Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

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 The clause as written achieves exactly what he seeks to achieve, and I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

See this speech in context