6 Jan 2014 : Column 125
Sewerage undertakers’ duties as regards sewerage licensees
Amendment made: 23, page 158, line 13, leave out
‘taking away matter discharged from the’
and insert ‘providing sewerage services to’.—(Dan Rogerson.)
Extension of licensing provisions in relation to Wales
Amendments made: 24, page 164, line 44, at end insert—
24A (1) Section 38ZA (standards of performance in connection with the supply of water: water supply licensees) (inserted by section 29) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the words “or restricted retail authorisations” are repealed.
(3) In subsection (6), for the definition of “the Minister” there is substituted—
(a) the Secretary of State, in respect of the supply of water by a water supply licensee in accordance with the licensee’s retail authorisation using the supply system of a water undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England;(b) the Welsh Ministers, in respect of the supply of water by a water supply licensee in accordance with the licensee’s retail authorisation using the supply system of a water undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales;”.’.
Amendment 25, page 165, line 4, at end insert—
26A In section 63AC(4) (as substituted by section31), the words “or a restricted retail authorisation” are repealed.’.
Amendment 26, page 166, line 27, at end insert—
35A (1) Section 95ZA (standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services: sewerage licensees) (inserted by section 30) is amended as follows.
(a) the opening words of subsection (1),
for “the Secretary of State” there is substituted “the Minister”.
(3) In subsection (2), for “Secretary of State’s” there is substituted “Minister’s”.
(4) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
(a) the Secretary of State, in respect of the provision of services by a sewerage licensee in accordance with the licensee’s retail authorisation using the sewerage system of a sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England;(b) the Welsh Ministers, in respect of the provision of services by a sewerage licensee in accordance with the licensee’s retail authorisation using the sewerage system of a sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales;
“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister.”’.
Amendment 27, page 166, line 27, at end insert—
35B In section 96ZA (procedure for regulations under section 95ZA) (inserted by section30), for subsection (2) there is substituted—
6 Jan 2014 : Column 126
(2) In the application of section 96 by virtue of subsection (1)—
(a) a reference to a sewerage undertaker is to be treated as a reference to a sewerage licensee, and
(b) a reference to the Secretary of State is to be treated as a reference to the Minister (as defined in section 95ZA(6)).
(3) Regulations under section 95ZA are to be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 95ZA is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of—
(a) either House of Parliament, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) the National Assembly for Wales, in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers.
(5) Section 213(2) to (2B) applies to regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 95ZA as it applies to regulations made by the Secretary of State.”’.
Amendment 28, page 169, line 13, at end insert—
44A In section 195(3AA), after “water supply licensee” there is inserted “or a sewerage licensee”.’.—
(Dan Rogerson.)
Further amendments
Amendments made: 60, page 172, line 14, at end insert—
‘Water Act 1989 (c. 15)
(1) Section 174 of the Water Act 1989 (general restrictions on disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
(a) for “company” there is substituted “person”;
(b) for “on it” there is substituted “on the undertaker or, as the case may be, the person”.
(a) for “company” there is substituted “person”;
(b) for “its licence” there is substituted “the person’s licence”.’.
Amendment 29, page 173, line 14, after ‘40F,’, insert ‘63AC to 63AF,’.
Amendment 30, page 173, line 16, after ‘110G,’, insert ‘110L to 110O,’.
Amendment 31, page 189, line 16, after ‘manner’, insert ‘and with such frequency’.
Amendment 32, page 189, line 22, at end insert—
‘(1B) The Authority may direct that the requirement in subsection (1A) is not to apply to such water supply licensees as may be specified in the direction.”’.
Amendment 33, page 189, line 23, leave out from ‘subsection (2),’ to end of line 24 and insert
‘for “any such direction” there is substituted “a direction under subsection (1) or (1A)”.’.
Amendment 34, page 189, line 24, at end insert—
‘(4A) In subsection (2B), for “section 17B(5)” there is substituted “section 17B”.’.
Amendment 35, page 192, line 12, at end insert—
‘(2A) In subsection (1), in the opening words, after “above” there is inserted “or section 63AC(2)”.’.
Amendment 36, page 195, line 18, at end insert—
‘80A In section 95B (publication of statistical information about complaints)—
(a) in subsection (1), after “undertakers” there is inserted “or sewerage licensees”;
6 Jan 2014 : Column 127
(b) in subsection (2), after “undertakers” there is inserted “or sewerage licensees”.’.
Amendment 37, page 195, line 18, at end insert—
80B (1) Section 96A (information to be given to customers about overall performance) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “customers” there is inserted “, and, if the direction so specifies, sewerage licensees using the undertaker’s sewerage system for the purpose of providing sewerage services to the premises of customers,”.
(3) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
(1A) Each sewerage licensee must, in such form and manner and with such frequency as the Authority may direct, take steps to inform the licensee’s customers of—
(a) the standards of overall performance established under section 95ZA(1) which are applicable to that licensee;
(b) that licensee’s level of performance as regards those standards.
(1B) The Authority may direct that the requirement in subsection (1A) is not to apply to such sewerage licensees as may be specified in the direction.”
(4) In subsection (2), for “any such direction” there is substituted “a direction under subsection (1) or (1A)”.
(5) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
(2A) The sewerage licensees referred to in subsection (1) shall, if the Authority so directs, pass on the information about the matters mentioned in that subsection to their customers.
(2B) In subsection (1), the reference to the sewerage undertaker’s sewerage system is to be construed in accordance with section 17BA(7).”
(6) In subsection (3), after “undertaker” there is inserted “or sewerage licensee”.’.
Amendment 38, page 195, line 26, at end insert—
‘83A In section 102 (adoption of sewers and disposal works), in subsection (4) (sewerage undertaker to give notice of proposal), after “under this section” there is inserted—
“(za) shall give notice of its proposal to any sewerage licensee which uses, or removes matter from, the undertaker’s sewerage system in accordance with a retail, wholesale or disposal authorisation;”.’.
Amendment 39, page 195, line 34, at end insert—
‘85A In section 105C (adoption schemes: supplementary), in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) any sewerage licensee which uses, or removes matter from, the sewerage system of any such sewerage undertaker in accordance with a retail, wholesale or disposal authorisation;”.’.
Amendment 40, page 196, line 8, at end insert—
‘87A In section 113 (power to alter drainage system of premises in an area), in subsection (3), for the words from “notice of its proposals to” to the end of the subsection substitute “—
(a) the owner of the premises in question, and
(b) any sewerage licensee providing sewerage services to those premises.”’.
Amendment 41, page 196, line 8, at end insert—
‘87B In section 117 (interpretation of Chapter 2), in subsection (5)(a), after “the Water Resources Act 1991” there is inserted “or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/675)”.’.
Amendment 42, page 196, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
88 (1) Section 146 (connection charges etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) there is inserted—’.
Amendment 43, page 196, line 16, at end insert—
6 Jan 2014 : Column 128
(a) after “sewerage undertaker” there is inserted “or a sewerage licensee”;
(b) after “to the undertaker” there is inserted “or the licensee (as the case may be)”.
(4) In subsection (5), after “certain charges” there is inserted “by relevant undertakers”.’.
Amendment 44, page 196, line 16, at end insert—
‘88A In section 147 (charging for use of emergency water), in subsection (1), after “undertaker” there is inserted “or water supply licensee”.’.
Amendment 45, page 196, line 16, at end insert—
‘88B In section 150 (fixing maximum charges for services provided with the help of undertakers’ services), for subsection (1A) there is substituted—
(1A) This section does not apply to—
(a) water supplies provided by a water supply licensee, or
(b) sewerage services provided by a sewerage licensee,
to premises of customers in accordance with Chapter 1A of Part 2.”’.
Amendment 46, page 196, line 16, at end insert—
‘88C In section 152 (grants for national security purposes), in subsection (1), for “and licensed water suppliers” there is substituted “, water supply licensees and sewerage licensees”.’.
Amendment 61, page 196, line 16, at end insert—
‘In section 148 (restriction on charging for metering works), in subsection (2)(cc), after “section 66D” there is inserted “or 117E”.’.
Amendment 62, page 197, line 7, at end insert—
1 (1) Section 16 2 (works in connection with metering) is amended as follows.
(a) in paragraph (d), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(b) after paragraph (d) there is inserted “, or
(e) a sewerage licensee provides sewerage services in respect of those premises using the undertaker’s sewerage system.”
(3) In subsection (1B), for “section 17B(5)” there is substituted “section 17B”.
(4) After subsection (1B) there is inserted—
(1C) In subsection (1A)(e) above, the reference to the sewerage system of a sewerage undertaker shall be construed in accordance with section 17BA.”’.
Amendment 63, page 197, line 7, at end insert—
‘In section 163 (power to fit stopcocks), in subsection (1), for “a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “a water supply licensee”.’.
Amendment 64, page 197, line 16, at end insert—
1 (1) Section 174 (offences of interferences with works etc) is amended as follows.
(i) for “any licensed water supplier” there is substituted “any water supply licensee”;
(ii) for “any such supplier” there is substituted “any such licensee”;
(i) for “the supplier” there is substituted “the licensee”;
(ii) for “its licence” there is substituted “the licensee’s licence”.
(3) In subsection (2)(b), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”.
(a) in paragraph (b), in the opening words, for “a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “a water supply licensee”;
6 Jan 2014 : Column 129
(b) in paragraph (b)(i), for “the supplier” there is substituted “the licensee”;
(c) in paragraph (b)(ii), for “the supplier”, in both places, there is substituted “the licensee”;
(d) in the words following paragraph (b), for “section 17B(5)” there is substituted “section 17B”.
(a) in the opening words, for “the licensed water supplier” there is substituted “the water supply licensee”;
(b) in paragraph (a)(i), for “a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “a water supply licensee”;
(i) for “the supplier” there is substituted “the licensee”;
(ii) for “its licence” there is substituted “the licensee’s licence”;
(d) in paragraph (b), for “a supplier”, in both places, there is substituted “licensee”.
(a) in paragraph (a), for “a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “a water supply licensee”;
(i) for “the supplier” there is substituted “the licensee”;
(ii) for “its licence” there is substituted “the licensee’s licence”;
(a) for “a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “a water supply licensee”;
(b) for “the supplier” there is substituted “the licensee”.’.
Amendment 47, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
92A (1) Section 195 (the Authority’s register) is amended as follows.
(a) in paragraph (bc), for “66D(1)” there is substituted “66CA(1)”;
(b) in paragraph (g), for “or 66H above” there is substituted “, 66H, 117N or 117O”.
(3) In subsection (3AA), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”.
(4) Subsection (3A) is repealed.’.
Amendment 48, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
92B (1) Section 195A (reasons for decisions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(f), for “66D(1)” there is substituted “66CA(1)”.
(3) In subsection (3), after “appointment or” there is inserted “the person holding the”.’.
Amendment 49, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
92C (1) Section 201 (publication of certain information and advice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), for “company” there is substituted “person”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “Part II of this Act or” there is inserted “a person holding”.’.
Amendment 50, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
92D (1) Section 202 (duties of undertakers to furnish the Secretary of State with information) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1A), for “company”, in both places, there is substituted “person”.
(3) In subsection (3), for “company”, in each place, there is substituted “person”.
(a) after “particular company” there is inserted “or person”;
(b) after “to companies” there is inserted “or persons”;
(c) for “description or” there is substituted “description,”;
6 Jan 2014 : Column 130
(d) after “Part II of this Act or” there is inserted “to all the persons holding”.
(5) In subsection (5), for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”.’.
Amendment 52, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
92F (1) In section 205 (exchange of metering information between undertakers), in subsection (4)—
(a) the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) is repealed;
(b) in paragraph (b), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(c) after paragraph (b), there is inserted—
“(c) any sewerage licensee.”’.
Amendment 53, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
92G (1) Section 206 (restriction on disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
(1) In subsection (3)(b), for “a licensed water supplier of any of the duties imposed on it” there is substituted “a water supply licensee or sewerage licensee of any of the duties imposed on the licensee”.
(2) In subsection (5)(a), for “a licensed water supplier of activities under its licence” there is substituted “a water supply licensee or sewerage licensee of activities under the licence held by the licensee”.’.
Amendment 65, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
1 (1) Section 203 (power to acquire information for enforcement purposes) is amended as follows.
(a) in paragraph (a)(ii), for “company” there is substituted “person”;
(b) in paragraph (b), in the opening words—
(i) for “company which” there is substituted “person who”;
(ii) for “the company” there is substituted “the person”.
(3) In subsection (7), after “such an appointment or” there is inserted “a person holding such a”.’.
Amendment 66, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
1 (1) Section 208 (directions in the interests of national security) is amended as follows.
(a) for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”;
(b) for “or supplier” there is substituted “or licensee”.
(a) for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”;
(b) for “or supplier” there is substituted “or licensee”;
(c) for “requiring it” there is substituted “requiring that undertaker or licensee”.
(a) for “or licensed water supplier”, in both places, there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”;
(b) for “on it” there is substituted “on that undertaker or licensee”;
(c) for “to it” there is substituted “to that undertaker or licensee”.’.
Amendment 67, page 197, line 31, at end insert—
‘In section 211 (limitation on right to prosecute in respect of sewerage offences), in paragraph (b), after “undertaker;” there is inserted—
“(ba) a sewerage licensee;”.’.
Amendment 68, page 197, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
1 (1) Section 213 (powers to make regulations) is amended as follows.
6 Jan 2014 : Column 131
(a) the words “17D(8),” are repealed;
(b) after “36A” there is inserted “, 66M”.
(3) In subsection (2)(a), for “or sewerage undertaker or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, sewerage undertaker, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”.’.
Amendment 69, page 197, line 35, at end insert—
( ) in the definition of “customer or potential customer”, in paragraph (a), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”;’.
Amendment 70, page 197, line 37, at end insert—
( ) in the definition of “sewerage services”, for “includes” there is substituted “—
(a) in the case of a sewerage undertaker, includes”;
( ) in that definition, after the paragraph (a) so formed there is inserted “or
(b) in the case of a sewerage licensee, means the services provided by that person in that person’s capacity as a sewerage licensee;”;’.
Amendment 71, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
‘( ) After subsection (10) there is inserted—
(11) Subsection (10) does not apply to references to the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water in sections 8, 17AA, 51CA, 51CB, 66DB, 66P and 86ZA.”’.
Amendment 72, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 1A (the Water Services Regulation Authority), in paragraph 9(3), for paragraph (f) (and the “and” following it) there is substituted—
(fa) sewerage licensees; and”.’.
Amendment 73, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
‘1 (1) Schedule 2 (transitional provision on termination of appointments) is amended as follows.
(a) in sub-paragraph (3A)(a), for “a qualifying licensed water supplier” there is substituted “a qualifying water supply licensee or a qualifying sewerage licensee”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3A)(b), for “carry on activities” there is substituted “carry on—
(c) in sub-paragraph (3A)(b), after the sub-paragraph (i) so formed there is inserted “; or
(i) activities relating to the removal or removals of matter mentioned in section 23(9) of this Act which were carried on by the transferor until that date (as the case may be).”;
(d) in sub-paragraph (4), in the definition of “other relevant companies”, for “to be holding” there is substituted “to be—
(e) in sub-paragraph (4), in that definition, after the paragraph (a) so formed there is inserted “or
(b) holding appointments as sewerage undertakers for any area in which, or in part of which, the activities relating to the removal or removals of matter mentioned in section 23(9) of this Act will be carried on by the transferee (as the case may be);”.
(3) In paragraph 2(7A)(b), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”.’.
Amendment 74, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 8 (pre-1989 Act transitional authority for trade effluent discharges etc), after paragraph 2(3) there is inserted—
(3A) If a sewerage undertaker serves a notice under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to premises in respect of which a sewerage licensee provides sewerage services, the sewerage
6 Jan 2014 : Column 132
undertaker must send a copy of the notice to the sewerage licensee.”’.
Amendment 75, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
‘Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)
The Water Resources Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(1) Section 203 (exchange of information with respect to pollution incidents etc) is amended as follows.
(a) for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(b) for “supplier” there is substituted “licensee”;
(c) for “its licence” there is substituted “the licensee’s licence”.
(a) for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(b) for “supplier” there is substituted “licensee”.
(a) for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(b) for “supplier” there is substituted “licensee”.
(5) In subsection (4), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”.
(6) In subsection (5)(b), for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”.
(a) for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(b) for “a company” there is substituted “a person”.’.
Amendment 76, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
1 (1) Section 204 (restriction on disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
(a) for “company” there is substituted “person”;
(b) for “on it” there is substituted “on the undertaker or, as the case may be, the person”.
(a) for “a company” there is substituted “a person”;
(b) for “its licence” there is substituted “the person’s licence”.’.
Amendment 77, page 198, line 10, at end insert—
‘Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)
The Enterprise Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(1) Section 168 (regulated markets) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(ff), after “section 66D” there is inserted “or 117E”.
(3) In subsection (4)(ff), after “section 66D”, in both places, there is inserted “or 117E”.’.
Amendment 78, page 198, line 10, at end insert—
‘In section 249 (special administration regime), in subsection (1)(aa)—
(a) for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”;
(b) after “administration order)” there is inserted “or a qualifying sewerage licensee within the meaning of subsection (8) of that section”.’.
Amendment 79, page 198, line 14, at end insert—
1 (1) Section 52 (co-operation between water regulators) is amended as follows.
(a) in paragraph (a), for “and licensed water suppliers” there is substituted “, water supply licensees and sewerage licensees”;
(b) in paragraph (b), for “licensed water suppliers” there is substituted “water supply licensees”;
6 Jan 2014 : Column 133
(c) in paragraph (c), for “and licensed water suppliers” there is substituted “, water supply licensees and sewerage licensees”.
(3) After subsection (8) there is inserted—
“sewerage licensee” means a person holding a sewerage licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991;
“water supply licensee” means a person holding a water supply licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991.”’.
Amendment 80, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
‘Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32)
In Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Acts of the Assembly), in paragraph 19 (water and flood defence), in the second exception, for “licensed water supplier” there is substituted “water supply licensee”.’.
Amendment 81, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
‘Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 (c. 17)
The Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 is amended as follows.
In section 4 (meaning of “designated consumers”), in subsection (3)—
(a) for “or a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, a water supply licensee or a sewerage licensee”;
(b) for “its capacity” there is substituted “the undertaker’s or licensee’s capacity”.’.
Amendment 82, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
‘(1) Section 25 (enforcement by regulator of section 24 notice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for “its capacity” there is substituted “the person’s capacity”.
(3) In subsection (3), in the table, for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”.
(4) In subsection (7), for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”.’.
Amendment 83, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
In section 33 (supplementary provision about transfer and abolition orders), in subsection (10)—
(a) for “or a licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, a water supply licensee or a sewerage licensee”;
(b) for “its capacity” there is substituted “the undertaker’s or licensee’s capacity”.’.
Amendment 84, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
‘In section 41 (interpretation of Part 1), in subsection (1)—
(a) the definition of “licensed water supplier” is repealed;
(b) at the appropriate place there is inserted—
““sewerage licensee” means a person holding a sewerage licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991;”;
““water supply licensee” means a person holding a water supply licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991.”’.
Amendment 85, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
‘(1) Section 42 (interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in the table—
(a) in the first column, for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”;
(b) in the second column, for “or licensed water supplier in its capacity” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee in the undertaker’s or licensee’s capacity”.
(a) the definition of “licensed water supplier” is repealed;
6 Jan 2014 : Column 134
(b) at the appropriate place there is inserted—
““sewerage licensee” has the same meaning as in Part 1;”;
““water supply licensee” has the same meaning as in Part 1.”’.
Amendment 86, page 198, line 31, at end insert—
‘In section 52 (enforcement of requirements imposed under Part 2), in subsection (3), for “or licensed water supplier” there is substituted “, water supply licensee or sewerage licensee”.’.
Amendment 87, page 198, line 33, at end insert—
In section 6 (other Part 1 definitions), in subsection (11) (“water company”)—
(a) in the opening words, the words “a company which holds” are repealed;
(b) in paragraph (a), at the beginning insert “a company which holds”;
(c) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert “a person who holds”.’.—(Dan Rogerson.)
Commencement orders: appropriate authority
Amendment made: 54, page 214, line 21, at end insert—
9.26 pm
Dan Rogerson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I begin by thanking those who have been involved in the Bill. Members of the Public Bill Committee, under the excellent co-chairmanship of the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) and for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), did an outstanding job of ensuring that critical issues were debated in depth, and the considered amendments that were tabled allowed us to explore several issues in detail. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions over the past weeks and months—and, indeed, today. Members of the EFRA Committee scrutinised the draft Bill, and I was grateful for the continued engagement of current and former members of that Committee during our debates on the Bill, including on Report. The Bill leaves the House stronger as a result of the changes made to the draft Bill before the introduction of this legislation, and the amendments made in Committee and on Report.
The Bill addresses difficult challenges that we all accept that we are facing. Climate change and population growth will place our water resources under more pressure than ever before. At the same time, unfortunately, it is widely recognised that the future holds more frequent and severe weather events. We need to keep bills affordable while addressing those challenges, which means finding new approaches to encourage innovation and greater efficiency in the water industry. We also need an affordable solution to the problem of flood insurance for those at high risk of flooding.
6 Jan 2014 : Column 135
The Bill is just one part of the action that the Government are taking to secure our vision of a sustainable and resilient water sector. It provides a framework for greater competition with the aim of driving more efficiency and innovation. Its measures will ensure a resilient future in which water is available to all at an affordable price, but not at the expense of the environment. It will ensure that there is choice and flexibility for customers and that bills are kept affordable, that there is more innovation in the water industry, and that there are opportunities for new businesses so that the industry continues to attract crucial investment. The Bill will not only protect and improve the environment, but contribute to the growth of our economy.
The Bill will deal with the availability and affordability of flood insurance for households at high risk of flooding, and in the longer term it will ensure a smooth transition to a free market. The most significant change made to the Bill during its passage through the House was the addition of its flood insurance clauses in Committee. I am greatly encouraged by the support for our proposed approach of ensuring that households at high risk of flooding may access affordable flood insurance.
I visited the south-west flooding incident room last week, and I would like to thank all those who are still working hard on the ground to support people following such distressing events. Hon. Members know that our preferred approach on flood insurance is to create an industry-led flood reinsurance scheme. Flood Re will carefully target benefits towards low-income households, who are the people most in need of support during the managed transition to risk-reflective prices. In developing the scheme, we have been mindful of the costs of the levy, which will be spread across all those holding household policies. We believe that our proposals get the balance right, and it also right that we should take powers on a fall-back obligation to ensure that there is certainty for householders.
Just as we want to ensure affordable flood insurance, we also want to make sure that water bills continue to be affordable for everyone, and that has been a recurring theme of the debate on this Bill. We want those who are struggling to pay to get help. All water and sewerage companies have developed packages to help customers with affordability problems, and they include customer assistance funds, support tariffs, debt advice and water efficiency measures. Most water companies are taking action to put social tariffs in place in 2015. The most important thing we can do is make sure that everyone’s bills are kept affordable. Let us not forget that this is a sector subject to price-cap regulation, which means that Ofwat scrutinises and challenges the business plan of all water companies to secure a fair deal for customers. By taking account of lower financing costs, Ofwat estimates that the next price review could significantly reduce pressure on bills from 2015 by between £120 million to £750 million a year. This Bill will contribute to the affordability of bills for all. Measures will exert a downward pressure on bills by encouraging greater competition to keep bills as low as possible.
Greater competition will drive more efficiency and innovation in the water sector. All customers and the environment will benefit from an industry that is incentivised to find the most efficient ways to meet future demand.
6 Jan 2014 : Column 136
We are preparing to open the expanded retail market in 2017. Upstream reform will take place at a slower pace because of its increased complexity, which also means that we expect it to be introduced in parallel with longer-term abstraction reform.
In Committee and today, Members raised concerns about making legislation on upstream reform before the abstraction regime has been reformed. Let me assure Members again that we are confident that there are sufficient existing safeguards to prevent an unsustainable increase in abstraction in response to the implementation of upstream reform. We are tackling unsustainable abstraction now by varying and removing abstraction licences, but over the longer term we are committed to making the abstraction regime more flexible and resilient. A consultation on abstraction reform was launched on 17 December and we expect to legislate in the next Parliament.
Improving our approach to abstraction is critical, but it is only one part of our approach to ensuring the long-term resilience of our water resources. Today we amended the Bill to make it absolutely explicit that the new resilience duty is about ensuring the long-term resilience of both our water supply and sewerage services and the environment on which those services depend. I want to make it very clear that this is not about resilience of supply at the expense of our precious water resources. It is about ensuring that we all have enough water for the long term and that our environment does not suffer as a result.
I have no doubt that this Bill will continue to receive thorough scrutiny in another place. I look forward to following those discussions with interest. After that, I am looking forward to the implementation of the Bill. Experts are already working hard on the detailed work to develop new markets in water. The open water programme, which includes Government, regulators north and south of the border, water companies and customers, is developing the practical details of market implementation. It launched its market blueprint consultation last week.
We are also continuing to work with the Association of British Insurers, and I am grateful to it and the rest of the industry for their co-operation and hard work. I reiterate my thanks to all Members and all officials and staff who have aided in the preparation and passage of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
9.33 pm
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab): This Bill includes important reforms that build on three important reviews taken forward by the previous Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability and the Cave review on competition. It also follows on from the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that we took through Parliament before the last election. That is why the Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading and will do so again on Third Reading this evening.
We have backed measures to increase competition, extending to non-domestic customers the opportunity to switch supplier. Such an opportunity is already enjoyed in Scotland where it has been shown to be successful in reducing costs to business. We support the reforms intended to encourage new entrants into the market, and we back regulatory reforms aimed at ensuring long-term resilience of our water supplies. We also
6 Jan 2014 : Column 137
support the measures, at long last, to provide a statutory basis for agreement on flood reinsurance, providing relief to those who live in hard-to-insure households.
However, there remains a major hole at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the Government’s water policy. That is the absence of any serious attempt to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on household budgets, which is adding to the cost of living crisis. There is a real gulf between the rhetoric of the Government and the reality on this. Again, this evening, we have seen Government Members troop through the Lobby to stand up for the monopoly water companies, and against the interests of households. In his Second Reading speech, the Secretary of State assured the House:
“The package of reforms is designed to exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 49-50.]
Yet, time after time the Government have opposed sensible amendments that would have ensured that that was a reality in this Bill. For all the briefing to newspapers back in October, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are simply unwilling to do anything that might be perceived as interfering in a market that they believe is working well. I do not believe that consumers agree that a monopoly industry that enabled companies last year to make pre-tax profits of £1.9 billion and pay out dividends totalling £1.8 billion to shareholders is a market that is working and adequately regulated.
Our reforms would have introduced a new national affordability scheme, requiring all water companies to help those struggling with their bills. That would have ended the current postcode lottery whereby companies choose whether to offer a social tariff and set the criteria for eligibility. Just three companies have introduced such a scheme, helping just 25,000 households. In their submissions to Ofwat for the next price review period from 2015, we see that there are still companies that do not intend to set a social tariff and that those that do are proposing to assist a relatively small number of customers.
Given that Ofwat estimates that 2.6 million households—11%—currently spend more than 5% of their income on water, it is clear that only a tiny fraction of those struggling are being helped. It is also clear that many customers do not know about even the help that is available. Only a third of eligible households access WaterSure, which was introduced by Labour to help households that have a high level of water use due to a medical condition or because they have three or more children. Yet the Government have opposed our proposal to require water companies to include information with bills about the help available to customers, just as they have consistently opposed forcing water companies to publish annual information, including on their corporate structure, and on their levels of investment, taxation and dividends paid to shareholders, and then enabling Ofwat to take full account of that information when determining whether to re-open price settlements and cut bills.
Finally, our proposed reforms would have tackled bad debt, which adds £15 to the average bill, by requiring landlords to provide water companies with details of their tenants on request. We sought to give Ofwat powers to ban water companies that fail to act on bad debt from transferring the cost of lost revenue from
6 Jan 2014 : Column 138
non-paying customers to other bill payers. By rejecting all of these sensible measures, Ministers have wasted the perfect opportunity that this Bill offered to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on stretched household budgets. Instead, the Government’s preferred approach has been to send just one weakly worded letter to water bosses, begging them not to hike bills next year, without even a threat of action if they do not comply. So while the water companies are doing very well from their monopoly position, customers in this country will continue to pay among the highest bills in Europe.
Disappointingly, Ministers have also not been more willing to listen to concerns raised on other aspects of the Bill during its passage through this House. The Government’s only concession has been a grudging acceptance that it is right to make it clearer to Ofwat that it must have a higher regard to the environment in the way that it regulates the industry. The Government’s compromise is to stick to their decision to elevate “resilience” rather than “sustainability” but to require Ofwat to
“secure resilience in sustainable ways”.
We will have to consider carefully whether that sends a clear enough signal or not.
Disappointingly, Ministers have not heeded the concerns about the total amount of water taken from the environment if upstream competition happens ahead of abstraction reform. I welcome the fact that the consultation on abstraction licence system reform was finally launched just before recess, but, on the Government’s own timetable, reforms will not be implemented until the early 2020s, and upstream competition is due to begin in 2019.
Finally, it is disappointing that Ministers have rejected each of the sensible and modest proposals to improve the Flood Re scheme. The Secretary of State will have today heard the clear warnings from Sir David King, the Government’s special envoy on climate change, that changes to the climate will lead to
“quite a radical change in weather conditions”
and more frequent severe flooding. Requiring the Committee on Climate Change regularly to advise on the increase in the number of properties likely to be at risk of flooding as a result and the consequence for the Flood Re scheme was surely a sensible move, yet it has been rejected by the Government.
Similarly, it is difficult to see how the Government could have had any serious objections to strengthening incentives for the uptake of household flood protection measures—providing a right of appeal for those who find that their property has been removed from the scheme, allowing a right of public access to any Flood Re insurance database and publishing figures for the number of properties in the categories to be excluded from the scheme.
This Bill contains important reforms, but it remains seriously flawed as it leaves this House; flawed because it does not sufficiently protect the environment; flawed because the Flood Re insurance scheme will not be in place until 2015 but also remains disconnected from future increases in at-risk properties as a result of our changing climate; flawed because it has failed to toughen the powers of the regulator to cut bills; flawed because it leaves it to the water companies to decide whether to establish a social tariff and preserves the postcode lottery on eligibility; and flawed because it does nothing
6 Jan 2014 : Column 139
to protect customers who pay their bills from seeing higher charges as a result of those who can pay but will not. This Bill could have delivered a framework for that new deal with the water companies. Instead, a huge opportunity to tackle water’s contribution to the cost of living crisis has been missed.
9.40 pm
Miss McIntosh: We have had a good debate today. I welcome the Bill and thank all those involved in preparing it, including my right hon. and hon. Friends. Obviously, a lot of work remains to be done to it in the other place, and we will watch those developments with interest.
I welcome the introduction of retail competition. The Select Committee would like to have seen the primary duty of sustainability in preference to resilience. I believe that too much detail has been left to be fixed at a later stage. I enjoyed the comment from my hon. Friend the Minister on not wanting to rely too much on regulation, because just about every clause calls for implementing regulation to be drafted. We will leave that conundrum with him.
Competition is to be welcomed. It should lead to greater efficiency. In particular, I hope that both the current 2014 price review and the competition provisions permitted following the Bill will lead to more innovation, not least following these weeks of sustained and considerable flooding across the country. I applaud the Government’s search for a partnership approach and for more private enterprise funding for flood prevention measures. I hope that the water companies will step up to the plate in that regard and that other private sector companies might help to fund schemes from which they might benefit.
I believe that there are still opportunities to write other provisions into the Bill before it receives Royal Assent, not least with regard to the partnership approach to flood prevention measures, which has been mentioned this evening, but also for increasing the amount of maintenance that can be done by internal drainage boards. We await the results of the pilot schemes, whereby DEFRA is allowing landowners to permit their own maintenance to be done on the watercourses locally, to see whether that scheme can be rolled out.
It is a joy to me that tomorrow we will see the Pickering pilot project in my constituency reach its final phase with the cutting of the first sod of earth, which will enable the reservoir to be built. It is a great disappointment for me personally, as I am sure it is for many in the country, that the sustainable drainage systems, which are left over from the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, will still not be on the statute book by April this year. SUDS, on their own, will do a huge amount to prevent surface water flooding from entering sewerage systems through the combined sewage pipes that we have heard so much about today and that can cause sewage spills on to roads and, regrettably, into homes and other properties.
Perhaps the most innovative aspects of the Bill that are to be welcomed are those relating to flood insurance. I commend Flood Re, but I hope that the Minister will
6 Jan 2014 : Column 140
have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised today, not least from the Select Committee. We expect to see the same respect and acknowledgment of value for money in that as in other schemes. We will be looking to see that that is confirmed as we go forward.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con): My hon. Friend praises the SUDS system, but will she take into account, and ask our hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take into account, the fact that we may be building up considerable liabilities for ourselves in future if SUDS systems are inadequately designed by developers who have clever consultants and local authorities do not have the expertise to vet whether those systems are adequate in the type of floods that we are seeing at the moment?
Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to read our proceedings tomorrow and see the debate that we have had on SUDS. For reasons that the Minister has not rehearsed in full, the SUDS regulations will not be on the statute book by April. I am sure that there are very good reasons for that, including those that my hon. Friend raised, but I do believe that SUDS will have a substantial role to play.
If the flood insurance system leaves out leasehold flats, that will be a matter of concern.
Dan Rogerson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on this point, as I did not have the opportunity to deal with it on Report. I assure her that householders living in those sorts of properties would have access to the contents aspects of flood insurance if they were council tax payers.
Miss McIntosh: That will be very welcome news. As I said, I was alerted to this problem after the time for tabling amendments had expired.
What we have seen this week and saw in the weeks running up to Christmas shows the scale of the challenge that we face. I welcome the all-party approach that we have seen across the House today and in Committee, which I was not at liberty to participate in. That is a very good basis on which the Bill can go forward from this House, and I commend it to its future stages.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Scottish Affairs
That Mrs Eleanor Laing be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Welsh Affairs
That Jonathan Edwards be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Hywel Williams be added. .—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
6 Jan 2014 : Column 141
Access to Justice (British Citizens Abroad)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)
9.47 pm
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): My remarks will be in three sections, and then I have two questions and three requests to put to the Minister. First, I want to talk about the young man for whom I speak this evening—Tyrell Matthews-Burton, sadly no longer with us. Secondly, I want to talk about the inconsistent nature of the assistance that has been provided to his family since his tragic murder. Thirdly, I want to talk about the existing protocol for supporting families who have lost loved ones abroad in such instances as this case. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) also wishes to speak, and I want to ensure that the Minister has ample time to respond to the concerns that we are raising.
On 23 July last year, Tyrell’s 19th birthday and the last night of his first holiday abroad without his mum, while out with his friends celebrating not just his birthday but their chance to go to university, he was brutally killed while trying to stop a fight in a bar in Malia. I do not know who killed Tyrell, and I am not here to prosecute the case against those who stand accused; I am here to ask how we ensure that every British family who has a loved one killed or go missing abroad knows that their country will stand by them. This is every parent’s nightmare.
Tyrell was a young man in his prime, with a passion for fashion, which he hoped to make a career of, and popular with friends and family and, indeed, young ladies. He was cut down before he had the chance to show the world what he was capable of. Then he was disgracefully slandered in the press by Greek officials as a member of a gang. I have written to Greek officials asking for an apology for this, but I am sad to say that, six months on, it is yet to appear. Since Tyrell’s death, the distress caused to his family by the Greek authorities has been continuous, from the dismissive actions of the Greek coroner to the casual return of the clothes that Tyrell was wearing the night he was killed in the post and the continued total lack of communication with and respect shown to a grieving family. But I am not here tonight to call to account the Greek authorities as to why they seem to care so little for this young man’s life. I am here to ask: what is the appropriate role of the British authorities in such matters?
I am sure the Minister has been briefed on the family’s concerns—from being told consistently by the consulate that it could not find out anything about the investigation and simply to find a lawyer, to then being given the details of lawyers who represented the person accused of Tyrell’s killing and being subjected to a tirade as to their innocence. The consulate staff knew themselves that the clothes, with possible DNA evidence, were being returned to the family, but they did not question this and simply telephoned ahead to ensure that the family would be in when the courier arrived. Tyrell’s mother was told that if she wanted someone to explain the difference between a UK and a Greek pathologist report, she should go to her own GP for help.
But I have not asked for this debate to talk about lessons learned in sensitivity; I have done so primarily
6 Jan 2014 : Column 142
because I believe that without intervention there is a risk that the human rights of the victim’s family are being infringed. The Minister will know that we have been repeatedly told that formal requests for information have been rebuffed by the Greek authorities. Our consulate tells me that it cannot even find out matters such as a possible date for the trial or the charges laid, even though it claims to have registered an interest in the case.
The Minister will also know that, for Tyrell’s hard-working, single mother, the cost of legal advice is prohibitively expensive. Therefore, the only information the family have had about the case has been through press reports of the claims of the family of the accused.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the obligations under European Union law that all member states must ensure protection for the rights of crime victims, which international law defines as including the families of murder victims. The EU framework has been fully in force since 2006. It requires that victims and their families are kept involved and informed throughout criminal investigations and criminal trials, including the provision of detailed information in a form and language that they can understand, and for free when they cannot afford to pay. There are also requirements of co-operation between member states, so the UK must ensure that the family’s rights are upheld by Greece. My first question, therefore, is: does the Minister believe that the conduct of the UK Government on this matter to date is in accordance with those legal requirements?
The Prime Minister kindly agreed to meet Tyrell’s mother in September to try to help matters, but I am afraid to say that it was not the breakthrough for which we had all hoped. I know that the Foreign Office itself is disappointed with the advice it has given. It admits that the former team at the Ministry of Justice that managed such matters has been disbanded, so there is no institutional memory as to how we should address such cases. Regretfully, we are now told—contrary to the Prime Minister’s own personal suggestion—that Tyrell’s mother is not eligible for legal aid as a family member of a victim of crime. Nor would she be eligible under the Greek system; even if she was, there would be no guarantee that the person would speak English.
The family were then told that there is no public funding for representation, and so the official advice from Foreign Office officials was that the family should approach Tyrell’s former employer—he had a Saturday job at Next—or the mother’s current employer, a housing association, to ask them to fund legal advice. When I queried this, the officials simply told me this was standard practice, so my second question to the Minister is: will he confirm whether that standard practice is in accordance with the EU framework that the UK has ratified?
Thankfully, in the past few weeks some progress has started to be made. Money has now been made forthcoming from Victim Support. This limited funding, granted in December, will cover an initial instruction for a Greek lawyer, yet this £1,800 is the sum total of support we have given as a nation to this grieving mother in a case where the costs could reach €20,000.
I am also still waiting for a response from the Foreign Office following its commitment to ask the ambassador to raise this matter with the Greek authorities; to secure a meeting for the family and myself with the Greek authority representatives here; to ask the police lead for
6 Jan 2014 : Column 143
an update; and to speak to the judge in Greece about meeting the family. Those promises were made at the start of December.
Sadly, this is not an unusual case. My final points refer to the protocol that is supposed to define the treatment of families in such matters. There is a memorandum of understanding on what should happen in dreadful cases of a British national being murdered abroad. It was formalised between the Foreign Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the coroners of England and Wales in 2011. It specifically decrees that where a matter involves both a British national as a victim and a British national as a suspect, the UK police can appoint a senior investigating officer. Indeed, under section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the suspect can be prosecuted in England and Wales.
Despite the fact that this case meets that test, there has been no involvement in the investigation of this matter or movement on it by the police in relation to bringing the case to the UK for trial, even though the Prime Minister agreed to raise it with the Met. An SIO was finally appointed when the Prime Minister intervened, but nothing more has happened. The police have said that, as the Greek police have refused their help, there is nothing they can do. That stands in contrast to other well-known cases, such as that of Madeleine McCann, where the Prime Minister’s intervention has rightly been crucial to making progress.
Of concern to me is the failure of the police to act when the defendant conducted a public interview with the British press that was broadcast in the UK. I alerted the Met before the broadcast of the film and asked them to ensure that it would not affect the possibility of a trial here. I am afraid that that did not happen. The Foreign Office has told me, with circular logic, that
“because we don’t know the quality of the Greek investigation they have decided they cannot tell whether it would be appropriate to ask the MET to get involved”.
We therefore cannot know whether the investigation is proceeding appropriately. Our authorities are not following their own protocol. What confidence can we have that justice will be done?
In addition to my requests about clarification of the EU legal framework, I have three requests for the Minister. First, I ask him to request the Greek authorities to meet me and Tyrell’s family directly to update them on the status of the investigation and the time scale for the trial. That this has not happened yet—and, indeed, that no offer to arrange it has been made, except because of my request—is I am sure something on which the Minister will wish to reflect: it should not take a cross MP for our representatives to want such authorities to speak to a victim’s family.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the Foreign Office will ensure that Victim Support has the funds to be able to provide full financial assistance to ensure Ms Matthews has legal representation in the trial, or will he and the British Government request, as per the memorandum of understanding, that the matter is now brought back to UK authorities for trial and investigation by the UK police?
Finally, I urge the Government to review their protocol for the management of such cases. We cannot have a fair and just system if only those families who can
6 Jan 2014 : Column 144
secure a media presence receive the intervention they need when something terrible happens to a family member overseas. Baroness Browning confirmed that the Home Secretary and Prime Minister intervened in the case of Madeleine McCann because they believed her to be alive, and their intervention included a commitment to ensure that the police had what she termed the “necessary funding”.
Tyrell may no longer be with us, but his right to justice lives on, as do the rights of his family and those of other murdered British citizens. It cannot be beyond the realm of possibility for our Government to have a clearer and fairer protocol for the provision of appropriate support and intervention, subject to differences in countries’ legal systems, to ensure that families have the representation and assistance that they need. If this involved any of our families, we would wish for such certainty of assistance, as does Ms Matthews, who faced her first Christmas without her son this year and who continues to grieve, still not knowing whether she will be able to see justice done for Tyrell or even hear when it will occur.
9.58 pm
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing it and on presenting her arguments so powerfully and in such detail.
My interest in speaking in this debate relates to the fact that the individual currently detained in Greece on suspicion of murdering Tyrell Matthews-Burton is a young man called Myles Litchmore-Dunbar. Myles is my constituent, and in the past six months I have been in contact with his parents Chris and Carole, and his aunt Denise. The whole family have serious concerns about the way in which the Greek authorities have handled the murder investigation. They believe the support that has been provided to them by the British Government to be wholly inadequate. They believe passionately that the British police should be involved in investigating Tyrell’s murder.
I am not here tonight to assert any individual’s guilt or innocence. This was an horrific crime and I want whoever committed it to be brought to justice.
10 pm
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)
Heidi Alexander: Although I do not come to the Chamber to assert any individual’s guilt or innocence, I would like to say for the record that Myles Litchmore-Dunbar maintains his innocence and argues that on the night of 23 July last year in Malia, he too was attempting to break up the brawl that led to the stabbing of Tyrell.
When crimes are committed in the UK, many of us take it for granted that the British police will investigate fully and fairly, and that our legal system will give both sides a fair hearing in the pursuit of justice. Although I recognise that I do not know the full facts of the case, I believe on the basis of what I have been told that there is reason for the British Government to be worried that the process that is under way in Greece will not result in
6 Jan 2014 : Column 145
the sort of justice that we would expect to be delivered in our country. I want justice to be done, I want the right person to be convicted of the murder of Tyrell Matthews-Burton and I want the British Government to help make that happen.
My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that the clothing that Tyrell was wearing on the night of his death has been posted back to his family in the UK. I am at a loss to understand why that clothing was not retained in Greece as evidence. I am concerned that that suggests that the Greek authorities are failing to deal with the matter appropriately. I could give other examples that lead me to say that, but I am not entirely sure that this is the appropriate forum to do so. I have communicated my concerns to the Prime Minister in writing.
I am here tonight because I want to be assured that the British Government are doing everything they can to press the Greek authorities to investigate this crime in a rigorous, professional and timely manner. I ask the Government to think again about British police involvement in the investigation. A British man was killed in a brawl that involved another 18 or so British citizens, and a British family are grieving for their son. Is there really no way in which the case could be investigated by the British police or heard in a British court?
My constituents feel badly let down by our Government. The victim’s family feel badly let down too. For everyone’s sake, I ask the Minister to take heed of the deep and serious concerns that have been expressed by those involved, and to do whatever he can to ensure that justice is done.
10.3 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire): Let me say at the outset that both the hon. Ladies who have spoken have taken exactly the right approach in representing their constituents. If I were in their position, I would do the same. That is what MPs are there for. The two hon. Ladies may be representing different sides of the argument—one represents the accused and one represents the person against whom the crime was perpetrated—but they are both absolutely within their rights to come to the House to raise these issues on behalf of their constituents.
We must manage expectations. I do not agree with the view that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not doing enough. I will expand on that in the following minutes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing a debate on this important issue.
I will deal straight away with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). It is worth saying at the outset that the case is now at the judicial investigation stage, which means that the police have handed it to the courts, which will now decide whether further investigation is required or whether they have enough evidence to proceed. In Greece, that can be a very long process, and we are doing all we can to ensure that Ms Matthews and others have as much information as possible. It is also worth pointing out that all the men involved in the incident and their families are receiving consular assistance. We repeatedly advise them, however, to speak to their lawyers about anything of a legal nature. We met three of the families in particular at their request, and we offered to meet Ms Matthews at any time.
6 Jan 2014 : Column 146
Providing assistance to British nationals who are the victims of serious crimes overseas and their next of kin is a core priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To put the matter into context, in 2012 alone, FCO staff dealt with more than 1 million consular inquiries and 100,000 consular cases and provided consular assistance to more than 20,000 people as they endured the trauma of being a victim of crime with the additional challenge of being in an unfamiliar country whose language, culture and judicial systems can be very different from ours.
We can and do provide support, experience and assistance and put those in need in contact with charities and other organisations, several of which we help to fund. We can and do also use our diplomatic network to put pressure on foreign Governments to make changes or improvements to their processes. We are committed to delivering support of the highest standards and, as our consular strategy makes plain, to improving continually our service and offering the most vulnerable the greatest level of support.
However, in such circumstances there are also clear limitations to what we can do—this is where we come back to the management of expectation. For instance, we cannot become involved in the competent judicial process of another country or ask the taxpayer to fund legal cases in foreign courts. I know that the hon. Member for Walthamstow has been deeply concerned about the case of Tyrell Matthews-Burton, who was tragically killed in Crete last year. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to Tyrell’s mother, Ms Matthews.
From the moment we were informed of Tyrell’s death, officials have provided extensive support to Ms Matthews. In the immediate aftermath, consular staff in Crete spent time at the police station, hospital and court to offer support. The hon. Lady shakes her head in disagreement, but I am stating the chronology of what happened. It might not have been enough, but it is what actually happened in the aftermath.
In London, teams were in daily contact with the families of those involved to provide assistance and referrals to organisations such as Victim Support. Ms Matthews was assigned a caseworker and quickly issued with a passport, and with the support of one of the charities that the FCO helps to fund, Missing Abroad, flights to Crete and accommodation were arranged at no cost to the family. We have continued to provide full support to Ms Matthews, from repatriating Tyrell’s body to liaising with Her Majesty’s coroner following Ms Matthews’s request to see the post mortem report.
One of the greatest challenges for victims of crime at home and abroad is gaining access to information. Of course, in the case of crimes committed overseas, geographic distance, language and procedure are all added barriers. I know that a lack of information can lead to extreme frustration, compound anxiety and result in a loss of confidence in the judicial process of the country involved. That is entirely understandable. We therefore do what we can to get updates as soon as possible as well as providing guidance on local systems and procedures. In Tyrell’s case, consular staff were on hand from the outset to help liaise with the authorities and provide a range of important information explaining the local police and legal systems and giving details of local lawyers and interpreters. Consular officials at the British
6 Jan 2014 : Column 147
embassy in Athens have also lobbied for information the Greek Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Justice, as well as the Greek police and judiciary, and have attended some initial meetings. We stand ready to continue to do that as the family navigates the local system, and to attend the first day and verdict of any future trial.
Systems overseas are often different from our own, and unlike in the UK, it may not be possible for individuals to obtain information directly. Investigating authorities and courts may refuse to answer inquiries from third parties, including foreign Governments or consular officials. For those reasons, we always advise victims of crime overseas to instruct a local lawyer who can access detailed information on their client’s behalf, and judge whether an investigation is conducted in line with local laws. From the outset, we and the Greek authorities have recommended that Ms Matthews obtain legal representation.
I understand, of course, that appointing a lawyer can put a huge financial burden on a family—something to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow alluded. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot fund legal representation. We are simply not resourced to offer such funding, and in the case of Ms Matthews we have done all we can to explore alternative legal aid options in the United Kingdom and Greece, including offering advice on the EU compensation scheme. Following the meeting between the hon. Lady, Ms Matthews, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am pleased that work to identify a lawyer and funding from Victim Support has enabled Ms Matthews to appoint a Greek lawyer.
I also wish to address the concerns raised by the hon. Lady that the UK police could do more, and that a senior investigating officer and family liaison officer were not appointed at the outset. In 2012 the British Government agreed a memorandum of understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales regarding support in murder/manslaughter cases. It sets out Government support to the next of kin, including what we can do to ensure a proper and thorough investigation. The MOU is clear that the UK police cannot investigate a crime overseas unless invited by a foreign Government to do so. Even in cases where a suspect is British, the jurisdiction of the country where the crime took place takes precedence.
The UK police get involved only exceptionally where there is a genuine operational need, such as securing forensic samples or conducting formal inquiries on behalf of foreign police in the UK, and that was not the case following Tyrell’s death. It is an operational decision for the police whether to appoint a senior investigating officer or family liaison officer. In this case, the police initially decided to identify an officer as the single point of contact. Following the intervention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Greek police assigned an individual to liaise with the Met police and, as a result, a senior investigating officer and family liaison officer were duly appointed. However, as the investigation in Greece has been completed and the file now lies with the judicial authorities, as I said at the outset of my remarks, there is little information to be shared through that channel.
6 Jan 2014 : Column 148
The British Government cannot interfere in trials or legal processes in other countries. We would not accept other countries doing that in the UK, and we therefore need to respect their systems. In some circumstances, however, we will continue to make representations to local authorities where appropriate. That includes cases where there are concerns that the investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures. We stand ready to do that in this case should the need arise. Meanwhile, we will continue to raise the case more generally through normal diplomatic channels.
The British ambassador to Greece first raised Tyrell’s death with the mayor of Malia and the chief of police last summer, and as the hon. Member for Walthamstow knows, we are facilitating a meeting between her and the Greek ambassador to London in the near future, to discuss the case and the issues it raises.
We have a consular service that many countries envy and of which we are rightly proud. However, we cannot always meet every need and expectation. Of course we want to improve; we seek to learn from every case, and continually review our consular policy, guidance to staff and training.
Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for intervening and I am pleased that the Foreign Office will be assisting my office in arranging a meeting with the Greek authorities. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office had specifically told my office that that was for me to organise, so I am pleased that there has been a change of mind. May I press him on the point about the EU framework on the decision on the rights of victims of crime, which has been fully in force since 2006? I appreciate that the way in which it applies in the UK with regard to the Greek authorities’ behaviour towards the Matthews family is a technical point of EU law. However, can he and his officials give me an assurance on that specific point? Will he clarify that the conduct of the Foreign Office in the matter—it failed to ensure that Ms Matthews had legal representation in that trial—is in accordance with that legislation, which our nation has ratified?
Mr Swire: Let me say two things to the hon. Lady. First, we have done everything we can, and continue to do everything we can, in compliance with every international obligation. I have tried to articulate that in what I have said in the past 10 or 15 minutes. Secondly, to answer her other question, it is my understanding that the Foreign Office has arranged access to the Greek ambassador in London. Indeed, the consular department of the Foreign Office intends to accompany her to the meeting. I hope she is reassured on that point.
As I have said, we do not imagine that we get it right the whole time. I have tried to contextualise the matter and to explain to the House not only the complexity but the size of the issue. We are always asked to fund things that we simply are not funded for. No party in government or opposition plans to change the policy—if any party did, it would be a significant change and one we should be aware of. We do everything we can within the existing guidelines, but, as I have said, we do not always get things right. We want to improve and learn from experience; we are human. In this case, we are doing everything we can.
As I have said, we continually review our consular policy, our guidance to staff and our training. As part of that, in 2014 we will evaluate the impact of the
6 Jan 2014 : Column 149
memorandum of understanding on murder/manslaughter and our internal guidance to consular staff on helping next of kin. We are making changes to our services so that they focus more effectively on the needs of British nationals. That will include better and clearer information —information is key—on local services such as lawyers and legal aid.
We are currently exploring what more we can do to build on the legal guides that Fair Trials International has developed—it has done so with Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding. For instance, we are working with Justice Across Borders and identifying pro bono legal advice providers for victims of crime overseas. That is part of a strategy to establish more partnerships with specialist organisations, which goes alongside increasing funding for those with which we already work. Finally, we have introduced flexibility in our policy on our staff translating and interpreting when British nationals need to talk to local authorities.
Therefore, after three and a half years, the Government are seizing the issue and dealing with it in a more realistic way than has perhaps been the case in the past. If the hon. Lady has any concerns, I would be more than happy for her to come to me or for her to see the Under-Secretary of State. I have come to the case fresh—I read the reports at the time, but it has not been on my desk for a long time—and have gone through it with officials in some detail today. I have a fresh set of eyes. Of course, I do not share the hon. Lady’s views—I do not represent her constituent, and I would probably have a different view if I did so—but I am convinced that we are doing everything we can. In fact, I believe we have done more than can be expected in offering to fix up a meeting between her and the Greek ambassador.
We face many challenges as we try to help victims to get justice overseas. Cases can be complex and move slowly through foreign legal systems that British nationals find hard to understand. British MPs can find them hard to understand or will not understand them. Our remit does not extend to foreign countries. Things often do not work abroad in the way we would expect them to work here. Translating what happens here to systems abroad serves no purpose because we cannot change those systems. We must operate within them.
Stella Creasy:
I thank the Minister for letting me intervene. I will try one more time. I would be ever so
6 Jan 2014 : Column 150
grateful if he could clarify, in writing, that he believes that in this matter the current Government have met their obligations under EU law on victims of crime and their treatment. I appreciate that he believes what he has been told by officials. I invite him to meet the families to understand the other side of the story about what has happened. On the particular point about access to justice and the requirements under that legislation, will he give a commitment to the House to investigate the legal ramifications of the failure of this Government to ensure legal representation for the Matthews family in the trial?
Mr Swire: There has been no failure by this Government on any point. I entirely refute that and it is not helpful for the hon. Lady to suggest that when we are doing everything we can for the hon. Lady’s constituent. However, I will certainly ensure in writing, if I have not made myself clear verbally, that our position remains clear: we are absolutely certain that we have followed the existing guidelines in every single way—in fact, more so.
I concede that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may not always meet the full expectations of victims and their families. Indeed, it would be impossible for us to do so, because expectations exceed capability and that would be the same however much resource we threw at this problem. That makes it even more important to have under constant consideration what we can offer, and to find new ways to provide it.
I respect the hon. Lady’s position in bringing this matter to the House, but she is a Member of Parliament and she has to respect what all parties are signed up to. If she feels in any way that the Government have been derelict in their duties towards her constituent she is right to raise that, but I have heard nothing tonight to suggest that that is the case. On whether the Government have been compliant with existing laws, I will ensure that she is written to, to explain that to her. In the meantime, we must all await what happens in Greece. She will be in a good position when, with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, she meets the Greek ambassador shortly.