parliamentary debates - United Kingdom Parliament - Parliament UK

4 downloads 543 Views 502KB Size Report
Sep 6, 2013 - scams perpetrated by US multinationals Starbucks, Apple,. Facebook ...... projects (including tidal lagoon
Friday 6 September 2013

Volume 567 No. 45

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 6 September 2013

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

589

590

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

House of Commons 9.47 am

Friday 6 September 2013 The House met at half-past Nine o’clock PRAYERS [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163). The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 33. Division No. 76]

Deep Sea Mining Bill

[9.34 am

Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Mining is not a new industry, certainly not for us in Cornwall. There is a saying, “Wherever there is a hole in the ground, there will be a Cornish miner at the bottom of it.” With over 4,000 years of history, the Cornwall and West Devon mining landscape became a world heritage site in 2006, and I was very proud to be a councillor on Caradon district council when that was decided. The Cornish have emigrated all over the world to give their expertise in mining, and today have vibrant communities as far afield as Australia and New Zealand. They still celebrate their fantastic Cornish pride and heritage in those communities.

AYES

Tellers for the Ayes: Jacob Rees-Mogg and Mr David Nuttall

NOES Baker, Norman Barker, rh Gregory Bottomley, Sir Peter Brennan, Kevin Brown, Mr Russell Burt, Alistair Coffey, Dr Thérèse Davies, Philip Duncan, rh Mr Alan Elphicke, Charlie Gardiner, Barry Gauke, Mr David Gilmore, Sheila Grant, Mrs Helen Green, rh Damian Hancock, Matthew Harris, Rebecca Heath, Mr David Hoban, Mr Mark

Hollobone, Mr Philip Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy Hurd, Mr Nick Jenkin, Mr Bernard Lewis, Brandon Milton, Anne Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) Murray, Sheryll Pincher, Christopher Randall, rh Mr John Tami, Mark Vaizey, Mr Edward Vara, Mr Shailesh Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Robert Syms and Mr Robert Goodwill

The Speaker declared that the Question was not decided because fewer than 40 Members had participated in the Division (Standing Order No. 41).

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): I cannot remember whether I picked this up in 1981 when the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981 was passed by this House, but I think I am right in saying that most of the exploration that has been going on under the international authority is in the central Indian basin of the Indian ocean, and in the northern part of the Pacific ocean, in the Clarion Clipperton zone. If there are Cornish miners there, I send them my best wishes; I hope they are swimming well. Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I am sure that they still pride themselves in taking their lunch in the form of a Cornish pasty: the pastry protects what is inside from dirty hands. Pasties are something else that we Cornish people are extremely proud of. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): I hope they withstand high pressure. Sheryll Murray: Absolutely. It gives me great pride as a Cornishwoman to take this Bill forward in Parliament today. The concept of deep-sea mining is not new, but as we make technological advances, this new industry is fast becoming a reality, and I am keen that Britain should be at the forefront. Everyone will know of my interest in the sea and the marine environment, and no one is more aware than me of the deep sea’s potential in contributing to the great expertise for which we are world-renowned. The United Kingdom is well placed to benefit strategically, economically and in employment terms, and to influence how deep-sea mining is taken forward. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to the House. Is the Bill necessary because technology and particularly robotics miniaturisation mean that deep-sea mining can be done remotely so it can be done by an individual or an enterprise rather than its requiring governmental assistance? Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend is partially correct. The Bill is all about exploitation. We have the potential in about five years’ time to start looking at exploitation. It is much better that the United Kingdom should

591

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Sheryll Murray] control the licence applications because we must be able to control the environmental situation in which exploitation and exploration are carried out. Sir Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend probably already appreciates that we must change our provisions because the 1981 Act was passed before the establishment of the authority in Kingston, Jamaica, and we must meet our international obligations. It may also be worth observing briefly that economics matter. When some years ago the price of metal commodities was going up, everyone thought that digging down into the oceans would be a good idea. Now that the commodity prices are not quite so high that may not happen, but at some stage the cycle may turn again and we may find some commercial exploitation. Sheryll Murray: We are seeing a shortage of some metals, and the deep sea provides the opportunity to gather metals that are needed, particularly rare earths. The UK is well placed to influence how deep-sea mining is taken forward, what standards should apply and how to minimise the impact on the environment. In 2012, the UK sponsored its first application to the International Seabed Authority for a UK company to explore for polymetallic nodules in the deep sea in the Pacific ocean, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The application was agreed and a contract was signed between the ISA and the UK company. In 2013, the UK sponsored another application from the same company. That still has to be considered by the ISA council, but the UK Government was able to sponsor and issue a licence to that company under the 1981Act. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case for her Bill, but as she admits that an application has already been made under the existing Act and we have been able to proceed, why is it thought necessary to amend the Act? Sheryll Murray: The 1981 Act predates our signing up to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so it is vital that we make these amendments to it. Sir Peter Bottomley: Just to clear my mind by using my mouth rather than just my ears, I think this is a very conservative approach. We maintain what we have and we improve it. Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend is correct. The UK was able to sponsor and issue a licence to that company under the existing Act, which became valid only upon the issue of a contract by the ISA. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): This is complicated stuff, most of which is way over my head, but it seems rather bureaucratic. Why do people have to get a licence from the ISA and the UK Government? Why do people have to undergo that double whammy? Why is one not sufficient? Sheryll Murray: Under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, any resources beyond the 200-mile limit median line were declared the common heritage of

Deep Sea Mining Bill

592

mankind. One must be a signatory to the UN convention to be able to apply to the ISA for a licence. We, as a signatory to UNCLOS, are in the best position to apply for the contract with the ISA on behalf of one of our companies because we can then apply the most stringent and best environmental conditions. Philip Davies: Does that mean that a company cannot apply to the ISA for a licence without the sponsorship of a nation state, that it has to have the sponsorship of its home country to be granted a licence? Sheryll Murray: That is correct. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to expand on that if he speaks. Sir Peter Bottomley: In time, my hon. Friend will get to paragraph 9 of the schedule, which states: “Omit section 9 (the deep sea mining levy) and section 10 (the Deep Sea Mining Fund).”

I think that answers the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Instead of money being paid to us for us to pay to the authority, it will go straight to the authority. The licence has to be obtained from the national Government under legislation, but if payments become due, they will go straight to the authority, which cuts out some of the bureaucracy. Sheryll Murray: That is right, and of course this Government want to minimise bureaucracy as much as possible. Mr Nuttall: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the United States of America has not signed or ratified the agreement, so will she explain the position of a company incorporated in the USA? Would it not have to apply to the international body? Sheryll Murray: I know that Secretary of State Clinton and the United States Administration were, as recently as 2012, very keen to sign up to UNCLOS. It is not for me to make a judgment on that—it is up to the USA—but perhaps the Minister will expand on it later. Sir Peter Bottomley: Speaking as an historian, I point out that in 1994 the United States got a modification to the convention. Since 1997, even under George W. Bush, the recommendation has been that the United States should sign it. It has not got around to it yet, but I understand that that is its intention. My hon. Friend the Minister will probably cover the issue of whether a US company could apply to another Government for a licence and therefore get the authority indirectly. Sheryll Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expertise and for updating us. As I have said, the 1981 Act predates the signing of the 1972 UN convention on the law of the sea and, subsequently, the implementing agreement to part 11 of the convention, which relates to deep-sea mining. In some small, niche areas the Act is not entirely consistent with the convention, including with regard to providing for the enforcement of decisions of the sea bed disputes chamber of the international tribunal for the law of the

593

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

sea. The tribunal was established under the convention, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is totally necessary. Putting our legislation in good order is important for the UK, not least because we are strong proponents of the convention, which defines the rights and obligations of coastal states, including the entitlement to various maritime zones over which different levels of sovereignty may be exercised. Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being very generous in taking interventions. Will she explain exactly how deep-sea mining works? For example, what are polymetallic nodules? Sheryll Murray: I hope my hon. Friend will be patient, because I will come on to that later. UNCLOS defines the rights and obligations of users of the seas, such as flag states and fishing states. I think all hon. Members will understand how passionately I care about the fishing states. A few years ago Canada used UNCLOS to arrest the Spanish fishing vessel the Estai which was illegally fishing outside Canadian territorial waters. It brought her into Canada to measure her nets and confiscated them. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Members will remember that the Canadian flag was flown in many fishing ports at the time in support of their counterparts, the Canadian fishermen. UNCLOS also relates to states that want to lay submarine telecommunication cables across the ocean floor and those that want to undertake marine scientific research. A convention that is accepted by most states, that addresses those issues and that provides various dispute resolution mechanisms helps maintain international peace and stability in the maritime space. Charlie Elphicke: A mining process could lead to contamination of the sea, which might either contaminate the fish or, indeed, polish them off. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we ensure that any mining operations that are given licences do not cause environmental difficulties? Sheryll Murray: Deep-sea mining takes place at great depth in specific areas of the ocean. I do not think that the warps, bridles and trawl doors on my late husband’s boat were long enough to trawl the sea bed. We should not excavate in a non-environmentally friendly way, and I will come on to discuss that. This is one of the reasons why the UK needs to amend the 1981 Act, so that we can impose stringent and clear environmental conditions. The UK takes part in the council meetings, which are considering—this was started at the last meeting in July—what conditions should be applied to the exploitation. These are very early days—we are talking about exploration at the moment and not exploitation, which is still some way off—but the UK should be a leader in that sphere. Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): I am most heartened by the hon. Lady’s response to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that one of the reasons why it is important to legislate and ensure that licences come through the UK state system is that we would then be able to apply improved environmental measures. However,

Deep Sea Mining Bill

594

I do not see any mention in the Bill of a requirement on the Secretary of State to do that. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could point out to me any such requirement. Sheryll Murray: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think the whole House will know how interested he is in the global maritime environment. However, he may be unaware—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will expand on this—that a lot of the environmental requirements will be covered in the wording of the contract with the International Seabed Authority, so we do not to include that in legislation. Mr Nuttall: If I may assist my hon. Friend, I think that section 5 of the 1981 Act is pertinent to the point the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) raised. It says: “In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect…marine creatures, plants and other organisms…from any harmful effects which might result from any activities to be authorised by the licence”.

Sheryll Murray: That is very helpful. I am sure my hon. Friend can reassure the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) when he speaks. Another important provision in the Bill widens the scope of minerals for which licences can be granted. The 1981 Act is limited to one type—polymetallic nodules—and the Bill widens the definition to all mineral resources. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts. There are now agreed international regulations for the exploration of such minerals. In future, other mineral types could be discovered or become commercially viable for deep-sea mining. UK-registered firms should be able to take part in exploration and possible exploitation of such resources, as much as companies from any other state. Sea-bed mining has enormous potential. Scientists know that lying on the surface of the sea bed at great depths are valuable new sources of nickel, copper, cobalt, manganese, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is not in his place, and rare earth elements in the form of polymetallic nodules. Such metals are vital to new materials technology. Nickel is used in superalloys; cobalt and manganese are used in energy storage technology; and rare earth elements, which are strategically important, are used in low-carbon technology, lasers, superconductors and many telecoms applications. Philip Davies: I must confess that, not for the first time this morning, I am slightly confused by what my hon. Friend says; that has nothing to do with her delivery, but with my lack of understanding. She said that it is important for the Bill to include other minerals because we want British companies to be able to explore and exploit them in the same way that other countries can. Am I right in thinking that if such minerals are not covered by international agreement, British companies are already free to do so without a licence, and that including such minerals in legislation will add bureaucracy and cost to UK companies rather than assist them? Sheryll Murray: No, it will not, because we already have the ISA granting contracts—I will come on to who holds contracts at the moment—and one must be a signatory of UNCLOS before one can apply to the ISA for a licence and contract.

595

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Charlie Elphicke: Rare earth metals are used in mobile telephones. I believe that there may be some such metals in the granite rock under the mountains of Cornwall. The Chinese seem to have a lock on that market. Is it not important that rare earth metals are more widely available, particularly for use in our mobile telephones? Sheryll Murray: Absolutely. That is another point that I will address. Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): Following up on the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), is a company in a country that is not a signatory, such as the United States, prohibited from undertaking any deep-sea mining, or is it able to go ahead without applying for a licence because it is allowed to do so under its own domestic law? Might we therefore be disadvantaging British companies against American companies? Sheryll Murray: Companies in countries that are not signatories to UNCLOS would have to find a host that was a signatory to make an application for them. There are large quantities of these metals. Whether it is because of increased demand, shrinking supply or both, metal prices have increased notably in recent years. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), rare earth elements, which have a particularly limited number of land-based sources, are attracting great interest. Those factors led to the emergence of the first serious commercial interest in deep-sea mining only a couple of years ago. A UK-registered company is now following up that interest. An event to celebrate the granting of an exploration contract by the ISA to the UK was held at the Excel centre on 11 March this year. I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was able to attend. At that event, he spoke of the potential benefits to the UK and of the supply chain jobs that would probably be created in areas such as Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Newcastle, Aberdeen and—I hope this is the case—Cornwall. Jobs are likely to be created in areas such as engineering, high-tech remote underwater vehicles and ship stabilisation. He said that that activity was estimated to be worth up to £40 billion to our economy over the next 30 years. Many people from my constituency work in Plymouth. I want to ensure that we have the necessary legislation in place to make the most of these new opportunities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who cannot be here today, for sponsoring the Bill. Mr Nuttall: I am interested to hear that there have been developments in this field this year. Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether she has received any direct representations since the publication of the Bill? Sheryll Murray: I have received one e-mail requesting a meeting from WWF, which is very friendly towards the Bill and is working to progress it. I have also written to my local press and contacted the local media explaining the Bill and its economic benefits, and they have all seen it as a move towards the future by the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has welcomed the fact that more than 80 UK companies have been identified as having the relative expertise for the UK contractor to work

Deep Sea Mining Bill

596

with them. He also welcomed the industry workshop event that was arranged to follow the ceremony celebrating the granting of the contract. One immediate example of the benefits to the United Kingdom was the announcement at that event of environmental work planned by the UK contractor. It has assembled a team of six world-class scientists, including one from the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, which I am sure will please the hon. Member for Brent North, and one from the Natural History museum. They will work alongside the company in an environmental survey expedition to study the taxonomy of deep-sea organisms, of which little is currently known. That is a good reflection of the expertise we have in this country, and it is important for UK scientists to work at the cutting edge of science. The importance of the new industry is clear, but what exactly is deep-sea mining and what does it involve? By deep-sea mining we mean the deep sea, not anywhere near any coastal settlements. In fact, we mean at least 200 nautical miles out to sea. Of course, the UK does not have a complete 200-mile limit. I cannot really envisage any deep-sea mining taking place in the channel, but we have a median line there because the channel is fewer than 200 nautical miles wide. The contract held by the UK company for the exploration of polymetallic nodules is for an area in the mid-Pacific, in the Clarion-Clipperton zone. It is important to emphasise that deep-sea mining is not fracking, nor does it involve many of the techniques associated with land-based mining. Specifically, deep-sea mining for polymetallic nodules does not involve the excavation of any rubble or the use of explosives. Mr Nuttall: Although my hon. Friend says that it does not involve any excavation, as I read the Bill, it does not exclude that possibility. Will she confirm that it would be possible if a company wished to do it? Sheryll Murray: I will come on to that, but I can inform my hon. Friend that I was referring specifically to polymetallic nodules, the harvesting of which does not involve the use of explosives. The nodules lie on the sea bed, or are partially embedded in sediment on the sea bed. Techniques to mine them are likely to involve scooping or vacuuming them up from the sea bed. Charlie Elphicke: My hon. Friend drew a distinction between deep-sea mining and fracking. Will she confirm that fracking and other processes for winning fossil fuels such as oil and gas are not within the ambit of the Bill? Sheryll Murray: We are talking about sourcing hydrocarbons, which I will move on to a little later in my speech. If I miss anything out, I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up on it. Mining for polymetallic nodules could be a lot less environmentally damaging than land-based mining for the same minerals. To assist my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), mining for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts is a different matter. It would involve the excavation of rock. Mining for those materials is even further off than mining for polymetallic nodules, and the principles that might apply to nodules would have to be reconsidered for sulphides and crusts.

597

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

We are determined to ensure that the highest environmental standards are applied to any use of those minerals. The point is that international regulations have been agreed for the exploration of different types of minerals, and they were in place in advance of exploration contracts being issued. The various regulations have been continually reviewed and updated in the light of developments and new considerations. There are no regulations yet on the exploration of any of the minerals in question—they are probably at least five years off. As I mentioned earlier, it was only this year at the ISA’s annual meeting that the council had a preliminary discussion on the process for the development of a regulatory framework for the exploitation of polymetallic nodules. Philip Davies: My hon. Friend suggests that the industry is still in its infancy, and I appreciate that, but the Act that the Bill would amend was passed in 1981. The matter was regarded then as so urgent that the Act had to be passed without even waiting for the international convention to come into force. Something must have led to that feeling of urgency back in 1981. Can my hon. Friend explain why nothing really happened after the Act was passed? Sheryll Murray: I was not around in the House during the passing of the 1981 Act. Alistair Burt: You weren’t born in 1981. Sheryll Murray: I have to confess that I was—a long time before, in fact. All I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is that we are always unsure how quickly we will see technological advancement. I really hope that Members will support the Bill today, because the UK should be a world leader in the field. The UK prides itself on taking a close interest in environmental matters and having a good reputation on them—that may have been why the 1981 Act was passed. It follows that, being one of the first states to sponsor a commercial company to undertake exploration—and, I trust, being able to demonstrate the highest regard for international law by passing the Bill—the UK is well placed to ensure that discussions leading towards a regulatory framework for exploitation reflect both the desire for the highest environmental standards and what is practically possible from an industry and technological perspective. I am assured that during the preliminary discussions on a regulatory framework at the ISA this year, the UK delegation emphasised just that. Now that commercial companies have become involved, deep-sea mining looks inevitable. As much as for the benefits, the UK needs to be involved so that it can shape regulations and standards. I hope that hon. Members show support for the scientists, the commercial companies with the expertise and the people who work in the associated companies, and that we can achieve and secure protection for the marine environment as the technology progresses. By passing the Bill, we can also make a big contribution to the UK economy over the next 30 years. I hope the House supports it.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

598

10.31 am Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): I am delighted to speak in this debate, which is important not simply because of the economic interests that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has outlined; she spoke of a potentially accessible resource that could be worth something to the tune of £40 billion. As she appreciates, it is also important because of the natural environmental resource that could be at risk from both the exploration, and ultimately the exploitation, of those resources. I was grateful for the clarification made by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on clause 5 of the 1981 Act, which I have highlighted in my copy. When he quoted the clause, however, he left out one salient phrase: “so far as reasonably practicable”.

Let me quote the clause in full: “In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect (so far as reasonably practicable) marine creatures, plants and other organisms and their habitat from any harmful effects which might result from any activities to be authorised by the licence; and the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him concerning such effects.”

In its time, that was an eminently good and sensible environmental protection to introduce, but 32 years later, environmental law has superseded it. It is no longer the significant protection that it may have been regarded as when it was introduced in 1981. In particular, we need to pay attention to principle 15 of the Rio declaration—the precautionary approach—in all such environmental matters. Principle 15 states simply that, if there are indications of likely but uncertain significant adverse environmental impacts, an activity should not be authorised to proceed. The principle switches the burden of proof. Of course, in overall terms, deep-sea ecosystem processes, connectivity and the importance of deep-sea ecosystem services are poorly understood by contemporary science. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall described some processes, and mentioned scooping and vacuuming, but she will also know of the process of crushing when mining for these nodules. More than most hon. Members, she will be aware of the deep-sea ocean currents that can take sediment produced from such operations and disperse it over wide areas. As some of the minerals being explored are so toxic, it is difficult to understand with modern science just what the effect of their dispersal by those deep-sea ocean currents could be. Sheryll Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the polymetallic nodules are golf ball-size spheres that occur in ocean bed sediments? I bow to his expertise, but my knowledge of the sea bed suggests that trying to crush a polymetallic would simply bury it further into the sediment. We need the Bill so that the UK can ensure that the environment is cared for and so that the activities are undertaken in the most environmentally friendly way. If he is concerned about the hoovering and harvesting of the nodules, he should support my Bill. Barry Gardiner: Let me give the hon. Lady the assurance that I am sure the Bill will pass on Second Reading. I have no desire to stuff it and am not foolish enough to attempt to do so. However, I would like to obtain from

599

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Barry Gardiner] her and the Minister another assurance: that the environmental protection, which is currently only in the 1981 Act, will be strengthened when the Bill goes into Committee. The burden of proof in the precautionary principle is reversed in the Act, which states: “In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect”.

I want to change the focus, so that instead of the Secretary of State having regard to the need to protect, no licence is granted unless full environmental impact assessments have been undertaken. Alistair Burt: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to present evidence on any matters that would affect the issue of licences by the UK under the 1981 Act? Has any such evidence given him cause for concern that environmental protection measures are insufficient? I understand where he is going, but does he have, or is he aware of, any concerns about how successive Governments have applied the condition? I take his point and understand where he is coming from, but he can also present these concerns in Committee. Barry Gardiner: As the Minister knows, few licences have been granted since the 1981 Act took effect, so I would not at this stage seek to adumbrate examples. However, I am aware of many concerns from the environmental community about deep-sea mining and about how the Bill does not reinforce the protections that I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would want us to have. The World Wide Fund for Nature position paper on deep-sea mining states: “Distinct ecosystems are or can be associated with these minerals and will be affected in different ways by different types of mining. Dredging for nodules is likely to damage large areas of the seabed and disperse large clouds of sediment. Polymetallic sulphide mining may destroy active and inactive hydrothermal vents (black smokers) and their associated communities and disperse toxic materials. The extraction of cobalt rich crusts may destroy the benthic seamount communities and dependent fauna.”

I will not quote the paper at length—it is available online for hon. Members to read for themselves—but we need to take those concerns seriously. The global community has a principle on environmental legislation. It is the precautionary principle, which is that when we do not know, we do not do something that we have good reason to believe will cause damage.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

600

will not oppose the Bill. I certainly seek not to oppose the Bill, but to improve it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said that it was a good Conservative principle to conserve what we have and to improve it. On the sea bed we have immeasurable riches, and the international community has stated clearly that they are part of the common heritage of humanity. That is what the international community has agreed and that is what the Government have signed up to. That common heritage should be preserved, protected and improved. If the hon. Member for South East Cornwall will give the assurance that in Committee we can ensure that protection through this legislation, I for one will be very happy to see the Bill make progress. 10.41 am Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who has raised the issue of environmental protection, which goes to the very heart of the Bill. I happen to take the view that resources were placed on this world for the exploitation of man, but we must ensure that they are exploited with great care and caution, whether they are on land, in the sea or on the sea bed. Philip Davies: Has my hon. Friend identified the contradiction in what the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said? He said that he supports the Bill, but believes in the precautionary principle. Of course if the precautionary principle had applied back in 1981, the 1981 Act would not have become law in the first place. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is right. There is a contradiction in that position. It is interesting to ask at what point in the last 32 years the Labour party changed its position on this legislation. Did the conversion happen this morning, at the last general election or at some other point? I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister on Labour’s conversion, because it voted against the Bill that became the 1981 Act on its Second and Third Readings. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on retrieving this legislation from the dusty Foreign Office shelf where it had been languishing, perhaps for several years—although it may have been drafted this year. It was an orphan waiting to be adopted and I am grateful that she has adopted it and brought it before the House this morning.

Philip Davies: There are always uncertainties, so the precautionary principle would mean that we never did anything. Many of these environmental concerns were raised in the debate back in 1981, and according to Hansard the Labour party opposed that Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the misgivings expressed back then were unfounded, and therefore the misgivings that he is expressing are also likely to be unfounded?

“The Bill appears to be a small and sensible measure, but anyone who has Britain’s interests at heart must view with suspicion any measure which has anything to do with our Foreign Office.”— —[Official Report, 29 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 867.]?

Barry Gardiner: That is a very interesting interpretation of the precautionary principle—that because misgivings were unfounded in the past, they are likely to be unfounded in the future. I do not speak from the Front Bench, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who will do so today, that we

Mr Nuttall: I read those comments, although I am sure that with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—a predecessor of mine in Bury North—at the Dispatch Box this morning we have no need to fear, as the Bill will be handled with the utmost care.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend endorse the words of our former colleague, Teddy Taylor, who said in the debate in 1981:

601

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Some important economic issues are at stake. It would be easy for an individual or company wanting to exploit the resources of the seabed to relocate to the jurisdiction they thought most favourable to them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who so ably proposed the Bill this morning, I want our country to be the world leader in this industry. Despite the fact that it has been 32 years since the original Act was passed, we can still describe it as being in its infancy, and this nascent industry has great potential for the future. Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has always been a world leader in oceanographic studies, and that we should support those institutions through this Bill? Mr Nuttall: It is true that this nation has been a world leader in exploring the world. As an island nation we have an affinity with the sea and a natural interest in deep-sea matters, exploring the seas and fishing—as my hon. Friend knows only too well. It is important that we continue that tradition, and I see the Bill as an opportunity to do just that. But there are risks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggests, in that it would be all too easy for us to try to cover every environmental risk and make the terms of the licences so onerous that we would not only fail to attract companies from overseas to our jurisdiction, and thereby benefit economically from their success, but drive away British companies from our jurisdiction. They would look at our legislation and think, “We might as well relocate our company to some other jurisdiction.” More than 160 other countries have signed up to the UN convention, so companies would have plenty of choice. It would be easy to shop around the world for a legislative environment that was more economically advantageous than ours. We must therefore exercise great care when examining this legislation. On the face of it, this Bill is rather dull, and to a casual observer it could appear uninteresting. However, it is one that could open up the high seas—or, more accurately, our deepest oceans—to what could turn out to be the 21st century equivalent of the 19th-century gold rush. It is like the Klondike. The ocean depths contain some of the last unexplored areas on our planet. The Bill seeks to update the existing statute, which, as we have heard, dates back to 1981. It perhaps needs to be explained why an Act passed 32 years ago as a temporary measure is now not only being amended, but turned into a permanent fixture. Indeed, the original Act was so clearly intended to be a temporary measure that its official title included the words “Temporary Provisions”, while section 18(3) made provision for the Secretary of State to repeal it. Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that that could have been because discussions were taking place about the UNCLOS agreement? It was always the intention of the House to introduce further legislation in line with UNCLOS, but that has never happened. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was coming on to say that my understanding was precisely the same. The 1981 Act set out to regulate mining on the sea bed in the farthest and deepest oceans

Deep Sea Mining Bill

602

of the world. The reason it was required was that it had been discovered that valuable hard mineral resources, known as manganese or polymetallic nodules, existed on the seabed, as we have heard, and United Kingdom companies, among others, were interested in mining them. Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman just used the important word: “hard” mineral resources. The Bill would excise that word to allow for the exploitation of oil and gas as well. Would he care to reflect on the assurance given by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in introducing the Bill that operations at a deep-sea level such as fracking would not be used? Mr Nuttall: I cannot give any assurances about that; it is not for me to do that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about environmental protection, and quite rightly too, but I venture to submit that if the Bill is not made friendly towards companies, there is a danger that they will go and seek some other jurisdiction with a lot fewer environmental protections than in this country. There is a danger in going too far the other way. We have to strike the right balance on these matters, and I believe the Bill attempts to do that. United Kingdom companies at that time were among those interested in mining polymetallic nodules. The idea behind the 1981 Act was to provide a statutory framework for the development of a nascent industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, it was passed in the full knowledge that negotiations were taking place at the United Nations. As we have heard, unfortunately, things did not proceed quite as fast as parliamentarians at the time thought they might. That might be due to a difficulty with the technology. Indeed, it is interesting to consider that man was able to send rockets and put men on the moon, the satellite of our planet, back in the 1960s, yet it has proved to be technologically much more difficult to travel to the depths of our planet. A United Nations conference on the law of the sea had for several years been working towards an agreement on establishing an international system for regulating the exploitation of the mineral resources of our oceans. It was hoped that when a satisfactory agreement had been reached and had entered into force, the international arrangements would supersede the national provisions contained in the 1981 Act. It was for that reason that the legislation was sold to the House as a temporary measure. The Government of the day anticipated that there would be no need for any national legislation once the United Nations convention came into force. The Government of the day were understandably keen to improve the security and availability of future supplies of vital raw materials for our UK industries. The UK was, and still is, heavily dependent on a small number of countries for supplies of minerals that are critical raw materials for our manufacturing industries. The possibility of securing our own supplies of minerals such as nickel, cobalt, copper or manganese from the sea bed was understandably regarded as a very welcome prospect indeed. Furthermore, the prospect of UK companies participating in the new industrial activity of sea-bed mining promised an economic opportunity for the benefit of the companies involved and the wider British economy.

603

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Mr Nuttall] The nodules that gave rise to that flurry of interest and activity were described at the time not as being like golf balls, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall described them, but as like charred potatoes that varied in size and, where they occurred, were like a carpet on the sea bed in a single layer. We do not yet fully understand how and why the nodules form, but it is clear that they apparently require the undisturbed conditions that are found only in the deepest areas of the ocean. Although the nodules were found in various parts of the ocean, only very few areas contained sufficiently rich deposits to justify the enormous costs of establishing commercial mining operations. The deposits of nodules are beyond the limits of national jurisdictions and were consequently treated as resources of the high seas, which any nation could attempt to recover. It is perhaps worth considering what exactly it is envisaged will be mined as a result of the Bill. There are essentially three types of minerals involved. First are the polymetallic nodules, which contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel. As my hon. Friend mentioned, they either occur on the surface or are partially buried, and are discovered at depths of 3,000 to 6,000 metres—in other words, some 4 miles deep, so we are not talking about something that one can undertake lightly. It is estimated that the global reserves of deep-sea manganese nodules are in the order of 10 billion tonnes. Those of greatest economic interest are made up, on average, of about 30% manganese, 1.5% nickel, 1.5% copper and 0.3% cobalt. However, I understand that the presence of traces of other, rare earth elements might also attract interest in these resources, particularly as the supply of such metals from land-based resources is reducing. Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides, which are sulphide deposits found at water depths of up to 3,700 metres in mid-ocean ridges, back-arc rifts and sea-mounts. They often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc and lead, in addition to gold and silver. That is what gave me the idea that there could be a 21st century Klondike in the deep sea. Thirdly, there are ferromanganese crusts, in which cobalt-rich iron-manganese forms on the sea floor. These, too, could lead to mining activity. Before I began to research the Bill, the letters “ISA” had always stood for “individual savings account”. Now, when I see them, I think of the International Seabed Authority. That new body was established under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and it plays a pivotal role in deep-sea mining. The authority has stated that the areas of exploration have not advanced much since 1981. They still mainly comprise the Clarion-Clipperton fracture zone in the equatorial north Pacific ocean, south and south-east of Hawaii, and the central Indian basin in the Indian ocean. Exploration for polymetallic sulphides is also taking place in the south-west Indian ridge and in the mid-Atlantic ridge. Unsurprisingly, in view of the potential economic importance of those resources, there has been considerable international interest in, and concern about, the nature of their exploitation. In 1967 and 1970, that concern was formalised in two resolutions of the United Nations. The first sought to impose a complete moratorium on deep-sea mining until international arrangements had

Deep Sea Mining Bill

604

come into force. The second was a declaration of principle stating that the sea bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and its resources, were the common heritage of mankind. A United Nations conference on the law of the sea was convened in 1973 to negotiate an international system of regulation for sea-bed mining. No agreement was reached by the time of the passage of the 1981 Act, even though the conference had met regularly since 1973 and made some progress on developing an international regime. The negotiations were sufficiently advanced, however, for it to be fairly clear that any convention emanating from the talks would contain complex provisions for operations by private companies and by an international sea-bed authority. Incidentally, the negotiations apparently stalled because the United States decided to carry out a full review of its policy on the law of the sea, and therefore decided not to play an active role in those negotiations. Those uncertainties demonstrated the problems that would face Governments and mining companies until an international convention could be agreed and ratified. Because of those uncertainties, the United Kingdom Government of the day considered it necessary to pass the 1981 Act as an interim measure to give the UK mining industry a firm basis for proceeding, pending an international agreement being reached. Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that we had to pass an Act of Parliament even though we were a member of the European economic area because the competency lay with the member state? Because the European Economic Community was not a nation, it could not have that same recognition. Mr Nuttall: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up the matter of the European Union. I was wondering whether we might be able to touch on that. She is absolutely right to suggest that the EU plays an important role in this matter. I understand that it has taken it upon itself to become a signatory to the convention, which demonstrates just how it can behave as though it were a single European state. It is clearly positioning itself so that, one day, it will be able to take over the organisation of and responsibility for passing legislation such as this. She might think that that is of little consequence, but she has highlighted a real fear. There is a danger that, if the European Union continues on the path that it appears to be taking, this will be yet another area over which this House will have no competence whatever. As I was saying, the Government of the day considered the 1981 Bill necessary, because of all the uncertainty, in order to allow British companies to proceed with some certainty, notwithstanding the involvement of the European Community at that time. I should point out that the 1981 Bill was by no means uncontroversial. Indeed, it divided the House on Second Reading and Third Reading. One concern that was raised at the time was that people wondered why it was necessary to introduce legislation at all, given the progress that was being made on securing an international agreement. Concern was expressed that, if the United Kingdom passed unilateral legislation, it could jeopardise the wider international treaty negotiations.

605

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

The answer was that that Government were keen to pass an interim measure because the text of the draft convention available at the time contained a provision for the convention not to become effective until 60 states had ratified it. That was the threshold set in the draft agreement. It was therefore clear that, even if agreement were reached fairly soon after the Bill had reached the statute book, it was likely that several years would pass before 60 states had ratified the treaty. The Government of the day were absolutely right to predict that it would take several years to bring together that number of signatories. Indeed, although international agreement was reached the year after the Bill became law and the convention was signed on 10 December 1982 at Montego Bay in Jamaica, it was not until some 12 years later on 16 November 1994—one year after Guyana had become the 60th nation to ratify the convention—that it actually came into force. Members might wonder why it was signed at Montego Bay. The answer is that that is where the headquarters of what is now the International Seabed Authority are situated. Another concern expressed at the time was that the delays and uncertainties in the international arrangements left the developing deep-sea mining industry in a difficult and uncertain position. The industry was in its infancy and had to carry out costly development work before being ready to embark on commercial operations. Understandably, mining companies were not prepared to invest the huge sums required to undertake this development work without a reasonably stable legal framework in which to operate. If the 1981 Act had never been passed, the Government feared that mining companies would allow their development programmes to run down, and if they did run down, there was no guarantee that they would ever be built up again. A further reason why legislation was required was that the companies that had pioneered the development of sea-bed mining had already expended considerable efforts on prospecting large areas of the ocean floor. They wanted to secure their claims to potential areas of exploration and exploitation—the areas that they had identified as worthy of further investigation, particularly when other countries were already pressing ahead with their own national legislation. The key concern was, of course, ensuring that the exploitation of the valuable mineral resources did not result in damage being caused to the marine environment. As already mentioned this morning, section 5 of the 1981 Act provided for protection of the marine environment, which was a central part of the legislation at that time, and it is the one section, incidentally, of the Act that is hardly altered at all by my hon. Friend’s Bill. Of course, the whole purpose of the present Bill is to amend the 1981 Act. Although on the face of it, this Bill is very short, I venture to suggest that it is deceptively short. There are only two clauses, but the real meat lies in the schedule, which extends to no fewer than 12 paragraphs containing 11 separate sets of amendments over six pages. The first of the amendments to the 1981 Act is designed to substitute proposed new subsections (1) and (2) in section 1 of the 1981 Act. That Act presently prohibits anyone covered by the section from undertaking mining activities in the deep sea without a licence. There are essentially two types of licence: exploration licences and exploitation licences. The provisions apply to UK

Deep Sea Mining Bill

606

nationals, Scottish firms or anybody incorporated under UK law and resident in any part of the UK. That is the 1981 definition, and I shall deal later with how the Bill proposes to extend it. The crucial change is made to the description of what might be mined. The 1981 Act referred to “hard mineral resources”, but it is now proposed to change that to “mineral resource”, which is defined in amended subsection (6) as “a solid, liquid or gaseous…resource”.

That definition is obviously much wider than the previous one, which was very specifically defined as meaning “deposits of nodules containing…quantities”

of “at least one of the following elements…manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorous and molybdenum”

in “quantities greater than trace”. The new definition will allow several different explorers to start prospecting for different minerals at the same time in the same area. In view of the much wider definition, I wonder what will be the likely increase in the number of explorers who will now need to seek a licence. I am sure that, when we hear from him, the Minister will want to reassure us that the Government have in place sufficient resources to enable them to deal with what I hope will be sudden rush of applicants wanting to take advantage of the opportunities provided once the Bill has passed through here and the other place. The crucial definitions in amended section 2 introduce references to the International Seabed Authority and to what the provisions refer to as a “corresponding contract”, defined as “a contract…granted by the Authority to the licensee”

either to explore or exploit mineral resources in a given licensed area. As has been said, this is very much a twin-track approach. It is no good a company only obtaining a licence from the UK, as it must at the same time ensure that it has a contract from the International Seabed Authority. There is also a requirement to pay a fee to the Government, so we need not think that there will necessarily be a cost to the UK Government, although I express the hope that any fee does not put off potential applicants. As I said earlier, there is a real danger that if we do not establish a friendly regime for exploration companies, they will simply go elsewhere. Nevertheless, the requirement to pay a fee is retained. Proposed new subsection (3) of section 2 makes it clear to applicants that double authorisation is required by specifying that a licence granted by the Secretary of State under the UK legislation shall “not come into force before the date on which a corresponding contract comes into force.”

It will thus not be sufficient for any individual or company to obtain just a licence. Proposed new subsection (3A) sets out a minimum list of terms and conditions that a licence may include. I add, although the hon. Member for Brent North is no longer in his place, that this subsection could provide the means and the mechanism by which any further environmental protection that the Government felt necessary in any particular case could be dealt with— without any necessity to amend the Bill in Committee or on Report.

607

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Mr Nuttall] Proposed new subsection (5) provides that where a person has been “granted an exploration licence, the Secretary of State may not grant an exploitation licence which relates to any part of the licensed area”

or to “any of the mineral resources to which that licence relates”

to anyone other than “the holder of the exploration licence”

without their “written consent”. Of course, that immediately poses the question why, when an exploitation licence can be granted only to someone who has an exploration licence, anyone would want to go prospecting on the patch of someone else. I thought that that could happen only if they had in mind a joint venture agreement with the holder of the exploration licence and cut a deal with them. The amended section 8 adds two new subsections to reflect the fact that under the terms of the 1994 agreement, there is a requirement for judicial and arbitration decisions to be recognised. This area was not covered at all in the 1981 Act. Sections 9 and 10 of the 1981 Act are then removed. Perhaps worthy of note is just how much debate and discussion took place around the two clauses when the Bill was debated back in 1981. Hours and hours were spent considering them, and we now discover, 32 years later, that neither the deep-sea mining levy nor the deep-sea mining fund have, in fact, ever operated at all. The schedule then makes provision for the list of definitions to be extended to take into account the new structures and terms introduced by the 1994 agreement. Finally, it removes the reference to the 1981 Act as a temporary measure and it removes the provisions that allowed the Secretary of State to repeal it. I assume that it is the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for this legislation to become permanent. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my hon. Friend share my view that it is a pity so to tidy up the statute book as to remove the word “temporary”, which always serves as a useful reminder? Even income tax was introduced on a temporary basis. We are very bad at ensuring that the word “temporary” means what it says. Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is a case in point. The House was given all sorts of assurances in 1981, when the original Bill was debated, that it would be a temporary measure, extending even—as I said earlier—to the inclusion of the word in its title. Section 18 of the Act sets out the mechanism enabling the Secretary of State to repeal it, but of course that never came to pass, although, as we have heard this morning, the expected flurry of applications did not materialise. It was expected that once an agreement had been reached there would be no need for national legislation, but, notwithstanding that, the Act remains on the statute book to this day. I want to make two brief points about clause 2. First, I am pleased that it retains the provision in the Act for the legislation to be extended to the British overseas territories by Order of Her Majesty in Council. Secondly,

Deep Sea Mining Bill

608

I note that, unlike the Act, the Bill does not extend to Scotland. I can only assume that deep-sea mining is a reserved matter for the Scottish Parliament, and that the House of Commons no longer has power to legislate in that area. If there is no corresponding legislation in Scotland, I wonder what would be the position of a company that chose to incorporate north of the border. Would it be able to bypass this legislation? I believe that the Bill presents the United Kingdom with an enormous opportunity to become a world leader in this emerging industry. I believe that, if we adopt a sympathetic and light-touch approach, we shall be able to attract exploration companies from all over the world which will choose to set themselves up in the UK to take advantage of both the licensing regime established by the Bill and the fact that, thanks to the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they will benefit from one of the most competitive corporation tax regimes and lowest corporation tax rates anywhere in the G20. Conversely, I believe that, if we make our regime too onerous, it will not encourage applications, and other countries throughout the world will profit from this new area of human activity. I do not wish to be in any way critical of the Bill, but I wonder whether it would not have been simpler to repeal the 1981 Act and introduce a new Bill, which might have made it easier for people to understand what the legislation was all about. Notwithstanding that small point, however, I wish the Bill well. I trust that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading today—time will tell—but, regardless of whether it is opposed or not, I hope that it will be given a Second Reading, that it will then enjoy a smooth and speedy passage through both Houses, and that, in the fullness of time, this country will be able to benefit from the enormous opportunities that it affords and we shall be world leaders in an emerging industrial activity. 11.24 pm Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who, as usual, made many comments with which I should like to be associated. I join him in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on her Bill, which she presented with her customary charm. I think that that will stand her in good stead today, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I hope that the Bill is passed without too much trouble. Reading up on this subject has been a learning curve for me. I was not particularly well versed in it before, unlike the Minister, who, I know, is a long-standing expert in the field. My starting point was to establish what deep-sea mining actually was. I had not realised that it was such a controversial subject until, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I read the report of the 1981 debate. Having assumed that the debate must have been fairly consensual and that the issue had not been particularly controversial, I was astounded to discover how heated the discussion had become on some occasions. If I detected accurately what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the Labour party had changed its mind about the legislation, so I am delighted. However, I think that some of the reservations that have been expressed about this Bill are similar to those expressed

609

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Deep Sea Mining Bill

610

in 1981. It is strange that people who now say that they are in favour of the 1981 Act and who seem to be in favour of the Bill should express the same reservations that they expressed in 1981.

if we were constantly concerned about things we are not yet aware of. Such an approach would not take us very far forward.

Deep-sea mining, I learn, is the process of retrieving minerals, raw materials and precious metal from the deep-sea bed. The United Kingdom has a great tradition of oceanography and similar activities. The modern age in that respect—certainly the modern age as far as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is concerned—began in 1872, when HMS Challenger set out on its four-year voyage to explore the oceans. The expedition was led by John Murray and Charles Thomson, who should be commended for the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North pointed out, much of our present exploration and exploitation activity is thanks to their discovery of what was out there. We should be incredibly grateful to them for that. Only yesterday, I believe, the Prime Minister said that pretty much everything that was worth inventing was invented by people in this country. Much of what was worth discovering was discovered by people in this country, too, and we should be immensely proud of that great tradition.

Mr Nuttall: In a similar vein, does my hon. Friend not think there will be some difficulty in establishing whether these cone-shaped nodules are living or dead, and who is going to monitor whether the correct sort of nodule has been mined?

I had not previously been particularly well versed in polymetallic nodules and deep-sea hydrothermal vents—or, for that matter, manganese nodules—but they are actually more fascinating than people may think. They are very productive, and not only rich in minerals but home to unique organisms that have evolved to live in extreme conditions and are of interest to scientists for their genetic properties, which have many remedial, medical and other practical applications. I may be doing him a disservice, but it is possible that the hon. Member for Brent North has read—as I have—the briefing on the Bill that was sent to us by Greenpeace, which I am sure was also read with great interest by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall. Greenpeace fears that if sea-bed mining is allowed to proceed in the absence of a comprehensive system of environmental protection, we may be destroying species for ever before we have fully explored what they are. That returns us to the precautionary principle mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent North. Sheryll Murray: Some of the cone-shaped polymetallic nodules are alive and smoking, and certain marine creatures live in their environment. I understand that the harvesting will be restricted to the dead ones. I think the Greenpeace paper refers to the living ones, which we see in films with smoke coming out of them, but I understand it is the dead ones that are going to be mined. Philip Davies: My hon. Friend has far more expertise in this field than me, and I am grateful to her for that clarification. I do not necessarily agree with the Greenpeace stance, but I think there are certain points that are worth putting on the record. The concern is that problems we are not yet aware of may arise from deep-sea mining. It is always difficult to counter such arguments: if we are not aware of the problems, how can we give reassurance on them? I suspect we cannot. Sometimes we have to take a leap of faith, however; otherwise, we would never do anything. We would never do anything in this country

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope that such detailed questions, which go way beyond my sphere of expertise, will be covered by the Minister. He has much more expertise in these matters than me, and I have hopes that he will be able to cover much of this ground in more detail than I could. Environmentalists are also concerned about pollution of the deep sea, which they say is likely to occur from deep-sea mining activities as the ocean currents may carry sediments and toxic pollution far from the area of mining activities to areas of fishing, which would potentially have a terrible impact on fishing levels. However, it is worth quoting from a magazine that I am sure is read by many Members called Mining Weekly—I am sure you are a regular reader of it, Mr Speaker, so you will be able to correct me if what I say is wrong. The environment principal and marine ecologist for De Beers, Dr Patti Wickens, said: “An environmental-impact assessment was undertaken in the early 1990s to assess the impact of offshore diamond mining on the seabed in Namibia. It was found that while mining activities alter the nature of the seabed landscape or habitat, this effect is not permanent.”

We should bear that point in mind: there may be some changes, but they will not be permanent, and the habitat will return to its normal state after the mining ceases in an area. I hope that gives comfort to those with concerns. Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): I agree to a certain extent with what the hon. Gentleman says, but what if the damage is so significant that the environment cannot repair itself as he blandly indicates? Is there not a real risk that damage may not be reparable? Philip Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me more credit than I am due. I was not claiming anything; I was merely quoting what a principal marine ecologist said. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to think that was my theory. I would not want to claim credit for what Dr Patti Wickens said in Mining Weekly. I can only refer him to her if he wants to argue the case. I suspect he will get much further if he argues the toss with her rather than me. I will leave on the record what she said, however, and people can make their own minds up as to whether the hon. Gentleman or Dr Patti Wickens knows more about this subject. That is a judgment we will all have to make at some point. The deep-sea bed is defined in the schedule as an “area of the sea bed situated beyond the limits of national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom or any other State”.

The main marine mineral content of interest is manganese nodules, manganese crusts and seafloor massive sulphides. Two metallic mineral resources of the deep-sea floor incorporate dissolved metals from both continental and deep ocean sources. One of these is what my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall—and, I

611

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Philip Davies] think, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—described as golf ball-sized polymetallic modules. I have heard them described as “golf-to-tennis” ball size, but I am not sure whether there is any mileage in arguing about the size, as we know what we are talking about here. These nodules precipitate from sea water over millions of years on sediment that forms the surface of the deep ocean. It is understood that they require the undisturbed conditions which are found in areas of the deepest oceans. That serves to highlight again the environmental point that the undisturbed conditions are what is important. To clarify: “Polymetallic massive sulphides are types of minerals discovered in the oceans in 1979 that were previously known only from deposits that have been mined on land since pre-classical times for copper, iron, zinc, silver and gold.”

Rather than get bogged down in all the science, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North covered in some detail, I will focus on some of the impacts of this proposed legislation and ask some questions, which I hope the Minister may be able to answer. The history is important. The oceans had long been subject to a freedom of the seas doctrine, a principle dating back to the 17th century essentially limiting rights and jurisdiction over the oceans to a narrow belt of sea surrounding a nation’s coastline. The rest of the seas were proclaimed to be free to all. That seems to me to be a sensible doctrine. It has been challenged by some countries, however, which have tried to claim the rights to certain seas beyond what international agreement indicates. Mr Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend think there is any merit in the international community, through the auspices of the United Nations, simply stating by way of further agreement that all these international seas should be dealt with only by the International Seabed Authority, and leaving the matter of national jurisdictions out of it altogether? Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it should be considered. Again, the Minister may be able to address it. Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a conscientious application to serve on the Bill Committee, where that matter, among many others to which he has briefly alluded, can be explored in further detail. Philip Davies: I am very grateful to you for highlighting my pitch for me, in a far more eloquent way than I was, Mr Speaker, so that nobody could be in any doubt that I would, obviously, be delighted to serve on the Committee. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am concerned that my hon. Friend might have been tempted down a dangerously internationalist path by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). It is always important in these matters to preserve British sovereignty. Philip Davies: I certainly agree with that. I am not sure that what my two hon. Friends are saying is necessarily incompatible, but I am sure they will be able to discuss

Deep Sea Mining Bill

612

that in the Tea Room at a later date. I am certainly one for upholding British sovereignty, however, as most people will appreciate. Let me now deal with some of the points that I would like the Minister to cover. I am interested in the licences that the UK Government offer and give to people who apply for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to the resources that the Government provide to ensure that the licences are dealt with properly and in a timely manner. I am not entirely sure what the fees are for these licences and how our fees compare with those in other countries. As he said, we want the UK to be an international leader in this field. If companies can, in effect, apply to any signatory country for a licence, in order to take that to the International Seabed Authority, we want a commitment from our Government that the fees they charge for these licences will be competitive—more competitive than those charged by other countries. I would be interested to hear whether or not they are. This is not just about the fee; it is also about the timeliness of how a licence application is determined and a licence issued. I hope that the Government also make a commitment to ensure that licences are processed more quickly here than in competitor countries, because, again, that might be a factor in which country a company chooses to go through. I would be interested to know how many licences have been applied for and how many applications have been rejected. That would allow me to see whether the process was strenuous or whether licences were just given out on the nod. Mr Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that perhaps one reason why so few licences have been applied for under the 1981 Act is that the regime it established was too onerous and companies have been going elsewhere in the world? Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we certainly would not want what he describes to have been happening. As he said, we want the UK to be a world leader in this field and to be seen as such, so I hope that the Minister can give some assurances on those points. I would also be interested to know how the licences are policed once they have been granted and who does the policing. The international authority, presumably, polices the contract that it has agreed can be carried out. However, given that the UK Government has also issued a licence, are they happy just to accept the policing carried out by the ISA? Do they have their own policing to ensure that the licence conditions they have applied are being adhered to? If that is the case, how many of the licences that have been granted have been subject to a revocation because the conditions were not being met? Alternatively, are the licences given and that is the end of the matter, everyone just cracks on with it and nobody will bother contacting the people involved again? I would like clarification on a further point, which relates to the heart of why it is important that we have a competitive system, particularly when it comes to time scales. What happens when different companies in different countries all want to explore or exploit the same area at the same time? That must be a fairly common situation. It is a bit like supermarkets really: when one company

613

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

decides it wants to open a store in a particular place and its competitors get wind of it, all of a sudden two or three applications are made for the same place, because all the companies think, “That’s a good area. We all want a slice of that action.” Presumably the same things must apply in this field, so if different companies in different countries are all looking to exploit the same area, is the company that can do so decided on a first-come, first-served basis? Is the company that gets its licence first and gets a contract agreed with the ISA the one that gets to do the exploring? Or are more rigorous criteria used? If this is done on a first-come, first-served basis, it is crucial that we process these licences as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall made a good job of dealing with my next point, but I just ask the Minister to say a little about whether we are unnecessarily introducing or increasing bureaucracy at the expense of UK companies. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset in intervention. Although we want the licences and legislation in place to allow UK companies to get involved in this field, we certainly would not want them to have to do it in an overly bureaucratic way or one that disadvantaged them in relation to what other countries would expect them to do. How has this country’s licensing regime stacked up against those of other countries? I hope that the Minister can answer those issues satisfactorily. Many of those points are not really about the principle of the Bill but about the application of the regulations, the legislation and the licensing. I hope he will make sure that this country is at the forefront in this field, and that he will help UK companies rather than hinder them—I am sure that is the case. Teddy Taylor is a great man and this House has a lot to be grateful to him for. I am sure that the point he made about the Foreign Office in the debate in 1981 is somewhat unfair, although probably only slightly; I am sure that the Foreign Office always has the British people and British companies as its priority and wants to do its best for them. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that, on the points I have raised, the British Government are at the forefront of making sure we are world leaders so that the Bill will what do what I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall intends, which is to ensure that this country becomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, a world leader in this field. 11.46 am Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who have been, for a Friday, most amazingly reticent and brief in their remarks. I am worried that this Bill may not therefore get the scrutiny that it deserves, given that people who normally go into every detail have skated over some of the more important points—perhaps that will come at a later stage, however. The great thing that we should bear in mind as a nation is that our companies and our businesses should never be disadvantaged against foreign businesses and foreign companies. Any regime we have of licensing and of regulation should be as light-touch as possible, particularly when this enormous and exciting resource

Deep Sea Mining Bill

614

is available for us. We have heard of the metals that there may be—of molybdenum, of rare earth metals. It occurs to me that at the depths of the ocean there may even be gold, and it might be possible for us, through the ingenuity of British companies, to go down fathom after fathom to explore and find the gold that could be used to replace that which was sold by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer at an extraordinarily low price and against the advice of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who thought it was very unwise to sell that gold at a rock-bottom price. That is what it is really about: exploring these resources that could add to the wealth not only of the nation but of the globe at large. As we have seen the emergence of the new economies—of China, India, Brazil and Russia—so we have seen demand for resources grow extraordinarily. The demand has been for steel, obviously, and all that goes into manufacturing it: the components and the other metals that make steel of a particular strength to ensure that the skyscrapers that have gone up across Asia can be built safely. As demand increases we will find that the traditional sources of metals and minerals can be exhausted. We will then find that economic growth across the globe slows down because the prices of commodities will rise. As you know, Mr Speaker, the laws of supply and demand would come into effect and if the supply is limited in relation to the demand, the price rises. If the price rises, the burden of higher prices will ultimately fall on the consumer and standards of living in the country at large and, indeed, in the world at large would be reduced. There could be an exciting resource in the depths of the ocean in an area where mankind has hardly dared go before—there have been limited efforts, and cables have been laid, but we have otherwise been able to do very little in terms of exploration. If we find on the base of the ocean little things the size of golf balls, or possibly even cricket balls, that could add to our wealth, that would be exciting, but we want British companies to be at the forefront. We do not want to allow the Americans, who are not following this regulatory path, to get ahead of us as they have on other occasions. I hope that the Minister will focus on international law. I am always very suspicious of internationalism. I think that the nation state is the right way of dealing with problems. It is the right way of legislating, of representing a democratic mandate and of ensuring a fair and better economic outlook for the country. If there are international agreements to which major countries are not signed up, in what position are those countries and their companies left? International law is only enforceable by the acceptance of the people on whom it is enforced. There is no equivalent to this Parliament that can pass a law for the whole world nor is there a court that can lead a judgment against a country that refuses to accept what international law proposes. Indeed, we discussed how, by the 17th century, the oceans were viewed as owned by everybody and as free, but we did not go on to develop how that freedom was protected. It was protected by the might of one great nation and one great navy, the Royal Navy, which went across the world ensuring the freedom of the seas. Although the argument was that the seas were global, they were global by the fiat of the British empire, which enforced internationalism and the security and safety of

615

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Jacob Rees-Mogg] those travelling on the high seas. Indeed, it was a deliberate change of British policy. In the reign of Elizabeth I, letters of marque were issued to allow piracy on the high seas as a means of getting at the Spanish wealth. We changed our policy to internationalise and that is the situation that we are now in, but sadly our Navy is not what it was. Do we have the hundreds of capital ships that we used to have? Do we have the dreadnoughts that we used to have ready to save the high seas from dangers? No, we do not. So, we must think about who will enforce the freedom of the seas. Which great navy is left today that can patrol those open spaces? The US navy, of course. Which state is not a party to the agreements that will regulate mining at the depth of the ocean? The United States, of course. So we must consider who will act against an American company that has not come along dutifully to get a licence from the Secretary of State and applied to an international body for confirmation of that licence. What if an American company goes out? Who will say no? Perhaps the Russian navy might go out, but I doubt it. The British Navy would certainly be unwise to take on the United States in such circumstances. We must consider what we are imposing on our companies and our fellow subjects that is not necessarily being applied internationally. Philip Davies: Is my hon. Friend saying that, given the lack of support for internationalism, so to speak, we should not have the International Seabed Authority, and that we should have a free-for-all whereby, if our companies want to go out there and explore or exploit somewhere, they should just get on with it irrespective of what any international body might say? Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an exciting way of looking at it—to adopt a real free-market approach, which allows companies to go out to prospect, as they did in California in the 19th century, and as Cecil Rhodes did when he went to South Africa. He found great acres of space and he made a claim and he dug and he dug and he dug, and he found gold, diamonds and platinum, and he put them into a great company, and he made millions—in modern money, billions—of pounds by doing that. That was not through state regulation, not through international bodies, not through the United Nations reaching an agreement to say, “You may do this,” or “You may do that,” but by enterprise, hard work and energy—by all those great British virtues of which we should be so proud. Why not say that of the oceans? Why not mount expeditions? We could launch one together, Mr Speaker, to try and find the lost city of Atlantis, which we would expect to have all sorts of valuables—metals, gold, excitements—in it. We could have other companies, perhaps, doing more careful geological surveys to locate those metals—the rare earth metals. An interesting fact about rare earth metals is that they are not particularly rare. The Chinese sold them very cheaply to start with, but they became a monopolist and then they raised the price. In doing so, they showed absolutely classic monopolistic behaviour. Those metals are not particularly rare, although they are quite expensive to gather together. People could go off as a free-enterprise endeavour, without having to pay for licences and regulations.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

616

Every pound that is spent on a licence is a pound that cannot be spent on exploration, or on exploitation of the asset once it is found. How relieved I was to hear from Mining Weekly about the speed with which the sea bed—the mighty sea bed—restores itself to pristine condition after someone has been down and done a little digging. That conjures up wonderful images. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) say that there is always a Cornish miner involved, and that they go down and dig, even at the depths of the ocean, to find valuable assets that we may be able to exploit for the benefit of the British people. That is a free-enterprise endeavour. Interestingly, those who spoke in the debates in the early ’80s thought there would be a great expansion of activity at the depths of the ocean. Why did that not happen? Is it not obvious, Mr Speaker? The dead hand of legislation and bureaucracy came crushing down on those who wanted to be enterprising in their prospecting activities. So there was no equivalent of the Californian gold rush. There was no shout of, “There’s gold in them there hills,” or anything of that kind, of the undersea hills. As we are talking about geology, it is worth mentioning that the great father of geology, a Mr Smith, started all his work in North East Somerset, in the village of High Littleton. Going down in a mineshaft, he saw the different layers of the earth and worked out— Mr Speaker: Order. I am all agog at the racy and intoxicating oration that the hon. Gentleman is delivering to the House, but I have two concerns. First, if the hon. Gentleman leads a lengthy sojourn, either accompanied or unaccompanied, in the terms that he describes, he may be sorely missed in North East Somerset. Secondly, I feel sure that, ere long, notwithstanding the quite legendary eloquence that the hon. Gentleman has thus far deployed, he will turn his attention to the contents of the Deep Sea Mining Bill itself. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Because so many other Members are keen to speak in the debate, I shall keep my remarks short. I know the Benches are not currently filled, but people are waiting in their offices to come racing down into the Chamber the minute the Minister has said a few words, such is their excitement to talk about the details of the Bill. The details of the Bill are of course crucial. Its worst aspect is that it removes the Secretary of State’s ability to repeal legislation. If there is one thing that I take particular exception to, it is the idea that legislation that was temporary and could be removed is now to become a permanent burden on our statute book. When we look, in the No Lobby, at the statutes of this great nation, we see one volume covering the first few hundred years of the existence of Parliament, and now we see a volume barely doing a Session of Parliament. How glorious it would be if more Bills gave Secretaries of State power to take them off the statute book—to deregulate. I would urge that the Bill should have a more deregulatory ambition, and therefore in the early stages of its consideration we should delete the conversion of the 1981 Act from temporary to permanent, because the temporary nature of legislation is one of the pious hopes that all legislators should have. We should wish our legislation to deal with a temporary problem and

617

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

then restore the liberties of the British subject as soon as possible. That would be my first concern over the Bill and the regulations within it. Philip Davies: My hon. Friend knows that I agree with him about this, and in my time I have unsuccessfully tried to introduce sunset clauses or expiry dates into Bills. But will he concede that, in essence, every Bill is temporary in the sense that it can be repealed at any time? Jacob Rees-Mogg: If only that were true. I would hope that Bills would be repealed at any time, but sadly the House is much keener to pass new Bills than it is to repeal old and defunct ones. Every so often a Session will pass 20 repeals of ancient Bills. I think we had one earlier in this Session or at the end of the last Session, which repealed some Bill relating to the purchase of the Isle of Man from whoever previously owned it to make it part of the Crown territory. That does happen, but not often enough. A sunset clause in this Bill would be particularly attractive, especially if the Americans are not part of this. I rather like the American approach to internationalism; that is to treat it with the deepest caution, and not to sign up to every international body that comes along. My hon. Friend mentioned what Sir Teddy Taylor said about the Foreign Office. It is interesting that in the United States the State Department almost always wants to sign up to any bit of internationalism that is going. But the sensible people in the Senate who have to ratify treaties almost never do, because they do not think it is in the interests of the American people. Because of our system, we seem to be rather too keen to sign up to international agreements, when, as I was saying earlier, we should do things by free enterprise, which will often ensure more success, riches and wealth for the nation at large. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker has done a long stint and we are glad to have you standing in for him. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): This will be an even longer stint. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Then Mr Deputy Speaker will no doubt be pleased that I will try to entertain him for at least part of his stint in the Chair. Following that preamble and my concerns about the nature of the Bill and internationalism, including the risks that that has for democracy and the problem of it being a dead hand on enterprise, if we are to have this type of regulation, the Bill is obviously sensible. It is obviously wise to extend it from purely metals to include gas and liquids, because there may be all sorts of exciting things at the depths of the sea. There may be endless supplies of gas. There may be oil spurting out as if Saudi Arabia was on the sea bed rather than in Arabia where it is more normally located, and therefore one would find that there is this enormous wealth that could reduce the price of oil to the enormous benefit of our constituents, particularly those in rural seats where the price of petrol is a serious problem. These resources, liquid and gas, could be sucked out of the earth and used to the benefit of our constituents.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

618

To that extent, I am happy to support the Bill. I do not think that there will be much opposition to it. It is a sensible level of amendment to what already exists, bearing in mind my overarching concern that we are being too internationalist and that, in principle, we are not encouraging enough enterprise. 12.3 pm Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). With you having appeared on the scene, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought that he was about to take a second crack at the whip— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): He would have been all at sea. Mr Brown: I suspect that he would have been. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on introducing her private Member’s Bill this morning. Like many others in the House, I fully understand her passion for all things maritime. She is steeped in the very issue. The Bill would amend the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. Like one or two others in the House this morning, I knew very little about deep-sea mining until I discovered that I would be at the Dispatch Box this morning. I thank the House of Commons Library for producing a standard note, which has been used by other Members this morning and which was my starting point. I want to make clear my interest in the environment and that I make a monthly contribution to the WWF, but I say to those on the Government Back Benches that that does not colour my position. It is a contribution that I make to the WWF, not one that it makes to me. It does not lobby me in any shape or form; let me be frank about that. I had breakfast this morning with an expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who is chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Members present may be interested to know that the committee will undertake a programme of work during the autumn and bring in experts to examine the issue of deep-sea mining. Back Benchers who have spoken this morning may wish to attend those sittings. Just because we cannot see something does not mean it is not precious. There is much going on down in the depths of the seas and oceans, and as I said earlier, if we do things in a radical way we could do damage that can never be repaired. I believe that we should explore—I do not know whether exploitation is the right word, because it worries me—what could be of benefit to mankind. That is what this is all about: we have explored space, so why not explore the depths of the oceans as well? We must, however, be measured in our approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) completed a quote that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) gave earlier by pointing out that we have to be “reasonably practicable”. As a trade unionist, I know that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is littered with the term “reasonably practicable”. I would like to think that we have moved on since the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, which is the very reason why the hon. Member for

619

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Mr Russell Brown] South East Cornwall has proposed the Bill. It is 30-odd years later and I know that the hon. Member for Bury North will be wondering why the Labour party has changed its mind. We need clarification—perhaps the Minister will provide it—on how many applications have been made for licences and how many have been refused, and on the important issue of how we will police the companies that have secured them. I will not be anywhere near as radical as the hon. Member for North East Somerset, because I think we need some kind of control over what is happening. Our environment is precious not only to us, but to those who will come after us. Mr Nuttall: On the question of policing, does the hon. Gentleman think that the present provision in section 11 of the 1981 Act, which gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint inspectors to assist in the execution of the Act, is satisfactory? Mr Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It raises the question of how the inspectors carry out their work. It brings to mind the old adage, “Out of sight, out of mind.” Barry Gardiner: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that the provision of inspectors relates more to the other functions under the 1981 Act, whereby certain minerals could be made available to the Secretary of State and the Government for inspection so that there was a clear understanding of the quantities and qualities of the minerals that were being mined. I think that that is the inspection regime that was envisaged in section 11, not going down to the sea floor and seeing how the mining was being carried out. Mr Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to provide that distinction. Again, without wishing to put pressure on the Minister, perhaps he will be able to give the history of what has been done. Greenpeace, as quoted in the standard note, draws attention to “the rapid increase in license applications being made to the International Seabed Authority to exploit the mineral resources found in international waters.”

It also states: “If seabed mining is allowed to go ahead without a comprehensive system of environmental protection in place we may be destroying species forever before they have even been scientifically described.”

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall gave an explanation of what Greenpeace is talking about. There are things down there that have not yet been determined or detected. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. However, as was said earlier, we would like certain parts of the schedule to be improved. The Bill is about the protection of our environment and the opportunity to use the resources that are there for this nation—I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree with that. We should be able to fully utilise what lies in the murky waters of our seas and oceans, but we must consider the manner in which that is done.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

620

Mr Nuttall: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think the primary responsibility for the crucial task of setting the level of environmental protection should lie with this House or the ISA? Mr Brown: At the end of the day, we are passing legislation that must meet the needs of mining companies and other businesses not just in this country, but elsewhere. We should definitely be looking at what best meets the needs of the UK, but we cannot ignore what is going on internationally. To conclude, I wish the hon. Member for South East Cornwall well in taking the Bill through Committee. I do not know whether her Back-Bench colleagues who are in the Chamber today will assist her with it as it progresses to its next stage, but if Opposition Members in the Committee table amendments—I know that only one has turned up today to take part in the debate—I hope that she will take them on board, because they will be intended not to destroy it but to improve it. I wish her well in the Bill’s next stage. 12.15 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): It is a great pleasure to be able to respond to the debate. I begin, of course, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on her success in the ballot and on introducing a Bill that is so appropriate to her interests and her constituency. She speaks with passion about fishing, Cornwall and the heritage of the sea, and she has been able to apply that passion to concerns about how we balance the opportunities presented by the resources of deep oceans with the environmental protection that we need if we are to ensure that we all have the type of world that we wish to live in. I do not often get the chance to speak on a Friday in my current position, and I feel as though I were taking part in a pro-am tournament—I am speaking on a day when the professionals get to work. We have heard some exceptional speeches by colleagues who take a broad and deep interest in matters before the House, even if they are not subjects with which they have been familiar. They have an ability to turn their forensic minds to issues of importance to the House, so that they can quite properly ensure that private Members’ Bills and the Government response to them are under full scrutiny. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is a regular here and always ensures that particular points of interest are raised, in this case concern about the environment, which he frequently expresses. I very much appreciate his comments and the way he went about making them. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made some pertinent comments about the importance of business and enterprise to the United Kingdom and how that consideration should be balanced. I am old enough to remember his predecessor, the late Sir Marcus Fox, a great man. Many Members have fond memories of him, and it is a great pleasure to be reminded of him by my hon. Friend’s presence. I am old enough actually to be the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I could spend the next hour reminiscing about Bury North.

621

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): But I know you will not. Alistair Burt: As I think the House knows well, Bury North is not only a constituency that I was proud to represent for 14 years but my birthplace and home, and the place to which my fondest memories are attached. It remains a matter of great pride that I was able to represent my home town, and I only ask that my hon. Friend take my very best wishes to the metropolitan borough, all those in it and the diverse community of Bury. Mr Nuttall: Will my hon. Friend give way? Alistair Burt: Indeed. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister gives way, it may help if I say that we are not going to have a love-in about Bury, either North or South, or the north-west. Mr Nuttall: I will take the Minister’s good wishes back to Bury, but to return to the Bill, does he agree that it has potential advantages for businesses based there? Opportunities will open up for them as a result of it, maybe not directly but through the supply chain. Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember—he will know this from first-hand knowledge— how wide the industrial base is in Bury. For example, I recall being very impressed with how many were involved in the aerospace industry. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I am now intervening. It is a great temptation to listen to the Minister talk about the wonders of the north-west as I represent a north-west constituency, but I am sure he is itching to get on to the Bill. The problem is that the rest of the Chamber is also itching to hear him on the Bill rather than on the virtues of our great north-west. Alistair Burt: With that admonition, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave the subject of Bury North when I have reminded my hon. Friend to take my best and fondest wishes to Bury football club, and to Gordon and Morris who do the commentary on Shakers Player every week. I am young enough to have played football regularly with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown)— Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I will help the Minister. I do not want to hear about football or about Bury, and certainly not about whether he plays football with the shadow Minister. I want to hear about the Bill. I know he will tell me about it. If not, we will move on. Alistair Burt: I am very pleased to move on. Mr Deputy Speaker: Not as pleased as I am. Alistair Burt: I should like to set out responses to the Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, and, when I have made some progress, to deal with the series of questions colleagues have raised during the morning. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I thank colleagues for their contributions. Deep-sea mining is in its infancy,

Deep Sea Mining Bill

622

but by being at the forefront of developments, we can ensure that the UK economy sees the benefits and that any environmental concerns are fully addressed. The subject of the Bill is probably, in all fairness, unfamiliar to most colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway was honest enough to say that it is a relatively new subject for him. I could pretend that my situation is different, but I will not. I am indebted to Mr Chris Whomersley and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues for their assistance in preparing me for the debate. On the background, I want to fill out what colleagues have said about the origins of the Bill and the importance of correct definitions of, for example, the deep sea bed. Deep-sea mining does not come up every day, so it is important to alleviate concerns, particularly bearing in mind recent concerns about mineral extraction and the environment on land, by noting that any activity would take place a long way from any coastal area. The term “deep sea bed” is defined in amendments in the Bill to the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. The UN convention on the law of the sea calls it the “area” of the “sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

That is commonly referred to as the common heritage of mankind, a phrase that has found its way into the UN convention in article 136. The concept, which goes back to the 1960s, expresses a profoundly important point, namely that the area and its resources do not belong to any one state. They should be developed for the benefit of everyone on the planet. They are controlled through the International Seabed Authority, an international organisation to which all states can become a party. I will say more about the ISA later. To refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), getting the balance right between what is controlled by regulation and legislation and what is allowed to run free, as it were, is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke about the freedom of the seas and the like. Access to the sea and freedom to roam on the seas is important, as is the enforcement of such rights to freedom. However, the world recognises that the resources of the sea and what lies on the sea bed and below are genuinely precious. Hon. Members are aware how resources can be badly exploited—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall knows that some countries have badly exploited resources through their fishing practices. That gives us pause to say, “Simply having a free-for-all will not work.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset can be assured, however, that the attitude of the United Kingdom is to ensure that, if international regulation does curtail freedoms, it must be because that is the right thing to do. We have to take our responsibilities seriously, and our responsibility to the environment and the need to ensure that the regulations cover that adequately are as important as ensuring that opportunities for prosperity are not lost through over-regulation or complicated bureaucracy. The “area”, or the common heritage of mankind, is the area beyond the limits of any coastal state’s continental shelf. Under article 76 of the UN convention, a coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf of at least 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines, and more where the slope

623

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Alistair Burt] of the continental margin meets certain specified criteria. This entitlement is without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between states with opposite or adjacent coasts. The exception to the rule is for a small islet or rock that cannot support economic life. Under the UN convention, such rocks only generate a territorial area—a maritime zone up to 12 nautical miles from coastal baselines. The UK has one such rock which is sometimes the subject of academic debate. That is Rockall, some 186 nautical miles west of St Kilda in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Anyone who has seen this rock, or seen pictures, will well understand why we could not claim that it could support economic life, being only a jagged spike of rock jutting up some 60 feet above sea level. Therefore, and contrary to some of the sometimes ill-informed comments about Rockall, the United Kingdom does not regard Rockall as capable of generating a continental shelf of its own. Does this mean that deep sea mining could take place in the vicinity of Rockall? No. While the UK uses a baseline on St Kilda—which, coincidentally, is uninhabited but has in the past supported a human population—the UK claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in a westerly direction, way out into an area known as the Hatton Rockall plateau. Other states have overlapping continental shelf claims in the same area, but while the claims exist and their validity is yet to be considered by the appropriate international body, the area does not fall within the definition of one

Deep Sea Mining Bill

624

and lead, in addition to gold and silver, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset will be pleased to hear. Not for the first time, he is right on the ball—the tennis ball-sized ball. Such deposits are associated with previous volcanic activity, where the deposits have built up over time via plumes from vents. Where such vents are active, they tend to be places of unique fauna and flora. However, mining would take place only when such sites were extinct, not least because of the very high temperatures associated with live vents. That deals with one of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley raised. There is no question of mining such areas when they are live, because frankly the temperatures would make it impossible. The third group of mineral elements to which the current legislation applies are found in cobalt-rich crusts or ferromanganese crusts, which form at the flanks and summits of seamounts, ridges and plateaus. They contain amounts of iron and manganese, and are especially enriched in cobalt, manganese, lead, tellurium, bismuth and platinum. Such minerals are important. Mineral prices have increased noticeably since 2000, largely as a result of increases in demand, especially from emerging economies such as China and India, as colleagues have noted. According to the United States geological survey in 2013: “China has advanced from consuming less than 10% of the global market for metals to over 25% of the market in the past few years and that trend is increasing; India is following on a similar path.”

As I will explain, changes in demand have created a need for legislation.

“beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

To be clear, deep sea mining as provided for by the Bill, would not take place anywhere near the coast of the UK, or the UK’s overseas territories, or any other coastal state for that matter. Indeed, most of the current applications relate to areas in the Pacific ocean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned, and are a long way from any landmass. I have described the “where”, now let me explain the “what”. As hon. Members appreciate, we are not talking about hydrocarbons, at least not at the moment. My notes suggest that it is safe to say that many hon. Members will be unfamiliar with the mineral types, but the debate suggests that they have made themselves very familiar with the mineral types we are discussing. Those minerals currently being explored for in the deep sea are composite mineral deposits, in formulations unique to the sea bed, which is why they are so special. Presently there are international regulations in place for the exploration of three mineral types in the deep sea. The first, polymetallic nodules, have already been the subject of discussion today. Polymetallic or manganese nodules contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel, and are—as far as the FCO is concerned—potato-shaped balls generally found on the sea bed surface. I have no information about whether they may be tennis-ball sized, and it is the official view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they are potato-shaped balls. They are generally found partially buried in sediment, and cover vast plains in the deepest areas of the sea bed. Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides. These, mainly sulphide deposits, are found in ocean ridges and seamounts, and often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc

Barry Gardiner rose— Alistair Burt: I will answer colleagues’ questions in due course, but I am happy to take an intervention now. Barry Gardiner: I might have missed it in the Minister’s remarks about the various chemicals, but the briefings that I have read refer to deposits of submerged massive sulphides—the hon. Member for Bury North talked about the ISA, but this is SMS. Will the Minister say what category SMS falls into? My understanding is that a different treatment might apply in their mining. Alistair Burt: The point I was making in going through the three mineral types is that they are the ones that are currently affected by regulation, but we are moving on. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: as he will be well aware, seafloor massive sulphide deposits are the modern equivalents of ancient volcanogenic massive sulphide ore deposits—or VMS deposits, as we call them in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The term has been coined by mineral explorers to differentiate modern from ancient deposits. SMS deposits are indeed relevant; I will come to the reason for changing the legislation. There is also an issue of limited sources of supplies. For example, in 2010 it was estimated that the Congo produced 40% of global cobalt supplies, South Africa 79% of global platinum and China 97% of global rare earth elements. That factor can distort total global supplies and costs. Access to supplies makes these strategically important minerals. An increase in available stocks of such minerals should increase competition in

625

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

the global market, reduce the price faced by consumers and help to ensure sufficient future supplies to satisfy rising global demand. For example, present estimates suggest that there is a 100-year supply of cobalt deposits on land, which might increase to 200 to 300 years if deep-sea supplies are included. As the world, we hope, exits recession—helped in the United Kingdom, of course, by this Government’s economic policies—it is inevitable that demand for minerals will increase. It is certain that commercial companies will be looking for new sources of such minerals, and the deep sea bed is the new frontier for them. We in the United Kingdom must be at the forefront of such developments. Barry Gardiner: The Minister has drawn a parallel that will have ramifications for the environmental agenda. He will know that the mentality of the Klondike and the frontier, and the rush for the extraction of minerals on land, resulted in some of the worst environmental degradation. Will he accept that the Opposition are simply trying to ensure that the Bill contains proper safeguards and environmental protections relating to the new frontier that he is describing, so that a similar laying waste of the environment that happened as a result of the extraction of natural resources on land does not happen on the sea bed? Alistair Burt: That is the intention not only of the hon. Gentleman and his party; it is part of the Bill’s raison d’être and of the working environment on which the regulations are already based. There is already a double lock. The reason that UK legislation provides for licences is to ensure that those whom the UK sponsors for licence applications to the ISA have already passed the standards that this House, and this country, would expect from those involved in mineral extraction and exploration. Once the UK has been satisfied, the second lock comes into operation. That involves the environmental controls put forward by the ISA, and I will cover that subject in more detail in a moment. There is no difference between us on the importance of this matter. In answer to some of the hon. Gentleman’s previous questions, there has not, to date, been any challenge to the existing arrangements. Only two licences have been granted under the 1981 legislation. The original reason for introducing those temporary provisions was that the possibility of Klondike-type activity was in the minds of companies in the early 1980s. That proved to be a false expectation, however, and the pace of exploration has been slow. The reason for introducing this legislation now is that we anticipate the pace picking up, given the increase in information and technological development. In the interim, however, the environmental protections in section 5 of the 1981 legislation have proved entirely sufficient, as have the inspections. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that and wishes to raise a challenge to what we have done, he is entitled to do so. He is right to be concerned about this, but I am genuinely not aware of any challenges to those who have taken licences through the United Kingdom. We must protect for the future, however, and I will go on to explain how that is being covered by the ISA, how we are dealing with negotiations as we look forward four or five years to mineral exploitation—which is not anticipated yet—and how we are involved with the ISA in relation to that.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

626

He need not fear that we are not considering these matters. Nor need he fear that this matter has caused any concern to date. Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to respond fully to my concerns. I appreciate that. However, it is not sufficient to say that there is no cause for concern simply because only two licences have been issued to date and because there have been no problems with the way in which section 5 of that 32-year-old Act of Parliament is being implemented. He knows very well that section 5 states that “the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect”

the marine environment. The words “have regard to” do not provide for a strong protection. All we are asking is that that wording should be upgraded in the Bill. Alistair Burt: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall will give that matter her consideration. I was not seeking to link the fact that only two licences had been issued to the issue of environmental protection. There have been only two applications because only two consortia have felt it necessary to do that kind of work. Others have not been prepared to do it. There is no linkage between the two points. My point was that we have no evidence that environmental issues have ever been a matter of concern in relation to those applying for a licence under our legislation and going on to be sponsored for permission from the ISA. The protections that are in place have in no way been considered inadequate. Had they been, that would have been an important point of evidence, but we do not have any such evidence to date. Mr Nuttall: Does the Minister have any evidence to suggest that any companies have been put off from applying for a licence as a result of this country’s regulatory regime over the past 32 years, and that they have gone elsewhere? Alistair Burt: No. The sort of work we are talking about is immensely expensive. If a company is to get down and explore the resources in deep sea, that will mean a very expensive financial commitment. Companies have not come forward because it has not been worth their while to do so, but the world is moving on. There is no evidence to suggest that anything in UK regulation has been in any way off-putting; indeed, quite the contrary. The most recent company to go through the process made reference to the helpfulness of the British Government as it pursued its licence. I hope I can set my hon. Friend’s mind at rest: regulation does not seem to be an issue. Let me make a little more progress. When one thinks of the offshore, what inevitably springs to mind first is the search for oil and gas. However, industry has yet to express an interest in possible supplies of hydrocarbons in the deep sea, which is why no international regulations have been developed for their exploration. That is not to say that it will not happen. It may sound odd to suggest that international regulations for the exploration of hydrocarbons would be needed when exploration for hydrocarbons is not new. Multinational corporations are exploiting hydrocarbons all around the world, often in very deep water, but the point is that when we talk of the deep sea and “the area”, we talk of the role of the

627

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Alistair Burt] International Seabed Authority in managing the resources. So any exploration or exploitation would need to be under those ISA regulations, not national ones. Let me deal now with some of the questions raised about the Bill, as it would be pertinent to do so now that I have set out the background, before providing some comment on the history of the Bill and why we are where we are with it. If I may, I shall discuss the issues in relation to the hon. Members who raised them. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway for setting out the position of the Opposition and for indicating that the Opposition will support the Bill for the reasons that he set out. He rightly emphasised that policing needed to be done in respect of those who had applied for, and been successful in gaining, licences. The need to get on with the job has to be balanced with concern for the environment. Our intention is closely to scrutinise the activities of contractors. The current contractor is a highly reputable company, and we are satisfied that it will act appropriately. The ISA has responsibilities, too, in respect of those who apply for licences from it. Reports have to be made to the ISA, whose legal and technical commission scrutinises them. We are pressing for improvements in the quality of the licences, which will become part of the negotiation; we anticipate greater exploitation of these resources. I shall say a little more about that in a few moments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North raised a series of points. He mentioned the involvement of the European Union, but I am conscious that this is a track down which it would probably be inadvisable to go or spend any time; there might be some differences between him and me on certain elements of the EU. I would like to give him an absolute assurance, however, that there is no question of the UK ceding any powers to the EU, which is represented on the ISA for two reasons. First, a number of states without maritime interests want the EU to represent them, and secondly, a number of areas in the convention on the law of the sea fall within Community competence. They are listed in a declaration and include issues such as the marine environment, trade in minerals and fishing, and there is no intention to go any further. Questions were raised about a company from a country outside the parties that had committed to the convention— and the United States came up as an obvious example. How would it go about things if it was prevented from participating? As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall suggested, it would need to seek a sponsorship from a party in a participating state. Such a sponsorship is not lightly handled; the regulations are covered by the ISA, which has set out in regulation 11 details of a certificate of sponsorship and the exact connection between a state and company wishing to apply for registration by using either its own state or another. As for the position of the United Kingdom, we have a contractor that is largely based in the United States but has a subsidiary in the UK which allows it to apply through the UK to the ISA. Companies are not prevented from being sponsored by the fact that their nation states have not signed the convention, but they will be sponsored in a way that is properly controlled.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

628

Members have asked what penalty would be imposed on a company that operated outside that sphere, and just went rogue and mined. I understand that there would then be a question mark over the title to the minerals, as a result of which the company would be at risk in selling on those minerals or anything else. As far as we are aware, however, the issue does not arise at present. The legislation has encouraged companies to operate in accordance with the rules because it is in their interests to do so. The costs of exploitation of resources in the deep sea are such that a company would not wish to be involved unless it was absolutely sure that it would be able to sell on what it had, and that it was protected. The legal ramifications of not going through international regulation would be enormous. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is that also the view of the United States Government, or might they be willing to protect an American company that had mined and was not party to the convention? Alistair Burt: Obviously I cannot speak for the United States Government. I am not sure whether they would be able to protect a company based in the United States under their laws if that company was in breach of the international regulation and convention that apply here. However, as I have said, that does not arise at present, and there are ways of handling the accession of companies whose nation states are not party to the convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North asked why the 1981 Act was being changed now, and why it was passed at the time. I dealt with that question a moment ago. The atmosphere surrounding the exploration of deep-sea minerals was very different in 1981. Things have moved on since then, and we need to upgrade the legislation. The Act was passed at a time when early and rapid exploration was anticipated, but it did not happen, so there has been no need to replace that temporary provisions legislation during the intervening years. However, market and technological developments now suggest that the time is right to amend it, and the Government will therefore support the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley raised questions about the prosperity agenda. He asked how we could ensure that our determination to enforce environmental controls and licensing did not get in the way of those wishing to become involved in business. Fees are prescribed with the consent of the Treasury. I must admit that I do not have the fees in front of me, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will have them in time for the Committee stage. I can tell him that only two licences have been applied for over the years, and I have no reason to believe that the fees have posed any difficulty. Indeed, as I said earlier, the company that was most recently involved in the process thanked the Government and congratulated them on their help and support. What I do know is that the fee for application to the ISA for a licence is some US$500,000. We are not talking about applications by companies operating on a small scale. We are talking about big business and serious sums, which is understandable if the authority is to be allowed to do its work and ensure that no one makes a frivolous application. As I said, only two licences have been issued In the United Kingdom under the 1981 Act. We monitor carefully the compliance by the contractor with the

629

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

terms of the licence, and we are not aware that any company has applied for a licence and been refused, or had its licence revoked. I can reassure Members who are worried that there is no evidence that the regime is in any way putting anyone off. Mr Nuttall: I mentioned in an intervention that I had been interested to hear that an application had been granted under the existing legislation. That prompts this question: if that licence is valid under the existing legislation, why is there a need to change it? Also, will that company have to reapply under the new legislation? Alistair Burt: I doubt it very much. Speaking off the top of my head, I imagine there would be a passing-on provision that would assume that those who had complied with the terms of the 1981 Act will be, as it were, automatically passported under new legislation. The new legislation will expand the scope of the minerals being sought and cover associated issues. I am sure I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing in relation to the practical operation of the new legislation would require what he asks about. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked how the licensing regime in the UK compares with those in other countries. Because of the scale of the issues involved here, very few states have any legislation on deep-sea mining. We are confident that UK legislation balances the need to ensure proper control over contractors with the need to avoid having an over-burdensome regulatory regime. My hon. Friend also asked how long it takes to issue licences. We act very quickly. We have worked with contractors to ensure that licenses are issued promptly. The most recent licensee expresses happiness with its relationship with the Government. On the ISA, my hon. Friend asked how overlaps are avoided. That question reminds me of the situation in the Klondike, as represented in the 1950s black-and-white B-movies we remember so fondly, when people would go out and stake the land. Occasionally, I believe, fisticuffs might have been involved if there were disputes. We have moved on from that, although it is still a first-come, first-served business as the licenses are processed. The ISA is the stakeholder and once it has granted a licence for a particular piece of the sea bed, that is it. That prevents any overlap. The system ensures there is no problem in terms of competing claims. The hon. Member for Brent North raised some environmental concerns. We have made it clear that the ISA should consult relevant NGOs in developing mining regulations. That goes to the heart of the issue of where we go from here. As has been made clear, the expectation is that the licences being sought will be for exploration. There is a distinction between exploration and exploitation. Exploitation under the wider scope of the legislation is not expected in the next four or five years. At present the ISA is consulting member states about what their regulations should be for that mining and exploitation. The UK has a crucial role to play in that, given our history of, and engagement in, environmental protection. We are engaged with the ISA in working through the new regulations that will govern mining. As far as UK-based NGOs are concerned, there is an understanding that this is going to happen and it will not be stopped. Accordingly, it is a good thing for the

Deep Sea Mining Bill

630

UK to be involved and NGOs are very supportive of our engagement. There has been a meeting between officials and the WWF in relation to this Bill. I understand it is content with the way we are going about things. A further meeting is promised and we will keep in close touch. Bearing in mind the record of some other states, the fact that a British Government—of any party—should be involved in dealing with these issues should be of comfort to international NGOs. We will be fully engaged. Let me again deal with the point about section 5 of the 1981 Act to which we may return in Committee. My note from my colleague says that nobody has suggested before that section 5 is inadequate, and that although the Act can change the duties imposed on the Secretary of State, it is for the ISA to establish environmental standards for applications from other countries. We have our own standards, but a double lock and a double check are in place. I am happy to go into that in further detail in Committee, making sure that I have got absolutely up-to-date information on how this has been handled. I am very content with the general reassurance I can give that it is not complacency but experience to date that leads me to believe that there has not been a challenge. However, we will double check and then see whether there is any need for any increased provision. If there is, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall will be the first person to introduce it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) raised the issue of fracking. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are hundreds of miles away from that; it is not an issue in relation to this Bill and there is no connection with this activity. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset raised issues relating to our companies being disadvantaged compared with US companies, and I believed we have covered that. I do not think there is any evidence of that happening, and I hope that we have the balance right between that problem of international regulation and the prosperity agenda and the like. I have answered a number of specific questions, but I have not dealt with some key parts of the Bill that I would like to address. Of course, if hon. Members have further questions, I am happy to take interventions. The 1981 Act was passed at a time when the prospects for a United Nations agreement on deep-sea mining were uncertain. The United Kingdom, along with a number of other countries, therefore decided to enact its own legislation to enable the Government to license British companies to undertake deep-sea mining. That was coupled with a system under which the various other countries that had enacted legislation would reciprocally recognise each other’s licences. The 1981 Act provides for the Secretary of State to issue exploration and exploitation licences, and for licences issued by reciprocating countries to be recognised. It also made provision for the revocation of licences where, for example, there was a threat to safety or the welfare of persons, or there was a need to protect the fauna and flora of the deep-sea bed—even then, such issues were a matter of concern to this House. As we have discussed, the Act also included provision in section 5 to place a strong obligation on the Secretary of State, in exercising his or her powers, to have regard to the protection of the marine environment. That is likely to be unchanged by the new Bill, but I have given a commitment to the House that we will take a hard look at whether there is

631

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Alistair Burt] genuinely any need to consider that further, and we will do so. The Government expect any company that we sponsor, as well as those sponsored by other states, to comply with the highest environmental standards. Although certain UK companies were interested in deep-sea mining, in fact no mining was conducted in accordance with the licences issued under the 1981 Act. The UN convention on the law of the sea was adopted in 1982, with part XI dealing with deep-sea mining. However, the United Kingdom, again in the company of a number of our allies, did not find those provisions acceptable. We did not believe that they were conducive to encouraging commercial companies to engage in deep-sea mining. We therefore did not become a party to the convention at that time, even though most of the other provisions were acceptable and, indeed, welcome, to us. I should add that I very much endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said about the importance of the convention; it has rightly been called the “constitution of the oceans”. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the convention, which we believe, overall, provides an appropriate balance between the rights of the various users of the seas. As a maritime nation, it is especially important to the United Kingdom that the international rules on the law of the sea should be clear and fair. A number of colleagues have mentioned that our good friend—and our closest or oldest ally, whichever is the current term—the United States has not yet ratified the convention. I know that the Administration in Washington have expressed an eager desire to do so, and we wish them well with the endeavour. We look forward to their participation in the convention and, in particular, to their playing a full role in the ISA. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Under the treaty of Windsor of 1386, our oldest ally is Portugal. Alistair Burt: This is a fact never lost on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I also have in my room at the FCO a copy of a treaty with Algeria that dates back many centuries; we have such treaties scattered around the place. There are many claims to be our oldest ally and we can be quite sure that the facts would prevent the United States from claiming that. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, let me make it clear how close and warm our relationship is with the United States across the board. Environmental protection and the law of the sea is another area where the House can expect the warmest and closest engagement between us and the US. We look forward to the US’s playing a full role in the International Seabed Authority. As I have said, the UK, in common with other industrialised countries, did not feel able to participate in the original convention because of the terms of part XI. There was a general recognition that it was unsatisfactory for the industrialised countries to remain outside the convention. So in 1990 the then SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, Mr Perez de Cuellar, convened informal consultations, which continued for several years. The UK played a key role and the result was the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly

Deep Sea Mining Bill

632

of an agreement on the implementation of part XI of the convention in July 1994. Such agreements assisted the UK’s joining the convention. The part XI agreement is particularly pertinent to the Bill. It remedied the major defects of the original convention and, in particular, it addressed the costs to states parties and ensured that they were kept to a reasonable level. It clarified and streamlined the procedures for the approval of applications to explore for or exploit the mineral resources of the deep-sea bed. The agreement reduced the possibility for the so-called Enterprise, an international organisation composed of states parties, to participate in exploitation or exploration. It emphasised that decision making in the authority should normally be by consensus. It resolved satisfactorily the problem of how to ensure equitable representation of all states in the council, including the industrialised and developing states, as well as the consumers of metals and land-based producers. The agreement ensured that any transfer of technology to developing countries should be by agreement. It also stated that the development of the resources of the area should take place in accordance with sound commercial principles. It emphasised that the system of payments to the authority should be fair to both the contractors and to the authority and established a finance committee, on which the United Kingdom has a member, which has a key role in scrutinising the finances of the authority. The adoption of the part XI agreement paved the way for the United Kingdom to become a party to the convention in July 1997. When the UK became a party to the convention, we considered whether the 1981 Act was sufficient to enable us to comply with our obligations under the convention. At the time it was concluded that it did—although, as I think it is fair to say, only just. Obviously the intention behind the 1981 Act was not to implement the convention, which had not even been adopted when the Act was enacted, but the essential elements were thought to be sufficient. In particular, as we have seen, the Act provided for the issue of licences to prospective contractors and we are satisfied that that gives the United Kingdom sufficient powers in relation to such contractors to comply with the requirements of the convention, particularly that the sponsoring state should have effective control over its contractors. The International Seabed Authority is the body that under the convention is responsible for regulating deep-sea mining. It has its seat in Kingston, Jamaica. The House will be aware of the extent of my portfolio in the FCO—Iraq, Iran and various countries throughout the middle east—so I hope it will not mind if I apply to the Foreign Secretary to suggest that it might be necessary for me to visit the ISA in Kingston, Jamaica at some point, with, of course, an appropriate delegation including Members of the Opposition, to ascertain that the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall in her Bill will be accepted by the authority. With the permission of the House, I will make that request to the Foreign Secretary. However, that is a digression. Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way? Alistair Burt: Of course, and I will check on the tickets before we go.

633

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Barry Gardiner: Just to correct the impression that may have been given to the House by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the treaty of Windsor in 1386 was of course a treaty between Portugal and England, and as so often with the hon. Gentleman, the key is, who is the— Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is testing the patience of the Chamber a little bit, and I will be quite honest with him. We have had a lot of long interventions, and the last thing I want to get into is a history lesson from either side of the House, because other Bills want to get a hearing, and I am sure he has an interest in those as well. Alistair Burt: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The procedures for handling applications to explore for minerals on the deep sea bed are set out in the regulations adopted by the authority—one set for each type of minerals, polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts. The applicant makes an application to the authority, and pays the fee of $500,000. But as we have indicated, there is a certificate of sponsorship from the state party concerned; it is stipulated in the convention that all applications must be sponsored by a state party. Because of the concerns voiced about environmental protection, I have taken the liberty of obtaining a copy of the two applications for licences that we have made under that sponsorship. The House will be pleased to know that in both, the issue of environmental standards is put forward by a representative of the United Kingdom, who makes the application on behalf of the company being sponsored. So environmental protection is at the heart of the application that is made by the United Kingdom when sponsorship applications are made. Mr Russell Brown: For clarity, would the Minister be prepared to put copies of those documents in the Library for other Members to inspect, should they wish? Alistair Burt: I do not know yet, because these are applications relating to commercial companies. I will check. My understanding is that when the application is made to the ISA, there is a nomination process which is led by a speech or a recommendation by the representative of the sponsoring state, to explain that it backs the application. So the document relates to a specific company. I genuinely do not know whether these are public documents. If they are, I do not think there would be any problem, but I must check. However, I do not think there would be any problem in my reading out the appropriate section in one of the applications. It states: “As was made plain last year—and indeed the United Kingdom has said on a number of occasions in the Assembly and the Council—the United Kingdom is committed to ensuring the highest environmental standards for companies which it sponsors under Part XI.”

Again, our experts have looked at the application by this particular company and are entirely satisfied that the company will be applying the highest environmental standards. I know from my personal contacts with the company that they feel equally strongly about the need to do so.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

634

So not only is there a pledge on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, and accordingly we can be held to that, but there is a recognition, because it is a narrow field and people know one another, of the importance of it personally to those involved. I say that simply to give a sense of how seriously environmental protection is taken; the House need not be worried that it is glossed over in any way. The standard clauses for exploration contracts granted by the ISA are also covered by published documents, which set out what environmental monitoring is necessary. Those documents are available. We might talk to the Library about making any of these documents available before the Committee, so that Members will see what the ISA says, what we say, and so on. I hope that that will help. Having made the sponsored application, the applicant makes a presentation to the legal and technical commission of the authority. As I have said, in the case of applications sponsored by the United Kingdom, the Government send representatives to speak during the presentations in the legal and technical commission, to demonstrate not only our support for the applications but the responsibility that we take as a Government for them. I hope that is reassuring. After approval by the legal and technical commission, the applications are forwarded to the council. We were very pleased that the first application sponsored by the UK was successfully approved by the International Seabed Authority in 2012, and that the contract between the British company and the authority was signed earlier this year. The second application was put to the legal and technical commission this year, although, disappointingly, it was not approved by the commission because of lack of time. We hope, however, that the application will be approved by the commission next year. We are convinced that it is a first-class application. I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the International Seabed Authority, particularly its Secretary General, Mr Odunton of Ghana, and his deputy, Michael Lodge, who is British. We have found them knowledgeable and helpful, and we have enjoyed a fruitful working relationship with them over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall rightly referred to an event in March this year to mark the signing of an exploration contract granted by the International Seabed Authority to a UK-registered company. That licence, for the exploration of polymetallic nodules, is in an area of the mid-Pacific ocean at depths of around 4 km below sea level. The Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), who spoke at the event, called the new venture a “huge vote of confidence in the UK”,

and declared that we have the skills and technology to make it a success. As a number of colleagues have said, we want the United Kingdom to be a world leader in this regard. He talked of how the decision to grant a licence reflected British technological strengths in areas such as marine engineering and marine science, and how it would give British companies and British scientists the opportunity to undertake groundbreaking work in fields such as deep sea biology.

635

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Alistair Burt] The 1981 Act was sufficient to do the job—to ensure the UK Government had sufficient jurisdiction and control over the UK company in order for it to sponsor its first application in 2012. Now we want to ensure that British companies are able to take up the opportunities available to explore for different mineral types—the point made by the hon. Member for Brent North—namely polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts, and we want to ensure that we are fully compliant with UNCLOS. The Bill is really about the balance between commercial companies’ need to find the resources that the world seeks and environmental protection. It is also about saying, “The United Kingdom is open for business in this sphere.” We can say to any company that seeks the United Kingdom’s sponsorship of an application for polymetallic sulphides or cobalt-rich crusts, “Yes, we can sponsor your application.” But at present, without this Bill, because of the changes in technology, if they were applying for minerals outside the scope of the legislation, we would have to turn such companies away. That is why the change is necessary. The Government simply do not believe that that would be the correct position for our country to be in. At its heart, the Bill is designed to enable the United Kingdom to take advantage of the opportunities that this new, emerging and very exciting technology offers us. As we have discussed this morning, the Bill is quite a technical measure, with all the substantive amendments to the 1981 Act being set out in a schedule to the Bill. I could say a good deal about each of the amendments, but that might stretch the patience of the House, so I will not go through them in any great detail. We have covered a lot in the interventions and discussions that we have had. The point to make is that the Act is being brought up to date in relation to the sort of minerals that are now available for exploitation and in relation to changes in the law. It deals with some of the technical aspects relating to Scotland and other jurisdictions, but it keeps at its heart the need to balance commercial opportunity with environmental protection, which has already proved to be successful. But none of us is naive, and none of us can forget that there are states that operate differently. Without being absolutely certain that international regulation will follow the sort of intentions that we in this House would have, the Government will not be happy. In our dealings with the ISA, we will look to ensure that that works its way through. The amendments in the schedule refer to changing definitions of the minerals to be exploited, appropriate dates for corresponding contracts with the ISA, the tightening up of the licences, and ensuring that reciprocal recognition is brought up to date. They provide for important work to be done to arbitrate disputes and deal with the international tribunal for the law of the sea and to ensure that it is relevant in relation to this work. They remove redundant terms and bodies and ensure that the terms used in the Act are up to date. As we have heard, despite the Bill’s title and the 1981 Act, no mining or exploitation has been conducted in the deep sea by a UK company or any other company. Even with the most optimistic outlook, this is probably five years off for polymetallic nodules and longer for other mineral types.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

636

The International Seabed Authority developed regulations for the exploration of polymetallic nodules some 10 years ago. To date it has issued 13 contracts and is in the process of issuing more. They are all for areas in the Clarion-Clipperton fracture zone in the equatorial north Pacific ocean, except for one in the central Indian basin of the Indian ocean. Exploration regulations for polymetallic sulphides were agreed in the past few years, with the authority issuing contracts to China, Russia, Korea and France, and cobalt-rich crust regulations were only agreed in 2012, since when there have been only a couple of applications. Of the total of 23 contracts awarded or pending, over half were submitted in the past few years. That gives an indication of how the pace of interest and demand has changed, which is another reason why my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has proposed this Bill at this stage and why it is important to support it and make progress. At this year’s annual meeting, the ISA’s council discussed a paper on the process towards development of a regulatory framework for the exploitation of polymetallic nodules. As I have said, so far the activity in relation to deep-sea mining has been confined to exploration, but the time for exploitation—that is, mining—is coming. I know that the secretariat to the authority is acutely aware of the challenges that will be posed by the development of regulations for the exploitation of polymetallic nodules. It has, therefore, sensibly engaged a well-respected team of consultants to look at the issues. I have here a copy of the consultants’ report, which is on the authority’s website. It sets out clearly and carefully the issues with which the authority will have to grapple. It is entitled, “Towards the Development of a Regulatory Framework for Polymetallic Nodule Exploitation in the Area”, and I commend it to the House and to colleagues who have expressed their interest in the affair today. It is worth reiterating two points that the UK made clear in our statement. First, we emphasised that polymetallic nodule exploitation must be conducted in accordance with the highest environmental standards. Secondly—I believe we were alone in the states that spoke to make this point—we called for full engagement with all stakeholders, including contractors, technology providers and non-governmental organisations, in the development of a regulatory regime. I hope that that is of interest to the House and its needs. I repeat those points because they are essential and lie at the heart of our approach. It is only by working together to develop a regime that we will be able to strike the right balance between protecting the environment and encouraging commercial enterprises. Stakeholders need to pool their knowledge and expertise, including that in the economics of deep-sea mining, the technology available and the biology of the environment involved, in order to begin to understand the full picture and reach the best solutions. We see environmental NGOs as important contributors in that process. Officials already engage with NGOs at authority meetings. I had a meeting with officials in advance of this Second Reading debate and have promised more consultations in advance of future meetings. We see this as an ongoing collaboration. The Government believe that, given the advances in technology, a likely increase in future demand for mineral resources and a steady if not increasing cost for those resources, deep sea-bed mining is inevitable. It is a question of when, not if. In other words, deep-sea

637

Deep Sea Mining Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Deep Sea Mining Bill

638

mining is going to happen and we could not stop it even if we wanted to. The fact that companies have started to take up exploration licences from the ISA when previously they were the domain of research institutes is a sign of a new phase in development. A UK-registered company is one of those that have taken up a licence and it is our clear intention to be at the forefront of this emerging industry. It is important that the UK should be in that position. This is an opportunity for us to ensure that our values, particularly in the protection of the environment, should be taken into account. We believe that this Bill, modest though it is in some ways, is a crucial stepping stone in ensuring that the United Kingdom can be in the right place to influence developments. We believe that, as a responsible sponsoring and licensing state, we will be able to fulfil our obligations to ensure that the highest environmental standards are adopted and applied by our licensees in the work that they carry out. I can also assure the House that we will make use of our leadership role as a sponsoring state to try to ensure that the best possible practices are adopted when the ISA develops a regulatory regime for mining. In conclusion, the Government believe that the Bill will signal our support for and readiness to uphold UNCLOS, provide leadership in calling for and upholding the highest possible environmental standards, and ensure that the UK aims to make the most of the opportunities offered by this increasingly important industry. I cannot commend the House enough for the attention it has paid to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall’s Bill and I cannot commend her enough for proposing it. I look forward to taking it further with the consent of the House, with the intention of maintaining the balance we have all strived to achieve in the past few years.

will be aware that Mr Speaker ruled in 2006 that any confidential papers that are referred to ought to be placed in the Library with the confidential information removed. Will that practice be followed today?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to placing papers that contain confidential information in the Library. You

Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): That is obviously a matter for the Minister, but as the hon. Gentleman is going off a previous ruling, I am sure the Minister will take it on board. Alistair Burt indicated assent. 1.21 pm Sheryll Murray: The explanatory notes that accompany my Bill state that a copy of the impact assessment will be available in the Vote Office. I understand that it is not, but I will ask that it be made available to interested Members before the Committee. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support for the Bill today. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) brings a lot of experience, because he sat in the House during the passage of the 1981 Act. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for Shipley (Philip Davies), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who all made valuable contributions. I also welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown). In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all the support he has given in ensuring that the Bill reached this stage. I hope the House will support the Bill, so that it can move to Committee.

639

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill Second Reading 1.23 pm Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. At the outset, I want to say that this is the only time I can remember witnessing a Government Front-Bench spokesperson engaging in a time-wasting filibuster on the scale we have seen today. It was an abuse of the House. The Deep Sea Mining Bill is widely regarded as a Government hand-out Bill and yet the Minister took more than an hour over it—two or three times longer than he would have taken over a Government Bill. The practice needs to be stopped. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I did stop the Minister at the beginning of his speech over time-wasting? The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I interrupted the Minister to suggest that he moved on to the subject at hand. The Chair did its job. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of questioning the Chair if he is not careful. Mr Meacher: I was not in any way referring to you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was saying that the regulations and procedures of the House need to be examined in a way that prevents an abuse of that kind. Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Meacher: No, I am not going to give way. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I will help both Members. We are not going to carry on in this vein. I want to hear about Mr Meacher’s Bill, and I am sure he wishes to get on with it. I want to hear about its content. Mr Meacher: I am entirely of the same mind, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tax avoidance and financial transparency, or perhaps I should say the lack of financial transparency, have of course been high on the Government agenda for the past two years. They even led Prime Minister to make tax transparency and trade his central international focus at the G8 at Lough Erne in June. However, having marched his troops up the hill, rather like the Grand Old Duke of York, the Prime Minister has since proceeded to march them down again. Rather little of significance— that is being generous—has happened on the tax and transparency front since then. At the G8, the UK published an action plan on tackling some of the issues involved, but it is not unfair to say that it was decidedly modest in its ambition. The same can certainly be said of the scope of the subsequently announced consultation on disclosing the beneficial ownership of companies. The Government have, of course, published the general anti-abuse rule, but as has often been said, it will cover only the most egregious forms of tax abuse and is consequently in danger of appearing to legitimise lesser forms. The GAAR is

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

640

rather like the lobbying Bill that is currently before the House—the Government are extremely keen to be seen to be doing something, but they have no intention whatever of actually doing much. If we are really serious about tackling tax avoidance and the financial opacity of our tax system, a more robust approach is needed. That is what my Bill is intended to offer. The Bill was drafted by Richard Murphy, who is the founder and director of Tax Research UK and, I think everyone will agree, one of this country’s foremost tax accountants. I am extremely grateful to him, as I believe the whole House should be. There are two drivers behind the Bill. One is the demand for fairness and social justice. The country is in the middle of a deep economic recession caused by the bankers, yet the Government have imposed on the victims the liability for meeting the ensuing very high national debt and budget deficit. Mr Nuttall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr Meacher: No, I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman was one of those who engaged in the filibuster, and I am not giving him any more time. By and large, those victims are the poorer and poorest households, which bear no responsibility whatever for the crash five years ago. According to the Sunday Times rich list, the wealthiest 1,000 persons in the UK—just 0.003% of the adult population—have increased their gains by a staggering £190 billion since the crash. Most of that has now been squirreled away in tax havens, hidden behind nominee shareholdings or secreted in opaque trusts. Frankly, that is utterly intolerable. It is high time that the very richest people in this country made a fair contribution to resolving the financial crisis. The Bill would help them to do so. The second driver behind the Bill is sheer, plain, down-to-earth, honest-to-God common sense, if I can put it like that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the last Labour Chancellor, reduced the budget deficit by about a third by the end of 2010 through his stimulatory measures, but it has now been stuck at about £120 billion after flatlining for most of the past three years. The current Chancellor has, through his enormous expenditure and benefits cuts, persistently squeezed virtually every last drop of demand out of the economy. That is a counter-intuitive and self-destructive policy if ever there was one, because it has plainly not reduced the deficit, but extended austerity indefinitely. A policy that will reduce the deficit significantly is patently needed. The obvious way to do that is to take public sector-driven stimulatory measures to kick-start real growth, but as the Chancellor has a fetish for cutting and is adamantly opposed to giving the public sector any role in promoting growth, I submit that my Bill is the next best option. First, following the revelations of which we have heard repeatedly in the past few months of colossal tax scams perpetrated by US multinationals Starbucks, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—I recognise that those scams are more or less exactly the same as those perpetrated by a great many UK multinationals—the Bill proposes that the tax details and implied tax liabilities of both the wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations are made public, and that the beneficial owners of companies

641

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

who hide behind nominee shareholdings are also made known. That has repeatedly been discussed but never done. My Bill proposes that it should now happen. The tax enforcement that will result from what is revealed will raise tens of billions of pounds for the Exchequer and significantly deplete the deficit and interest payments on the debt. Therefore, the Bill tackles the extreme opacity in the tax affairs of both the largest companies and the wealthiest individuals in the UK by requiring that the tax returns of the top 250 in each group are put on public record. Four criteria are used to define the 250 largest companies, starting with the FTSE 100. The Bill will ensure that other companies with substantial sales, profits and numbers of employees are also required to disclose. As a result of my Bill, companies that seek to avoid UK corporation tax but that still have a significant undertaking in this country will, for the first time, be required to disclose the full range of their tax dispositions. On individuals of highest net worth—to use the commonly used phrase— the Bill will reveal how income is commonly shifted into capital gains, and in turn reduced by allowances and relief. In respect of both companies and individuals, the data will enable the tax abuse that, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Treasury data, costs this country at least £35 billion a year, to be effectively addressed for the first time. Secondly, multinational corporations have, as hon. Members know, hidden their activities behind complex and often secret corporate networks that conceal their tax liability—the networks are set up to do that—especially if a subsidiary is incorporated in a tax haven. The Bill requires any multinational corporation to publish the accounts of all its subsidiaries on public record. Thirdly, the Bill requires that companies identify their beneficial owners and pass the details to Companies House. That is important because the registered legal owners can easily disguise who is behind a company, and thus present an entirely false view of its structure. For example, many quoted companies list only some of their shares on the stock exchange; the rest are in beneficial ownership. Limited liability partnerships are widely used for tax abuse, because members of an LLP are taxed, but not the partnership itself. If the details of ownership are known and put on the public record, the tax liabilities can be correctly assessed. Unlimited companies are almost routinely inserted into major corporation group structures in order to disguise ownership or control, often in ways that are designed to mislead about the true nature of transactions being undertaken. Obviously, foreign branches must be included if an enormous loophole is not to be created in the disclosure of beneficial ownership. I would be the first to recognise that to presume that a company bent on tax avoidance or other dishonest purposes will necessarily comply with its obligation to disclose its beneficial owners is, frankly, naive. The Bill would therefore also place a new obligation on UK banks to report the information they collect on their limited company clients under money-laundering regulations, including the real trading address of a company, who its directors and beneficial owners really are, and where they are located. The banks would be required to submit that information to Companies House, which would then be required to publish it. The banks

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

642

would also have to supply the information to HMRC, which would then be required to demand a tax return from any company with a bank account. The sanctions—and sanctions are the only thing that will make the legislation work—for failing to supply any information demanded from the company by Companies House or HMRC would be either the removal of limited liability status or making directors and beneficial owners liable for the debts. Under the Bill’s provisions, HMRC would also be granted the power to access the company’s bank account data, so that estimated tax assessments could be raised if the company refused to supply accounts. Again, the directors and beneficial owners would be held responsible and would have to pay the consequential tax. In order to avoid an obvious loophole, the requirement for a company to have information on its beneficial ownership and its accounts on public record—on its own website, or wherever—would be extended to the tax havens in Britain’s Crown dependencies and overseas territories, although of course only if the company in question had a beneficial owner outside that territory. Finally, the Bill deals with the question of trusts and would require that they, too, declare the true identity of their settler, the trustees and beneficiaries to HMRC. If they do not, the sanction would be that the trust property would pass to the Crown. Trust data will also be placed on public record, but only in the case of those with significant assets or income, and those that control companies—I am not worried about trusts that are relatively trivial in their economic impact. Those measures are necessary to enforce the requirements. The information has always been available to the Government, but under both parties there has been an unwillingness to use the measures that are patently available to ensure that tax is paid in accordance with what Parliament has determined. It is no exaggeration to say that the effect of these measures on the UK system’s capability would be nothing less than transformational. We have repeatedly been shocked by multinational corporations and their armies of City lawyers and accountants regularly running rings around the UK tax authorities—sometimes, one might think, with the apparent complicity of Government—but that is not inevitable or irreversible. My Bill will redress a massive injustice in tax burdens, put a stop to enormous tax abuse by large companies which has persisted for far too long and make a huge contribution to reducing the budget deficit. I commend it to the House. 1.40 pm Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), partly because I disagree with almost everything he has said, but also because it is rather refreshing that Opposition Members are willing to say it. Most of them hide their true socialist credentials, but the right hon. Gentleman is a socialist red in tooth and claw. That is admirable, because it gives us on the Conservative Benches something to get our teeth into and oppose. I disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman from the very outset of his speech. I disagree with the way he examined the financial crisis and the blame he places. He puts it exclusively on the bankers, but it is not as simple as that. It takes two to tango—not, I must

643

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Jacob Rees-Mogg] confess, something I do very often, if ever. The crisis needed people and institutions to borrow the money that the bankers were lending. It needed the regulatory system that was set up by the last Government, which took the Bank of England out of regulating the banks. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): In criticising the lack of regulation, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his party leader was wrong to say in opposition that there should be less regulation? Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is a complete non-sequitur. The issue is bad regulation, not too much or too little. It is perfectly logical to argue that there was too much bad regulation prior to the financial crisis and not simply think that we need more to solve the problem. I would argue that the Governor’s eyebrow is not something that can be regulated particularly effectively. No Act of Parliament, powerful though Acts of Parliament are, can determine how the Governor should raise his eyebrows or not; on the other hand, that was an effective way of regulating banking and ensuring that banks did not become overextended. Ticking boxes to comply with regulation often ensures that people obey the detail of it, but get away from the spirit. That is certainly what happened with some of the bank capital regulations prior to the financial crisis and some of the behaviour of financial institutions, which followed the letter of the law but got into a great deal of trouble. It was not that there was too much or too little regulation; it was that there was bad regulation. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton on his understanding of the crisis, but I disagree with him even more firmly on the Government’s approach to solving it. Getting the public finances back into good order is the essential foundation for an economic recovery. The idea that the situation could have been improved by spending more each year in deficit, when tax revenues were low and the economy was weak, than we had ever spent in peacetime, is absurd. It would have just put us into a debt spiral. The United Kingdom’s credit would have declined and we would have been unable to finance our annual deficit and our cumulative debt. Mr Meacher: I was not proposing any increase in public expenditure at all. The whole point of my Bill is that raising money from the extremely wealthy individuals of this country, and possibly also some corporations, would provide the money to generate probably 1 million or 2 million jobs within a couple of years. That would lead to a far bigger reduction in the deficit than anything the Government have done or just concentrating on cutting expenditure. Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government had a fiscal tightening and a plan for increasing taxation—which has come through—that forecast taxation going up to over 38% of GDP. Taxation at 38% of GDP is about the highest level that Governments ever achieve. If we go back to Harold Wilson’s prime ministership, we still find that it is almost impossible to get taxation at much more than 38% of GDP. The issue was that spending was so high, not that taxation was too low. The ability to squeeze imaginary rich people to get a lot of money coming in was simply not there. Such fiscal tightening

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

644

on the taxation side as was possible was undertaken by the Government, but had they gone as far as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, any prospect of economic recovery would have been postponed. The tightening would have been too great, which would have harmed the economy. It would have taken money out of the economy simply to put it into the Government’s coffers. That would have led to a shrinkage of the economy, not least because people would have changed their affairs so as not to pay that extra burden of taxation. Philip Davies: Did not that intervention from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) go to the heart of the difference between his views and ours? His view was that the Government would create all those jobs, whereas it is our view that the private sector companies that he so hates will create those jobs for the economy. Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is certainly my view—I accept that it is not the view of the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton—that it is the private sector that creates employment. Every job in the public sector has to be paid for by the taxes of the private sector. The public sector has no ability to create jobs without imposing a burden of taxation either now or in the future. I shall not go into the details of Ricardian equivalence, but the electorate understand that extra spending that is borrowed is merely taxation postponed. Mr Meacher: In the depths of a recession, the private sector will not take this country or any other country out of that recession. There is £775 billion in corporate cash stockpiles in this country that is not being used. The problem is a lack of demand. The only way to insert demand into the economy is, initially, through a public sector-driven promotion of stimulatory measures. Only when the economy starts to rise will the private sector take off. Jacob Rees-Mogg: Once again, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion. Placing an extra tax burden on the private sector during the lowest point in a downturn will make that downturn even worse. The cash that has been built up by the private sector is waiting to encourage the recovery as it begins and as the private sector begins to recover. At that point, people become more confident because they have kept their own money, rather than it having being taken by the Government. Mr Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what has been said, it is the private sector that is leading the way in this recovery? The fact is that the private sector has created 1.3 million new jobs since the last election. Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has put it in that way. Sometimes, the Government claim that they have created 1.3 million private sector jobs, and that is a turn of phrase that I particularly dislike. It is not the Government who have done it; it is the private sector. I am particularly enjoying discussing the right hon. Gentleman’s Bill. It is sometimes alleged that politics has all become too similar and that all the parties agree.

645

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

That might be true of those on our Front Benches, but there are still some of us on the Back Benches who are willing to put forward in a more forthright way the views that we hold according to our respective political traditions. That certainly makes the debate in the Chamber more interesting. Having set out my broad-brush objection in principle to what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, I want to move on to the details of the Bill. And here it gets worse. The Bill is an astonishing, fundamental attack on some of the basic principles that we ought to enjoy. As a taxpayer—I am sad to say that I am not in the top 250, although I would not mind if I were—I have a right to privacy. The Government do not have a right to publish my financial information; that is my private, confidential affair. I am not advocating tax evasion, which is a criminal activity. It is quite right that it should be criminal, and the Government should enforce those laws. However, the prevention of that crime does not require the Government to deny people their fundamental right to privacy. People’s most personal and intimate financial details, as set out in their tax return, should not be made available to all and sundry, and it is quite right that the tax authorities should maintain vigorous rules of confidentiality, even when appearing before Select Committees of the House of Commons. It is a right that we all enjoy as British subjects that our financial affairs are a private matter. Yes, we have to pay a degree of taxation and, yes, we have to make declarations to the Revenue, but we do so on the understanding that they will be kept confidential. Once this begins with the top 250, the next stage will be the top 1,000 and it will develop further so that nobody has the right to maintain privacy of their own financial affairs. I thus oppose this provision very strongly. I oppose less strongly the requirements for disclosure by public companies because they have exchanged a right to privacy in return for limited liability, so they are expected to make disclosure and are obliged to do so to their shareholders. Clause 1 deals with “Disclosure of financial information by large companies” and from the perspective of a shareholder as an investor, I believe that I am entitled to such information anyway; and with large public companies, the shareholder list is so extensive that, once that information is given to shareholders, it is effectively in the public domain. I add at this point that my background and career have been in investment management, so I know that the more information we get from listed companies, the easier it is to do the job of an investment manager and the better the investments it is possible to make. Perhaps inadvertently, then, the right hon. Gentleman will help the investment community in that, if clause 1 were introduced, financial analysts in the City of London would practically be dancing with joy at their ability to find out every single financial statement of large private companies. It might be quite helpful in stopping them from hiding unwelcome, loss-making subsidiaries somewhere at the bottom of the balance sheet, tucking them away under a contingent liability. Because this is essentially dealing with already public companies, I would make no objection to the clause, but I would maintain the privacy of individuals—and of trusts. I do not think that trusts should be attacked in this way. Trusts are, in fact, one of the glories of the British legal system. They are much less understood on the

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

646

continent, but they allow many protections to be built into ownership. Trusts allow the protection of minors in how they are structured and they allow continuity in the holding of assets, including allowing some of this country’s great historic treasures to be kept within the country through the trust structure of ownership. Putting unduly onerous charges on them and requirements to report would, I think, be unreasonable. Looking at the detail, the idea is that, if trusts do not meet the requirements, their income should go to the Crown. That is what happened in the Court of Wards in the 17th century. It was one of the things that caused such trouble between Parliament and the King because the Crown was able to take the estates of minors and effectively ruin them during the minority of the beneficiary. We moved away from that type of arbitrary rule of giving power to the Crown—in this context, it is not a personal Crown; the Crown is the Executive—to do things such as take funds from private property, not in the form of tax, but in a regulatory way, squeezing income for a certain period until onerous requirements are met. I think that would be an extraordinarily unsatisfactory way of proceeding. It would undermine the right of property—again a fundamental right that we ought to enjoy. Going back to the Magna Carta, the Crown cannot take property away from people unless there is a judgment—a judgment in a court—against them; it cannot be done on the basis of some failure to meet some bureaucratic standard. This seems to me to illustrate where the Conservative, a believer in the rights of property and a believer in the individual, stands up against the socialist, a believer in the collective and the rights of the collective to override the rights of property. I stand four-square in favour of the rights of property and four-square, too, in favour of the rights of the Crown dependencies, by and large, to regulate their own affairs. The Bill is again onerous in what it requires to be done, by Order in Council, for territories that, by and large, are no longer treated as mere colonies. The Crown dependencies are allowed to develop and run their own affairs and have their own elective councils to take charge of those affairs. The Bill is a throwback to how this country behaved in the 19th century when we felt we had a greater right to order about the non-dominions— with dominions starting, first with Canada, in the latter part of the 19th century. We seem to be taking the Crown dependencies back to a period before dominion status started to be granted. I consider that to be undemocratic, and unfair on them. It attacks their fundamental livelihoods, namely, their ability to provide financial services and a degree of confidentiality at the same time. There is a fundamental disagreement—and I am not entirely of the Government’s view either—about the attempt to elide tax avoidance and tax evasion. It is very important to be clear about the difference between the two. Tax evasion is criminal, illegal deliberate breaking of the tax law; tax avoidance is following the law as it is written. It seems to me that, when people are being accused of avoiding tax, it is the job of Parliament to pass good laws that make that avoidance difficult, and to make the tax collectible by Act of Parliament, rather than turning the position the other way round and saying “We are not very good at writing tax law, and therefore we will make you disclose absolutely everything

647

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Jacob Rees-Mogg] so that, ex post facto, we can determine how much tax we think you ought to have paid.” That strikes me as fundamentally unjust. It has been a solid principle of British law for decades formally, but for centuries effectively, that the individual taxpayer does not have to arrange his affairs so as to increase the amount of tax that the Revenue is entitled to take. It is an important part of justice that the law should be clear, and should be enforced fairly. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It seems bizarre that people should be criticised for following the law of the land. The Government have introduced a new concept, that of “aggressive tax avoidance”. Given my hon. Friend’s expertise, I wonder whether he can explain to us the difference between tax avoidance and aggressive tax avoidance. Jacob Rees-Mogg: My understanding of aggressive tax avoidance is that it is, in fact, tax evasion when the Revenue has not yet got around to taking action. One of the schemes reported in the newspapers involved some comedian whose name escapes me: he is modern, and apparently very funny if you like that sort of thing. What he was doing struck me as evasion, not avoidance, although that was not directly his fault. It seemed to me that the scheme was so far removed from any sensible understanding of the tax law that “aggressive tax avoidance” was essentially a euphemism for “We will try to scrape things back rather than charging people.” I should prefer to see Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs using the law as it is, and testing the law in the courts to establish whether such activity really is evasion. If it proves to be evasion, people should be punished accordingly, and if it proves to be avoidance, it should be considered legitimate. I do not think it is possible to say that there is the law, there is the non-law, and somewhere in between there is something that the Government would quite like us to do. There are an awful lot of things that the Government would quite like us to do. At one point, they wanted us all to eat five vegetables a day. Indeed, they probably still want us to eat five vegetables a day, but that cannot be law. It is wrong to try to say that good behaviour, generosity and charity should be a matter of law. That is a different concept. The law, with all the might and power and sanction behind it, is a more absolute thing than that. Mr Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend accept that there might be such a person as a diligent tax avoider—someone who reads the legislation, spots a loophole, and decides to take advantage of it? Jacob Rees-Mogg: Sometimes the Government want people to avoid tax. Sometimes they allow people to do that because, although they do not much like it, they cannot stop it. Let us take, for example, people who bring cigarettes into this country from abroad. There is an agreement with the European Union that, if people have bought cigarettes in another member state, they are entitled to bring them in. In that way they collectively avoid, probably, billions of pounds’ worth of tax. Duty

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

648

free is tax avoidance, a form of tax avoidance that some of us rather enjoy when we have been a bit further afield than the European Union. Pension funds are tax avoidance. Individual savings accounts are tax avoidance. All those elements of tax avoidance are elements of which the Government approve. It is, I think, unreasonable to say that people should arrange their affairs so as not to take advantage of legitimate tax avoidance that is in the legislation—and who is then to decide whether the tax avoidance provided by pension contributions is legitimate or the tax avoidance provided by some business start-up scheme has suddenly become illegitimate? It is the law that should be deciding these things, and the best way to solve the problem is not by denying people the right to privacy, not by confiscating their property, not by excessive and onerous burdens on the taxpayer, but by having a much simpler and clearer tax system without the Government giving all sorts of incentives to do one thing rather than the other. We need a more Ronald Reagan-style approach to taxation where deductions are removed and rates come down. That leads, by and large, to more people paying their tax. If we go down the other route and have an incredibly onerous reporting system and put ever more burdens on individuals and on trusts, all that will happen is that those on The Sunday Times rich list—a vast number of whom are foreign nationals who have come to live in this country, and who are very mobile and who bring wealth, prosperity and employment into this country—will take up their wealth and leave. What sort of a nation do we want to be? Do we want to be a nation that encourages enterprise, that believes in freedom, that respects the right of property and, crucially, the rule of law, or do we want to be a nation of arbitrary Government? The choice is very clear, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton for bringing before this House the question of whether we want the fundamental arbitrariness of socialism: the belief that the state—the collective—comes first, and individual rights and privacy are trampled upon to ensure that the state can get what it feels like. That is not the nation I want to see us become. I want one, as we have historically been, based on strong and enterprising individuals who obey the law because they feel that the law is part of them and part of the nation they belong to. Therefore, I hope this Bill will be utterly rejected. 2.2 pm Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I entirely concur with his remarks and rise to oppose the Bill. I entirely accept that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has introduced this Bill with the very best of intentions. I am sure he wants to achieve for the people of our country the same as I want to achieve for them: improved conditions and high-quality public services. However, I am by no means convinced that the way to do that is by introducing measures such as those contained in the snappily titled United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill. When I first read this Bill, I did not know where to begin in expressing my thoughts as to just how bad a piece of proposed legislation it was. I do not criticise the

649

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

manner in which it has been prepared and written, I hasten to say. I am sure that Richard Murphy, who prepared it, has done an excellent job, and I have read the article he wrote about it. I am sure that he, too, had only the best intentions when he put this Bill together. However, it does absolutely nothing to increase the wealth of this nation. It does nothing to help generate new industry and new services, or to promote economic growth. I am prepared to accept that the Bill is born out of intentions that were good, but I fear that it will have nothing but the opposite effect. I was surprised and disappointed, perhaps in equal measure, that no explanatory notes accompanied the Bill—there were none in the Vote Office when I asked for them—and no assessment had been provided of its possible impact on British companies and individuals. Without an impact assessment, I can only imagine what the impact would be. I shall discuss my conclusions and imaginings in due course, but I assure the House that they were not that the Bill augured well for this country’s prosperity. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a detailed and thoughtful argument. Does he believe the Bill would be likely to lead to further administration for companies in this country and would increase the regulatory burdens on them? Mr Nuttall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which I can answer in one word—yes. I absolutely believe the Bill would increase the regulatory burden on companies. We must draw a distinction here, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset did. Large, well-resourced public companies may have the capability and capacity to deal with yet another piece of legislation, and, as has been mentioned, there may well be good grounds, particularly for financial analysts, for this information to be in the public domain. However, the Bill goes far, far wider than just the top 100 public companies—the FTSE 100 companies. My reading of clause 2, on which I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong, is that the next 150 companies are not necessarily public companies. Subsection 1(b) refers to “those 50 large companies, not being members of the FTSE 100, that have, when arithmetically combined with their UK resident related undertakings, the largest by value UK taxable profits before the offset of all tax allowances and reliefs of any sort whatsoever in a year ended 31 March”.

That does not restrict the provision’s scope to public companies, so one must conclude that private companies will be included. The same applies in respect of paragraph (c), which deals with the next 50 largest companies by their “value of supplies in the United Kingdom, whether chargeable or exempt, for the purposes of value added tax”

and paragraph (d), which deals with “those 50 large companies”

that have “the largest liability to make payment of income tax and national insurance contributions”.

In other words, the greatest employers in our land are being attacked by this Bill. I cannot believe that the Bill will encourage those companies, so the answer to the

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

650

question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is yes, it will undoubtedly add to the burden, particularly for the banks. Charlie Elphicke: I praise the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) for bringing the Bill to the House as he is a sincere campaigner against tax avoidance—a concern I share. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that a better way to tackle tax avoidance is to get rid of the loopholes by simplifying our tax system and making it easier for people to understand? Mr Nuttall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My view—I suspect it might well be that of my hon. Friend, too—is that if the Government wish to increase the tax yield on behalf of the nation and to make it easier for individuals and companies to abide by their obligations, the way forward is to pass simpler tax legislation that we can all understand. I am sure that my hon. Friend has greater expertise in these matters than I do, but I have always found tax legislation particularly difficult to follow. I do not know the latest figures for Tolley’s tax guides, but when I was in practice in the legal profession they were substantial volumes and I suspect that they can only have grown in the past few years. Each one, on one tax alone, is a substantial doorstop. It is no surprise that loopholes are discovered by accountants and tax advisers because the law is so complex and convoluted. There are so many different taxes, some of which overlap, that there is scope for tax loopholes to arise by accident. Governments do not set out to create tax loopholes other than those that are set out in legislation by design, they are precisely what they are called—tax loopholes. As has been mentioned, it is often the Government’s desire to create what might be called loopholes, such as ISAs. I have been waiting to get to this point, as it gives me my second opportunity this morning to refer to ISA. This time, I do not mean the International Seabed Authority but the individual savings account. Before I looked into deep-sea mining, that was the only form of ISA I had heard of. ISAs are a form of tax avoidance set up to replace personal equity plans and were established as a means of encouraging people to save. They were set up to encourage private individuals to save in a tax-efficient manner in that they would not have to pay income tax on the income their account had earned. That could be called a tax loophole, but it is a legal tax loophole set up by the Government. Let me return to the Bill. We must draw a distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Let us be clear: tax evasion is already illegal, but almost weekly in this House I hear the two terms being confused. People say that someone has been a tax avoider, suggesting that they have acted illegally. Well, if they have, they are not a tax avoider; they are a tax evader, and they should be brought to book and prosecuted. I have no sympathy with them whatsoever. If someone has deliberately underdeclared their income, I entirely agree that they should be brought to book by the Revenue and Customs, that they should be prosecuted and, in certain cases, sent to prison. Let us not beat about the bush. I am sure I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Minister on that. I do not want to go easy on people who have deliberately avoided their obligations to society by breaching our

651

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Mr Nuttall] tax legislation in such a way as to avoid paying their dues and demands under the law. That increases the burden on everyone else. Of course, we already have measures in place to provide the mechanism for the Revenue to ferret out these people. It can open up inquiries into their tax affairs, and it frequently does. A whole industry exists around dealing with inquiries into people’s tax affairs. My accountant sent me details of an insurance policy that I could take out for that very occasion. I could pay a premium, and then if my tax affairs were investigated by the Revenue, the policy would cover my accountancy costs while the inquiry was dealt with. However, returning to the Bill, our Government have already taken a great deal of action on tax avoidance and tax evasion. Since 2010, the Government have collected over £23 billion in extra tax by challenging the tax arrangements of large businesses. I am informed that, by tackling transfer pricing alone, the Government have collected £2 billion since 2010. It may well be that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is introducing the Bill because he thinks that those figures are not high enough. If the measures in the Bill are such a good idea, why, in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was none of these measures introduced? If it is such a good idea now, why was it not such a good idea then? I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister ever went to the Treasury team at the time with this Bill and said, “Look, here is the answer to our problems.” Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. The debate is not about then; it is about now, and it is about the Bill before us. I do not want a debate on whether it should have been done in 1985 or 1998; it is about now. I know that you are very good at wanting to get into the detail of the Bill; you must get back to it. Mr Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would just make the point that perhaps the reason why such legislation was not introduced by the last Labour Government is that it is not a very good idea. I will attempt to demonstrate, if I may, by looking, as you rightly suggest, at the detail of the Bill, why it is not a very good idea. Detailed the Bill indeed is, running to 13 clauses. It deals essentially with three elements: the disclosure of the tax affairs of large companies, the tax affairs of individuals, and the tax affairs of trusts. Those are the three primary areas that the Bill seeks to attack. The first of those relates to large companies, which, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, we have already established covers not just public limited companies but those purely in the private sector. The Bill provides that the Companies Act 2006, passed under the last Labour Government, should be amended by adding new section 409A, which would require a company to provide in respect of each one of its related undertakings its registered name; the jurisdiction of its incorporation; its company number; the jurisdictions in which it trades; the trading name it uses in each jurisdiction if that is different from its registered name; the precise nature of its trade, sufficiently described in such a

UK Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

652

manner as to enable those activities to be accurately identified; the percentage of the related undertaking controlled by the company; a statement of the turnover, net profit before tax, current taxation liability owing, number of employees and their total employment cost and the net assets of the related entity for the period for which the company is reporting, whether such data be audited or otherwise; and finally, the web address where the most recent financial statements can be found. If that does not increase the burden on companies, I do not know what does. The real danger with all this added bureaucracy and red tape is that it makes this country a less desirable place to do business. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, there may well be merit in respect of a public company putting this information in the public domain, but I do not see that to be case in respect of private limited companies, which are not excluded. Certainly I do not see the benefit in respect of individuals. Clause 3 places on HMRC an obligation, no later than 1 March each year, arithmetically to combine for each taxpayer who has submitted a tax return by 31 January in respect of all their taxable income of all sorts, with a few exceptions, and to publish those in descending order of magnitude—in other words, the 250 wealthiest individuals. This clause gives the revenue just one month to complete the task. The tax returns need not be in until 31 January, and within one month it has to have carried out this rather complicated calculation, which I will not go into the details of. Subsection (2) requires HMRC to publish, no later than 15 March each year, the 250 tax returns for the previous tax year ended on 5 April that ranked highest on the listing produced in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1). Subsection (3) requires that they should not be anonymised, and this is the crucial point about this clause—they would all be public information. In other words, the private tax affairs of any individual will no longer be private. I can draw only one conclusion from that: there is a real risk that, were the Bill enacted, it would cause the wealthiest individuals in our society—I hasten to add that I very much doubt the Bill would ever bother me—to go elsewhere. We as a nation would lose their wealth and the income it produces. To return to the point with which I started, I fail to see how that would benefit what both the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and I want to see, which is improved public services. We would not be able to improve our public services if the wealthiest individuals in our country and all the tax they pay disappeared as a result of onerous and intrusive obligations that the Bill imposes on them. They would simply use their wealth to look around the world, find a more suitable home and tax regime and leave our shores. I want to address in particular the obligations that the Bill places on our banks, because they give rise to a great deal of complication. Clause 5 requires financial institutions to “notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House that they have opened or closed an account in the United Kingdom for a company within thirty days of that account being opened or closed stating— (a) the name and registered number of the company; (b) the address at which they correspond with that company;

653

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Business without Debate

654

(c) the names and full addresses, dates of birth and nationalities of those persons who they have accepted as having authority to take action with regard to the account; (d) the names and addresses, dates of birth and nationalities of those persons who they have identified as the beneficial owners of the company in question as required by Regulation 5 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007; (e) the number of the account that they have opened; and (f) the numbers of any other accounts that they maintain for the company.”

Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014.

I may be reading this wrongly, but there does not appear to be any question whatsoever about the size of the company. It does not say that the company has to be of a certain size; it simply says that if a company opens a bank account, it has a duty to report it. That covers literally thousands and thousands of bank accounts. It would increase enormously the burden on our financial institutions and banks at a time when we want them to concentrate on the much more important task of getting the British economy moving again and on lending to businesses. I do not want our bankers to have to fill in forms and write down the names and addresses of companies and the addresses to which they write. That would stop them doing their primary task, which is to play their part in getting the British economy moving and growing. As we know, it is starting to grow, but there is much more to do. Let us be clear: no one is suggesting that the Bill does not have the best of intentions behind it. However, the Government have already increased significantly the compliance yield, which is the amount that the Government expect to get from tax—

Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014.

2.30 pm The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)). Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 1 November.

Business without Debate FACE COVERINGS (PROHIBITION) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 (REPEAL) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REVIEW OF DECISIONS) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September.

SPECIALIST PRINTING EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS (OFFENCES) BILL Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Hon. Members: Object. Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September.

655

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Work Capability Assessments Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.) 2.31 pm Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): I welcome this opportunity to raise an important aspect of employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment. This is my fourth Adjournment debate on the subject. In each debate, I have started by highlighting the scale of the problems with the benefit. Although many people who listen to or read this debate will be familiar with the procession of figures, it is important to put them on the record again. Between the introduction of the assessment in October 2008 and May 2012, 1.47 million new claimants were assessed and 846,800 were declared fit for work. Of those, 332,300 appealed the decision and 123,700 were successful and were awarded employment and support allowance. That means that nearly one in 10 of the assessments has been overturned. Although the proportion of the assessments that are overturned has started to fall a little, the overall number remains very high. Those are the figures for new claims. They do not include the regular reassessments of those who are already on ESA, nor do they cover all the incapacity benefit claimants who are being migrated to ESA—a process that is due to be completed in 2014. I will briefly summarise the progress, or lack of it, with regard to the other concerns that I have raised in the past 18 months. In May last year, I argued in favour of a new set of mental health descriptors that had been drawn up by Mencap, Mind and the National Autistic Society. An evidence-based review was commissioned to evaluate those descriptors and I understand that the report is due to be published imminently. In December, I highlighted the fact that claimants were regularly being called back for reassessments just months after their previous claims had been granted on appeal. I regret that that is not being properly addressed by Ministers. I continue to meet constituents who are still on that stressful and unnecessary merry-go-round. Just before the summer recess, I secured a commitment from the Minister that claimants would be informed that they could have their assessment recorded, and that the time limits that were preventing that from happening would be dropped. I continue to urge the Minister, when assessing whether audio recordings improve the quality of assessments, to consider the rate of successful appeals, rather than just the demand among claimants for audio assessments. Before I move on to the specific issue that I want to cover today, I must highlight the announcement that the Minister made on 22 July. He admitted that some Atos reports were so poor that staff were being retrained and additional providers brought in. Given that the Government now acknowledge that there are major problems with the assessment process, it is even more important that we ensure that financial support is available to those who are wrongly found fit for work. That is what I want to focus on today. To put the matter into context, as soon as a claimant contacts the Department for Work and Pensions to claim ESA, they are paid it at what is known as the assessment rate, which is equivalent to jobseeker’s allowance.

Work Capability Assessments

656

That lasts until they go through the first assessment and a decision is made on their claim. If they are declared fit for work and believe the decision is wrong, they can ask the decision maker, who is a DWP official, to reconsider it before they lodge a formal written appeal with HM Courts and Tribunals Service. I want to focus on that in-between period, which is referred to as reconsideration but is effectively an informal appeal. Although claimants are not automatically paid ESA at the assessment rate during that in-between period, they are entitled to it and can apply for it if they know about it. That entitlement continues if the decision remains unchanged and the claimant decides to appeal. However, following the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and subsequent regulations, that is set to change. Claimants will have to apply for reconsideration before they can lodge an appeal, and they will no longer be entitled to ESA at the assessment rate during that period. The Minister’s colleague Lord Freud admitted in the other place on 13 February that, as a result of that change, there would be a “gap in payment”. Initially, that might not appear problematic. Claimants will be told that they can simply apply for jobseeker’s allowance instead while their reconsideration request is being considered, then go back to claiming ESA at the assessment rate if they go to formal appeal. Leaving aside all the procedures involved in doing that, there is a serious problem for people in that position in claiming JSA. It comes with a great degree of conditionality. In particular, claimants have to be available for and actively seeking work. They must attend regular work-focused interviews, undertake job searches and make a minimum number of applications every week. That in itself may prove tiring or stressful, and it could exacerbate people’s existing physical or mental conditions. More importantly, those who apply and fail to meet those conditions can be sanctioned or refused benefit altogether. I have encountered situations where Jobcentre Plus has advised claimants that they cannot claim JSA because they are not fit for work, for example because they have a fit note—what used to be called a sick note—from their doctor. Conditionality is not new, but the new mandatory reconsideration stage will interact with it to have an adverse effect on people who are ill or disabled and have to apply temporarily for JSA while their ESA claim is undergoing reconsideration. The state will effectively be telling those people that they are too fit to claim ESA but too sick or disabled to claim JSA—a veritable trap. Although mandatory reconsideration has yet to come into full effect, my constituent Ms Rose Burgess already faces that predicament in a related situation. She suffers from arthritis and depression, and she applied for ESA earlier this year. She underwent a face-to-face assessment and was declared fit for work. She appealed, and the judge upheld the DWP’s original decision. However, when she then claimed jobseeker’s allowance, she was told she was ineligible because she had a fit note from her GP. She was not entitled to ESA, and she was told that she was not entitled to JSA either. Her condition has since deteriorated further and she has now reapplied for ESA and is awaiting the application of her fresh application, but her example shows how easy it already is for people to slip into the limbo between ESA and JSA, even without the mandatory reconsideration period.

657

Work Capability Assessments

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Similarly, another constituent who suffers from back problems was claiming JSA. His problem flared up when he was due to attend his work-focused interview. When he arrived at his jobcentre and explained that he would be unable to manage to climb up the stairs to where the interview would take place, he was told that his claim would be ended because he was not fit for work. He raised the matter vigorously and the situation was rectified fairly quickly, but that example demonstrates the emphasis placed by jobcentres on JSA claimants being fit and available for work. For people whose claim to ESA is marginal and whose health problems are not too great—some people might believe that is what I am describing—a brief period on JSA might be just about manageable. However, Camberwell Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Support Group has told me that it currently works with many people who score zero points on their initial assessment, but who, after appeal, are placed in the support group. The appeal shows that they have serious health conditions, but they might find themselves in that position. The Camberwell group says that many of those whom it helps find that they cannot physically get to a jobcentre on certain days, as is required under JSA. The scale of the problem that people are likely to face is exacerbated because there is less discretion on sanctions than previously. A leaked memo from Walthamstow Jobcentre Plus showed earlier this year that a targets culture appears to have emerged on sanctioning, whether or not Ministers have explicitly sanctioned it. At the very least, we must consider reintroducing a degree of flexibility in the sanctions regime when we are dealing with people who have health problems. In the other place, Lord Freud referred to other sources of income that people could access during that period, but I am not clear what he meant by that. I expect that most claimants are similarly at a loss. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could explain what other sources of income people could access. One way to limit the impact of the gap in payment would be for the Government to set a statutory time limit on how long the Department for Work and Pensions can take to complete a reconsideration. However, they have deliberately omitted to do so. On 13 February, Lord Freud stated that “a number of respondents” to the Government’s consultation “suggested that there should be a time limit on the reconsideration process…we are not making any statutory provision for this. Some cases are more complex and require additional time— particularly, for example, where extra medical evidence needs to be sought. However, we recognise the concern here and are considering the scope for internal targets.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 744-45.]

I fear that non-binding and non-public internal targets simply will not be adequate, especially given the pressure that the much-reduced Department for Work and Pensions staff are under. As a result, it is possible that people who will eventually be deemed entitled to support will be left without income for a protracted period. I raised the issue with the Minister at the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on 21 November 2012, and asked about it again at Work and Pensions questions on both 11 March and 20 May 2013. On the last occasion, he emphasised that, if people do not claim JSA, their ESA claim would be backdated should they appeal and have their fit-for-work decision overturned.

Work Capability Assessments

658

However, in many cases, the damage will have been done. With no income during that period, people run the risk of becoming destitute. Many will have to rely on already stretched food banks. Some will be driven into the hands of payday lenders, amassing debts they will struggle to repay even if benefits are subsequently reinstated. The Minister can do a number of things to address the problem. At a minimum, it would be helpful if he provided the House with information, first to confirm exactly when the new system of mandatory reconsiderations will begin. Secondly, he could give the House information on what alternative sources of income people have if they cannot claim either ESA or JSA. Thirdly, he could tell us what internal targets he will introduce on the time taken for mandatory reconsiderations. Several changes would help at least to alleviate the worst effects of this policy. One example would be to reintroduce a degree of flexibility into the sanctions system, so that ESA claimants declared fit for work and having their claim reconsidered are not subject to normal JSA sanctions. Alternatively, the Minister could put a statutory limit on the time DWP can take to conclude the reconsideration process. But the one thing that would resolve this issue entirely would be to amend the regulations to allow ESA claimants to continue to receive ESA at the assessment rate during the reconsideration period. Otherwise many people who the state will later conclude should not be available for work will be required to claim a benefit that explicitly requires that they should be. Many people will end up without any support from the state, being too fit for ESA, but too sick or disabled for JSA. 2.46 pm The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban): I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for raising the issue of the reconsideration of work capability assessments and for letting me see a copy of her speech in advance, which I hope will enable me to answer the points that she has raised. She may not be satisfied, and doubtless she will come back again if that is the case. The hon. Lady is interested in how the new mandatory reconsideration process will affect ESA claimants who are found fit for work. In this regard, I intend to address her main concerns on the length of time a mandatory reconsideration will take and the availability of JSA to those people who are found fit for work. Before I consider those concerns, it is important to give the issue some context and explain why we have introduced mandatory reconsideration. To put the matter at its simplest, the current disputes process does not work for benefits in general or ESA in particular. The introduction of the ESA in 2008, and particularly the conversion of incapacity benefit awards to ESA, has—as the House will know—resulted in a high volume of appeals, with more than 500,000 last year. The Government have taken a series of steps to improve the WCA process but we accept that people will appeal. The Government do not believe that it is acceptable to write people off to a lifetime on benefits because they have a health condition or impairment. Many people with health conditions are able to sustain

659

Work Capability Assessments

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

[Mr Mark Hoban] and progress in employment. Evidence points to the negative impacts of being without work and that work is generally good for people regardless of whether they are disabled or not. The Department therefore needs to ensure that people currently receiving incapacity benefit and ESA are supported in preparing for a return to work where some form of employment is a possibility. Claimants are being reassessed using the WCA. This is based on the principle that a health condition or impairment should not automatically be regarded as a barrier to work. It has been designed to be a more accurate reflection of an individual’s capability for work, taking account of modern workplaces, health care and legislation. The volumes of appeals are placing some strain on the appeals system. We also recognise that the process can put pressure on claimants too. That is why a claimant can ask for a decision to be reconsidered. It was intended that people would ask for this reconsideration in the first instance if they felt their decision was wrong. In practice, however, many people do not do so and instead make an appeal from the outset. This is more costly for the taxpayer; more time consuming and more stressful for claimants and their families; and, for a significant number of appellants, unnecessary. I say unnecessary because a significant number of decisions are overturned on appeal because of new evidence presented at the tribunal—more than 55% in recent months. This is mainly oral evidence, which accounts for 70%, but also includes written evidence that has not been considered by the decision maker. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we need a process that enables this evidence to be seen or heard by the decision maker at the earliest opportunity. Mandatory reconsideration does just that. Another decision maker will review the original decision, requesting extra information or evidence as required via a telephone discussion. If this means a decision can be revised, there is no reason for an appeal—an outcome that is better for the individual, the Department and the Tribunals Service. We hope that, because of the robust nature of the reconsideration and the improved communication, the process will result in either decisions being changed or claimants making an informed decision not to escalate their dispute to an appeal tribunal. Sheila Gilmore: The Minister’s argument about the appeals process often relates to whether evidence is available in the first place. However, a number of my constituents and those of a lot of my colleagues say that such information is not requested in the first instance, at the time of the WCA, more and more of which are done through paper-based applications, as I am sure he is aware. If people were asked for that information, it would not have to be looked at later. Mr Hoban: The hon. Lady has looked into this matter in detail, and I am sure she will recollect my comments about where we seek further medical information from health care professionals, as nominated by the appellants themselves. The problem is straightforward. Too often, either the information is not supplied by the health care professionals from whom we have sought additional medical evidence or it is supplied too late to

Work Capability Assessments

660

be taken into account. Where we seek medical evidence, there is a broader responsibility on those from whom we seek it to respond in a timely manner. That, too, would help the process. Let me turn to the concerns raised by the hon. Lady. The first was the time it will take for a reconsideration. Although we are not introducing a statutory time limit for decision makers, I assure the House that we will have a process geared to timely decision making. Anything less would be frankly unacceptable. We owe it to claimants not to delay their right to exercise their right of appeal. However, the time taken will depend on whether the claimant intends to provide new evidence—obtaining it could take some time, as I said in connection with the first request for further medical evidence—and whether the decision maker needs to seek further advice on that evidence from Atos. If there is nothing new for the decision maker to consider, he or she can get on and make that decision. However, the key is quality, not speed. There would be no benefit to anyone in rushing the process, effectively forcing an appeal and then having it allowed at a hearing some time later. The new process is aimed at getting decisions right, not simply passing disputes to the tribunal to resolve. Equally, however, it is in no one’s interest for this to be an open-ended procedure. We will monitor the introduction of the change for the first six months. In April 2014, we will look at the times taken and consider whether we have enough information to introduce realistic internal targets. During the mandatory reconsideration phase, when someone is fit for work and not in work, they will be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. I accept that someone seeking a reconsideration is likely to protest to the jobcentre that they are not fit for work. However, that does not rule out entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance. That is the case even where the claimant presents a fit note. Disability employment advisers, trained by specialist staff from the Department, will work with those who identify themselves as having a health condition or disability. They will take into account individual circumstances, including any advice given by the claimant’s doctor, and will consider placing limitations on a client’s availability or modifying their conditionality. There is nothing new about this. The hon. Lady also expressed concerns about claimants being sanctioned while on JSA. Let me address that point. To reiterate, the modified conditionality militates against a sanction being imposed. If the adviser has agreed to modify conditionality, it would be perverse if they then took a heavy-handed approach. As I have previously informed the House—let me take the opportunity to repeat this—there are no sanction targets. It was this Government who removed the sanction targets—they were in place under the previous Government. We continue to monitor to ensure that sanctions are applied consistently and only where appropriate. The hon. Lady asked what would happen if a claimant were subject to a sanction. She will know—I think she might have served on the Delegated Legislation Committee that dealt with this—that a claimant can still apply for hardship payments. A health condition or impairment should not automatically be regarded as a barrier to work; in fact, there are many people who juggle work and a health condition. Such claimants might be disputing their decision, but at that time they have been through an

661

Work Capability Assessments

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

assessment process and are, in the eyes of the law, fit for work. The appropriate benefit is jobseeker’s allowance, and it is appropriate that we apply conditionality that is tailored to claimants’ needs so that we can move them closer to the labour market and, we hope, back to work. It has been suggested that we should pay employment and support allowance during that period because of the standard of decision making on ESA, as evidenced by the number of decisions overturned on appeal. Let me just remind the hon. Lady of the statistics that demonstrate the quality of the decisions made. Between October 2008 and February 2012, around 800,000—about 15%—of those decisions that found the claimant fit for work were overturned on appeal. She will know, having looked into this, that a significant proportion of decisions are overturned at tribunal because of oral or written evidence being presented at the tribunal that has not been discussed with or seen by the decision maker. It is that new evidence that is the reason for the overturning of a decision. As I stated earlier, we hope that mandatory reconsideration will allow that new evidence to be discussed at an earlier stage, leading to a decision being revised if necessary. We need to try to accelerate the process so that we can get the decision right first time and as soon as possible. Sheila Gilmore: Given that the Minister has conceded that there were substantial failings in the initial WCA process, and that steps have been taken to retrain staff, to bring in outside staff to give further advice and to bring in other providers, surely this is not simply a problem of new evidence being presented to the tribunal. Is there not a flaw in the system? Mr Hoban: No, I do not agree with that. If the hon. Lady goes back to the statement that my noble Friend Lord Freud made in the other place in July, she will see that that is not the case. There was an issue with the quality of the recording of the assessments, but not necessarily with the quality of the assessments themselves. That is a very different matter. We are not complacent. That is demonstrated by the tough way in which we have responded to Atos’s failings. There is always room for improvement, and much is happening. The hon. Lady will be familiar with the recommendations made by Professor Harrington in his three reports. They included proposals for improving the ESA forms to encourage claimants to provide their own evidence, for better contact between decision makers and claimants at the decision-making stage, and for enhanced training and guidance for decision makers. There was also a proposal for a simpler and more empathetic process to be adopted for the assessment of cancer sufferers, with more claimants being placed in the support group, the better to reflect their difficult circumstances. We are also learning from the tribunal

Work Capability Assessments

662

decisions made as part of our summary reasons pilot. I am confident that accuracy will continue to improve and that the proportion of decisions overturned will continue to be reduced. Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way? Mr Hoban: I was about to conclude my speech, but I will give way once more as I am a generous man. Sheila Gilmore: I understand the Minister’s concern about information and about ensuring that the process is carried out timeously. One suggestion that has emerged from the discussions is that the time for submitting the ESA50 could be extended from four to six weeks, which would give people more chance to get the necessary information together. Mr Hoban: I thought that the hon. Lady’s motivation was to accelerate the process, to ensure that the right decisions were made as quickly as possible. Now she seems to be advocating delay by adding an extra two weeks to the process. I am not sure that that would be in the interests of claimants, as they would face a longer assessment phase that would take them further away from the market if they were fit for work. I question whether it is the right approach to lengthen the process rather than to improve it by making it shorter and more effective, where possible. As I was saying, getting the decision right first time has always been our priority. In conclusion, the aim of the modifications that we have introduced is to get the decision right first time, but if claimants believe that we have not done that in their case, we need a step to put things right before we end up at a tribunal. Mandatory reconsideration will offer claimants that opportunity. It seeks to address two concerns: the length of the appeals process and the fact that new evidence can be brought forward which has an impact on a decision. It is in the best interests of claimants to introduce that new step. Mandatory reconsideration will help to ensure that the right decision is reached as quickly as possible. The Government are committed to supporting those who are unable to work owing to health conditions or disability, but we believe that those who are able to work should receive help into employment to enable them to realise their aspiration to independence and to support themselves and their families. We also believe that those who are unable to work should receive the support to which they are entitled, and it will be in the best interests of everyone involved in the process if we can reach decisions in those cases more quickly, without compromising their quality. Question put and agreed to. 3 pm House adjourned.

33WS

Written Statements

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Written Statements Friday 6 September 2013

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Public Sector Equality Duty Review The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller): I am today publishing the outcome of the review of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). This review was announced by the Home Secretary on 15 May 2012 following the red tape challenge spotlight on equalities. The PSED, which was introduced through the Equality Act 2010, came into force across Great Britain on 5 April 2011 and comprises a general duty (s149 of the Act) and specific duties set out in regulations which vary across England, Scotland and Wales. It was introduced to ensure that public bodies take account of equality when carrying out their day-to-day work—in shaping policy, in delivering services and in relation to their own employees—and to address the bureaucracy associated with the previous duties on race, disability and gender. The review was established to examine whether the PSED is operating as intended. The Government appointed an independent chair, Rob Hayward OBE, and steering group to oversee the review. Over the course of 2013, supported by officials in my Department, they have led an extensive programme of engagement and evidence-gathering, including a series of roundtables with experts, site visits to public bodies, an open call for evidence, and independent qualitative research. The Government are grateful to the chair and steering group for their thorough work and welcome their report. The review has not considered repeal of the PSED. We agree with its conclusion that a full evaluation should be undertaken in 2016 when the duty will have been in force for five years. The review has however identified a number of issues associated with the implementation of the PSED and makes recommendations for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), for contractors, for public bodies and for Government. We would like to see these recommendations implemented fully by all relevant parties, in particular to reduce procurement gold-plating by the public sector. In relation to the specific duties which apply in England (and non-devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales), we note there was not consensus from the steering group but nonetheless accept the chair’s recommendation to consider the operation and effectiveness of these duties. Public authorities must be transparent about their objectives and performance on equality, and it is vital that the specific duties support this aim. We will therefore keep these duties under review and work closely with the EHRC as it conducts its more detailed assessment of the specific duties. We accept the recommendation to consider what complementary or alternative means, other than judicial reviews, there may be to enforce the PSED. Recognising

Written Statements

34WS

that many of the concerns identified in the report are not unique to the PSED, we will take account of this recommendation in the wider work, led by the Justice Secretary, to ensure that disputes are resolved in the most proportionate way possible and in the most appropriate setting. Finally, I will work closely with all my ministerial colleagues to reduce the impact of red tape on the public sector, and to ensure that their Departments, and the sectors for which they are responsible, respond urgently and positively to the review’s findings and recommendations. A copy of the steering group’s report and supporting documentation will be available later today at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments %5B%5D=government-equalities-office.

I am also arranging for this report to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Water Bill (Flood Insurance Clauses) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): The Water Bill was introduced on 27 June which, along with clauses on water sector reform, included a placeholder clause on flood insurance. The Government’s proposed approach to the future of flood insurance was also published and a six-week consultation launched. Today, I am publishing the draft clauses on flood insurance to provide those interested with the opportunity to examine our proposed legislative approach. We had hoped to publish draft clauses during the formal consultation period that ran from 27 June to 8 August, but more time was needed to develop the detail of the proposed approach. Along with the draft clauses and draft explanatory notes, I have provided a commentary on the policy intention for the clauses. This gives a fuller picture of what is intended and provides further insight into the Government’s proposals. This additional information should be read in conjunction with the material published in June. I have placed a copy of the draft clauses and commentary in the House Libraries. I am grateful for the comments and evidence provided during the public consultation. We received a positive response and are considering the comments carefully. We will publish our response in parallel with drafting the clauses for inclusion in the Water Bill by Government amendment at Committee stage.

HOME DEPARTMENT Domestic Violence and Abuse (England and Wales) The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): Tackling domestic violence and abuse is one of my key priorities. I am determined to see

35WS

Written Statements

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

continued reductions in domestic violence and abuse and the Government’s updated violence against women and girls (VAWG) action plan sets out our approach for achieving that. The police play a key role in responding to, and protecting, victims of domestic violence and abuse. It is therefore essential that the police response is effective and has the confidence of victims. I have written to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary to ask that he conducts a thematic review of the police response to domestic violence and abuse across England and Wales. I have asked that the review focuses on: the effectiveness of the police approach to domestic violence and abuse, focusing on the outcomes for victims; whether risks to victims of domestic violence and abuse are adequately managed; identifying lessons learnt from how the police approach domestic violence and abuse; making any necessary recommendations in relation to these findings when considered alongside current practice.

I have asked that the inspection is completed and that the findings in respect of the above are published no later than April 2014. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Immigration Rules

The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules as set out below. I will expand the process of genuineness assessments and interviews to tier 1 (general), tier 2 (minister of religion), and tier 5 (temporary worker) applications for entry and leave to remain, and to tier 4 students applying for further leave to remain. I will also be replicating for tier 4 in-country extensions the existing power to refuse applications where the applicant cannot speak English. We will add Barbados to the list of countries whose nationals benefit from different documentary requirements and are exempt from the genuineness test when applying for a tier 4 visa. I am making several small changes to economic routes to make them more attractive and more flexible for businesses. These changes include new provision in tier 1 for artists of exceptional promise, removing the English language requirement for intra-company transferees, making it easier for graduate entrepreneurs to switch into tier 2, and waiving share-ownership restrictions for senior staff earning £152,100 or more. I will also be introducing flexibility for tourists and business visitors to undertake some study where it is incidental to the main purpose of their visit, as well as increasing the permissible activities a business visitor can undertake in the UK. I am retaining the student visitor route for those whose purpose in coming here is for short-term study. The prospective student route is being removed because it is little used and anomalous.

Written Statements

36WS

I am adding Hong Kong to the list of participating countries and territories on the UK’s youth mobility scheme, further strengthening business, trade and cultural ties between us. I am introducing rules to give effect to the Secretary of State for Defence’s statement to this House of 4 June 2013, which provides for some locally engaged staff, who have been or will be made redundant as a result of our draw down, to relocate to the UK in recognition of the unique contribution they have provided to the UK’s efforts in Afghanistan. The new rules allow eligible applicants, their spouse/partner and their minor dependent children to be granted a period of five years’ leave to enter if their character and conduct is satisfactory. In line with the statement of intent “Knowledge of language and life in the UK for settlement and naturalisation” published on 8 April, I am also making changes to the way in which applicants for indefinite leave to remain are required to demonstrate their knowledge of the English language and of life in the UK, together with necessary consequential amendments. These changes will come into effect on 28 October. I am making changes to slow the path to settlement for refugees, and those granted humanitarian protection, who have committed crimes. Applications for settlement from refugees will be refused for 15 years from the date of their sentence if they have been sentenced to over 12 months’ imprisonment; for seven years if they have been sentenced to up to 12 months’ imprisonment; and for two years if they have been given a non-custodial sentence. Discretion to delay the route to settlement will apply in the case of repeat offenders. I am creating new temporary immigration rules to facilitate the entry and stay of certain Commonwealth games participants and personnel during the 2014 Commonwealth games. I am making minor changes and clarifications to the immigration rules, including those relating to family life. I am making minor changes to repeal measures that are no longer required. I am making a minor change to the curtailment rules. This change adds a power to curtail leave where a migrant’s offending is persistent or causes serious harm. The change supports the Home Office in its work to take tough action against those who commit offences while here. I am making changes to the rules for dependants in the points-based system and other work routes, following the High Court judgment in R—(on the application of Zhang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The changes will allow dependants to apply from within the UK, providing they are not here illegally, as visitors, or on temporary admission or temporary release. They will still need to satisfy all other existing requirements. I am making changes to the visit visa requirement for Kuwaiti nationals holding diplomatic and special passports issued by Kuwait. When travelling to the UK for the purpose of an official or general visit, they will no longer have to obtain a visit visa to travel to the UK.

37WS

Written Statements

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

JUSTICE Judicial Review The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling): I will today lay and publish the paper “Judicial Review: further proposals for reform” (Cm 8703) which seeks views on potential areas for the reform of judicial review and related issues, including legal aid. Reforming judicial review is an important part of the Government’s programme to tackle public burdens, promote growth and stimulate economic recovery. I am clear that judicial review is, and will remain, an important means to hold Government to account where it is acting unlawfully, but I remain concerned that too often it is being used either as a campaign tool or to delay or frustrate decisions that have been properly made. I am also concerned that legal aid resources should be targeted at those judicial review cases where they are needed most if the legal aid system is to command public confidence and credibility. A number of reforms have already been made to the procedural aspects of judicial review, including removing the right to an oral renewal in a case certified by the judge as “totally without merit” and aligning the time limits for bringing a planning or procurement judicial review with the relevant statutory challenges. A new fee will soon be introduced for an oral renewal. While these reforms are a worthwhile first step, it is right that we test the potential for further substantive reform.

Written Statements

38WS

To that end, the paper makes proposals in a number of areas: the courts’ approach to cases which rely on minor procedural defects; rebalancing financial incentives; speeding up appeals to the Supreme Court in a small number of nationally significant cases, which would extend beyond judicial review; and planning challenges. I also think it makes sense to explore the potential for reforming the test as to who can bring a judicial review, as well as whether there are mechanisms other than judicial review for resolving disputes related to the public sector equality duty, following a recommendation by the Public Sector Equalities Steering Group. Having listened to concerns raised in the Transforming Legal Aid consultation, which closed in June, this package also includes a proposal in relation to the payment of legal aid providers in judicial review cases. In addition to our original proposal that providers would only be guaranteed payment for their work on a judicial review where permission is granted by the Court, this consultation proposes that the Legal Aid Agency will have a discretion to pay providers in certain genuinely meritorious cases where the provider has been unable to secure a costs order or costs agreement as part of a settlement. The proposals I am publishing today are intended to deliver a much needed rebalancing of judicial review so that it operates in a more proportionate manner without undermining how Government are held to account, allowing scarce taxpayer-funded resources to be focused where they should be. The consultation will close on 1 November, and all responses will be considered carefully before I respond.

13P

Petitions

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Petition Friday 6 September 2013 OBSERVATIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE A Unified Welsh Power Grid The Petition of Gruffydd Meredith, Declares that the current and historical energy map of Wales shows all the classic indicators of an extractive economy, with the extractive drainage lines either extending east out of Wales or to the ports; further that Wales is already greatly more than self-sufficient in electricity generation, producing at least twice more electricity than what we use but most of this is given to the UK national grid and then sold back to us; further that future renewable energy projects for Wales show that we could be easily producing at least four times more than we use if we realised basic achievable renewable energy projects (including tidal lagoons and the Severn estuary instead of a barrage) and this without even mentioning the possibility of clean coal and methane gas extraction, which could make this figure higher again; further that joining the currently unconnected electricity lines could be done with specially designed pylons that blend in with the Welsh environment, by underground cables or by placing undersea cables in Cardigan Bay and this would mean that all of Wales’ energy production is quantifiable and our abundant excess energy can be exported and providing potentially thousands of new jobs. The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons make the necessary amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and any other relevant act in order to facilitate the development of an unified Welsh power grid, joining the currently unconnected electricity lines on North, Mid and South Wales.

Petitions

14P

And the Petitioner remains etc.—[Presented by Kevin Brennan, Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1062.] [P001211]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: The single electricity market operating across Great Britain brings with it benefits to industry and consumers. Generators invest in plant in Wales with the expectation of unrestricted access to sell their electricity to the full British market. Their presence benefits the Welsh economy including through direct and indirect job creation. Furthermore, consumers in Wales benefit from the security of supply provided by a large integrated power network and from competition amongst all generators and suppliers across the wider market in Great Britain, which helps drive efficiencies and place downward pressure on electricity bills. This approach is consistent with the steps being taken by all EU Member States to ensure enhanced inter-connection and market integration across Europe in order to support a resilient and competitive European electricity market. The integrated electricity network in Great Britain, and the legislative framework which underpins it, enables this nationwide electricity market to operate and ensures the network meets the needs of its users in a cost-effective and efficient manner. The Electricity Act (1989) already places an obligation on electricity transmission and distribution network companies to develop and maintain efficient, co-ordinated and economical networks. The fulfilment of this obligation is a matter for the network companies and Ofgem, as the independent regulator. The generation of electricity and transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are non-devolved matters in respect to Wales, and are specifically excepted in Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act. The Government consider it important these issues continue to be dealt with strategically on a Great Britain-wide basis, particularly in the light of the UK’s transition to a low-carbon energy mix, which requires significant investment in energy infrastructure across the country.

533W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Written Answers

534W

Written Answers to

Comet Group

Questions

Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by what date he expects to receive the Insolvency Service report into Comet. [168004]

Friday 6 September 2013

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

Jo Swinson: The Insolvency Service’s investigation has continued to progress. However, given the complexity of the issues and the size of the company under enquiry, it is not yet possible to set a date for completion without compromising the depth and thoroughness of the inquiry.

Arms Trade: Export Controls Conditions of Employment Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills with reference to his Department’s Notice to Exporters 2013-18: Important Changes to the Strategic Export Control Transparency Initiative, for what reason exporters will not be required to (a) report the rating or goods description and (b) provide control list classifications or descriptions of the [167265] items exported. Michael Fallon: The Government is committed to transparency in export licensing, which is why we regularly publish information about licences issued and refused through annual and quarterly reports. Comprehensive information is available at https://www.exportcontroldb.bis.gov.uk/eng/fox/sdb/ SDBHOME

In extending this commitment to transparency it has become clear that we need to strike a proper balance between increased transparency and the need to minimise administrative burdens on business. The original proposals did not strike that balance. In making the final preparations for the launch of the Transparency initiative we reviewed its scope and the potential for it to impose unnecessary burdens on business. Consequently, the requirement for exporters to report on the rating or goods description and to provide control list classifications or descriptions of the items to be exported was removed. Arms Trade: Trade Fairs Mr Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department is taking to ensure that weapons or equipment which are banned by the UK will not be promoted at the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in London in September 2013. [167272]

Michael Fallon: DSEI is a commercial event organised by the company Clarion Events. The Export Control Organisation has agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with Clarion which sets out their role and responsibilities, and those of the exhibitor companies, in respect of export and trade control legislation. Clarion’s terms and conditions for their exhibitors makes clear that the responsibility for applying for any relevant export licences lies with the exhibiting companies. BIS officials, alongside counterparts from other Government Departments, are working very closely with Clarion Events to ensure that the exhibitors comply as necessary with export and trade control legislation.

Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of non-zero-hour contracts on the [167253] flexibility of the workforce. Jo Swinson: While no assessment has been made of the effect of non-zero hours contracts on the flexibility of the work force, flexible working benefits businesses, society and individuals. Flexible working allows businesses access to a wider pool of skills and talents in the workforce, along with improved recruitment and retention rates, and increased staff morale and productivity. The social benefit is seen where individuals are able to remain in employment when they are unable to maintain standard working hours or patterns of work. This supports the economy and reduces the number of people dependent on the state. Individuals who are parents and carers are able to spend more time with their children and relatives alongside work and individuals are able to get more involved in community projects when they are able to adapt their work patterns. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what his most recent estimate is of the number of people employed on zero [168001] hours contracts, by region. Jo Swinson: The Department for Business, innovation and Skills is using Labour Force Survey (LFS) data to estimate numbers of people on zero hours contracts. BIS estimates that there were 250,000 people on zero hours contracts in the UK in the fourth quarter of 2012. The LFS sample sizes at regional level for zero hours contracts are too small to provide reliable regional estimates of the numbers on zero hours contracts. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by what date he expects to receive the findings of his Department’s review of zero hours contracts; and if he will place in the Library [168002] a copy of that review. Jo Swinson: The information gathering exercise on zero hours contracts is near its conclusion. Officials have been reporting back periodically on the information they have gathered from a wide range of sources.

535W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

An announcement will be made when Ministers have considered all of the information and made decisions on next steps. This will include a decision on how the findings of the review will be published. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what meetings took place between Ministers and officials of his Department and external stakeholders and others as part of his Department’s investigation into zero hours contracts; and on what dates each such meeting took place. [168003]

Jo Swinson: Throughout the review officials carried out research drawing on a wide range of information sources including social media, published data and conversations within government and with external stakeholders. The main conversations with external stakeholders took place in July and August. They are detailed as follows:

38 Degrees Alliance Boots Association of Colleges British Hospitality Association British Retail Consortium Chartered Institute of Personnel Development Confederation of British Industry Institute of Directors Low Pay Commission Manpower Roundtable Meeting of Recruitment Employment Confederation members Resolution Foundation Round Table Meeting at Trade Union Congress Tempo Universities and Colleges Employers Association University and College Union

Written Answers

536W

Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: Information about export licences issued between 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2012 is available in the Annual and Quarterly Reports on Strategic Export Controls which are available to view on the Strategic Export Controls: Reports and Statistics website at: https://www.exportcontroldb.bis.gov.uk/eng/fox

These reports contain detailed information on export licences issued, refused or revoked, by destination, including the overall value, type (e.g. Military, Other) and a summary of the items covered by these licences. The names of the companies granted the licences are exempt from disclosure because this information was provided in confidence and is commercially sensitive.

Date

Thomas Docherty: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether consultation took place with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence before export licences to Syria were granted for the period January 2011 to June [167718] 2012.

22 August 2013 17 August 2013 29 July 2013 31 July 2013 10 July 2013 14 August2013

Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: All export licences to Syria were rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated European Union (EU) and National Arms Export licensing criteria, and final decisions are based on advice from other relevant Departments.

22 July 2013 and 20 August 2013 16 July 2013 25 June 2013 29 August 2013 25 July 2013

Thomas Docherty: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment the Government made of the risk of exporting potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride to Syria in the granting of [167719] export licences in 2011-12.

8 July 2013 24 July 2013 20 August 2013 13 August 2013 7 August 2013

Exports: Government Assistance Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether the Government has made an application for approval under EU state aid rules in relation to the Exports Refinancing Facility. [168005]

Michael Fallon: No application has been made. The facility is being designed so that it does not breach EU state aid rules.

Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: All export licences to Syria were rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the Consolidated European Union (EU) and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking into account all relevant factors, including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient country, the nature of the goods, the identity of the end-user and the stated end-use. Export licences are not issued when they would be inconsistent with the Criteria. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on how many occasions export licences for (a) sodium fluoride and (b) potassium fluoride have been granted for export to Syria in each of the last 10 years; who the customer was; what the intended use of the chemicals was; and how much was exported under each such licence. [167823]

Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: The information is as follows:

Exports: Syria Thomas Docherty: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how many export licences were issued for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2012 to companies seeking to export materials to Syria listed by company and description of material. [167717]

(a) Six licences have been authorised for sodium fluoride in the last 10 years—in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2012. (b) One licence has been authorised for potassium fluoride in the last 10 years, in 2012.

Retrieving the information on the amount of chemicals exported over the last 10 years could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

537W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

The 2012 licences had an intended end use for metal finishing in making aluminium showers and window frames for civilian end use. All other licences were for the manufacture of toothpaste by commercial companies. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what advice (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have received from (i) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (ii) the Ministry of Defence and (iii) other government agencies on the potential for strategic exports from the UK being used [167824] for internal repression in Syria since 2011. Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: Officials in the Export Control Organisation (ECO) within BIS receive advice from a range of Departments, including those mentioned, when considering export licence applications for Syria. Advice on whether the proposed export would be used for internal repression or the abuse of human rights, i.e. Criterion 2 of the Consolidated Criteria, is principally received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what information (a) he and (b) officials in his Department requested from other Departments and agencies when deliberating on the annual licences for the export of dual-use chemicals to Syria which were granted on 17 and 18 January [167825] 2012. Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: There is a well-established process for taking decisions on export licence requests. Both licences were assessed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and by other Government Departments with an interest, against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, including whether there was a clear risk that they might be used for internal repression or be diverted to another end use. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions (a) he and (b) officials in his Department had with officials of EU institutions on the substances (i) sodium fluoride and (ii) potassium fluoride (A) before 17 and 18 January 2012 and (B) between 19 January 2012 and [167826] 17 June 2012. Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and BIS officials had no such discussions. Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on what date (a) he and (b) officials in his Department were informed that no chemicals were exported under the export licences [167827] issued on 17 and 18 January 2012. Michael Fallon [holding answer 5 September 2013]: The export licences issued on 17 and 18 January 2012 were revoked on 30 July 2012 following the imposition of EU sanctions in respect of Syria. BIS was informed that the licences had not been used on 30 July 2012.

Written Answers

538W

Overseas Companies: China Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the risks to British businesses operating in China; and what support his Department provides to assist such businesses in operating in that country without contravening the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010. [167523] Michael Fallon: Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), both in the UK and abroad, frequently advise companies on the specific risks of operating in overseas markets, including in China. Information can be found on the Overseas Business Risk section of the UKTI website http://www.ukti.gov.uk/pt_pt/export/howwehelp/ overseasbusinessrisk.html?null

including a section dedicated to risks around bribery and corruption http://www.ukti.gov.uk/pt_pt/export/howwehelp/ overseasbusinessrisk/briberycorruption.html?null

as well as country-specific risks in China http://www.ukti.gov.uk/pt_pt/export/countries/asiapacific/ fareast/china/overseasbusinessrisk.htmh

Additionally, as part of the FCO Charter for Business, FCO also regularly shares its political, economic and security analysis in written and oral briefings for UK business and publishes this analysis on the UKTI website to help companies understand and manage new and emerging risks in those markets. On the specific question of the Bribery Act, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is a sponsor of the Business Anti-Corruption Portal. It is a comprehensive and practical business tool offering support to business to help them avoid and fight corruption. The portal is found at http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/

It contains a number of country profiles, including China. Royal Mail Ian Murray: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether he plans to make a statement to the Stock Exchange on the sale of Royal Mail; and if he will make a statement. [167967] Michael Fallon: On 10 July, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) announced the Government’s intention to float shares on the London Stock Exchange via an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in this financial year. The next step in taking forward the IPO will be the issue of an Intention to Float (ITF) announcement which we will do in line with normal market practice. No decision has been made on the timing of the ITF. CABINET OFFICE Communities First Fund Mr Watson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much funding was allocated to the Community First programme in years (a) one and (b) two; what proportion of that funding has been spent by local Community First panels; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the programme. [167879]

539W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Mr Hurd: The Community First programme costs for these years are published in the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/225980/HC_15.pdf

An evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Match Fund programme is being carried out by IPSOS Mori and nef Consulting. A final report will be published in 2015. Conflict, Stability and Security Fund Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to include in the terms of reference of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund the effects of climate change, energy security and [166009] resource competition. Miss Chloe Smith: The new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) will bring together resources from across Government, and draw on the most effective combination of defence, diplomatic, development, security and intelligence, and other cross-Government capabilities. The CSSF will build on the Building Stability Overseas Strategy, and the National Security Strategy. These capabilities are at the heart of the Prime Minister’s ″golden thread″ and can play a vital role in tackling the root causes and impacts of conflict and instability in fragile states. The National Security Strategy identified climate change, energy issues and resource competition as drivers of global insecurity. These are therefore clear priorities for the NSC (National Security Council) and will be considered in conjunction with other NSC conflict drivers and priorities. Death: Drugs John Woodcock: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many deaths occurred in each region in 2012 where novel psychoactive substances were [167964] mentioned on the death certificate. Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply. Letter from Glen Watson, dated September 2013: As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many deaths occurred in each region in 2012 where novel psychoactive substances were mentioned on the death certificate [167964]. There is no official definition of the term ‘novel psychoactive substances’. However the Office for National Statistics does monitor deaths from drug-related poisoning, allowing analysis of deaths by specific substances involved. In recent years a number of new psychoactive substances have been controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These include gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and its precursor gammabutyrolactone (GBL), piperazines (benzylpiperazine—BZP and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine—TFMPP), pipradrols such as desoxypipradrol, and cathinones such as mephedrone. These types of drugs have been mentioned in association with the term ‘novel/new psychoactive substances’, and although they are also sometimes referred to as ‘legal highs’, many are now controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. A full list of drugs currently classified as ’new psychoactive substances’ by ONS is shown in Box 2 below. Table 1 provides the number of deaths where the underlying cause was drug-related poisoning and a new psychoactive substance was mentioned on the death certificate in each region of England for deaths registered in 2012. It is important to note that around half of these deaths mentioned more than one substance on the

Written Answers

540W

death certificate, and it is not possible to tell which was primarily responsible for the death. More information on how to interpret data on drug-related deaths can be found in the bulletin mentioned below. The number of drug-related deaths registered in England and Wales from 1993 to 2012 are available on the ONS website: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health3/deaths-relatedto-drug-poisoning/index.html Table 1: Number of deaths where the underlying cause was drugrelated poisoning and a new psychoactive substance was mentioned on the death certificate, by region, England, deaths registered in 20121,2,3,4 Region Deaths North East 3 North West 11 Yorkshire and The Humber 4 East Midlands 6 West Midlands 6 East of England 4 London 9 South East 3 South West 3 1 Cause of death related to drug poisoning was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD 10) codes shown in Box 1 below. 2 Deaths were included where the underlying cause was drug-related, and where one or more of the substances shown in Box 2 below was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate. 3 Figures for regions are based on boundaries as of August 2013 and exclude deaths of non-residents. 4 Figures are for deaths registered, rather than deaths occurring in each calendar. Due to the length of time it takes to complete a coroner’s inquest, it can take months or even years for a drug-related death to be registered. More details can be found in the ‘deaths related to drug poisoning’ statistical bulletin: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health3/deaths-related-to-drugpoisoning/index.html Box 1. ICD 10 codes used to define deaths related to drug poisoning ICD 10 Description Codes Mental and behavioural disorders due to drug use (excluding alcohol and tobacco) Accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances Intentional self-poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances Assault by drugs, medicaments and biological substances Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances, undetermined intent

F11-F16, F18-F19 X40-X44 X60-X64 X85 Y10-Y14

Box 2. Drugs classified as new psychoactive substances 1-(Benzofuran-6-yl)-propan-2-amine 2-(1H-lndol-5-yl)-1-methylethylamine 4-Fluoroephedrine 4-Fluoromethcathinone 4-Methylamphetamine 4-Methylethcathinone Alpha-methyltryptamine BZP Cathinone Desoxypipradrol Fluoromethcathinone GHB Khat Legal high Mephedrone

541W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Methiopropamine Methoxetamine Methylenedioxypyrovalerone Methylone Synthetic cannabinoid TFMPP

Written Answers

542W

Right to Buy Scheme Mrs Lewell-Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what impact assessment his Department has produced on measures in the draft Deregulation Bill reducing the waiting period for right to buy. [167784]

Public Sector: Procurement Chi Onwurah: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance his Department offers on the inclusion of contract bonds in the commissioning and [167906] procurement of public services. Miss Chloe Smith: The Cabinet Office issued Procurement Policy Note 02/13 on 18 February 2013. Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with (a) ConservativeHome, (b) the Taxpayer’s Alliance, (c) the Countryside Alliance and (d) charities about the draft Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning [168098] and Trade Union Administration Bill. Mr Maude: As part of my Department’s transparency programme, details of ministerial meetings with external organisations are published on the Cabinet Office website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office/ series/ministers-transparency-publications

Voluntary Work: Young People Tristram Hunt: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost was of delivery per participant of the National Citizenship Service in (a) [167983] 2012 and (b) 2013 to date. Mr Hurd: The Natcen evaluation of the 2012 programme was published in July and gives details of how many young people took part and the cost of delivery: http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/national-citizen-serviceevaluation

The monetary benefits of the 2012 NCS programme were estimated at up to 2.8 times the cost of delivery. Details for the 2013 programme will be published in due course.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Housing: Construction Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) how many new homes have been built as a result of the New [167769] Homes Bonus to date; (2) by what date 400,000 additional homes will be [167770] built as a result of the New Homes Bonus. Mr Prisk: To date, the New Homes Bonus has rewarded delivery of almost 470,000 net additions to the housing stock, including over 400,000 new homes and over 55,000 empty properties brought back into use.

Mr Prisk: The Department has produced an impact assessment on the proposed change to the Right to Buy qualifying period. We will shortly submit a copy of the impact assessment to the Joint Committee as part of its call for evidence on the Deregulation Bill and a copy will also be placed in the Library of the House. Temporary Accommodation: West Midlands Mr Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many families in (a) Birmingham, Hall Green constituency and (b) the West Midlands are recorded as living in bed and breakfast accommodation; and how many such families were recorded as living in such accommodation in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011 and (iii) 2012. [167495]

Mr Prisk: The Department collects figures on the numbers of households in temporary accommodation in individual local authority areas and so those which most closely relate to the Birmingham Hall Green constituency are those for the whole area covered by Birmingham city council. The latest figures on the number of households with dependent children or expectant mothers with no other dependent children recorded as living in bed and breakfast accommodation relate to 31 March 2013. The following table therefore includes figures for Birmingham city council, as at 31 March in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Birmingham city council Number of households with dependent children or expectant mothers with no other dependent children in bed and breakfast accommodation As at 31 March: Number 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: PIE quarterly returns

72 48 28 87

As outlined in the written ministerial statement of 18 September 2012, Official Report, columns 32-33WS, my Department no longer publishes statistics by Government office region. I am placing in the Library of the House, a table giving local authority figures from which regional estimates for the former West Midlands government region can be calculated. The figures are the total numbers reported by local authorities as at each date. It is not possible from the information provided to identify individual households and so to track the number of households in bed and breakfast accommodation as at 31 March 2013 that had also been in bed and breakfast accommodation on any particular previous dates. Figures for 30 June 2013 will be published on 5 September. We announced funding of nearly £2 million in June to support intensive work with seven local authorities

543W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

that account for almost 50% of families in bed and breakfast over six weeks. Birmingham is one of the successful bidders and will receive £297,500 of that funding. The lessons learned will be shared with other local authorities.

DEFENCE Chemicals: Exports Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the oral answer of 2 September 2013, Official Report, column 19, on what date it was considered that the sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride could be precursors in some other application; what these applications were considered to be; for what reason that consideration was not given before those export licences were issued; and if he will make a [167924] statement. Mr Dunne: Export licences are approved by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The two standard individual export licences for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride were revoked following a revision to the sanctions regime which came into force in June 2012. The revision introduced new prohibitions on certain chemicals, including sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride. In these cases the chemicals were to be used for metal finishing of aluminium showers and windows. There was no evidence at the time of granting the licences—and there has been no evidence subsequently—to suggest that the end-use was anything other than stated. Our system of export controls is robust, responsive and effective in protecting our interests and upholding the highest international standards. The licences were not used before they were revoked. HMS Dragon Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Dragon is accompanying the USS Nimitz to the Eastern Mediterranean. [167970] Mr Robathan: No. HMS Dragon is currently returning from a routine deployment to the Gulf where it worked with the USS Nimitz and other international partners to promote regional security. Military Bases: Germany Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel will be stationed in British Army bases in Germany in each year until 2019. [167920] Mr Robathan: Before the strategic defence and security review in 2010 there were around 20,000 Service personnel in Germany, of which approximately 19,000 were on Army bases. There are currently 14,560 armed forces personnel in Army bases in Germany, which is expected to reduce to 12,480 by December 2014 and 6,800 by December 2015. This number will remain broadly consistent until the last major formation, 20 Armoured Brigade, begins its withdrawal towards the end of the decade.

Written Answers

544W

RAF Akrotiri Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on improving armed forces accommodation in RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, in each year since 2010. [167921] Mr Francois: It will take time to gather this information, I will write to the hon. Member. Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which military units have been deployed at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, in the last 12 months. [167922] Mr Robathan: The UK has the following military units permanently deployed at RAF Akrotiri: A Squadron which operate Griffin helicopters to provide search and rescue for the Sovereign Base Areas and Republic of Cyprus; The Cyprus Operational Support Unit which is responsible for managing the transit of military goods and personnel to and from operations in Afghanistan.

Separately, a number of military units have also conducted routine training at RAF Akrotiri in the past 12 months. The full list of military units, together with their deployment dates, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since 26 August 2013, the Ministry of Defence has deployed the following military assets with supporting personnel to RAF Akrotiri: Six Typhoon fast jets in the air defence role. Two Tri-Star air-to-air refuelling aircraft; one Tri-Star returned to the UK on 4 September 2013. One E3D Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) Command and Control aircraft. A Type 101 Radar to increase air surveillance coverage in the region.

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on the education of the children of armed forces personnel based at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, in each year since [167923] 2010. Mr Francois: The amount spent on providing education for children attending school in Akrotiri in each year since 2010 is shown in the following table: Financial year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Amount (£ million) 1.978 1.942 1.971

These figures are for children attending Akrotiri Primary School and include children of both Ministry of Defence service and civilian personnel. Children of secondary school age living at RAF Akrotiri attend school in Episkopi. It would not be possible in the time available to extract the data required to determine the costs incurred for secondary school pupils whose parents are based at RAF Akrotiri. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which NATO member states have sent (a) maritime patrol aircraft and (b) high altitude surveillance aircraft to RAF Akrotiri since June 2013; which aircraft were sent; and what the purposes were of their visits. [167971]

545W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Mr Robathan: No NATO member states have sent maritime patrol aircraft or high altitude surveillance aircraft to RAF Akrotiri since June 2013; however, an Italian Air Force Gulfstream G3 surveillance aircraft was deployed to RAF Akrotiri from 15 June until 15 July 2013 in support of UN operations in Lebanon. Syria Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training of Syrian Army personnel has taken place in British Overseas Territories since 2001.

Sub-Unit

546W

Written Answers Integrated with: th

81 Signal Squadron Land Information Communications Support Group Land Information Assurance Group

10 Signal Regiment 15th Signal Regiment (Information Support) Joint Cyber Unit (Reserves)

Joint Service Signals Unit (Reserves)

Joint Service Signals Organisation

Comment — —

Army contribution to tri-service unit Army contribution to tri-service unit

[167972]

Mr Robathan: There is no corporate recollection of any training of Syrian army personnel taking place in the British Overseas Territories since 2001.

EDUCATION Academies

Territorial Army Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) current and (b) former units within the Territorial Army have had expertise in signals and cyber/electronic warfare; and from which locations [167918] such units were recruited. Mr Robathan: The details of signals units in the Territorial Army prior to the changes under Army 2020 and those that will be part of the Army Reserve are shown in the following table:

Unit 32nd Signal Regiment

37th Signal Regiment

38th Signal Regiment

39th Signal Regiment

Sub Unit and Detachment Locations Pre Army 2020

Sub Unit and Detachment Locations Post Army 2020

Belfast Darlington East Kilbride Edinburgh Glasgow Hartlepool Liverpool Londonderry Manchester

Aberdeen Belfast Dundee East Kilbride Edinburgh Glasgow Londonderry

Birmingham Cambridge Cardiff Colchester Coventry Redditch Stratford upon Avon

Birmingham Coventry Darlington Leeds Liverpool Manchester Nottingham Redditch Sheffield

Aberdeen Banbury Bletchley Coulsdon Dundee Kingston upon Thames Leeds Nottingham Rugby Sheffield

Withdrawn from the order of battle

Aylesbury Brighton Bristol Eastbourne Gloucester Windsor

Bath Bristol Cardiff Gloucester Windsor

Kevin Brennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the role is of his Department’s [167881] Academies Presumption Team. Mr Timpson: Under Section 14 of the Education Act 1996, local authorities must plan and secure sufficient schools for their area. Where a local authority identifies the need to establish a new school, Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (the ’academy presumption’), requires it to seek proposals for an academy or free school. The Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), decides the successful proposal. The Academy Presumption team’s role within the Department for Education is to advise local authorities in meeting their obligations under the legislation and to advise my the Secretary of State during the decision making process. Children: Day Care Karen Lumley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to reduce the cost of [167130] childcare. Elizabeth Truss: The Government published More Affordable Childcare in July, which set out the steps we are taking to reduce the costs of child care. More Affordable Childcare sets out plans to: 1. help families to meet the costs of child care 2. increase the amount of affordable provision 3. give parents the right information so they can make informed choices about child care

Copies are available online at the Department for Education’s website1 and in the Library. 1

st

71 (City of London) Yeomanry Signal Regiment

Bexleyheath Chelmsford Lincolns Inn Southfields Uxbridge Whipps Cross

Bexleyheath Chelmsford Colchester Coulsdon Lincolns Inn Uxbridge Whipps Cross

In addition, the following Reserve signals elements formed part of the Territorial Army and remain in the Army Reserves order of battle. These elements recruit nationally and will continue to do so. They are fully integrated into Regular Army regiments or Joint (tri-service) organisations as shown:

Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/more-affordable-childcare

Lucy Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made by his Department on the extent of provision of holiday child care for (a) all age groups, (b) disabled children and [167299] (c) children living in rural areas. Elizabeth Truss: The latest available information is for 2011 when it is estimated that there were 7,900 holiday clubs offering child care1.

547W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Table 1 provides national estimates of the age breakdown of children who attended holiday clubs in 2011. Table 1 Age

Holiday club attendees (%)

Under 2 years old 2 years old 3 years old 4 years old 5 to 7 years old 8 to 10 years old 11 years or older Source: Table 4.20b Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 20112.

7 9 11 11 30 25 7

Table 2 provides national estimates of the proportion of holiday clubs caring for children with disabilities in 2011. Table 2 Caring for

Holiday clubs (%)

Minor disabilities Moderate disabilities Severe disabilities Does not currently care for children with disabilities Source: Table 4.20 Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2011.

41 35 13 43

Data is not available on the extent of provision of holiday child care for children living in rural areas. 1 The Department for Education’s Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey collects information on the number of holiday clubs in England that provide holiday care for children under the age of eight. Where these providers also offer care for children over eight, information on this is collected. 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childcare-andearly-years-providers-survey-2011

Conferences Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education which external conferences he attended in [167841] an official capacity in 2012. Elizabeth Truss: To retrieve and compile this information would exceed disproportionate cost. Education: Finance Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce the calculation of the return funds to local authorities following the 2012-13 top-slicing for academies; and when local [167279] authorities will receive this payment. Mr Laws: I refer the hon. Member to her previous question answered on 19 June 2013, Official Report, column 707W. GCSE Damian Hinds: To ask the Secretary of State for Education with reference to Table 3 in his Department’s publication, GCSE and equivalent attainment by pupil characteristics in England: 2011 to 2012, if he will further disaggregate those results by ethnicity from the broad categories of ethnicity listed at (a) local authority and (b) Government Office [167449] Region level.

Written Answers

548W

Mr Laws: A table containing disaggregated ethnicity breakdowns by (a) local authority and (b) region for the Department’s headline indicator ‘pupils achieving 5+ A*-C grades inc English & mathematics GCSEs’, for the academic year 2011/12, has been placed in the House Library. Information for the other achievement indicators presented in Table 3 in the Department’s publication, GCSE and equivalent attainment by pupil characteristics in England: 2011 to 2012, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Likewise a gender breakdown and data for past years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Mr Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in (a) England and (b) Kettering constituency failed to achieve a grade C in (i) mathematics and (ii) English at GCSE level in the last [167902] year for which figures are available. Mr Laws: The requested information has been provided in the following table: Number of pupils at the end of key stage 4 not achieving A*-C grades in English and in mathematics GCSE1 in 2011/122,3,4 Number of Number of KS4 pupils not KS4 pupils not achieving an achieving an Number of A*-C grade in A*-C grade in eligible pupils English mathematics England 559,076 184,061 170,589 Kettering 1,112 401 327 1 Figures include results in full GCSEs, double award GCSEs, accredited international certificates (iGCSEs) and their predecessor iGCSEs and AS levels. 2 Figures are based on the postcode of the school location covering all state-funded schools including academies and free schools. 3 Final data. 4 Figures do not include pupils recently arrived from overseas but otherwise include all those pupils at the end of KS4 regardless of whether or not they entered the subject. Source: National Pupil Database

Primary Education: South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the number of primary school places available in (a) South Yorkshire and (b) Barnsley in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014 and [167904] (iii) 2015. Mr Laws: The Department collects information from each local authority on the number of school places (school capacity) in state funded primary and secondary schools (except special schools) via an annual survey1. South Yorkshire consists of four local authorities: Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. The following information relates to the position as at May 2012 and provides the number of places to be added by 2013/14 as advised by each local authority:

Barnsley Doncaster Rotherham

2012 number of primary schools

2012 capacity

LA advised primary places to be added by 2013/14

80 100 98

19,187 27,106 23,218

0 360 617

549W

Sheffield

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

2012 number of primary schools

2012 capacity

LA advised primary places to be added by 2013/14

133

44,400

444

1

Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-capacityacademic-year-2011-to-2012

Schools: Inspections Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the appeals process for Ofsted inspections; and if he will make a statement. [167140]

Mr Laws: Ofsted as a non-ministerial Government Department is responsible for its own complaints arrangements. The inspectorate introduced a revised complaints process in April this year following a public consultation exercise. Changes included strengthening the process to encourage resolution of concerns before the end of an inspection. Ofsted will review the effectiveness of these changes as part of its monitoring of the implementation of the new arrangements. The Department for Education is responsible for managing the contract for the independent complaints adjudication service for Ofsted. The service handles complaints for complainants who remain dissatisfied with the outcome of Ofsted’s internal complaints process. The contract for the adjudication service was awarded in January 2013 and there are currently no plans to review these arrangements. Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what processes his Department has put in place to monitor the quality of Ofsted inspections [167141] carried out by sub-contracted companies. Mr Laws: Ofsted as a non-ministerial Government Department has direct responsibility for its inspection arrangements. This includes the management of, and the monitoring of performance for, its contracts with inspection service providers who engage additional inspectors to deliver inspections on behalf of Ofsted. Where matters of concern are raised with the Department, these are passed to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector to investigate. Schools: Playing Fields Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools and local authorities have (a) sought and (b) been granted permission to change the use of playing fields by putting school [167024] buildings on them since February 2012. Mr Laws [holding answer 2 September 2013]: I refer the hon. Member to parliamentary question number 167025, answered today. Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools and local authorities have (a) sought and (b) been granted permission to change the use of playing fields by putting classrooms [167025] on them since February 2012.

Written Answers

550W

Mr Laws [holding answer 2 September 2013]: Prior to 2012, no protection at all existed to prevent schools putting school buildings on playing fields. Schools could build over playing fields without seeking consent and with impunity. This led to the disappearance of thousands of playing fields—Fields in Trust (formerly The National Playing Field Association) estimated 2,540 playing fields, or 26 sites a month, were lost between 1997 and 2005. This Government has introduced protections on playing fields where there were none before, so that schools and local authorities now have to seek permission if they want to change the use of public playing fields by putting school buildings on them. We now require schools to apply for consent even where the buildings are being used for education or recreational purposes. When considering applications to place school buildings on playing fields we take into account the amount of playing field a school will be left with after the building work, whether there will be any impact on sport and play, and the reason for the proposed change. Since February 2012, there have been 128 applications to change the use of school playing fields by putting school buildings on them. Of these: 104 applied to build classrooms and 24 applied to build other structures such as an extension to the school kitchens or the widening of a cycle path. As the Minister responsible, I have approved 70 proposals to build classrooms, with 34 currently being considered and 18 other buildings with six currently being considered. The vast majority of these applications seek consent to use small areas of outdoor space not used for sport, to extend school facilities in areas of severe pupil place pressure or to improve the school facilities, with no effect on the delivery of the curriculum or pupils’ space to play. The average amount of playing field built on by the 88 schools given consent to do so since the new rules came into effect in February 2012 is 3.90% of their total playing field space. In every case the land is retained for educational use. Schools: Vocational Guidance Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what the date and location was of each visit Ministers of his Department have made to maintained schools that have secured external provision of independent, impartial careers advice [167984] since September 2012; (2) what the date and location was of each visit he has made to maintained schools that have secured external provision of independent, impartial careers [167985] advice since September 2012. Elizabeth Truss: The Department does not collect data on how the maintained schools visited by the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), or his Ministers, secure and deliver careers guidance or the number or proportion doing so through different routes. Teachers: Lancashire Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many (a) teachers and (b) special educational needs support staff have been awarded

551W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

scholarships by the National Scholarship Fund to develop specialist knowledge and skills in (i) Pendle [167765] and (ii) Lancashire since May 2010. Mr Laws: The National Scholarship Fund for teachers and special educational needs (SEN) support staff is administered by the National College for Teaching and Leadership. The scholarships are awarded where applications are judged to be of sufficient merit. In round one (2011/12) of the National Scholarship Fund the number of teachers who received a National Scholarship Fund award in Pendle was eight and the number of teachers who received a National Scholarship Fund award in Lancashire was 14. In round two (2012/13), the National Scholarship Fund invited invitations from teachers and SEN support staff. The number of teachers who received a National Scholarship Fund award in Pendle was 0 and in Lancashire were four. The number of SEN support staff who received a National Scholarship Fund award in Pendle was two and in Lancashire was seven. Round three (2013/14) of the National Scholarship Fund has recently made offers of funding to 514 teachers and SEN support staff. Until successful scholars accept their award, exact numbers for Pendle and Lancashire cannot be finalised. Teachers: Qualifications Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will consider allowing Early Years PGCE students who have failed the Numeracy QTS [167371] skills test to resit that test within one year. Mr Laws: On 1 September 2012, a limit to the number of attempts permitted at the skills tests in literacy and numeracy was introduced as part of wider Government policy to raise the standard of those entering the teaching profession. Students who do not meet the requirements within three attempts will not be able to attempt the tests again for a two-year period. There are no current plans to review this limit, but we will continue to monitor closely the impact of the tests. Working Parties Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he is a member of any of his [167900] Department’s ministerial working groups. Elizabeth Truss: The Department for Education’s working assumption is that the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), is a standing member of all its ministerial working groups.

Written Answers

552W

of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority its (a) Chairman, (b) Board members, (c) Chief Executive and (d) chief officers have visited the constituency offices of hon. Members; and in each case if he will list those constituencies; [165744] (2) on how many occasions in each year since the formation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority its (a) chairman, (b) board members, (c) chief executive and (d) chief officers have met individual hon. Members excluding Ministers to ascertain what the work of a Member of Parliament entails; and in each case if he will list the hon. or Right hon. Members [165748] concerned. Mr Charles Walker [holding answer 16 July 2013]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013: As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about meetings with MPs and visits to constituency offices. IPSA Board Members and staff from across the organisation regularly meet and visit MPs as part of their duties. For example: the four ordinary members of the Board of IPSA who took office in January 2013 have carried out a programme of induction, which has included the shadowing of MPs both in their constituencies and in Westminster as appropriate. The policy team visited eight constituency offices in the winter of 2011/12 as part of the review of the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses. It is not possible to provide the total number of visits and meetings, as not all of these are recorded centrally. Releasing only the centrally held figures would provide an incomplete and inaccurate picture. Given the need for IPSA to maintain effective working relationships with MPs and their staff, I do not intend to release the names or constituencies of those MPs with whom we have met.

Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, if he will make it his policy that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) should provide specific funds to enable hon. and Right hon. Members to publish an annual report to constituents as [165747] suggested by IPSA. Mr Charles Walker [holding answer 16 July 2013]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013:

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY COMMITTEE Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, (1) on how many occasions in each year since the formation

As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about the proposals of an annual reporting mechanism for MPs. IPSA has proposed an annual reporting mechanism for MPs in the next Parliament in its consultation paper ‘MPs’ Pay and Pensions: A New Package, July 2013’. The precise nature of any such report, or its means of communication, have not yet been agreed. Therefore it is too early to make any observations about funding.

553W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Meetings Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on how many occasions (a) Government Ministers and (b) Treasury officials have had meetings with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in [165128] each month of 2013 to date. Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013: As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking on how many occasions IPSA has met with Government Ministers and with Treasury officials. The information requested is set out in the following table. The figures shown do not include meetings where the participants were not acting in their capacity as members of the Board or staff of IPSA.

January February March April May June July August

Meetings with Government Ministers

Meetings with Treasury officials

2 1 0 1 1 4 4 0

0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0

Members’ Staff Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, how many hon. Members were given contingency payments to allow additional allocation to their staffing budget in the (a) last financial year and (b) current financial year; and what was the total sum paid [167553] out in such fashion. Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013: As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about contingency funding. MPs who believe they need more funding may apply to IPSA’s contingency panel, demonstrating why their circumstances are exceptional. In 2012/13, 36 MPs received uplifts to their staffing expenditure budgets. The total value of these uplifts was £182,497. In 2013/14 (to 30 August), 5 MPs have received uplifts to their staffing expenditure budgets. The total value of these uplifts was £27,991. These figures represent approved uplifts and do not necessarily indicate that an MP will make claims equal to the amount of the uplift. The total sums actually claimed by each MP under each budget heading are published annually on our website: www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk The latest annual figures, for 2012-13, will be published on 12 September 2013.

Written Answers

554W

The figures above do not include routine uplifts to provide cover for MPs’ staff members on long-term sick leave or maternity, paternity or adoption leave. Those uplifts do not require approval by the Contingency Panel and are managed by the IPSA payroll team.

Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in financial year ending 2012-13, how many hon. Members had more than £1,000 unallocated in their staffing allocation in financial year 2012-13; and how much of the total available for staff salaries remained unallocated at the end of that financial year. [167556] Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013: As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about MPs’ staffing expenditure. As at 4 September 2013, there were 620 MPs whose staffing expenditure fell £1,000 or more below their budget limit for the 2012/13 financial year. As of the same date, the total expenditure by all MPs on staffing expenditure (which includes staff salaries, employer’s National Insurance Contributions, employer’s pension contributions and other staffing costs) was £14,520,632.77 below the combined limit of all MPs’ staffing expenditure budgets.

Selsdon Park Hotel Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority if he will publish a breakdown of the costs associated with the two-day gathering at the Selsdon Park Hotel to discuss remuneration proposals for hon. Members. [166767]

Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 213: As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about the IPSA Board meeting in Croydon. The total cost was £2,008.50 for 13 delegates, which equates to £154.50 per person. This cost included conference facilities, overnight accommodation and refreshments (including meals and hot drinks, but no alcoholic beverages).

Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on what dates (a) board members and (b) staff of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority attended the Selsdon Park Hotel to discuss remuneration proposals for hon. Members; whether other locations were considered for the meeting; and [166768] who attended. Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply.

555W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Written Answers

556W

Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013:

Letter from Andrew McDonald, dated 5 September 2013:

As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about the IPSA Board meeting in Croydon. The meeting took place over 24 hours from lunchtime on Sunday 14 April to lunchtime on Monday 15 April. The venue was selected after a procurement exercise, in which other venues were considered, in line with best practice. The meeting was attended by the IPSA Board and senior members of the IPSA Executive team.

As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about meetings between representatives of IPSA and HM Treasury. Since 1 January 2013 the following meetings between representatives of IPSA and HM Treasury took place. On 7 March, the Director of Finance and Operations met Treasury officials. On 6 April, an IPSA official met Treasury officials. On 25 June, an IPSA official met Treasury officials. On 6 April, an IPSA official met Treasury officials. On 10 July, the Director of Policy and Communications and another IPSA official met Treasury officials. On 19 April, the Director of Finance and Operations met Treasury officials. On 19 July, the Chair and Chief Executive met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. HM Treasury officials were also present. These meetings covered a variety of issues relating to IPSA’s statutory responsibilities. I do not intend to provide further details of these meetings as to do so may inhibit free and frank discussions in the future.

Standards Lindsay Roy: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority what steps IPSA is taking to improve its efficiency and [167908] effectiveness. Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. Letter from Andrew McDonald, 5 September 2013: As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about IPSA’s efficiency and effectiveness. IPSA is improving both its efficiency and effectiveness. The Main Estimate for 2012-13 included a 6% reduction in resources over the previous year to fund IPSA’s operating costs. We achieved these savings in 2012-13 by: sub-letting part of our accommodation, yielding savings of over £500,000; implementing new working practices to automate elements of the claims validation process; and improving the operation of the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses by offering MPs the ability to purchase stationery on line, introducing a self service report allowing MPs to review current and projected spend on staffing, and introducing online timesheets for MPs’ staff. One example of the improved efficiency is the reduction in the time taken to process claims. In the financial year 2012-13 processing a claim for payment took, on average, 9.6 days from the receipt of the supporting evidence. Our current performance is 7.13 days. The Estimate for 2013-14 includes a further 5% reduction in resources to fund IPSA’s operating costs. IPSA is currently implementing changes to deliver the efficiency savings of 5% and to continue with operational improvements to the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses.

Treasury Sir Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, on which dates the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has held meetings with (a) Ministers and (b) officials of HM Treasury since 1 January 2013; which Ministers and officials attended each such meeting; and what subjects were discussed at [168176] each such meeting. Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Developing Countries: Taxation Pauline Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conditions relating to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund or World Bank tax-related rules and guidance his Department places on developing nations in receipt of [167851] UK official development assistance. Mr Duncan: The UK does not place specific conditions relating to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund or World Bank tax-related rules and guidance, on developing nations in receipt of UK official development assistance.

JUSTICE Electronic Government: Welsh Language Nia Griffith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he plans to make it possible to pay fines on the Government website www.gov.uk/Cymraeg through [164096] the medium of Welsh. Mrs Grant: There are no immediate plans to translate the fine payment webpage into Welsh. The Government Digital Service will be evaluating data on Welsh language pages and searches on GOV.UK in December 2013 and will consider adding more pages based on evidence of demand. Electronic Tagging Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the timetable is for awarding the new tagging [165793] contracts.

557W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Jeremy Wright: Having announced preferred bidders on 20 August, we hope to be in a position to award contracts towards the end of the year. Juries: Mental Illness Bob Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will review policy on the disqualification for life from jury service of people who have had mental health [167845] problems. Mrs Grant: Eligibility for jury service is regulated by the Juries Act 1974. It does not disqualify for life those who have had mental health problems. Furthermore, the Government recently supported a Private Members Bill—now the Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013—which provides that those voluntarily receiving treatment for a mental health condition are no longer disqualified from jury service. Legal Aid Scheme Mr Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposed changes to legal aid on victims of human [166462] trafficking. Jeremy Wright: At around £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems of its type in the world. The consultation paper, “Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system”, contained a range of measures aimed at reducing the cost of and promoting public confidence in the legal aid scheme, including a proposal that those applying for civil legal aid should have a strong connection to the UK (with exceptions for asylum seekers, serving members of Her Majesty’s armed forces and their immediate families). We have analysed responses to our consultation carefully and will publish our response shortly. Offenders: EU Nationals John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many non-UK EU nationals in (a) Bassetlaw constituency and (b) England received prison sentences of two or more years in each of the last five years; and how many such nationals were (i) recommended for deportation, (ii) deported and (iii) [154157] not deported. Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. This database holds information on offences provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought but not the specific circumstances of each case. It is not possible to identify from this centrally held information the nationality of offenders sentenced for criminal offences. However, the best alternative for these figures are the prison statistics in the following table, which presents the number of sentenced receptions into custody of non-UK EU nationals between 2008 and 2012 in England. There were no receptions of non-UK EU nationals into prisons in Bassetlaw constituency between 2008 and 2012.

Written Answers

558W

It is Government policy to extend or negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with other countries. We have voluntary prisoner transfer agreements with more than 100 countries, allowing prisoners to serve their sentences in their home countries. EU sentenced receptions, sentences of two years or more, 2008-2012, England All 2008 2009 2010 (July to December)1 2011 2012 1 Data for January to June 2010 is not available

658 776 412 822 928

Pornography Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will bring forward legislative proposals to make the possession of pornography depicting rape a [161563] criminal offence. Mrs Grant: The Prime Minister has recently announced plans to extend the existing extreme pornography offence to cover the possession of images of rape. We will bring forward legislation on this issue when parliamentary time allows. Regulation Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the title is of each regulation his Department (a) introduced and (b) revoked in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013 to date; and if he [165917] will make a statement. Mrs Grant: The information is as follows: (a) Since 2010, the Ministry of Justice has introduced the following regulatory measures as set out in the Government Statements of New Regulation (SNR): EU Maintenance Order; Implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007; Amendment of the Client Specific rule 6(b) of the Claims Management Regulator’s Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007; Claims Management Rules Review (Phase 2); Referral Fees in Personal Injury Claims; Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales (Jackson); Scheme Rules for the Office of Legal Complaints (Legal Ombudsman).

(b) The Ministry of Justice has not revoked any regulation since 2010 to date. The latest Statement (SNR6) covering the period July to December 2013 can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/211164/bis-l3-p96a-sixth-statement-of-newregulation.pdf

Squatting Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of changes in the prevalence of squatting in commercial premises

559W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

following the introduction of the criminal provisions contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment [165181] of Offenders Act 2012. Damian Green: We are aware of reports that the offence of squatting in a residential building, which came into force last September, might be encouraging squatters to occupy non-residential buildings. We are monitoring this situation closely and are not ruling out further action if needed. If he is aware of evidence to suggest that instances of squatting in non-residential buildings have increased in the Shipley area since the offence was introduced, we will look closely at any information he has.

Written Answers

560W

for Norwich North (Miss Smith), subsequently wrote to the Northern Ireland Executive after introduction of the Bill. Details of my meetings with external organisations are published on a quarterly basis and can be accessed on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/cabinet-office/ series/ministers-transparency-publications

Information for the period April-June 2013 will be published shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

Written Questions: Government Responses

Russia

Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he plans to answer question 161697, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol North West on [165844] 20 June 2013 for answer on 25 June 2013.

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the matter of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights with President Putin at the [167973] forthcoming G20 meeting in Russia.

Jeremy Wright: I understand that you have now received a response to your parliamentary question and I apologise for the delay.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol East on 4 September 2013, Official Report, column 381W.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

TRANSPORT

Adjournment Debates

Blue Badge Scheme

Mr Amess: To ask the Leader of the House pursuant to the contribution of the hon. Member for Southend West of 18 July 2013, Official Report, columns 1381-3, when the hon. Member will receive replies from the Government relating to the issues which he raised. [167991]

Tom Brake: Following the hon. Member’s excellent contribution at the Pre-recess Adjournment debate of 18 July, my office commissioned a response from Her Majesty’s Treasury. The Department responded to the hon. Member on 16 August 2013. My office will be able to assist the hon. Member should he have any further queries on this matter. Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill Dr Alasdair McDonnell: To ask the Leader of the House (1) what discussions he has held with Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade [167974] Union Administration Bill; (2) how many meetings he has held with representatives of (a) FTSE 100 companies, (b) charities, (c) non-governmental organisations and (d) trades unions on the Transparency of Lobbying, NonParty Campaigning and Trade Union Administration [167975] Bill. Mr Lansley: Officials in the Cabinet Office have worked closely with their counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office prior to introduction of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, my hon. Friend the Member

Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the automatic renewal of blue badges for eligible persons whose disability will [167600] not improve. Norman Baker: The Government seeks to address the needs of severely disabled people by providing automatic badge eligibility to people who are already in receipt of certain mobility awards (including, for example, under Disability Living Allowance). Badge renewal for these people should involve little more than verifying that their award and personal details are correct. To improve the scheme, we have introduced a new, joined up system across Great Britain and all badge details are now held electronically. Therefore, even for those who do not have automatic eligibility, where the disability will clearly not improve the renewal process should be a straightforward process. Blue Badges are issued for a period of 3 years as there is a need to ensure on a regular basis that personal data remain up to date so that the scheme remains both efficient and secure. High Speed 2 Railway Line Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparison his Department has made between investment in High Speed 2 and investing the same amount in upgrading track gauges and associated works across the network in order to increase capacity. [167999]

Mr Simon Burns: The Department has considered, on several occasions, a range of high level alternative packages to HS2, most recently in the Atkins study

561W

Written Answers

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

’High Speed Rail Strategic Alternatives: Update Following consultation’ which is available on the Department’s website. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/3664/hs2-strategic-alternatives-studyupdate.pdf

Alongside HS2, the Government is investing heavily in the conventional rail network. Network Rail will invest £37.5 billion in the UK’s rail infrastructure in Control Period 5 (2014-19). Marine Management Organisation Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with their Ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to resolve outstanding issues in relation to the Marin Management [167450] Organisation. Stephen Hammond: The Department for Transport is not aware of any outstanding issues relating to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The Department for Transport (DFT) is a sponsoring Department of the MMO, and as such we have interests in most aspects of the Organisation’s work which includes marine planning and licensing, conservation, and fisheries management. A ministerial roundtable is currently being set up to discuss ports planning and environmental matters. This will include MMO and relevant Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Communities and Local Government. I meet the MMO’s chief executive on a quarterly basis to discuss all matters of interest to the DFT. In addition, a senior official from this Department is a member of a cross-Government Sponsorship Group which provides support and advice to DEFRA’s Secretary of State on the discharge of the MMO’s responsibilities under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Rolling Stock Mr Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to British Standard BS EN15663:2009, Railway applications, what the (a) usable standing area vehicle reference and (b) definition of vehicle reference masses is for (i) long distance and (ii) other rolling stock currently in use on the UK rail network or on order for future use; when that standard was last revised; and what the usable standing area vehicle reference and definition of vehicle reference masses were under the previous version of that standard.

562W

These characteristics are the same for both long distance and other rolling stock. The standard applies appropriate values to each of the mass definitions for each type of train. This standard was approved on 23 April 2009 and came into force by November (each member state has to individually adopt the standard). This was the first issue of the standard, prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and the European Free Trade Association, and supports essential requirements of EU Directive 2008/57/EC so does not directly replace any previous standard.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Broadband Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to which enterprise zones superfast broadband has been made available to date. [168044]

Mr Vaizey: Superfast broadband is available in part, or throughout the following enterprise zones: Enterprise zone

Current superfast broadband availability

Cornwall Aerohub Sandwich Discovery Park MIRA Leicestershire Sci-Tech Daresbury London Royal Docks Manchester Airport City New Anglia Nottingham Black Country Bristol Temple Quarter Tees Valley Hereford Skylon Park North Eastern Humber Birmingham Northampton Waterside

Available Available Available Available Available Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability Partial availability

Broadband: North Yorkshire Nigel Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people in rural areas of North Yorkshire who have access to superfast broadband have been provided with such access through government programmes since May 2010. [R] [167997]

[167898]

Mr Simon Burns: Standing area is defined as: The unobstructed area which can be used by passenger (e.g. vestibule, corridor, stairways, wheelchair area…). The definitions of mass are contained in section 2.1 of the standard. These include: dead mass, design mass, design mass in working order, design mass under normal payload, design mass under exceptional payload, operational mass, operational mass in working order and operational mass under normal payload.

Mr Vaizey: The Government-supported project in North Yorkshire has to date increased superfast broadband availability for over 50,000 premises. Creative Industries Council Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how often the Creative Industries Council has met in the last 12 months; and how often [167965] that body will meet in the next 12 months.

563W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Mr Vaizey: In the last 12 months, the industry-led Creative Industries Council met on 31 January and 5 June. It is scheduled to meet on 27 November this year, and three times in 2014. Minutes from all CIC meetings are placed on the gov.uk website. Sub-groups have been set up for each of the priority areas identified by the CIC, who each meet on a regular basis to take forward work programmes for their areas. In addition, Ministers and officials hold regular meetings with the chair and individual member organisations of CIC, and those in the wider creative industries. Gambling Mrs Lewell-Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many gambling operators (a) were investigated and (b) received warnings or punitive action as a result of breaching self-exclusion [167780] agreements in each year since 2009. Hugh Robertson: To date, no operators have received formal regulatory sanctions as a result of self-exclusion agreements being breached. However, as part of the Commission’s ongoing compliance work, it regularly engages with licensed operators on this issue and has worked with them, on particular cases, to improve effectiveness. The Gambling Commission requirements are that operators have effective procedures for self-exclusion as part of their licence conditions and that they, take all reasonable steps, to refuse service or otherwise prevent an individual, who has entered a self-exclusion agreement, from participating in gambling. Mr McKenzie: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps is she taking to tackle problem gambling; and if she will make a [167926] statement. Hugh Robertson: All commercial gambling in Great Britain is subject to extensive regulatory controls, based on the three statutory objectives of keeping crime out of gambling, making sure it is fair and open and protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited. All licensed gambling operators are required to put in place effective policies and procedures to achieve these objectives. While we recognise that gambling problems can have a very serious impact on individuals, their friends and families and their communities, our system of gambling regulation has contributed to a relatively low rate of problem gambling in the adult population of around 0.9%. Nevertheless, we will continue to bring pressure to bear on the gambling industry to ensure the right balance is struck between the need to protect the vulnerable and the position of gambling as a mainstream leisure activity. Internet: Bullying Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment analysis her Department has made of the effect of sexist abuse online on the numbers of women entering (a) journalism, (b) politics and (c) other areas of public life; and if she [167665] will make a statement.

Written Answers

564W

Mr Vaizey: The Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines on cases involving communications sent by social media in June this year. This guidance makes clear that in cases where communications constitute credible threats of violence or specifically target an individual or individuals should be robustly prosecuted. There are instances where content does not cross the criminal threshold but may not meet the acceptable use policies social media platforms have in place. Where this is the case, Government expects social media companies to have robust processes in place for enforcing such policies, including the removal of content and the suspension or termination of accounts as appropriate. Online abuse does not just affect the individuals directly involved, but the wider community of women and men. Ministers in my team have met with a number of stakeholders who campaign against sexist abuse online, and we will continue to listen to proposals for positive action in this area through the women’s engagement programme. Public Libraries Dan Jarvis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress her Department has made on introducing a national library card. [167903] Mr Vaizey: Arts Council England are currently testing automatic library membership for children and young people cards. There are 22 pilot projects across England and the aspiration is that it will lead to an increase in children, young people and families using their local libraries and stimulate more reading for pleasure. Social Networking Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance her Department gives to social networking sites with headquarters in the UK on the legality of content [167249] produced by their users. Mr Vaizey: Government do not provide guidance on the legality of content posted on the internet. What is illegal offline is also illegal online and where illegal content is posted, law enforcement action should be, and is, taken. There will be instances where content does not cross the criminal threshold but may not meet the acceptable use policies social networking sites have in place. Where this is the case, Government expect such sites to have robust processes in place for enforcing such policies, including the removal of content and the suspension or termination of accounts as appropriate. Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to (a) reduce the number of threatening messages and harassment of women on social media platforms and (b) ensure that all platforms improve the ease of reporting such abuse; and if she will make a statement. [167348]

Mr Vaizey: The Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines on cases involving communications sent by social media in June this year. This guidance makes

565W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

clear that in cases where communications constitute credible threats of violence or specifically target an individual or individuals should be robustly prosecuted. Social media platforms also have a role to play in ensuring that their acceptable use policies and the processes for enforcing them, including reporting processes, the removal of content and the suspension or termination of accounts as appropriate, are robust. Staff Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of her Department’s jobs have been relocated from London to each region of the UK in each of the last 10 years. [168009]

Hugh Robertson: No jobs have been relocated from London. The Department has always been, and remains, located in London. Young People: Suicide Jake Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to remove the option of anonymity for uses of websites associated [167445] with teenage suicides. Mr Vaizey: The Government expects all social media to make it easy for users to choose not to receive anonymous posts, to have simple mechanisms for reporting abuse, and to take action promptly when abuse is reported. Anonymity online is an important protection for people living in oppressive regimes around the world, but we expect the industry to ensure that all parents and children have the tools and information they need to use social media safely.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Carbon Emissions: Business John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2013, Official Report, column 425W, on greenhouse gas emissions, what steps he is taking to encourage energy companies to limit carbon emissions [167226] in their own business activities. Gregory Barker: The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) incentivises participants to reduce emissions, putting a price on carbon by placing a cap on total EU greenhouse gas emissions from the power and industrial sectors and enabling trading of allowances to ensure emissions reductions are delivered cost efficiently. The UK has also introduced a carbon price floor designed to top up the EU ETS carbon price to a target minimum level for the UK electricity generation sector, which sends an early and credible signal to drive investment in low-carbon electricity generation. The UK’s CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) is designed to encourage large public and private sector organisations to reduce their emissions through energy efficiency. Energy companies have non-power generating emissions captured by the CRC.

Written Answers

566W

The CRC is intended to change corporate behaviour, by increasing corporate awareness of energy usage and improve energy management. Energy Chris Heaton-Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the total cost to (a) consumers, (b) industry and (c) government of energy and climate change policies in each year since 2002; and what the costs have been of each such policy. [R] [167336] Gregory Barker: The Government publishes an annual estimate of the impacts of all climate change and energy policies on energy prices and bills for households, mediumsized businesses and energy-intensive industries. The most recent report was published in March 20131, showing the estimated impacts on prices and bills for 2013, 2020 and 2030. We do not have estimates of the total costs to consumers of all policies in each year since 2002. However, Table 1 provides cost information that is available for policies which place obligations into energy suppliers, who pass the costs onto consumers through their energy bills. This is the most up-to-date information available, but for some policies this is not available on an annual basis and costs are shown over the entire lifetime of the policy. Costs are shown for calendar years or financial years depending on the policy in question. In terms of how these costs fall on different consumers, the Government does not dictate whether and how policy costs are passed on through energy bills and it remains up to the energy supplier if and how to recover these costs. Therefore it is not possible to be definitive about how these costs have been recovered across different consumers (i.e. households and businesses) over a number of years. Our assumption however is that companies will pass on the costs the way they are levied, typically on the basis of relevant units of energy supplied. For those policies that apply to both households and non-domestic consumers (eg the renewables obligation and feed-in-tariffs) our assumption is that, approximately one-third of the costs fall on households and two-thirds on the non-domestic sector—reflecting their respective shares of total electricity consumption. There are also some policies (eg energy supplier obligations such as CERT) which only apply to households and are only assumed to be levied on them, while others (eg the climate change levy) only apply to non-domestic consumers. However, taken as a whole, approximately one-third of policy costs faced by energy suppliers are assumed to be passed directly onto household bills. There are a number of policies that are funded through general taxation. These include up to £1 billion for the CCS commercialisation competition, around £200 million capital funding to support the launch of the Green Deal, the Renewable Heat Incentive (£1.9 million and £27.4 million in 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively (2012-13 prices) and the renewable heat premium payment (£9.5 million and £12.7 million in 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively (2012-13 prices2).

567W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Table 1: Estimated costs of energy and climate change policies since 2002

Policy

Time period considered

Estimated cost to date (£ billion, Real 2012 prices)

3

0.5

Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) I

April 2002-March 2005

Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) II

April 2005-March 2008

Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)

April 2008-March 2011

Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) Extension

April 2011December 2012

2.0

Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP)

October 2009December 2012

0.3

1.1

4

3.4

Estimated cost to date (£ billion, Real 2012-13 prices)

Policy

Time period considered

Feed in Tariffs5 (FiTs)*

2010-11

0.01

2011-12

0.15

2012-13

0.50

2002-03

0.38

2003-04

0.56

2004-05

0.64

2005-06

0.73

2006-07

0.88

2007-08

1.04

2008-09

1.18

2009-10

1.23

2010-11

1.42

2011-12

1.53

2012-13

1.99

2011-12

0.24

Renewables Obligation6* (RO)

Warm Home Discount7*

Climate Change Levy8*

See footnote

Written Answers

568W

* Active policies 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/estimated-impacts-ofenergy-and-climate-change-policies-on-energy-prices-and-bills 2 Source—DECC Annual Reports and Accounts: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-report-andaccounts-2012-13 3 Calculations of EEC I, EEC II, are based on an evaluation of costs by Eoin Lees Energy, Available at http://eoinleesenergy.com/ 4 Calculations of CERT, CERT Extension and CESP are based on impact assessments published by DECC. 5 Costs represent FITs Levelisation Fund, and include generation payments, deemed export payments claimed by generators, qualifying (administration) costs claimed by FIT licensees, minus the value of deemed export to licensed electricity suppliers. Figures for 2010-11 and 2011-12 are taken from the Ofgem Annual FITs Report for those years. See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/feed-tarifffit-scheme/feed-tariff-reports/annual-reports Figures for 2012-13 are taken from Ofgem FITs Quarterly Update reports. See https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/feed-tarifffit-scheme/feed-tariff-reports/fit-update-reports These figures should be treated as provisional. Final figures for 2012-13 will be published in the 2012-13 FITs Annual Report (to be published December 2013). 6 Spending under the Renewables Obligation is calculated as the overall obligation multiplied by the buy-out price. These figures can be found in Ofgem’s RO annual reports for 2002-03 to 2011-12, available at: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/renewablesobligation-ro For 2012-13, the obligation level and buy-out price can be found at: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/renewablesobligation-total-obligation-levels-2012-13 7 Ofgem (2012) ’Warm Home Discount Scheme Annual Report— Scheme Year 1’: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/58950/ whdar08oct2012.pdf 8 HMRC publish data from 2008 (see link). The tables provide historic data since the beginning of the CCL: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/climate-change-levy 9 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/estimated-impacts-ofenergy-and-climate-change-policies-on-energy-prices-and-bills

It should be noted that the above figures do not account for the direct benefits to energy consumers from these policies and the impact they have in helping to offset costs. For example, the Government’s latest estimate of the total impacts of energy and climate change policies on energy prices and bills9 finds that in 2013 households are estimated on average to save around 5% (or £65) on their energy bills compared to what they would have paid in the absence of policies. This is because the total monetary savings from policies which help households save energy more than offset the necessary cost of investing in new capacity and efficiency. By 2020 it is estimated that households will save on average 11% (£166) on their energy bills compared to what they would have paid in the absence of policies. Separate estimates of the compliance costs of the EU ETS can be found here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121025080026/ http://decc.gov.uk/publications/basket.aspx?filetype=4& filepath=what+we+do%2fglobal+climate+change+and+energy% 2ftackling+climate+change%2femissions+trading%2feu_ets%2 fpublications%2f895-cost-euets-uk-operators-compliance.pdf

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has of changes in the UK’s gross domestic product (a) to date and (b) by 2020 as a result of climate change and energy policies initiated in response to climate change. [167485]

569W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Gregory Barker: Studies indicate that the long-term growth benefit from avoiding climate change will exceed the cost of co-ordinated global action to tackle climate change by helping to avoid the potentially catastrophic implications of failing to act. Most notable of these studies is the Stern review, which found that the global costs of climate change could be between 5% and 20% of GDP per annum if we fail to act, dwarfing the costs of effective international action, estimated at 1-2% of global per capita consumption by 2050l. Most published analysis also suggests that current UK ambition on climate change can be achieved without large impacts on overall short-term economic output. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) does not possess an analysis of the historical impact of climate change and energy policies on the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP). However, as part of the Carbon Plan, the impacts of the policies to meet the first three Carbon Budgets and illustrative measures to meet the fourth budget were modelled using the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Computable General Equilibrium model2. It should be noted that there is substantial uncertainty around the results of this modelling, and this is inherent in all similar analyses. The HMRC model estimated that the first three carbon budgets could be met at an average cost of around 0.4% of GDP over the period 2011-22 (i.e. the level of GDP is on average 0.4% lower compared to a baseline scenario without carbon budget policies), and the fourth carbon budget could be met at an average cost of around 0.6% of GDP over the period 2023-27. The actual impacts on GDP will depend on a range of factors, including fossil fuel prices and future technology costs. As stated above, there is significant uncertainty around these estimates. Furthermore, certain potential costs and benefits were not reflected in the HMRC model at the time of the Carbon Plan. Importantly, innovation benefits and the productivity improvements from energy efficiency were not captured, nor are the benefits on future UK growth of the avoided risks from global climate change. Furthermore, it should be noted that the modelling largely assumes that the UK acts unilaterally. Potential welfare costs of resulting behaviour changes are not accounted for, or any cost or time overruns in policy delivery. Each of these excluded factors also has a high degree of uncertainty with regards to scale. 1 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407012453/ http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm 2 The results of this analysis are presented in Annex B of the Carbon Plan (2011), available on DECC’s website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-carbon-planreducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions--2

Energy: Meters John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many smart meters have been installed in (a) residential and (b) business [168146] properties to date. Gregory Barker: The Government reported on the number of smart, smart-type and advanced meters installed by the larger energy suppliers in domestic and smaller non-domestic properties in the First Annual Progress Report on the Roll-out of Smart Meters, published

Written Answers

570W

on 19 December 2012. By 30 September 2012, the suppliers had installed 300 smart meters and over 622,000 smart-type meters in domestic properties and 365,000 smart and advanced meters in smaller non-domestic properties. The Government will publish the number of smart meter installations by the larger energy suppliers up to the end June 2013 on 26 September 2013. Hinkley Point Power Stations Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what representations his Department has received on the radiological effect on local populations of the opening up of intermediate level radioactive waste storage vaults at Hinkley Point nuclear power plant in preparation for decommissioning the Magnox waste storage facilities. [167499] Michael Fallon: Vaults were constructed at Hinkley Point in 1963 and 1983 to store intermediate level waste. They were not designed with long-term storage in mind. In order to aid future decommissioning, the waste needs to be retrieved, conditioned and. transferred to a new facility to enable continued safe and secure interim storage pending construction of a geological disposal facility. The NDA has recently received representations on this topic from Parents Concerned About Hinkley, which were also copied to the Department. Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs Jesse Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what stage his investigations into Ofgem’s decision to class Big Lottery funding as state aid for the purposes of the Feed-in Tariff scheme have reached; and if he will [167456] make a statement. Gregory Barker: DECC is not conducting an investigation into Ofgem’s decision that National Lottery grants are “grants from public funds” for the purposes of FIT accreditation. It is the role of Ofgem and licensed suppliers to determine eligibility for FITs, based on the legislation that underpins the scheme. Staff Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many of his Department’s jobs have been relocated from London to each region [168012] of the UK in each of the last 10 years. Gregory Barker: DECC was created in 2008. DECC has staff based in London and Aberdeen. However, since 2008, no jobs have been relocated from London. Tidal Power Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what plans he has to support tidal stream and wave technologies in the context of his proposals for electricity market reform. [167243]

571W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Michael Fallon: Tidal stream and wave technologies will be eligible for support under the Feed in Tariffs with Contracts for Difference (CfDs) which are being introduced as part of electricity market reform. These technologies are still at an early-stage of development accordingly, we are consulting on CfD strike prices of £305/MWh for both tidal stream and wave technologies for projects commissioning in the years 2014 to 2018-19. Further detail is set out in our EMR Delivery Plan consultation, which is available at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-thedraft-electricity-market-reform-delivery

Travel John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what guidance with regards to (a) cost and (b) carbon emissions his Department uses to decide what mode of transport is used by his departmental staff on official business. [167221]

Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is committed to helping the Government achieve its goal of tackling climate change by reducing carbon emissions. Online detailed guidance is available to staff reminding them of the necessity to keep travel for work to the minimum to achieve work goals and to always look for sustainable travel options. With regard to cost, staff are reminded to consider, when planning any travel for work, whether it has been planned in the most cost-effective and time-efficient way. With regard to carbon emissions, DECC has a sustainable travel policy and a business travel emissions reduction plan which strongly encourages use of more carbon efficient modes of transport and the use of video and audio conferencing. Carbon data is included in monthly management information reports.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE Burundi Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the government of Burundi on (a) the recent enactment of a press law in that country and (b) the restriction the provisions of that law impose on the freedom of the media. [167816] Mark Simmonds: Our non-resident ambassador to Burundi joined other EU member states in a démarche concerning the media law before it was enacted, and he has continued to raise UK concerns about the issue and its impact on press freedom, most recently with the Ministry of the Interior on 29 August. Officials have also raised the issue with the Second Vice President of Burundi. Officials continue to meet journalists and members of civil society in Burundi regularly to discuss the new laws and how their impact could be mitigated. The UK will continue to raise its concerns, and encourage other like-minded states to do so.

Written Answers

572W

Chemicals: Exports Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the oral answer of 2 September 2013, Official Report, column 19, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the reasons for consideration that sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride could be precursors in some other application not being given before the licences were issued; and if he will make a statement. [167925] Alistair Burt: No such discussions were held. The two standard individual export licences for sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride were revoked in July 2012—before any of the goods had been exported—as a direct result of an expansion of the EU sanctions regime for Syria. The consideration of the licence applications against the Consolidated Criteria included an assessment of the risk that they would be diverted to be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of chemical weapons. But there was no evidence that these exports would be so diverted, and the quantities concerned were consistent with their stated end use for commercial purposes. No subsequent evidence has arisen to cast doubt on the assessment made at the time. Colombia Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Colombian counterpart on the detention of Mr Huber Ballesteros; and if he [167907] will make a statement. Mr Swire: We are aware of the detention of Mr Ballesteros. Our ambassador to Colombia has written to the Colombian Prosecutor-General highlighting our interest in the case and requesting information on the charges. Staff at our embassy in Bogota are seeking permission to visit Mr Ballesteros in jail. While the UK cannot interfere in Colombia’s judicial process, we will continue to monitor Mr Ballesteros’ case and raise any concerns regarding due process with the Colombian authorities. Israel Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what estimate he has made of the number of Palestinian [167756] children currently held in Israeli prisons; (2) what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners held in Israeli prisons who are Israeli; [167757]

(3) what estimate he has made of how many Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons have been released since 29 July 2013; how many such prisoners have since been re-arrested; and how many new Palestinian prisoners have entered Israeli prisons since [167758] that date. (4) what information his Department holds on how many Palestinian children (a) held in Israeli prisons have been released and (b) have been arrested by Israeli police and security forces since 29 July 2013. [167783]

573W

Written Answers

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Alistair Burt: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made no estimate of the number of prisoners, either Palestinian or Israeli, being held in Israeli prisons. I would encourage the hon. Member to seek this information from the Israeli embassy or from the Israeli Prison Service directly. Kashmir Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the situation in Kashmir.

574W

Mark Simmonds: Since the outbreak of the recent fighting in eastern DRC, I have spoken to both the Special Representative of the Secretary General and the UN Special Envoy, to express the UK’s full support for the UN and MONUSCO and to de-escalate the situation. In close co-ordination with the UN, I have also spoken to both the DRC Prime Minister and the Rwandan Foreign Minister to get their perspective on the recent violence in DRC. I have urged both parties to exercise restraint, seek a political solution to the conflict, and engage constructively with the UN.

[167882]

Mr Swire: UK officials in Islamabad and Delhi regularly discuss the situation in Kashmir with both governments. The long standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, one which takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one. We encourage India and Pakistan to take further steps to strengthen their relationship, but recognise that the pace and scope of this is for them to determine. Kidnapping Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the United Nations Human Rights Council on human rights and terrorist [167775] hostage taking. Alistair Burt: The UK participated in discussions on human rights and terrorist hostage taking at official level at the 21st session of the Human Rights Council in September 2012, at which a resolution was adopted. Officials continue to engage with members of the Council, and will do so at the next session in September 2013.

HEALTH Dental Services: Veterans Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether veterans of the armed services receive [167890] priority dental care. Dr Poulter: The Armed Forces Covenant makes clear that veterans should receive priority treatment from the national health service where it relates to a condition which results from their service in the armed forces, subject to clinical need. This includes NHS dental care. Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects NHS England to ratify the Clinical Priorities Advisory Group recommendation for the use of eculizumab made on 12 July 2013. [167905] Dr Poulter: We understand that NHS England intends to publish its decision on the Clinical Priorities Advisory group’s recommendations on eculizumab in the near future on its website: www.england.nhs.uk

Middle East

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of positive steps towards peace taken by the (a) Israeli Government and (b) Palestinian [167742] Authority since 29 July 2013.

Mr Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what body or individual is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Mental [167701] Capacity Act 2005 in hospitals.

Alistair Burt: We warmly welcome the resumption of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Washington on 30 July and the resumption of formal negotiations on 14 August, with a view to resolving all final status issues. The resumption of talks has been possible because of the courageous leadership already shown by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, as well as the commitment of negotiators on both sides. The UK has consistently urged both sides to avoid steps that undermine US efforts and to take measures to build trust. In this regard, we also welcome the bold and forward-looking decision taken by Israel to release 26 Palestinian prisoners in advance of talks.

Norman Lamb: Hospitals are responsible for ensuring that the care they provide complies with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act. Clinical Commissioning Groups have a role in ensuring that hospitals from whom they commission care comply with legislative requirements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is responsible for inspecting hospitals against their registration requirements, one of which refers to gaining consent under the Mental Capacity Act. The CQC also considers compliance with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act during its thematic reviews. The CQC has a specific duty to monitor practice under the .Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and is required to report annually on its findings.

Rwanda

Smoking

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in (a) Rwanda and (b) Democratic Republic of Congo about [168095] the alleged shelling of Rwandan territory.

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average lifespan was of (a) male and (b) female smokers, and of (i) male and (ii) female non-smokers in each year since 1983 for which data is [167872] available;

575W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

(2) what estimate he has made of the number of working days lost due to smoking-related illness in each year since 1983 for which data is available; and what estimate he has made of the cost to the economy [167888] of those lost days. Anna Soubry: The information requested is not held by the Department. Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died of smoking-related illness in each year since 1983 for which data is available; and what estimate he has made of the number of people who will die of smoking-related illness in each of the [167884] next three years. Anna Soubry: Information on how many people aged 35 and over died of smoking-related illness in England is only available since 2004. Data from 2004 to 2011, with the exception of 2006 for which data is not available, inclusive is shown in the following table. Information for 2012 is expected to be published by the Health and Social Care Information Centre on 8 October 2013. The Government has made no estimate of the number of people who will die of smoking-related illness in each of the next three years. All deaths among adults aged 35 and over that can be attributed to smoking, 2004, 2005, 2007-11, England Attributable number 2004 88,800 2005 81,900 2007 82,900 2008 83,900 2009 81,400 2010 81,700 2011 79,100 Notes: 1. 2004 figures are for England and Wales and not just England. 2. Estimated attributable number, rounded to the nearest 100.

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of how many 11 to 15-year-olds started smoking in each year since 1983. [167885]

Anna Soubry: The information is not available in the format requested. We do not hold information on how many 11 to 15-year-olds start smoking each year. We do, however, hold information on the proportions of pupils within that age range who have ever smoked or who regularly smoke. Information on the prevalence of smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds from 1982 to 2012 is shown in tables 2.1a and 2.1b of “Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2012”. This publication has been placed in the Library. Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of smoking [167886] on the developing foetus.

Written Answers

576W

Anna Soubry: The Department is aware of evidence that shows that maternal smoking during pregnancy and passive exposure of the mother-to-be to second-hand smoke can have serious negative health consequences for the foetus, the baby post-partum and the mother-to-be. According to the Royal College of Physicians’ 2010 report, Passive Smoking and Children, active maternal smoking causes up to about 5,000 miscarriages, 300 perinatal deaths, and 2,200 premature singleton births in the United Kingdom each year. Exposure of the foetus to active maternal smoking also impairs foetal growth and development, increasing the risk of being small for gestational age and reducing birth weight by about 250g, and probably increases the risk of congenital abnormalities of the heart, limbs, and face. Active maternal smoking causes around 19,000 babies to be born with low birth weight in the UK each year. The report also describes how maternal passive smoking is likely to have similar adverse effects on foetal and reproductive health, but of smaller magnitude. A copy of Passive Smoking and Children is available at: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/passivesmoking-and-children.pdf

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of pregnant teenagers who smoked Anna Soubry: The official source of data on smoking during pregnancy (measured at the time of giving birth) is the “Statistics on Women’s Smoking Status at Time of Delivery” publication (SaTOD). SaTOD, however, does not collect data by age. Therefore, we have provided information from the Infant Feeding Survey, which collects information on smoking before and during pregnancy from mothers after birth. This survey is carried out at five yearly intervals. Information on smoking before or during pregnancy for mothers aged under 20 for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010 is shown in the following table. A copy of the Infant Feeding Survey 2005 chapter 10 and Infant Feeding Survey 2010 chapter 11 has been placed in the Library. Smoking during pregnancy in England by mother’s age (2000, 2005 and 2010) Percentage who smoked Percentage who smoked before or during pregnancy throughout pregnancy 2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010 Under 64 68 58 39 45 36 20 Note: Excludes mothers who did not supply sufficient information to classify their smoking status.

Tobacco: Packaging Ms Ritchie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had on the introduction of standardised packaging for cigarettes and tobacco [168000] products; and if he will make statement.

577W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Anna Soubry: The Government set out the current position on standardised tobacco packaging in a written ministerial statement on 12 July 2013, Official Report, columns 53-54WS. The Government has decided to wait before making a decision on standardised packaging. This allows time to benefit from the experience of Australia, where they introduced standardised packaging in December 2012. This remains the Government’s position.

TREASURY Child Benefit Office and Child Support Agency Graeme Morrice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he (a) has taken and (b) plans to take to implement an automatic link for the Child Benefit Office to notify the Child Support [167192] Agency of its decisions; (2) what steps he (a) has taken and (b) plans to take to improve the sharing of information between the Child Benefit Office and the Child Support Agency; [167193]

[167194]

Sajid Javid: As some child benefit decisions may impact on decisions made by the Child Support Agency, the agency has automated access to the child benefit system to check whether child benefit is or is not in payment for a child or young person. The information accessed is limited to that which is proportionate and relevant for the purposes of the agency’s functions. As not all child benefit decisions are relevant to the agency, it would be disproportionate and not relevant for the agency’s functions to receive notifications of all child benefit decisions. HM Revenue and Customs has recently reviewed and improved the process and priority given to investigating allegations made by third parties that a claimant may be continuing to receive child benefit for a young person who is no longer in full-time non-advanced education. Coastal Communities Fund: Northern Ireland

578W

Funding for future years will be determined in line with this formula and will be reviewed as part of future spending rounds. We will also review the size of the Fund should revenue rise or fall significantly in any given year. Council Tax: Rebates Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a council tax rebate for homes participating in the Green Deal in addition to the Green Deal Launch cash-back scheme. [167342] Sajid Javid: Following the Chancellor’s announcement of £200 million additional capital to encourage uptake of Green Deal in the 2011 autumn statement, the Government is using £125 million of this to fund a generous Cashback scheme to be claimed by those who take up Green’ Deal from January 2013. Other uses of the additional capital include £12 million of funding that has been allocated to seven cities across England to help pilot Green Deal in their regions. The Government does not have any plans to introduce a council tax rebate for homes participating in the Green Deal.

(3) what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the sharing of information between the Child Benefit Office and the Child Support Agency; (4) what steps he (a) has taken and (b) plans to take to reduce the time taken by the Child Benefit Office to [167223] carry out investigations.

Written Answers

Crown Lands and Estates: Minerals Mr Gibb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of royalty income from Crown-owned mineral rights attached to land in the [167853] UK in (a) 2012-13 and (b) 2013-14; (2) how much the Exchequer received in royalty income from Crown-owned mineral rights on land in [167854] (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12. Sajid Javid: Under the Crown Estate Act 1961, 50% of the Crown Estate’s net income received from land based minerals goes to the Exchequer with the remaining 50% going into the Crown Estate’s capital accounts for reinvestment in the portfolio. Between 2009 and 2013 the amount returned to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate’s onshore mineral interests was: £ million 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

1.2 1.1 0.9 1.1

Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much funding has been allocated to the Coastal Communities Fund in Northern Ireland in each of the [167268] next three years.

Figures for 2013-14 will be available at financial year end in 2014.

Danny Alexander: Funding for the Coastal Communities Fund is equal to 50% of the revenues generated by the Crown Estate’s marine assets. Northern Ireland will receive £0.5 million in 2013-14, £0.6 million in 2014-15 and the 2015-16 allocation is yet to be determined. This determination is dependent on the Crown Estate’s Marine 2013-14 Revenues in Northern Ireland.

John Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual revenue forgone to HM Revenue and Customs as a result of the operation of the secondary ticketing market. [167591]

Entertainments: Tickets

Mr Gauke: Secondary ticket sellers carrying on a trade are liable to pay tax on their profits in the same way as primary ticket sellers are. Self-employed sellers

579W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

will be subject to income tax and companies will be subject to corporation tax. VAT will also apply if their turnover exceeds the legal threshold. HMRC does not hold information on the amount of tax collected from the ticketing market, or on the tax foregone through ticket re-sales in the hidden economy. Excise Duties: Tobacco Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to implement Article 4 of Council Decision 2010/12/EU; and if he will make a [167557] statement. Sajid Javid: The Government is currently assessing the implications of applying quantitative restrictions provided for by Article 4 of Council Directive 2010/12. Article 4 allows members states to apply quantitative restrictions on the personal importations of cigarettes from other member states with excise duty rates below the permitted minimum rates, following the increase to the EU minimum excise duty rate from 1 January 2014. Fracking: Scotland

Written Answers

580W

Toby Perkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many charities have made successful gift aid declarations in three out of the previous seven tax years; and how many charities have made successful gift aid declarations in two out of the previous four tax years; [167549] (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 on the ability of [167550] small charities to claim gift aid. Sajid Javid: The Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 introduced the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme (GASDS), which enables charities and Community Amateur Sports Clubs to claim Gift Aid-style payments on small cash donations. The GASDS was introduced at the beginning of this tax year for donations received from 6 April 2013 onwards, so it is too early to assess its impact. The Government committed to reviewing the GASDS after three years of the scheme becoming operational. From December 2013 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will be publishing national statistics on the amounts paid out under the GASDS. HMRC publishes national statistics on the number of charities that claim Gift Aid each year here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/charity/table10-4.pdf

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what oral and written representations he has received from the Scottish Government regarding the proposed fiscal regime for shale gas to date. [167383]

Sajid Javid [holding answer 4 September 2013]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not received any oral or written representations from the Scottish Government regarding the proposed fiscal regime for shale gas. Gift Aid Toby Perkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will introduce (a) a central database of Gift Aid donors and (b) a campaign to [167536] make more people aware of Gift Aid; (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that unclaimed [167537] gift aid is claimed by charities. Sajid Javid: The Government launched a consultation in July on the future of Gift Aid, in particular how Gift Aid works with new forms of digital donations. This consultation runs until 20 September and asks for views on a database of universal Gift Aid declarations, which could be populated with details of donors who have made Gift Aid declarations. The consultation also seeks views on the promotion of Gift Aid, to raise awareness and to increase its take up on more donations that are eligible for a Gift Aid repayment. To operate Gift Aid as a tax relief, the donor must knowingly give permission for the tax they pay on their donation to be repaid under Gift Aid. The Government does not collect information about the donations on which Gift Aid could be, but has not been, claimed. Not all donors can donate under Gift Aid, and some that can choose not to.

Historic Buildings: Repairs and Maintenance Mr Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the refurbishment of Frogmore [167546] House; (2) what recent representations his Department has received on the refurbishment of Frogmore House. [167547]

Sajid Javid: The refurbishment of Frogmore House is the responsibility of the royal household, which has considerable flexibility over its use of the sovereign grant. There have therefore been no discussions. Housing Benefit: Fraud Steve McCabe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated level of housing benefit fraud in England was in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and [167182] (c) 2011-12. Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. The figures for England only are not available. The estimated levels of housing benefit fraud in Great Britain are as follows: (a) £250 million (1.2% of spend) in 2009-10, (b) £300 million (1.4% of spend) in 2010-11 and (c) £350 million (1.5% of spend) in 2011-12. The information is derived from the 2012-13 preliminary estimates of benefit fraud and error. Further information can be found by accessing the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/203097/nsfr-final-090513.pdf

Steve McCabe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions for housing benefit fraud were recorded in each local authority area in [167183] (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12.

581W

Written Answers

Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. DWP publishes a range of Housing Benefit Recovery and Fraud statistics at Local Authority level. These can be accessed here:

The detail of the new policy is still to be decided. However, under current rules, people are exempt from waiting days if they claim jobseeker’s allowance within 12 weeks of entitlement to employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit, coming to an end.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/departmentfor-work-pensions/series/housing-benefit-recoveries-and-frauddata

Specifically, the number of successful prosecutions is included in table 2.10 of the documents linked as follows: 2011-12 tables https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/223303/hbrf_1012.xls

2010-11 tables

582W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

PAYE Stephen Timms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for annual PAYE status have been received since the introduction of real time information; and how many such applications have been granted. [167877] Mr Gauke: Employers must satisfy HMRC that they meet the criteria to have an annual PAYE status applied to their record. HMRC does not record the number of requests for annual status received or granted.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/223304/hbrf_1011.xls

2009-10 tables https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/223305/hbrf_0910.xls

Public Sector Debt

Jobseeker’s Allowance Katy Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposal in the 2013 Spending Round to make jobseeker’s allowance claimants wait seven days before becoming eligible for financial support will apply to those moving directly to the benefit from (a) employment and support allowance and (b) incapacity [166409] benefit. Mr Hoban: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

David T. C. Davies: To ask the Chancellor Exchequer if he will estimate the proportion revenue required to service interest payments national debt in each of the next 10 years.

of the of tax on the [167300]

Sajid Javid: The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is responsible for producing the official economic and fiscal forecasts in the UK. In the latest March 2013 Economic and Fiscal outlook, debt interest payments for each fiscal year in the forecast period can be found in Table 4.29, as follows:

Table 4.29: Key changes to debt interest since December 2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Forecast (£ billion) 2017-18

December forecast March forecast Change of which:

47.1 46.5 -0.6

48.6 49.5 0.9

51.8 51.8 0.0

56.6 57.8 1.2

61.6 64.4 2.8

67.1 71.3 4.2

Financing Gilt rates Short rates Inflation B&B and NRAM Other

0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.2

-0.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 -0.1 0.0

-0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 -0.1 -0.1

0.4 0.4 0.1 0.6 -0.3 0.1

0.8 1.0 0.1 1.0 -0.4 0.3

1.3 1.5 0.3 1.1 -0.3 0.4

Public sector current receipts (PSCR) for each fiscal year in the forecast period can be found in Table 4.7, as follows: Table 4.7: Current receipts £ billion

Current receipts Memo. UK oil and gas revenues

2011-12

Outturn 2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

572.6

586.8

612.4

633.1

657.6

694.1

723.0

11.3

6.5

6.8

6.1

4.7

4.8

4.3

The proportion of PSCR required to service debt interest payments for each fiscal year in the forecast period in the following table:

Forecast 2015-16 2016-17

2017-18

583W

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Written Answers

584W

PSCR

Debt interest payments

Proportion of tax revenue required to service debt interest payments (%)

586.8 612.4 633,1 657.6 694.1 723.0

46.5 49.5 51.8 57.8 64.4 71.3

7.9 8.1 8.2 8.8 9.3 9.9

The Government remains committed to reducing the deficit and addressing the permanent structural deterioration in the public finances caused by the lasting impact of the financial crisis. Implementation of the fiscal consolidation plans is well under way. As a result, the Government has made significant progress in reversing the unprecedented rise in borrowing between 2007-08 and 2009-10. Public sector net borrowing has fallen by over a third, from 11.2% of GDP in 2009-10 to 7.0% in 2012-13. Cumulative debt interest payments from 2010-11 to 2015-16 are forecast to be £31 billion lower than expected at the June Budget 2010. Tax Allowances: Cultural Heritage Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) monetary value of heritage assets exempt from estate duty which are (i) land, buildings and their contents, [167634] (ii) works of art and (iii) collections of art. Mr Gauke: The estate duty exemption only applies to chattels. It does not apply to land and buildings or to collections of art. The number and value of exempt assets which are land and buildings is therefore nil. The total number of exempt items, which includes contents, works of art and collections, is approximately 44,700, with an estimated value of about £250 million. Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average annual cost to the public purse of offering an exemption from estate duty for heritage assets. [167636] Mr Gauke: Exemptions from estate duty are not currently offered and have not been offered since 1975 when estate duty was replaced. The annual cost of the estate duty exemption is therefore nil. In terms of the cost of existing exemptions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 June 2013, Official Report, column 339W, [161863]. Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the terms of the regime for exemption from estate duty of heritage assets were last [167637] reviewed. Mr Gauke: Estate duty was replaced in 1975. Prior to that, the terms of the estate duty exemption were last amended on 25 July 1969 by section 39 of Finance Act 1969. Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requirements are placed on owners of heritage assets which are exempt from estate duty. [167638]

Mr Gauke: The requirements for the exemption from estate duty depend on the date when the event which gave rise to the tax charge occurred. For events up to 28 July 1950, the only obligation is that the objects are not sold. For events after that date, there are additional requirements that the objects are kept in the UK and, in certain cases, that they are preserved and made available for inspection by authorised persons for preservation or research purposes. Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the exemption from estate duty of heritage assets as a contribution to public enjoyment [167639] of heritage assets. Mr Gauke: The estate duty exemption preserves and protects almost 45,000 heritage items which may have otherwise been sold or taken out of the UK. Helen Goodman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what records his Department maintains of the number of visits by members of the public to each heritage asset in respect of which exemption from [167640] estate duty has been granted. Mr Gauke: No records of visits by members of the public to these assets are kept by HM Revenue and Customs. Taxation: Developing Countries Pauline Latham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much HM Revenue and Customs has spent on supporting tax administrations in developing [167852] countries in each of the last five years. Mr Gauke: HMRC is fully committed to supporting tax administrations in developing countries. However, all of the associated costs in relation to this work over the last five years are nil, as they are covered by the Department for International Development (DFID) and international organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation (OECD). VAT: Imports Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for certification have been made for simplified import VAT accounting in each of the last five years; and how many such applications [167958] were (a) approved and (b) rejected. Mr Gauke: The number of applications for simplified import VAT (SIVA) certification in each of the last five years is as follows:

585W

Written Answers

1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013: 733 approved and 181 rejected) 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012: 783 approved and 163 rejected) 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011: 840 approved and 149 rejected) 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010: 757 approved and 105 rejected) 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009: 1000 approved and 189 rejected).

6 SEPTEMBER 2013 (527 of which were (543 of which were (608 of which were (560 of which were (732 of which were

There is a discrepancy, per annum, between the number of applications received and the total of applications approved and rejected. The remaining applicants did not supply sufficient information to HMRC for a decision to approve or reject the application. Ms Ritchie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has made applications for simplified import VAT accounting certificates in each of the last five years; [167959] and which applications were approved. Mr Gauke: HMRC is unable to provide the taxpayer specific information requested as it falls outside boundaries of data which can legally be made available. Specifically the confidentiality clause under s18 of Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) restricts the disclosure of this type of information.

Written Answers

586W

people who might need support with the new demands of universal credit, such as help with getting online. The Department will continue to work with local authorities and service providers, including charities and social landlords, in order to develop local partnerships to provide the additional support for digital inclusion. We have provided some funding to the Tinder foundation (formerly Online Centres Foundation) and invested in the Digital Deal challenge fund for social landlord led projects to support their digitally excluded tenants. Employment and Support Allowance Sheila Gilmore: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals placed in the Work-Related Activity Group received a prognosis statement that they are unlikely to return to work in the last six months. [167857] Mr Hoban: The information requested is shown in the following table: New claims—Outcomes of initial functional assessments by prognosis and month of result date, for the work related activity group, Great Britain Claimants with prognosis of two years and over 2012

WORK AND PENSIONS Atos Healthcare Mr Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appointments for ATOS face-to-face assessments in England were cancelled in the last 12 months because a healthcare professional was not available for the appointment; and for what [167290] reason such appointments were cancelled. Mr Hoban: 13,795 face-to-face work capability assessments for employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit reassessments were cancelled because a health care professional was not available for the appointment for the period August 2012 to July 2013. 779,305 were successfully completed for the same period. The reasons for cancellation were: Number of clients attended exceeded the medical capacity Health care professional was unavailable Health care professional did not attend for the session.

Digital Technology Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what funding his Department is making available for digital inclusion (a) directly and [167630] (b) through partner bodies. Mr Hoban: We are investing in improved access to digital services across Jobcentre Plus and 6,000 new computers will be installed across the country to help claimants who are digitally excluded make online transactions. The universal credit programme is also investing in local authority-led pilots to test how we support claimants and digital inclusion is one of the approaches being tested. The Universal Credit Local Support Services Framework sets out the basic principles for helping

September October November December

200 300 300 200

2013 January 200 February 200 Note: Figures are shown rounded to the nearest 100. Source: Data in the table is derived from administrative data held by the DWP and assessment data provided by Atos Healthcare. Scope: Initial functional assessment—the first assessment of the Employment and Support Allowance claim. The outcome recorded is the final DWP Decision Maker’s decision or the recommendation made by the Atos Healthcare Professional where the Decision Maker’s decision is not yet available.

Occupational Pensions Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance his Department gives to employers regarding automatic enrolment options for [167761] pensions. Steve Webb: The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is responsible for communicating with employers about the reforms and has an extensive programme of engagement in place. This includes holding face to face meetings with the largest employers and writing to all employers ahead of their staging date. TPR has published detailed guidance for employers, and their intermediaries, on how to comply with the new duties and to help them select an appropriate workplace pension for their workers. It is designed to demonstrate to employers what a good scheme looks like and sets out the key factors an employer should consider when choosing a scheme.

587W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Many employers will already have a pension scheme in place before their automatic enrolment staging date. Providing that their existing scheme meets minimum quality requirements and is suitable for automatic enrolment they can continue to use existing scheme(s). All they have to do is certify that their scheme meets the required standard. The Department for Work and Pensions has produced supporting guidance on certification of Defined Contribution, Defined Benefit and Hybrid pensions as qualifying schemes. Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the amount of resources devoted to publicising (a) NEST as an automatic enrolment option and (b) other alternatives to NEST as automatic enrolment options in the last [167764] year. Steve Webb: It is the Government’s strategy to promote automatic enrolment awareness rather than any particular scheme. The Pensions Regulator (TPR) provides support for employers via their website to help them comply with their new duties; as part of this TPR has issued comprehensive guidance to assist employers in selecting an appropriate pension scheme for their workers. It is designed to demonstrate to employers what a good scheme looks like and sets out the key factors an employer should consider when choosing a scheme. As part of their duty for supporting automatic enrolment the Regulator has a responsibility to remind employers that NEST is one qualifying scheme they can choose to use and that NEST has public service objective to accept any employer who wishes to use it. Personal Independence Payment: Appeals Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the proportion of personal independence payments that will be successfully appealed in the next 12 months. [167849]

Esther McVey: PIP replaced DLA for people of working age in April this year in parts of the North of England, alongside other reforms which require individuals to seek a reconsideration of the decision from DWP before they can lodge an appeal direct with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. It was extended nationally in June. To date only a small number of mandatory reconsiderations have been received and it is too early to form a reliable estimate of the proportion of decisions which will be successfully appealed. The timetable for release of PIP statistics is provided in the publication strategy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personalindependence-payment-release-strategy

588W

Written Answers

Mr Hoban: The Department for Work and Pensions routinely takes account of population projections in planning its business. Social Security Benefits: Glasgow John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the amount that has been (a) overpaid and (b) underpaid in benefits in each of the last five years in (i) Glasgow North West constituency, (ii) Glasgow, (iii) Scotland [167712] and (iv) the UK. Steve Webb: Constituency, Glasgow-wide and Scotland fraud and error estimates are not available. The estimated amount of money overpaid and underpaid through benefit fraud and error in Great Britain can be found on the DWP National Statistics Fraud and Error in the Benefit System webpage: http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/ index.php?page=fraud_error

For the last five years the estimated level of benefit fraud and error was as follows: Overpayments £ billion

Percentage

Underpayments £ billion

Percentage

1

3.5 2.1 1.4 0.9 2012-13 2011-12 3.4 2.1 1.3 0.8 2010-11 3.2 2.1 1.2 0.8 2009-10 3.3 2.2 1.3 0.9 2008-09 2.9 2.2 1.2 0.9 1 2012-13 are preliminary estimates based on estimated 2012-13 financial year expenditure and October 2011 to September 2012 sample data for individual benefits.

Northern Ireland fraud and error estimates, which are comparable to the above Great Britain statistics, can be found at: http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/publications/annual_reports/ publications-ssa-annual-reports.htm

John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that all those entitled to and in need of benefits in Glasgow North West constituency claim all relevant [167711] benefits. Mr Hoban: District and Regional Partnership Teams hold regular meetings with partner organisations and update them on benefit-related topics. Scotland’s DWP staff hold meetings with Scottish Customer Representative Groups three times a year, at which new benefits, changes to benefits and all other relevant information is provided to groups who represent our customers. One to one meetings also take place with these partner organisations, on an as and when basis. We direct claimants to the Gov.uk website: www.gov.uk

Population John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department is undertaking research on the effects of population growth in the UK on the Department’s services. [167714]

which includes a section on how to claim benefits and incorporates a Benefits Adviser Tool where potential claimants can find out what benefits they could be entitled to, anonymously. National campaigns are occasionally run to notify the general public of new benefits or to try and increase the take-up of existing ones.

589W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

If staff identify vulnerable customers who might need additional help in claiming all they are entitled to, a referral may be made to DWP’s visiting staff. General benefit advice is provided to employees faced with a large scale redundancy situation. In Scotland, Benefit Directorate participate in benefit information sessions for the Scottish Refugee Council for new arrivals to the country. I have no specific examples in relation to Glasgow North West. Social Security Benefits: Brighton Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of applications for employment and support allowance made by residents of Brighton and Hove unitary authority area were rejected on the basis of the findings of a work capability assessment in (a) the latest period for which figures are available and (b) the preceding period; and what proportion of such decisions were (i) reversed and [167276] (ii) upheld on appeal; (2) what proportion of incapacity benefit reassessment applications made by residents of Brighton and Hove unitary authority area were rejected on the basis of the findings of a work capability assessment in (a) the latest period for which figures are available and (b) the preceding period; and what proportion of such decisions were (i) reversed and [167277] (ii) upheld on appeal. Mr Hoban: Statistics on what proportion of applications for employment and support allowance made by residents of Brighton and Hove unitary authority area that were rejected on the basis of the findings of a work capability assessment and what proportion of such decisions were (i) reversed and (ii) upheld on appeal from 27 October 2008 to 31 May 2012 have been placed in the Library. Statistics on what proportion of incapacity benefit reassessment applications made by residents of Brighton and Hove unitary authority area that were rejected on the basis of the findings of a work capability assessment from 27 October 2008 to 31 May 2012 can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/departmentfor-work-pensions/series/employment-and-support-allowanceoutcomes-of-work-capability-assessment

Information on what proportion of such decisions were (i) reversed and (ii) upheld on appeal is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost. Unemployment: Young People Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what change there has been in the level of youth unemployment in the last three years; and what steps he plans to take to reduce youth unemployment [167855] in the next two years. Mr Hoban: Youth unemployment is at a similar level now to when the coalition took office, having risen by nearly 250,000 in the two years leading up to the 2010 general election. There have been periods of both rising and falling youth unemployment since 2010 but recent figures have been encouraging, with the number of unemployed

Written Answers

590W

16 to 24-year-olds (excluding those who are full-time students) down 37,000 in the year to April to June 2013, to 676,000. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance also fell by 72,100 in the year to July 2013, to 381,300. Although improving, youth unemployment remains too high. That is why we have modernised our services by giving Jobcentre Plus advisers access to a comprehensive menu of help tailored to support the individual at the most appropriate point in their claim. We introduced the Youth Contract which will provide nearly half a million new opportunities for young people— including wage incentives, incentives to take on apprentices, and extra work experience placements. Extra funding is being made available to support the most vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds not in education, employment or training into learning, an apprenticeship or job with training. Young people also have access to the Work programme which provides tailored support for those claimants furthest from the labour market. Young claimants are referred to a provider after 9 months of seeking work and those with more challenging barriers to work can be referred at three months. Providers are paid on the results they achieve, and are paid more for supporting the harder to help into work. Universal Credit Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 19 June 2013, Official Report, column 707W on free school meals, for what reasons free school meals were not included in universal credit pathfinders from the outset. [167280] Mr Hoban: As outlined in the answer on 19 June 2013, free school meals were included in universal credit from the outset. John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of universal credit in [167710] incentivising work. Mr Hoban: Universal credit will lead to an increase in employment due to improved financial incentives, simpler and more transparent system, and changes to the requirements placed on claimants. Overall, this could lead to the equivalent of up to 300,000 additional people in work. We published our assessment of the likely impact of universal credit in December last year. This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-creditimpact-assessment

We will monitor and evaluate the effects of universal credit as the programme rolls out. Details of our evaluation framework are at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-creditevaluation-framework

Vacancies Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the most recent statistics on vacancies by constituency will be published. [167848]

591W

Written Answers

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Mr Hoban: DWP is working with Monster Worldwide Limited, the Universal Jobmatch supplier, on a timetable for prioritising and implementing improvements to the available Universal Jobmatch Ml, including breakdowns by parliamentary constituency, subject to funding, and so it has no current plans to publish statistics on vacancies by constituency. Any snapshot of unfilled vacancies at a point in time will miss the regular turnover of new vacancies that are notified as existing opportunities are filled. It will also miss jobs coming up through other recruitment channels or filled by direct approaches to employers or word of mouth. Vacancies: Fraud

Written Answers

592W

bogus/fraudulent employers from accessing the service. Checks are also made to identify inappropriate, fraudulent and bogus jobs in order to block them from being posted. Additionally, a ‘Contact Us’ facility is provided so users can quickly highlight any employers that users may have concerns about, which are then fully investigated. Work Capability Assessment Mr Byrne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to his Department’s announcement of 22 July 2013 on improving the Work Capability Assessment, if he will publish his Department’s audit which identified an unacceptable reduction in the quality of written reports produced following assessments. [167846]

Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is [167551] taking to tackle sham job advertisements. Mr Hoban: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) takes approximately 4 million job vacancies from about 330,000 employers every year. During the period January 2013 to August 2013, 312 employer accounts were identified as inappropriate and closed. Although a relatively small percentage of the total number of vacancies handled, the Department regards any infiltration of its services as a serious matter and takes immediate steps to minimise adverse impact to jobseekers. Since 19 November 2012 DWP has operated Universal Jobmatch, an online self service job posting and matching service for both employer/recruiters and jobseekers. Before using the service all employers must confirm that the jobs they advertise are genuine. The service proactively identifies potentially inappropriate job advertisements by checking for known IP addresses (through specific computer recognition) and email domains that are linked to this activity. Searches are also undertaken to identify particular words/phrases to eliminate potentially improper access. Where it is known that Universal Jobmatch has been directly targeted, the offending job advert is removed immediately. In cases where DWP establish evidence that jobseekers have been matched to potentially spurious jobs, immediate action is taken to alert the Jobseeker not to proceed further with the job application. DWP has also worked with police authorities to support the pursuit of criminal proceedings. Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are taken to ensure the authenticity of businesses placing job advertising in [167552] Jobcentre Plus premises. Mr Hoban: Registration for Universal Jobmatch is through the Government Gateway. Employers are obliged to sign up to detailed terms and conditions, agreeing that the jobs they advertise on the Universal Jobmatch service are available to jobseekers on an open and fair basis; and that all vacancies comply with employment related legislation including the Equality Act 2010, Health and Safety legislation and working time regulations. Built into the service are monitoring tools and vacancy checks, which help to detect, deter and remedy inappropriate use of the site. The service is designed to block known

Mr Hoban: I intend to provide Parliament with a full update on this matter in the autumn and will publish our audit findings alongside this. Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to publish the Evidence Based Review of the Work Capability [167858] Assessment. Mr Hoban: Our original intention was to publish the final report for the Evidence Based Review of the Work Capability Assessment in the spring/summer of 2013; however, in order to ensure a robust examination of the evidence collected, we will now we publishing later than expected, with the final report produced by the end of the year. Work Programme Stephen Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people returned to Job Centre Plus after completing two years on the Work Programme in (a) June, (b) July and (c) August 2013. [167859]

Mr Hoban: The next release of Work programme Official Statistics on the 26 September 2013 will include figures for the first time on those who complete the Work programme at 104 weeks. Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to ensure that organisations participating in the Work programme [167875] deliver in accordance with their contracts. Mr Hoban: Providers delivering the Work programme are required to at least meet minimum performance levels set out in contracts. Those not meeting minimum levels will be issued with formal notices requiring them to improve, with the prospect of losing contracts if they fail to do so. Providers are also required to deliver at least the minimum standard of service they promise for each participant. To ensure promised service standards are being delivered, the Department conducts a monthly review of a sample of participants from each contract, requiring providers to rectify any shortcomings identified. This is backed up by an accessible and independently backed complaints process that enables participants to raise concerns they might have with the support they receive.

7MC

Ministerial Corrections

6 SEPTEMBER 2013

Ministerial Correction Friday 6 September 2013

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT Charities David T. C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish a table listing every charity which receives more than 25% of [167261] its funding from her Department. [Official Report, 2 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 11W.] Letter of correction from Hugh Robertson: An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on 2 September 2013. The full answer given was as follows: Hugh Robertson: The following charities receive more than 25% of their funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport: Arts Council England British Film Institute British Library British Museum Churches Conservation Trust English Heritage Geffrye Museum Horniman Museum Imperial War Museum National Film and Television School National Gallery National Museums Liverpool (National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside)

Ministerial Corrections

8MC

National Portrait Gallery Natural History Museum Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich Royal Armouries Royal Museums Greenwich (National Maritime Museum) Science Museum Group Sir John Soane’s Museum Victoria & Albert Museum Wallace Collection.

The correct answer should have been: Hugh Robertson: The following charities receive more than 25% of their funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport: Arts Council England British Film Institute British Library British Museum Churches Conservation Trust English Heritage Geffrye Museum Horniman Museum Imperial War Museum National Film and Television School National Gallery National Museums Liverpool (National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside) National Portrait Gallery Natural History Museum Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich Royal Armouries Royal Museums Greenwich (National Maritime Museum) Science Museum Group Sir John Soane’s Museum Victoria & Albert Museum Wallace Collection Youth Sport Trust.

WRITTEN STATEMENTS Friday 6 September 2013 Col. No.

Col. No.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 33WS Public Sector Equality Duty Review ...................... 33WS

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 34WS Domestic Violence and Abuse (England and Wales) ................................................................ 34WS Immigration Rules ................................................. 35WS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS............................................................... 34WS Water Bill (Flood Insurance Clauses)..................... 34WS

JUSTICE................................................................... 37WS Judicial Review ...................................................... 37WS

PETITION Friday 6 September 2013 Col. No.

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... A Unified Welsh Power Grid..................................

13P 13P

WRITTEN ANSWERS Friday 6 September 2013 Col. No.

Col. No.

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. Arms Trade: Export Controls ................................ Arms Trade: Trade Fairs ........................................ Comet Group......................................................... Conditions of Employment.................................... Exports: Government Assistance ........................... Exports: Syria ........................................................ Overseas Companies: China................................... Royal Mail .............................................................

533W 533W 533W 534W 534W 535W 535W 538W 538W

DEFENCE—continued Territorial Army .................................................... 545W

CABINET OFFICE................................................... Communities First Fund........................................ Conflict, Stability and Security Fund..................... Death: Drugs ......................................................... Public Sector: Procurement .................................... Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill ..................................................................... Voluntary Work: Young People..............................

538W 538W 539W 539W 541W

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. Housing: Construction........................................... Right to Buy Scheme ............................................. Temporary Accommodation: West Midlands.........

541W 541W 542W 542W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... Broadband ............................................................. Broadband: North Yorkshire ................................. Creative Industries Council.................................... Gambling............................................................... Internet: Bullying ................................................... Public Libraries...................................................... Social Networking ................................................. Staff ....................................................................... Young People: Suicide............................................

562W 562W 562W 562W 563W 563W 564W 564W 565W 565W

DEFENCE................................................................. Chemicals: Exports ................................................ HMS Dragon ......................................................... Military Bases: Germany ....................................... RAF Akrotiri......................................................... Syria.......................................................................

543W 543W 543W 543W 544W 545W

541W 541W

EDUCATION............................................................ Academies.............................................................. Children: Day Care ................................................ Conferences ........................................................... Education: Finance ................................................ GCSE .................................................................... Primary Education: South Yorkshire ..................... Schools: Inspections............................................... Schools: Playing Fields .......................................... Schools: Vocational Guidance................................ Teachers: Lancashire.............................................. Teachers: Qualifications ......................................... Working Parties .....................................................

546W 546W 546W 547W 547W 547W 548W 549W 549W 550W 550W 551W 551W

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... Carbon Emissions: Business................................... Energy.................................................................... Energy: Meters....................................................... Hinkley Point Power Stations................................. Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs ......................... Staff ....................................................................... Tidal Power............................................................ Travel .....................................................................

565W 565W 566W 569W 570W 570W 570W 570W 571W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... Burundi.................................................................. Chemicals: Exports ................................................ Colombia ............................................................... Israel ...................................................................... Kashmir ................................................................. Kidnapping............................................................ Middle East ........................................................... Rwanda..................................................................

571W 571W 572W 572W 572W 573W 573W 573W 573W

HEALTH................................................................... Dental Services: Veterans ....................................... Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome ............................. Mental Capacity Act 2005 ..................................... Smoking.................................................................

574W 574W 574W 574W 574W

Col. No.

Col. No.

HEALTH—continued Tobacco: Packaging ............................................... 576W

TRANSPORT—continued High Speed 2 Railway Line .................................... 560W Marine Management Organisation ........................ 561W Rolling Stock ......................................................... 561W

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY COMMITTEE ...... Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority... Meetings ................................................................ Members’ Staff ...................................................... Selsdon Park Hotel ................................................ Standards............................................................... Treasury .................................................................

551W 551W 553W 553W 554W 555W 555W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 556W Developing Countries: Taxation ............................ 556W JUSTICE................................................................... Electronic Government: Welsh Language .............. Electronic Tagging ................................................. Juries: Mental Illness.............................................. Legal Aid Scheme .................................................. Offenders: EU Nationals........................................ Pornography .......................................................... Regulation ............................................................. Squatting ............................................................... Written Questions: Government Responses ...........

556W 556W 556W 557W 557W 557W 558W 558W 558W 559W

LEADER OF THE HOUSE ..................................... 559W Adjournment Debates............................................ 559W Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill ..................................................................... 559W PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 560W Russia .................................................................... 560W TRANSPORT ........................................................... 560W Blue Badge Scheme ................................................ 560W

TREASURY .............................................................. Child Benefit Office and Child Support Agency .... Coastal Communities Fund: Northern Ireland ...... Council Tax: Rebates ............................................. Crown Lands and Estates: Minerals....................... Entertainments: Tickets ......................................... Excise Duties: Tobacco .......................................... Fracking: Scotland................................................. Gift Aid ................................................................. Historic Buildings: Repairs and Maintenance ........ Housing Benefit: Fraud.......................................... Jobseeker’s Allowance............................................ PAYE ..................................................................... Public Sector Debt ................................................. Tax Allowances: Cultural Heritage ........................ Taxation: Developing Countries ............................ VAT: Imports .........................................................

577W 577W 577W 578W 578W 578W 579W 579W 579W 580W 580W 581W 582W 582W 583W 584W 584W

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... Atos Healthcare ..................................................... Digital Technology................................................. Employment and Support Allowance .................... Occupational Pensions ........................................... Personal Independence Payment: Appeals ............. Population ............................................................. Social Security Benefits: Brighton .......................... Social Security Benefits: Glasgow .......................... Unemployment: Young People............................... Universal Credit..................................................... Vacancies ............................................................... Vacancies: Fraud.................................................... Work Capability Assessment.................................. Work Programme...................................................

585W 585W 585W 586W 586W 587W 587W 589W 588W 589W 590W 590W 591W 592W 592W

MINISTERIAL CORRECTION Friday 6 September 2013 Col. No.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... Charities ................................................................

7MC 7MC

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote Office. The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. 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 Friday 13 September 2013 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 Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 567 No. 45

Friday 6 September 2013

CONTENTS Friday 6 September 2013 Deep Sea Mining Bill [Col. 590] Motion for Second Reading—(Sheryll Murray)—agreed to United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill [Col. 639] Motion for Second Reading—(Mr Meacher) Work Capability Assessments [Col. 655] Debate on motion for Adjournment Written Statements [Col. 33WS] Petition [Col. 13P] Observations Written Answers to Questions [Col. 533W] [see index inside back page] Ministerial Correction [Col. 7MC]