Clause
77
Costs
of policing at gas facilities: England and
Wales
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 199, in
page 55, line 7, after second
‘the’ insert ‘national security of
the’.
This is
really an issue of clarification. The clause applies where
“provision of extra police
services at a gas facility in England or Wales is necessary because of
a risk of loss of or disruption to the supply of gas connected with it,
and...that the loss or disruption would have a serious impact on
the United Kingdom or any part of it.”
The amendment seeks to emphasise
the point that this is necessary for the purposes of the prevention of
terrorism. I should be grateful if the Minister would
respond.
Mr.
McNulty:
I understand the broad thrust of the amendment,
and it is a difficult area in the sense that we seek to protect these
key facilities and afford in statute an ability for the operators to
recover their costs. We have already done this on a voluntary basis;
this simply puts it on a statutory basis. Given the importance of these
facilities for the economy and overall life of the UK, we want that
done all the time, 24/7, on a regular basis. Yes, crucially, that will
seek to prevent terrorist incursion to disrupt those facilities, but it
would just confuse things if we simply included the reference to the
national security of the UK, because we want protection all the time;
yes, principally protection from terrorism, but also for the broader
interest, economic and otherwise, of the facility.
I understand where the hon.
Member for Newark is coming from in terms of trying
to strengthen the anti-terrorist dimension of the clause, but the
amendment will not achieve that. In fact, it will probably lessen and
dilute the import of what we are trying to do to protect these
facilities. The point where the national security elements of such key
facilities stops, and their broader contribution to economic life
begins is, by definition, incredibly blurred. I sympathise with his
reasons for the amendment, but I do not think it works. The clause as
written achieves exactly what he seeks to achieve, and I would ask that
the amendment be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
This was a probing amendment, so I am happy to
withdraw it. We will come on to a couple of other
areas where it would be quite useful if the Minister could tell us a
little more about the discussions that have taken place between the
Government and those within the industry who will have to bear these
particular costs—which could be quite onerous—and whether
they are in fact happy and content with the measures provided in the
Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Heath:
I beg to move amendment No. 45, in
page 55, line 17, after
‘State’, insert ‘or a police
authority’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following amendments: No. 200, in page
55, line 17, leave out ‘in or around’ and insert
‘within a one mile radius
of’.
No. 201,
in
clause 78, page 56, line 2, leave
out ‘in or around’ and insert
‘within a one mile radius
of’.
Mr.
Heath:
Before I address the amendment, it might be helpful
to seek a definitional clarification, which is: what is meant by
“gas”? It is not defined in the Bill. I attempted
to table a probing amendment to seek to clarify that. I assume
we are talking about hydrocarbons—gas intended for fuel
use—but “gas” is a rather broad term, and I am
quite surprised that it is
not defined in the Bill. Perhaps there is a statutory meaning of
“gas” which already provides this; if so, it surprises
me.
The
Chairman:
Order. I have been very generous, but the hon.
Gentleman is speaking to amendments that have not been
selected.
Mr.
Heath:
I apologise, Mr. O’Hara. Perhaps
I went on at too great a length. It was a point that I would otherwise
have raised in the clause stand part debate. I was trying to avoid a
further debate at that
point.
Amendment No.
45 introduces the words “or a police authority”. This may
be a matter on which the Minister can very quickly reassure me. It is
clear that when extra police services are provided for the security of
gas facilities, they can come from two sources. They can come from the
Ministry of Defence police, in which case no problem arises, or they
can be provided under section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996, entitled
“Provision of special services”, in which case they will
of course be drawn from territorial police forces. All I am trying to
ensure—[Interruptio
n.
]
The
Minister says that I am wrong on that fact. If that is the case,
I am very happy to take an intervention.
10.15
am
Mr.
McNulty:
I am mindful of your exhortations, Mr.
O’Hara, and will wait until I respond to the debate.
Mr.
Heath:
That is the worst of all worlds: an intervention
that did not give me the answer. The point is that if police are
provided by a territorial force, it is appropriate that the police
authority that has the responsibility for funding
that force has the recompense from this levy back to their resources. I
know when I was chairman of a police authority, there was very great
resentment when the resources for policing national events or events
with national security implications had to come from already
overstretched police authority budgets. The end was willed by the
Government, but not the means to provide.
Mr.
McNulty:
The Bill makes provision for either the
MOD police or territorial police to provide that
policing. Under current arrangements, in many of these cases, there is
a central national pot that funds dedicated security posts. By and
large, that money is from the centre, given that these are national
provisions. I do take the point about abstraction from territorial
forces, but that has not been the case thus far and is unlikely to be
in the future.
Mr.
Heath:
I am grateful for that, which means I can
abbreviate my further points. I would like to be satisfied that that is
the case. I will give a direct example: the policing of Bristol airport
at times of high terrorist activity was a significant drain on the Avon
and Somerset constabulary. It meant abstraction from our
local constabularies: police officers who were
community officers in my area found themselves instead toting machine
guns at Bristol airport. It does seem appropriate that, where local
police authorities are having to carry the burden of a national
security responsibility, they are properly recompensed for it. I hope
and think the
Minister is assuring me that that is the case. If he can give that
assurance, I will be satisfied.
Mr.
Grieve:
I join in the comments made by the hon. Member for
Somerton and Frome. In addition, there are a couple of amendments that
we have tabled that are to be considered now. They are really
definitional, as to what constitutes “in and around” a
facility and whether that should be geographically defined. My question
to the Minister is whether what constitutes the provision of extra
police services in or around a facility will be a source of dispute if
no further geographical definition is given. The amendments propose 1
mile; they are probing amendments and again I come back to the nature
of the discussions that have taken place between the Government and the
industry itself and the providers, in terms of resolving these matters.
Will there be arguments over the interpretation of the text of the
statute?
Mr.
McNulty:
I certainly can assure the hon. Member for
Somerton and Frome that is not intended for this provision either to
come out or be abstracted from territorial forces that just happen to
have such a facility in their area. It is above and beyond
that.
I will not
quote the site but one example now has voluntarily 24 hours a day,
seven days a week armed response coverage by the MOD police. Prior to
them taking over the role, a small team from the territorial force
involved, fully funded from the dedicated security post central pot,
did that in its stead. We are trying to replicate that because I do
take the point about abstraction.
Without
incurring your wrath, Mr. O’Hara, the
points about airports are entirely separate and
different. The designated airports, that is the ex-BAA airports, do
need to come to some arrangement with the local police—Heathrow,
Gatwick and so on. The non-designated invariably do not or are always a
matter of dispute, rather like Bristol. So the hon. Gentleman will give
two cheers at least for the announcement among others yesterday of a
transport security Bill, which is designed to implement that aspect of
Stephen Boys Smith’s report that tries to restore the balance
between that crucial infrastructure—local airports—and
the burden on local police, simply because it happens to be in their
area. I digress, for which I
apologise.
While I am
on my feet—because I do not think there will be a need for a
clause stand part—if the hon. Gentleman turned the page gently
to clause 81(4) he
would see that all expressions used in the sections are defined in part
1 of the Gas Act 1986. That covers every aspect of what he referred to
earlier in terms of definition, narrowly defined, too, by the reference
in the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, which is the interplay
between those, and says what we want.
The
Chairman:
Order. That is precisely why the amendments were
not
selected.
Mr.
McNulty:
Thank you, Mr. O’Hara, for that
admonition for someone else through me.
I am not
inclined to accept the point about geography, not least because in our
discussions with Ofgem, the industry and the police, it is seen as an
operational matter. These are distinct and very different facilities.
In one case, to draw a half-mile radius might be more than sufficient
to encompass all the security and policing dimensions but, given their
nature, others might be far broader than that.
The broad intention would
be—largely informally and voluntarily—to have that drawn
up and agreed between the parties concerned. By their nature, some of
these sites are very close to coastal areas and rely
strongly on the road network and it is for the chief constable or the
principals concerned to determine where the security and policing
impact in terms terrorism or continued utilisation of those sites
should be drawn. On balance, while 1 km or 1 mile might be sufficient
in many areas, I do not want to restrict their hands in that context.
There can be broad agreement by the parties concerned as to what the
necessary curtilage around one of these sensitive sites would
be.
This seeks to put
in the Bill a statutory provision that is already carried out on some
sites on a voluntary basis. Hon. Members will know that these are very
important sites and we think that this is the way not to replicate the
airport position that imposes an undue burden on the local constabulary
simply because of the accidental geographical location of such
sensitive sites. I hope that the amendment will be
withdrawn.
Mr.
Heath:
That was an entirely satisfactory response. I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
It being twenty-five minutes
past Ten o’clock,
The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the
Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at
O
ne
o’clock.
| 
