know that the on to be an incredibly successful manufacturing company. hon. Gentleman, as the previous Chair of the Education That is what we need to do—support people, provide Committee, takes a keen interest in opportunities for access to finance and mentoring, and ensure that they young people, so I hope he will welcome the latest have a good business plan. I thank my hon. Friend for announcement from Yorkshire Water that it will create that question. 160 apprenticeships. Work Programme Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): Will the Minister join me in thanking Huddersfield job centre, which supported my jobs fairs in Holmfirth and Marsden last 9. Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): What assessment he year, giving local people access to real jobs and has made of the views of Jobcentre Plus managers on apprenticeships? Will she note that the 4,130 apprenticeship the effectiveness of the Work programme. [907181] starts in my constituency since 2010? The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): We Esther McVey: Indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s have continued to drive improvements in providers’ local jobcentre and him on all the work he does. Those results. Jobcentre Plus is integral to this, and we have were over 4,000 apprenticeships in his constituency, but implemented a closer working approach between jobcentres at the end of last year there were 2 million new and providers. The evaluation indicates that the relationship apprenticeships for young people right across the country. between jobcentres and providers has strengthened over That is why we have seen the biggest fall in youth time—for instance, through the use of co-location and unemployment since records began. enhanced information sharing.

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Does my right Nia Griffith: The serious concerns of jobcentre managers hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve job expressed in a report published in December should opportunities for people in the north of England is for come as no surprise to the Minister given the latest Government to reduce tax and red tape on businesses to dismal figures showing that barely 7% of people on give them the opportunity to create new businesses, and employment and support allowance have moved into to ensure that the Government always make it pay to be sustained employment. What is the Minister going to in work, not on benefits? do to tackle the problems that jobcentre managers Esther McVey: Once again, my hon. Friend speaks identify, such as the lack of work placement opportunities, sound sense. That is exactly what this Government have infrequent contact with participants, and lack of explanation been trying to do. We have been working with businesses, to participants about why sanctions have been requested? finding out what they need to expand and grow and to take on young people. As we have seen, growth is Esther McVey: First, I would like to remind everybody increasing. We are now growing faster than any other that the Work programme is the most successful scheme country in the G7. We know that not only are wages of its kind in getting people from long-term unemployment going up by 2%, but they are destined to go up by 3.4%, into work. Some 1.75 million people are now being and inflation has fallen by 0.5%. If anybody had a helped and over 600,000 have got a job. In feedback, long-term economic plan, it is this Government. participants are saying that they are happy with the frequency of contact and think that that works with New Enterprise Allowance them and helps overcome the barriers to finding work. The number of people on ESA shows that it is actually 7. Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): What recent performing well above what was expected. It was expected assessment he has made of take-up of the new to apply to only one in 14 people and the figure is now enterprise allowance (a) nationally and (b) in the one in 10. All the extra work that we have done on the Dudley metropolitan borough council area. [907179] communications between Jobcentre Plus and work providers is obviously showing results. The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): The new enterprise allowance supports jobseekers who want to set up their own business through mentoring Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): What more can and a weekly allowance. Through the scheme over the Minister do to get a better relationship between 60,000 businesses have been started nationally, including jobcentres and Work programme providers so that they 640 within the Dudley metropolitan area. can provide a warm handover when claimants move into the Work programme and when they return from Margot James: The new enterprise allowance is one the programme at the end of their two-year period? of the many ways that the Government are supporting people into self-employment and running their own Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right. This is all businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this part of the Oakley review. It is about ensuring that support has been essential to the thriving business communications are better, that that hand-holding is environment which has seen over 2,000 new businesses understood, that people get a copy of the claimant start up in my constituency, Stourbridge, since 2010? commitment, and that they can understand a good cause and work together. At the end of the day, we are Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right. When any trying to get some of the most vulnerable people, who new business sets up, it needs support, mentoring and have been unemployed for a long time, into work. What access to finance, all of which we are providing. With is needed is that communication and that support from her background, she knows exactly how to set up a Jobcentre Plus and prime contractors. 553 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 554

Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): My across the country, and that will bring universal credit constituent, John McArthur, was laid off at the end of a to more jobcentres. By the time that process is completed, temporary job that paid the national minimum wage. one in three jobcentres will be running universal credit. The DWP later tried to force him to work for the same The key thing is to make sure that we get this vital company, in the same job, for six months. He subsequently reform, which helps people to get back into work faster, got accused and lost his benefit. How can that sanction that we land it correctly and safely, and that we learn possibly be justified? the lessons of the past when things like tax credits, brought in under the previous Government, were absolute Esther McVey: This was a complicated case. I will disasters wasting billions of pounds in lost money and obviously meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it. His fraud. constituent had been laid off and then, as we were trying to support him back into work, he did work Sir David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree experience. It was in a different part of the business, and that it is quite wrong for people who are working in this it was how we could best enable him to move from country on a temporary basis to be able to claim long-term unemployment into employment. If the hon. benefits for their dependants in their country of origin, Gentleman would like to meet me, I am more than when one considers the cost of those benefits in relation happy to do that, but I have already looked into this to the differences in the cost of living? case. Mr Duncan Smith: Yes; changing that situation is Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): Will my right hon. something that the coalition has set out to achieve. I Friend confirm that the Work programme has helped remind my hon. Friend that when we came to power, hundreds of thousands of people out of the misery of the last Government had pretty much left an open door long-term unemployment and into sustainable work? for access to benefits. People were able to claim jobseeker’s allowance pretty much on arrival. There was a habitual Esther McVey: My hon. Friend raises yet another residence test, but it was very weak. We strengthened it good point. Under Labour, the number of people living and stopped people claiming for more than three months. in households where nobody had ever worked doubled. People will not be able to claim housing benefit and We therefore needed not only to do a lot of work to they must have a right of residence. If they do claim, bring us back to the regular standards of what we had they must show that they have a minimum earnings before Labour came into office, but to build on that to likelihood. Anything below that will not count as a job. get more people into work. That is exactly right. We We are tightening up the system after the mess that we have helped hundreds of thousands of those people were left by the last Government. who were left unemployed for a long time. Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): Does the Access to Benefits Secretary of State really feel that it is sufficient for people to have to work in this country for only three 10. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): Whether months before they can claim out-of-work benefits? universal credit will be available to migrants from the European Economic Area when it is fully rolled out. Mr Duncan Smith: I will take that as a peculiar [907182] compliment. We inherited a system in which people did not have to work for any time to claim jobseeker’s 16. Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What allowance. Within the existing rules, we will not pay for recent steps he has taken to stop welfare tourism. the first three months. If people are unemployed, they [907188] will be paid for three months. After that, they will be asked to leave. That is a much tighter position than the The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain one we inherited. I, of course, would like to take it Duncan Smith): Citizens of the European economic further. As the Prime Minister set out clearly in a recent area who choose to come here without a job to start will speech, he believes that there should be years of not be able to access universal credit. We have introduced contributions before someone is eligible to claim benefits, several restrictions to benefits to ensure that our welfare be they tax credits or jobseeker’s allowance. When the system focuses support on those who are contributing Conservative party gets back into power, we will implement to the economy. These include strengthening the habitual that. residency test, banning access to housing benefit for new EEA jobseekers, and introducing a three-month Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): I, residency requirement for income-based jobseeker’s too, welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement in allowance. November that a future Conservative Government will have the toughest regime in Europe on limiting migrants’ Rosie Cooper: The Secretary of State originally predicted access to our benefits system. Will the Secretary of that 1 million people would be on universal credit by State outline for the House the steps the Government April last year. The latest figure is 26,000. I understand have already taken to ensure that migrants come here to that last October he predicted a figure of 100,000 by work and contribute, and what he has done to deter May—does he still believe that? people from benefit tourism?

Mr Duncan Smith: The universal credit programme is Mr Duncan Smith: Exactly what I have mentioned. working well. It is now completing its roll-out to all the The mess that we were left by the last Government left areas in the north-west, to all singles, couples and little or no restrictions on anybody coming in, so the families. In the next month, it will start rolling out UK became a draw for people who wanted to claim 555 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 556 benefits and be out of work, because it was a better Mr Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend puts his option. We are tightening that up. We have stopped a finger on it. The reality is that the Government have number of things, such as housing benefit, and have implemented a long-term economic plan. In that long-term shortened the time on jobseeker’s allowance. Tax credits economic plan, welfare reform plays a critical part in are moving into line with that as well. As I said, when ensuring that people are ready and available for work. we are re-elected at the next election as a Conservative Our labour market is far more deregulated than that of Government, we will tighten it up even more. many other countries in Europe. It is noticeable that today, in the light of the elections in Greece, everyone is Unemployment talking about austerity, but the big problem in Greece, as in other countries, is that the labour market is so rigid 11. Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con): What that very few companies want to invest, because there is assessment he has made of the reasons for differences no flexibility whatever. That is why they come to the in the unemployment rate in the UK and in other UK—this Government have a plan that works to help European countries. [907183] them to get profitability.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Unemployment Duncan Smith): The UK has the fifth lowest unemployment in the Kettering constituency has halved since May rate in the European Union, and unemployment has 2010. What does my right hon. Friend think would have fallen by more than in any other G7 economy in the happened to the rate of unemployment in Kettering past year. Thanks to welfare reform and our long-term had Her Majesty’s Government followed the economic economic plan, businesses are creating jobs and 1.75 million policies of France, which apparently are a blueprint for more people are in work than in 2010. Her Majesty’s Opposition?

Mr Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Mr Duncan Smith: That is the point. Opposition most recent EUROSTAT figures, which show that Members do not like it very much, but let us follow that employment in the UK is rising at twice the rate of any theme for a minute. The Leader of the Opposition other European nation, underline the importance of extolled the virtues of the alternative to the long-term maintaining a benefits system in which people are always economic plan—the French plan, which was no economic better off in work than not in work? plan as far as I understand it. We have now seen French unemployment go through the roof, employment rates Mr Duncan Smith: Yes, I agree with my right hon. fall and economic activity stagnate. London is now Friend. The reality of what he raises is exemplified by something like the sixth or seventh-largest French city the fact that the Opposition still cleave to the idea that because so many French people are coming to the UK they would copy the French way of doing things in because—we welcome them—they like to look for jobs. respect of the economy. It is worth reminding them that in France—this is the system that they think is really Housing Benefit good—the employment rate is down at 64%, the unemployment rate is 10.3% and the youth unemployment 12. Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): What recent rate is up at 25.4%, which are all massively worse than estimate he has made of the number of people whose here in the UK. housing benefit has been reduced as a result of the social sector size criteria. [907184] Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): But it remains the case that youth unemployment here 17. Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): is much higher than in countries such as Germany, What recent estimate he has made of the number of Austria and Norway. Does the Secretary of State agree people whose housing benefit has been reduced as a that we will not tackle that until we tackle the scandal of result of the social sector size criteria. [907189] the quality of technical and vocational education in our schools and colleges? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): The latest published figures for August Mr Duncan Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman 2014 showed that the number of people affected by the about the need to ensure that much greater emphasis is removal of the spare room subsidy has fallen by 75,000. placed on vocational education in schools, including to This follows a general downward trend, bringing the get people ready for apprenticeships. The Government number of those affected down from 547,000 in May have done a huge amount towards that. There are 2013 to 472,000. 1 million new apprenticeships. The report that came out when we first arrived said that there had to be a greater Yvonne Fovargue: In the Wigan borough, 3,386 people emphasis on that. None the less, our youth unemployment have had their housing benefit reduced due to the rate is remarkable when compared with the average in bedroom tax. Wigan & Leigh Housing estimates that it Europe and, apart from Germany and Holland, is will take over seven years to re-house those who wish to significantly lower than anywhere else. downsize. Many of those affected have contacted me because, despite working, they are struggling to pay Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con): In bills and feed their family. What is the Secretary of May 2010, the claimant count in my constituency was State’s estimate of the average income of those subject 1,702. This month, it is 684. In a European context, will to the bedroom tax? my right hon. Friend help me? Is that fall in unemployment in my constituency due to the increased vibrancy of a Mr Duncan Smith: In previous speeches and today, diversified rural economy such as mine, or the absence the hon. Lady has talked about the fact that there are of a plan long terme économique elsewhere? just not enough properties in her constituency to enable 557 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 558 people to downsize. In fact, I understand that there are in government—or even now—did they bother to talk 2,700 people subject to the under-occupancy spare room about the fact that their policies meant that house subsidy, but something like 15,000 one and two-bedroom building fell to the lowest level since the 1920s and that houses in the social sector properties in Wigan. There many people live in overcrowded accommodation, thanks are many houses—many more than she might have laid to Labour’s failure, its crashing of the economy and its out. shocking mismanagement of housing. My point to the hon. Lady and the Opposition is that, in their opposition, they need to explain how they will afford it. The policy is saving some £500 million a Young People (Employment or Training) year. It has already saved £830 million to date. They have no plans for substituting that, which means that 13. Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con): their economic record is in tatters. After all, Labour, What recent steps he has taken to support young when in power, was the party that introduced that very people seeking employment or training. [907185] policy for those in social sector private rented tenancies.

Jack Dromey: Once in every generation, there is a tax The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): The so bad that the next generation looks back and asks, youth claimant count is at its lowest level since the “Why did they do it?” Such was the poll tax, now the 1970s and this is due to the action that the Government bedroom tax. Will the Secretary of State tell us how have taken. Young persons entering a Jobcentre will many victims of domestic violence liable to the bedroom receive tailored support from their work coach and be tax have had their sanctuary rooms deemed as spare directed to work experience, sector-based work academies rooms? or locally funded support.

Mr Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that Chris White: I am delighted to say that the number of that is just another attempt to start scaremongering 18 to 24-year-olds in Warwick and Leamington claiming about the whole idea—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. What JSA has fallen by 79% since April 2010. However, I has been disgraceful about the Opposition is that they recognise that there is still more work to do. Does the have spent their time scaremongering up and down the Minister agree that schools and businesses can develop country about this issue. He knows very well that local strong partnerships, not least in terms of providing authorities and the police work together, they have work experience? What incentives can the Government discretionary housing payments to deal with that matter provide to encourage those relationships and highlight at a local level and they can resolve it. More than the benefits that they can offer? £380 million has been granted to local authorities for discretionary payments. Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right—it is about I have looked at what the hon. Gentleman said previously building relationships between businesses and schools, about the number of houses available. He said that and that is what we have done with some of the biggest some 5,000 people are suffering due to the under-occupancy businesses. We set up Movement to Work, which created rules because they had nowhere to move, but I remind 100,000 work experience schemes. Another scheme, Feeding him that there are 63,500 one and two-bedroom properties Britain’s Future, provided another 15,000 work experience in Birmingham. He yet again mis-states the reality, places and, in the west midlands alone, there are more which is that this has to work. I remind him again that it than 16,000. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary was his Government who introduced this for the private- of State for Education created the new careers support rented social sector. scheme, which is also working with companies, schools and individuals. Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): The Secretary of State is too complacent. The fact is that when a 23. [907196] Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): It lifts my family pays the bedroom tax, the whole family suffers. heart to see so many more people in employment The actual number of people affected is much higher across Windsor and the country. All hon. Members than the numbers he quoted, at 750,000. Making families share the vision of a country in which the move is unkind, especially when it disrupts children’s circumstances of our birth do not determine where we education. There are not enough smaller properties, as end up. I commend the Secretary of State on his work colleagues have said, and people cannot move. So why on welfare reform, and does the Minister agree that we did not the Government vote with Labour before Christmas must continue to push on with those changes so that to abolish the bedroom tax? social mobility in Britain is boosted once again?

Mr Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady, like many on the Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right about social Opposition Benches, is living in cloud cuckoo land. mobility. He is also the living embodiment of it, as he They invent a whole series of issues about this. First, we comes from a council estate in south London, son of a get these lines about the fact that evictions are up. In single mum with many mouths to feed. He then set up a fact, evictions are a very small proportion and are multi-million pound business and won young entrepreneur down. They say that rent arrears are up, but they are of the year from Ernst and Young. The Government stable and have not risen. They say that homelessness is have provided support and encouragement, creating the up, but it is actually down. The reality is that every time sort of environment in which people like my hon. the Opposition talk about this subject, they invent these Friend can develop their businesses and employ other issues. But never once in the whole of the time they were people. 559 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 560

All-party Parliamentary Group on Hunger Jobcentres and benefit offices do their level best to and Food Poverty ensure that people get money when they need it, and hardship funds are available if anybody has any difficulty. 15. Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): What plans he has to respond to the recent recommendations of Mr Speaker: We shall squeeze in one more. I call the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food Sheila Gilmore. poverty. [907187] Employment and Support Allowance The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): The report is a serious contribution to 18. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): What an important debate, which recognises that the reasons recent assessment he has made of the reasons for behind the demand for emergency food assistance are changes in the number of employment and support complex and overlapping. I have already responded and allowance claimants. [907190] will continue to review the recommendations and engage with the inquiry as it takes its proposals forward. That The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper): is an undertaking I gave at the last Question Time. My Under this Government, the number of people in receipt Department has already agreed to do more to raise of out-of-work benefits has fallen by 899,000, and there awareness of short-term benefit advances, including are 93,000 fewer people on incapacity benefit since May advertising in jobcentres so that everyone can see it. 2010.

Kerry McCarthy: The report showed that about a Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that answer, quarter of a million people last year used food banks but I think he is absolutely clear that the number of because of benefit sanctions. I have a constituent who people on incapacity benefit who have been found unfit showed me evidence that he applied for hundreds of for work is far higher than the Department for Work jobs, but, because he applied for one by handing in a and Pensions predicted. Is it not time that Ministers CV in person rather than through the website, he was dropped the scrounger rhetoric and accepted that if sanctioned for three months without money. Does the people are to move back towards employment, they Secretary of State agree that that is completely outrageous? need real help and support? Mr Harper: I do not know whom the hon. Lady has Mr Duncan Smith: I am afraid I simply do not heard using that rhetoric, but it is certainly not me or recognise the kind of case the hon. Lady raises. She members of this Government. [Interruption.] It is no knows that if she wants to raise a case directly with me good her waving at us. It may be reported like that in or with the Minister for Employment, my right hon. newspapers, but Ministers do not use that sort of language. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), I have been very clear that people who are able to go to she should do so, but there is no such rule in jobcentres work with the right support will receive employment or in respect of sanctions. [Interruption.] Yes,Iamvery and support allowance. I am sure she was listening to happy to see the hon. Lady, but let me bring her to the the long exchange we had earlier on mental health wider issue, which is simply this: the report made it very support. Half the people on ESA have a mental health clear that there are multiple issues. What the Opposition problem. She will have heard me set out the considerable have tried to do non-stop, as they have with the spare range of things we are doing to help them to get back room subsidy and other matters, is try to scare everybody into work. up and down the country into believing that there is a magic wand. Let me remind her that under her Government Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Ministers the number of food banks doubled. The reality is that are spending £8 billion more than planned on incapacity long before the coalition came to power, they were benefit and ESA because they cannot assess people already delivering a failed economy and forcing people quickly enough, they cannot reassess them, and the out of work and into difficulty beyond whatever we failing Work programme cannot get them into sustained may have done. employment. Even the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): One of the reasons admitted a few moments ago that it is achieving a 90% for using food banks—a reason given by those who use failure rate. Now the Tories say that they want to cut them—is delays in benefit payments. Am I right in £12 billion from social security spending, and disabled thinking, however, that the average time for sorting out people are worried that they will be paying for this benefit payment disputes has been reduced to under catalogue of Tory welfare failure. What reassurance can two weeks? the Minister offer them?

Mr Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend is correct. Mr Harper: I listened carefully, but it is a bit rich for The reality is that delays in benefit payments have fallen the hon. Lady to criticise the issues we had with the under this Government. There are now fewer delays. assessment process. There were issues with the assessment The Opposition say that we need to speed up the provider that her Government appointed, which is why payment of benefits. I remind them that under Labour we appointed a new contractor, Maximus, which will benefits were not paid until two weeks after the claim, start work in March, and I am confident that that will so unless they are now saying that benefits should be improve the assessment process and get people back paid earlier than that, I really have no idea what the into work. Getting people back into work is how we will Opposition’s policy is on this. We pay benefits as quickly continue to reduce the benefits bill, which I remind her as possible. There is no determination to delay payment. rose enormously when her party was in government. 561 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 562

Topical Questions Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) asked, but which was not answered, and give a guarantee to the House that he T1. [907213] Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): If will meet his latest target of just 100,000 people receiving he will make a statement on his departmental universal credit by May 2015? responsibilities. Mr Duncan Smith: I say to the hon. Lady that we The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain intend to, and I repeat the answer I gave earlier. I know Duncan Smith): Today I welcome the new cross-Government she wants to dance around on these things, but she has report on drug addiction which shows that, for the most to say whether she genuinely supports universal credit complex cases, residential treatment delivers a rate of or whether she plans to get rid of it, as that seems to be positive outcomes nearly three times better than community becoming Labour party policy. treatment. Instead of prioritising full recovery, as used to be the case, we are now getting people off drugs, into Rachel Reeves: We have been consistent: we support work and on the path to a better future, rather than universal credit, but not throwing good money after leaving them languishing on methadone. bad, and we will go ahead with it only if the National Audit Office signs it off and says it will save more Kerry McCarthy: In answer to my earlier question, money than it costs, which is far from clear at the the right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of moment. food banks under the last Labour Government. In the Last week’s figures show that the glacial pace continues, last year of that Government, there were 41,000 food with still only 26,940 people receiving universal credit. bank users, but the number is now nearly 1 million a At this rate of progress, it will take 1,571 years before it year—a figure that just before Christmas he referred to is fully rolled out. The Secretary of State protests that it as “tiny”. What do we have to do to get him to accept would be riskier to go faster, but he has only himself to that food bank use and the scandal of food poverty in blame for the undeliverable targets he set and the unrealistic this country are his responsibility and that he needs to claims he made for this flagship policy. Is not the truth do more about them? that, having failed to deliver the one policy that could have helped make work pay over this Parliament, all he Mr Duncan Smith: As we have always said, these are is left with is a toxic legacy of rising child benefit and complex issues. We welcome the fact that voluntary reliance on food banks and a ballooning benefits bill for sector organisations provide for and support people in people in work—a record of Tory welfare waste that, if their community, through food banks and often with I were him, I would rather run from than run on? clothing and various other things. Having had the allowance passed down to them, many local authorities now use it Mr Duncan Smith: I bet that looked good on a piece to engage with food banks and send people there and to of paper when she wrote it. Honestly, here we go again other organisations providing food and so on. Instead Let me just remind the hon. Lady what her party left of simply saying that everything is the fault purely of behind. It left a welfare budget that had “ballooned”—her the Government, the hon. Lady should take stock of word—by 60%. On tax credits alone, in the six years one thing: it was her Government who crashed the before the election, her Government spent £175 billion. economy and made people worse off. [Interruption.] I They ballooned their welfare spending; unemployment know the Opposition do not like to hear it, but they rose; the economy crashed; people found themselves should do the maths: destroying the economy leaves out of work—and her Government were to blame for people worse off. By getting more people back into all that. We have reformed welfare, and let me remind work, the Government are helping them get beyond the the hon. Lady that, at the end of this Parliament, we need for food banks and other support. will have saved £50 billion from the bills Labour left us; housing benefit has come down; the number of jobseeker’s T3. [907215] Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con): allowance claimants has fallen; and before she writes a Will the Minister ask officials to look compassionately script again, she might like to test it for accuracy. on benefits arrangements for people with mental health They—the Labour party—have failed. difficulties? So often, when these people are called for assessment, it is not obvious that they really do have T5. [907217] Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): What problems. measures have been taken to ensure that sanctions are not imposed inappropriately on jobseeker’s allowance The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper): claimants—if they unavoidably miss appointments, for My hon. Friend raises a good point. Of course, assessors instance? are trained in assessing mental health problems and are particularly mindful of the fact that people with mental The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): If health problems often have a fluctuating condition that somebody misses an appointment and has good cause might not be apparent at the time of the assessment. Of for not being able to make it, they would never be course, we tell claimants that they can bring someone sanctioned. I do not think that people quite follow the with them to support them during the assessment, if process of what happens. Should somebody not make that would be beneficial. an appointment or not take the steps to get work that they should have taken, they would have been told that Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab): In 2011, the Secretary it could be a sanctionable offence. That is what the of State said that, by April 2014, 1 million people would adviser would say. It would then go to the decision be receiving universal credit. With delays and write-offs, maker, and if there is good cause, 50% will not be that date has been and gone, so will he answer the sanctioned. The vast majority will not be getting sanctioned question that my hon. Friend the Member for West because they will have good cause, but they need to be 563 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 564 taking reasonable steps to get into work. In fact, monthly thinks everything should be run centrally from the sanctions rates are at about 5% to 6% for JSA, and for Government here. Well, they made a mess of it last ESA they are less than 1%. Those are the numbers. time.

T2. [907214] Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): As (Lab): Following my request for a rescheduled meeting my right hon. Friend will know, a crucial aspect of about the independent living fund, the Minister kindly tackling youth unemployment is ensuring that people wrote to me on 15 January, but why did he make no have the right skill set. Will she commend the work of reference to my request for a meeting and why did he City of Wolverhampton college, which is in my constituency refer me to post-ILF provision under Newcastle city and which—following a very difficult starting point—has council when my constituency is North Tyneside? turned around the lives of many young people by working with local businesses and creating opportunity and employment, and creating opportunities for the Mr Harper: My point was that the independent living local university as well? fund has been meeting local authorities across the country to make sure that every local authority with somebody in it that has ILF is well aware of the support it is Esther McVey: I will indeed praise that college, and I getting. My answer was saying that to make sure that will praise my hon. Friend as well for all the work that the person was getting the support, a conversation with he does in engaging with colleges and bringing businesses the local authority would be more productive than a to them to support the young people so that they can question to me. get jobs.

T6. [907218] Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): T7. [907219] Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): The Government have rightly tackled the long- Dr David Webster of Glasgow university has estimated standing chaos in the Child Support Agency, but that about £300 million is withheld in benefit sanctions attracted controversy with their new 4% admin charge each year. Is that figure correct? on struggling parents with care when the other parent is not stepping up to the plate. What assessment Esther McVey: I apologise: I missed the question. have the Government made of the big drop-off in the What I do know, however, is that no one has any limits, number of parents using the Child Maintenance or targets, or whatever it may be, for benefits or for Service? Are absent parents magically paying up to sanctions. There are no targets for sanctions, and there avoid their charge or are parents with care being scared will be no numbers. off to avoid theirs? Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Local housing The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb): I was beginning allowance levels in Cambridge are far too low, and have to feel unemployed until this moment. [Laughter.] The been for years. In 2008, Shelter could find only four philosophy of the new Child Maintenance Service is properties that were affordable, and the position is that, wherever possible, we want to encourage people essentially unchanged. The Minister helpfully gave us to sort things out for themselves if they can. The an above-inflation increase, but it still has not solved the £20 charge is designed to encourage people to think problem. Will he investigate further to check that local before applying to the Child Maintenance Service. Where, housing allowances match the cost of renting, and undo however, there is an instance of domestic violence, for the legacy of the broad rental market areas? example, that £20 will be waived. We are undertaking research into the people who contact us and then do not Steve Webb: My hon. Friend, and, indeed, his predecessor use our services to ensure that effective maintenance have been doughty campaigners on behalf of the city of arrangements are being put in place. Cambridge. He will be aware that the rent levels are set across the whole Cambridge rental market area, not just T4. [907216] Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) in the city of Cambridge. As he said, in 2014-15 we (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State has said that local allocated £45 million for targeted affordability funding. authorities are choosing to give funds to local food We will be allocating £95 million in 2015-16, and the banks. I can assure him that Mayor Joe Anderson in rates will be announced at the end of this week. Liverpool does not relish having to spend £138,000 to tackle food poverty locally in Liverpool. Will the T8. [907220] Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Secretary of State sit down with representatives from What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term the Trussell Trust to help him understand how more youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such than 1 million people are being forced to go hungry by as Easington? What specific measures has he identified the actions of his Department? to help my constituents?

Mr Duncan Smith: The truth is that many local Esther McVey: We have taken significant measures to authorities are using some of the devolved social fund, help young people who are long-term unemployed. We which is a very good idea, and engaging with food have established sector-based work academies, and have banks to enable people to access them in the early part provided work experience and traineeships. Obviously of their claim. That is happening up and down the the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, country, and I think that is quite reasonable; it is what according to figures from the International Labour local authorities do to help people as best they can. Organisation, youth unemployment is down on the Perhaps the hon. Lady is opposed to that because she quarter, on the year and since the general election. 565 Oral Answers26 JANUARY 2015 Oral Answers 566

Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Not all employers Steve Webb: Action is already being taken. Those appreciate the social importance and value to the work statistics were a snapshot showing the position in April force that employing disabled people can bring. What 2014. Measures that we have announced, such as the more are the Government doing to try to encourage charge cap, mean that some of those schemes will be employers to take on disabled people, and to help them dealt with, and by the end of this week I shall have met into work? six major pension providers to discuss how we can speed up the process of tackling the high legacy pension Mr Harper: I think that our Disability Confident charges which the last Government did nothing to campaign has contributed to the fact that more than a tackle. quarter of a million extra disabled people have started work over the last year. I am also considering improvements that we can make to the Access to Work service, which Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr Graham Allen. plays an important role in helping people either to stay in work or to return to it. T10. [907222] Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab): The Secretary of State will be aware that T9. [907221] Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): 1,250 young people in my constituency are long-term The Secretary of State said that by the start of this year unemployed. As well as helping those people directly, no one would wait more than 16 weeks for a personal will he link much more closely with the Department for independence payment assessment. Will he tell us Education so that we can pre-empt those problems whether that is the case—yes or no? through good careers guidance, helping the pre-NEETs and ensuring that young people are job-ready at the age Mr Harper: As the hon. Lady will know, this Wednesday of 16, 17 and 18? I shall publish some properly verified statistics. I shall also engage in a lengthy session before the Work and Pensions Committee, when I shall set out the facts in Mr Duncan Smith: May I first commend the hon. full, as I have been requested to do. Gentleman for the work he has done? It has been a shining example both in his own area and nationally on David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The early intervention and in setting up the Early Intervention Independent Project Board, which was set up by the Office Foundation. He has worked closely with Government of Fair Trading, recently established that more than and his own side. Yes, the answer is that of course we £8 billion worth of private pension assets were subject want to look at linking closely with the Department for to charges of between 2% and 3%. That makes it almost Education, and I am very happy to discuss it with him impossible for such schemes to grow. Will the Minister further, but I also want to congratulate him on the hard tell us what action he will take to deal with that? work he does. 567 26 JANUARY 2015 Points of Order 568

Points of Order Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

3.35 pm Mr Speaker: Directly on this point of order? David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that the Chair of Mr Yeo: Yes, directly, Mr Speaker. You made the Environmental Audit Committee last week tabled reference to two Select Committee reports, one from an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill based on the the Environmental Audit Committee and one from the Committee’s findings but ahead of their publication. Transport Committee, directly relevant to this Bill. May Obviously we are all aware that it is a clear breach of I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that my Select Committee rules to leak a report in advance of Energy and Climate Change Committee has reported publication, and I make no suggestion that that has twice in detail on the specific issue of shale gas and been done here. However, I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, fracking? as to whether amending a Bill in such a way as to reveal key parts of a report prior to its publication is in order, Mr Speaker: I was not aware of that, though far be it and whether you could remind the House of the duty of from me to dispute the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman. Select Committee Chairs to ensure that they do not give It was of course open to him and his Committee to have an impression that inquiries are being rushed through put that on the Order Paper. For whatever reason, it did in order to make political points. not, but the hon. Gentleman, in prime time and with some alacrity, has now sought to remedy that deficiency. Mr Speaker: I will offer a response, but if the hon. Lady who chairs the Committee wishes to come in on Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): On the back of the point of order, she is at liberty to do so. a point of order, Mr Speaker. Early in this very important anniversary year of Magna Carta, in which we celebrate Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): Further the work of this parliamentary democracy, we still have to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important for time to pay attention to the many children who will the House to understand that the Select Committee was come here to learn about this place and its history. simply operating in such a way as to ensure that our When I was chair of the then Education and Skills report was helpful in terms of the legislation coming Committee, we found that our wonderful free museums forward—the Infrastructure Bill that we shall be dealing in London were largely attended by people from London with later today. What perhaps needs to happen, following and people who were rather better off. Can we make on from your ruling on this, Mr Speaker, is consideration sure that this year that less privileged children get the of what rules and guidance there can be in order that chance to come here, and that we have people from the those of us on the Liaison Committee can make absolutely north of England as well as London and the south? sure that we do not, as it were, miss the bus. There is no point in having important recommendations coming Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for forward when legislation is being rushed through in this that point of order, but the short answer is that we place, and it is then too late to have the informed debate already have a scheme, which is effectively a grant that this House of Commons absolutely has to have. scheme or subsidy mechanism, that makes it less burdensome for school groups from areas of the country Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Precisely either a considerable distance from London or characterised because the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. by disadvantage to come here. That is already in place, Davies) courteously gave me notice both of his intention and should we continue with such a scheme and perhaps to raise the point or order and its thrust, I have, even redouble our efforts in 2015—I think we should—I unsurprisingly, a prepared response. The House can am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is always young make its own assessment of this situation, but I confess at heart, will be enthusiastic about the scope of the that my own reading of it was analogous to that of the education centre when it is opened in the late spring or hon. Lady. I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman early summer. That centre, which will be a state-of-the-art for raising this matter, but let me just say this for the facility charting the journey to rights and representation, record. It is certainly unusual for a Select Committee to will allow us to double the number of young people release information about the conclusions of its report coming through this place. There are people on both prior to publication, and to do so would normally be sides of the House who strongly supported this, and it is considered a discourtesy to the House, though not a something we can all unite in welcoming. contempt given that the report had been formally reported to the House. However, in this case I understand that the Committee considered that it was helpful for the Mr Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. House to have notice of the relevance of its report, which was published this morning, to the amendment, Mr Speaker: I am not sure there is anything further to which was required to be tabled last week. Therefore no say, but the hon. Gentleman has been here for 35 years harm has been done by it. I think the House will be and I have a feeling that if I do not let him come in, he grateful to both the Environmental Audit Committee will be badgering me for another 35 years. and the Transport Committee for the work they have done on matters relevant to the Infrastructure Bill, Mr Sheerman: I certainly will, Mr Speaker; I have although of course I note in passing, non-evaluatively, every intention in that direction. Could the subsidy, that it does not follow that all Members will necessarily help and support that Members of Parliament get be agree entirely with their conclusions. We will leave it circulated again to them, because many I talk to are not there for now. aware of the scheme? 569 Points of Order 26 JANUARY 2015 570

Mr Speaker: I do not think we will circulate the Infrastructure Bill [Lords] subsidy, but we will circulate awareness of the fact of it. I hope that meets the needs of the case. I know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, and I think the House 3.43 pm appreciates his purpose. The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John On a separate matter, I hope, I call Helen Jones. Hayes): I beg to move, That the Order of 8 December 2014 (Infrastructure Bill [Lords] Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): On a point of (Programme)) be varied as follows: order, Mr Speaker. Last weekend it was revealed that (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted. the general secretary of a party that is represented in (2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order this House had compared the NHS to Nazi Germany. shown in the first column of the following Table. That remark not only plumbs unfathomable depths of (3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be ignorance but, at a time when we are commemorating brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second the holocaust and celebrating the dedicated team that column of the Table. aided the recovery of Pauline Cafferkey, is also morally repugnant. Can you advise whether there is any way for Table this House to express its disapprobation of those comments Time for conclusion of and its support for our many dedicated NHS staff, who Proceedings proceedings deserve better from people who seek to be public representatives? New Clauses, new Schedules, 5.30pm amendments to clauses and amendments to Schedules Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady is a very experienced relating to Part 5 Member of this House and I think she has already New Clauses, new Schedules, 7.30pm served her cause; I suspect that what she said will be amendments to clauses and echoed by Members on both sides of the House. I am amendments to Schedules not sure it is a matter for the Chair. The only thing I relating to Parts 3, 4 and 7 would say is that Nazism is one of the most evil phenomena Remaining proceedings on 9.00pm in our history, and the holocaust a despicable crime. Consideration People in whatever party should be very careful not to bandy about terms of abuse in contexts which most (4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously sensible people would think completely inappropriate. I concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00pm. think both sides of the House will agree on that. Perhaps I will say a few words on the programme motion, if I we can now make some progress. I thank the hon. Lady might, Mr Speaker. for what she said. Mr Speaker: It would have been a disappointment if the right hon. Gentleman had been planning to move it formally. The prospect of his customary lyricism is enticing indeed.

Mr Hayes: Mr Speaker, it is always a joy to perform in this Chamber under your benevolent stewardship, but a still greater joy to be able to move the programme motion on this important proposed legislation. I will just say a word about the programme motion. It is important that we emphasise that, although we do not want to take up too much of the House’s time—this is a big subject—there is a range of subject matter contained in the Bill and the need to ensure effective and fair consideration of it is the basis of the programme motion. The House needs to be afforded sufficient time to debate all the Bill’s areas effectively. We considered the number of amendments and the strength of feeling among hon. Members to create a programme fit for the purpose of enabling the House to do so. The programme motion accordingly provides until 5.30 pm to debate the new clauses and amendments relating to energy. Thereafter, it provides until 7.30 pm to debate the new clauses and amendments on environmental control of animal and plant species, and on planning, land and buildings. All other provisions, including those relating to strategic highways companies, will be considered until 9 pm. In fairness, the Opposition raised the issue of needing more time on Report when the Government introduced new clauses and schedules in Committee. Given that the Government intend to remove the additional and, 571 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 572

[Mr Hayes] but for the benefit of all Members I want it to be recorded that the Bill was introduced and pursued in a admittedly, late-in-the-day provisions on the electronic cack-handed way, and that it should receive greater communications code, and that no amendments have scrutiny today than the time available allows. been tabled against our new clauses on the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the reimbursement of persons 3.49 pm who have met expenses in the electrical connections market and the mayoral development orders, I cannot Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I will be extremely see why they want time for further deliberation at this brief, because I do not want to take time away from the stage. debates on the Bill. The Bill has so far been debated in the right spirit. My concern is not so much about the time available Indeed, I would go further: the mature and measured for debate, because we have had enough heat and no consideration it was given on Second Reading and in light already, but about the number of votes that the Committee speaks well of the House and, if I may say House will be able to have. There are a number of new so, of the Opposition. Their team scrutinised the Bill clauses and amendments, and I am particularly interested carefully and fully, but in a considered way, while not in in a range of them, such as new clause 6, new clause 9 any sense failing in their duty to test the Government’s and amendment 50, which I hope will be debated. arguments and to make good arguments of their own. However, I wish to highlight amendment 51, because 360,000 members of the public have signed a petition in To that end and in that spirit, we have in turn listened support of it. It would be right for the House to have carefully and taken on board some of the criticisms the chance to have its say; otherwise we will be letting made of the Bill since its inception. In all the Bill does, people down. it has evolved by a process of careful scrutiny, such as I have described. It has also moved forward because 3.50 pm Governments need to think about the arguments made in this place and elsewhere when proposed legislation of Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): However lyrical, such significance comes before the House. charming, elegant and extraordinary the Minister is, It is in everyone’s interests to send a signal from this and however beautifully he has taken the Bill through House that there is consensus on the Bill, and that we all its stages thus far, it is a bit rich for him to enjoin us can deliver it on time. On that note, as a father might not to ruin it at the end, because unfortunately it was say to his young children, I say, “Don’t spoil it now.” another Department that tried to ruin his Bill. His Let us maintain that spirit and send out such a signal. former Parliamentary Private Secretary, the new Secretary Let us do right by the House, but right by the nation, of State for Culture, Media and Sport, over whom he too. no longer seems to have any control whatever, insisted that large amendments be added only a week ago on a Mr Speaker: By any standards, the Minister of State whole new matter that had nothing whatever to do with is an extraordinary specimen of humanity, and I am the Bill—the electronic communications code. That was sure we were delighted to hear him. part of some magic deal that was being done with the mobile telephone operators before Christmas, which has now crumbled to dust. Those amendments were 3.47 pm foisted on the Bill—it is not so much a Christmas tree Bill as the whole of Oxford Circus, it has so many Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): baubles on it. Mr Speaker, I completely endorse your point about the Minister being an extraordinary specimen of humanity, The truth is that the amendments that were suddenly which we commented on in Committee on many occasions. added to the Bill were interlopers. The Minister says that the programme motion is fine, because he now I will not detain the House long, but may I say a few wishes to withdraw the amendments that he insisted words? I welcome what the Minister said about the were added to the Bill only a week ago—the shortest-lived Committee stage, which was conducted maturely. There amendments in the 750-year history of this Parliament, are still differences that we will debate today—fairly no doubt. However, we now have to debate removing sharp ones in many cases—but there was movement, them, having never had an opportunity properly to and I welcome the Minister’s approach in Committee debate putting them into the Bill in the first place. on such areas. However, he is right to say that we asked for two days on Report. That should not have been too Although I accept that the Minister is a wonderful much to ask for a Bill that was introduced in the other chap—I see that he is now pointing to the Secretary of place, and to which whole new areas were added when it State for Culture, Media and Sport and telling him reached this place, to the extent that even the long title off—I gently say to the Government that it would have had to be changed in Committee. That is not a good been far better if we had gone through the process way to approach legislation. Against that background, properly and had a two-day debate on the important it should not have been too much to have two days for matters in the Bill. Fracking is an important issue to proper scrutiny on Report and Third Reading; sadly, we many people, and we will no doubt debate it at considerable have been denied that opportunity. length today, but we should have had a two-day Report stage. The problem with debating programme motions is that there is always this dilemma for the House and for 3.52 pm the Opposition: do we debate the fact that we have not got enough time to talk about the Bill, or do we get on Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): I am a little with talking about it in the time available? I will not disappointed, because I wrote to the Public Bill Committee detain the House by dividing on the programme motion, and asked whether it would consider an amendment, 573 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 26 JANUARY 2015 574 but I gather there was not time for it to do so. This is Infrastructure Bill [Lords] probably the only time I can raise the matter I want to Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill mention today because, as the hon. Member for Committee Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, the debates will be quite crowded. When there are huge pieces of [Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Environmental infrastructure work such as the proposed 3.5 million Audit Committee, Session 2014-15, on Environmental square foot rail freight development in my constituency, risks of fracking, HC 856, and Sixth Report from the there is no obligation on developers to at least consider Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2014-15, on green, environmental measures. It is a loss that we will Action on air quality, HC 212. not get to debate that today. Fifteenth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2013-14, Better roads: Improving England’ Strategic Road Mr Speaker: Yes, but I think that probably relates to Network, HC 850, and Fourth Special Report from the amendments that it might have been in someone’s mind Transport Committee, Session 2014-15, Better roads: to table, but which have not yet been tabled and do not Improving England’s Strategic Road Network: Government relate directly to the programme motion. However, the Response to the Committee’s Fifteenth Report of Session hon. Lady has opted for an elastic interpretation of 2013-14, HC 715.] the terms of the motion, and she has got her points on the record, so I hope she is content. New Clause 15 3.52 pm ADVICE ON LIKELY IMPACT OF ONSHORE PETROLEUM ON Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): THE CARBON BUDGET My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) “(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time request the is right that the clause providing for the electronic Committee on Climate Change to provide advice (in accordance communications code is the shortest-lived clause ever—it with section 38 of the CCA 2008) on the impact which survived just a week. The Government introduced it, combustion of, and fugitive emissions from, petroleum got but it is now being withdrawn from the Bill. As I argued through onshore activity is likely to have on the Secretary of in Committee, it is right that the Government should State’s ability to meet the duties imposed by— withdraw it, so I congratulate them on doing so—the (a) section 1 of the CCA 2008 (net UK carbon account code needs sorting out. Having said that, a huge amount target for 2050), and of time has been wasted on it, meaning that we will not (b) section 4(1)(b) of the CCA 2008 (UK carbon account have adequate time today to debate many important not to exceed carbon budget). details of the Bill. (2) As soon as practicable after each reporting period, the Secretary of State must produce a report setting out the The Minister knows that I am on his side on fracking. conclusions that the Secretary of State has reached after In principle, I want to see it go ahead in the right considering the advice provided by the Committee on Climate regulatory environment. The trouble is that he is putting Change during that reporting period in response to any request the House in a difficult position by asking us to approve made under subsection (1). hugely important measures with just a couple of hours (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any such report of debate. before Parliament. (4) In this section— 3.54 pm “CCA 2008” means the Climate Change Act 2008; Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): I “petroleum got through onshore activity” means do not want to detain the House long. I have great petroleum got from the strata in which it exists in its natural condition by activity carried out on respect for the Minister and have worked closely with land in England and Wales (excluding land him in his different guises, but the emollient tone in covered by the sea or any tidal waters); which he introduced the programme motion was “petroleum” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the inappropriate in some ways. Many of my constituents, Petroleum Act 1998 (see section 1 of that Act); and constituents up and down this country, read that a “reporting period” means— major infrastructure Bill is going through and they (a) the period ending with 1 April 2016, and would expect us to have the time to tackle issues such as (b) each subsequent period of 5 years.” —(Amber shale gas with great scrutiny, and with a great depth of Rudd.) probing of exactly what was going on and what was This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek advice intended. The Environmental Audit Committee was from the Committee on Climate Change on the likely impact of right in recommending the moratorium, although in the petroleum (including natural gas) produced onshore in England long-term this should always be based on good evidence. and Wales, and to report periodically on the conclusions reached as Many people up and down this country would see that result of the advice given. an infrastructure Bill is before the House and that the Brought up, and read the First time. biggest infrastructure programme at the moment, HS2, means we are possibly going to spend £80 billion on an 3.56 pm iconic railway rather than investing in the national health service. Those people in this country deserve a The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy voice and they will not get it on this Bill or in respect of and Climate Change (Amber Rudd): I beg to move, That these two days of debate. the clause be read a Second time. Question put and agreed to. Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1— Hydraulic fracturing— 575 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 26 JANUARY 2015 576

‘(1) The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) New clause 9— Moratorium on onshore unconventional Regulations 2010, Schedule 1, Part 2, Chapter 1, is amended as petroleum— follows: “(1) All use of land for development consisting of the (2) After Section 1.2 insert— exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain shall “SECTION 1.3 be discontinued during the relevant period. Hydraulic Fracturing Activities (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that an independent assessment is undertaken of the exploitation of unconventional Part A(1) petroleum in Great Britain including the use of high volume (a) carrying out exploration or assessments prior to hydraulic fracturing. hydraulic fracturing; (3) The assessment must take account of the impacts of the (b) drilling wells for use in hydraulic fracturing; exploitation of the unconventional petroleum on— (c) process of hydraulic fracturing; (a) climate change; (d) decommissioning and long-term maintenance of (b) the environment; hydraulic fracturing wells.”” (c) health and safety; and New clause 2—Shale gas extraction: devolution— (d) the economy. ‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows: (4) The Secretary of State must— (a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks (2) In Schedule 5, Part II, section D2, after “gas other than fit; and through pipes,”, insert— (b) publish the assessment “( ) The licensing of onshore shale gas extraction underlying Scotland. within the relevant period. ( ) Responsibility for mineral access rights for onshore (5) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)— extraction of shale gas in Scotland.”” “relevant period” means a period of not less than New clause 4— Committee on Climate Change shale 18 months and not more than 30 months commencing on the date two months after Royal Assent; gas reports— “unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which It shall be a duty of the Committee on Climate Change to does not flow readily to the wellbore. produce Reports into the effects of exploitation of shale gas in (6) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of the UK on net carbon emissions from the UK.” subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A). Hydraulic Fracturing exclusion zones— New clause 6— “(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to ‘(1) The Petroleum Act 1998 is amended as follows. search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Britain during the relevant period. (2) In Section 3, after subsection (4), insert— (4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) “relevant period” “(5) No licences shall be granted to search and bore for and “unconventional petroleum” have the meaning specified in petroleum in protected areas using the process of hydraulic section [Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum] of fracturing. the Infrastructure Act 2015.” (6) For the purposes of this section, “protected area” means— New clause 10— The security of supply of gas— (a) special areas of conservation under the Conservation (1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with section 4AA (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, of the Gas Act 1986 and so far as it appears to him practicable (b) special protection areas under the Wildlife and from time to time, keep under review whether further measures Countryside Act 1981, may be appropriate in order to protect the interests of existing and future consumers in relation to the security of the supply of (c) sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and gas to them. Countryside Act 1981, (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State (d) national parks under the National Parks and Access to may direct the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to conduct the Countryside Act 1949, a Significant Code Review in relation to whether modifications (e) The Broads under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act to licences granted under Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 or to the 1988, and Uniform Network Code are appropriate in order to underpin the demand for and the security of supply of gas. (f) areas of outstanding natural beauty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.” (3) For the purposes of this section— New clause 7—Environmental Impact Assessment: “consumers”, for the avoidance of doubt, includes publication— domestic and non-domestic consumers; “Significant Code Review” has the meaning given in “(1) Any Environmental Statement undertaken in respect of Standard Special Condition A11 (24) of licences the possible exploitation of petroleum or deep geothermal granted under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986; energy, under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, must be publicised before “Uniform Network Code” means the document of a planning application is submitted to the local planning that title required to be prepared pursuant to authority and/or the Secretary of State. Standard Special Condition A11 of licences granted under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986. (2) The publication of an Environmental Statement under subsection (1) must be in accordance with the procedures set out New clause 11— Annual report by Secretary of State in Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development on security of energy supplies— Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.” “(1) Section 172 of the Energy Act 2004 (annual report on New clause 8— Impact on rural communities— security of energy supplies) is amended as follows. “The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural (2) In subsection (2), at the end insert— Affairs must, within one month of this Act receiving Royal “(e) the security of supply of gas to consumers in Great Assent, lay before the House of Commons the full report on Britain, including available storage capacity, and any Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts.” appropriate remedial measures.”” 577 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 26 JANUARY 2015 578

New clause 19— Hydraulic fracturing: necessary Amendment 44, in clause 39, page 45, line 25, leave conditions— out Any hydraulic fracturing activity can not take place: “petroleum or deep geothermal energy” (a) unless an environmental impact assessment has been and insert— carried out; “(a) petroleum; or (b) unless independent inspections are carried out of the (b) deep geothermal energy. integrity of wells used; (c) unless monitoring has been undertaken on the site over “(1A) The right under (1)(a) only applies if the Committee on the previous 12 month period; Climate Change’s most recent report under section (Committee on Climate Change Shale Gas Reports) concludes that shale gas (d) unless site-by-site measurement, monitoring and exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon emissions. public disclosure of existing and future fugitive emissions is carried out; (1B) The carrying out of hydraulic fracturing in connection with the exploitation of unconventional petroleum is not allowed (e) in land which is located within the boundary of a unless the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report groundwater source protection zone; under section (Committee on Climate Change Shale Shale Gas (f) within or under protected areas; Reports) concludes that shale gas exploitation leads to a net (g) in deep-level land at depths of less than 1,000 metres; reduction of UK carbon emissions.” (h) unless planning authorities have considered the Amendment 47, page 45, line 27, leave out from “if” cumulative impact of hydraulic fracturing activities to end of line 29 and insert— in the local area; “(a) it is deep-level land, (i) unless a provision is made for community benefit schemes to be provided by companies engaged in the (b) it is within a landward area, and extraction of gas and oil rock; (c) the well shaft is not within two kilometres of any (j) unless residents in the affected area are notified on an village or town.” individual basis; Amendment 56, page 45, line 29, at end insert— (k) unless substances used are subject to approval by the “(c) subject to the agreement of the owner of any land Environment Agency altered by the use.” (l) unless land is left in a condition required by the Amendment 83, page 45, line 29, at end insert— planning authority, and “(c) outside: (m) unless water companies are consulted by the planning authority.” (i) Special Areas of Conservation under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that shale gas 1994, exploration and extraction can only proceed with appropriate (ii) Special Protection Ares under the Wildlife and regulation and comprehensive monitoring and to ensure that any Countryside Act 1981, activity is consistent with climate change obligations and local environmental considerations. (iii) Sites of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Amendment 50, page 39, line 12 leave out clause 37. (iv) National Parks under the National Parks and This deletes the Clause that puts into primary legislation a new Access to the Countryside Act 1949, duty to maximise the economic recovery of UK oil and gas. (v) The Broads under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Amendment 68, in clause 37, page 39, line 17, leave Act 1988, and out (vi) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty under “the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK section 82 of the Countryside and Rights of Way petroleum, in particular through” Act 2000.” and insert Amendment 117, page 45, line 29, at end add— “not the objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK “(c) subject to the prior collation of existing petroleum but ensuring that fossil fuel emissions are limited to the environmental data and that data is published in a carbon budgets advised by the Committee on Climate Change form that enables it to be subject to scientific peer and introducing a moratorium on the hydraulic fracturing of review.” shale gas deposits in order to reduce the risk of carbon budgets Amendment 57, page 45, line 32, at end insert— being breached, in particular through—”. (a) The right of use shall be subject to the precautionary This reflects the conclusions from an inquiry into the principle being applied; Environmental risks of fracking by the Environmental Audit (b) The Environment Agency will determine whether the Committee, whose report is published on 26 January (Eighth condition under paragraph (a) has been met; and Report, HC 856). (c) In this section, “precautionary principle” shall mean Amendment 73, page 39, line 31, at end insert— that no land is used for the purposes of exploiting “(3A) A strategy must be compatible with the Climate Change petroleum or deep geothermal energy unless it is Act 2008.” proved that it is not harmful to the environment.” This would require strategies drawn up under clause 37 on Amendment 3, page 45, line 33, leave out “300 metres” maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas to be compatible and insert “1,000 metres”. with the Climate Change Act 2008, thereby avoiding the risk that Amendment 65, page 45, line 33, leave out “300 the Secretary of State could, as a result of clause 37, be required to fulfil conflicting duties. metres” and insert “950 metres”. Amendment 51, page 45, line 22 leave out clauses 39 Government amendment 86. to 44. Amendment 2, page 45, line 36, at end insert— This deletes the Clauses that seek to change the trespass law and “(6) The Secretary of State shall, before the award of licences introduce a new right to use deep-level land, which would allow in relation to the use of deep-level land for onshore oil and gas fracking companies to drill beneath people’s homes and land exploration, issue additional planning guidance introducing a without their permission and to leave any substance or presumption against such developments within or under infrastructure in the land. protected areas.” 579 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 26 JANUARY 2015 580

Amendment 48, page 45, line 36, at end insert— (3B) Where the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that a condition in subsection (3A) is met, it shall give notice to the “(6) The Secretary of State shall prevent the exploitation of Secretary of State. shale oil or gas if either a water company or the Environment Agency credibly asserts that to do otherwise would— (3C) The Secretary of State shall publish the information received from the Health and Safety Executive in accordance (a) create substantial risks to public health due to with subsection (3A).” potential contamination of groundwaters from the extraction process; or Amendment 59, page 46, line 17, at end insert— (b) create substantial risks to nearby surface waters due to “(3A) The right of use shall be conditional on operators potential contamination from flowback and waste ensuring the— water arising from hydraulic fracturing activity; or (a) safe conveyance of wastewater from the site to a safe place of storage; (c) create substantial risks to the nearby environment due (b) effective treatment and disposal of wastewater from to potential contamination from flowback and waste the site; and water arising from hydraulic fracturing activity.” (c) publication of the details of the treatment and disposal Amendment 49, page 45, line 36, at end insert— of wastewater under sub-paragraph (ii).” “(5A) The use of hydraulic fracturing in connection with the Government amendment 87. exploitation of unconventional petroleum shall be prohibited. Amendment 78, in clause 41, page 46, line 41, leave (5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “unconventional out “may” and insert “shall”. petroleum” means petroleum which does not flow readily to the wellbore. Amendment 79, page 46, line 44, leave out “may” and insert “shall”. (5C) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A). Amendment 61, page 47, line 2, at end insert— “(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to “(c) to compulsorily purchase properties in the event of search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great blight from the activities of the extraction and Britain. exploitation of petroleum and geothermal energy in deep-level land.” (4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), “unconventional petroleum” has the meaning set out in section 38(5B) of the Amendment 80, page 47, line 4, after “the”, insert Infrastructure Act [2015].”” “minimum”. This amendment would ban fracking (the use of high volume Amendment 81, page 47, line 5, after “payments”, hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas) in the UK. insert Amendment 66, page 45, line 36, at end insert— “which shall be calculated as a percentage of the gross value of the gas extracted”. “(6) This section shall not extend to Wales unless an order authorising it has been passed by the National Assembly for Amendment 62, in clause 42, page 47, line 19, leave Wales. out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert “to persons of specified descriptions” (7) An order under subsection (6) may contain any conditions which the Assembly deems appropriate.” Amendment 63, page 47, line 22, leave out “within Amendment 82, page 45, line 36, at end insert— the area” and insert “on the Parish Council noticeboard”. “(5A) The Secretary of State shall be required to commission and consider reports on— Amendment 64, page 47, line 24, at end insert— (a) The cumulative impacts of water use in hydraulic “(2B) Failure to display or publish notice under the terms of fracking of exploratory and productive gas wells; subsection (2) will negate any right to exploit or extract petroleum or geothermal energy.” (b) The cumulative impacts of flowback and waste water arising from hydraulic fracking activity; and Government amendments 88, 89, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 103. (c) The cumulative impacts on communities of road and vehicle movements from hydraulic fracking activity Amendment 69, title, line 10 leave out Before providing any permissions for exploitation of “to make provision about maximising economic recovery of petroleum on deep level land where one or more exploitation petroleum in the United Kingdom;” facility exists within one mile of a proposed site.” This reflects the conclusions from an inquiry into the Amendment 60, in clause 40, page 46, line 6, at end Environmental risks of fracking by the Environmental Audit Committee, whose report is published on 26 January (Eighth insert— Report, HC 856). “(f) any substance used for the purposes of paragraph (d) must be— Amber Rudd: I rise to speak to new clause 15 and (i) approved by the Environment Agency; and amendments 98 and 103. Both shale gas and geothermal energy are exciting new energy resources for the UK, (ii) publicly declared by the operator.” with the potential to provide greater energy security, Amendment 1, page 46, line 17, at end insert— growth and jobs, while also playing an important role in “(3A) Before a well design is commenced or adopted in the transition to a low-carbon economy. connection with the exploitation of petroleum, the right of use requires the Health and Safety Executive to inspect the well so as Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Will the to satisfy itself that— Minister give way? (a) so far as is reasonably practicable, there can be no unplanned escape of fluids from the well; and Amber Rudd: I will make some progress, but I will (b) risks to the health and safety of persons from it or give way to the hon. Lady during my speech. The anything in it, or in strata to which it is connected, provisions in the Bill provide for a right to use deep-level are as low as is reasonably practicable. land for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep 581 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 582 geothermal energy. That will help us unlock exploration “continue to use considerable, albeit declining, amounts of gas for shale gas and deep geothermal as we move towards well into the 2030s” a low-carbon economy. which will leave Several hon. Members have brought forward new “a considerable gap between production of North Sea gas and clause 4, which would place a statutory duty on the our total demand.” Committee on Climate Change to produce reports on It argues that that demand the effect of shale on the UK’s net carbon emissions. “can either be met through imports or UK production of shale Amendment 44 states that the right of use, and the gas.” carrying out of hydraulic fracturing, are conditional on It concludes that the finding in the Committee’s reports “if anything, using well regulated UK shale gas to fill this gap “that shale…exploitation leads to a net reduction of UK carbon could lead to lower overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions emissions.” than continuing to import LNG. It would also increase the The Government are committed to reducing carbon proportion of energy produced within the UK, improving our emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging energy sovereignty.” climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) are committed to listening to the experts and their (LD): The important thing that has come from these advice on how to reach those targets. exchanges is that it is the use of carbon that causes the emissions. Therefore, it is crucial that we have a proper emissions trading scheme throughout Europe and that Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain how public the source of the energy should be as low carbon as confidence in fracking is enhanced by the Government’s possible. Therefore, maximising the economic production refusal to let the public see an unredacted copy of the from the North sea is an important first step. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the impacts of fracking on the rural economy? Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It Will she make a gesture today by saying that that report is absolutely essential that we do also maximise economic will be unredacted and put in the public domain? recovery, and we will be coming on to that later in this debate. Amber Rudd: The hon. Lady will know that this matter is included in one of the amendments, which David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): The Minister I will come on to discuss more fully later. Although I rightly said that the displacement of coal by gas could cannot make the commitment she is asking for, I will make a massive impact on reducing our carbon emissions. speak more fully on it a little later. But it is also right to say that that is no good if countries such as Germany go down the coal route. Does she Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Three times now think she can persuade those countries to follow us in the Minister has referred to moving to lower carbon going towards gas more quickly? emissions in the UK, but what good is that if it results in displaced coal being available for use in other parts of Amber Rudd: We will certainly do our best. The UK the developed world? Whether the emissions come from is a leader in Europe in providing our own example and coal being burnt in Germany or in the UK, they still in trying to corral our European partners to ensure that contribute to climate change. we move to a low carbon economy.

Amber Rudd: That is why, as the hon. Gentleman is Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) rose— aware, the Government have been so keen to get targets into Europe that apply across the whole of Europe. He Amber Rudd: I will make a little more progress. will be aware that we are leading on those, and we will Professor David Mackay and Dr Timothy Stone have continue to do so. It is very important to lead by supported the findings of the Committee on Climate example, and he is right to raise the issue relating to Change and in 2013, they published recommendations Germany, which is why we are pleased to have a cross- on how to reduce emissions from shale gas operations, European agreement. However, that does not detract which the Government have accepted. In addition, from the importance of making sure that we do the the Environment Agency has agreed to make green right thing in this country. completions—techniques to minimise methane emissions —a requirement of environmental permits for shale gas Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): On that production. point about displaced coal, is it not a fact that it is displaced coal from north America that is contributing Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD) rose— to a rise in the burning of coal in Europe? If we take matters into our own hands and develop more gas, we Amber Rudd: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, can reduce the amount of coal that is burned. It is coal but first I want to outline what the Government are that is the enemy of climate change and that is enemy doing on this matter. No. 1. Gas is our ally in a green future. I am pleased to say that we have tabled an amendment that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend makes an excellent advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to point based on his clear expertise in this area. The the impact of petroleum development in England and Committee on Climate Change has said that for flexible Wales, including shale gas operations, on our ability to power supply, the UK will meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over 583 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 584

[Amber Rudd] Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is right: having a successful shale gas industry is an important part of time, and it is not limited to a specific carbon budget supporting our renewables industry. period. The Secretary of State must consider the advice New clause 2 proposes specific changes to the Scotland of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his Act 1998. Although I understand the intention, the Bill conclusions at least every five years. By introducing this is not the right vehicle to make those amendments. The amendment, we are making it absolutely clear that shale new devolution settlement should be debated as a whole development will remain compatible with our goal to package in the next Parliament. Last Thursday, the cut greenhouse gas emissions. Government published their Command Paper, “Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement”, which Dr Huppert: I thank the Minister for that amendment. sets out that draft clause 31 will devolve to Scottish It goes halfway towards my amendment, which called Ministers the regime for licensing exploration and extraction for that to happen and then said that we should not of oil and gas, and transfer to the Scottish Parliament allow fracking if it increased emissions. She spoke about legislative competence for the licensing of onshore oil the report from Dave Mackay, one of my constituents. and gas exploration and extraction. Responsibility for Does she accept that he also says that mineral access rights for underground onshore extraction “in the absence of strong climate policies…we believe it is credible of oil and gas in Scotland will also be devolved to the that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term Scottish Parliament. emissions rates.” I assure hon. Members that those matters will be If it turns out that we do see higher carbon emissions, fully addressed through the broader process of reviewing will she agree that we should end fracking at that point the devolution settlement, to which all three major at least? parties are committed. Whoever forms the next Government will take forward the draft legislation for further Scottish Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting devolution. I announced in Committee the Government’s point. I am confident that our amendment addresses intention to table an amendment to remove Scotland exactly that. The Committee on Climate Change will from the scope of the provisions concerning the right to take a view on what it sees, now that there is an use deep-level land. We have now tabled amendments obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with it. I that will achieve that. am encouraged by the fact that that obligation is now in place. Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I note what the Minister says, and obviously I am keen that the powers be transferred as soon as possible, but does she not Sir William Cash: On the point made by my hon. acknowledge that, as I and the Scottish Government Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), have said on numerous occasions, there is a gap? Scotland is the Minister aware that, historically, the German has planning and environmental powers, but will not, if nation has been providing massive subsidies—up to the Government do as she is saying they will, get powers £4 billion a year—to its coal industry? She could do on licences for some time yet. Will the Government give something in the Council of Europe about solving the a guarantee that no more licences will be granted in the problem that she has been describing. Will she do that? meantime? What is the position of licences already granted? Would it not be more sensible to support new Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for his expression clause 9, so that there is a moratorium until the Scottish of confidence in our ability to work with our European Parliament can make a full decision on these matters? partners to improve output in the UK and in Europe more widely. Amber Rudd: I feel that the Government new clause deals with the specific issues that are relevant to the Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con): Is my hon. Friend Infrastructure Bill. I understand—we all do—that many aware that David Mackay, to whom the hon. Member other measures may need to be debated, but the time for for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred, also reported that will be after the next Government are in place, that carbon emissions from shale gas are lower than when there will be a fuller debate on proper devolution. those from liquefied natural gas, and that because the most likely effect of developing our shale gas reserves Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) will be to substitute for LNG imports, the direct and (SNP): The Minister said that onshore energy and fuels immediate effect of allowing shale gas to go ahead will will be devolved, but when will offshore be devolved to be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? the Scottish Government—Scotland’s oil?

Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that a win-win for the UK in both potential economic contribution, but I must defer to other Departments on benefit and reducing our carbon footprint. that. For now, I will deal with the specific issues on the table for the Infrastructure Bill. David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): In addition to all the advantages my hon. Friend has already mentioned, Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/ does she accept that we need to have a shale gas industry Co-op): The Minister is talking about new clause 2 and to go hand-in-hand with our wind industry, because the devolution of licensing, which she says is promised wind-powered generators require gas generators to back and will be delivered as part of the Smith agreement. them up? Given that the 14th round has been started but the 585 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 586 licences not awarded, does it not make sense for those of protection, even if the development is outside the site licences not to be awarded in Scotland until devolution boundary. These include special areas of conservation, has happened? special protection areas, sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites. Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting Planning guidance published last July set out the point—one that was not raised in Committee, although specific approach to planning for unconventional we did debate this fairly fully. I take the view that the hydrocarbons in national parks, the broads, areas of Bill is not the place to do that, but it could be considered outstanding natural beauty and world heritage sites. after the next general election. The guidance makes it clear that planning authorities should refuse planning applications for major development Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) in these areas unless it can be demonstrated both that (PC): The Minister has outlined a road map for further exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the powers for Scotland in regard to licensing powers. What public interest. consideration have the UK Government given to giving similar powers to the Welsh Government? Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): Does the Minister accept that 18% of the UK’s sites of special scientific interest, Amber Rudd: The Secretary of State for Wales has 13% of the special areas of conservation and 14% of the announced that a set of commitments agreed by the special protection areas are covered by the 14th licensing four main political parties in Wales on the way forward round? for Welsh devolution will be in place by 1 March. These commitments will form a baseline for devolution after Amber Rudd: Let me add to my earlier comments that the election. I understand that a strong case is being we have agreed an outright ban on fracking in national made for devolution of those powers. parks, sites of special scientific interest and areas of That covers the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 66, outstanding natural beauty. I hope that will reassure the which seeks to render the application of the clauses to right hon. Gentleman about the liability potential for the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. In any of the areas that I know he is particularly keen to addition, the current Government of Wales Act 2006 protect. clearly sets out that oil and gas are excluded from the list of devolved subjects, and the exploitation of deep Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): I geothermal resources cannot be considered to have know that my hon. Friend will shortly respond to some been conferred under any of the subjects in schedule 7. of the amendments tabled in my name, but will she We see no grounds on which this measure would currently complete the sentence? Is she saying that there will be be within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly. an outright ban on any fracking in national parks? That is the situation for now. Scotland and Wales will Have the Government removed the words “except in continue to have substantial control of onshore oil and exceptional circumstances”? gas, and geothermal activities through their own existing planning procedures and environmental regulation, as Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly these are already devolved. I ask hon. Members not to what we have done. We have now put in place an press their amendments. outright ban and will effectively remove those words. New clause 6 and amendments 2 and 83 suggest that Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): Can the the national planning policy framework leaves gaps in Minister clarify the situation in respect of ancient woodland? respect of protected land, but this is not the case. Strong Will she also clarify the situation in respect of decisions protections already exist for these areas and further by local planning authorities and whether, despite what protections are not necessary. A blanket ban, as proposed, she has just said, it will be possible for the Secretary of would be disproportionate. State to overturn those decisions?

Dr Huppert: Is the Minister saying—she should be Amber Rudd: That is something that I will have to very clear on this—that there is absolutely no prospect look into. For the moment, I will make progress and of any fracking happening on any of this list of properties, hope to come back to the hon. Lady on that point this and that anybody reading this debate should be clear afternoon. that the Government have no intention of allowing that? Is that what she is saying? Tom Greatrex: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist the House? The Minister seems to have Amber Rudd: If the hon. Gentleman will let me suggested that an amendment is being made to the comment on that aspect in my own words, I hope that amendments before us. If that is the case, and what she will reassure him. has said about words being removed from the Bill is The existing legislative framework provides a robust correct, will we have an opportunity to scrutinise that framework of protection for those sensitive areas. The amendment? Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 require a developer to undertake a habitats regulation Mr Speaker: I think that is a matter of the hon. assessment whenever a proposed project is likely to have Gentleman’s interpretation. For the avoidance of doubt, a significant impact on a special conservation area or a I must say that no manuscript amendment has been special protection area. These protections derive from tabled. The normal course would have been for it to be European law and set a very high bar. The regulations tabled prior to the start of the debate, and it has not are supported by the national planning policy framework, been. I think that the best course at this stage is for hon. which recognises areas that should be given a high level Members in all parts of the House simply to listen to 587 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 588

[Mr Speaker] requires that the environmental statement be publicised before a local planning authority can determine an the Minister’s speech. [Interruption.] There is indeed application. Planning authorities are already required no manuscript amendment—I do not think that I can to ensure that mineral developments will not have be clearer. unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment. Where a development is likely to have a significant effect, an EIA is required. If any significant environmental effects 4.15 pm are identified that cannot be mitigated, planning permission Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is can be refused. there, then, an amendment to that effect? This approach works well in practice and is consistent with our European obligations. It ensures that an EIA, Mr Speaker: No amendment is required to prove that which involves substantial work often taking up to a there is no amendment. That makes me think that the year to develop, is undertaken only where it adds value. hon. Lady has been reading Heidegger—“the nothing However, the Government understand the need to build noths”. There is no manuscript amendment, and public confidence in the shale sector. We therefore welcome consideration of this matter should not be clouded by the reassurance provided by the industry’s public thoughts of a manuscript amendment. I have been commitment to carry out EIAs for all exploration wells given no indication that there will be a manuscript that involve hydraulic fracturing. The industry has made amendment. It would be extraordinary, to put it mildly, a further commitment to produce an annual report for a manuscript amendment to be proposed or put listing the shale sites that have produced an EIA. forward for consideration by me or by professional advisers when the debate has already started. Things Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab): Will the Minister need to be dealt with in an orderly manner. give way?

Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Amber Rudd: I am going to make some progress. I will give way again before the end of my comments, but Amber Rudd rose— I am conscious that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) might want to Mr Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order address some of the points that I have raised. from the hon. Lady and then the Minister can either New clause 19(b) and amendment 1 are concerned respond to that or continue her speech. with the inspection of wells. The Health and Safety Executive is the independent regulator. Its specialist Joan Walley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the inspectors assess operators’ well notifications and weekly House would like some clarification as to whether what operations reports throughout well construction. Final we are going to be voting on will be an overall ban. consent for drilling operations rests with the Department Members on both sides of the House have tabled many of Energy and Climate Change, which will check that amendments seeking to bring that about. When, in an the relevant environmental agencies and the HSE have hour’s time, we vote on these amendments, we will not no objections before giving consent. know whether we can be confident that the Government are really doing as they say. I would be grateful if the Health and safety legislation in the UK requires all Minister, if not instantly, then in the next 45 minutes, well activities to be reviewed by an independent well could tell us what she is actually proposing. examiner. There is an important principle that it is the well operator who retains responsibility for preventing Mr Speaker: Of course Members must listen to what any unplanned release of fluids. It is right that that the Minister has to say, but, for the avoidance of doubt, fundamental duty rests with those who create the risk. Members will be voting on that which is on the amendment The proposal that the HSE should approve each well paper. I do not mean this in any sense discourteously, could remove that responsibility. Rather than give a but it is not for the Chair to seek to interpret amendments one-off approval, as is suggested in amendment 1, the or new clauses, and I would not presume to do so. Each HSE currently takes a lifecycle approach and can intervene right hon. or hon. Member must make his or her own at any time. assessment of the merits or demerits, and implications, of new clauses and amendments and vote accordingly. Helen Jones: Earlier, the Minister seemed to ask the We are voting only on what is on the amendment paper, House to rely on an order and on a commitment by the not on that which is not on it. I call the Minister. industry, rather than on putting the matter into primary legislation. If she agrees with what is in new clause 6, Amber Rudd: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. what is her objection to having it in the Bill? I will address new clause 7 on environmental impact assessments—EIAs—and new clause 19 and its various Amber Rudd: The hon. Lady raises an interesting themes in turn. The Government share the desire expressed point. There is a lot that can be considered in primary in new clause 7 and new clause 19(a) to ensure that the legislation, but there is also a place for secondary legislation. public are made fully aware of issues raised in EIAs We have decided that what is in primary legislation is before a planning application is submitted, and I can sufficient. assure Members that this is the case. The comprehensive I reassure Members that each shale site will still be requirements for planning applications for which there inspected by the Health and Safety Executive during is an environmental statement are already set out in the exploration phase. I have agreed with the HSE that article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development it will publish information for each visit to a shale site in Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, which its assessments. 589 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 590

Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): I asked this on Second On the announcement I made in Committee, the Reading and I ask it again today. Will those inspections Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural be unannounced and rigorous, and will there be full Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to require transparency on what HSE inspectors find? operators to undertake the three months’ baseline monitoring. That is a minimum of three months so, in Amber Rudd: The short answer to that is yes. The practice, the Environment Agency may require a longer purpose of HSE inspections is to ensure that there is period of monitoring where appropriate. safety and clarity. I believe that my hon. Friend will be reassured about that when he takes a closer look. Mr Jim Cunningham: Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she mentioned that she would use the Health and Safety On new clause 19(c) and (d) and amendment 117, I Executive. There have been cuts to its budget and numbers. reassure Members that we support the use of baseline It is reduced to doing just the occasional health and monitoring. At issue is the appropriateness of the safety spot-check. How can that organisation be competent monitoring period and the requirements involved. The to monitor the provisions in the Bill? Environment Agency has the power to require baseline monitoring under the conditions that are set in the environmental permit. The operator reports that Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting information to the Environment Agency, which places point. It is essential that the HSE can do its job well. We it on the public register. have had conversations with it and there is no suggestion that it cannot do its job well, but we will keep that under review. Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab) rose— Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): In the Minister’s Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) rose— assessment prior to coming to the House, did she look at whether the Environment Agency and the Health Amber Rudd: I will make progress, but I assure hon. and Safety Executive need additional staff? If not, will Members that I will let them intervene before I finish. she do so before she pushes the Bill further? We do not know what it costs to do that job properly. The environmental regulator adopts a risk-based approach to its assessment that is endorsed by the Royal Society. In addition, as was announced in Committee, Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman makes an important the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural point. It is essential that the Environment Agency and Affairs will direct the Environment Agency to require Health and Safety Executive have sufficient staff. They operators to undertake at least three months’ baseline have not raised that with me and have accepted the fact monitoring of methane in groundwater before hydraulic that they will have the responsibility, but we will keep fracturing can commence. conversations with them open to ensure they can do their job correctly.

Andrew Gwynne: I want to take the Minister back to Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): what she said about the use of secondary legislation. Will the Minister give way? She will know, having been a Member of the House for a number of years, that secondary legislation is dealt Amber Rudd: I am going to make progress. with in a Committee that lasts a maximum of merely 90 minutes. We need to enshrine the environmental On fugitive emissions, I have spoken about the report safeguards in primary legislation. Why is she so obsessed produced by Professor David MacKay and Dr Timothy with not doing that? Stone. Their report determined that, with the right safeguards in place, the net effect on greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas production will be relatively Amber Rudd: I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman small. We report fugitive emissions from onshore energy did not have time to listen to the Committee, where we extraction annually as part of our international reporting spent many, many hours debating this subject and many obligations on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. That different subjects. That gave everyone a great opportunity is done in accordance with guidelines produced by the to raise all the issues. There is no suggestion that there Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is has not been enough time to address this matter. audited annually by a group of international experts.

Andrew Gwynne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you please rule on the Minister’s view, because she seems to be confusing the Bill Committee with an Order Mr Speaker: I may be wrong, but I just have a slight in Council committee, which lasts a mere 90 minutes? sense that this might be a point not of order but of frustration. We will discover. Mr Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair. Members must make their own assessment. Andrew Miller: There is a lot of frustration in the The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment. For all I debate, Mr Speaker. In Committee, the Government know, he might beetle around the Chamber to share it made an extraordinary statement that there were some with others, but people will form their own assessment. issues around baseline monitoring that the Minister Let us hear the Minister’s oration. regards as commercial-in-confidence. That is why I have tabled the amendment. Would it not be helpful if the Amber Rudd: Thank you for that clarification, Minister answered that point now, while she is dealing Mr Speaker. with that measure, rather than simply moving on? 591 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 592

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): That is not a A company looking to develop shale or deep geothermal point of order. will need to obtain all the necessary permissions before it can proceed. It is the process of obtaining all those Andrew Miller: No, but it is on the record. permissions, rather than the level at which the depth limit is set, that will provide the relevant safeguards— Mr Speaker: All sorts of things are helpful and all sorts of things are unhelpful, but they usually have one John Mann: Will the Minister give way? thing in common: that none of them is a point of order. Amber Rudd: I will not: I am going to make some Amber Rudd: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. progress. Gentleman is right and asks an interesting question. I reassure him that I have written to him and other There is no question of changing the existing regime members of the Committee about that point. governing access to land at the surface and down to the depths of 300 metres. Extending the depth limit would Andrew Miller: Where is the letter? not improve landowners’ enjoyment of their land or achieve any increase in the level of protection. Amber Rudd: It was sent to every member of the On new clause 19(i) and amendments 78, 79, 80 and Committee. 81, the Government have been clear that communities With regard to industry reporting commitments, fugitive hosting shale gas developments should share in the emissions levels will be constantly monitored at all benefits that are created. The shale industry is at a stages of development. The data will be made available nascent stage. We will need more exploration to go in line with best practice and regulatory reporting ahead before knowing exactly how communities will requirements. However, to provide additional reassurance, benefit. At this stage, we need to ensure that schemes I am pleased to announce that the Government will are flexible. A voluntary scheme offers a multitude of direct the Environment Agency to require operators to benefits to communities when compared with a statutory monitor and report fugitive methane emissions. In addition, system, enabling schemes to be tailored to communities’ the industry has confirmed its commitment to site-by-site needs. Any statutory scheme might not be suitable for reporting of fugitive emissions. every situation, and would be more difficult in future. The industry, represented by the UK Onshore Operators Several hon. Members rose— Group—UKOOG—has already committed to the community benefits charter, which will provide significant Amber Rudd: I am going to make substantial progress. benefits to affected communities. Industry will pay £100,000 I am concerned that other hon. Members will not be per hydraulically fractured well site at exploratory stage able to speak. to communities, and 1% of revenue if it successfully New clause 19(g), and amendments 3 and 65, are on goes into production. depth limits. A company looking to develop shale or deep geothermal will need to obtain all the necessary Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con): permissions before it can proceed. The process of obtaining Does the Minister yet have a definition of “community” those permissions rather than the level at which we set in this instance? the depth level will provide the relevant safeguards. There is no question of changing the existing regime Amber Rudd: My hon. Friend has raised that issue governing access to land at surface down to depths of before and I hope that we will hear from him later. As 300 metres. he will be aware, we believe that that question is best decided later, when we have a charter in place that will Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): How address the issue. can the Minister assure us about fugitive emissions and the safety of fracking when she proposes to give untrammelled access at 300 metres to developers, as she Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr Deputy has just mentioned? Fracking lines travel far higher Speaker. Earlier in the Minister’s speech, she referred to than 300 metres and cannot be detected in advance by a letter that she claims to have sent to the members of the Environment Agency or others undertaking baseline the Committee. I have checked my file—everything was monitoring. sent electronically—and no such letter arrived in my office. I would be grateful if a copy of the letter could be made available to Members now. Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman raised that in Committee. We share his concern about safety and care for the community, but the Government believe that the Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): That is not Environment Agency is able to address that, and that a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman we can rely on it to do so. In my conversations with has clarified what he believes to be the position. The the agency, it has given us that assurance, and it is the Minister may or may not wish to comment. expertise that we have in particular in the UK that is so useful. Amber Rudd: The letter came from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): Will the Minister give the Member for South Holland and The Deepings way? (Mr Hayes), and with that information the hon. Gentleman may be able to find it. I am happy to send him another Amber Rudd: I wish to make some progress. copy. 593 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 594

The industry will need to show how it has complied On amendment 61, regarding compulsory purchase with the charter on an annual basis, and any failure to of properties in the event of blight, I would like to follow through will ultimately result in a loss of membership reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and and the benefits attached. In addition, operators will Malton (Miss McIntosh) that the regulatory regimes contribute a voluntary one-off payment of £20,000 for for planning, environmental permitting and health and the right to use deep-level land. Each year, operators safety already provide a very robust framework that will need to publish evidence detailing how these ensures residential amenity is properly protected from commitments are being met. The Department of Energy any unacceptable effects of development. The protection and Climate Change will regularly monitor this evidence. of amenity is recognised in the core planning principles Let me reassure the House that the proposals in the Bill of the national planning policy framework. In the unlikely will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations event that operations caused any damage, there are to set up a statutory payment mechanism, if not satisfied. various options available. The landowner may be able On new clause 19(j) and amendments 62, 63 and 64, to bring claims in tort, such as negligence and nuisance, notice and publicity requirements relating to the planning against any operator. I trust my explanation of this and environmental permitting processes are already in issue reassures hon. Members, and that they will withdraw place. We believe the system works well, but we recognise the related amendment. the concerns that have been raised by the new clause. On new clause 8, the Department for Environment, New clause 19(k) and amendment 60 are on the Food and Rural Affairs’ “Rural Economy Impacts” approval of substances to be left in the land. As part of document was a draft internal document, which was the application for environmental permits, the EA will not analytically robust; it was a literature review of require full disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic existing studies and was not exhaustive. Where policy fracturing and has the power to restrict or prohibit work is current, draft documents are usually kept within the use of any substances where they would pose an government, because they do not provide a complete environmental risk. Our regulations ensure that information and accurate picture of the overall material. This is a on chemical substances and their maximum concentrations highly sensitive and fast-moving policy area. Releasing is included within the environmental permit, along with information that is at the formative stage of being shared information on the total daily discharge of hydraulic between Government Departments risks substantially fracturing fluid into the ground and the fluid taken undermining our ability to deliver effective policy. off-site for disposal. The permit is placed on the public DEFRA retains an interest in the implications of register. shale gas development for rural communities, but the I have already announced that the Secretary of State Department of Energy and Climate Change leads on for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will direct the the economic aspects of shale gas policy. It is therefore Environment Agency to publish information about my view that DEFRA should not have produced a chemicals it requires operators to disclose. document of this kind. The redactions were made for those broader reasons, not on the basis of sensitivity of Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Will the Minister materials. In fact, in the interests of providing free indicate why she is not taking the opportunity to regulate access to the information on which the draft paper was and impose environmental requirements on other non- based, the Government have provided the full list of conventional gas extraction processes, such as underground references. Following Committee, I consulted with a coal gasification? range of colleagues. Releasing the unredacted draft paper would not help to inform the debate on developing Amber Rudd: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting the UK’s shale industry. I ask, therefore, that my hon. point. I hope he will find that it will be dealt with later Friend withdraws her amendment. on, but if it is not I will certainly write to him on that point. Caroline Lucas: What the Minister has said, essentially, New clause 19(m) relates to water companies. The is that DEFRA should not do research that might Government recognise the importance of ensuring that possibly become embarrassing if it become public. How water companies are engaged fully in shale gas development. on earth does she expect people to have any confidence The existing regulatory framework ensures issues relating in the Government’s policies on fracking if the Government to water are addressed robustly. The water industry and cannot even put the research in the public domain? shale operators have already agreed a memorandum of understanding to engage early, and share plans for Amber Rudd: I do not think the hon. Lady quite water demand and waste water management. The heard my comments. If somebody in another Department Government have considered this issue carefully and has prepared something, a junior member perhaps, and want to provide further reassurance to the public. Therefore, it was not appropriate for them to have done so, which we are consulting on whether to make water companies is a comment I have fairly made, I do not think it is statutory consultees in respect of these applications. appropriate for it to be released. It could mislead the Subject to the response to the consultation, which closes public. It is because I am so concerned about the public at the end of this month, we would seek to bring that we have taken this view. forward any necessary secondary legislation. New clause 19 has raised some very interesting and Miss McIntosh: I think my hon. Friend would wish to critical points in relation to reassuring the public. It is put a message out to rural communities today that we the Government’s view that we will accept new clause take their concerns very seriously indeed. We must be 19, but we plan to amend it in the other place to replace seen to listen, in the House this afternoon, to their provision (g) on depth, with a review to put back the concerns. It is unfortunate that the report will not be in depth at the appropriate level for proper development. the public domain. My hon. Friend answered one point 595 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 596

[Miss McIntosh] let me be clear: the risks to consumers are low. We still have significant levels of domestic gas production, pipelines on my amendment relating to blight. Will she also accept from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium, liquefied that in the event a house could not be sold, there may be natural gas terminals and 10 gas storage facilities. Indeed, an option for the fracking company to compulsory two new gas storage sites have opened for business in purchase that property? the last six months. This diversity of supply is how our gas needs are met. Amber Rudd: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely Under the Gas Act 1986, the Government and the right. The Government take very seriously the security, regulator have a duty to carry out their functions in a the safety and the right of good abode of everybody in way that protects the interests of existing and future gas the rural community, and we will keep that constantly consumers, including the security of supply. Ofgem also in our minds as we move forward. has the ability to launch a significant code review, if it suspects a problem in the gas market. I respect my hon. Several hon. Members rose— Friend’s experience on these matters and take his concerns seriously, and on that basis, I will commit to including Amber Rudd: I am concerned that I still need to cover information about gas storage capacity in our annual several amendments. If I may, I shall move swiftly on, statutory security of supply report to Parliament. I hope and I hope that hon. Members with particular concerns he will find that reassuring. will take the opportunity to speak later. New clause 9 and amendments 49 and 57 propose a Sir William Cash: On that point, will my hon. Friend moratorium on the exploitation of onshore unconventional give way? petroleum, subject to an impact assessment, and that the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle. Amber Rudd: I will not, I am afraid, as I need to I am surprised by these proposals. It is far more sensible finish. I am sure other Members would like to speak. to explore the potential of shale and assess the impacts On new clause 1, the Government welcome in principle along the way, while ensuring that development is regulated the sentiment behind the proposed amendment to the and risks managed. I hope I outlined my confidence in Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations that process earlier. On the amendment suggesting that 2010 to make explicit reference to hydraulic fracturing, the right of use be subject to the precautionary principle, and I would like to reassure hon. Members that the I reassure hon. Members that the right of use is limited Government will continue the work we have initiated to being no greater than access rights granted by landowners and introduce any appropriate changes to the regulations under the existing system. in due course. I therefore ask hon. Members not to Amendments, 51, 56 and 47 are not necessary. I have press the new clause. already outlined why the underground access provisions It is my firm belief that there is no need for new are required. Many other industries already access clause 19(e) or amendment 59, because the necessary underground land beneath peoples’ homes, in order to protections are already in place. Outside source protection lay cables and build infrastructure such as water pipes zone 1 areas, extraction activities will be permitted only and tunnels. I ask that hon. Members do not press these if they do not pose a significant risk to groundwater. amendments. In covering all the amendments and new clauses, I Caroline Lucas rose— hope I have reassured hon. Members of the care the Government are taking to develop the best shale gas Amber Rudd: I shall not take any more interventions, environment we can, for the benefit of the UK generally. as I must finish my comments. Amendments 50, 68, 69 and 73 touch on the recovery 4.45 pm of UK petroleum. Amendment 50 would delete clause 37, which puts into primary legislation a new duty to Tom Greatrex: I have to say at the outset that if maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas. The Members and those watching our proceedings were Government feel that oil and gas recovery makes an short of confidence in the Government on this issue important contribution to the national economy by before we started the debate, they will be even more supporting jobs and growth. In June 2013, we commissioned bereft of confidence after witnessing the last hour or so. Sir Ian Wood to review UK offshore oil and gas recovery What appears to have happened is that the Minister is and its regulation, and we have been making good seeking to amend an amendment on providing protection progress implementing the recommendations. for areas that has not been put in front us. She says that she—or, rather, her ministerial colleague—has sent a The amendments would also place a moratorium on letter that none of the members of the Committee has hydraulic fracking for shale gas to reduce the chance of received. I am looking round to see whether any Committee our carbon budgets being breached. As I indicated, UK members in their places today can confirm that they shale development is compatible with our goal to cut have received it. Finally, we appear to have received a greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from mixture of a commitment from the Minister: she said our support for renewables. I hope hon. Members will that she will accept new clause 19 but went on to say find this explanation reassuring and will not press their that she disagrees with elements of it. Let me make it amendments. absolutely clear that our new clause 19 is all or nothing; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden it cannot be cherry-picked. All the conditions need to (Charles Hendry) for tabling new clauses 10 and 11. It is be in place before we can be absolutely confident that critical for any Government to secure reliable gas supplies, any shale extraction can happen. It should be stopped and we keep our gas security under constant review, but until all those conditions are met. 597 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 598

Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con): The hon. your question and I am copying it to the Chair and Gentleman will be aware that I was not a member of the members of the Public Bill Committee.” There must Committee, but if it provides him with any reassurance, therefore be some misunderstanding on the part of the I did receive a letter late last week from the Minister of hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend Greatrex). I know he is a decent and honourable man, the Member for South Holland and The Deepings so I take it that the matter is now closed. (Mr Hayes), about the Infrastructure Bill. As it was a letter sent to all MPs, I assume that if Members looked Tom Greatrex: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, at their e-mails carefully, they would find they had given that I seem to have just been anointed his protégé. received it as well. That will have done me no good at all. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston Tom Greatrex: The right hon. Member for Chelmsford cannot find any evidence that he has received that (Mr Burns) will be well aware that the Minister to letter—[Interruption.] If he has not received the letter, whom he refers is a prodigious correspondent. We get it makes it very difficult for us to deal with these issues. plenty of letters from him, but this was about a very specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Let me return to the wider issue of what the Minister Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) that was said a moment ago now in relation to the protection of raised in the Committee and was relevant to his amendment. certain areas, which the hon. Member for Thirsk and I do not see any members of the Committee here and I Malton (Miss McIntosh), the right hon. Member for have checked my own in-box. If we have not received Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and this letter, how can we take the Minister at her word and others have raised in amendments. There seems to be a the Government at their word? suggestion that the exception in the Bill would be removed, but no indication of how that would be done, given that What we have seen so far this afternoon has been an the Bill has been through the House of Lords and we absolute shambles. The Government have not got a clue are now dealing with its final stages. what they are doing, leaving us in a difficult position. This Bill, and particularly this part of it, has attracted a huge amount of attention, and many Members of all Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): Does the parties wish to speak about it. It is not particularly hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Ellesmere party political, and many Members have concerns and Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) has not only wasted have tabled amendments, yet it is not clear what exactly 40 minutes of the House’s time, but has been dilatory in the Minister and the Government are saying. I feel reading his Bill Committee letters? sorry for the Under-Secretary who has spoken this afternoon, as she has been put in this position by her Tom Greatrex: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, ministerial colleagues. They are good at giving quotes who has himself tabled amendments to this part of the to The Sun about this issue, but they seem to shy away Bill, would be much more confident about the Minister’s from taking part in any of our discussions. approach if it had not just been suggested that a change would be made in relation to the protection of areas Joan Walley: The Minister said that she had commented when we do not have that information in front of us. on every single amendment put forward from all sides How can we have any confidence in such an approach, of the House, but does my hon. Friend agree that we given that we have less than 40 minutes in which to still do not know how even to raise in Parliament the consider a wide range of amendments? points the amendments make, let alone vote on them because we are not going to have the opportunity to Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): The hon. speak to the amendments that we have tabled? Gentleman is being very courteous in giving way, but may I appeal to him, on behalf of my constituents, to Tom Greatrex: I thank my hon. Friend, who makes try to leave these procedural matters behind and deal an important point. We are here to scrutinise this Bill, with the substantive issues about which they and other and we have reached this stage after our debate in Members’ constituents are concerned? Committee with a whole stream of amendments on a range of relevant issues. We asked for two days and we Tom Greatrex: The hon. Gentleman is usually a stickler have secured only one, and we are left with a very short for procedure. This is about scrutiny of the Bill, and we to try to deal with the issues. It is very difficult indeed need to have confidence in the way in which that scrutiny for the House collectively to make a judgment on them. takes place. I think that it ill behoves the House to That is an indication of a dereliction of duty on the part become involved in a situation such as the one that we of the Government in bringing this Bill before us this have experienced during the last few minutes. afternoon.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John John Mann: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is Hayes): I have no desire to embarrass the hon. also about potential applications that are due to be Gentleman—I regard him almost as a protégé, so I submitted in the next month—including one affecting would never want to do that. I have to tell him, however, Misson in my constituency—and that the clarification that the letter in question, which he claims not to have or otherwise of the point that has been raised may well received, was dated 20 January and was sent by me on be a fundamental issue for the planning authority and the specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere the general public when it comes to making decisions? Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). It was addressed, by the way, to “the right honourable Andrew Miller, MP” Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend has made an important and it says at the bottom: “I trust this is a response to point in a very cogent fashion. 599 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 600

[Tom Greatrex] Tom Greatrex: I am responding to an intervention. I have said I will not have time to give way again, as I Let me now deal with some of the new clauses and know other Members want to contribute to this debate. amendments. I am very conscious of the amount of As I said, those points are important. In terms of time that we have left, and I shall try to be exceptionally carbon budgets and meeting the carbon commitments, brief so that others can speak. I would just refer to the evidence the Environmental There are two facts that are fundamental to any Audit Committee got from the Committee on Climate debate about unconventional gas extraction in the United Change about the way in which that can be done if it is Kingdom. First, hydraulic fracturing cannot be permitted done appropriately. My hon. Friend the Member for to go ahead without robust regulation, comprehensive Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) will know that we monitoring and local consent. Secondly, it cannot take have a commitment to a 2030 decarbonisation target in place at the expense of our binding commitments on terms of electricity supply as well as maintaining carbon climate change. budgets. This is about how the gas we may produce fits As Members will know, 80% of our heating demand, within those budgets. I think that is something we can and many industrial processes, are reliant on gas. This do, provided that we have the right regulatory framework debate is not just about sources of electricity generation, and the right processes in place. although that is how it is sometimes portrayed. As the I do, however, have to say in respect of amendment 68 independent Committee on Climate Change has made that I have a concern particularly in relation to the clear, we shall need gas for some time to come. The issue removal of the maximising economic recovery clause. is how much gas we use, and whether that can displace That will have a serious impact in the North sea, which imports of gas in a way that does not breach our climate I know is of concern to many Members. commitments. That has consistently been our position, and I have been making the case on behalf of the Joan Walley rose— Opposition for nearly three years. In March 2012, I set out a range of regulatory Tom Greatrex: To be fair, I did say I was not going to principles that would need to be addressed before fracking give way again. I am conscious of time. could commence, at a time when it was suspended. The Government said they were sympathetic to our Since then we have pushed the Government on those new clause 1. We think it is very important to ensure specific points. For instance, as members of the Bill that there is clarity and coherence in how permitting Committee will know, we did so during the Committee happens and in the responsibility of the Environment stage. Given the number of new clauses and amendments Agency in this regard. The Minister touched on new that reflect concerns and include specific suggestions, clause 2 and we had some exchanges on it. It is clear such as those in new clause 19, those concerns are from the concessions that the Government made in widespread, they are not party political, and they are Committee that there will be no change to underground deeply held. It has always been, and continues to be, our access rights in Scotland without the approval of, position that the stewardship of these issues requires a and the decision being made by, Scottish Ministers. I Government’s approach to be careful, cautious and welcome that change, but I reiterate to the Minister that coherent. Such issues demand a responsible approach it is very important that the licences in Scotland under on the part of Government and regulators, not only for the 14th licensing round are not granted at a time when the sake of regulatory coherence, but to meet the higher we are effectively devolving the licensing process for public acceptability test and the legitimate environmental onshore as well. I think she should reflect on that. concerns that many people feel. The Minister went through the subsections of our Joan Walley: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to new clause 19 in detail. That new clause incorporates read the report that was published today by the many amendments tabled by other Members from all Environmental Audit Committee? It examines the whole parts of the House. She seemed to suggest that she issue of the regulatory regime and how it can be made would accept that amendment but that she still disagreed compatible with the carbon budget. Will my hon. Friend with parts of it. I am afraid that is not good enough say a little more about how we could press the pause because the entirety of that amendment needs to be button, and ensure that the safeguards that he wants agreed this afternoon, as it makes it absolutely clear could be introduced? that there will be no shale gas exploration or extraction until those conditions are in place. It is not a pick list Tom Greatrex: I thank my hon. Friend for her from which she can decide which ones she likes and intervention. I did indeed have a chance to read her which she does not. It is intended to ensure that it is Committee’s report of this morning, and she explained absolutely clear in legislation that those protections are how that was a rapidly produced but important piece of in place. If this is, indeed, the Government’s case now, it work which touched on the many issues I have raised proves that all the contributions from the Minister and concerns about. In the summary of the report, her others saying that they thought the regulatory process Committee highlighted a number of issues in terms of was coherent, correct and comprehensive during the methane emissions and monitoring and nationally course of the Committee and in discussions leading up important areas and water protection zones which are to it have been demonstrated this afternoon to be addressed in new clause 19, and I think her Committee entirely false. That underlines the importance of our has done the House a service in bringing those points taking a responsible attitude to these issues and making forward. sure that they are properly covered. As I have said, that has been reflected by many others who have tabled Caroline Lucas: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman amendments to this Bill, including Members of the give way? Minister’s party. 601 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 602

A number of other amendments have been tabled by Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): other Members, and I must say that I am disappointed We will be pushing new clause 9 to a vote this evening to in the response of the Energy Minister, the right hon. ensure that we have a proper moratorium on fracking. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), to the Will the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative party DEFRA report. It is so redacted that it seems that it colleagues support us? was written by someone called “Redacted”. It does not meet the concerns of the Chair of the relevant Committee, Mr Yeo: No, I will not support that. A moratorium and the Minister’s total contribution to this debate so would not serve Britain’s national interests. far has been to suggest from a sedentary position that Far from attacking the Government for rushing on what I say is not so. However, I have the report in front this issue, our concern is that they have been going of me—“Shale gas rural economy impacts”by “Redacted”. rather slowly.We could speed up the process of encouraging That is how ridiculously redacted this report has become fracking, so that we can establish whether it is indeed a and it highlights why we have so little confidence in the valuable natural resource whose exploitation would be Government, because they seek not to publish it and generally for the benefit of consumers and the environment. not to enable Members of this House to look at the cumulative impacts. Miss McIntosh: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has tabled arguably safer to take a cautious approach before proceeding a number of amendments on that issue, mandatory with any fracking licences? EIAs and other matters, all of which we agree with. We also agree with the amendments on water companies, Mr Yeo: We should proceed as fast as possible, consistent and those providing a statutory footing for community with environmental safeguards, which the Government benefit, tabled by the right hon. Member for Arundel recognise to be essential. and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and others. The Let me deal with this rather curious idea that allowing Minister should properly consider those amendments. fracking somehow increases greenhouse gas emissions. 5pm It does nothing of the sort. It is common ground This is a controversial subject in which there is much between supporters and opponents of fracking that the interest outside and inside this Chamber. It is one UK will use a lot of gas in the next 15 to 20 years. Since aspect of a Bill that contains many measures, some of 2000, we have become extremely dependent on imported which are supported and others not. It is absolutely the gas. By the mid-2020s, perhaps three quarters of our role of Government to address those concerns and to gas will come from abroad, and we will be competing in take on board the issues we have already heard about the Qatar LNG market, for example, with the likes of today and will continue to hear about for the next half China and other Asian giants. So, allowing fracking will an hour—not just from one party but from probably enable us to replace imports with domestic supplies, every party represented here. which will improve energy security—a very important aim of energy policy. Further, it will actually reduce The focus for the House and for the Government this greenhouse gas emissions because, as David MacKay afternoon is to listen to Parliament, to respond to the reported in September 2013, the net greenhouse gas concerns and reflect on them, and to ensure that no emissions from LNG are higher than those from shale fracking takes place until the wider confidence that is gas. needed is applied in the regulatory framework—not partially, not with exceptions, not for some but not Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): My hon. Friend is others, but in full, completely and comprehensively. For talking about the extent to which we are increasingly those reasons, I implore the Government to accept new dependent on imports. By 2030, probably 75% of our clause 19 in full, and not to cherry-pick its subsections. gas will be from imports. Does that not make the case If they fail to do so, we will divide the House on new for our doing more now on gas storage, as set out in new clause 19 and other of our amendments. clauses 10 and 11? It takes more than five years to build Mr Yeo: I draw attention to my entry in the Register such facilities, and our vulnerability is increasing all of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular to the time. my interests in the energy industry. I want to contribute briefly on the subject of shale Mr Yeo: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I was very gas and fracking, on which my Committee has reported tempted to sign his new clauses on that point. Improving twice, in 2011 and 2013. Those were two detailed reports gas storage would not only greatly improve our energy involving seven oral evidence sessions, two with Ministers, security, but make it possible for some of the low-carbon, and visits to Lancashire to look at what Cuadrilla was intermittent generating technologies, such as wind and doing, and to Texas to see an established shale gas solar, to be used much more widely. industry’s operations. Our conclusions, which were based There is no reason to suppose that decreasing our on a very careful analysis of the evidence, were totally reliance on imports will lead to an increase in gas different from those of the Environmental Audit Committee, consumption. Consumers will not suddenly think, “Oh, whose consideration of the matter appears to have been as we’re not importing gas, we’ll turn the heating up.” It rather briefer. We concluded that fracking is a safe is a completely mistaken notion to think that allowing technology from which Britain could benefit substantially fracking has such malign consequences. by exploiting our shale gas reserves, if indeed those In any event, emissions in this country are now reserves turn out to be significant—something we cannot subject to the carbon budgeting process. It is greatly to know without doing a great deal more drilling. the coalition’s credit that it has confirmed the fourth Far from attacking the Government for rushing on carbon budget. Achieving that rigorous set of targets this issue— will absolutely put us on the path to meet the EU target 603 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 604

[Mr Yeo] Mr Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am glad to have the opportunity to say how of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by welcome he is as a resident in my constituency, where he 2030. That will be the case whether or not fracking has recently purchased a house. I assure him that any occurs in this country. evidence of subsidence in his property will receive my My Committee looked very carefully at the environmental close personal attention. and safety concerns. We are satisfied that with the right That brings me to the subject of earth tremors. When robust and rigorous regulatory framework, fracking they were experienced in Lancashire, Cuadrilla acted presents no danger to the integrity of the water supply, very responsibly by immediately halting its activities the health of local residents or the environment generally. while it investigated them. The investigation showed not The mistakes made by the fracking industry in the US only that the tremors were so light they could not be felt in its early stages can easily be avoided in this country. on the surface, but that they were at a level routinely experienced across the UK every week. The vast majority Dr Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept of such tremors are caused, as my hon. Friend said, by that, according to all the projections produced by the old coal mine works. Department of Energy and Climate Change, the amount On the positive side, in addition to the improvements of gas used between 2020 to 2030 will be substantially in energy security there will be a significant improvement less than at present—not none, but substantially less—and in our balance of payments—not that many people that the likely net effect of recovering gas by fracking is seem to worry about the trade balance any more. If, as that it will be for export, not the domestic market? we hope, UK reserves turn out to be substantial, there will be significant employment opportunities as well. Mr Yeo: I do not entirely agree. The fall in gas Equally importantly, there is now a real chance for the consumption in the UK will not take it below the level UK to lead Europe on the issue. If we press ahead now, at which we require imports. Even if gas consumption others will follow but we will have an enormous first goes down, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we will mover advantage. It could be UK regulations that set probably still import gas. For the reason I have just the standard right across the EU and UK businesses mentioned, if that gas is LNG, using our domestic that dominate the supply chain. supplies of shale gas would be beneficial in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I urge the Government to ignore today the siren voices calling for delay; to look objectively at the facts, I note that the environment, health and safety concerns which have been analysed by many learned institutions highlighted by the Environmental Audit Committee are as well as by my Committee and other bodies; and to not shared by the Environment Agency. I also note that recognise the huge potential benefits of fracking, without Lancashire county council’s objections relate not to exaggerating their impact, as I am afraid some of our such concerns, but to noise and traffic movements. less well informed supporters have done. Let us oppose Those understandable issues arise in all sorts of planning amendments that would obstruct the development of a applications, many of which have nothing to do with potentially valuable natural resource. the energy industry.

Andrew Miller: It is worth pointing out that the hon. Joan Walley: I am conscious of the fact that we have Gentleman’s arguments about safety are supported by about 20 minutes left for the debate, and that there are the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society, about 60 amendments on the amendment paper. It will the Geological Society and the British Geological Society. be impossible for the House to do justice to the concerns of people across the UK about how the Government Mr Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that are going all-out on fracking. extremely pertinent point. I will respond to the points that the esteemed Chairman We have probably all received a great many e-mails of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the on the trespass issue. It is worth pointing out that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), made. His coal industry has enjoyed such a right for generations, Committee did produce reports on fracking, but the and there seems to be no reason why it should not be concerns that the Environmental Audit Committee received extended to the gas industry. related to the haste with which the Government are taking fracking forward and the fact that we have Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? started out with a regulatory regime that has not been thought through from every different perspective. We have the Health and Safety Executive, local planning Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Will my hon. inspectors, the Department for Communities and Local Friend give way? Government and the Environment Agency, and we have petroleum exploration and development licences, which Mr Yeo: I should now make progress, because other the Department for Energy and Climate Change issues, colleagues wish to speak, but I give way to my hon. but we do not have an overarching, integrated way of Friend. dealing with applications. From the evidence that my Committee received, we felt that the matter should be Sir Gerald Howarth: I am concerned about the potential looked at from every single perspective. We need an impact of subsidence from fracking. I represented Cannock overall strategic assessment, not individual case-by-case and Burntwood for nine years, and I saw the effects of assessment of each application. Until that is sorted out, subsidence from coal mining. The coal industry did not it is difficult to see how the system will be right for the require planning permission to undermine people’s homes. country’s energy security and supply. 605 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 606

John Mann: An application was made last year in controversial as this issue and this Bill, the current Lound, in Bassetlaw, a former munitions site. The county approach makes no sense. There has been consultation council, as planning authority, the Environment Agency and people have been saying that they do not want these and the Health and Safety Executive were all unclear proposals coming forward in this way. It is a toxic recipe about who should have responsibility for knowing the for the Government to be— state of play with potential contamination, and the application simply bounced around between them. Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has Joan Walley: That is exactly the point—no one knows referred to the potential for further amendments to be who has overall responsibility. The Environment Agency introduced. I know we have had an iterative process appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee here this afternoon, to put it mildly, but even I did not to give evidence, but it was unable to take overall think there would be scope for the Government to responsibility. Somebody has to, otherwise we will be introduce further amendments in this House. Will you dealing with liabilities long into the future. rule on this issue and clarify whether the Minister is I know that our time is brief, but I wish to raise the making a statement correctly or incorrectly. issue of whether there could be a moratorium. People out in the country see that we currently have exploration Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Let me help for shale gas going on, but not full-scale industrialised by saying that it would be possible for the Lords to look extraction. When that is in place, 10 or 15 years down at that and do something about the Bill at that stage. the line, the issues will not have been properly thought through. Why do we not sort all of that out now? Why do we not have a regulatory regime that is fit for Joan Walley: I am interested in that point of order purpose both for exploration and for the larger-scale because it sets out for us the situation we are in: we are extraction that will happen later? going to be voting today in this House on something that is not before us, in the hope that the concerns that Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/ we do not have time to raise can then be addressed by Co-op): My hon. Friend is right that we should be amendments in the other place. That is just not the right discussing that—actually, now is not when we should way to make good legislation. be discussing it, because it is an outrage that we have I am conscious that so many Members wish to speak, 20 minutes or so left for speeches on a matter that could so let me just say that there should be a moratorium, have been discussed at much greater length before. We that the Government have overlooked the needs of all know that half the time in Parliament we are not people all over the country and that without that public debating Bills and there are no votes, so more time support this policy and this haste—going all out for could have been made available to discuss fracking at a fracking—is just a failed policy. much earlier stage, and the Government could and should have made more time available now. Dr Huppert: I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Joan Walley: I agree with my hon. Friend about Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for having more time. People in this country will not forgive Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), and I pay tribute us for not having the time necessary to scrutinise this to her for her work on this issue and her call for the Bill in detail. We could well end up with a fossil fuel moratorium, with which I agree. We have the problem industry in 15 years’ time, precisely when we should be of using too many fossil fuels; despite knowing the phasing out fossil fuels. That is what we have signed up harm that climate change is causing and is going to to in international agreements, but we could well end continue to cause, we still see a thirst to have more and up with an industry that has not been properly regulated more of them. The solution has to look different. because of these failures on overall strategic assessments. Perhaps in the future it will be nuclear fusion—who knows? We are 25 years away from that, as we have been for about 50 years. We have to reach a situation 5.15 pm where we have renewables and other low-carbon energy Mark Menzies: I endorse the comments the hon. sources, and energy efficiency, so that we use less Lady is making. I am now on to dealing with my fourth energy, be it for heating, transport or anything else. and fifth shale gas applications in my constituency. On Second Reading I made it clear to the Government that Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con) rose— I wanted to see an overarching body that looked at end-to-end regulation—from start to finish—just as she Dr Huppert: I will give way only the once. is envisaging. The Government are still not out of time—they can still relinquish on that. Mrs Main: Does the hon. Gentleman share my Joan Walley: As we heard from the Minister just now, concern that there is no obligation to make sure that there may well be time for further amendments, because renewables are considered as part of large major clearly we have not got the amendments that we need to infrastructure projects? be looking at right now. When those further amendments are introduced, it is imperative that the Government Dr Huppert: Indeed; we should be seeing a quest for examine that long-term issue, making sure, for example, more renewables. One of my concerns about the dash that whatever a local planning authority is going to rule for fracking and for gas is that it can be seen as a on it is not going to be overturned by the Secretary of substitute for a dash for renewables and other low-carbon State. That is the real danger we face. On something as technologies, which is where we have to get to. That is 607 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 608

[Dr Huppert] and 51, which I also feel strongly about, the Opposition made it clear that they do not support them. We will see what worries me about all this. When we know from what happens if we have the opportunity to test the will study after study of the huge amounts of fossil fuels of the House on those as well. that we have to leave in the earth because we simply cannot afford the harm that would come from burning Andrew Miller: I rise to speak in support of amendment them, why go to a mass effort to legislate to say that we 117, which is in my name. In Committee, I brought to have to take as much as possible out of the ground? Members’ attention the Government’s own science and That is not the right way to go. Carbon emissions, be innovation strategy, which talks very clearly about openness. they carbon dioxide or methane, are the biggest problems It says: with shale gas and fracking. “Technology allows openness and public scrutiny of research It is very interesting to look at the scientific evidence that was not possible until now –going far beyond the ability to on the comparison with liquefied natural gas. A comment share a published paper through open access; the data and the was made about my constituent Dave Mackay and the information behind the paper can be made available to all.” range of carbon emissions. What he found was that the That substantive document, which was produced by the range of carbon emissions from shale gas overlaps with Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation that from liquefied natural gas. There is no guarantee and Skills, sets out the case for openness. There are two that we will see a reduction as a result. areas of this debate where openness has not occurred. The first relates to the redacted documents from the Several hon. Members rose— Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is hardly consistent with the Government’s stated Dr Huppert: I will not give way, because many Members position. The second relates to the point made in wish to speak. amendment 117, which is that baseline monitoring data should be published Other concerns have been mentioned. I am talking about not the extreme claims that do not stack up but “in a form that enables it to be subject to scientific peer review.” the real issues around this matter such as water usage. It can be done. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the Amber Rudd: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that we take this matter seriously. We will introduce a (Mr Hayes) referred to a letter—I thank him for giving further amendment in the Lords to place a duty on the me a copy of it because I had not seen it—but it does Secretary of State to consider in every carbon budget not address the substantive point of the amendment, period advice from the Committee on Climate Change which is that data should be published in a form that as to the impact of UK shale development on the UK’s enables them to be available for scientific peer review. I overall climate change objectives. If the Committee on am not talking about any old published charts and Climate Change advises that shale development adversely data. The data should be published in a way that the impacts on climate change objectives, the Secretary of scientific community can use. There are established State must either choose to deactivate the right of use standards that are well understood by the Departments provisions or to make a written statement to Parliament of the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for explaining the reasons. Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I also ask the Minister Dr Huppert: I thank the Minister for that welcome to consider that matter with some care as the Bill news. I was going to talk about water usage, but I progresses through the Lords. will turn to that matter instead. The Minister’s words effectively bring us closer to proposed new clause 4 and Mr Hayes: Let me give the hon. Gentleman that amendment 44, which were tabled by me and a number assurance. If the letter was not clear that is my fault, not of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. They propose that his. I am absolutely clear that the information must be we should not allow fracking if it leads to an increase in made available in an appropriate and proper form and carbon emissions. in the way that he describes. I thank the Government for new clause 15, which takes us halfway there, and this other amendment, Andrew Miller: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, which takes us even further. We will know, as a result of and ask him to clarify that matter in the Bill. this change, whether there are higher carbon emissions. The change does not go quite as far as banning fracking, Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to but it is, none the less, a welcome step. I will not now be speak to the amendments standing in my name, which pressing new clause 4 and amendment 44 to a Division. were tabled in a personal capacity as the constituency I still feel strongly about new clause 6, but we are MP for Kirby Misperton, where Third Energy proposes waiting to get clarity from the Department about exactly to apply for a licence in six weeks. At a public meeting which areas are excluded. I hope that we will get that attended by residents of the three villages affected, clarity later. New clause 9, on a moratorium on onshore Third Energy admitted that there is a minuscule risk of unconventional petroleum, was tabled by the hon. Member contamination of groundwater. I therefore urge my for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who asked me right hon. and hon. Friends to look extremely carefully to speak in support of it as she is unable to be here at the contents of amendment 59. today. I believe that we should have that moratorium, My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the amount and so am happy to support that new clause. I would love of monitoring that would be done three months before to hear what the position of the official Opposition is a licence application for drilling can be started. Is she on it as they were not prepared to say. On amendments 50 aware of the worrying fact that at least one insurance 609 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 610 company has stated in writing that it will not insure for I am also concerned about the cumulation of fracking public liability any landowner who allows the oil and over a period. I tabled a new clause which addresses gas industry or fracking companies on to their land? that. If we have substantial and extensive fracking to That raises the question whether during the monitoring the extent that is envisaged in the Government’s rush for stage and, in the long term, during the fracking stage, fracking, we may well find that we have 18,000 or home owners will be able to obtain insurance. 20,000 wells across the country, perhaps more than half Another point raised is about emissions after the of those in two particular parts of the country, with fracking operation has finished. Third Energy seems to virtually no environmental safeguards on the cumulation think that the land will revert to the landowner at of those arrangements, even if there are some environmental completion of the fracking operations, but I believe that safeguards on individual fracking enterprises as they go that is a misunderstanding. I shall be grateful if the forward. It is essential that should there be any cumulation Minister clarifies that matter. of fracking, those safeguards are in place. New clause 19 provides protection both in the individual exploration I am delighted that my hon. Friend says that phase and in the production phase. I would like to see— compensation for blight may indeed be possible, as proposed in my amendment 61. 5.30 pm Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day). Caroline Lucas: I am sorry that there is such a lack of time to make a serious response to the amendments still The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already outstanding for debate this afternoon. proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time. I wish we could press amendment 51 to a vote, because that amendment would stop the Government’s Question agreed to. proposed change to trespass laws. Some 360,000 people New clause 15 accordingly read a Second time, and signed a petition opposing that change and 99% of added to the Bill. those who responded to the Government consultation The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions opposed it as well. To see the Government just flinging necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded that back in people’s faces, simply not listening to at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). the consultation, raises big questions about what the consultation is for and undermines the credibility of the New Clause 1 process, as does the ongoing secrecy about the DEFRA report. I am not reassured by what the Minister said HYDRAULIC FRACTURING about it. ‘(1) The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, Schedule 1, Part 2, Chapter 1, is amended as Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Will the follows: hon. Lady give way? (2) After Section 1.2 insert— “SECTION 1.3 Caroline Lucas: No—I am sorry, but I am short of HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ACTIVITIES time. Part A(1) Labour’s new clause 19 does not offer the kind of (a) carrying out exploration or assessments prior to protection it pretends to offer. It certainly does not offer hydraulic fracturing; any kind of moratorium, and it will be interesting to see (b) drilling wells for use in hydraulic fracturing; whether Labour support a moratorium. That is what (c) process of hydraulic fracturing; people are asking for, hence the importance of new (d) decommissioning and long-term maintenance of clause 9. hydraulic fracturing wells.””—(Tom Greatrex.) In summary, the big point is that it is simply not Brought up. compatible with our climate change objectives to be Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. exploring for yet more fossil fuels and to start a whole The House divided: new fossil fuel industry as fracking does. By the time Ayes 224, Noes 320. fracking comes on stream in 10 or 15 years, it simply Division No. 137] [5.30 pm will not be possible to be compatible with our CO2 AYES objectives. For those reasons, we must have a vote on new clause 9. Abbott, Ms Diane Betts, Mr Clive Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Blackman-Woods, Roberta Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Blears, rh Hazel Mrs Main: I welcome new clause 7 and the Minister’s Alexander, Heidi Blomfield, Paul comments on new clause 19(a), (e) and (m). I have chalk Ali, Rushanara Blunkett, rh Mr David streams in my constituency; they are a valuable water Allen, Mr Graham Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben resource. The public need reassurance about contamination Anderson, Mr David Brown, Lyn or pollution of such special sites, as they are rare Ashworth, Jonathan Brown, rh Mr Nicholas resources in our country. Austin, Ian Bryant, Chris Bailey, Mr Adrian Buck, Ms Karen Dr Whitehead: I rise to voice my support for new Bain, Mr William Burden, Richard clause 19, which I believe provides a substantial series Balls, rh Ed Byrne, rh Mr Liam of baseline starting points for any fracking to take Banks, Gordon Campbell, rh Mr Alan place. If those baselines are not in place, no fracking Barron, rh Kevin Campbell, Mr Ronnie takes place. That is my understanding of the new clause Beckett, rh Margaret Caton, Martin and it seems to me to provide very substantial protection Benn, rh Hilary Chapman, Jenny indeed. Berger, Luciana Clark, Katy 611 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 612

Clarke, rh Mr Tom Hoey, Kate Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Tami, Mark Coaker, Vernon Hopkins, Kelvin Reed, Mr Steve Thomas, Mr Gareth Coffey, Ann Howarth, rh Mr George Reeves, Rachel Thornberry, Emily Cooper, Rosie Hunt, Tristram Reynolds, Emma Timms, rh Stephen Cooper, rh Yvette Irranca-Davies, Huw Reynolds, Jonathan Trickett, Jon Corbyn, Jeremy Jackson, Glenda Ritchie, Ms Margaret Turner, Karl Creagh, Mary James, Mrs Siân C. Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Twigg, Derek Creasy, Stella Jamieson, Cathy Rotheram, Steve Twigg, Stephen Cruddas, Jon Jarvis, Dan Roy, Mr Frank Umunna, Mr Chuka Cryer, John Johnson, rh Alan Ruane, Chris Vaz, rh Keith Cunningham, Alex Johnson, Diana Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Vaz, Valerie Cunningham, Mr Jim Jones, Graham Sarwar, Anas Walley, Joan Cunningham, Sir Tony Jones, Helen Sawford, Andy Watson, Mr Tom Curran, Margaret Jones, Mr Kevan Seabeck, Alison Watts, Mr Dave Dakin, Nic Jones, Susan Elan Sharma, Mr Virendra Whitehead, Dr Alan Danczuk, Simon Jowell, rh Dame Tessa Sheerman, Mr Barry Williamson, Chris Darling, rh Mr Alistair Kane, Mike Shuker, Gavin Winnick, Mr David David, Wayne Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Skinner, Mr Dennis Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Davidson, Mr Ian Keeley, Barbara Slaughter, Mr Andy Wood, Mike De Piero, Gloria Khan, rh Sadiq Smith, Nick Woodcock, John Denham, rh Mr John Lammy, rh Mr David Smith, Owen Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Dobson, rh Frank Lavery, Ian Spellar, rh Mr John Wright, Mr Iain Docherty, Thomas Lazarowicz, Mark Straw, rh Mr Jack Tellers for the Ayes: Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Leech, Mr John Stringer, Graham Phil Wilson and Doran, Mr Frank Leslie, Chris Stuart, Ms Gisela Tom Blenkinsop Doughty, Stephen Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Dowd, Jim Lewis, Mr Ivan Doyle, Gemma Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn NOES Dromey, Jack Long, Naomi Adams, Nigel Burrowes, Mr David Dugher, Michael Love, Mr Andrew Afriyie, Adam Burstow, rh Paul Durkan, Mark Lucas, Caroline Aldous, Peter Burt, rh Alistair Eagle, Ms Angela Lucas, Ian Alexander, rh Danny Burt, Lorely Eagle, Maria Mactaggart, Fiona Amess, Sir David Byles, Dan Edwards, Jonathan Mahmood, Mr Khalid Andrew, Stuart Cable, rh Vince Efford, Clive Mahmood, Shabana Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Elliott, Julie Malhotra, Seema Bacon, Mr Richard Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Ellman, Mrs Louise Mann, John Baker, rh Norman Carmichael, Neil Engel, Natascha Marsden, Mr Gordon Baker, Steve Cash, Sir William Esterson, Bill McCabe, Steve Baldry, rh Sir Tony Chishti, Rehman Evans, Chris McCarthy, Kerry Baldwin, Harriett Clark, rh Greg Field, rh Mr Frank McClymont, Gregg Barclay, Stephen Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Fitzpatrick, Jim McDonagh, Siobhain Barker, rh Gregory Clegg, rh Mr Nick Flello, Robert McDonald, Andy Baron, Mr John Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Flint, rh Caroline McDonnell, John Barron, rh Kevin Coffey, Dr Thérèse Flynn, Paul McFadden, rh Mr Pat Bebb, Guto Collins, Damian Fovargue, Yvonne McGovern, Alison Beith, rh Sir Alan Colvile, Oliver Francis, Dr Hywel McGuire, rh Dame Anne Bellingham, Mr Henry Cox, Mr Geoffrey Galloway, George McInnes, Liz Benyon, Richard Crabb, rh Stephen Gapes, Mike McKechin, Ann Beresford, Sir Paul Crockart, Mike Gardiner, Barry McKenzie, Mr Iain Bingham, Andrew Crouch, Tracey Gilmore, Sheila Mearns, Ian Binley, Mr Brian Davey, rh Mr Edward Glass, Pat Miller, Andrew Blackman, Bob Davies, David T. C. Glindon, Mrs Mary Mitchell, Austin Blackwood, Nicola (Monmouth) Godsiff, Mr Roger Moon, Mrs Madeleine Blunt, Crispin Davies, Glyn Goodman, Helen Morden, Jessica Boles, Nick Davies, Philip Greatrex, Tom Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Bone, Mr Peter Davis, rh Mr David Green, Kate Morris, Grahame M. Bottomley, Sir Peter de Bois, Nick Greenwood, Lilian (Easington) Bradley, Karen Dinenage, Caroline Griffith, Nia Munn, Meg Brady, Mr Graham Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Gwynne, Andrew Murphy, rh Paul Bray, Angie Dorries, Nadine Hain, rh Mr Peter Murray, Ian Brazier, Mr Julian Doyle-Price, Jackie Hamilton, Mr David Nandy, Lisa Bridgen, Andrew Drax, Richard Hanson, rh Mr David Nash, Pamela Brine, Steve Duncan, rh Sir Alan Harman, rh Ms Harriet O’Donnell, Fiona Brokenshire, James Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Harris, Mr Tom Onwurah, Chi Brooke, rh Annette Dunne, Mr Philip Havard, Mr Dai Osborne, Sandra Browne, Mr Jeremy Ellis, Michael Healey, rh John Owen, Albert Bruce, Fiona Ellison, Jane Heyes, David Pearce, Teresa Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Ellwood, Mr Tobias Hillier, Meg Perkins, Toby Buckland, Mr Robert Elphicke, Charlie Hilling, Julie Pound, Stephen Burley, Mr Aidan Evans, Graham Hodge, rh Margaret Powell, Lucy Burns, Conor Evans, Jonathan Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Qureshi, Yasmin Burns, rh Mr Simon Evans, Mr Nigel 613 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 614

Evennett, Mr David Kawczynski, Daniel Pincher, Christopher Swinson, Jo Fabricant, Michael Kelly, Chris Poulter, Dr Daniel Swire, rh Mr Hugo Fallon, rh Michael Kirby, Simon Prisk, Mr Mark Syms, Mr Robert Featherstone, rh Lynne Knight, rh Sir Greg Pritchard, Mark Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Field, Mark Kwarteng, Kwasi Raab, Mr Dominic Teather, Sarah Foster, rh Mr Don Lamb, rh Norman Randall, rh Sir John Thurso, rh John Fox,rhDrLiam Lancaster, Mark Reckless, Mark Timpson, Mr Edward Francois, rh Mr Mark Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Redwood, rh Mr John Tomlinson, Justin Freeman, George Latham, Pauline Rees-Mogg, Jacob Tredinnick, David Freer, Mike Laws, rh Mr David Reid, Mr Alan Truss, rh Elizabeth Fullbrook, Lorraine Leadsom, Andrea Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Turner, Mr Andrew Fuller, Richard Lee, Jessica Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Tyrie, Mr Andrew Garnier, Sir Edward Lee, Dr Phillip Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Uppal, Paul Garnier, Mark Lefroy, Jeremy Robertson, Mr Laurence Vaizey, Mr Edward Gauke, Mr David Leigh, Sir Edward Rogerson, Dan Vara, Mr Shailesh Gibb, Mr Nick Leslie, Charlotte Rosindell, Andrew Vickers, Martin Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Rudd, Amber Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Glen, John Lewis, Brandon Rutley, David Walker, Mr Charles Goodwill, Mr Robert Lewis, Dr Julian Sanders, Mr Adrian Walker, Mr Robin Gove, rh Michael Lidington, rh Mr David Sandys, Laura Wallace, Mr Ben Graham, Richard Lilley, rh Mr Peter Scott, Mr Lee Watkinson, Dame Angela Grant, Mrs Helen Lloyd, Stephen Selous, Andrew Weatherley, Mike Gray, Mr James Lopresti, Jack Shapps, rh Grant Webb, rh Steve Grayling, rh Chris Lord, Jonathan Sharma, Alok Wharton, James Green, rh Damian Loughton, Tim Shelbrooke, Alec Greening, rh Justine Luff, Sir Peter Shepherd, Sir Richard Wheeler, Heather Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Lumley, Karen Simmonds, rh Mark White, Chris Griffiths, Andrew Macleod, Mary Simpson, Mr Keith Whittaker, Craig Gummer, Ben Main, Mrs Anne Skidmore, Chris Whittingdale, Mr John Gyimah, Mr Sam Maude, rh Mr Francis Smith, Chloe Wiggin, Bill Hague, rh Mr William May, rh Mrs Theresa Smith, Henry Willetts, rh Mr David Halfon, Robert Maynard, Paul Smith, Julian Williams, Mr Mark Hammond, rh Mr Philip McCartney, Jason Smith, Sir Robert Williams, Roger Hammond, Stephen McCartney, Karl Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Williams, Stephen Hancock, rh Matthew McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Soubry, Anna Williamson, Gavin Hands, rh Greg McPartland, Stephen Spencer, Mr Mark Willott, rh Jenny Harper, Mr Mark McVey, rh Esther Stanley, rh Sir John Wilson, Mr Rob Harrington, Richard Menzies, Mark Stephenson, Andrew Wilson, Sammy Harris, Rebecca Metcalfe, Stephen Stewart, Iain Wright, rh Jeremy Hart, Simon Miller, rh Maria Stewart, Rory Wright, Simon Harvey, Sir Nick Mills, Nigel Streeter, Mr Gary Yeo, Mr Tim Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Milton, Anne Stride, Mel Young, rh Sir George Hayes, rh Mr John Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Stuart, Mr Graham Zahawi, Nadhim Heald, Sir Oliver Moore, rh Michael Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Heath, Mr David Mordaunt, Penny Sturdy, Julian Tellers for the Noes: Heaton-Harris, Chris Morgan, rh Nicky Swales, Ian Alun Cairns and Hemming, John Morris, Anne Marie Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Tom Brake Henderson, Gordon Morris, David Hendry, Charles Morris, James Question accordingly negatived. Herbert, rh Nick Mosley, Stephen Hinds, Damian Mowat, David Hoban, Mr Mark Murray, Sheryll New Clause 2 Hollingbery, George Murrison, Dr Andrew Hollobone, Mr Philip Neill, Robert SHALE GAS EXTRACTION: DEVOLUTION Holloway, Mr Adam Newmark, Mr Brooks ‘(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows: Hopkins, Kris Newton, Sarah (2) In Schedule 5, Part II, section D2, after “gas other than Horwood, Martin Nokes, Caroline through pipes,”, insert— Howarth, Sir Gerald Nuttall, Mr David “( ) The licensing of onshore shale gas extraction underlying Howell, John O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Scotland. Hughes, rh Simon Offord, Dr Matthew Hunter, Mark Opperman, Guy ( ) Responsibility for mineral access rights for onshore extraction of shale gas in Scotland.”’—(Tom Greatrex.) Hurd, Mr Nick Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Jackson, Mr Stewart Paice, rh Sir James Brought up. James, Margot Parish, Neil Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. Javid, rh Sajid Patel, Priti The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 324. Jenkin, Mr Bernard Paterson, rh Mr Owen Division No. 138] [5.45 pm Jenrick, Robert Pawsey, Mark Johnson, Gareth Penning, rh Mike AYES Johnson, Joseph Penrose, John Abbott, Ms Diane Alexander, Heidi Jones, Andrew Percy, Andrew Jones, rh Mr David Perry, Claire Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob Ali, Rushanara Jones, Mr Marcus Phillips, Stephen Alexander, rh Mr Douglas Allen, Mr Graham 615 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 616

Anderson, Mr David Flint, rh Caroline McDonagh, Siobhain Sarwar, Anas Ashworth, Jonathan Flynn, Paul McDonald, Andy Sawford, Andy Austin, Ian Fovargue, Yvonne McDonnell, John Seabeck, Alison Bailey, Mr Adrian Francis, Dr Hywel McFadden, rh Mr Pat Sharma, Mr Virendra Bain, Mr William Galloway, George McGovern, Alison Sheerman, Mr Barry Balls, rh Ed Gapes, Mike McGuire, rh Dame Anne Shuker, Gavin Banks, Gordon Gardiner, Barry McInnes, Liz Skinner, Mr Dennis Barron, rh Kevin Gilmore, Sheila McKechin, Ann Slaughter, Mr Andy Beckett, rh Margaret Glass, Pat McKenzie, Mr Iain Smith, Nick Begg, Dame Anne Glindon, Mrs Mary Mearns, Ian Smith, Owen Benn, rh Hilary Godsiff, Mr Roger Miller, Andrew Spellar, rh Mr John Berger, Luciana Goodman, Helen Mitchell, Austin Straw, rh Mr Jack Betts, Mr Clive Greatrex, Tom Moon, Mrs Madeleine Stringer, Graham Blackman-Woods, Roberta Green, Kate Morden, Jessica Stuart, Ms Gisela Blears, rh Hazel Greenwood, Lilian Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Tami, Mark Blomfield, Paul Griffith, Nia Morris, Grahame M. Thomas, Mr Gareth Blunkett, rh Mr David Gwynne, Andrew (Easington) Thornberry, Emily Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Hain, rh Mr Peter Munn, Meg Timms, rh Stephen Brown, Lyn Hamilton, Mr David Murphy, rh Paul Trickett, Jon Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Hanson, rh Mr David Murray, Ian Turner, Karl Bryant, Chris Harman, rh Ms Harriet Nandy, Lisa Twigg, Derek Buck, Ms Karen Harris, Mr Tom Nash, Pamela Twigg, Stephen Burden, Richard Havard, Mr Dai O’Donnell, Fiona Umunna, Mr Chuka Byrne, rh Mr Liam Healey, rh John Onwurah, Chi Vaz, rh Keith Campbell, rh Mr Alan Hepburn, Mr Stephen Osborne, Sandra Vaz, Valerie Campbell, Mr Ronnie Heyes, David Owen, Albert Walley, Joan Caton, Martin Hillier, Meg Pearce, Teresa Watson, Mr Tom Chapman, Jenny Hilling, Julie Perkins, Toby Watts, Mr Dave Clark, Katy Hodge, rh Margaret Pound, Stephen Weir, Mr Mike Clarke, rh Mr Tom Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Powell, Lucy Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Coaker, Vernon Hoey, Kate Qureshi, Yasmin Whitehead, Dr Alan Coffey, Ann Hopkins, Kelvin Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Williamson, Chris Cooper, Rosie Hosie, Stewart Reed, Mr Steve Winnick, Mr David Cooper, rh Yvette Howarth, rh Mr George Reeves, Rachel Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy Hunt, Tristram Reynolds, Emma Wishart, Pete Creagh, Mary Irranca-Davies, Huw Reynolds, Jonathan Wood, Mike Creasy, Stella Jackson, Glenda Ritchie, Ms Margaret Woodcock, John Cruddas, Jon James, Mrs Siân C. Robertson, Angus Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Cryer, John Jamieson, Cathy Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Wright, Mr Iain Cunningham, Alex Jarvis, Dan Rotheram, Steve Cunningham, Mr Jim Johnson, rh Alan Roy, Mr Frank Tellers for the Ayes: Cunningham, Sir Tony Johnson, Diana Ruane, Chris Phil Wilson and Curran, Margaret Jones, Graham Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Tom Blenkinsop Dakin, Nic Jones, Helen Danczuk, Simon Jones, Mr Kevan NOES Darling, rh Mr Alistair Jones, Susan Elan David, Wayne Jowell, rh Dame Tessa Adams, Nigel Blackwood, Nicola Davidson, Mr Ian Kane, Mike Afriyie, Adam Blunt, Crispin De Piero, Gloria Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Aldous, Peter Boles, Nick Denham, rh Mr John Keeley, Barbara Alexander, rh Danny Bone, Mr Peter Bottomley, Sir Peter Dobson, rh Frank Khan, rh Sadiq Amess, Sir David Bradley, Karen Docherty, Thomas Lammy, rh Mr David Andrew, Stuart Brady, Mr Graham Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Lavery, Ian Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Doran, Mr Frank Lazarowicz, Mark Bray, Angie Bacon, Mr Richard Doughty, Stephen Leslie, Chris Brazier, Mr Julian Baker, rh Norman Dowd, Jim Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Bridgen, Andrew Doyle, Gemma Lewis, Mr Ivan Baker, Steve Brine, Steve Dromey, Jack Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Baldry, rh Sir Tony Brokenshire, James Dugher, Michael Long, Naomi Baldwin, Harriett Brooke, rh Annette Durkan, Mark Love, Mr Andrew Barclay, Stephen Browne, Mr Jeremy Eagle, Ms Angela Lucas, Caroline Barker, rh Gregory Bruce, Fiona Eagle, Maria Lucas, Ian Baron, Mr John Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Edwards, Jonathan MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Barwell, Gavin Buckland, Mr Robert Efford, Clive Mactaggart, Fiona Bebb, Guto Burley, Mr Aidan Elliott, Julie Mahmood, Mr Khalid Burns, Conor Beith, rh Sir Alan Ellman, Mrs Louise Mahmood, Shabana Burns, rh Mr Simon Bellingham, Mr Henry Engel, Natascha Malhotra, Seema Burrowes, Mr David Benyon, Richard Esterson, Bill Mann, John Burstow, rh Paul Evans, Chris Marsden, Mr Gordon Beresford, Sir Paul Burt, rh Alistair Field, rh Mr Frank McCabe, Steve Bingham, Andrew Burt, Lorely Fitzpatrick, Jim McCarthy, Kerry Binley, Mr Brian Byles, Dan Flello, Robert McClymont, Gregg Blackman, Bob Cable, rh Vince 617 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 618

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Hammond, Stephen McCartney, Jason Skidmore, Chris Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Hancock, rh Matthew McCartney, Karl Smith, Chloe Carmichael, Neil Hands, rh Greg McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Smith, Henry Cash, Sir William Harper, Mr Mark McPartland, Stephen Smith, Julian Chishti, Rehman Harrington, Richard McVey, rh Esther Smith, Sir Robert Clark, rh Greg Harris, Rebecca Menzies, Mark Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Hart, Simon Metcalfe, Stephen Soubry, Anna Clegg, rh Mr Nick Harvey, Sir Nick Miller, rh Maria Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Mills, Nigel Spencer, Mr Mark Coffey, Dr Thérèse Hayes, rh Mr John Milton, Anne Stanley, rh Sir John Collins, Damian Heald, Sir Oliver Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Stephenson, Andrew Colvile, Oliver Heath, Mr David Moore, rh Michael Stewart, Iain Cox, Mr Geoffrey Heaton-Harris, Chris Mordaunt, Penny Stewart, Rory Crabb, rh Stephen Hemming, John Morgan, rh Nicky Streeter, Mr Gary Crockart, Mike Henderson, Gordon Morris, Anne Marie Stride, Mel Crouch, Tracey Hendry, Charles Morris, David Stuart, Mr Graham Davey, rh Mr Edward Herbert, rh Nick Morris, James Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Davies, David T. C. Hinds, Damian Mosley, Stephen Sturdy, Julian (Monmouth) Hoban, Mr Mark Mowat, David Swales, Ian Davies, Glyn Hollingbery, George Mulholland, Greg Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Davies, Philip Hollobone, Mr Philip Murray, Sheryll Swinson, Jo Davis, rh Mr David Holloway, Mr Adam Murrison, Dr Andrew Swire, rh Mr Hugo de Bois, Nick Hopkins, Kris Neill, Robert Syms, Mr Robert Dinenage, Caroline Horwood, Martin Newmark, Mr Brooks Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Howarth, Sir Gerald Newton, Sarah Teather, Sarah Dorries, Nadine Howell, John Nokes, Caroline Thornton, Mike Doyle-Price, Jackie Hughes, rh Simon Nuttall, Mr David Thurso, rh John Drax, Richard Hunter, Mark O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Timpson, Mr Edward Duncan, rh Sir Alan Huppert, Dr Julian Offord, Dr Matthew Tomlinson, Justin Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Hurd, Mr Nick Opperman, Guy Tredinnick, David Dunne, Mr Philip Jackson, Mr Stewart Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Truss, rh Elizabeth Ellis, Michael James, Margot Paice, rh Sir James Turner, Mr Andrew Ellison, Jane Javid, rh Sajid Parish, Neil Tyrie, Mr Andrew Ellwood, Mr Tobias Jenkin, Mr Bernard Patel, Priti Uppal, Paul Elphicke, Charlie Jenrick, Robert Paterson, rh Mr Owen Vaizey, Mr Edward Evans, Graham Johnson, Gareth Pawsey, Mark Vara, Mr Shailesh Evans, Jonathan Johnson, Joseph Penning, rh Mike Vickers, Martin Evans, Mr Nigel Jones, Andrew Penrose, John Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Evennett, Mr David Jones, rh Mr David Percy, Andrew Walker, Mr Charles Fabricant, Michael Jones, Mr Marcus Perry, Claire Walker, Mr Robin Fallon, rh Michael Kawczynski, Daniel Phillips, Stephen Wallace, Mr Ben Farron, Tim Kelly, Chris Pincher, Christopher Watkinson, Dame Angela Featherstone, rh Lynne Kirby, Simon Poulter, Dr Daniel Weatherley, Mike Field, Mark Knight, rh Sir Greg Prisk, Mr Mark Webb, rh Steve Foster, rh Mr Don Kwarteng, Kwasi Pritchard, Mark Wharton, James Fox,rhDrLiam Lamb, rh Norman Raab, Mr Dominic Francois, rh Mr Mark Lancaster, Mark Randall, rh Sir John Wheeler, Heather Freeman, George Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Reckless, Mark White, Chris Freer, Mike Latham, Pauline Redwood, rh Mr John Whittaker, Craig Fullbrook, Lorraine Laws, rh Mr David Rees-Mogg, Jacob Whittingdale, Mr John Fuller, Richard Leadsom, Andrea Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Wiggin, Bill Garnier, Sir Edward Lee, Jessica Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Willetts, rh Mr David Garnier, Mark Lee, Dr Phillip Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Williams, Mr Mark Gauke, Mr David Lefroy, Jeremy Robertson, Mr Laurence Williams, Roger Gibb, Mr Nick Leigh, Sir Edward Rogerson, Dan Williams, Stephen Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Leslie, Charlotte Rosindell, Andrew Williamson, Gavin Glen, John Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Rudd, Amber Willott, rh Jenny Goodwill, Mr Robert Lewis, Brandon Rutley, David Wilson, Mr Rob Gove, rh Michael Lewis, Dr Julian Sanders, Mr Adrian Wilson, Sammy Graham, Richard Lidington, rh Mr David Sandys, Laura Wright, rh Jeremy Grant, Mrs Helen Lilley, rh Mr Peter Scott, Mr Lee Wright, Simon Gray, Mr James Lloyd, Stephen Selous, Andrew Yeo, Mr Tim Shapps, rh Grant Grayling, rh Chris Lopresti, Jack Young, rh Sir George Sharma, Alok Green, rh Damian Lord, Jonathan Zahawi, Nadhim Greening, rh Justine Loughton, Tim Shelbrooke, Alec Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Luff, Sir Peter Shepherd, Sir Richard Tellers for the Noes: Griffiths, Andrew Lumley, Karen Simmonds, rh Mark Alun Cairns and Simpson, Mr Keith Gummer, Ben Macleod, Mary Tom Brake Gyimah, Mr Sam Main, Mrs Anne Hague, rh Mr William Maude, rh Mr Francis Question accordingly negatived. Halfon, Robert May, rh Mrs Theresa Hammond, rh Mr Philip Maynard, Paul 619 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 620

New Clause 9 Walley, Joan Williams, Roger Weir, Mr Mike Wood, Mike MORATORIUM ON ONSHORE UNCONVENTIONAL Whiteford, Dr Eilidh Tellers for the Ayes: PETROLEUM Whitehead, Dr Alan Kelvin Hopkins and ‘(1) All use of land for development consisting of the Williams, Mr Mark Pete Wishart exploitation of unconventional petroleum in Great Britain shall be discontinued during the relevant period. NOES (2) The Secretary of State must ensure that an independent Adams, Nigel Davies, David T. C. assessment is undertaken of the exploitation of unconventional Afriyie, Adam (Monmouth) petroleum in Great Britain including the use of high volume Aldous, Peter Davies, Glyn hydraulic fracturing. Alexander, rh Danny Davies, Philip (3) The assessment must take account of the impacts of the Amess, Sir David de Bois, Nick exploitation of the unconventional petroleum on— Andrew, Stuart Dinenage, Caroline (a) climate change; Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Djanogly, Mr Jonathan (b) the environment; Bacon, Mr Richard Dorries, Nadine (c) health and safety; and Baker, Steve Doyle-Price, Jackie (d) the economy. Baldry, rh Sir Tony Drax, Richard Baldwin, Harriett Duncan, rh Sir Alan (4) The Secretary of State must— Barclay, Stephen Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain (a) consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks Barker, rh Gregory Dunne, Mr Philip fit; and Baron, Mr John Ellis, Michael (b) publish the assessment Barwell, Gavin Ellison, Jane within the relevant period. Bebb, Guto Ellwood, Mr Tobias (5) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4)— Beith, rh Sir Alan Elphicke, Charlie Bellingham, Mr Henry Evans, Graham “relevant period” means a period of not less than 18 months and not more than 30 months Benyon, Richard Evans, Jonathan commencing on the date two months after Royal Beresford, Sir Paul Evans, Mr Nigel Assent; Berry, Jake Evennett, Mr David “unconventional petroleum” means petroleum which Bingham, Andrew Fabricant, Michael does not flow readily to the wellbore. Binley, Mr Brian Fallon, rh Michael Blackman, Bob Featherstone, rh Lynne (6) In section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998, at the end of Blackwood, Nicola Field, Mark subsection (4) add “and subsection (4A). Blunt, Crispin Foster, rh Mr Don “(4A) Nothing in this section permits the grant of a licence to Boles, Nick Fox,rhDrLiam search and bore for and get unconventional petroleum in Great Bone, Mr Peter Francois, rh Mr Mark Britain during the relevant period. Bottomley, Sir Peter Freeman, George (4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) “relevant period” Bradley, Karen Freer, Mike and “unconventional petroleum” have the meaning specified in Brady, Mr Graham Fullbrook, Lorraine section [Moratorium on onshore unconventional petroleum] of Bray, Angie Fuller, Richard the Infrastructure Act 2015.”—(Dr Huppert.) Brazier, Mr Julian Garnier, Sir Edward Brought up. Bridgen, Andrew Garnier, Mark Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. Brine, Steve Gauke, Mr David Brokenshire, James Gibb, Mr Nick The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 308. Browne, Mr Jeremy Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Division No. 139] [5.58 pm Bruce, Fiona Glen, John Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Goodwill, Mr Robert Burley, Mr Aidan Gove, rh Michael AYES Burns, Conor Graham, Richard Abbott, Ms Diane Lammy, rh Mr David Burns, rh Mr Simon Grant, Mrs Helen Baker, rh Norman Lazarowicz, Mark Burrowes, Mr David Gray, Mr James Brooke, rh Annette Leech, Mr John Burt, rh Alistair Grayling, rh Chris Campbell, Mr Ronnie Lloyd, Stephen Burt, Lorely Green, rh Damian Caton, Martin Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Byles, Dan Greening, rh Justine Clark, Katy Long, Naomi Cable, rh Vince Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Cooper, Rosie Lucas, Caroline Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Griffiths, Andrew Corbyn, Jeremy MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Gummer, Ben Crouch, Tracey Mann, John Carmichael, Neil Gyimah, Mr Sam Davidson, Mr Ian McCartney, Jason Carswell, Douglas Hague, rh Mr William Durkan, Mark McDonnell, John Cash, Sir William Halfon, Robert Edwards, Jonathan Mearns, Ian Chishti, Rehman Hammond, rh Mr Philip Farron, Tim Menzies, Mark Clark, rh Greg Hammond, Stephen Flynn, Paul Morris, Grahame M. Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Hancock, rh Matthew Galloway, George (Easington) Clegg, rh Mr Nick Hands, rh Greg Godsiff, Mr Roger Mulholland, Greg Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Harper, Mr Mark Goldsmith, Zac Munt, Tessa Coffey, Dr Thérèse Harrington, Richard Hames, Duncan Ollerenshaw, Eric Collins, Damian Harris, Rebecca Horwood, Martin Percy, Andrew Colvile, Oliver Hart, Simon Hosie, Stewart Ritchie, Ms Margaret Cox, Mr Geoffrey Harvey, Sir Nick Hunter, Mark Robertson, Angus Crabb, rh Stephen Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Huppert, Dr Julian Skinner, Mr Dennis Crockart, Mike Hayes, rh Mr John Jones, Helen Thornton, Mike Davey, rh Mr Edward Heald, Sir Oliver 621 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 622

Heath, Mr David Mosley, Stephen Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Wharton, James Heaton-Harris, Chris Mowat, David Teather, Sarah Wheeler, Heather Hemming, John Murray, Sheryll Thurso, rh John White, Chris Henderson, Gordon Murrison, Dr Andrew Timpson, Mr Edward Whittaker, Craig Hendry, Charles Neill, Robert Tomlinson, Justin Whittingdale, Mr John Herbert, rh Nick Newmark, Mr Brooks Tredinnick, David Wiggin, Bill Hinds, Damian Newton, Sarah Truss, rh Elizabeth Willetts, rh Mr David Hoban, Mr Mark Nokes, Caroline Turner, Mr Andrew Williams, Stephen Hollingbery, George Nuttall, Mr David Tyrie, Mr Andrew Williamson, Gavin Hollobone, Mr Philip O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Uppal, Paul Willott, rh Jenny Holloway, Mr Adam Offord, Dr Matthew Vaizey, Mr Edward Wilson, Mr Rob Hopkins, Kris Opperman, Guy Vara, Mr Shailesh Wilson, Sammy Howarth, Sir Gerald Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Vickers, Martin Wright, rh Jeremy Howell, John Paice, rh Sir James Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Wright, Simon Hughes, rh Simon Parish, Neil Walker, Mr Charles Yeo, Mr Tim Hurd, Mr Nick Patel, Priti Walker, Mr Robin Young, rh Sir George Jackson, Mr Stewart Paterson, rh Mr Owen Wallace, Mr Ben Zahawi, Nadhim James, Margot Pawsey, Mark Watkinson, Dame Angela Tellers for the Noes: Javid, rh Sajid Penning, rh Mike Weatherley, Mike Tom Brake and Jenkin, Mr Bernard Penrose, John Webb, rh Steve Alun Cairns Jenrick, Robert Perry, Claire Johnson, Gareth Phillips, Stephen Johnson, Joseph Pincher, Christopher Question accordingly negatived. Jones, Andrew Poulter, Dr Daniel Jones, rh Mr David Prisk, Mr Mark Jones, Mr Marcus Pritchard, Mark New clause 19 Kawczynski, Daniel Raab, Mr Dominic Kelly, Chris Randall, rh Sir John HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: NECESSARY CONDITIONS Kirby, Simon Reckless, Mark Any hydraulic fracturing activity can not take place: Knight, rh Sir Greg Redwood, rh Mr John Kwarteng, Kwasi Rees-Mogg, Jacob (a) unless an environmental impact assessment has been Lamb, rh Norman Reevell, Simon carried out; Lancaster, Mark Reid, Mr Alan (b) unless independent inspections are carried out of the Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Robathan, rh Mr Andrew integrity of wells used; Latham, Pauline Robertson, rh Sir Hugh (c) unless monitoring has been undertaken on the site over Laws, rh Mr David Robertson, Mr Laurence the previous 12 month period; Leadsom, Andrea Rogerson, Dan (d) unless site-by-site measurement, monitoring and Lee, Jessica Rosindell, Andrew public disclosure of existing and future fugitive Lee, Dr Phillip Rudd, Amber emissions is carried out; Lefroy, Jeremy Rutley, David (e) in land which is located within the boundary of a Leigh, Sir Edward Sanders, Mr Adrian groundwater source protection zone; Leslie, Charlotte Sandys, Laura Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Scott, Mr Lee (f) within or under protected areas; Lewis, Brandon Selous, Andrew (g) in deep-level land at depths of less than 1,000 metres; Lewis, Dr Julian Shapps, rh Grant (h) unless planning authorities have considered the Lidington, rh Mr David Sharma, Alok cumulative impact of hydraulic fracturing activities Lilley, rh Mr Peter Shelbrooke, Alec in the local area; Lopresti, Jack Shepherd, Sir Richard (i) unless a provision is made for community benefit Lord, Jonathan Simmonds, rh Mark schemes to be provided by companies engaged in the Loughton, Tim Simpson, Mr Keith extraction of gas and oil rock; Luff, Sir Peter Skidmore, Chris (j) unless residents in the affected area are notified on an Lumley, Karen Smith, Chloe individual basis; Macleod, Mary Smith, Henry Main, Mrs Anne Smith, Julian (k) unless substances used are subject to approval by the Maude, rh Mr Francis Smith, Sir Robert Environment Agency May, rh Mrs Theresa Soames, rh Sir Nicholas (l) unless land is left in a condition required by the Maynard, Paul Soubry, Anna planning authority, and McCartney, Karl Spencer, Mr Mark (m) unless water companies are consulted by the planning McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Stanley, rh Sir John authority.—(Tom Greatrex.) McPartland, Stephen Stephenson, Andrew Brought up, and added to the Bill. McVey, rh Esther Stewart, Iain Metcalfe, Stephen Stewart, Rory Miller, rh Maria Streeter, Mr Gary Clause 39 Mills, Nigel Stride, Mel Milton, Anne Stuart, Mr Graham PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY: RIGHT TO USE Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Stunell, rh Sir Andrew DEEP-LEVEL LAND Moore, rh Michael Sturdy, Julian Mordaunt, Penny Swales, Ian Amendment made: 86, page 45, line 34, leave out Morgan, rh Nicky Swayne, rh Mr Desmond subsection (5)—(Amber Rudd.) Morris, Anne Marie Swinson, Jo This amendment, which removes a restriction on the exercise of the Morris, David Swire, rh Mr Hugo right of use in Scotland, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 Morris, James Syms, Mr Robert (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland). 623 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 624

Clause 40 Clause 52

FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT THE RIGHT OF USE COMMENCEMENT Amendment made: 87, page 46, line 26, leave out “or Amendment made: 103, page 59, line 20, leave out delict”—(Amber Rudd.) “44” and insert This amendment, which removes a limitation on a person’s liability “(Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on the carbon in the Scottish law of delict in respect of exercise of the right of budget)”—(Amber Rudd.) use, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland). This amendment provides that NC15 will come into force two months after the Bill is passed.

Clause 43 New Clause 14 PAYMENT AND NOTICE SCHEMES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION EXPENDITURE OF GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ON Amendment made: 88, page 48, line 9, leave out “the HOUSING OR REGENERATION Scottish Ministers or”—(Amber Rudd.) ‘(1) In section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 This amendment, which removes provision that stops a statutory (limits of the general power) after subsection (5A) insert— instrument under clause 41 or 42 from conferring functions on the “(5B) Nothing in subsection (1)(a) above shall be taken to Scottish Ministers, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 prevent the Authority incurring expenditure in doing anything (under which the right of use will not be exercisable in Scotland). for the purposes of, or relating to, housing or regeneration.” (2) The amendment made by subsection (1) applies in relation Clause 44 to expenditure incurred before as well as after the coming into force of this section.” INTERPRETATION This removes a prohibition in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 Amendments made: 89, page 49, line 4, leave out from against the Greater London Authority incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by Transport for London. It applies in “area”” to end of line 6 and insert relation to expenditure incurred before as well after the coming into “means those parts of the landward area (within the meaning force of the new clause.—(Stephen Williams.) of the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 2014) that are in England and Brought up, and read the First time. Wales or are beneath waters (other than waters adjacent to Scotland);” TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforCommunities This amendment, which secures that the right of use is only and Local Government (Stephen Williams): I beg to exercisable in those parts of the “landward area” which are in move, That the clause be read a Second time. England and Wales or the adjacent waters, is consequential on amendments 96 to 99 (under which the right of use will not be Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it exercisable in Scotland). will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 90, page 49, line 16, leave out from New clause 3—National Infrastructure Commission— beginning to end of line 17—(Amber Rudd.) ‘(1) There shall be an independent National Infrastructure This amendment removes the definition of the expression “Scottish Commission. deep-level land”, as the expression is only used in clause 39(5) (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the (which amendment 86 removes). appointment, duties, functions and staffing of the National Infrastructure Commission. Clause 51 (3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may make provision for any consequential matter that the Secretary of State EXTENT considers is necessary to establish the National Infrastructure Amendments made: 96, page 58, line 13, leave out Commission. “sections 39 to44,” (4) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument. This amendment removes the provision which specifies the extent of the clauses dealing with the right of use (as new provision is made (5) A statutory instrument under this section shall not be by amendment 99). made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 97, page 58, line 15, leave out second “and” (6) In this section— “National infrastructure” means infrastructure of This amendment is consequential on amendments 96 and 99. strategic significance in or relating to the sectors Amendment 98, page 58, line 16, leave out “extends” including— and insert (a) transport covering ports, transport networks “and section (Advice on likely impact of onshore petroleum on (including railways and roads) and aviation; the carbon budget) extend” (b) energy; This amendment provides that NC15 will extend to England and (c) flood defences; Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (d) hazardous waste; Amendment 99, page 58, line 17, at end insert “, and (e) telecommunications; ‘( ) sections 39 to 44 extend to England and Wales (f) water; and only.”—(Amber Rudd.) (g) such other sectors as are prescribed.” This amendment inserts new provision which specifies that the clauses dealing with the right of use will extend only to England New clause 12—Abolition of the Planning Inspectorate— and Wales (and so they will no longer extend to Scotland as well). ‘(1) The Planning Inspectorate is abolished. 625 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 626

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), all the functions of the Planning (4) In this section— Inspectorate are transferred to the Secretary of State for “emerging” means a development plan that is being Communities and Local Government. examined by the Secretary of State, or is due to be (3) The functions of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to examined, having met the public consultation Wales are transferred to Welsh Ministers. requirements necessary to proceed to this stage; and New clause 16—Use classes and demolition: drinking “major development” means cases within categories establishments— defined in guidance produced by the Secretary of ‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order State.” 1987 (SI 1987/764) is amended as follows. Government amendments 84, 45 and 46. (2) At the end of section 3(6) add— Amendment 53, page 27, line 9, in clause 28, at end “(n) as a drinking establishment.” insert (3) In the Schedule, leave out “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”. “provided that any designated property, rights or liabilities to be (4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted transferred pursuant to a scheme— Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) is amended as follows. (a) have been classified as surplus; (5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 under Class A: Permitted Development, (b) do not compromise land forming part of a common, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”. open space or fuel or field garden allotment; (6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 add— (c) do not extinguish any public right of way; “(c) the building subject to demolition is classed as a (d) are subject to transparent reporting of all aspects of drinking establishment”.” the transaction to the Land Registry; and The purpose of this New Clause is to aim to ensure that any (e) shall be subject to a test of viability that is underpinned proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other by guidance and an open book approach.” drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Government amendment 85. Currently such buildings can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted. Amendment 52, page 34, line 2, leave out clauses 30 New clause 20—Community right of appeal— to 32. ‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as Amendment 54, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end follows. insert (2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against “and shall relate to buildings or developments of any size”. planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after Amendment 67, page 34, line 36, in clause 33, at end subsection (2) insert— insert— “(2A) Where a planning authority grants an application for “(e) carbon abatement offsite must only be considered planning permissions and— exceptionally, where: (a) the authority has publicised the application as not (i) it has been demonstrated that the carbon abatement according with the development plan in force in the can not reasonably be met on the development area in which the land to which the application site, and relates is situated; or (ii) the homes on the development site achieve a high (b) the application is not supported by policies in an standard of energy efficiency.” emerging development plan; Amendment 71, page 35, line 5, in clause 33, at end certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by insert notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) below are met. “and where the requirement cannot reasonably be met on the building site.” (2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permissions in the Amendment 72, page 36, line 21, in clause 33, at end circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are— insert— (a) the ward councillors for the area who have lodged a ‘(7) No variation to the requirement of the building formal objection to the planning application in writing regulations in respect of a building’s contribution to or effect on to the planning authority, or where there is more than emissions of carbon dioxide may be made solely by regard to the one councillor, all councillors by unanimity; number of buildings on any particular building site.” (b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum by two Government amendments 91 to 93, 95, 100, 102 and thirds majority voting, as defined in Section 61F, 104 to 106. covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates is situated; or Amendment 74, page 128, line 2, in schedule 8, leave (c) any overview and scrutiny committee by two thirds out from “sharing” to end of line 4 and insert majority voting. “do not change its appearance.” (2C) The conditions are: Amendment 75, page 132, line 20, in schedule 8, leave (a) the application falls within the definition of “major out paragraph (b). development”; Amendment 118, page 165, line 28, in schedule 8, (b) the application is accompanied by an environmental leave out “or other vegetation”. impact assessment; Amendment 119, page 165, line 30, in Schedule 8, (c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of leave out “or vegetation”. planning permission.” Amendment 120, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, (3) Section 79 is amended as follows— leave out “or vegetation”. (a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “planning Amendment 121, page 165, line 41, in schedule 8, authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different leave out from “lopped” to second “to” in line 42. from the appellant)”; Amendment 122, page 166, line 2, in schedule 8, leave (b) in subsection (6), after “determination”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78 (2A) and out where the appellant is as defined in section 79 (2B)). “or cutting back of the vegetation”. 627 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 628

Amendment 123, page 166, line 11, in schedule 8, and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for engaging with us on leave out from “lopped” to end of line 12. this important matter? It is extremely helpful to the Amendment 124, page 166, line 13, in schedule 8, GLA and much welcomed by the Mayor. leave out “or cuts back vegetation”. Stephen Williams: I thank my hon. Friend, a former Amendment 125, page 166, line 16, in schedule 8, Minister in the Department, for his intervention. We leave out “or vegetation”. did indeed seek to concur with the GLA: it identified Amendment 126, page 166, line 24, in schedule 8, the problem, and now we have introduced the solution. leave out I turn to new clause 3 and Labour party policy on the “or cutting back of the vegetation”. proposed introduction of a national infrastructure Government amendments 107 and 108. commission. The Bill covers a range of important issues, but the debate we had in Committee on this proposal from the Opposition was one of the more thoughtful Stephen Williams: The group touches on an incredibly and interesting: we dealt not only with the intricacies of wide range of issues, but I shall concentrate my remarks formulating infrastructure policy, but with the role of on the amendments and new clauses that have aroused the Government and Members of Parliament in formulating significant interest across the House. a vision for rail, road, energy and other infrastructure Government new clause 14 relates to the Greater development? I am grateful to the hon. Member for London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for re-tabling transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. the new clause and allowing us to deal with these issues This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend again. the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I promised him that I would look urgently at the 6.15 pm legislative options available to address this important issue. We have concluded that it is necessary to make a We recognise that infrastructure development does minor change to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 not happen fast enough in this country, but, since 2010, and have therefore proposed the new clause. we have started to turn this around and address the regulatory barriers that have held back delivery of our The new clause removes a prohibition in section 31 of infrastructure networks. We have introduced the national the Greater London Authority Act preventing the GLA infrastructure plan for transport, energy, flood defences, from incurring expenditure on anything that may be communications, water and waste networks, and we done by its functional body, Transport for London, if it have agreed long-term funding settlements for public relates to housing and regeneration. We are making this infrastructure investment. This has generated a new change to the 1999 Act because the GLA has said that, momentum in infrastructure delivery, and, as a result, because TfL’s powers are wide-ranging, they preclude more than 2,500 projects have been delivered during the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport this Parliament. However, we are not complacent, and related. This includes expenditure on transport elements we understand that there is still much to do to reverse of projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in the long-running issue of under-investment. London, which the GLA has been responsible for since 1 April 2012, when it took on the roles, land and Andrew Miller: In Committee, I brought hon. Members’ contracts of the former London Development Agency attention to the fact that, while we were debating the and the Homes and Communities Agency in London. Bill, the Institute for Government published a document The new clause will apply in relation to expenditure entitled “The Political Economy of Infrastructure in incurred by the GLA before, as well as after, the coming the UK”, which drew conclusions similar to those in the into force of the new clause, because it was clearly the Opposition’s new clause. Has the Minister had a chance intention of Parliament that the GLA should have to read the document, and will he be replying to the powers equivalent to those of the LDA and HCA Institute for Government? following the Localism Act 2011. Making this change to the 1999 Act is therefore essential to ensure that the Stephen Williams: In recent weeks and months, the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London. question of whether to set up a separate body has been Government amendment 95 provides for new clause 14 much debated in both House, and many people outside to extend to England and Wales only, and Government Parliament, including the Armitt commission set up amendment 102 provides for the amendment to the by the Opposition, have contributed thoughtfully to 1999 Act to come into force on the day the Act is that debate. All of that has informed our discussions, passed. Government amendment 85 relates to clause 29 but the Government take the view that it is up to and will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by Ministers, accountable to Parliament, to set out the the HCA, GLA and mayoral development corporations infrastructure vision for the development of our can develop and use land without being affected by country. It is not something we should subcontract to easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 29 another body; it should be up to us. Our constituents will bring the position of purchasers of land from the should make representations to hon. Members to inform HCA, GLA and MDCs into line with those currently our deliberations, rather than feeling they have to go enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other to a non-elected body to make those important public bodies involved in regeneration and development. recommendations.

Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): May I Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): welcome the new clause and thank the Minister, along In the light of those remarks, will the Minister tell the with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, House whether the Government were right to subcontract my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland the issue of airport capacity to Sir Howard Davies? 629 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 630

Stephen Williams: It is tempting to debate whether are other areas of the proposed commission about there should be a third runway at Heathrow or whether which we have real misgivings—not least the new powers it should be built at Gatwick—we have all seen the that would enable the Government to give directions adverts on the tube and elsewhere in London—but I do and guidance to independent economic regulators. This not think you would want me to go down that path, could severely threaten the trust investors have in the Mr Deputy Speaker. stability of the UK’s regulatory regime. We recognise the need for one interconnected strategy In conclusion on new clause 3, the Government have for all our infrastructure networks. already begun to tackle some of the barriers to delivery, and this has led to £460 billion-worth of public and Dr Julian Lewis: Will the Minister reassure my private investment planned over the course of the next constituents in public, as the Minister of State, Department Parliament and beyond. While the Government welcome for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for public discussion and ideas for infrastructure strategy, South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has tried changing the way we oversee and set UK infrastructure to do for me in private, that given a proposal such as the strategy must not be something we rush into without massive port development at Dibden bay, on the edge due care and thought. The concept of a national of the New Forest, which was stopped by a year-long infrastructure commission proposed by the Opposition public inquiry, the forest would be no less protected as a remains an unproven and untested idea. result of the Bill? Let me deal now with new clause 16, about protection for pubs, which I know has aroused a good deal of Stephen Williams: I can repeat the reassurance—because interest around the House. The Government are certainly he has just given it to me—that my right hon. Friend the aware of this strength of feeling, and as a constituency Minister gave to my hon. Friend: the Bill will provide no MP, I deeply understand people’s concerns that pubs less protection than currently exists in the planning system. that are valued by the community could be lost to them Following advances in delivery, the natural next step because of the regulatory environment in the planning is to establish a long-term infrastructure investment system and elsewhere, which has not supported the strategy. The Government have already begun this process: community in the past. Several years ago, I campaigned we have developed the road investment strategy, which in my constituency to save a pub called the Ashley will treble spending on our strategic roads, and established Court hotel in St Andrew’s in Bristol, and there was an ambitious new energy market strategy to incentivise nothing we could do about it as planning law stood at additional electricity capacity and support low-carbon that time—back in 2008. We could not stop the pub’s electricity generation. owner from selling it to a housing developer, which demolished the pub, one of the best viewing platforms Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): The Minister in the whole of the city of Bristol. just mentioned the Bill’s relevance to the roads investment Now, however, there is protection in the national strategy, which I take to include the dualling of a large planning policy framework and in the Localism Act 2011, part of the A1 in my constituency. Am I right in enabling people to list an asset as one of community thinking that the mechanism in the Bill gives some value. The most popular use of this asset of community assurance that future Governments will have an obligation value legislation is for public houses, and we propose to to continue with that responsibility? go even further today.

Stephen Williams: My right hon. Friend is an astute Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): Is not parliamentarian and he takes every opportunity to raise the argument that the Minister has just made the perfect the dualling the A1 in his constituency. The Government argument for new clause 16? have already made significant investments on that road, and I am sure that the next Government will look to see Stephen Williams: It is not, because the planning use what more can be done to speed up travel through his class orders deal with the totality of asset use classes beautiful constituency. right across the country. What most of us would be However, we have serious reservations about the model concerned about—whether in Northampton or Bristol—is proposed by the Labour party today. As I have said, the whether the assets of real value to our constituents, Armitt review was clearly a genuine effort, from a such as the pubs that are truly popular and provide well-respected source, to find a solution to the long-term a wide community benefit, whether or not they have a infrastructure challenges that our country faces. None community hall, are at risk. That is more important than the less, its recommendations appear to establish a dealing with every single pub, whatever the circumstances. rigid, process-driven and bureaucratic body. There is a If my hon. Friend listens to what I have to say, I hope he danger that this type of bureaucracy would stifle the will be reassured. innovative process needed to resolve the challenges I draw attention to the written ministerial statement facing UK infrastructure. laid today by me and the Under-Secretary of State for Establishing such a commission would also present Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend significant complexities. For example, the commission’s the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who is responsible assessment would be debated in the House and if the for community pubs, on the introduction of secondary majority disagree with one aspect of the assessment and legislation at the earliest opportunity to build on the vote against it, the whole process, as we understand it, existing protections to help communities preserve those would have to start all over again. This kind of to-and-fro pubs that benefit the community the most. is clearly not what is intended by the proposals, and As part of our steps to strengthen community rights, the uncertainty that would follow could be detrimental we have already given local people the opportunity to to the environment for infrastructure investment. There nominate assets to be placed on a local register of assets 631 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 632

[Stephen Williams] planning application must be made to a local planning authority before a change of use or demolition of a pub of community value—those assets that are most important can take place. This gives the decision back to the to them. More than 1,800 sites have been listed in this council representing the local community. way, over 600 of which have been pubs, making them by far the most popular type of asset to be listed. Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): My hon. Friend should be proud of his record in supporting local pubs, Sir Nicholas Soames: This news will be warmly welcomed both nationally and locally. The announcement he has in Mid Sussex, where we have had some real trouble on just made is very welcome—it is an improvement to the this front. Are there any criteria in the Minister’s excellent provisions on asset and community value use. On the proposal relating to what councils may put on their theme of not putting undue obstacles in the path of community asset lists to be protected? protecting local pubs, surely it would be simpler to adopt new clause 16—instead of going through the process of Stephen Williams: The Localism Act 2011, the the asset of community value, which has its risks and its regulations, the guidance issued by the Department and problems, putting them in the path of protecting local statements by Ministers are quite clear that all that pubs. needs to be done to prove that an asset is of community value is for 21 members of the public to sign a declaration Stephen Williams: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I to the local authority—to Mid Sussex district council, can assure him that the Government have not pulled for example—saying that the asset is important to them. this rabbit out of the hat today as a sort of emergency As long it is not a private residence or a form of other response. This is something that I and my colleagues in asset precluded in the Localism Act 2011, the council the Department for Communities and Local Government must list it an asset of community value, and there have discussed for some time, going back several months. should be no gold-plating of the regulations as they are The issue has been explored with the Campaign for currently drafted. It is a very straightforward procedure, Real Ale, which is an important partner for the Department, so I encourage my right hon. Friend to encourage his and particularly for me, in rolling out adoption of all communities to adopt this policy. these community rights across the country. CAMRA has run a campaign to urge its members to list a pub The listing allows the local community the opportunity as an asset of community value. Its advice—and the to develop a bid to purchase the asset, should it come Government’s advice—is completely consistent and joined up for sale. We have seen some positive examples in the up. If people think a public house in their village, case of pubs—the Angler’s Rest in the Peak district and suburb or, in my case, city centre is important, they the Ivy House in Camberwell, for example—where listing should list it now. They should not wait for or anticipate has helped to prevent the pubs from closing. We want to a threat, but list it now. do more. That will protect a pub from any future change of ownership. Our proposal deals with the, in fact, quite Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con): I am reasonable criticism from CAMRA and others that the interested in the Minister’s comments. My concern is existing protection, although welcome, does not go far that where a council chooses not to determine that a enough, because it does not include planning protection. pub or any other asset is a community asset, there is no Listing a pub as an asset of community value not only right of appeal. That is a real issue. If the council has a gives the community a chance to gain ownership of that particular interest, could there not be conflict? pub, but secures the full protection of the planning system. Stephen Williams: My hon. Friend came to see me to discuss a particular example in her constituency. I believe the problem was that the local authority itself owned 6.30 pm the piece of land in the Newton Abbot area. Ministers Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): CAMRA have been quite clear to local authorities that they fully supports new clause 16, which provides for a should not put artificial obstructions in the way of simpler, cheaper, less bureaucratic way of protecting listing assets of community value. There have been pubs. The House needs to be clear about what we shall other examples where people have asked about requirements be voting on when we vote on the new clause, as we will. for business plans, but these are not contemplated at all It is simply this: do we think that any application to under the Localism Act 2011, so local authorities should change the use of a pub to something fundamentally not be doing this. The provision is designed to be simple different by converting it to a supermarket or a solicitor’s for residents to use and to be simple for them to identify office, or to demolish it, should be dealt with by the an asset that is important to them. As long as the planning process so that local people can have a say? If 21 signatures of support are obtained, the council should the pub is not viable, the application will proceed. It is a list the asset. simple vote: do we think that that is an important Although national permitted development rights are principle or not? The Government’s proposal is complicated important in creating a flexible planning system, we and unnecessary. recognise that there are cases were individual local consideration is merited. We will therefore remove the Stephen Williams: I think that my hon. Friend—who permitted development right that allows for the change has a good record of campaigning on behalf of beer of use from pubs to shops, financial and professional drinkers and community pubs—is trying to make our services, and restaurants and cafes or for the demolition proposal sound complicated when we should be agreeing of any pubs as long as they are listed as an assets of that what the Government are offering is incredibly community value. This will mean that, for these pubs, a straightforward. It should present a challenge to all of 633 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 634 us, whether we are in Bristol West, City of Durham or, Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD) rose— indeed, Leeds North West. If we cannot persuade 21 people to recognise that a pub in one of our constituencies Stephen Williams: I give way to my fellow Williams. is important, we shall not be doing terribly well as campaigners. Roger Williams: My hon. Friend said that the Welsh This is, in fact. a good campaigning opportunity. Government had not taken full advantage of the Localism Members, who will currently be in campaigning mode, Act. In my constituency, and in Wales in general, pubs can go out into their communities and, possibly working enjoy the full protection of the planning law, and that with their local branch of CAMRA, identify pubs that includes a real presumption against the closure of the are particularly important to them. Once the list is in last pub in the village. Is the situation similar in England? place—and the procedure is very simple—the full protection of the planning system will follow. Stephen Williams: Yes. That is exactly the position with which we are familiar all over the country. I have Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con): Let me visited several pubs in England that have been listed as begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register assets of community value precisely because they are of Members’ Financial Interests. “the last pub in the village”. I urge my hon. Friend, as I am encouraged by what the Minister is saying. I was well as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and attracted to new clause 16, but I think that his compromise Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), to put pressure on the —or alternative—proposals have their attractions as Welsh Government to ensure that not only planning well. He said earlier that secondary legislation would be protections but “asset of community protections” are in introduced at the earliest opportunity. Will that happen place. during this Parliament? Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Stephen Williams: Yes. In this instance, terms such as The Minister has told us that once a public house has “earliest opportunity”, “shortly” and “soon” really do been listed as an asset of community value, it will mean that. We all know that we are up against the benefit from full planning protection. Will he explain buffers of a fixed-term Parliament, which is a very good exactly what “full planning protection” means in that constitutional initiative. When I say “at the earliest context? opportunity”, I mean “at the earliest opportunity”. In other words, we hope that the statutory instrument to Stephen Williams: Let me repeat what I said earlier. If which my hon. Friend has referred will be published a pub is listed as an asset of community value, the and laid before Parliament in the next few weeks. owner will be required to obtain planning permission for either a change of use or its demolition. The owner Jonathan Edwards:: Has the Minister, or have the of the pub in my constituency demolished it in order to Government, given any thought to how the provisions build flats, but, at the time, planning permission was relating to pubs could be extended to local newspapers? not required. Our new clause will provide the full protection of planning law, similar to the protection of other assets Stephen Williams: Although a newspaper is an important that are currently sui generis in the planning system. community asset in the widest sense, it is literally here My hon. Friend looks puzzled, but I think that that is today and gone tomorrow. It is not a permanent, fixed, clear enough. The new clause will give the full protection tangible asset in the community, so the Bill, as currently for which campaigners are calling to listed assets of drafted, could not apply to it. However, the Welsh community value, but will not offer it to the whole Government have yet to adopt all the provisions of the community of pubs throughout the country. Localism Act 2011, although its provisions were available to them at the time. I therefore encourage the hon. Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): I thank the Minister Gentleman to put pressure on the Administration in for this morning’s ministerial statement. Does he agree Cardiff to adopt the provisions and protections that that, while his proposal will protect pubs that communities already exist in that Act. really care about, new clause 16, although well intended, could cause pubs that no longer had the support of Andrew Miller: The Minister said that he would introduce their community and were no longer financially viable secondary legislation during the current Parliament. to be boarded up, perhaps vandalised, and to be local Given that there are only 32 or 33 sitting days left before eyesores for many months as a result of pointless dissolution, does he intend to introduce secondary bureaucracy? legislation that will become law during this Parliament? Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman has a long Stephen Williams: That is certainly the intention, but and proud record of campaigning on behalf of pubs, I do not want to be drawn into matters of parliamentary and I am encouraged by what he says. I agree that new procedure. This is a very straightforward change, which clause 16 would have those adverse consequences, as builds on provisions that already exist in the Localism well as being flawed in other ways. It would have a Act. It does not require complicated legislation; indeed, detrimental effect on high streets and communities. it does not require primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman and others will know, today’s written ministerial James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): statement will carry some weight in the planning system, The Minister has not mentioned a very real risk that has and a statutory instrument will follow shortly to give been raised with me. Sandwell council is currently full weight to it. considering an asset of community value application 635 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 636

[James Morris] Stephen Williams: If there is a need for the pub to exist in the community—whether in Northampton or for the Haden Cross Inn in Cradley Heath, but it seems somewhere else—I would encourage my hon. Friend and to believe that the application involves a significant all colleagues to get that asset listing in now. That provision compensation risk. has existed since September 2012, and 600 communities have already used it. I would urge all colleagues to go Stephen Williams: That is similar to examples that I out and identify the pubs that are important to them gave earlier, in which councils were conservative, with a and their constituents, start a campaign to list them—that small “c”, in their interpretation of the legislation. The can be done very quickly and easily—and with the Localism Act makes it clear that if 21 people come proposals we have announced today, full planning protection forward and say, “This is an asset of community value will follow. to us”, the local authority should list it unless the criteria set out in the Act apply. The Act contains Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con): I was very attracted nothing about compensation, requirements for business to new clause 16 before coming to today’s debate, but plans, or any of the other matters that campaign groups having listened to the arguments and read the written have brought to my attention. We are reviewing the Act, ministerial statement today, it seems to me that this new and I trust that all those concerns will be knocked on clause is another classic case of this House over-legislating the head in due course. when legislation is already on the statute book. Is it not the case that what the Minister has outlined with his Andrew Gwynne: The process described by the Minister asset of community value is a classic example of localism seems incredibly convoluted, not least because if a being put into action—of using legislation we have already listing application is made, the local authority will passed in this Parliament and trusting our communities, decide on the application, and it will then receive planning instead of things being broad-brushed always from protections. Why not just give the planning protections Westminster? in the first place, and allow the local authority to decide, through the planning process, whether or not the pub Stephen Williams: I wholeheartedly agree with my should be saved for the future? hon. Friend. What we have been saying to local authorities around the country is that article 4 directions are already Stephen Williams: Precisely for the reasons just outlined available to them to suspend permitted development in an intervention from the hon. Member for Burton rights. They have been reluctant to do that for a whole (Andrew Griffiths), who has a very good record of variety of reasons. The proposals we have outlined campaigning in this area. A blanket protection for every today should remove all that uncertainty and allow single public house in the country, which is what the planning protection to go ahead. new clause envisages, would protect pubs that for various reasons are no longer enjoying the patronage of the community. In my constituency, lots of pubs have closed, 6.45 pm but it is usually because of demographic change. Some The Government have of course already put various parts of my constituency, which had a “white working-class other measures in place to protect community pubs. We community” 20 or 30 years ago, are now populated have scrapped both the beer and alcohol duty escalators, primarily by recently arrived Somalis and other people. and cut beer duty in successive Budgets, thereby reducing Obviously the pubs in those areas have closed, and the tax burden on the pubs and brewing industry and some have been converted to other uses, but some of enabling economic growth. We have provided £250,000 them are still derelict. Is the hon. Gentleman really in funding for business partners to help deliver more saying that in all those circumstances, whatever they community-owned pubs and pubs which provide might be, full planning permission should be required community-focused services. This funding has contributed simply to change the use of a former pub to something to the number of co-operatively owned pubs more than that may be of benefit to the community? doubling over the last two years, and many rural pubs The Government are proposing to look at the public now offer a wide range of community-focused services houses that are genuinely popular and valued by the and facilities—for example, a community centre and community now, giving them the protection that is library at the Brockweir inn in Gloucestershire and a already allowed under the Localism Act, and further community function room, keep-fit club and film club enhancing that protection under the planning laws, at the Packhorse, Suffolk. saying, “You cannot convert this pub into another use We have also introduced various measures on business or demolish it without planning permission.”That should rates and put in place a statutory code of practice which address all the worries that people rightly have about will be enforced by an independent adjudicator. All of the pubs that really are important to them. these measures demonstrate our continued support for community pubs as part of our broader strategy of Mr Binley: Does my hon. Friend not realise that if a lower taxes, less regulation and a growing economy to pub is boarded up and the issue goes to the local support a thriving and diverse pub sector. authority, the local authority will want to move pretty I hope hon. Members will agree that our measures, quickly to stop a building becoming derelict? That is including those announced today, provide a strong, not a problem, but does he also recognise that the clear framework for protecting pubs of community owner of the building is often not the owner of the value. Given these protections, this amendment—while business that operates inside that building? Does he I recognise that it has the best of intentions behind therefore share my concern that in certain cases pubcos it—is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and, as in particular have sold out even though there was a need I have explained, in some cases would have an unhelpful locally for the pub to exist? impact on our high streets and communities. If this 637 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 638 approach is not seen to work, we will return to it at a far more to publicise those recent cases widely, to provide later stage, but at the moment we think it strikes the reassurance that unsustainable development should be right balance to protect our most valued pubs. resisted. I turn now to new clause 12 on the role of the We will use the Planning Advisory Service to ensure Planning Inspectorate. I should say at the outset— that our message is clearly understood: the national planning policy framework does not stand for development Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. at any cost. It promotes positive planning and sustainable I hesitate to interrupt the Minister and I appreciate that development. We must ensure that councils have confidence he has taken a great many interventions because many to exercise their responsibilities for the benefit of their Members wished to ask questions and make points, but communities. he has also taken up a very large chunk of this fairly I appreciate the intention of new clause 20, also short debate and I am conscious that many Members tabled my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel wish to speak. I trust, therefore, that as he turns to what and South Downs. It seeks to give communities and is only the third new clause in the group, he will not their representatives the power to intervene, or “appeal”, have to address all 16 amendments. certain planning proposals if they oppose the local authority’s decision to grant planning permission. I Stephen Williams: Madam Deputy Speaker, your entirely agree with the premise of giving communities colleague Mr Deputy Speaker was in the Chair when I as great a say as possible in planning, and this is at the introduced my remarks. I assure you that I said very heart of all this Government’s reforms. I therefore welcome clearly that although this group of amendments raised the fact that on 22 January Angmering neighbourhood a whole range of issues, including protection for the plan, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, was supported European beaver, I was not going to address every at referendum with a 97% yes vote on a turnout of 31%. single one of them but would stick to the main ones. It allocates sites for at least 100 homes, and is the First, however, I should draw the House’s attention to 45th successful neighbourhood planning referendum. the fact although it is not in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I should state as a ministerial interest Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): What would that the Planning Inspectorate is based in Bristol West. the Minister say to people in Airmyn, in my constituency, who have just had a factory forced on them, against the My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and emerging local plan? We know that councillors were put South Downs (Nick Herbert) tabled new clause 12, on the committee specifically to vote for that proposal. which proposes that the Planning Inspectorate should People are really angry. None of what the Minister has be abolished and its functions carried out directly by the said will help those people, who want to appeal against Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. this decision to build a factory on greenfield land in a Planning law requires the Secretary of State to appoint village against the wishes of local people and local an independent person to carry out appeals and plan representatives. examinations. The Planning Inspectorate carries out this function for the Secretary of State. Consistently, Stephen Williams: My hon. Friend has put his remarks two thirds of all appeals support the council’s decision; on the record. He will know that neither I nor any other only 1% of all planning applications nationally are Minister in the DCLG can comment on a particular plan. overturned by appeal. The inspector’s role is to undertake an independent examination or appeal on behalf of the Government amendments 84, 45 and 46 deal with the Secretary of State. We believe that, in the vast majority control of invasive and non-native species. Madam of cases, this role is carried out to the highest standards. Deputy Speaker, I shall resist the temptation to speak We are always happy to discuss informally better ways about the European beaver and other interesting items of ensuring that our planning policy is fully understood that would have been in my speech. by inspectors and councils alike. I turn to the telecoms provisions that were introduced into the Bill in Committee, as we heard earlier. The Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con): I appreciate House will have heard the Minister of State, Department that the Minister is saying that two thirds of council for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for decisions are upheld, but is he aware that sometimes the South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), give the Planning Inspectorate is used as bogeyman or fairy-tale reasons why the Government now wish to withdraw villain by large-unit developers or town planners, and these proposals when he discussed the programme motion. the effect is, “Come on councillors, be good children, Accepting Government amendments 91, 92, 93, 100 and hurry up with your local plan, put in large sections of 104 to 108 would give effect to what my right hon. Friend greenbelt development; otherwise the Planning Inspectorate described at the beginning of our deliberations. will get you”? Wittingly or unwittingly, the Planning Inspectorate is being abused in this way. Mr Raynsford: When the Opposition urged the Minister’s colleague, who was leading on this issue, to do exactly that in Committee, the Minister who responded accused Hon. Members: Hear, hear! the Opposition of burying their head, ostrich-like, in the sand. Have Ministers now decided to put their Stephen Williams: I hear what my hon. Friend says heads in the sand—or do they admit they were wrong? and she clearly has loud support for that. Following your exhortation, Madam Deputy Speaker, Stephen Williams: The right hon. Gentleman enjoyed, I will skip the various examples I have of different I am sure, the deliberations in Committee, including my planning appeals around the country. What I am saying right hon. Friend the Minister telling us about mobile today is that the Government are committed to doing telephone reception in Lincolnshire and having to stand 639 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 640

[Stephen Williams] needed? We therefore support amendment 45 and the Government’s clarifying this point. They have also on a chair in order to take a call. This is a serious issue clarified that landowners who cannot dispose of land that needs to be dealt with, and the Government have due to legal restrictions will still be subject to these listened very carefully to what was said in Committee agreements and orders. However, important questions and to the representations made by interested bodies. remain about the cost and implementation of species We have decided at this stage to withdraw the proposals control orders that the Government need to answer in as drafted, but this issue will have to be revisited. statutory guidance. I turn finally in this wide-ranging group of new On Government amendment 46, we are pleased that clauses and amendments to the part of the Bill that they have excluded from the species control orders the introduces zero-carbon homes—a part of which I am European beaver, a native species that has established particularly proud—and the Opposition’s amendments. populations in the UK. However, the classification of Amendments 67 and 71 seek to give preference in all the beaver under part IB of schedule 9 to the Wildlife cases to on-site carbon abatement measures. That would and Countryside Act 1981—“Animals no longer cause uncertainty and cost to house builders, because normally present”—is bizarre and lists them alongside the house builder and the building control body would the wild boar. It seems strange that, despite European have to agree a “reasonable” on-site energy performance beavers being recognised as a native species to the UK level on a case-by-case basis before any development and a natural component of British river systems, they could commence. The house building industry needs to will need a licence from Natural England to continue to know the technical requirements and the costs it will exist in the wild. The Minister knows that we proposed face in order to plan for the future. That is why we set in Committee an amendment—supported by a number specific performance standards in the building regulations of non-governmental organisations, including Friends —standards we have already tightened twice during this of the Earth—stating that the Government’s definition Parliament, and which, as a result of the Bill, will be of invasive non-native species should correspond to the further tightened in 2016 to make sure that our constituents EU habitats directive adopted in 1992. It would be have the pleasure of living in not only a new home but interesting to hear from the Minister why they have not one insulated to the highest possible performance standards. gone down that route. With those brief remarks—not quite as brief as you I was very disappointed with the Minister’s response would have liked, Madam Deputy Speaker—I commend to new clause 3, which seeks to shake up the way we the new clauses and amendments in the Government’s progress national infrastructure matters. It would establish name and ask the House to resist those in others’ names. an independent national infrastructure commission in order to offer strategic planning to meet our national Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): infrastructure requirements, and provide a greater degree As the Minister acknowledged, there are a lot of of devolved power to ensure that large-scale projects amendments on different topics in this group, and I will also relate, where possible, to local priorities. I was do my best to respond to the Government amendments surprised that in Committee, Government Members—and and speak to the Opposition ones in as coherent and indeed the Minister himself—were so dismissive of the related a way as I can. However, I point out that we recent CBI survey showing that, despite some advances have just over half an hour left, and lots of Members in national infrastructure policy, the UK is still some want to speak. That again demonstrates that the way off delivering the transformational upgrades the Government have rushed the Bill and not left enough country needs. There is a widely acknowledged view time for the House to scrutinise it properly. that we are lagging behind other countries on national Government new clause 14 is a technical amendment infrastructure delivery. and provided that the Greater London authority is on New clause 3 seeks to bring an evidence-based assessment board with it, we see no reason not to welcome it. of our infrastructure needs before the House for approval. We welcome new clause 16, in the name of the hon. The process would be supported by sector infrastructure Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). His plans, and there would be a time scale for implementation. proposals are in line with our localist policy to return That would get us out of the parliamentary cycle, and decision making about permitted development and away from the stop-start approach to national infrastructure. change of use class to local authorities and the local All we have heard from the Minister is more complicity communities they represent. We are very much against and a lack of engagement about the need for a timely permitted development being able to ride roughshod upgrade to our national infrastructure. over the needs and wishes of local communities, so we welcome the amendment and concur that having to 7pm make a pub an asset of community value, or make an Jonathan Edwards: Many of the sectors listed in new article 4 direction, is bureaucratic and burdensome on clause 3 are devolved. Has the hon. Lady given any local communities and not at all necessary. The hon. thought to how the new body will work in a devolved Gentleman’s new clause provides communities with a context, and will she give the House categorical reassurances straightforward way of saying what is happening to that it is not about taking powers away from Ministers their local pub and whether or not they wish a change in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland? to be made. On Government amendments 45 and 84, the Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman makes Minister will know that in Committee we called for an interesting point. We hope that an independent greater clarity on how the species control agreements national infrastructure commission could take information would work in practice. For example, when would one from all the devolved structures, which is why I mentioned be considered complete, and requirements no longer be the importance of devolution with regard to new clause 3. 641 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 642

Amendment 53 seeks to get further clarification from On amendment 67, we had a wide-ranging discussion the Minister on land transfers to the Homes and in Committee on the carbon abatement provision in Communities Agency. In Committee, it was far from clause 33, but I have again been very disappointed by clear what was meant by surplus land, and the Minister the Minister’s speech today. He will know that we made has given us no clarification about how surplus land lots of strong arguments in Committee about why it is would be categorised, or about whether it covers open not sensible to exempt small sites from the allowable and common space. solutions requirements on the basis of the number of We also heard nothing from the Minister about whether housing units. It is not exactly clear what the Government the Government intend to promote best practice in will do because the consultation has only just finished improving the transparency of land transactions by and, as far as I am aware, neither its results nor the reporting all aspects of the transaction of land to the Government response have been placed in the public Land Registry. The lack of publicly available information domain. This is clearly not a sensible way to make about land transactions, ownership and options on land policy, but if the Minister intends to continue to allow markets makes it difficult to understand the extent to the exemption for small sites purely on the basis of the which land is controlled by those who intend, or do not number of units, we would ask him to think again. intend, to develop it. We need to increase transparency, particularly on options, if we are to ensure that Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): Does the enough land is made available for development. The hon. Lady share my concern that the recent consultation Minister had absolutely nothing to say about that matter was very cramped and gave nobody the opportunity to today. say that they did not wish there to be any limitation on the size of site or, indeed, of contractor? The Minister did not say anything about ensuring that better guidance is given on how we assess viability. Roberta Blackman-Woods: The right hon. Gentleman Opposition Members are arguing that a clearer way of makes a really good point, which we did not rehearse assessing viability might mean that more land was very well in Committee. If we had had adequate time brought forward for development. One would have today, we might have considered the consultation’s thought that that was an objective of an infrastructure shortcomings and the fact that people had to choose Bill, but apparently it is not. from a very limited number of options. Amendment 52 seeks totally to remove the Government’s I should point out that we have great concerns about proposals regarding the transfer of local land charges the general carbon abatement provisions. It is really to the Land Registry. In England and Wales, two searches important for the Minister to clarify what the allowable are currently undertaken as part of the standard solutions measures will contain. That was not clear in conveyancing process for the purchase of land or property. Committee, so we sought clarification, but we still have In short, clauses 30 to 32 will transfer responsibility for not received any. Will clause 33 make it a definite one of the searches, the local land charges search, from requirement for all homes to be built to the equivalent local authorities to the Land Registry. It is important to of code level 4? note that responsibility for collecting the information necessary for the searches will still be held by local Stephen Williams: In case I cannot respond on that authorities, which will have to pass the information to point later, I can say that it is definitely our intention the Land Registry. Furthermore, local authorities will that on-site requirements should come up to code level 4, continue to be responsible for the second of the two and that those for allowable solutions should come up searches—the CON29 search. to code level 5. On sites and exemptions, we are obviously The Opposition believe that the separation and looking at the consultation. The number of units will be fragmentation of the service is misguided and poorly one factor, but we might look at company size and evidenced, and that it has next to no hope of achieving square meterage— the Government’s stated policy objectives. Peeling off part of the service simply does not make sense and is Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. likely to make the service worse, not better. It is telling We have had a great many interventions in this debate. I that even the Government, in their own consultation, appreciate that the shadow Minister has had only a have struggled to find anyone in favour of the change. moderately long time in which to speak and that she has Indeed, they acknowledge that no one supports the a lot to say. However, I must now appeal to all Members: proposals. we have 21 minutes left and a great many matters to In the past few days, we have had correspondence discuss, so they must all speak quickly. If everybody from the District Councils Network, the Law Society, proceeds with no repetition, hesitation or deviation, the Council of Property Search Organisations, the Chartered everyone will get to speak. Institute of Legal Executives, the Association of Independent Personal Search Agents, the Society of Roberta Blackman-Woods: It would be helpful if the Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, Minister put some of those reassurances in writing. the Public and Commercial Services Union and many Finally, as we know, the Government tried to rush others who are all totally against the changes. Even the through a poorly drafted reform of the electronic organisations and companies that the Government suggest communications code, without adequate parliamentary will benefit from the changes oppose them. Just last scrutiny, as part of an uncosted deal with mobile phone Friday, those organisations signed a letter to the Secretary operators that could lose the taxpayer £1 billion. It is of State calling for the proposed changes to be dropped. good that the Government have listened to Labour, and We agree with them, and we will divide the House on that they have made a U-turn and are going back to the that issue at the appropriate time if the Minister does drawing board, but their incompetent failure to reform not make another prompt U-turn. the code now puts the whole deal in doubt. 643 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 644

[Roberta Blackman-Woods] The first problem is the Planning Inspectorate upholding or encouraging speculative applications. The second is Reforming the code that governs the agreements between that the inspectorate is interfering with local plans mobile phone operators and landowners is important drawn up by planning authorities. The Conservative for the expansion of mobile telephone access, and the party’s manifesto at the last election stated: Government need to get it right. We welcome the move “To give communities greater control over planning, we to withdraw from the Bill the clause and schedules on will…abolish the power of planning inspectors to rewrite local the electronic communications code, and we are glad plans”. that the Government listened to us and to various That is exactly what we should now do, but the inspectorate organisations. We hope that they will now take the time is rewriting local plans. It is raising housing numbers to renew and update the code properly. in my constituency to beyond the level set out in the I will leave it there, Madam Deputy Speaker. south-east plan, and it is causing delay at a time when responsible authorities are planning for a great number Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): I of houses—40,000 in the district council areas that will be brief, to allow other Members to speak. We cover my constituency, where there are 7,000 unbuilt clearly need more time to debate major Bills such as this planning permissions in one authority alone. on Report. It does us no credit that we have insufficient time. Mr Hayes: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful I rise to speak to new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 12 and persuasive case. Let me be absolutely clear: if the is supported by more than 20 of my right hon. and hon. existing regime is not satisfactory, as he describes, we Friends and would abolish the Planning Inspectorate, will have a regime that is. New guidance will be issued and new clause 20 would create a new community right that is stronger and more effective, that defends the of appeal against adverse planning decisions. interests of local authorities and that prevents the problems I believe that the Localism Act 2011 was one of this he has set out. Government’s most important pieces of legislation. It gives communities power, and the provisions on community Nick Herbert: I very much welcome the Minister’s assets are one example of that. I welcome the Government’s important intervention, and we look forward to that proposals to strengthen those provisions so that pubs new guidance. may be protected, which is a sensible way forward. I The Planning Inspectorate is meant to stand in the also welcome the development of neighbourhood plans, shoes of Ministers. I submit that Ministers could stand which, as the Minister said, are now proceeding well, in their own shoes and take decisions themselves if they with community support, including in my constituency. had to interfere. That would perhaps deal with at least They give the local community the power to decide some of the £40 million budget and 80 staff of the where developments should go. Planning Inspectorate. However, that plan-led system can sometimes be a developer-led system, which is not what we want. Localism 7.15 pm can be undermined, especially by decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. In a good report issued before Christmas, My second proposal is that we redress the imbalance the Select Committee on Communities and Local whereby communities do not have a right of appeal Government said that it had received a great deal of against planning decisions but developers do. How can evidence that the national planning policy framework that be proper or fair? To redress that inequity, communities should be given a limited right of appeal against planning “is not preventing unsustainable development in some places” decisions that run contrary to the local plan or emerging and that neighbourhood plan. There would be conditions attached “inappropriate housing is being imposed upon some communities to that, but it would be a means of restoring trust and as a result of speculative planning applications.” accountability and it would show that Parliament means Such speculative applications, put in against the wishes what it says. When we set out to give local communities of communities drawing up neighbourhood plans, are the right to make decisions, and when we say that we particularly damaging. Developers know that they have will give people local power, we should mean it. It is not an opportunity to get permission for sites that they good enough for bureaucratic bodies—in the main, we would not get permission for were the neighbourhood are pledged to abolish or reduce such bodies—to get in plan to go through. Too often, the Planning Inspectorate the way of that power and take decisions that should be either upholds on appeal a local authority’s decisions to made by local people. decline those applications or terrifies the local authority into submission, so that it gives permission because it Mr Raynsford: May I start by drawing attention to knows that otherwise it would lose an appeal and would my interests, as declared in the register? have to spend a great deal of money on doing so. I agreed with the right hon. Member for Arundel and Sir Nicholas Soames: I entirely agree with the thrust South Downs (Nick Herbert) on one point only, which of my right hon. Friend’s argument. Does he agree that was his opening remark about the lack of time for this it is immensely discouraging to communities trying to debate. I am afraid that I will not have time to explain make local plans when their wishes are ridden over in detail why he is totally wrong about the Planning roughshod by the Planning Inspectorate? Inspectorate, because I want to address two other issues. However, I have to say that over many years the Planning Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my right hon. Inspectorate has delivered a highly professional service Friend, who has been tireless in promoting the interests in assessing developments and giving impartial advice of local communities against such developments in his to Ministers, and it would be an absurdity to do away constituency. with such a body. 645 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 646

The first issue that I want to cover is the importance made by the Minister and explain why new clause 16 is, of a national infrastructure commission. I am disappointed on all fronts, a better and neater solution that the very by the Government’s rejection of that proposal, which welcome concession the Government have made. was made in a cogent, well-presented and well-received Let us bust some myths. First, new clause 16 simply report by Sir John Armitt. In case Members are not puts pubs on the same footing as laundrettes, theatres familiar with him, Sir John is widely recognised as one and—would you believe it—casinos and nightclubs, of our country’s leading experts in the field and was the chair which currently enjoy more protection under the planning of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which demonstrated law than pubs do. Most people in this House would remarkably well how to deliver a major infrastructure think that was very strange and needs rectifying. So project in the most exemplary way, so we should pay there is an easy precedent for this clause and nothing attention to his recommendations. Those recommendations draconian about it. were not, as some opponents of them have claimed, about taking decision making away from Ministers or Parliament. Secondly, we are being presented with the straw man On the contrary, Sir John’s report was clear that there of boarded up pubs lining our high streets as a result of should be a detailed and thorough appraisal, carried the new clause. A local pub of mine, The Foresters, was out by experts and then presented to Ministers, who in known to be a drug den, it was turned into a Tesco and turn would have a responsibility to report to Parliament nobody shed any tears. Had new clause 16 been in place on their decisions in response to the infrastructure then, that would have simply gone through the planning commission’s recommendations. That would be wholly process, as most things would do. Local authorities democratic and ensure that proposals were properly have every incentive to approve planning for a derelict considered by experts before being presented to Ministers, site, and so we can discard that straw man out of hand. who would then come to Parliament with final decisions. Let us look at what the Government have already The second argument that the Minister made against done. An article 4 direction is well intended, but in the Armitt report was that the recommended procedure practice it is burdensome. People cannot apply for an would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic. He conjured article 4 direction for their pub unless it has already up the image of a recommendation being rejected by been threatened, and many communities will want to Parliament, and asked what would then happen. That is apply for an article 4 direction before it is threatened. pretty rich coming from a Government who have just Each article 4 direction is expensive, costing between reduced by one third the total size of the Bill that came £2,000 and £3,000 for local authorities, which are already back from Committee. That was a fairly enormous decision stretched. If communities wanted to protect every pub to reverse a proposal that they had made a little while in the country, the cost would be about £50 million to before, but we have not heard any suggestion that it is £100 million. However, a much more fundamental question somehow a mistake. On the contrary, it is an example of lies at the heart of this issue: what is localism? In a Parliament working well in stopping Ministers doing welcome move towards localism, this Government decided something ill-considered. The basis of the Minister’s that it is about local planners making decisions, as is the argument is unsound, but in any case, if Parliament is case elsewhere in localism. However, the Government’s to take decisions, it must be right that it has the discretion concession seems to present it as a patchy, bureaucratic to say no occasionally. That seems an entirely admirable position, which also favours those with sharp elbows. I principle. am deeply concerned that it will be inequitable in practice. I wish to conclude with a few words about zero-carbon I am particularly puzzled as to why the Government’s outcomes. The Government are resiling from the default position is against, not for, community pubs. commitments that were put in place under the previous Most of us would consider that the default position Government to achieve those outcomes by 2016. There should be for the community pub and in favour of the have been four backtracks. The first was the Government’s community, not in favour of developers, who can move abandonment of code level 6, which was the original far faster than communities, particularly our most definition of zero carbon. The second was no longer vulnerable ones. Indeed, if the Government had saying that zero carbon is equivalent to code level 5 and implemented new clause 16 long ago, we would have must be delivered in all cases. They now say that the avoided the confusion involving, and potential overlap objective is code level 5, but it will be possible not to between, assets of community value and article 4 directions. deliver it under two circumstances. The first is where I very much welcome the Government’s move, but we allowable solutions include off-site contributions, rather have a short time left in this Parliament. Indeed, we are than doing it on site—and even there, the Government on last orders for our parliamentary time—[Interruption.] are not adhering to the principle the Minister enunciated Thank you very much, I am here all night. There is on Second reading, which was that this should apply doubt as to whether we would actually be able to make only where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver on this proposal in time. I thank the Government for their site. The second relates to the small site exemptions, welcome move, but new clause 16 does it better, it does which are badly drafted and a loophole that could it here, and this evening we have an opportunity to do it easily be exploited, not by small builders, but by any now. builders, to fail to deliver on small sites. There has been some serious backtracking by the Government, and if Dr Whitehead: I congratulate the Minister on keeping we are to achieve the zero-carbon objective and an a straight face while introducing his proposals for the effective response to climate change, we will need to Government to introduce zero-carbon homes. He knows revisit these issues in the next Parliament. that the proposals go away from zero-carbon homes, systematically and determinedly, and do not move us Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con): I rise to towards them, as had originally been intended under support new clause 16 and I will be brief. The Government the code for zero-carbon homes, and the time scales and have done a lot on pubs, but I wish to address the points levels it proposed. As we have heard, we are moving 647 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 648

[Dr Whitehead] hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and I must thank him for his collaborative away from code level 6 and down to code level 5. As the way of working, and his attempt to find a solution and Minister says, code level 4 is regarded as the starting get through to the Department for Communities and point for alleged zero-carbon homes, but there are Local Government—alas, he failed. The Under-Secretary exceptions within that relating to affordable solutions of State for Communities and Local Government, my and the small site exemptions where fewer than 10 units hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen are being built, which will affect about 20% of new Williams) rather gave the game away when he said that builds. That is nothing like having zero-carbon homes what is being proposed is not a concession but something for the future. The amendments try to put this at least the Government were discussing and planning to do in some way back on track, and I urge hon. Members to any case. So this has nothing to do with a concession for examine them carefully and support them if they value today; the House needs to be clear on that. One serious zero-carbon homes for the future, as I am sure we all do, point is that DCLG civil servants told the Campaign for in making sure that our building stock is of the best Real Ale that the change that has been proposed—not a quality we can get for future sustainability. concession, as we know—would need primary legislation and could not be done through secondary legislation. Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): I rise There is a concern as to whether it could even happen. to support two of the provisions tabled and ably espoused New clause 16 is a much better solution. It is not by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and partial and the Government’s solution would cost more, South Downs (Nick Herbert). The first is new clause 12, involve much more bureaucracy, take much longer and where he has put the case succinctly; after all, we made be considerably less effective. None of us wants red a manifesto commitment to abolish the Planning tape, but if hon. Members think red tape is acceptable Inspectorate. I also want to draw the House’s attention for nightclubs, theatres and laundrettes, not supporting to the fact that the inspectorate is not taking sufficient new clause 16 sends a clear message that not only do account of local feelings in the judgments it makes. they not support local pubs, but they do not think local I particularly wish to draw the Minister’s attention to people should have a say. If hon. Members support new clause 20, which, as my right hon. Friend has said, pubs and support local democracy, they should vote for builds on our localism agenda. The limited right of new clause 16, and if they do not, they should vote appeal to the Secretary of State is extremely important against. and would be of great benefit to my constituents in Sutton Coldfield, where there is massive opposition to Andrew Griffiths: I shall take a minute to tell hon. the proposition that we should build between 5,000 and Members that we all need to see pubs protected and to 6,000 homes on its green belt. Yet that opposition, see them thrive. What the Minister has done today is to expressed in marches across the countryside as well as say that if 21 people in a community want to protect in public meetings, has been entirely ignored by the their pub, they can do so and they can afford it protection local authority. under the planning laws. If a pub cannot get 21 people In proposed new subsection (2B), my right hon. to support it, it is not financially viable. There is no Friend points out the importance of need to have extra red tape and regulation as proposed “ward councillors for the area who have lodged a formal objection in new clause 16. The Minister has, simply and succinctly, to the planning application in writing to the planning authority, put the power back in the hands of pub goers, pub or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by lovers and beer drinkers, and I commend him for doing so. unanimity”. Giving that degree of local support to what the local Mrs Main: My plea to the Minister is to consider community want is extremely important. I believe and issuing new guidance that will put an obligation on hope that the Minister, perhaps on Third Reading, will commercial buildings to have zero-carbon or low-carbon be able to give my constituents some comfort on that. emissions. In my constituency, it is possible to have The opportunity of genuine community involvement 3.5 million square feet of rail freight interchange, and should be built in at every stage of planning the process; not one single green initiative is necessary. We are there should not just be the one-off chance that those considering such an obligation for homes, and we should responsible for development can choose either to respond be considering it for commercial premises too. Will the or to ignore. Recently, when the inspector held an oral Minister please issue some guidance to be used during hearing at which I was able to give evidence on behalf of the planning process? my constituents, he asked for more evidence to be adduced on the requirement for the colossal amount of Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Like many people building involved. We have always argued that there was here this evening— not sufficient evidence to build on Sutton Coldfield’s green belt, particularly in respect of the inward immigration figures in the area. We draw some comfort from the 7.30 pm decision by the Planning Inspectorate, but it is extremely Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day). important that the local community is able to have far more say than we do at that moment, at this important The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already juncture in the life of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time. Greg Mulholland: I shall be as quick as possible, Question agreed to. Madam Deputy Speaker. I had a conversation with the New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right added to the Bill. 649 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 650

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions Dromey, Jack Leech, Mr John necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded Dugher, Michael Leslie, Charlotte at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). Durkan, Mark Leslie, Chris Eagle, Ms Angela Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Eagle, Maria Lewis, Mr Ivan New Clause 16 Edwards, Jonathan Lloyd, Stephen Efford, Clive Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn USE CLASSES AND DEMOLITION: DRINKING Elliott, Julie Long, Naomi ESTABLISHMENTS Ellman, Mrs Louise Love, Mr Andrew Engel, Natascha Lucas, Caroline ‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order Esterson, Bill Lucas, Ian 1987 (SI 1987/764) is amended as follows. Evans, Chris Mactaggart, Fiona (2) At the end of section 3(6) add— Evans, Mr Nigel Mahmood, Shabana “(n) as a drinking establishment.” Farron, Tim Malhotra, Seema (3) In the Schedule, leave out “Class A4. Drinking Field, rh Mr Frank Mann, John Establishments”. Fitzpatrick, Jim Marsden, Mr Gordon (4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Flello, Robert McCabe, Steve Development) Order 1995 (SI 1995/418) is amended as follows. Flynn, Paul McCarthy, Kerry Fovargue, Yvonne McCartney, Jason (5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2 under Class A: Permitted Francis, Dr Hywel McClymont, Gregg Development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”. Gapes, Mike McDonagh, Siobhain (6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 add— Gardiner, Barry McDonald, Andy “(c) the building subject to demolition is classed as a Gilmore, Sheila McDonnell, John drinking establishment”.” —(Charlotte Leslie.) Glass, Pat McFadden, rh Mr Pat The purpose of this New Clause is to aim to ensure that any Glindon, Mrs Mary McGovern, Alison proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other Godsiff, Mr Roger McGuire, rh Dame Anne drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Goldsmith, Zac McInnes, Liz Currently such buildings can be demolished or have their use Goodman, Helen McKechin, Ann changed without such permission being granted. Greatrex, Tom McKenzie, Mr Iain Brought up. Green, Kate Mearns, Ian Greenwood, Lilian Miller, Andrew Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. Griffith, Nia Mills, Nigel The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 293. Gwynne, Andrew Mitchell, Austin Division No. 140] [7.30 pm Hain, rh Mr Peter Moon, Mrs Madeleine Hames, Duncan Morden, Jessica Hamilton, Mr David Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) AYES Hanson, rh Mr David Morris, Grahame M. Abbott, Ms Diane Burstow, rh Paul Harris, Mr Tom (Easington) Alexander, Heidi Byrne, rh Mr Liam Harvey, Sir Nick Morris, James Ali, Rushanara Campbell, rh Mr Alan Havard, Mr Dai Mulholland, Greg Allen, Mr Graham Campbell, Mr Ronnie Healey, rh John Munn, Meg Anderson, Mr David Carmichael, Neil Hepburn, Mr Stephen Murphy, rh Paul Ashworth, Jonathan Carswell, Douglas Heyes, David Murray, Ian Austin, Ian Caton, Martin Hillier, Meg Nandy, Lisa Bailey, Mr Adrian Chapman, Jenny Hilling, Julie Nash, Pamela Bain, Mr William Clark, Katy Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Nuttall, Mr David Baker, rh Norman Clarke, rh Mr Tom Hoey, Kate O’Donnell, Fiona Balls, rh Ed Coaker, Vernon Hollobone, Mr Philip Osborne, Sandra Banks, Gordon Coffey, Ann Hopkins, Kelvin Owen, Albert Barclay, Stephen Cooper, Rosie Horwood, Martin Pearce, Teresa Baron, Mr John Cooper, rh Yvette Howarth, rh Mr George Perkins, Toby Barron, rh Kevin Corbyn, Jeremy Hunter, Mark Pound, Stephen Beckett, rh Margaret Creagh, Mary Huppert, Dr Julian Powell, Lucy Begg, Dame Anne Creasy, Stella Irranca-Davies, Huw Qureshi, Yasmin Benn, rh Hilary Cruddas, Jon Jackson, Glenda Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Berger, Luciana Cryer, John Jackson, Mr Stewart Reckless, Mark Betts, Mr Clive Cunningham, Alex James, Mrs Siân C. Reed, Mr Steve Blackman, Bob Cunningham, Mr Jim Jamieson, Cathy Reeves, Rachel Blackman-Woods, Roberta Cunningham, Sir Tony Jarvis, Dan Reynolds, Emma Blears, rh Hazel Curran, Margaret Johnson, rh Alan Reynolds, Jonathan Blenkinsop, Tom Darling, rh Mr Alistair Johnson, Diana Ritchie, Ms Margaret Blomfield, Paul David, Wayne Jones, Graham Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Blunkett, rh Mr David Davidson, Mr Ian Jones, Helen Rotheram, Steve Bottomley, Sir Peter De Piero, Gloria Jones, Mr Kevan Roy, Mr Frank Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Denham, rh Mr John Jones, Susan Elan Ruane, Chris Brown, Lyn Dobson, rh Frank Jowell, rh Dame Tessa Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Docherty, Thomas Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Sarwar, Anas Brown, Mr Russell Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Keeley, Barbara Sawford, Andy Bryant, Chris Doran, Mr Frank Khan, rh Sadiq Seabeck, Alison Buck, Ms Karen Doughty, Stephen Lammy, rh Mr David Sharma, Mr Virendra Burden, Richard Dowd, Jim Lavery, Ian Shuker, Gavin Burnham, rh Andy Doyle, Gemma Lazarowicz, Mark Skinner, Mr Dennis 651 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 652

Slaughter, Mr Andy Watson, Mr Tom Gyimah, Mr Sam McPartland, Stephen Smith, Nick White, Chris Hague, rh Mr William McVey, rh Esther Smith, Owen Whitehead, Dr Alan Halfon, Robert Menzies, Mark Straw, rh Mr Jack Williams, Mr Mark Hammond, rh Mr Philip Metcalfe, Stephen Stringer, Graham Williams, Roger Hammond, Stephen Miller, rh Maria Stuart, Ms Gisela Williamson, Chris Hancock, rh Matthew Milton, Anne Swales, Ian Wilson, Phil Hands, rh Greg Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Tami, Mark Wilson, Sammy Harper, Mr Mark Mordaunt, Penny Thomas, Mr Gareth Winnick, Mr David Harrington, Richard Morgan, rh Nicky Thornton, Mike Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Harris, Rebecca Morris, David Timms, rh Stephen Wood, Mike Hart, Simon Mosley, Stephen Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Mowat, David Trickett, Jon Woodcock, John Turner, Karl Hayes, rh Mr John Murray, Sheryll Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Twigg, Derek Heald, Sir Oliver Murrison, Dr Andrew Wright, Mr Iain Twigg, Stephen Heath, Mr David Neill, Robert Umunna, Mr Chuka Tellers for the Ayes: Heaton-Harris, Chris Newmark, Mr Brooks Vaz, Valerie Mr Brian Binley and Hemming, John Newton, Sarah Walley, Joan Nic Dakin Hendry, Charles Nokes, Caroline Herbert, rh Nick O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen NOES Hinds, Damian Offord, Dr Matthew Hoban, Mr Mark Ollerenshaw, Eric Afriyie, Adam Crabb, rh Stephen Hollingbery, George Opperman, Guy Aldous, Peter Crouch, Tracey Holloway, Mr Adam Osborne, rh Mr George Alexander, rh Danny Davey, rh Mr Edward Hopkins, Kris Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Amess, Sir David Davies, David T. C. Howarth, Sir Gerald Paice, rh Sir James Andrew, Stuart (Monmouth) Howell, John Parish, Neil Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Davies, Glyn Hughes, rh Simon Patel, Priti Bacon, Mr Richard Davies, Philip Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Paterson, rh Mr Owen Baker, Steve de Bois, Nick Hurd, Mr Nick Pawsey, Mark Baldry, rh Sir Tony Dinenage, Caroline Jackson, Mr Stewart Penning, rh Mike Baldwin, Harriett Djanogly, Mr Jonathan James, Margot Penrose, John Barker, rh Gregory Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Javid, rh Sajid Perry, Claire Bebb, Guto Dorries, Nadine Jenkin, Mr Bernard Phillips, Stephen Beith, rh Sir Alan Doyle-Price, Jackie Jenrick, Robert Pincher, Christopher Bellingham, Mr Henry Drax, Richard Johnson, Gareth Poulter, Dr Daniel Benyon, Richard Duncan, rh Sir Alan Johnson, Joseph Prisk, Mr Mark Beresford, Sir Paul Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Jones, Andrew Pritchard, Mark Berry, Jake Dunne, Mr Philip Jones, rh Mr David Pugh, John Bingham, Andrew Ellis, Michael Jones, Mr Marcus Raab, Mr Dominic Blackwood, Nicola Ellison, Jane Kawczynski, Daniel Randall, rh Sir John Blunt, Crispin Ellwood, Mr Tobias Kelly, Chris Redwood, rh Mr John Boles, Nick Elphicke, Charlie Kirby, Simon Rees-Mogg, Jacob Bone, Mr Peter Evans, Graham Knight, rh Sir Greg Reevell, Simon Bradley, Karen Evans, Jonathan Kwarteng, Kwasi Reid, Mr Alan Bray, Angie Evennett, Mr David Lamb, rh Norman Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Brazier, Mr Julian Fabricant, Michael Lancaster, Mark Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Bridgen, Andrew Fallon, rh Michael Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Brine, Steve Field, Mark Latham, Pauline Robertson, Mr Laurence Brokenshire, James Foster, rh Mr Don Laws, rh Mr David Rogerson, Dan Browne, Mr Jeremy Fox,rhDrLiam Leadsom, Andrea Rosindell, Andrew Bruce, Fiona Francois, rh Mr Mark Lee, Jessica Rudd, Amber Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Freeman, George Lee, Dr Phillip Ruffley, Mr David Buckland, Mr Robert Freer, Mike Lefroy, Jeremy Rutley, David Burley, Mr Aidan Fullbrook, Lorraine Leigh, Sir Edward Sanders, Mr Adrian Burns, Conor Fuller, Richard Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Sandys, Laura Burns, rh Mr Simon Garnier, Sir Edward Lewis, Brandon Scott, Mr Lee Burrowes, Mr David Garnier, Mark Lewis, Dr Julian Selous, Andrew Burt, Lorely Gauke, Mr David Lidington, rh Mr David Shapps, rh Grant Byles, Dan Gibb, Mr Nick Lilley, rh Mr Peter Sharma, Alok Cairns, Alun Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Lopresti, Jack Shelbrooke, Alec Cameron, rh Mr David Glen, John Lord, Jonathan Shepherd, Sir Richard Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Goodwill, Mr Robert Loughton, Tim Simmonds, rh Mark Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair Gove, rh Michael Luff, Sir Peter Simpson, Mr Keith Cash, Sir William Graham, Richard Lumley, Karen Skidmore, Chris Chishti, Rehman Grant, Mrs Helen Macleod, Mary Smith, Chloe Clark, rh Greg Gray, Mr James Main, Mrs Anne Smith, Henry Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Grayling, rh Chris Maude, rh Mr Francis Smith, Julian Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Green, rh Damian May, rh Mrs Theresa Smith, Sir Robert Coffey, Dr Thérèse Greening, rh Justine Maynard, Paul Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Collins, Damian Grieve, rh Mr Dominic McCartney, Karl Soubry, Anna Colvile, Oliver Griffiths, Andrew McIntosh, Miss Anne Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline Cox, Mr Geoffrey Gummer, Ben McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Spencer, Mr Mark 653 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 654

Stanley, rh Sir John Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Clause 29 Stephenson, Andrew Walker, Mr Charles Stewart, Iain Walker, Mr Robin EASEMENTS ETC AFFECTING LAND Stewart, Rory Wallace, Mr Ben Streeter, Mr Gary Watkinson, Dame Angela Amendment made: 85, page 33, line 35, leave out Stride, Mel Webb, rh Steve “which is” and insert Stuart, Mr Graham Wharton, James “the freehold interest in which was” —(Stephen Williams.) Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Wheeler, Heather This amends clause 29(11) with the effect that the amendments Sturdy, Julian Whittaker, Craig made by the clause do not apply to any freehold disposals of land Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Whittingdale, Mr John made before commencement by the bodies to which the clause Swire, rh Mr Hugo Wiggin, Bill applies. Those amendments will apply to land in respect of which a Syms, Mr Robert Willetts, rh Mr David lease was granted by those bodies before commencement. Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Williams, Stephen Amendment proposed: 52, page 34, line 2, leave out Teather, Sarah Williamson, Gavin clauses 30 to 32.—(Roberta Blackman-Woods.) Thurso, rh John Willott, rh Jenny Timpson, Mr Edward Wilson, Mr Rob Question put, That the amendment be made. Tomlinson, Justin Wollaston, Dr Sarah The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 330. Tredinnick, David Wright, rh Jeremy Truss, rh Elizabeth Wright, Simon Division No. 141] [7.44 pm Turner, Mr Andrew Yeo, Mr Tim Tyrie, Mr Andrew Young, rh Sir George AYES Uppal, Paul Zahawi, Nadhim Abbott, Ms Diane Davidson, Mr Ian Vaizey, Mr Edward Tellers for the Noes: Alexander, Heidi De Piero, Gloria Vara, Mr Shailesh Tom Brake and Ali, Rushanara Denham, rh Mr John Vickers, Martin Gavin Barwell Allen, Mr Graham Dobson, rh Frank Anderson, Mr David Docherty, Thomas Ashworth, Jonathan Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Question accordingly negatived. Bailey, Mr Adrian Doran, Mr Frank Bain, Mr William Doughty, Stephen Balls, rh Ed Dowd, Jim Clause 20 Banks, Gordon Doyle, Gemma Barron, rh Kevin Dromey, Jack Beckett, rh Margaret Dugher, Michael ENVIRONMENT CONTROL OF ANIMAL AND PLANT Begg, Dame Anne Durkan, Mark SPECIES Benn, rh Hilary Eagle, Ms Angela Amendments made: 84, page 13, line 8, at end insert Berger, Luciana Eagle, Maria Betts, Mr Clive Edwards, Jonathan “or Blackman-Woods, Roberta Efford, Clive Blears, rh Hazel Elliott, Julie (c) a person who for the time being exercises powers of Blenkinsop, Tom Ellman, Mrs Louise management or control over the land.” Blomfield, Paul Engel, Natascha This amendment extends the definition of “owner” to include Blunkett, rh Mr David Esterson, Bill persons with powers of management or control over land. Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Evans, Chris Amendment 45, page 14, line 23, at end insert— Brown, Lyn Field, rh Mr Frank Brown, rh Mr Nicholas Fitzpatrick, Jim “Notice of compliance Brown, Mr Russell Flello, Robert 8A Where an environmental authority considers that an owner of Bryant, Chris Flynn, Paul premises has complied with all the requirements in a species Buck, Ms Karen Fovargue, Yvonne control agreement to carry out species control operations, the Burden, Richard Francis, Dr Hywel authority must give the owner notice to that effect.” —(Stephen Burnham, rh Andy Gapes, Mike Williams.) Byrne, rh Mr Liam Gardiner, Barry Campbell, rh Mr Alan Gilmore, Sheila This amendment requires the environmental authority to issue a notice to an owner once it considers that the owner has complied Campbell, Mr Ronnie Glass, Pat with all the requirements in a species control agreement. Caton, Martin Glindon, Mrs Mary Chapman, Jenny Godsiff, Mr Roger Clark, Katy Goodman, Helen Clarke, rh Mr Tom Greatrex, Tom Clause 21 Coaker, Vernon Green, Kate Coffey, Ann Greenwood, Lilian Cooper, Rosie Griffith, Nia NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPECIES ETC Cooper, rh Yvette Gwynne, Andrew Amendment made: 46, page 23, line 11, at end insert— Corbyn, Jeremy Hain, rh Mr Peter Creagh, Mary Hamilton, Mr David “Beaver, Eurasian (but not in relation to Castor fiber” Creasy, Stella Hanson, rh Mr David Wales) Cruddas, Jon Harris, Mr Tom Cryer, John Havard, Mr Dai —(Stephen Williams.) Cunningham, Alex Healey, rh John This amendment aims to secure that, in England, the species Cunningham, Mr Jim Hepburn, Mr Stephen control provisions will not apply to Eurasian beavers which are Cunningham, Sir Tony Heyes, David released into the wild under licence. It will continue to be the case Curran, Margaret Hillier, Meg that Eurasian beavers may only be released into the wild under Darling, rh Mr Alistair Hodgson, Mrs Sharon licence. David, Wayne Hoey, Kate 655 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 656

Hopkins, Kelvin Nash, Pamela Boles, Nick Garnier, Sir Edward Howarth, rh Mr George O’Donnell, Fiona Bone, Mr Peter Garnier, Mark Irranca-Davies, Huw Osborne, Sandra Bradley, Karen Gauke, Mr David Jackson, Glenda Owen, Albert Brady, Mr Graham Gibb, Mr Nick James, Mrs Siân C. Pearce, Teresa Bray, Angie Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Jamieson, Cathy Perkins, Toby Brazier, Mr Julian Glen, John Jarvis, Dan Pound, Stephen Bridgen, Andrew Goldsmith, Zac Johnson, rh Alan Powell, Lucy Brine, Steve Goodwill, Mr Robert Johnson, Diana Qureshi, Yasmin Brokenshire, James Gove, rh Michael Jones, Graham Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Brooke, rh Annette Graham, Richard Jones, Helen Reed, Mr Steve Browne, Mr Jeremy Grant, Mrs Helen Jones, Mr Kevan Reynolds, Emma Bruce, Fiona Gray, Mr James Jones, Susan Elan Reynolds, Jonathan Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Grayling, rh Chris Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Ritchie, Ms Margaret Buckland, Mr Robert Green, rh Damian Keeley, Barbara Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Burley, Mr Aidan Greening, rh Justine Khan, rh Sadiq Rotheram, Steve Burns, Conor Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Lammy, rh Mr David Roy, Mr Frank Burns, rh Mr Simon Griffiths, Andrew Lavery, Ian Ruane, Chris Burrowes, Mr David Gummer, Ben Lazarowicz, Mark Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Burstow, rh Paul Gyimah, Mr Sam Leslie, Chris Sarwar, Anas Burt, rh Alistair Hague, rh Mr William Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Sawford, Andy Burt, Lorely Halfon, Robert Lewis, Mr Ivan Seabeck, Alison Byles, Dan Hames, Duncan Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn Sharma, Mr Virendra Cairns, Alun Hammond, rh Mr Philip Long, Naomi Shuker, Gavin Campbell, rh Sir Menzies Hammond, Stephen Love, Mr Andrew Skinner, Mr Dennis Carmichael, Neil Hancock, rh Matthew Lucas, Caroline Slaughter, Mr Andy Carswell, Douglas Hands, rh Greg Lucas, Ian Smith, Nick Cash, Sir William Harper, Mr Mark Mactaggart, Fiona Smith, Owen Chishti, Rehman Harrington, Richard Mahmood, Mr Khalid Straw, rh Mr Jack Clark, rh Greg Harris, Rebecca Mahmood, Shabana Stringer, Graham Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Hart, Simon Malhotra, Seema Stuart, Ms Gisela Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Harvey, Sir Nick Mann, John Tami, Mark Coffey, Dr Thérèse Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Marsden, Mr Gordon Thomas, Mr Gareth Collins, Damian Hayes, rh Mr John McCabe, Steve Timms, rh Stephen Colvile, Oliver Heald, Sir Oliver McCarthy, Kerry Trickett, Jon Cox, Mr Geoffrey Heath, Mr David McClymont, Gregg Turner, Karl Crabb, rh Stephen Heaton-Harris, Chris McDonagh, Siobhain Twigg, Derek Crockart, Mike Hemming, John McDonald, Andy Twigg, Stephen Crouch, Tracey Henderson, Gordon McDonnell, John Umunna, Mr Chuka Davey, rh Mr Edward Hendry, Charles McFadden, rh Mr Pat Vaz, Valerie Davies, David T. C. Herbert, rh Nick McGovern, Alison Walley, Joan (Monmouth) Hinds, Damian McGuire, rh Dame Anne Watson, Mr Tom Davies, Glyn Hoban, Mr Mark McInnes, Liz Watts, Mr Dave Davies, Philip Hollingbery, George McKechin, Ann Whitehead, Dr Alan de Bois, Nick Hollobone, Mr Philip McKenzie, Mr Iain Williamson, Chris Dinenage, Caroline Holloway, Mr Adam Mearns, Ian Wilson, Phil Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Hopkins, Kris Miller, Andrew Winnick, Mr David Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Horwood, Martin Mitchell, Austin Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Dorries, Nadine Howarth, Sir Gerald Moon, Mrs Madeleine Wood, Mike Doyle-Price, Jackie Howell, John Drax, Richard Hughes, rh Simon Morden, Jessica Woodcock, John Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Duncan, rh Sir Alan Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Morris, Grahame M. Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Hunter, Mark Wright, Mr Iain (Easington) Dunne, Mr Philip Huppert, Dr Julian Murphy, rh Paul Tellers for the Ayes: Ellis, Michael Hurd, Mr Nick Murray, Ian Julie Hilling and Ellison, Jane Jackson, Mr Stewart Nandy, Lisa Nic Dakin Ellwood, Mr Tobias James, Margot Elphicke, Charlie Javid, rh Sajid NOES Evans, Graham Jenkin, Mr Bernard Evans, Jonathan Jenrick, Robert Adams, Nigel Barker, rh Gregory Evans, Mr Nigel Johnson, Gareth Afriyie, Adam Baron, Mr John Evennett, Mr David Johnson, Joseph Aldous, Peter Bebb, Guto Fabricant, Michael Jones, Andrew Alexander, rh Danny Beith, rh Sir Alan Fallon, rh Michael Jones, rh Mr David Amess, Sir David Bellingham, Mr Henry Farron, Tim Jones, Mr Marcus Andrew, Stuart Benyon, Richard Field, Mark Kawczynski, Daniel Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Beresford, Sir Paul Foster, rh Mr Don Kelly, Chris Bacon, Mr Richard Berry, Jake Fox,rhDrLiam Kirby, Simon Baker, rh Norman Bingham, Andrew Francois, rh Mr Mark Knight, rh Sir Greg Baker, Steve Binley, Mr Brian Freeman, George Kwarteng, Kwasi Baldry, rh Sir Tony Blackman, Bob Freer, Mike Lamb, rh Norman Baldwin, Harriett Blackwood, Nicola Fullbrook, Lorraine Lancaster, Mark Barclay, Stephen Blunt, Crispin Fuller, Richard Lansley, rh Mr Andrew 657 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 658

Latham, Pauline Prisk, Mr Mark White, Chris Wilson, Sammy Laws, rh Mr David Pritchard, Mark Whittaker, Craig Wollaston, Dr Sarah Leadsom, Andrea Pugh, John Whittingdale, Mr John Wright, rh Jeremy Lee, Jessica Raab, Mr Dominic Wiggin, Bill Wright, Simon Lee, Dr Phillip Randall, rh Sir John Willetts, rh Mr David Yeo, Mr Tim Leech, Mr John Reckless, Mark Williams, Mr Mark Young, rh Sir George Lefroy, Jeremy Redwood, rh Mr John Williams, Roger Zahawi, Nadhim Leigh, Sir Edward Rees-Mogg, Jacob Williams, Stephen Leslie, Charlotte Reevell, Simon Williamson, Gavin Tellers for the Noes: Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Reid, Mr Alan Willott, rh Jenny Tom Brake and Lewis, Brandon Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm Wilson, Mr Rob Gavin Barwell Lewis, Dr Julian Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Lidington, rh Mr David Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Question accordingly negatived. Lilley, rh Mr Peter Robertson, Mr Laurence Lloyd, Stephen Rogerson, Dan Lopresti, Jack Rosindell, Andrew Clause 49 Lord, Jonathan Rudd, Amber Loughton, Tim Ruffley, Mr David Luff, Sir Peter Rutley, David THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE Lumley, Karen Sanders, Mr Adrian Amendment made: 91, page 55, line 32, leave out Macleod, Mary Scott, Mr Lee clause 49.—(Stephen Williams.) Main, Mrs Anne Selous, Andrew This amendment and amendments 106 and 107 remove clause 49 Maude, rh Mr Francis Shapps, rh Grant and schedules 8 and 9 which included provision replacing the May, rh Mrs Theresa Sharma, Alok telecommunications code in schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Maynard, Paul Shelbrooke, Alec Act 1984 with a substantially revised version called the electronic McCartney, Jason Shepherd, Sir Richard communications code, and made related consequential McCartney, Karl Simmonds, rh Mark amendments. The existing telecommunications code will McIntosh, Miss Anne Simpson, Mr Keith accordingly continue in effect. McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Skidmore, Chris McPartland, Stephen Smith, Chloe McVey, rh Esther Smith, Henry Clause 50 Menzies, Mark Smith, Julian Metcalfe, Stephen Smith, Sir Robert REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Miller, rh Maria Soames, rh Sir Nicholas Mills, Nigel Soubry, Anna Amendments made: 92, page 57, line 15, at end insert Milton, Anne Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline “or”. Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Spencer, Mr Mark This amendment together with amendments 93, 100, 104, 105 and Moore, rh Michael Stanley, rh Sir John 108 remove the provisions about secondary legislation, extent and Mordaunt, Penny Stephenson, Andrew commencement and in the long title which were consequential on Morgan, rh Nicky Stewart, Iain the provisions of clause 49 and Schedules 8 and 9. Morris, Anne Marie Stewart, Rory Amendment 93, page 57, line 17, leave out from Morris, David Streeter, Mr Gary “Act,” to end of line 19.—(Stephen Williams.) Morris, James Stride, Mel Mosley, Stephen Stuart, Mr Graham The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this amendment Mowat, David Stunell, rh Sir Andrew Mulholland, Greg Sturdy, Julian Munt, Tessa Swales, Ian Clause 51 Murray, Sheryll Swayne, rh Mr Desmond Murrison, Dr Andrew Swire, rh Mr Hugo Neill, Robert Syms, Mr Robert EXTENT Newmark, Mr Brooks Tapsell, rh Sir Peter Amendments made: 95, page 58, line 9, leave out Newton, Sarah Teather, Sarah “and 29(11) and (12)” and insert Nokes, Caroline Thornton, Mike “,29(11) and (12) and (Expenditure of Greater London Nuttall, Mr David Thurso, rh John Authority on housing or regeneration)(2)”. O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Timpson, Mr Edward Offord, Dr Matthew Tomlinson, Justin This provides for NC14 to extend to England and Wales only. Ollerenshaw, Eric Tredinnick, David Amendment 100, page 58, line 20, leave out Opperman, Guy Truss, rh Elizabeth subsections (7) and (8) .—(Stephen Williams.) Osborne, rh Mr George Turner, Mr Andrew The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Tyrie, Mr Andrew amendment. Paice, rh Sir James Uppal, Paul Parish, Neil Vaizey, Mr Edward Patel, Priti Vara, Mr Shailesh Clause 52 Paterson, rh Mr Owen Vickers, Martin Pawsey, Mark Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa COMMENCEMENT Penning, rh Mike Walker, Mr Charles Penrose, John Walker, Mr Robin Amendments made: 102, page 59, line 5, leave out Percy, Andrew Wallace, Mr Ben “section 26 comes” and insert Perry, Claire Watkinson, Dame Angela “sections 26 and (Expenditure of Greater London Authority on Phillips, Stephen Webb, rh Steve housing or regeneration) come”. Pincher, Christopher Wharton, James This provides for NC14 to come into force on the day that the Act Poulter, Dr Daniel Wheeler, Heather is passed. 659 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 660

Amendment 104, page 59, line 28, leave out (b) set a Strategy as soon as may be reasonably practicable.”. subsection (8). —(Mr Hayes.) The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this This amendment makes provision for the Secretary of State to set amendment. and vary Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies Amendment 105, page 59, line 31, leave out “, (6)(c) Brought up, and read the First time. or (8)” and insert “or (6)(c)”—(Stephen Williams.) The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this Mr Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a amendment. Second time. Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): With Schedule 8 this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 17—Route strategies. THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE Government new clause 18—Periodic reports by the Amendment made: 106, page 122, line 13, leave out Secretary of State. schedule 8.—(Stephen Williams.) New clause 5—Cycling and Walking Investment The explanatory statement for amendment 91 also applies to this amendment. Strategy— ‘(1) The Secretary of State may at any time— (a) set a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy; or Schedule 9 (b) vary a Strategy which has already been set. (2) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is to relate to THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE: such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate but CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS must be reviewed as least every five years. Amendment made: 107, page 177, line 17, leave out (3) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must specify— schedule 9.—(Stephen Williams.) (a) the objectives to be achieved during the period to The explanatory statement for amendment 91 also applies to this which it relates; and amendment. (b) the financial resources to be provided by the Secretary of State for the purpose of achieving those objectives. New Clause 13 (4) The objectives to be achieved may include—

CYCLING AND WALKING INVESTMENT STRATEGIES (a) activities to be performed; (b) results to be achieved; and ‘(1) The Secretary of State may at any time— (c) standards to be met. (a) set a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy for England, or (5) The Secretary of State must comply with the Cycling and (b) vary a Strategy which has already been set. Walking Investment Strategy and shall be responsible for updating Parliament annually on his compliance with it. (2) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is to relate to such period as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; but a (6) If a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is not Strategy for a period of more than five years must be reviewed at currently in place, the Secretary of State must— least once every five years. (a) lay before Parliament a report explaining why a Strategy has not been set; and (3) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must specify— (b) set a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy as soon (a) objectives to be achieved during the period to which it as may be reasonably practicable. relates, and (b) the financial resources to be made available by the (7) Schedule (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Secretary of State for the purpose of achieving those Procedure] (which contains provision about the procedure for objectives. setting or varying a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy) has effect.” (4) The objectives to be achieved may include— Amendment 4, page 1, line 4, leave out clauses 1 (a) activities to be performed; and 2. (b) results to be achieved; (c) standards to be met. Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out “a strategic highways company”and insert “the Highways (5) Before setting or varying a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he or Agency”. she considers appropriate. Amendment 6, page 3, line 4, leave out “company” (6) In considering whether to vary a Cycling and Walking and insert “Highways Agency”. Investment Strategy the Secretary of State must have regard to Amendment 43, page 3, line 7, at end insert— the desirability of maintaining certainty and stability in respect “(c) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment of Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies. Strategy upon the condition and development of the (7) A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy must be local roads network; published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers (d) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment appropriate. Strategy upon the provision of local transport, (8) Where a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy has including increasing walking and cycling; been published the Secretary of State must from time to time lay (e) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment before Parliament a report on progress towards meeting its Strategy on links with other nationally and regionally objectives. significant transport and infrastructure projects, (9) If a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy is not including ports and airports, and; currently in place, the Secretary of State must— (f) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment (a) lay before Parliament a report explaining why a Strategy Strategy on the growth plans of city regions and has not been set, and sub-regional bodies.” 661 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 662

Amendment 7, page 3, line 16, leave out “company” Amendment 30, in clause 15, page 9, line 32, leave out and insert “Highways Agency”. “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways Amendment 8, page 3, line 18, leave out “a strategic Agency”. highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”. Amendment 31, page 10, line 10, leave out clause 16. Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, leave out Government amendments 94 and 101. “Astrategic highways company”and insert “The Highways New schedule 1—“Schedule Agency”. Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Strategy: Procedure Amendment 11, page 3, line 32, leave out “A strategic 1 This Schedule specifies the procedure by which a Cycling and highways company” and insert “The Highways Agency”. Walking Investment Strategy is set or varied. Amendment 70, page 3, line 34, leave out “the 2 The proposals in a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy environment, and” and insert must include details of— “air quality and other aspects of the environment, (a) the objectives to be achieved, including but not limited and”. to— (i) increasing the share of travel that is walked and The Amendment would add an explicit obligation on the Strategic cycled; Highways Company to address air quality, as recommended by the (ii) increasing the proportion of the population that Sixth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Action on regularly walks or cycles; and Air Quality, HC 212, paragraph 61. (iii) improving actual and perceived safety of walking Amendment 12, page 3, line 36, leave out clauses 5 and cycling. to 7. (b) the financial resources to be provided by the Secretary of State for the purpose of achieving those objectives; Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 5, line 34, leave out and “a strategic highways company”and insert “the Highways (c) the period to which the proposals relate. Agency”. 3 Publication of the Cycling and Walking Strategy may be in Amendment 14, page 5, line 38, leave out “a strategic such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. highways company’s”and insert “the Highways Agency’s”. 4 The Secretary of State may only publish or vary a Cycling and Amendment 15, page 5, line 42, leave out “a strategic Walking Investment Strategy if the Secretary of State has highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”. consulted on the proposals with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 6, line 22, leave out 5 In performing functions under this Schedule, the Secretary of “a strategic highways company”and insert “the Highways State must have regard to the desirability of maintaining Agency”. certainty and stability in respect of Cycling and Walking Amendment 17, page 6, line 26, leave out “a strategic Investment Strategies.” highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”. Amendment 32, page 60, line 2, leave out schedule 1. Government amendment 112. Amendment 33, in schedule 2, page 87, line 11, leave out “a strategic highways company” and insert “the Amendment 18, page 6, line 29, leave out “a strategic Highways Agency”. highways company” and insert “the Highways Agency”. Amendment 34, page 87, line 19, leave out “company” Amendment 19, page 6, line 35, leave out “strategic and insert “Highways Agency”. highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 35, page 87, line 20, leave out “company” Amendment 20, page 6, line 37, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”. and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 36, page 87, line 22, leave out “company” Amendment 21, page 6, line 39, leave out “strategic and insert “Highways Agency”. highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 37, page 87, line 27, leave out “strategic Government amendments 113 and 114. highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 7, line 2, leave out Amendment 38, page 88, line 4, leave out “strategic “a strategic highways company”and insert “the Highways highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. Agency”. Amendment 39, page 88, line 7, leave out “company” Amendment 23, page 7, line 8, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”. and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 40, page 88, line 10, leave out “company” Amendment 24, page 7, line 9, leave out “company” and insert “Highways Agency”. and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 41, page 88, line 22, leave out “strategic Amendment 25, page 7, line 10, leave out “company” highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. and insert “Highways Agency”. Amendment 42, page 88, line 25, leave out schedule 3. Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, leave out Amendment 127, in schedule 3, page 89, line 8, at end “strategic highways company” and insert “Highways insert— Agency”. ‘(2A) The transfer scheme may make consequential, Amendment 27, page 7, line 20, leave out “strategic supplementary, incidental or transitional provision and may, if highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer, make provision which is the same or similar.” Amendment 28, page 7, line 22, leave out “strategic Amendment 76, page 92, line 5, at end insert— highways company” and insert “Highways Agency”. “(d) that person is protected by the conditions set out in Amendment 29, page 8, line 2, leave out clauses 13 the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of and 14. Employment) Regulations 2006.” 663 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 664

Government amendment 115. progress on achieving those objectives and, where a Amendment 77, page 92, line 5, at end insert— strategy applies for a period longer than five years, to ensure that it is reviewed at least once every five years. ‘(1A) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 apply to the transfer of a relevant undertaking either. David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): The Minister is (a) to a different company appointed as a highway authority making an important speech. He is setting out a very under section 1 of this Act, or clear strategy, which is absolutely vital. Does he agree that it is not just the investment but the outcomes that (b) to any other equivalent public sector body established to undertake general duties of a strategic highways will be so important for the nation, particularly in company.” tackling the growing challenge of physical inactivity? Government amendment 116. Mr Hayes: My hon. Friend is right; not for the first Mr Hayes: I rise with some enthusiasm because, as time, he highlights these matters. That is precisely why the House knows, cycling has moved up a gear as a the reporting mechanisms implicit in the new clause are result of this Government. New clause 13 reflects the so significant. As he rightly says, it is not enough simply Government’s commitment to cycling and walking, and to put in the resources, although we are clearly doing making these the natural choice for shorter journeys. that, as I have shown; it is also important that we The cycling fraternity has responded already. No less a measure the effect of those resources. As I said, the personage than Chris Boardman described this proposal arrangements that we have set in motion ensure that as representing these matters are reviewed regularly, and that when setting or varying the strategy we bear in mind the “a massive shift in thinking and, most importantly, commitment.” desirability of certainty and stability. We will consult on He went on to say: whether to make a variation once the strategy has been “It brings us one step closer to realising our vision for a cycling set. For those reasons, I hope that the whole House will nation...Everyonewhorides a bike should see this as the start of join me in welcoming this exciting development. something really exciting.” Government have to take difficult decisions, and not Dr Huppert: On behalf of everyone else from the everything we do is universally popular, but when one all-party cycling group, others who supported the new gets such acclamation, one has to—I will not say milk clause and all the organisations who have worked on it; that would be wrong—draw it to the attention of the this, I thank the Minister for the Government agreeing House in a measured and humble way, which is what I to do this, because it will make a big difference. Will he intend to do in this short debate about cycling. update us on what has happened to the draft strategy This is certainly an exciting move forward. Since that came out last year? When should we expect a 2010, the Government’s spending on cycling overall has full-blown strategy to take effect? more than doubled compared with the last four years of the previous Administration, with £374 million committed Mr Hayes: The new clause, should it turn from a between 2011 and 2015. The Minister responsible for vision to a proposal to a law, will facilitate that strategy cycling—I do not count that among my encyclopaedic and escalate the process by which it is developed and list of responsibilities—is the Under-Secretary of State delivered. Much of the work has been done, as the hon. for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough Gentleman implied, but it has now been framed in the and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). He has been a champion of most appropriate place—that is, the Bill, which sets in this and should be recognised for his efforts and dedication motion a road investment strategy about which I shall in listening to the issues raised by cycling groups and wax lyrical in a moment. It would be ironic to have a responding to them. road investment strategy without having a walking and cycling strategy alongside it. That case was made by 8pm cyclists here in the House and beyond, and it is a Let us look at some of the facts. Spending on cycling persuasive one. The hon. Gentleman can look forward is currently about £6 per person each year across England to the achievement of his ambitions being carried out and £10 per person in London and our eight cycling with alacrity. ambition cities. In November, we announced a further New clause 5 and new schedule 1 on a cycling strategy £140 million for the cycling ambition cities, and, through are designed to achieve a very similar purpose to new the road investment strategy, a further £100 between clause 13. The Government’s new clause and amendments 2015 and 2021 for additional cycling provision on the make the duty clearer. On that basis, I invite those who strategic road network. As I am sure the House is aware, gave them life to recognise the progress that has been in October we published our draft cycling delivery made and withdraw their amendments. plan—a 10-year strategy on how we plan to increase I turn to new clause 17 and the important issue of cycling and walking across England. This plan illustrates ensuring that the road investment strategy will take the Government’s long-term commitment to cycling account of local issues. Opposition Members made that and walking. It is in that spirit that we tabled the new argument powerfully when we considered these matters clause, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to in Committee, and the case was made both formally have just such an investment strategy. and in informal discussions across the House. The road Each of the strategies, which cover England only, will investment strategy—as I need not remind you, Madam be set for a given period and must specify objectives to Deputy Speaker, because I know you are intimately be achieved and the financial resources that will be familiar with it—is a series of documents that sets out a made available for that purpose. Furthermore, the Secretary long-term commitment to road investment, backs that of State will be required to report to Parliament on with funding, and determines by empirical means where 665 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 666 that money will make the most difference. It was said aware of the difficulties in terms of safety and congestion, that the strategy needed to marry with much of what is although we have addressed the issues around Newcastle happening on local roads, which are the preserve of itself. As he will also know, I have visited the area as a local highways authorities. It was argued that if there Minister to see first hand some of the challenges and were a mismatch between that local activity, and the what can be done to overcome them. decision making that takes place in those authorities, and the judgments that are made as part of the bigger Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Will the strategy, there could be problems of inconsistency, overlap route strategies include strategies on speed limits? If so, or perhaps even contradiction between local and national does my right hon. Friend intend to make greater use of ambitions. variable speed limits, which have been quite successful? It therefore seemed important that the Government look at the role of route strategies in those terms, and Mr Hayes: Variable speed limits are part of the smart that is precisely what we intend to do. The road investment motorway schemes that we are doing immense work on. documents that were issued in December, to much Indeed, I was speaking about them at lunchtime today. stakeholder acclaim, clearly demonstrated how the They reflect a greater understanding of and ability to investments that we have prioritised will support cities alter the way in which people interface with roads by helping to connect housing sites, enterprise zones and through the provision of dynamic information, and other industrial developments. Just as we have committed allow us to make much better use of infrastructure once to supporting ports, airports and the construction of the investment has been made. The way in which people High Speed 2, the road investment strategy is designed drive, what they drive and the way in which they interface to give a degree of certainty, to build confidence, and to with the information that is provided for them on the facilitate investment accordingly. This is a significant road will change considerably over our lifetimes and change in public policy. We are moving from the piecemeal beyond. It is important that we do not allow any annualised funding of roads to a bigger vision supported rigidity in public policy to inhibit the developments that by bigger policy assumptions. will spring from such technological changes. My right hon. Friend is right that variable speed Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I very much welcome limits are an important part of that future. He has been this plan, because for too long we have had isolated, a great champion of them. Indeed, what greater champion year-by-year approaches. This will make a real difference, of roads and motoring has there been than my right particularly in the north, where we have, for example, hon. Friend, who has shared many long evenings discussing the A69 dualling scheme. That was approved for a just these kind of matters with me? I look forward to feasibility study by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, many more. but now we can plan for a long-term future supported by both local enterprise partnerships. Is not this part of Through the route strategies, Highways England, the the way forward? body that we are creating, will work closely with local authorities, LEPs and other bodies, including rail bodies, Mr Hayes: Yes, that is right. As I said, this is a to develop the building blocks of future plans. It will significant change in terms of public policy assumptions. ensure that local roads, local transport, our cities and To be frank—this is not a criticism of a particular other modes of transport are considered throughout Government—post-war Governments have not always the strategy development process. That is the point. It is approached infrastructure as well as they might have a point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield done. There are all kinds of reasons for that, such as a (Richard Burden) made in Committee. It was taken on nervousness about binding the hands of one’s successors board by the Government. People call me the people’s or a reluctance to get these big decisions wrong. In Minister, but I would rather be called the listening democratic politics, there is a pressure towards delivering Minister, because I listen and respond to good argument, results in a five-year span—understandably, as we all and I try to develop politics and policy accordingly. have to be re-elected—and some of the decisions we are making in this strategy will have a payback over a much Joan Walley rose— longer period than that. When building roads, rather like power stations and significant railway projects, the Mr Hayes: On that basis, I am happy to listen to the reward in terms of well-being and economic activity has hon. Lady. a reverberating effect for many decades. As a result, Governments sometimes do not take these big but Joan Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving necessary decisions that serve the national interest. way, because he is clearly a well travelled Minister, just like the well travelled road. While he is in listening Sir Alan Beith: There is no better illustration of the mode, I remind him that when he gave evidence before Minister’s point than the history of A1 dualling over the Environmental Audit Committee on air quality, he decades. I commend the Government for building in a said specifically that the remit of the new body he was commitment to, and the means of achieving, a substantial creating would include environmental concerns. If he part of that. We would like more to be dualled, but that has read our report and listened to what we have said, is a very significant move forward. he will know that we are calling for “a legal duty to protect air quality” Mr Hayes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. and the introduction of As he knows, I am a frequent visitor to his constituency for recreational purposes. I tend to holiday on the “a specific clause to that effect in the Infrastructure Bill”. north-east coast in Bamburgh and other places. I know Will he tell us how he has listened and brought that to the road north of Newcastle extremely well, and I am fruition? 667 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 668

Mr Hayes: Let me say two things, the first of which is over the roads sector, we risk causing public confusion how much I enjoy giving evidence before the hon. over its remit. I agreed in Committee to reflect further Lady’s Committee. I have enjoyed many exchanges with and to return with a view on how such an undesirable her on policy matters over a considerable period. Secondly, situation might be avoided. I will ensure that environmental considerations are built Amendment 114 will alter the Railways and Transport into all the strategic thinking and the development of Safety Act 2003 to allow the ORR to be renamed all these plans. Air quality should be regarded as a through secondary legislation. It does not rename the salient that is taken into account in the building blocks, ORR, but creates a power for the Government to do so. as I have described them, that we put together between I have discussed the matter with the ORR. It wants to local roads and the national strategy. discuss it in a consultation. As you can imagine, Madam Furthermore, the hon. Lady will be delighted to Deputy Speaker, when that was said, I took a step back know—indeed, I hope that she will be in the audience—that because consultations bring forth images of curious I will be making a speech in the next few weeks on names being devised by all sorts of curious people. I precisely these issues: the environmental aspects of the therefore suggested that the ORR hold a short discussion strategy and how we need to develop a new paradigm in with its stakeholders, who would want to have a say in respect of the environmental impact of infrastructure any such changes. However, that should be a short development. I can tell that the excitement is building in and straightforward process, and not a great national the House as a result of that. I can see that she is excited conversation. We do not need one of those in respect of enough to intervene again. the renaming of the Office of Rail Regulation. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield pointed out, Joan Walley: Does what the Minister has just said it will not actually be a regulatory body in respect of amount to a legal duty? He has referred to the way in roads, so we need to be careful about the name so that which some of the responsibilities for roads lie re with we do not cause the very confusion that we are trying to local authorities and some with the new agency. Without avoid or prevent. a legal duty, it is impossible to see how there can be My preference would be to call the organisation the certainty—rather than uncertainty—that everything possible office for rail and road. To give credit where credit is will be done to reduce air quality problems. due, that was first suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. [HON.MEMBERS: “Ah!”] I am Mr Hayes: Even my audacity does not allow me to an honest chap. I do not want to steal his thunder. It is a make up legal duties on the hoof. I shall take away what jolly good idea. It has a certain elegance, after all. Never the hon. Lady proposes and look at the legal ramifications. underestimate the importance of style. Substance matters, I am clear that air quality and the environment are an but style matters too. absolute salient in these matters. As I said, I will ensure I urge Members to support Government amendments that those considerations are built into the development 115 and 116. I am determined that staff who transfer to of the strategies, but far be it from me to say what I the new organisation should not be disadvantaged in cannot subsequently justify. I do not want to make up a respect of terms and conditions. I have given assurances legal duty as I go along, and I know that she would not to the House that that is the case and intend, through expect me to do so. the amendments, to reaffirm those protections and the Notwithstanding what I have said about the importance stated commitment that the transfer of employees to of route strategies, I understand that there are those Highways England will follow TUPE principles. who would like additional reassurance that they will happen. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Will will insert a reference to route strategies in the Bill. The the Minister clarify the difference between staff transferring Secretary of State will require a strategic highways under TUPE and under his proposal in amendment 115? company to prepare and publish one or more strategies on the management and development of the highways Mr Hayes: I am coming to that. In shorthand, let me to which it has been appointed, which will be known as assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want staff to route strategies. The strategies must be published, as be disadvantaged in any way, as I said. We will honour must the Secretary of State’s directions to the company, TUPE principles in this transfer of staff. so we have provided that the process will be transparent Amendment 115 makes it clear that when existing and comprehensible. The new clause, along with the Highways Agency staff transfer to the new company, provisions in the statutory directions and guidance, their employment terms and conditions will not change. which we have updated, provides reassurance, while I recognise that the changes that are planned for the giving Highways England the flexibility to adapt the Highways Agency will cause anxiety for existing staff. route strategy process to meet the needs of cities, the The amendment confirms that the existing rights and country as a whole and the Government of the day. It is liabilities of staff will not change following transfer to clear that, as a result of new clause 17, amendment 43 is the new organisation. not needed, so I ask that it not be pressed. John McDonnell rose— 8.15 pm The title of the new body that will oversee the work Mr Hayes: I will make a little progress and then let of Highways England was raised in Committee. It was the hon. Gentleman come back. argued that the Office of Rail Regulation was, nominally The Bill provides that a transferring employee can at least, an inappropriate description of a body that will terminate their contract if there is a substantial detrimental oversee road investment, as well as the rail strategy. In change to it if they transfer. That reflects regulation 4(9) giving the Office of Rail Regulation new responsibilities of TUPE. Government amendment 116 supplements 669 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 670 that by providing that where the employee claims in concert with the House, the ability to make those constructive dismissal in those circumstances, no damages changes must be established in the Bill. I am absolutely are payable in respect of any unpaid wages that relate to clear that Highways England must report to the House, a notice period he or she has not worked. I should stress and that Members on both sides of the House must that the amendment does not prevent employees from have the chance to scrutinise its work. Ministers must claiming for damages for constructive dismissal, but have a role, indeed play a key role, in the delivery of the seeks to establish a common-sense position that damages strategy. cannot be claimed for a period of required notice that It might be true to say that the greatest challenge we has not been worked. I should highlight that the amendment face is getting the delivery right. We have surmounted ensures that the provisions in the Bill properly reflect an important hurdle in developing a strategy founded TUPE in that regard. on empiricism and backed with funding for the long term—more than £15 billion up to 2021—but it will Richard Burden: I should like to press the Minister to happen only if we have in place the right resources, clarify Government amendment 116. From what he has skills and partnerships, and the right range of other said, it seems that the intention is to put the TUPE organisations, to make it happen. It would be inappropriate principles into the Bill. The amendment contains the if Ministers and all hon. Members were not involved in words “constructive dismissal”. It seems to me—this is that process. I expect directions to emanate from the certainly the advice we have had—that that is inappropriate. Department for Transport periodically—it is not meant Will he look again? to be an exceptional power. I expect reports to be made to the House periodically. That, too, should not be a Mr Hayes: The hon. Gentleman, with the courtesy he matter of exception. That was raised at length by the personifies, raised that with me before we came to the shadow Minister. The strong governance arrangements House today. I have committed to take another look at and framework we have put in place provide some of that through the parliamentary draftsman. There is no the measures he sought when he argued the case for intention to disadvantage staff in that regard. I give that greater accountability. absolute assurance, but I will double-check the language, The use of directions in the licence will allow the because language in such things matters. He and I are in Government to exert control over how the company discussion and I have committed to write to him as soon exercises its statutory functions. In addition, as sole as possible, and certainly before the matter is discussed shareholder the Secretary of State can ensure that the further, to clarify the use of the language to which he company is properly led and governed. More detail is in has drawn the House’s attention. the summary document published in December, but I will write again on some of those matters following John McDonnell: Will the Minister clarify why he has today’s consideration. used a formulation unused in any other legislation in Opposition Front Benchers and all Members of the the past? I have set out the various options in three House will be familiar with the new copy of the licence, amendments showing what the Government have used which strengthens those provisions, and which was provided in past legislation to assure staff that they are transferring to hon. Members on 22 January and placed in the either under TUPE or under the Cabinet Office statement Library of the House. Let me say again that if there are of practice, the TUPE-like agreement that the Cabinet problems with performance, I expect Ministers to make Office agreed with the trade unions involved. Why are use of those directions; I expect Parliament to see the we not using the past formulations? Highways monitor’s report on the impact; and I expect Ministers to ensure that Parliament is informed of how Mr Hayes: Originality and imagination are part of issues have been resolved. my style. I said style is as important as substance. It is obvious from the amendments that were tabled The substance is in the Bill; the style is all my own. The that I need to explain why we need to change the status important thing is that, having met staff representatives of the Highways Agency and create an arm’s length on 13 January, I am fully aware that there are other aspects body, and I am happy to repeat an argument I made they want me to look at. I fully recognise the concerns earlier. Let me start with the point of view that some they raised. Some of those issues need to be considered suggest—they suggest that we should do nothing more further, and I have asked my officials to pursue those than implement a road investment strategy without matters urgently. In the spirit that I have described, I changing the structure necessary to deliver it. Of course, will not allow staff to be disadvantaged by any changes. the Highways Agency would make every effort to do so The House has my absolute assurance on that. Government efficiently, and of course we would have some success in amendments 115 and 116 reaffirm our commitment delivering that strategy, but we need to understand that that existing Highways Agency staff terms and conditions if we are to deliver the strategy, we need to make should be protected, as I have described. significant changes to the existing arrangements. New clause 18 places a responsibility on the Government The relationship between the agency and the Government to report periodically to Parliament on the performance has on occasions failed to reflect the wider interests of of Highways England. I have introduced this to reassure the economy and the long-term interests of taxpayers some who fear that Ministers will lose control of Highways and road users. The measure is about providing a clearer, England, and that they will have no accountability to more strategic role for the Government, and providing a Parliament if Highways England fails to deliver. It is stronger, more certain framework, through the licence absolutely right that the new body can get on and and the road investment strategy and the framework deliver the strategy that the Government devise, establish document, for the organisation mission to deliver those and agree, but let me be clear that should the important infrastructural changes to our nation. By the implementation and delivery of the strategy require way, those changes are not just about economic well-being; further involvement, direction or adjustment by Ministers, they are also about societal and communal well-being. 671 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 672

[Mr Hayes] when the end of the list is reached and the tick needs to be put in the box. There is now widespread consensus The industry is keen to see change both in the way on the need for change. Getting more people walking funding is committed and in the way the Highways and cycling will improve our nation’s health, tackle Agency is constructed. In the call for evidence for the congestion and make our towns and cities better places Bill, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association said: to live. “Even with an apparently committed five year programme, not We lag behind many other countries. Just 2% of transforming the Highways Agency into an arms-length body overall journeys are made by bike and walking levels could still leave it a target, should future Governments decide cuts continue to decline. Some 64% of all journeys are made to spending…The supply chain…has confidence that the creation by car, but more than half of them are shorter than five of a Government-owned company would significantly reduce the miles, with a fifth being under a mile. We need to move likelihood of this happening.” walking and cycling to the mainstream of transport The CBI said that business welcomes the Government’s policy. We raised that point time after time in the other important decision to reform the Highways Agency to a place and in Committee. In the other place, Labour more independent body, giving it greater funding certainty secured an explicit consideration of pedestrian and through fixed five to six-year funding cycles. cyclist safety in the Bill, and that is to be welcomed. In The road investment strategy provides a logical and Committee, we pressed the Government to include a credible commitment between two separate parties—the long-term strategy and funding for active travel, but focus of the company is on delivering its operational sadly they voted against our plans. One always welcomes objectives, and the focus of the Government is on a sinner who repents, but if that was the Government’s providing a long-term funding stream. I know that some intention all along, why did they oppose our amendments fear we will lose control of the reins of the company. in Committee? That is why I have gone as far as I have in the framework The Government’s change of course is a credit to the document, the licence and the Bill. We will also of cross-party members of the all-party cycling group; to course have the monitor—the new body that will oversee cycling groups such as British Cycling and the CTC; to the operation of the new arrangements. That is all in transport campaigners such as Living Streets, Sustrans, line with the conclusions of the Public Administration the Campaign for Better Transport and the Campaign Committee’s recent report on the relationship between to Protect Rural England; and the Richmond group of Government and arm’s length bodies, which said: health charities. They have all put the right kind of “Relationships should be high trust and low cost, but too often pressure on in the past two weeks to secure this change, are low trust and high cost.” which we welcome. On that basis, I resist amendments 5 to 42 which would The new clauses and amendments tabled by the Minister remove the relevant clauses or reinsert the words “Highways are almost identical to those tabled earlier, with the Agency”. exception that the original contained an explicit obligation on the Secretary of State to “comply” with the strategy. 8.30 pm The absence of that word may not mean anything significant, but perhaps that could be clarified. In conclusion, the Bill will transform the quality of The Bill will turn the Highways Agency into a wholly our roads infrastructure, secure delivery, drive growth owned Government company.We support road investment and provide the network operator with the stability strategies to give the roads sector the same funding needed to deliver a better service for those who rely on certainty as the railways, to enable efficiency savings to and use our roads, as well as generating £2.6 billion over be delivered in the supply chain and to improve 10 years in additional savings. These changes will provide infrastructure planning. Most reviews of the Highways certainty for the industry and help it to get ready for the Agency—most recently the Cook review of 2011—have significant increases in investment over the next few shown that the ending of stop-start Government funding years, with the confidence to recruit and train skilled could cut costs on the strategic road network, construction workers. That confidence will mean that suppliers can maintenance and management by 15% to 20%. We build capability for the future and sign longer-term support that, but we will continue to ask the Government contracts with a new company at reduced cost to the why we need a top-down reorganisation of the Highways taxpayer. Agency to deliver that strategy. In short, these changes will lead us towards the We have still not had the evidence for that. The only effective, long-term planning and development of the real evidence I have seen is an EC Harris paper in 2009, world-class national road infrastructure that road users which found that motorway construction costs were deserve. In that spirit and with that confidence, bold, higher per lane kilometre in the UK than in Holland, but humble—because, as I said, we must listen and where the road operator is at arm’s length. If we look learn through the process of scrutiny—I am proud to closely, however, we see that the additional costs in the commend the Government’s new clauses and ask that UK were from CCTV, speed enforcement and vehicle the other amendments, which would create a very different recovery services, which are funded separately under the model, be withdrawn. Dutch model. The additional costs also come from higher technical standards for pavements and structures, Richard Burden: Time is clearly short, so I will be as more complex ground conditions, design solutions and brief as I can be in having to cover a wide range of drainage provisions. Therefore, there is not the evidence amendments and issues. to say that the Government need to have that top-down The Minister began by mentioning the walking and reorganisation. We are not convinced. We have debated cycling issues covered by the amendments and new this and scrutinised it in two Houses of Parliament, but clauses. For too long, walking and cycling have been an there is no substantial evidence to prove that an institutional afterthought in transport policy, given attention only reorganisation, with estimated transitional costs of 673 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 674

£100 million, is needed. That is why we will be moving provision, including walking and cycling, and to ensure to delete the clauses from the Bill today, while maintaining that the road investment strategy is developed in a commitment to the road investment strategy. consideration of the condition of local roads, a third of The Minister touched on accountability. I welcome which, we know, are in urgent need of attention. Under the changes and amendments he has made. There are the Government’s plans, £1.4 million per mile will be still some pretty fundamental questions, however, about spent on the maintenance of strategic roads, but only primary accountability and responsibility. We cannot £31,700 per mile is allocated to local roads. I hope that allow the Secretary of State to become a third party hon. Members will seriously consider the safeguards commentator on the performance of a company and that we have argued for and which have been supported the state of the road network: he must be answerable for by the Local Government Association and others today. it. The Minister has said that he completely signs up to Throughout this debate, it has been clear that that and I believe that that is his intention, but if so why infrastructure must be planned to meet clear economic, are we having to debate a structure that separates social and environmental objectives, but we have seen responsibility for the road network from ministerial from previous debates on energy and planning that the responsibility? In the absence of any real evidence to Bill has often fallen far short of doing that. Along with prove that this is needed, is it any surprise that many groups such as the Campaign for Better Transport and people are worried that this could become—not now, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, therefore, we but in the future—a way of creating an increasingly have pressed for obligations to ensure that strategic contracted out, carved out and removed from public roads investment improves our environment. That means control structure? That is causing concern from action to meet legally binding climate change targets by organisations as diverse as the Public and Commercial 2050. Worryingly, the Department’s forecast predicts Services Union, Prospect and the Alliance of British that although road traffic emissions will flatten they will Drivers, right the way through to members of the then start to increase in the 2030s. We need urgent British Chambers of Commerce. Our amendment would action, therefore, to tackle air pollution, which is estimated keep the oversight mechanisms of a monitor and road to be killing up to 29,000 people prematurely each year, user watchdog in place, even if we did not go ahead and vehicle emissions, such as particulate matter and with the reform of the Highways Agency. oxides of nitrogen, which are major sources of the The Minister talked about route strategies. He was problem. right to do so, as they have been a major part of the The road investment strategy states that the new discussion in Committee and elsewhere. Our concern is company should make progress towards reducing the that, while reform and investment in the strategic highway negative impacts on air quality, but in the light of the network is absolutely necessary, we have to remember Government’s record on air quality that is not very that the changes and the whole Bill affect just 2% of reassuring—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member roads. The Department for Transport’s own research for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) alluded earlier. shows that 90% of the public are satisfied with those The UK is not compliant with EU limits on air pollution roads. That is not to say that there should be any now. In November, the European Court of Justice said complacency, but it does not affect the 98% of local that urgent action was needed, but under this Government’s roads that people rely on every day. It is here that we see plan we will not be compliant until 2030, and that the pothole epidemic, and it is here that we see record simply is not good enough. That is why we are asking public dissatisfaction and congestion levels estimated to for much greater action than is in the Bill; why we have rise by 61% by 2040, so it is crucial that strategic road committed to a national framework of low-emission plans support city, county and regional growth plans zones to help local authorities tackle the problem; and and help councils to improve road conditions and to why we are pleased to support amendment 70, which tackle congestion. Strategic roads must be co-planned my hon. Friend tabled, and which would add an explicit with local networks and other transport modes so that obligation on the new company to address air quality issues. we can really improve people’s everyday journeys and I wish to say a word about transfers—I know that my reduce traffic congestion. hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington I am pleased that pressure from Labour and transport (John McDonnell) will want to say something about campaigners has secured a greater priority for local this as well. I welcome the Minister’s assurances in roads and joined-up transport thinking in the Bill, and I Committee that the terms and conditions of employees thank the Minister for the movements he has made, but transferring will not diminish—I believe he meant it, we need to go further. We need to get our entire transport and it was good he met the trade unions—but, as my system working as a connected whole. That is why we hon. Friend said, one issue remains: if the TUPE want Network Rail and the new company to sit down regulations, or the mechanisms used to apply them in and map and plan road and rail routes together, and not other reorganisations, are to apply, why has that not only to take reasonable account of each other’s views. been enshrined in the Bill? As the Bill continues its We want to ensure that local authorities and devolved passage, I hope that those issues will be addressed bodies are represented at board level in the company, further, and I welcome the Minister’s clarification today too. There are long-running difficulties in joining up that he will come back to us on the question of constructive local and strategic roads to get the network moving as dismissal, on which the Bill does not currently make one. We do not agree that “considering” local views and sense. allowing local authorities to align their plans with a The road reforms could have done so much more to company is enough. fix Britain’s roads. A constituent of mine wrote to me For that reason, our amendment 43 sets out some last week: safeguards to ensure that the road investment strategy is “I have major concerns about the ill thought out proposals a genuine co-product of plans with other transport which will do nothing to assist the UK economically and will be networks, devolved growth plans and local transport of great concern to road users.” 675 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 676

[Richard Burden] Joan Walley: Everyone is aware that the Environmental Audit Committee has now drawn up three reports on I think a lot of people would agree with that. We need air quality. We came up with a series of recommendations, to ensure that infrastructure decisions are based on clearly showing that there is no one single solution to national independent evidence-based assessments, which the problem of improving air quality and that we need a could be done if we set up the national infrastructure raft of measures. Cycling and walking are certainly part commission; we need to facilitate more efficient joint of that, and I am very pleased with the progress that has road and rail planning, which could have been done had been made. It is imperative for the Minister to do our amendments been accepted; and we need to join up exactly what he said he would do, and give further local and strategic roads to get the whole network serious consideration to the amendments tabled, following moving. Unfortunately, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. the Environmental Audit Committee discussions, about Its centrepiece, before all the others things were added, how placing a legal duty on the new Highways Agency was another top-down reorganisation that cannot deliver is critical if we are to deal with the public health issues. the changes our road network needs. I see the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Select Committee, in her place. Several hon. Members rose— The whole House is aware that we have something in the order of 29,000 premature deaths a year. We know Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo): that air pollution is an invisible killer. It is vital that Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate ends in when the new agency comes to do its work, it does not 16 minutes, because the knife will fall at 9 o’clock, so it just look at the environmental appraisal, but ensure that would be helpful if each Member spoke briefly to it has real teeth. We need real ways to plan roads and enable everyone to make their points. We will start provide green walls to help reduce pollution, and to voting at 9 o’clock. look at layout and public transport integration. The whole integrated approach to public transport needs to 8.45 pm be taken on board. Without the legal commitment, Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): It has been a long which I hope will come forward in the other place, we struggle for many of us, and I congratulate hon. Members cannot begin to tackle the problem of our being in breach of all parties on instituting, bringing forward and finally of EU regulations. We must deal urgently with that. getting Government agreement on the cycling strategy, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for which I shall briefly address. Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for saying We have spoken in various debates over many years that he would support amendment 70. At this stage, it is to get where we are, but as with all the best cycling incumbent on us to see what progress can be made by strategies, if we stick at it and power on through, the the Government in the other place. destination is always worth the journey. I congratulate the various cycling groups behind the campaign. Speaking Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): I warmly welcome as someone who cycles to work here in Westminster and the cycling and walking strategy. It is not just a cycling at home in the great county of Northumberland, I say and walking strategy; it is a cycling and walking investment that whether it be off road in Kielder or taking the strategy.As the Minister knows, good cycling infrastructure highways and the byways, this is without a shadow of a does not happen without that vital investment. I am doubt one of our finest assets. particularly pleased to see the words “certainty” and This decision by the Government, and the reaching “stability” in new clause 13. That is what it is all about, of cross-party agreement on it, will definitely be welcomed and it is how Holland achieved its objectives. It makes it in Northumberland. There is a tremendous desire there appropriate for the Minister to be the Member for for a cycling strategy. We have looked enviously at the South Holland and the Deepings. Holland achieved its city of Newcastle, which has enjoyed £6 million to goals by having £24 a head of stable, long-term investment. £7 million of cycling investment. That is wonderful for If we can get that level of investment—£10 to £20 a Newcastle, but has been somewhat to the disadvantage head has been called for in the all-party cycling group—we of us in Northumberland. While we now have an integrated can do the same. I pay tribute to all my colleagues in the strategy, I genuinely feel that there is an opportunity for all-party cycling group for the work they did, and I our constituents to get the cycling strategy that they so commend the cycling report. I warmly welcome the enthusiastically require. opportunity of discussing the issue with the Minister Locals have already prepared strategies for Hexham, responsible for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough Prudhoe and other towns in Tynedale and Castle Morpeth. and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place. I am pleased to say that Northumberland county council I think that we can expect an increase in the number has at last got into gear, and it needs to pitch to the of cycling journeys from 2% in 2011 to 10% within a Government for the funding; otherwise the cycling groups decade, which will have enormous benefits for health. I in my area will definitely be disappointed and potentially hope there will be investment in not just infrastructure left behind. That is not something that anybody wants. but training, and that cycle to work schemes will, in Let me finish by saying that I do not believe we can some form, be extended to young people. I warmly improve tourism without a cycling strategy; I do not thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clause, think we can improve our health, the obesity problem and look forward to seeing the health and well-being of and pollution without a cycling strategy; I do not the nation improve as a result. believe we can improve the cost of living that is an issue for so many people without a cycling strategy; and I John McDonnell: On Second Reading I echoed the certainly think we could do great things to improve the fear that had been expressed by Highways Agency staff quality of life if we had such a strategy. that this was the first stage of a privatisation process. 677 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 678

Since then, the Minister has written to various Members The all-party parliamentary cycling group set some saying that the Bill will not privatise the agency or any targets during the Get Britain Cycling inquiry. If we part of it. It is true that the Bill contains no such achieved those targets, about 80,000 disability-adjusted provision, but the staff nevertheless feel that they are life years would be saved each year by 2025. That is a being packaged up into an organisation and that the huge number. When mental as well as physical health is second stage will be privatisation, along with tolling. taken into account, the financial savings would amount The Minister has also given an assurance that the to between £2 billion and £6 billion, and the national roads investment strategy budget will no longer be health service would save £17 billion a year if we could annualised, but the chief executive has made clear to reach the Dutch and Danish levels. That is worth investing staff that the revenue budget for the maintenance of the in. That will save money as well as lives. new company will be annualised. Staff fear cuts and The case is strong, and that is why in our report we the prospect of being transferred to a company that will called for spending of up to £10—heading towards be privatised in due course. £20—per person per year, and that report was supported It is crucial for committed, dedicated professionals by all the cycling organisations, of course, and by who, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member Living Streets, a pedestrian group, but also by organisations for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), have such as the Automobile Association. All forms of transport done everything asked of them by this and the last want to see this happen, and business does, too. The Government over the years to be secure in the knowledge director general of the CBI has called for a major effort that they will have a job following the transfer. Both to expand the dedicated cycle network, and it is very Governments have normally provided that assurance by good that the Government have agreed and are doing including a reference to TUPE in legislation. In some the right thing by supporting this amendment. I thank instances, however, that may not be appropriate. the Minister with responsibility for cycling, the hon. TUPE usually obtains when a group of staff have Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), been transferred from the public sector to the private in particular. I remember when the hon. Member for sector. When the transfer is between Government agencies, Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and I tried to talk to him, and I or from the Government to an agency, a formal agreement am glad he has managed to deliver on what he knows is called COSOP operates. It was initiated by the last the right thing. Government, and has been confirmed by this one, and This amendment has been backed not only by the it is negotiated and signed off by the Cabinet Office. My cycling organisations, but by health organisations—all amendment 127 provides that of them, ranging from the British Heart Foundation to “if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer” Age UK, to Macmillan, and to Rethink Mental Illness. This is clearly a popular thing to do, therefore. the transfer scheme may “make provision which is the same or similar.” This Government have made progress on the policy on cycling and walking. We have seen more money go in There is real anxiety about the fact that the form of to this policy than ever before, and I welcome that. The words used by the Government does not include such a £241 million from the Deputy Prime Minister is the provision, and hence does not abide by the agreement largest single investment in cycling, but it goes nowhere reached by them and by the last Government with the near far enough. To get the benefits I spoke about, we trade unions. must have the money going in. This strategy says there Amendment 115 refers to has to be some, but it does not say how much. My party “all the rights and liabilities relating to the person’s contract of is committed to the £10 per person per year that was employment.” agreed by this House and the cross-party group. It The transfer of undertakings extends beyond the basic would also be something we would enshrine as part of contract of employment to a range of other assurances our green transport Act. that should be given to staff on transfer. That is why I would love to see the other parties join in. I know people are worried, and I feel that we will lose some that Back Benchers on both sides of the House are very dedicated professional staff as a result of the lack supportive, but I also know that the Front Benches on of commitment that is being given to the staff who both sides are against this—or at least they have been so have served us so well. I urge the Minister to reconsider, far. At the beginning of this year we saw an awful spat and to translate into the Bill a form of words that has with the Conservatives putting out something saying been used in every other Bill, relating either to TUPE that Labour is going to spend £63 million on cycling, as or to similar arrangements. If he does not do so, the though that was too much. Unfortunately, we saw Labour staff will remain anxious and concerned. respond by saying that that was nonsense and that Labour was not committed to spending any money on Dr Huppert: It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to cycling. I hope both Front Benches will fix that, because speak at the end of the debate, and to see the new clause I know their Back Benchers would like to see that make progress. happen. I know the shadow Minister was taken to task As I think the House knows by now, the case for by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for cycling and walking is incredibly strong. It is a great not committing any money to cycling. I hope both sides way to travel. It is environmentally friendly, healthy, and all parties will join us in committing to cycling and reliable, cheap and fun. It cuts congestion, so that walking, because it is not enough to have a strategy; we everyone else benefits as well. It boosts the economy, it have to put the resources in and we have to make sure saves money and it saves lives. Public Health England they are available. We can do that and we should do it, recently said that one in six deaths was due to physical and it is something this House has voted for. I hope it inactivity. What we do to promote physical activity will become a reality in the next few months and after helps people to improve their health. the general election as well. 679 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 680

Mr Hayes: I will address matters in reverse order to (4) A direction under subsection (1) must be published by the add excitement. On cycling and spending, I said at the Secretary of State in such manner as he or she considers outset, but repeat for the sake of clarity, that this appropriate.”—(Mr Hayes.) Government have committed to spend £374 million This amendment inserts a new clause requiring the Secretary of between 2011 and 2015. We have more than doubled State to direct a strategic highways company to prepare route spending on cycling compared with the last four years strategies. The company must comply with such a direction and publish route strategies in such manner as it considers appropriate. of the previous Government. As I said, about £6 per person each year across England and £10 per person in Brought up, and added to the Bill. London is being spent as part of cycle city ambition. Of course we understand that the strategies have to be New Clause 18 funded and that money matters, and the Government put their money where their mouth is. PERIODIC REPORTS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE On the circumstances of staff, let me be absolutely crystal clear once again that it is not our intention to “(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time prepare and publish reports on the manner in which a strategic highways disadvantage staff. Far from it. I want to ensure that company exercises its functions. they are treated properly and fairly in their terms and (2) The Secretary of State must lay a report prepared under conditions and all that that means. There is no hidden subsection (1) before Parliament.”—(Mr Hayes.) agenda, despite what the hon. Member for Hayes and This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to Harlington (John McDonnell) says; there is nothing prepare and publish reports on the exercise by a strategic highways under the bed that he should fear. The plan is to be company of its functions. absolutely straightforward, transparent and fair to all Brought up, and added to the Bill. those staff transferring from the existing organisation to the new one. I have already said I will come back to Amendment proposed: 4, page 1, line 4, leave out the shadow Minister on the particular point he raised in clauses 1 and 2.—(Richard Burden.) his intervention. Question put, That the amendment be made. Finally, we do believe a new body is necessary. This The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 323. new strategy requires a structural change in the way the strategy is delivered. This is a complex argument, but I Division No. 142] [9pm will try to make it as cogently as I can in less than a minute. It is probably true to say that the existing AYES Highways Agency is too close to Government and too Abbott, Ms Diane Cunningham, Sir Tony far away from Government. The new arrangements, Alexander, Heidi Curran, Margaret with the framework, the licence and the statutory Ali, Rushanara Dakin, Nic requirements to be put in place under this Bill, mean Allen, Mr Graham Darling, rh Mr Alistair that this new body will be close to Government but far Anderson, Mr David David, Wayne enough away to deliver the Government’s objectives. Ashworth, Jonathan Davidson, Mr Ian Bailey, Mr Adrian De Piero, Gloria That is our proposal. I think it has force. It has been Bain, Mr William Denham, rh Mr John widely welcomed and I hope the Opposition will come Banks, Gordon Dobson, rh Frank to the view that most others have: that this is an idea Barron, rh Kevin Docherty, Thomas whose time has come. Begg, Dame Anne Donohoe, Mr Brian H. Benn, rh Hilary Doran, Mr Frank 9pm Betts, Mr Clive Doughty, Stephen Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day). Blackman-Woods, Roberta Dowd, Jim The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already Blomfield, Paul Dromey, Jack proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), Blunkett, rh Mr David Dugher, Michael That the clause be read a Second time. Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben Durkan, Mark Question agreed to. Brown, Lyn Eagle, Ms Angela Brown, Mr Russell Eagle, Maria New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and Bryant, Chris Edwards, Jonathan added to the Bill. Buck, Ms Karen Efford, Clive The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions Burden, Richard Elliott, Julie necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded Byrne, rh Mr Liam Ellman, Mrs Louise at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). Campbell, rh Mr Alan Engel, Natascha Campbell, Mr Ronnie Esterson, Bill New Clause 17 Caton, Martin Evans, Chris Chapman, Jenny Field, rh Mr Frank ROUTE STRATEGIES Clark, Katy Fitzpatrick, Jim “(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time direct a Clarke, rh Mr Tom Flello, Robert strategic highways company to prepare proposals for the Coaker, Vernon Flint, rh Caroline management and development of particular highways in respect Coffey, Ann Flynn, Paul of which the company is appointed (“a route strategy”). Cooper, Rosie Fovargue, Yvonne Cooper, rh Yvette Francis, Dr Hywel (2) A route strategy must relate to such period as the Secretary of State may direct. Corbyn, Jeremy Gapes, Mike Creagh, Mary Gardiner, Barry (3) The strategic highways company must— Creasy, Stella Gilmore, Sheila (a) comply with a direction given to it under subsection (1), Cruddas, Jon Glass, Pat and Cryer, John Glindon, Mrs Mary (b) publish the route strategy in such manner as the Cunningham, Alex Godsiff, Mr Roger company considers appropriate. Cunningham, Mr Jim Goodman, Helen 681 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 682

Greatrex, Tom Morris, Grahame M. Baldwin, Harriett Evans, Jonathan Green, Kate (Easington) Barclay, Stephen Evans, Mr Nigel Greenwood, Lilian Munn, Meg Barker, rh Gregory Evennett, Mr David Griffith, Nia Murphy, rh Paul Baron, Mr John Fabricant, Michael Gwynne, Andrew Murray, Ian Bebb, Guto Fallon, rh Michael Hain, rh Mr Peter Nandy, Lisa Beith, rh Sir Alan Farron, Tim Hamilton, Mr David Nash, Pamela Bellingham, Mr Henry Field, Mark Hanson, rh Mr David O’Donnell, Fiona Benyon, Richard Foster, rh Mr Don Harris, Mr Tom Onwurah, Chi Beresford, Sir Paul Fox,rhDrLiam Havard, Mr Dai Osborne, Sandra Berry, Jake Francois, rh Mr Mark Healey, rh John Owen, Albert Bingham, Andrew Freeman, George Hepburn, Mr Stephen Pearce, Teresa Binley, Mr Brian Freer, Mike Heyes, David Perkins, Toby Blackman, Bob Fullbrook, Lorraine Hillier, Meg Pound, Stephen Blackwood, Nicola Fuller, Richard Hilling, Julie Powell, Lucy Blunt, Crispin Garnier, Sir Edward Hodgson, Mrs Sharon Qureshi, Yasmin Boles, Nick Garnier, Mark Hoey, Kate Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Bone, Mr Peter Gauke, Mr David Hopkins, Kelvin Reed, Mr Steve Bottomley, Sir Peter George, Andrew Howarth, rh Mr George Reynolds, Emma Bradley, Karen Gibb, Mr Nick Hunt, Tristram Reynolds, Jonathan Brady, Mr Graham Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl Irranca-Davies, Huw Ritchie, Ms Margaret Bray, Angie Glen, John Jackson, Glenda Robinson, Mr Geoffrey Brazier, Mr Julian Goldsmith, Zac James, Mrs Siân C. Rotheram, Steve Bridgen, Andrew Goodwill, Mr Robert Jamieson, Cathy Roy, Mr Frank Brine, Steve Gove, rh Michael Jarvis, Dan Ruane, Chris Brokenshire, James Graham, Richard Johnson, rh Alan Ruddock, rh Dame Joan Brooke, rh Annette Grant, Mrs Helen Johnson, Diana Sarwar, Anas Browne, Mr Jeremy Gray, Mr James Jones, Graham Sawford, Andy Bruce, Fiona Grayling, rh Chris Jones, Helen Seabeck, Alison Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm Green, rh Damian Jones, Mr Kevan Sharma, Mr Virendra Buckland, Mr Robert Greening, rh Justine Jones, Susan Elan Shuker, Gavin Burns, Conor Grieve, rh Mr Dominic Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald Skinner, Mr Dennis Burns, rh Mr Simon Griffiths, Andrew Keeley, Barbara Slaughter, Mr Andy Burrowes, Mr David Gummer, Ben Khan, rh Sadiq Smith, Nick Burstow, rh Paul Gyimah, Mr Sam Lavery, Ian Smith, Owen Burt, rh Alistair Hague, rh Mr William Lazarowicz, Mark Straw, rh Mr Jack Burt, Lorely Halfon, Robert Byles, Dan Hames, Duncan Leslie, Chris Stringer, Graham Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma Cairns, Alun Hammond, rh Mr Philip Stuart, Ms Gisela Long, Naomi Campbell, Mr Gregory Hammond, Stephen Tami, Mark Love, Mr Andrew Carmichael, Neil Hancock, rh Matthew Thomas, Mr Gareth Lucas, Caroline Cash, Sir William Hands, rh Greg Timms, rh Stephen Lucas, Ian Chishti, Rehman Harper, Mr Mark Mactaggart, Fiona Trickett, Jon Clark, rh Greg Harrington, Richard Mahmood, Mr Khalid Turner, Karl Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth Harris, Rebecca Mahmood, Shabana Twigg, Derek Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Hart, Simon Malhotra, Seema Twigg, Stephen Coffey, Dr Thérèse Harvey, Sir Nick Mann, John Umunna, Mr Chuka Collins, Damian Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan Marsden, Mr Gordon Vaz, rh Keith Colvile, Oliver Hayes, rh Mr John McCabe, Steve Vaz, Valerie Cox, Mr Geoffrey Heald, Sir Oliver McCarthy, Kerry Walley, Joan Crabb, rh Stephen Heath, Mr David McClymont, Gregg Watson, Mr Tom Crockart, Mike Heaton-Harris, Chris McDonagh, Siobhain Watts, Mr Dave Crouch, Tracey Hemming, John McDonald, Andy Whitehead, Dr Alan Davey, rh Mr Edward Henderson, Gordon McDonnell, John Williamson, Chris Davies, David T. C. Hendry, Charles McGovern, Alison Winnick, Mr David (Monmouth) Herbert, rh Nick McGuire, rh Dame Anne Winterton, rh Ms Rosie Davies, Glyn Hinds, Damian McInnes, Liz Wood, Mike Davies, Philip Hoban, Mr Mark de Bois, Nick Hollingbery, George McKechin, Ann Woodcock, John McKenzie, Mr Iain Dinenage, Caroline Hollobone, Mr Philip Woodward, rh Mr Shaun Mearns, Ian Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Holloway, Mr Adam Wright, Mr Iain Miller, Andrew Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen Hopkins, Kris Moon, Mrs Madeleine Tellers for the Ayes: Dorries, Nadine Horwood, Martin Morden, Jessica Phil Wilson and Doyle-Price, Jackie Howarth, Sir Gerald Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) Tom Blenkinsop Drax, Richard Howell, John Duncan, rh Sir Alan Hughes, rh Simon NOES Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Dunne, Mr Philip Hunter, Mark Adams, Nigel Arbuthnot, rh Mr James Ellis, Michael Huppert, Dr Julian Afriyie, Adam Bacon, Mr Richard Ellison, Jane Hurd, Mr Nick Aldous, Peter Baker, rh Norman Ellwood, Mr Tobias Jackson, Mr Stewart Amess, Sir David Baker, Steve Elphicke, Charlie James, Margot Andrew, Stuart Baldry, rh Sir Tony Evans, Graham Javid, rh Sajid 683 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 684

Jenkin, Mr Bernard Parish, Neil Walker, Mr Charles Williams, Stephen Jenrick, Robert Patel, Priti Walker, Mr Robin Williamson, Gavin Johnson, Gareth Paterson, rh Mr Owen Wallace, Mr Ben Willott, rh Jenny Johnson, Joseph Pawsey, Mark Watkinson, Dame Angela Wilson, Mr Rob Jones, Andrew Penning, rh Mike Weatherley, Mike Wilson, Sammy Jones, rh Mr David Penrose, John Webb, rh Steve Wollaston, Dr Sarah Jones, Mr Marcus Percy, Andrew Wharton, James Wright, rh Jeremy Kawczynski, Daniel Perry, Claire Wheeler, Heather Wright, Simon Kelly, Chris Phillips, Stephen White, Chris Yeo, Mr Tim Kirby, Simon Pincher, Christopher Whittaker, Craig Young, rh Sir George Knight, rh Sir Greg Poulter, Dr Daniel Whittingdale, Mr John Zahawi, Nadhim Kwarteng, Kwasi Prisk, Mr Mark Wiggin, Bill Lamb, rh Norman Pritchard, Mark Willetts, rh Mr David Tellers for the Noes: Lancaster, Mark Pugh, John Williams, Mr Mark Gavin Barwell and Lansley, rh Mr Andrew Raab, Mr Dominic Williams, Roger Tom Brake Latham, Pauline Randall, rh Sir John Laws, rh Mr David Redwood, rh Mr John Question accordingly negatived. Leadsom, Andrea Rees-Mogg, Jacob Lee, Jessica Reevell, Simon Lee, Dr Phillip Reid, Mr Alan Clause 9 Leech, Mr John Robathan, rh Mr Andrew Lefroy, Jeremy Robertson, rh Sir Hugh Leslie, Charlotte Robertson, Mr Laurence MONITOR Letwin, rh Mr Oliver Rogerson, Dan Amendments made: 112, page 6, line 28, at end insert Lewis, Brandon Rosindell, Andrew “, and Lewis, Dr Julian Rudd, Amber (c) the effect of directions and guidance given by the Lidington, rh Mr David Ruffley, Mr David Secretary of State to a strategic highways company Lilley, rh Mr Peter Rutley, David under this Part.” Lloyd, Stephen Sanders, Mr Adrian This amendment provides that the activities of the Office of Rail Lopresti, Jack Scott, Mr Lee Regulation may include investigating, publishing reports or giving Lord, Jonathan Selous, Andrew advice on the effect of directions and guidance under Part 1 of the Loughton, Tim Shapps, rh Grant Bill. Luff, Sir Peter Sharma, Alok Lumley, Karen Shelbrooke, Alec Amendment 113, page 6, line 42, at end insert— Macleod, Mary Shepherd, Sir Richard “(8) The Secretary of State must lay a report published by the Main, Mrs Anne Simmonds, rh Mark Office under this section before Parliament.” Maude, rh Mr Francis Simpson, David This amendment provides a duty for the Secretary of State to lay a May, rh Mrs Theresa Simpson, Mr Keith report published by the Office of Rail Regulation before Maynard, Paul Skidmore, Chris Parliament. McCartney, Jason Smith, Chloe Amendment 114, page 6, line 42, at end insert— McCartney, Karl Smith, Henry McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick Smith, Julian ‘(9) In Part 2 (Office of Rail Regulation) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, after section 15 insert— McPartland, Stephen Soames, rh Sir Nicholas McVey, rh Esther Soubry, Anna “15A Change of name Menzies, Mark Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make Metcalfe, Stephen Spencer, Mr Mark provision for the body established by section 15 to Miller, rh Maria Stephenson, Andrew be known by a different name. Mills, Nigel Stevenson, John (2) Regulations under this section may amend this Act Milton, Anne Stewart, Iain or any other enactment, whenever passed or Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew Stewart, Rory made. Mordaunt, Penny Streeter, Mr Gary (3) Regulations under this section are to be made by Morris, Anne Marie Stride, Mel statutory instrument. Morris, David Stuart, Mr Graham (4) A statutory instrument which contains regulations Morris, James Stunell, rh Sir Andrew under this section is subject to annulment in Mosley, Stephen Sturdy, Julian pursuance of a resolution of either House of Mowat, David Swales, Ian Parliament.”’—(Mr Hayes.) Mulholland, Greg Swayne, rh Mr Desmond This amendment inserts a new section 15A into the Railways and Munt, Tessa Swinson, Jo Transport Safety Act 2003 which provides for the Secretary of Murray, Sheryll Swire, rh Mr Hugo State to change the name of the Office of Rail Regulation by Murrison, Dr Andrew Syms, Mr Robert regulations. The regulations may also make amendments to Neill, Robert Teather, Sarah legislation which are consequential on the name change. Newmark, Mr Brooks Thornton, Mike Newton, Sarah Thurso, rh John Clause 51 Nokes, Caroline Timpson, Mr Edward Nuttall, Mr David Tomlinson, Justin EXTENT O’Brien, rh Mr Stephen Tredinnick, David Offord, Dr Matthew Truss, rh Elizabeth Amendment made: 94, page 57, line 45, at end insert— Ollerenshaw, Eric Turner, Mr Andrew ‘( ) Part 1A (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies) Opperman, Guy Tyrie, Mr Andrew extends to England and Wales only.”—(Mr Hayes.) Ottaway, rh Sir Richard Uppal, Paul This amendment provides for the new clause relating to Cycling and Paice, rh Sir James Vickers, Martin Walking Investment Strategies, which it is intended will form a new Paisley, Ian Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa Part after Part 1, to extend to England and Wales only. 685 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 686

Clause 52 on the immediate, on the imminent. It is easy to forget that the present is an illusion, as now becomes then in COMMENCEMENT an instant; it is the past that matters and the future. As I Amendment made: 101, page 58, line 32, at end insert— said a few moments ago when we were debating the Government amendments, it is easy for Governments to “( ) Part 1A (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints neglect infrastructure investment for just that reason. by regulations.”—(Mr Hayes.) This Bill looks beyond short-term political expediency to a future of greater investment—a future of more This amendment provides for the new clause relating to Cycling and Walking Investment Strategies, which it is intended will form a new jobs, more opportunities and more growth. This Bill Part after Part 1, to come into force by regulations. improves the funding and management of our major roads, streamlining the planning process, particularly for major projects, and so facilitating investment. It also Schedule 3 supports house building; introduces rights for communities to buy a stake in new, commercial renewable electricity TRANSFER SCHEMES schemes; boosts our energy security and economic growth Amendments made: 115, page 92, line 5, at end insert— by making the most of North sea oil and gas reserves; “(1A) Where in accordance with a scheme a person employed and facilitates shale gas and geothermal development. by a transferor becomes an employee of a transferee, the scheme This is a bold Bill, introduced by a far-sighted must provide for the transfer of all the rights and liabilities Administration. relating to the person’s contract of employment.” A few moments ago, we debated some of the measures This amendment requires a transfer scheme to provide for the we will introduce to act on the road investment strategy—the transfer to the transferee of all of the transferor’s rights and exciting strategy I was delighted to be part of, alongside liabilities relating to a person’s contract of employment, where the the Secretary of State for Transport, who is here, adding person becomes employed by the transferee as a result of the glamour and insight to our consideration today. He was scheme. its architect and under his stewardship it has come to Amendment 116, page 92, line 19, at end insert— pass. This is the most exciting road investment strategy “(3A) No damages are payable by virtue of a constructive for a generation, and this Bill makes the statutory dismissal occurring under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of unpaid changes necessary to deliver it. We have committed to wages relating to a notice period which the employee has not Highways England remaining in the public sector. Let worked.”—(Mr Hayes.) me repeat that this is not about privatisation; it is This amendment provides that, where a transferred employee about a public sector organisation fit for purpose. We claims constructive dismissal as a result of a substantial will not diminish the fundamental accountability to detrimental change made to the employee’s working conditions, no parliamentarians, which I am so keen will allow us to damages are payable in respect of any unpaid wages relating to a notice period which the employee has not worked. gauge, monitor and, if necessary, alter things over time, but without compromising the essential role of the new body to deliver the plans we have set in motion. Title In addition, as the House knows, we have amended Amendment made: 108, line 15, leave out the legislation further to ensure better integration between “to make provision about the electronic communications code;”. local and national networks through route strategies. —(Mr Hayes.) As has been celebrated throughout the House this evening, The explanatory statement for amendment 92 also applies to this we have also committed to setting and reporting upon a amendment. cycling and walking investment strategy, acknowledging the strategic importance of those things for the first Third Reading time. We have had more tributes tonight than a ’60s pop Queen’s consent signified. band for that change. In total, this paradigm shift to a longer-term vision for transport infrastructure will give 9.13 pm the construction industry the certainty and confidence it needs to invest in people and skills for the future. That Mr Hayes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read clear vision, with the confidence it breeds and the the Third time. investment it will bring, is crucial to the health and This is a Bill for the long term. As I said on Second well-being of our nation. Reading, Governments of all persuasions neglect the In planning we have a number of measures designed long term. Perhaps that is only human—[Interruption.] to help get Britain building. The Bill makes changes to speed up the approval of nationally significant infrastructure Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo): projects and to the discharge of planning conditions Order. Perhaps Members leaving the Chamber could do that will ensure planning applicants can get on and so quietly. Secretary of State, that means you as well—we build without unnecessary delay. The small changes in want to hear your eloquent Minister move the Third the Bill will have an important cumulative impact: they Reading. will send a clear message to investors and developers that the steps to deliver these transformational schemes Mr Hayes: It is bewildering, Madam Deputy Speaker, are as simple, sensible and straightforward as possible. that Members do not want to stay and hang on my We have responded to concerns and shared the draft every word. It is bizarre. I know you agree. statutory instrument on deemed discharge in advance. On Second Reading, we said the Government were Our Land Registry reforms will enable proper record determined to put in place a strategy, backed by statutory keeping and modern digital efficiency, with the aim of changes, that allowed us to invest in this nation’s future. making dealings with property quicker, cheaper and I was about to say that it is only human nature to focus easier. 687 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 688

[Mr Hayes] Mr Hayes: This is an iterative business. No one has made the case more forcefully for their constituents On zero-carbon homes, the “allowable solutions” than my hon. Friend. I was pleased to visit Fylde with approach is cost-effective and practical, and it has been him to look at these matters in some detail. He has welcomed by the Home Builders Federation, the UK worked tirelessly throughout this Parliament to represent Green Building Council and Federation of Master Builders. the views of his constituents and to improve shale gas We have also introduced new legislation related to planning. regulation. I commit to working with him to ensure that The abolition of the Public Works Loans Board removes— we take further the matters that he has raised. That determination means that we will issue statutory Mr Andrew Mitchell: Before my right hon. Friend direction to the Environment Agency on a minimum of leaves the issue of planning, may I ask him about new three months baseline monitoring—that was an issue clauses 12 and 20, tabled by my right hon. Friend the raised by the shadow Front-Bench team when we debated Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert)? the matter in Committee. We will publish information Obviously, there was no possibility for a Minister to on chemicals that the agency requires operators to respond to the points he and I made on those clauses, disclose; require operators to monitor and report fugitive but if the Minister has a moment to say a word or two emissions for each onshore hydraulic fracturing site; on them, I am sure my constituents in the royal town of and issue statutory direction to the Health and Safety Sutton Coldfield would be grateful. Executive to ensure independent well inspection and public reporting for each onshore oil and well. The Mr Hayes: I am delighted to amplify the remarks that industry has committed to produce an annual report of I made in an earlier intervention and say that we do take shale sites and an environmental impact assessment. very seriously the remarks made by my right hon. Friend We will seek advice from the Committee on Climate and the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Change on the likely impact on carbon budgets and Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). report each carbon budget period on the conclusions We will take the necessary steps to ensure that the spirit reached as a result of the advice given. Making water that underpinned those amendments is realised in respect companies statutory consultees in respect of planning of Government policy. I must say that my right hon. applications for shale oil and gas development via secondary Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has been a legislation in this Parliament, subject to consultation, doughty champion of the interests of the people in his will also form part of our determined effort to ensure constituency in this regard. He is right that development that these things are done properly, safely and securely. needs to enjoy community support, to be proportionate We have introduced new legislation to help with the and, in my judgment, to inspire and to elevate. Is that sharing of costs for connecting to the electricity distribution too much to ask for in our age? I say that it is not. network and to help strengthen competition in the connections market. The introduction of mayoral development orders will This Bill has been broadly welcomed by Members allow the Mayor of London to assist local authorities to across the House. As I said earlier, Opposition Front-Bench regenerate London. Across the nation, these planning Members have scrutinised the Bill in a mature and reforms will help kick-start a new era of construction measured way because they understand, as we do, that that is fit for purpose. infrastructure investment is about not a single Government Tonight, we have also debated energy. Some of the or a single party but the future of our nation. Of course measures that we have introduced are designed to assist there are debates to be had, differences to be aired and our current and future energy needs. We will take a lead arguments to be made, and of course scrutiny should in improving global transparency in the extractive sector improve and enhance thinking, and that is precisely by participating in the extractive industries transparency what has happened in relation to this Bill. I am grateful initiative. Our country has an enviable record on the for the conciliatory approach to the scrutiny of this Bill. regulation of extractive industries. We have listened Even when we have disagreed, it has been in a considered carefully to concerns about new forms of extraction way. I therefore thank the Opposition Front-Bench and have put in place additional measures to reassure team—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield Members across the House. The House will have seen (Richard Burden), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West tonight that, because we are sensitive to those concerns, (Tom Greatrex), and for City of Durham (Roberta because we are responsive to arguments, and because Blackman-Woods)—for their challenge and understanding. we listen and learn, we will take on board the perfectly I wish to express my deepest thanks to my fellow proper considerations of those who are as determined Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and as we are to ensure that these things are done safely and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings securely and in tune with local interests. and Rye (Amber Rudd), and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend Mark Menzies: As a Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for has genuinely listened to the concerns of Members on their constant hard work throughout Committee and both sides of the House. I wish to put on the record my again in the House today. That work is not just about thanks to the Government for taking on board some of what happens on the Floor of the House or in Committee; the issues that I have raised, particularly in allowing the it is about the dialogue that takes place outside the British Geological Survey to play a role, thereby ensuring Chamber to ensure that we get the provisions right, and closer, independent monitoring, which is very important my hon. Friends have played a full part in that dialogue for me in Fylde. Will he give me an assurance that this is with Members from all parts of the House. not the end but a continuum of the process and that we During the passage of the Bill my colleagues and I will continue to see calls for rigorous on-the-ground have listened carefully, and where appropriate we have inspections delivered by this Government? changed or added to its detailed provisions, but on its 689 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 690 fundamental purpose we have stood firm, because we new long title, and it has two more parts and many are absolutely convinced of the necessity of a step more clauses than when it was introduced. It ranges change in the way we approach infrastructural investment, from the abolition of the somewhat mysterious Public its planning and delivery. This Government, with this Works Loan Board commissioners to invasive non-native Bill, confirm their courage and their willingness to put species to the British Transport police, and everything long-term thinking before short-term expediency. This in between. Government, with this Bill, corroborate their confidence Constructive criticism has strengthened the Bill, ensuring and their confident vision of a bold, ambitious nation. that a rushed and badly drafted reform of the electronic Governments are of two types: timid and reactive, or communications code governing mobile telephone bold and proactive. Politics needs to be confident. In infrastructure will be rethought. We have new requirements the words of the great Conservative philosopher Edmund to support apprenticeships and training in road Burke—the Opposition will be delighted that I am construction, and we have a walking and cycling strategy ending with Edmund Burke— which is welcome and must be built on. Important “When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an actions that will follow from the Bill include the Wood auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the review, whose implementation will be vital. If we needed state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of reminding of that, the current situation in the North sea legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.” is such a reminder. In a victory for wildlife groups, This Government are ambitious not for themselves, but communities in Devon and Scotland and the Opposition, for Britain; not just for now, but for the future; not for we have protected the European beaver. piecemeal advantage, but for the people’s well-being, For making some of those changes and changes in for the common good, in the national interest, driven by other areas, including some of the roads clauses, I pay virtue, gauged by our determined successes, inspired by tribute to the Minister for the way that he has approached the people’s will. This is a Bill of which to be proud, these matters. We still disagree on some key points, a Minister honoured to articulate its strength, and a particularly on converting the Highways Agency into a Government marking their place in history. Government-owned company, but he understands the need for scrutiny of Bills and he has made changes to 9.26 pm the Bill in response to issues that we and others have Richard Burden: Toward the end of his remarks, the raised. That shows how legislation can be approached. Minister praised members of the Bill Committee and Sadly, that is the part of proceedings in this place that adopted a consensual approach, so perhaps I shall start the public all too seldom see. in the same vein. I, too, thank all those who have However, as we approached today’s debate, some contributed to debate on the Bill as it has gone through things went badly wrong, starting with the timetable its various stages. In particular, I add my thanks to and the fact that we had only one day on Report. We Labour’s team in the other place for the improvements have seen far too many last-minute changes to the Bill they sought, and in some cases secured, and to my hon. and things being tagged on without time for parliamentary Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton scrutiny, despite the Minister’s best efforts. We saw it in West (Tom Greatrex) and for City of Durham (Roberta the rushed electronic communications code, which ended Blackman-Woods), with whom I led for the Opposition up pleasing nobody and had to be rethought. It was not in Committee and again today. in the Bill in the other place; it came in more than I also thank all members of the Committee on both halfway through the Committee stage and had to be sides who scrutinised the Bill, but two in particular: my withdrawn today. It was not necessary for that to happen. right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich The issue should have been approached in a more (Mr Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for measured way. Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). For both, In relation to new regulations regarding planning and this will have been their last Bill Committee, I suspect, pubs, we tabled a thought-through amendment, but the unless they do something dreadfully wrong in the next response was a last-minute rushed statement to try to few weeks. Both have given great service to the House. head off that amendment, instead of Ministers looking In fact, when we were both new in this place, the first at what was being said, responding to that and enshrining Bill Committee I served on was also my hon. Friend’s it in the Bill. Most notable today has been the issue of first Bill Committee, so it is great that we have shared shale gas extraction. I am pleased that the Government his last. accepted our new clause 19, which introduces 13 conditions Finally, I thank the Minister and his colleagues, and as vital protection if shale gas extraction is to be taken all those who have contributed to today’s debate. We all forward. The matter should not have had to be resolved know that infrastructure is critical to the UK’s future, today at the last minute with the Government finally from affordable energy in our homes to a modern accepting an Opposition amendment, presumably because communications system, or a transport system connecting they thought they would lose unless they did so. These people to jobs, opportunities and each other. Good issues have been raised in Committee and elsewhere, infrastructure is vital to our economy and our quality and they could have been resolved elsewhere. My hon. of life. That is why it was so important to give the Bill Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West the thorough scrutiny that it deserved. Given its wide- has been raising them for three years. We now know ranging nature, it should have had more than one day that new clause 19 has been accepted and I welcome for Report and Third Reading; the way debates today that. have been truncated underlines that fact. I have to say to the Government that one or two It is of course even more wide-ranging than what the comments made today suggested that although new Library briefing described as a “portmanteau Bill”, clause 19 was being accepted today, when the Bill went when it was introduced in this place. The Bill has had a back to the other place, there could be attempts to 691 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 692

[Richard Burden] so, and we have a Government who are not going to do so. That is why it will take a change of Government in tinker with it—take a bit out here, put a bit in there. If May to deliver the change that is needed. the Government go down that road, they will be asking for trouble. That new clause was thought through. It is a 9.37 pm package, not a pick and mix. I hope the Government will respect that as we go forward. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): The development of an electronic communications code As the Opposition have continued to state throughout in part 7 has been closely followed in my constituency. proceedings on the Bill, we face major infrastructure because all too often the standard of infrastructure in challenges—a population rising to 73 million in just 20 the City of London and surrounding areas as regards years’ time, the challenges of energy security, a chronic mobile telephone coverage and broadband lags behind shortage of affordable housing, airports, roads and that which commercial tenants nowadays expect to find railways all straining under demand, and the threat that in a world-leading business district. It is vitally important climate change presents to us all. There is a cross-party that this situation be improved if London is to keep up consensus on the need to address these issues, but all with its global rivals in established sectors and in the too often decisions are not taken, public support is not emerging tech industries. In particular, we cannot allow achieved and projects are not delivered. the business heart of the capital to be left behind in We may be one of the world’s leading economies but state-of-the-art technology such as fibre optics and we lag behind other countries that take a more strategic 4G—and eventually 5G when that arrives. and long-term approach to infrastructure investment. New rights to upgrade and share communications As the noble Lord Adonis said last week, infrastructure infrastructure could play a very important part in improving investment that situation. Could we introduce a simpler procedure “will not happen on the scale required unless it is better planned, for landowners to require the removal or repositioning better led and better financed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, of equipment, where necessary, in order to enable 22 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 1392.] redevelopment to proceed? That might sound counter- During the Committee stage, the Institute of Government intuitive, but at present, especially in areas such as the published a booklet called “The Political Economy of City of London with very high rates of development, Infrastructure in the UK”, which concluded that we there is a strong incentive for landowners to resist the need to change the “institutional architecture” for installation of equipment such as telephone masts in infrastructure decision making. Labour Members the first place if they fear that the presence of that completely agree. That is why my hon. Friend the equipment will obstruct future redevelopment of the Member for City of Durham called for this House to site. back the proposal by Sir John Armitt, chair of the I entirely understand the reaction by the shadow Olympic Delivery Authority, for a national infrastructure Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton commission that would look three decades ahead and West (Tom Greatrex), to the late tabling of amendments consult across all sectors to provide an evidence-based dealing with the communications code, now removed assessment of infrastructure priorities in the UK. Parliament by amendment 91, and the fact that further time is would be able to vote on these, and Governments would required to consider the new code. That is necessary; let be held accountable for delivering them. us get the code right if we can. It is also important to For me, the debates on this Bill have crystallised why ensure that the code strikes an appropriate balance that kind of evidence-based approach is needed so between landowners and network operators, because badly, from controversy about the priorities in the road only by so doing will it be effective in bringing about the investment strategy, to disputes about rushed electronic expanded coverage that we all so desperately require. I communications regulations, to the need for robust hope, however, that the process will not take too long, environmental and regulatory safeguards in relation to and that we can move forward swiftly with the introduction energy security. We need a more rigorous and independent of a new code, having taken account of the views look at infrastructure needs in energy, transport, telecoms expressed by industry representatives. and many other sectors. It is a travesty that the Government continue to oppose such a common-sense reform, which Mr Hayes: Just for clarity, the Government will move is backed by the LSE Growth Commission, EEF, the ahead with the reform of the communications code. We Institution of Civil Engineers, 89% of businesses surveyed will begin a full consultation in the next few weeks, with by the CBI, and many more. By establishing that a view to bringing forward draft legislation, for exactly commission, the Bill could have set the UK on course the reason that my hon. Friend gave: to ensure that we for the challenges of the 21st century, but it has failed to have the agreement of all those who are most directly do so. The repeated failure of the Government to involved or affected and to ensure that there is agreement address these issues in a sufficiently planned-out way is across the House. not good enough. This could all have been very different. With a shared Mark Field: I am very encouraged by the Minister’s national purpose, long-term planning, proper public words and I know that that will be true of many of my engagement and cross-party support for our world-leading commercial constituents, as it were. engineering and construction sectors, we can deliver the I ask the Government to consider two other things as improvements our country’s infrastructure needs. The this important work continues. The first is the position 2012 Olympics were a model of that kind of approach. of infrastructure that has been installed before the new We urgently need the same framework for decision code comes into force, whenever that is. As I understand making and planning across national infrastructure. it, the new rules will not apply automatically to such This Bill could have delivered that, but it has not done dated infrastructure. Although I understand the reluctance 693 Infrastructure Bill [Lords]26 JANUARY 2015 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 694 of the Government to interfere in pre-existing legal On Second Reading, I referred to two issues with relationships, I suggest that it would be beneficial to fracking in Scotland: drilling under people’s homes find some means of encouraging existing infrastructure without consent and the complexities in Scots law in to be brought under the new code as swiftly as possible. relation to that. I am pleased that the Government have Secondly, there are numerous cases in the City of moved on those issues. I welcome the Government London in which lengthy wrangling between freeholders amendments removing Scotland, but I remain concerned and network operators over the terms and conditions that they have not taken the obvious action of moving for the grant of the necessary consents has delayed the licensing powers from the UK Parliament to the Scottish installation of mobile masts or broadband facilities by Government. several months. In the most serious instances, that has All powers relating to fracking lie with the Scottish prevented business tenants from taking possession of Government, apart from the crucial power of licensing. new offices on time or forced businesses to occupy new The UK Government say that they intend to move office space with no functioning communications. Naturally, those powers under the Smith commission proposals this is principally a matter of negotiation between private after the next general election, but with the best will in parties, and I would not expect any Government to the world the process of getting that Bill through both interfere in such issues, so there are rightly limits to the Houses will take some time, and it will be some considerable extent to which they can furnish a solution. time before the powers are with the Scottish Parliament. However, when the Bill is enacted, there will be an opportunity under the code for the relevant industry Tom Greatrex: Given what the hon. Gentleman has bodies, which have been referred to, to encourage the said and new clause 2 on licensing, does he agree, as I adoption of model terms and conditions to deal with suggested earlier to the Under-Secretary of State for the issue. Although that is not a complete answer, it Energy and Climate Change, that it would be sensible would be a constructive step and I hope that it is taken. for the Government to stop the 14th licensing round in The City of London corporation has held positive Scotland so that any new licenses may be granted after meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the powers have been devolved, and a Scottish Government State for Culture, Media and Sport on the matter and of whatever complexion can make those decisions? will be looking to provide further support where possible, potentially in conjunction with the Greater London Mr Weir: That is one of the few things on which the authority. hon. Gentleman and I agree. I made that exact point I have spoken before in this House about the need to earlier. My concern is that, currently, there are a few ensure that adequate investment in the electricity distribution existing licences, but not many. The Department of network can be made to meet tomorrow’s demand for Energy and Climate Change could grant licences between new connections, without imposing unreasonable costs the current time and when the powers are devolved. on today’s consumers. This is not the occasion to delve That leaves us in a dangerous situation. All powers into the intricacies of the matter. Suffice it to say that should be in one place. I am disappointed that the the need for action is increasingly pressing. In relation Government have not done that. to my constituency, I am aware that the Government That was one of the reasons why Scottish National are working with interested parties such as Ofgem, UK party members supported the moratorium on fracking. Power Networks, the Greater London authority and the I have severe doubts about fracking, but we wanted that City of London corporation with a view to developing moratorium to ensure that work can be done before the new models that might enable the necessary upfront Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to consider it investment to be delivered, with the costs being recouped in great detail. from customers over time as new connections are made. In Scotland over the weekend, the Labour party was It is not yet clear whether the amendments that were telling us that it was very keen on a moratorium, and made in Committee to extend the second-comer rules to that it was going to stop fracking. Labour Members independent connection providers will prove directly came down here today and abstained on that proposal. relevant to that work, but if so, they are to be welcomed. We are told that Labour’s new clause 19 will stop In conclusion, I commend the Government for the fracking in the UK. Frankly, it will do no such thing, as attention they have given to this important matter in the Minister rightly said. Nowhere does new clause 19 part 7. I urge them to continue that focus to ensure that mention a moratorium. As far as I can see, it does we get it right. As with telecommunications as a whole, not even apply to Scotland. Unlike Government new this is a crucial, bread-and-butter issue when it comes to clause 15, which had a consequential amendment to London’s future competitiveness as a commercial centre. ensure it applied to Scotland, new clause 19 had no such consequential amendment. The new clause therefore 9.43 pm does not apply to Scotland at all. Mr Weir: Having heard the honeyed tones in which Interestingly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, the Minister opened the debate for the Government, I Northfield said that the Minister had hinted that she feel a bit guilty about having to say that I still have might change the Bill in the Lords. She was a lot clearer severe reservations about parts of the Bill. than that. She said definitely that the provision on the Not all the Bill applies to Scotland, but the main part depth of the drilling would be changed in the Lords. of it that does is on energy. It is a great shame, as the There is no moratorium, and new clause 19 does not hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard apply to Scotland and is likely to be changed in the Lords Burden) said, that we had so little time to debate those in any event. We have not got very far with the Bill. issues today. We had serious concerns about some of I remain concerned. I accept that the Bill has improved, them, but we were not given the opportunity to debate but on fracking I urge the Government, even at this late them fully. However, that is the way it goes. stage, to think again in the Lords about the transfer of 695 Infrastructure Bill [Lords] 26 JANUARY 2015 696

[Mr Weir] The amendment that I tabled in Committee, about peer reviewing baseline monitoring data, is acceptable powers. Transferring them now will close the potential to the industry. It is in the interests of the Government difficulty, put all the powers together and allow the and the country to reach cross-party agreement so that Scottish Parliament to take decisions in line with the the data that go into the public domain are fully understood wishes of the Scottish people. and we can argue from an evidence base, which we cannot do at present. When the first pilot well was 9.48 pm drilled in my constituency, I got only five letters about it: three were technical questions and two were letters of Andrew Miller: I thank my hon. Friend the Member objection. The second one, which was handled differently for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for his by the developer, resulted in a massive number of objections kind remarks. Unless I commit a sin that means the and a protest camp that is very firmly in place. Whips require me to do something else in the next few weeks, this will be the last Bill I serve on in Committee. I It is important that this House, the industry and the did so voluntarily, because I take a great interest in a regulators engage with the public, so that there is a number of its clauses, not least the one referred to by better scientific understanding of what can be achieved the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster with the regulatory machinery we put in place. I have no (Mark Field). I followed his remarks carefully and doubt that that is an achievable goal. I hope those on agreed with virtually every word he uttered. I am sure the Government Front Bench recognise that when they he would agree that the draft presented to the Committee seek to develop the Bill further in the other place. last week was grossly inadequate for its purpose. He Serving on the Bill with my hon. Friends on the described the issues in thriving urban areas that Labour Front Bench and the rest of the Labour team need to move quickly to accommodate the needs of has been a pleasure, as has been working on this topic developers and the economy, as well as the changing with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The technologies in the telecoms space. Different issues arise Deepings and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy when it comes to rural access. Access arrangements and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings have been far from satisfactory, but the clause—drafted and Rye (Amber Rudd). These are hugely important in haste—has resulted in this step backwards. That is issues and Parliament must get them right. regrettable because—as was said in Committee—this Finally, there is a message to consider. Reflecting on is long overdue. the way the Bill has been conducted, it is important that I will get the Minister into trouble with the Whips if I the next Parliament looks carefully at the process we go on too much, but he is a man of such integrity that in have gone through. There are better ways to legislate the last general election he even invited his Labour and perhaps the next Parliament can learn from that. I opposite number, who was at one time my agent, to go wish the Bill well in the Lords. I want to see the robust for a coffee to discuss how their business should be amendments retained so that the regulatory issues raised conducted. That is an example of how collegiate he is. I by those on the Opposition Front Bench can be protected thought that he would get into trouble with the Whips and enshrined in the Bill. That will enable this important again when he praised the Secretary of State. I thought industry to develop in this country with the support of that the Minister was going to say that the Secretary of the public we seek to represent. State was adding his weight to the matter, but as I am of similar girth I can get away with that remark. Mr Hayes rose— The Bill has some extraordinarily important aspects. Mr Speaker: The animation of the House knows no As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield bounds when the right hon. Member for South Holland said, it covers an enormous area. The House will have and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) seeks to take to the to come back to the telecoms code and in the interests Dispatch Box. of all parties—including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—that 9.57 pm will need to be done sooner rather than later, but with Mr Hayes: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I simply want careful engagement with all the players. to affirm the thanks offered by those on the shadow I was especially interested in the clauses relating to Front Bench to all members of the Committee, which I hydraulic fracturing. In the dim and distant past when I omitted to do in my opening remarks, as well as to those worked in geology, I taught students how drilling technology who have taken a leading role, if I may put it in those works. I made the point in Committee that had we been terms, on both sides of the House. using the technology today that we were using 40 years Bigger, better, well-funded roads; more straightforward ago I would be against hydraulic fracking, but the planning; safer fracking; a cycling strategy; and we have technologies have developed to an extraordinary degree. saved the beaver. What’s not to like? The Bill deserves its We do not know enough about the UK’s general Third Reading. environment subsurface, so a huge amount of work is needed. In Committee and in the other place, amendments Question put and agreed to. were tabled on baseline monitoring, and I am pleased Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. that the Government have started to move in the right direction. It is possible to come up with a regulatory structure that works for the communities we seek to Business without Debate represent and in terms of the economics of the industry. To achieve that goal, the Government will need to think DELEGATED LEGISLATION carefully about some of the issues and the underlying Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing science. Order No. 118(6)), 697 Business without Debate26 JANUARY 2015 Business without Debate 698

CINEMAS AND FILMS The petition states: That the draft Films (Definition of “British Film”) Order The Petition of a resident of the UK, 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 December 2014, be Declares that current traffic safety measures on the road approved. —(Gavin Barwell.) outside Cartmel Priory School are insufficient and pose a safety Question agreed to. risk to pupils and local residents and further that a local petition Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing on this matter was signed by 255 individuals. Order No. 118(6)), The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to launch an urgent strategic review of traffic safety measures in the Cartmel area and the implementation INCOME TAX of further controls and restrictions. That the draft Finance Act 2004 (Registered Pension Schemes And the Petitioner remains, etc. and Annual Allowance Charge) (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 9 December 2014, be approved.—(Gavin [P001423] Barwell.) Question agreed to. Traveller encampments in Brighton and Hove Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

HEALTH AND SAFETY 10 pm That the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con): Unauthorised by the UK ABWR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2015, which Traveller encampments remain a major issue in my were laid before this House on 10 December 2014, be approved. constituency and across the wider city area of Brighton —(Gavin Barwell.) and Hove. Many constituents feel that the city council Question agreed to. does not have a robust plan in place to move on Travellers Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing on unauthorised sites expeditiously, and that too often Order No. 118(6)), the needs and wishes of the existing settled community appear to be ignored. Many of my constituents believe ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION that the city council, after years of trying to manage the That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) issue, should be more actively using the powers available (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015, which were laid before to it. The petition has been signed by thousands of local this House on 15 December 2014, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.) people, and a similar online petition attracted the support Question agreed to. of 2,000 local people. The petition states: Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to take motions 7 and 8 together. urges the Government to encourage Brighton and Hove City Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Council to use the powers available to them to deal promptly with Order No. 118(6)), unauthorised traveller encampments in the city. And the Petitioners remain, etc. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Following is the full text of the petitions: That the draft Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015, The Petition of residents of Moulsecoomb, Woodingdean, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be Rottingdean & the wider Brighton area, approved. That the draft Local Audit (Smaller Authorities) Regulations Declares that Brighton and Hove City Council has 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be powers to deal with unauthorised traveller encampments; approved. —(Gavin Barwell.) further that the Petitioners believe that the views, concerns Question agreed to. and needs of the existing, settled community on this issue too often seem to be ignored; and further notes that sensitive sites in the city seem to be repeatedly targeted PETITIONS every year, costing large amounts of taxpayers’ money to clear up. Traffic safety measures in Cartmel The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Brighton 9.59 pm and Hove City Council to use the powers available to them to deal promptly with unauthorised traveller Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): I encampments in the city. seek to present a petition on behalf of residents in Cartmel and neighbouring communities concerned about And the Petitioners remain, etc. road safety outside Cartmel Priory school. [P001429] 699 26 JANUARY 2015 Pakistan (UK Support) 700

Pakistan (UK Support) Rehman Chishti: Yes, it is a privilege and a pleasure to do that. I know that my hon. Friend, as chairman of the Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House all-party group on Pakistan, has done everything he do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.) possibly can to build the relationship between our two great countries. I know that the former high commissioner, 10.2 pm who I see in the Public Gallery, will remember his many meetings with my hon. Friend. It is right that people Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): across the UK came together to show solidarity with Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity the people of Pakistan at this difficult hour. to raise in Parliament the horrific, evil and brutal attack This was a cowardly terrorist attack by the TTP that on the army public school in Peshawar last month, and struck at the youngest and most vulnerable, and it is a the UK’s support for Pakistan in the war on terror. reminder that Pakistan remains on the front line against While the official 40 days of mourning—chehlum—have terrorism. God forbid if Pakistan should fall as a front now passed, the people of Pakistan still weep for the line in fighting terrorism, as the world will become a tragic loss of innocent lives that day. The attack claimed dark and unsafe place, with suffering affecting each and the lives of 134 children, as well as the many teachers every part of it. who lost their lives trying to save their children. Pakistan It is important to clarify one thing. The TTP, like is a courageous nation that has had to face many many other terrorists, has often been described as “Islamist challenges in its short history. It worked with the extremists” or “Islamist terrorists”, thereby linking Islam international community in defeating the Russian to them, which is what they want. We should be clear communist threat in Afghanistan, and stood with the and refer to them and any other terrorists who want to international community after 9/11 in the fight against link their evil acts to Islam simply as “terrorists” and global terrorism. Its citizens and armed forces continue “extremists”. That is it. They are terrorists and extremists, to face the daily threat from terrorist organisations and we should not give them the credibility of linking operating across the border in Afghanistan. this great religion with their evil acts.

Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): Given the challenges Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): May I that Pakistan has faced from national and international gently suggest that my hon. Friend might want to go catastrophes, such as flooding and earthquakes, does one step further? These extremists never hesitate to call my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the UK, other Muslims with whom they disagree “unIslamic”. given our relationship with Pakistan, to do all we can to Although I see the point of my hon. Friend’s argument support it through yet another difficult time? that these people are not Islamist and not Islamic, just calling them terrorists and extremists is not quite enough. Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend is right to highlight We need some context, so may I suggest “unIslamic the importance of our two great countries’ relationship. extremists” as a possible denomination for them? As vice-chairman of the all-party group on Pakistan and chairman of the all-party group on Kashmir, and Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend is an expert on having visited the country and being a passionate and defence matters, and I have great admiration and respect strong friend to Pakistan, he recognises the importance for him. I take on board the point he makes. Everyone of that relationship and knows that the UK has always around the world wants to make it clear that these stood shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan, and will individuals are terrorists and extremists. When I comment continue to do so. Pakistan is fortunate to have such on these matters on television, I often get e-mails saying people as friends and advocates here in Parliament. I am a non-Muslim myself for calling them terrorists. We know who the terrorists and extremists are in this Pakistan lost its courageous and talented former context. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to an act of terror. I had the privilege of working with Ms Bhutto as an adviser Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): I from 1999 to 2007. Natural disasters, such as floods and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. earthquakes, have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands The events in Peshawar were very salient and pertinent of people. No one can question the resilience of this when they hit the news headlines. Is it not imperative, brave and courageous nation. The horrific and evil act when it comes to discourse on this issue, that people in Peshawar has united the country and its political should always remember globally—not just in the UK—that parties to come together in the national interest to regardless of their background, whether people be Sunni, defeat these evil organisations, with the country’s brave Shi’a or of whatever denomination, many of these armed forces taking the fight to the terrorists. organisations kill people of an Islamic faith? That is the crucial point. Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I know that, like Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, me, he went to the Pakistani high commission soon and I shall pick up that point in due course. It is one after this dreadful attack to sign the book of condolence made by the former Foreign Secretary, our right hon. and express our sorrow at this tragedy. Will he join me Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), in paying tribute to organisations across the length and who said in 2013 that the people who have suffered the breadth of the United Kingdom that organised their most as a result of terrorism are Muslims. My hon. own books of condolence, vigils and fund-raising events Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West for the victims—including the Burnley and Pendle friends (Paul Uppal) is absolutely right, and I would like to league that organised an event I attended at the people’s congratulate him on the work he does in strengthening centre in Brierfield? our two countries’ great relationship. 701 Pakistan (UK Support)26 JANUARY 2015 Pakistan (UK Support) 702

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): Does my hon. Friend Those are not my assertions, but the assertions of a agree that when people commit these atrocities in the name great man with great intellect, wisdom and a passionate of Islam, they also betray—sometimes catastrophically—the desire to serve humanity, which are there for all to see. I vast majority of law-abiding decent Muslims in this refer to Pope Francis, for whom I have great admiration country, who then have to defend themselves? Does he and respect. He spoke about this very issue recently, agree that that is a double betrayal for those Muslims? saying that the right to liberty of expression came with the “obligation” to speak for “the common good”. Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The United Kingdom has continued to stand shoulder When individuals carry out these evil atrocities in the to shoulder with those who are affected by terrorism, name of Islam or of religion, they undermine the and has always been a strong friend and ally of Pakistan. wonderful, peaceful, tolerant Muslim community around The Prime Minister summed up our close relationship the world and in our great country. I know that he does when he said a brilliant job in building the great relationship between “in this battle the friends of Pakistan are friends of Britain; the our two countries, and I know how much importance he enemies of Pakistan are enemies of Britain.” ascribes to it. When I was in Pakistan in 2012, walking After the Peshawar attack, the UK offered its assistance, through Karachi, I was surprised to see that he was and I know that the Department for International there at the same time. Development has collaborated in the provision of I welcomed recent articles by Prince Turki al-Faisal counselling for those who have been affected. of Saudi Arabia, the former Saudi ambassador to the Many people in the KP province have become displaced United Kingdom and head of the Saudi intelligence and we should consider how best the UK and DFID service, who has suggested that we call ISIL—or Daesh, can help in that region, in particular with the temporarily as it is called in Syria and Iraq—Fawash, which means displaced persons. Pakistan has played a part in helping “obscenity”. The organisation proclaims itself to be an the international community tackle the threat of terrorism. “Islamic State” because it wants to be linked to Islam, There are many examples, including the capture of but there is no such thing as an Islamic state. Let us not Ramzi Yousef, one of the perpetrators of the World give those people any legitimacy. Let us call them what Trade Centre bombing, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, they are: terrorists and extremists who believe in an one of al-Qaeda’s most senior operatives, who was the obscene ideology. mastermind behind 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Pakistan is not alone in facing such horrific, brutal, Centre bombing as well as the failed Bojinka and evil atrocities carried out by terrorists, as we saw only a shoebomber plots. few weeks ago when gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris. In Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Does my hon. Friend Belgium, police have foiled a plot to attack police, and agree that one of the most important ways in which the in 2013 there was a brutal attack on a shopping mall in UK Government, through DFID, can work together Kenya. Since 2003, more than 40,000 civilians and more with the Government of Pakistan is through support than 6,000 security forces in Pakistan have been killed for the education system, particularly in Khyber in the continual war on terror. Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, where there is tremendous The former Foreign Secretary said in a speech in UK support for Pakistani schools? 2013: “Muslim communities are bearing the brunt of terrorism Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend is right, and as a worldwide, at the hands of people who espouse a distorted and member of the International Development Committee, violent extremist interpretation of a great and peaceful religion.” he well knows that the UK has always supported Pakistan Terrorist groups such as the Taliban claim to be Islamic, at difficult moments. On education and health, Pakistan but that interpretation bears no resemblance to Islam, is the largest recipient in terms of education, and he is and is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims right: if we want to give somebody hope, opportunity, around the world. The Koran teaches us to be tolerant aspiration and a life without being sucked into extremism of others and to live in peace. Chapter 5, verse 32 says or radicalisation, we must give them education. The that UK has always supported that and will continue to “if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of support Pakistan in that respect. mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the At the forefront of the battle with terrorism, Pakistan life of the whole of mankind”. faces several major challenges. With a porous border Recent events have shown us that our freedom of with Afghanistan, around 40,000 people make the crossing speech can never be threatened or destroyed through every day, putting pressure on security checks, especially violence, and that there can be no justification for the at the two main crossings at Torkam and Chaman. I causing of death or the use of violence. However, we understand from discussions with Pakistan officials that also need to be tolerant and respectful of other people’s they would appreciate assistance to enable them to religious beliefs, whatever they may be. Faiths such as monitor the border more effectively, including the provision Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha’ism of additional technology and intelligence gathering and and Islam—to name just a few—are cherished by billions sharing. Some other suggestions include technology of people around the world. Rights come with such as biometric scanners, night goggles and GSM responsibilities, and we need to be careful not to mock intelligence gathering. The UK currently provides a other people’s religions. Doing so can lead to intolerance, GSM tracking vehicle. I believe this vehicle was crucial which feeds into the terrorist extremist agenda of wanting in tracking those who were responsible for the terrorist to divide communities and societies, and makes our attacks in Peshawar and is crucial in helping to destroy society a less safe place for all. the terrorist networks and leaderships in Pakistan. 703 Pakistan (UK Support)26 JANUARY 2015 Pakistan (UK Support) 704

[Rehman Chishti] apart from the instability and violence, was that 10 million people who were left homeless in Afghanistan came to The UK has already assisted Pakistan in developing Pakistan, so Pakistan had to bear that burden. Also, in counter-terrorism capabilities through the counter the war on terror, Pakistan has suffered economically—some improvised explosive device programme, but IEDs continue £30 billion to £40 billion over the last 20-odd years. It to be a threat in the region. Only two weeks ago, an IED has suffered more than 30,000 civilian casualties and attack killed four security force personnel in Pakistan’s tens of thousands of military casualties. Lower Kurram. Of course, what happened recently in Peshawar was Greater assistance is also required to help return the dreadful, but it is great to see that the Government—this large number of refugees to Afghanistan. Since 2002, one and the previous one—have always had a very good the UNHCR has facilitated the return of 3.8 million relationship with Pakistan. I hope the Government will registered Afghans from Pakistan, but there are still continue to work with the people of Pakistan, and in almost 1.5 million registered refugees in the country, particular with the people of Peshawar. with unofficial figures suggesting the total could be more than 3.5 million—the largest protracted refugee 10.22 pm population in the world. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Pakistan also needs international co-operation to and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood): I thank tackle extremists groups who may operate from abroad. my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham There are, for example, real concerns about some elements (Rehman Chishti) for bringing to the House this debate of the Balochistan Liberation Army—the BLA—who on our support for Pakistan since the terrible attack on it is said are co-operating with extremists to enact the army public school in Peshawar on 16 December violence in Pakistan. Hizb ut-Tahrir has openly attempted last year. It is right that this House debate developments to recruit Pakistani military officers to revolt against in the 40 days since that attack on Pakistan, which is a the Pakistan army, and Pakistan needs assistance to key ally and close friend of the United Kingdom. tackle Hizb ut-Tahrir’s finances and supporters operating from outside the country. The attack robbed parents, families and friends of their children. As parliamentarians, we struggle for The Peshawar attack on a school was also a direct meaningful words in response to an attack of this scale. assault on education and the country’s future generations. It offends our values as democratic politicians, and It was a reminder that there are still those who want to threatens our work for the rule of law and the peaceful prevent children in Pakistan from learning. Seeking development of nations. As parents, uncles, aunts or knowledge and education is, as many religious texts— grandparents ourselves, we try to comprehend the staggering Hadiths—make clear, an obligation on Muslims, both losses borne by so many families in Peshawar: the men and women. I know that the Government have silence they face in place of the irrepressible noise of continued to support Pakistan through aid, with 4 million childhood, the empty spaces at so many family tables. primary school children benefiting and more than As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at 20,000 classrooms being constructed. the time: Pakistan is still on the road to reform, and there is “Nothing can justify such an horrific attack on children going still much work to be done to improve its own institutions to school. The UK continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with and create a more robust law and order system. This the government and people of Pakistan in the fight against includes assistance with police capacity building, canine terrorism and extremism.” training in explosive detection, computer and mobile This attack reminded us of the one constant rule of forensic labs, counter-IED jammers and body armour. terrorism: those who suffer the most are the citizens of The Peshawar attack was the worst terrorist attack countries blighted by extremism—the men, women and Pakistan has suffered, and only through co-operation children kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria; the and collaboration, standing shoulder to shoulder with communities living in mortal fear of ISIL in Syria and one of our key partners, with whom we share a long Iraq; and the boys and girls in Pakistan living in the history, can terrorism be defeated. shadow of the Pakistani Taliban and other militant With that, Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for groups, children for whom school should be a safe haven. giving me the chance to have this debate, and I look My hon. Friend asked me what the UK has offered forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. Pakistan since the attack and what more we can achieve together. I can assure the House that we continue to Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Bolton work with the Pakistani Government across a range of South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has the agreement of the issues—a multi-track approach—but we must help Pakistan hon. Gentleman and the Minister to contribute, but of to tackle the root causes of violent extremism. Part of course, time must be left for the Minister to respond, so that is our work on promoting inclusion, economic a pithy contribution would be orderly. development, education and health services to lift Pakistan’s people out of poverty and fill the societal cracks in 10.21 pm which extremism festers and grows. We are also encouraging Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): I congratulate Pakistan to reduce the space for extremist ideologies.It the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman is fair to say that Pakistan cannot beat terrorism alone. Chishti) on securing this debate. I shall speak quickly as The scale of the challenge is huge, and the UK is a key I have only a couple of minutes and the Minister will partner of Pakistan in that fight. Let me outline some want to take his time. of the ways in which are helping Pakistan. I just wanted to outline a few facts. People forget that We are supporting Pakistan’s economy. Part of my when Pakistan joined our war to deal with the Russian job is to show British businesses the opportunities that threat in Afghanistan and the invasion, one consequence, working and investing in Pakistan can offer. In my 705 Pakistan (UK Support)26 JANUARY 2015 Pakistan (UK Support) 706 speech, I very much want to counter the impression that said in an intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for appalling incidents, such as the attack on the school, Gillingham and Rainham knows that we are supporting can generate. As my hon. Friend knows well, Pakistan education and health through our DFID-led aid and Pakistanis offer visitors a warm welcome. Their programmes. The programmes help to give the poorest generosity and hospitality are legendary, and must transcend people in Pakistan access to public services, and they such violence. We already have solid business links and promote peace, stability and democracy, as well as strong growth projections for our bilateral trade and macro-economic stability, growth and jobs. investment, and we must not let that slip from our We are supporting Pakistan’s national security, and grasp. my hon. Friend covered several areas in which we are This morning, I had the pleasure of making the providing support. However, time is against me. It is a opening remarks at the third annual UK-Pakistan trade shame that we do not have longer to debate this important and investment conference. We know that the majority matter, but I hope that the issue will be brought back to of Pakistanis want the same things that people everywhere the House. want: an education for them and their children; the As my hon. Friend knows well, our countries share chance to have a good job; and the chance to live in a strong connections through our extensive diaspora links. peaceful and prosperous state. We have a trade and There are more than 1.1 million people in the UK of investment road map that sets out our joint targets for Pakistani heritage, and more than 1 million trips are economic growth and for growth that will begin to made annually between our two countries. The diaspora address that need. Our Prime Ministers have set out a makes a significant contribution to British life, with joint bilateral trade target of £3 billion annually by the many famous, successful and prominent people across end of this year. It is a challenging target, but we think sport, culture, business and, of course, Parliament. That it is achievable. familiarity between us is what makes so much of our We must support the families of the victims caught family, Government, military and business relationships up in such atrocities. The Department for International easy, and it is what makes the Peshawar school attack so Development is working closely with the provincial painful for us. government and the UK charity Merlin to provide We know that there is rarely, if ever, a purely military psychological support services to the victims, families solution to terrorism. Many countries, including the and wider community affected by the Peshawar school UK and Pakistan, are engaged in a long-term effort to incident. That will enable up to seven psychological deny terrorist groups the space to operate, to help family centres to be opened, allow home visits to be vulnerable countries to develop their law enforcement made to affected families and establish a child psycho- capabilities and to address the injustice and conflict trauma centre at Lady Reading hospital in Peshawar to that terrorists exploit. treat the most serious cases. Muslim communities often bear the brunt of terrorism, We must support and strengthen the democratic process as has been said in the debate, at the hands of people in Pakistan. That is critical not just for the future of who espouse a distorted and violent interpretation of a millions of Pakistanis, but for the security of the region great and peaceful religion. My hon. Friend was right to and our security in the UK. In 2013, millions of Pakistanis point out that terrorism and Islam are not the same. We voted in a general election and, for the first time in believe that our British values uphold the idea that Pakistan’s history, one full-term democratically elected people of different faiths and cultures can live together Government passed power to another. My right hon. in peace. We know that the fight against terrorism will Friend the Prime Minister was the first Head of be protracted, but we know that by working together Government to visit Pakistan after that historic election with our friends and our allies, we can win. in June 2013, emphasising the UK’s support for this process. It was a victory for democracy and welcome Question put and agreed to. progress, and that is not what the terrorists want. We must support Pakistan on education and health, as 10.30 pm my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) House adjourned.

15WS Written Statements26 JANUARY 2015 Written Statements 16WS

streamline the nomination process in light of its successful Written Statement implementation. A third of all listed assets have been pubs. Monday 26 January 2015 National permitted development rights are an important part of the planning system; providing flexibility, reducing bureaucracy and allowing the best use to be made of existing buildings. However, the passion for community COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT pubs as demonstrated by the significant numbers listed as assets of community value highlights the need to enable local communities to consider planning applications Community Pubs for the change of use of a pub of particular local value. We therefore plan to bring forward secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity so that in England the listing The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for of a pub as an asset of community value will trigger a Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins): removal of the national permitted development rights Pubs play an important role in our local communities. for the change of use or demolition of those pubs that They provide valuable local hubs that strengthen community communities have identified as providing the most relationships and encourage wider social interaction, community benefit. This provides the right balance with each pub also being estimated to contribute £80,000 between protecting valued community pubs, but avoiding to the economy annually. blanket regulation which would lead to more empty and We have demonstrated our continued commitment to boarded up buildings. Blanket regulation could also community pubs through the introduction of a broad have adverse consequences on the asset value of pub range of financial and wider support including: buildings, harming the financial viability of the pub scrapping the beer and alcohol duty escalators, industry. This Government recognise the economic, environmental and social benefits of allowing redundant cutting beer duty, buildings to be converted into productive uses without funding business partners to help deliver more community-owned excessive red tape. pubs and pubs which provide community-focused services, This will mean that in future where a pub is listed as removing red tape that hindered pubs holding live music, an asset of community value, a planning application doubling small business rate relief, and increasing the temporary will be required for the change of use or demolition of a business rate discount for pubs with rateable values below £50,000 from £1,000 to £1,500 for 2015-16, pub. This then provides an opportunity for local people to comment, and enables the local planning authority cutting corporation tax and National Insurance for employers, to determine the application in accordance with its local giving pubs greater flexibility over weights and measures, plan, any neighbourhood plan, and national policy. The allowing beer and wine to be served in different sizes, and local planning authority may take the listing into account giving publicans tied to, pub companies new rights under a as a material consideration when determining any planning new statutory code of practice. application. My hon. Friend the under-secretary of State for Local and neighbourhood plans should be consistent Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend with and reflect the strong support for pubs in the the Member for Bristol West and I are today announcing National Planning Policy Framework. This encourages that we want to go further than this, and increase local planning authorities to plan positively to support protections to prevent the loss of those pubs that provide the sustainability of communities. This includes plans the most community benefit. to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities Through the community right to bid, we have invited and services the community needs, and to promote communities to nominate buildings and land which add strong rural economies through the retention and most value to the local community, to be listed as assets development of local services and community facilities of community value, giving them a greater stake in the in villages, including pubs. future of those assets. We welcome the fact that people These changes mark the next step in our ongoing across the country have come together to nominate over support for those pubs that are so very important to 600 pubs, making pubs the most listed type of asset. local communities. We believe it will provide greater Listing triggers a moratorium on any sale, enabling protections for pubs, and give communities a say in local people to develop a bid to buy the pub and ensure their preservation. But the planning system can only do its continued contribution to their community. We urge so much: planning rules cannot keep open pubs which communities to consider which pubs they wish to see are not making money. Our broader strategy of lower protected before they are at risk. taxes, less regulation and a growing economy are the The Government will also be undertaking a post- best way to support a thriving and diverse pub sector. implementation review of the Localism Act’s right to [HCWS221] bid during 2015, to see how we can further improve and

5P Petitions26 JANUARY 2015 Petitions 6P

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Petitions Hemming.] [P001430] Monday 26 January 2015 OBSERVATIONS PRESENTED PETITION

Petition presented to the House but not read on the Floor COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT State intervention in care proceedings Housing Development in Cheadle The Petition of Mary Kidson, a mother living in The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone Herefordshire, in Staffordshire, Declares that she was prosecuted for poisoning her Declares that residents of Cheadle oppose excessive daughter on three counts in Worcester Crown Court. levels of housing development; further that the Petitioners Further declares that on 28 October 2014 following an believe that the prospect of new site allocation plans is application from her counsel that she had no case to simply unacceptable; further that the Petitioners believe answer, the court decided that she had no case to answer that permitting for 1,320 houses up to 2031 is still well on any of the three counts. The fundamental point was above local demand and unworkable; further that the that the medicine that she had been administering initially Petitioners believe that there is much opportunity to without prescription, but later with prescription was develop nearby regenerating sites and the Potteries with not to have been seen to have done any harm to her affordable housing in the heart of existing road, rail and daughter; instead was seen to have had some positive canal infrastructure, while protecting the environment effects. In essence, she was being prosecuted for doing and agriculture; further that recent housing proposals something that the UK doctors thought was the wrong have been submitted to Staffordshire Moorlands District thing to do, even though the evidence was that it was Council to build up to 190 houses on land off Thorley not doing any harm and in fact was improving her Drive in Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners daughter’s medical condition. Further declares that her believe that the Thorley Drive site is inappropriate and daughter’s statement in respect of the criminal proceedings it is currently a group of fields used, for example, for stated that the medication “made [her] feel fine” and grazing; further that the Petitioners believe that the that “the worst time was when I suddenly stopped access to the Thorley Drive site is dangerous as it is taking my medication.”Further declares that her daughter already very difficult for drivers to get out of the end of was made subject to a final care order on 23 June 2014 Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe on an uncontested basis. Further that the Petitioner has that the surrounding road network cannot support the since contacted the children’s authority for the area and increasing number of cars and traffic which relate to they have indicated that their view has not shifted developing the town with housing completions and notwithstanding the decision of the court that she had commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new no case to answer. Further declares that her daughter’s allocation of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new mental health has suffered severely as a result of the allocation of 240 dwellings north of Cheadle; and further care proceedings and her being removed from her mother’s that the Petitioners believe that there are not the facilities care. That the original state intervention from Children’s or the infrastructure in place for the proposed housing. Services started on 5 March 2013 and that the Petitioner The Petitioners therefore request that the House of originally instructed a local firm of solicitors, Thursfields, Commons urges the Department for Communities and who she perceived as working hand in glove with the Local Government to intervene in this matter to ensure local authority for whom they worked on other cases. that housing proposals that sit outside of the currently Her legal advisers and Barrister Nkumbe Ekaney QC identified sites for completions and commitments to put pressure on her to concede Section 31 of the Children 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocations of Act 1989 Threshold Criteria were met and she did so 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation for even if the criminal proceedings later made it clear that 240 dwellings north of Cheadle are rejected over the no harm was suffered as a result of the medication. planning period until 2031 and further that the Petitioners That Dr Gardner, an expert jointly instructed by the request that the House urges the local council to reduce court as part of the care proceedings concluded that her the housing allocation for Cheadle, preferably by moving daughter would be best cared for by her mother and a percentage to the Potteries and with no further that this had been clear throughout the proceedings. development of Greenfield sites. Losing confidence in her legal practitioners, she uninstructed And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Thursfield in mid December 2013. It appears that the Sir William Cash, Official Report, 11 December 2014; local authority then persuaded the Crown Prosecution Vol. 589, c. 1088.] Service to issue criminal proceedings and that those were driven by the Petitioner resisting the care proceedings. [P001411] The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities Commons Justice Select Committee, the Health Select and Local Government: Committee and the Education Select Committee review Through our reforms in the Localism Act and the law to determine why it is that a state intervention National Planning Policy Framework, the Government both on the criminal basis and in care proceedings can have ensured that local plans set the structure in which proceed and do so much harm to the child that it is decisions on particular applications are taken locally. supposed to protect when there is in fact no case to To support this, we have encouraged local authorities answer. to get up-to-date plans in place as soon as possible as 7P Petitions26 JANUARY 2015 Petitions 8P this is the most effective way of managing development plan for public examination in front of an independent within a local area. Local plans will guard against inspector. Anyone with an interest in the plan may ‘speculative’ or unwanted development by setting the request to appear at the hearing. framework in which decisions on particular proposals Examination will test in particular whether a plan is are taken (whether that decision is taken locally or by consistent with national policy, and recognises constraints the Planning Inspectorate at appeal). such as the need for provision of infrastructure and the This Government do not set national housing targets prioritisation of the re-use of brownfield land. It also or require councils to provide more houses than are considers adherence to legal requirements, what account needed. Our abolition of regional strategies decentralised has been taken of public views, and whether the strategy decision making on matters such as housing provision that the plan proposes is the most appropriate in the to local authorities and communities, enabling them to light of reasonable alternatives. plan for growth and other priorities in their areas. We are supporting this process through the duty to co-operate The Government understand that Staffordshire which requires councils to work together constructively, Moorlands district council has been consulting on possible actively and on an ongoing basis in planning for strategic site allocations following the adoption of its local plan matters in their local plans. core strategy in March 2014, and in advance of the production of a single comprehensive local plan covering The Framework only asks local councils to identify the period 2016-31. and plan to meet the objectively assessed needs of their communities based on robust evidence. When preparing It would be inappropriate for the Government to plans, councils should assess the development needs for comment on individual plan proposals, or on particular their areas and identify appropriate sites for development applications, lest they come before the Secretary of to meet this need. The Government trust local councils State or one of his inspectors for decision in the future. to make the right decisions to ensure that the options Upon the submission of any planning application for taken forward in plans are justified and take into account development, the council must advertise the application local people’s views. by site notice and on their website. At such a time Anyone with an interest in a local plan may make residents of Cheadle may object to the proposal, and representations on it. The council must consider the the council must take these views into account in reaching representations before deciding whether to submit the a decision. ORAL ANSWERS

Monday 26 January 2015

Col. No. Col. No. WORK AND PENSIONS ...... 545 WORK AND PENSIONS—continued Access to Benefits ...... 553 Mental Health (Employment Opportunities) ...... 547 All-party Parliamentary Group on Hunger New Enterprise Allowance...... 551 and Food Poverty...... 559 Schedule 8...... 659 Employment and Support Allowance ...... 560 Schedule 9...... 659 Employment Opportunities (Northern Region) ..... 550 Topical Questions ...... 561 Housing Benefit ...... 556 Unemployment ...... 555 Innovation Fund for Young People...... 545 Work Programme...... 552 Job Creation (Yorkshire)...... 549 Young People (Employment or Training)...... 558 WRITTEN STATEMENT

Monday 26 January 2015

Col. No. Col. No. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 15WS Community Pubs ...... 15WS PETITIONS

Monday 26 January 2015

Col. No. Col. No. PRESENTED PETITION ...... 5P COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT .6P State intervention in care proceedings ...... 5P Housing Development in Cheadle...... 6P Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied. Corrections which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than Monday 2 February 2015

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are available at the Vote Office.

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords, £4. Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords, £600. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60 (£100 for a two-volume edition). Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volumeof House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage Volume 591 Monday No. 99 26 January 2015

CONTENTS

Monday 26 January 2015

Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 545] [see index inside back page] Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Infrastructure Bill [Lords] [Col. 570] Programme motion (No. 2)—(Mr Hayes)—agreed to As amended, considered; read the Third time and passed

Petitions [Col. 697]

Pakistan (UK Support) [Col. 699] Debate on motion for Adjournment

Written Statement [Col. 15WS]

Petitions [Col. 5P] Observations

Written Answers to Questions [The written answers can now be found at http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers]