House of Commons

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

Thursday 17 October 2019

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the extent of the Government’s influence on potential reform of the World Trade Organisation after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

I am a big supporter of the WTO, but it does need reform. When the UK takes up its independent seat at the WTO for the first time in many years, we will strongly be backing the rules-based multilateral trading system and making the case for reform.

[Martyn Day]

10 December—the date on which the WTO appellate body crisis will come to a head—is looming ever closer. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will follow the European Union in working to restore an operational appellate body, and will she tell us what conversations she has had with her United States counterpart regarding that urgent need?

[Elizabeth Truss]

When I was at the WTO in Geneva last week, I met David Walker, who is currently leading work to resolve the appellate body crisis. I have given him my full support in that work. It will require movement on behalf of the EU and the US to find a solution to this crisis, but it is vital that we fix this in order to keep the WTO going.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)]

As well as undermining the dispute settlement system, the US is threatening the principles that support developing economies and imposing tariffs for political ends. How does my right hon. Friend propose that the UK stands up for the rules-based order while trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right that the rules- based order is very important. Last week we got the support of all the Trade Ministers of the Commonwealth, who represent a third of the world’s population, to make the case for an immediate resolution to the WTO appellate body crisis and for a rules-based order. As she says, it is particularly important for the smaller countries that do not have the muscle to make their way in trade negotiations to be able to rely on the WTO to resolve disputes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

How exactly do the Government intend to reform the WTO? Are they looking at tariffs, for example? What exactly are they trying to achieve?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The WTO needs to reform to reflect trade in the 21st century. It needs to become more transparent. We also need to deal with issues such as state-owned enterprises, forced technology transfer and intellectual property, ensuring that these matters are resolved within the WTO. But we also need an appellate body system that works for all WTO members, which is why I am supporting David Walker from New Zealand, who is conducting the review. I urge the US, the EU and all other parties to work together to resolve this situation.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

May I urge the Secretary of State to use our voice at the WTO to champion both free trade and, as she has described them, “orderly” markets? Now is not the time for world trade to revert to old-fashioned protectionism.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the repeal of the corn laws, the UK has stood up for free trade. We were one of the founding members of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1947. There is a huge opportunity for us as we leave the EU to retake our independent seat, to make the case for free trade and to be prepared to stand up for the values that we believe in as a country.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State wake up? She sounds almost as if she is in a trance this morning. Instead of talking to significant people in the WTO, will she come to my constituency of Huddersfield to meet exporting companies and top managers there, who believe that she is sticking a dagger into the heart of this country’s exporting companies? We want to know what the future is for exporting businesses in Yorkshire when we leave the EU, if we have to leave the EU.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Well, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am going to be in Yorkshire next Friday, visiting and talking to exporting businesses such as Bettys of Harrogate and Burberry in Leeds. If he wants to extend an invitation to me to visit an exporting business in Huddersfield, he should get on with it.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend be a champion for opening markets to the world’s least developed countries?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Absolutely. One of the great benefits of trade is the prosperity it can bring to some of the poorest countries in the world. Part of our no-deal tariff schedule is about ensuring that those countries are supported, but we will have a huge opportunity to open up more trade once we leave the EU. At the Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting, we talked about just that.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

We all wish to see reform of the WTO and a functioning dispute resolution system, but given that the UK is responsible for 3.4% of global trade compared with the EU being responsible for 35%—a full third—of global trade, is it not the case that the UK’s influence inside the WTO is now massively diminished?

[Elizabeth Truss]

One of the groups we are working very closely with is our Commonwealth partners. We are developing a Commonwealth caucus at the WTO that represents a third of the world’s population and has a very strong stake in making sure that the WTO works for small states, in particular. Of course we will work with the EU and of course we will work with the US when it is in our mutual interests, but the fact is that the EU has pursued protectionist policies, and that has not necessarily helped some of the least-developed nations. I believe that the UK will have a unique voice, particularly in favour of free trade.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

We know that the new Secretary of State can do the impossible, because recently she announced that for the past 45 years the UK had been a member of the WTO—which was only founded in 1995. So will she now inform the House of how she has resolved the challenge that 20 or so members of the WTO have lodged against the UK’s proposed new bound tariff and quota schedules, and of what provisional sum she has agreed with the Chancellor to pay any successful claims?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The UK was a founder member of GATT, which then became the WTO. As the hon. Gentleman knows, by his definition we would only have been in the EU since 1993, because previously we were in the European Community, as I am sure he has said.

Of course we will work through the issues on the goods schedules at the WTO, and we are doing precisely that at Geneva. Those schedules are all ready to go in the event of no deal. Of course, what we want is a deal, and the Prime Minister is currently in Brussels working very hard to get that. If that is what the hon. Gentleman wants, I suggest that he votes for it.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

2. What progress she has made on the rollover of existing EU trade agreements.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)]

In preparation for our exit from the European Union, the Government have, to date, secured 16 continuity trade agreements with 46 countries. Trade with those countries represents 72% of the UK’s total trade. I am pleased to inform the House that only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed another agreement with the Southern African Customs Union and Mozambique to roll over the existing EU trade agreements that we have with them.[Official Report, 31 October 2019, Vol. 667, c. 4MC.]

[Dr Huq]

The Minister says there are 16 agreements, but given the Government’s clear broken promise to roll over at least 40 trade deals by one minute after midnight on 31 March, two Brexit extensions ago, have they carried out any assessment of the economic loss that will result if—I will say if, not when—we are unable to secure a trade deal with all the countries that the EU already has an existing arrangement with?

[Conor Burns]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not welcomed the efforts that the Government and officials have made to make this incredibly successful transition. These deals account for over £100 billion-worth of our current trade, and they are warmly welcomed by the businesses that trade beyond the borders of the European Union. I will tell her what assessment we have made on the European Union: we have made an assessment that it would be deeply damaging for our democracy if we do not honour the referendum of 2016.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to the House how, when we leave the EU, his Department will continue to protect UK businesses from unfair trading practices?

[Conor Burns]

We remain absolutely committed to ensuring a level playing field. The United Kingdom has been one of the leading international advocates of a rules-based order. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are committed to playing our full part in the WTO, and we are absolutely committed to having a trade resolution body up and running and formally underpinned by statute. This is the boring bit—the continuity bit. The exciting bit comes when we leave the European Union and we can strike out with new, comprehensive free trade agreements around the world.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Despite the existing architecture, despite not needing to reinvent the wheel, despite not starting from zero—we could just follow the work the European Union has done—and despite the promise to do this by one minute after midnight, the slow progress in these trade agreements surely does not bode well for any of the future trade agreements that the Government talk about ad nauseam. Meanwhile, the UK Government are endangering the trading potential of companies in the UK. When will the other 24 be done?

[Conor Burns]

We are working aggressively to continue the roll-overs, and many are very close to being completed. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s distinguished position as Chair of the International Trade Committee, if optimism were a disease, he would be immune.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The Trade Bill was supposed to govern the roll-over of EU trade deals, but the Government abandoned it in the last Session because they knew that they would lose votes on important amendments, including on scrutiny and parliamentary approval. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will carry over those vital provisions into the new trade Bill, so that elected Members of this Parliament can properly scrutinise all trade agreements, to prevent our NHS, food standards and environmental protections from being traded away to President Trump?

[Conor Burns]

As a distinguished parliamentarian, the hon. Lady knows how this House works. She will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the trade Bill during its passage through Parliament and, if she wishes, to make amendments to the Bill, which can then be considered by the House. I wish that the Opposition would stop peddling this lie, which is worrying people, about the NHS and the United States. The Prime Minister has made it repeatedly clear that the NHS is not on the table in any trade agreement. She should stop scaremongering.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with her US and EU counterparts on the imposition of tariffs on Scotch whisky. [R]

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We are extremely disappointed that the US has decided to levy tariffs, including on the Scotch whisky industry. I have urged my US counterpart to rethink this, and the Prime Minister has also raised the issue with President Trump.

[Brendan O'Hara]

In the days following this announcement, the Government were asleep at the wheel. We now have only 12 hours before this tariff is implemented. What action will the Secretary of State take in the next 12 hours to delay this? If she cannot delay it, what will she do to mitigate the impact, particularly on small and medium-sized distillers, which rely so heavily on the US market?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been raising this issue with my US counterpart since July, when I first met Bob Lighthizer. I have also raised it with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. I have made it clear to the Americans that it is not helpful in terms of our relationship with them to see these tariffs placed on such an iconic industry, among other industries in the UK.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts. In my recent urgent question I asked the Prime Minister to speak to the President, and he did, but I also asked that consideration be given to an announcement that the UK would not levy tariffs on bourbon when we left the EU. Can she tell us something about her consideration of that?

[Elizabeth Truss]

When we leave the EU, the UK will be responsible for its own tariff policy. At this point we are part of the EU and those overall discussions on tariffs, so we cannot make that type of statement. The point I have been making to the US is that this will not help our relationship. We are also being threatened with £1.2 billion of car tariffs, which could hit the UK on 14 November, and I have raised that with my US counterpart. If the US wants the British public to have a positive view of our trading relationship with it, it needs to reverse these decisions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Scotch whisky producers will have difficulties with the tariffs that will fall on their whiskies, but the Republic of Ireland will have no tariffs whatsoever. Echlinville distillery in my constituency is an Irish whiskey producer. What is being done to help Bushmills and Echlinville distilleries, which are very important to jobs in my constituency and across Northern Ireland?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My understanding is that the Republic of Ireland has been hit with tariffs on other products. These retaliatory tariffs following the Airbus dispute have been levied on a number of European countries. The point I have been making to the Americans is that the UK has complied with the WTO ruling. We are not in breach of that ruling any more, and we have met all the compliance stats.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is aware that my constituency is severely affected by a number of the tariffs applied by the US. What will she be doing in the next 12 hours to at least delay these tariffs being implemented? If they are, unfortunately, implemented, what can be done to get them removed as quickly as possible?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am aware of the fantastic whisky distilleries—in fact, I visited Macallan with my hon. Friend very recently—and they are an incredibly important part of the Scottish economy, but also an iconic brand for the UK. I am hosting a roundtable with affected industries this afternoon, and the Chancellor is currently over in the US speaking to his counterpart as well. We are putting as much pressure as we can on the United States on this issue. We will also be looking at measures to help the industry here in the UK.

[Jane Dodds (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the potential effects of WTO tariffs on Welsh exports after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

The best way to avoid potential tariff barriers is to support good free trade agreements with both the EU and the US. I hope the hon. Lady will support any deal the Government bring forward to make sure we can leave the EU with a deal.

[Jane Dodds]

I have spoken before about the impact of export tariffs on Welsh lamb and beef exports, which would be seriously damaging for the Welsh farmers I represent in Brecon and Radnorshire. We have heard the Government recently talk up Japan as a tariff-free export destination, but only £4,000 of lamb goes to that particular country. Can the Secretary of State provide a guarantee—yes or no—that the livelihood of Welsh farmers, such as those in Brecon and Radnorshire, will not suffer as a result of the imposition of these export tariffs?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I know that very high-quality lamb is produced in the hon. Lady’s constituency. In fact, I have visited the Rhayader sheep market and seen it for myself. I can assure her that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the Treasury to make sure there is support for lamb farmers in the eventuality of potential issues. However, we also need to open up more markets for British lamb. I have particularly got my eye on the US market—it is the second largest importer of lamb by value in the world—and we need to make sure that Welsh lamb farmers have more places to which they can export.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effect on EU trade policy of recent changes in tariff policies between the US and China.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)]

The European Union has made very clear its opposition to tariff escalation and its support for the international rules-based trading system. As a vocal champion of that very system, the United Kingdom endorses the EU approach. Low tariffs and free trade are the underpinning guarantor of prosperity and jobs in the UK; tariff wars are in no one’s interest.

[Greg Hands]

Does my right hon. Friend agree, given the growing disruption in the EU’s trade relationship with both the US and China, that now is not the time to have disruption in the EU-UK trade relationship? The UK will become, overnight, the EU’s second largest trade partner. Does that not show all of us the need to get a trade deal with Brussels that we can live with and move on?

[Conor Burns]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As a distinguished former occupant of the job I now have, he understands these matters incredibly well. He is absolutely correct: the United Kingdom is about to become the EU’s second largest trading partner, with £357 billion of goods and services exported to the UK last year. A good Brexit deal is in the interests of the EU and in the interests of the UK, and I am sure the whole House—at least, I wish the whole House—would wish my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister every success today in trying to get that agreement.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Recently, the Secretary of State said she would be

“unapologetic in fighting the forces of protectionism, in favour of genuinely free trade.”

Will she put this into action now for one of my constituents, a specialist publisher of historical aviation books, who from tomorrow will pay 25% tariffs on his materials, a large proportion of which are shipped to the US?

[Conor Burns]

I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will work tirelessly to promote trade, investment and the prosperity of the United Kingdom. On the hon. Gentleman’s particular point, I would be delighted to meet him to talk about his constituency business.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the economic merits of freeports.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

13. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the merits of freeports.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

I am working closely, as are my colleagues across Government, to make sure that the freeport policy will be successful, and will help bring regeneration, jobs, opportunity and prosperity to every part of this United Kingdom.

[Ross Thomson]

Given Aberdeen’s new harbour expansion, which is supported in part by UK Government investment, and a growing cluster of subsea businesses near Aberdeen International airport, does my hon. Friend agree that freeport status for Aberdeen could help to turbocharge the engine room of the Scottish economy?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is correct in his assertion that freeports have the potential to drive growth in towns and cities across the UK, enabling them to make the most of Brexit opportunities. We are working hard to design a model that delivers optimal benefit for the UK and specific locations. Where appropriate, we will work with the devolved Administrations on this matter, but it would be helpful if the SNP showed more enthusiasm for something that could make a big difference.

[Jack Lopresti]

Does my hon. Friend agree that freeports could hugely benefit and provide great opportunities for the south-west regional economy? What plans will he put in place to ensure that local communities around freeports benefit economically?

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—no one in the House works harder to promote their area than him. Freeports offer an opportunity to unleash enterprise. We want to set forth all the principles and wealth creation that the Labour party stands against, and to allow my hon. Friend’s constituents, and the communities he represents, to prosper and grow through free enterprise, and we will carry on doing that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has suggested that there would be about six freeports. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that that would have on ports that are not chosen to be freeports?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady makes a serious and important point. We are working hard and closely with our Treasury colleagues and others to ensure that we design the policy in the right way so that we minimise displacement and bring in additional activity and prosperity. We do not expect, and we will not design, a system that will damage those ports that do not become freeports.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

I am delighted to have been appointed as Trade Secretary at this vital time in our nation’s history. For the first time in 46 years, we will have an independent trade policy and be able to set our rules and regulations, which means that we will be able to strike deals with likeminded countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. We will also be able to take up our independent seat at the World Trade Organisation, leading the fight for free trade and participating in the battle against protectionism.

[Martyn Day]

Ninety per cent. of the world’s illegal deforestation takes place in the Amazon rainforest—something that the Paris agreement explicitly sets out to tackle and reduce. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are serious about tackling climate change, the ratification and implementation of the Paris agreement must be a precondition for any country that wishes to make a trade deal with the United Kingdom?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am a great believer that free trade and free enterprise help us to achieve our environmental goals through better technology, more innovation and more ingenuity. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), recently visited Brazil and discussed those precise issues with its Trade Minister.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Sylatech is a precision engineering business in Kirkbymoorside in my constituency, but it is suffering a significant business impact due to control delays on its export licence applications. Will my hon. Friend update the House with a timescale to resolve that problem?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on working so hard to promote businesses in his area. I am delighted that our performance in dealing with licence applications is good, and I pay tribute to those who work in the Export Control Joint Unit. Some 80% of applications are concluded within 20 days, and 96% within 60 days. In some cases, complex issues have to be assessed, but we will do everything that we can to facilitate and accelerate the decision on the case raised by my hon. Friend.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The House recently passed a statutory instrument to extend EU protection against extraterritorial lawsuits under the US Helms-Burton Act. The Secretary of State will know that investors are already speaking with law firms to launch dispute proceedings against the UK under long dormant bilateral treaties. What estimates has she made of the quantum of such suits, and what protections will she introduce to safeguard the public purse and public policy?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I will look into that issue.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T6. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Southend on the initiative of welcoming ambassadors from countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Maldives and India to boost trade once we leave the European Union?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Conor Burns)]

It sounds like my hon. Friend is drawing up a very exciting programme of autumn travel. He is absolutely right that our departure from the European Union will offer huge opportunities for the United Kingdom in the vast and growing Asian market, which I saw at first hand only a couple of weeks ago in Vietnam.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

T3. The annual number of customs declarations established by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under a no-deal scenario is estimated to be 270 million. The current number is 55 million. How do the Government expect to process the additional workload when they are shutting down vital HMRC centres such as Lynx House in Portsmouth?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an incredible amount of work has been going on across Government to make sure that we are fully prepared for all scenarios. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been holding daily meetings—there have been 60 so far—and we are performing well, particularly on making sure that actions at the borders are in place.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Our biggest export sector is services, which are invisible, and particularly financial services. Our biggest export market is the US. What discussions has the Secretary of State had about opening up financial services exports to the US and removing some non-tariff barriers?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—this is a fantastic opportunity for the UK. When I was out in the US, I met Bob Lighthizer, and I also met the Treasury Secretary to discuss those potential opportunities with him. The UK is not just going to roll over in a trade deal with the US. We will make sure that our industries are promoted. We want barriers removed in the US to our successful service industries.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T4. Back when we were told that we hold all the cards, the post of British trade negotiator had been obsolete for 45 years. Would the Secretary of State recommend it as a long-term career path? We are, as we know, at the beginning. When does she envisage the negotiations ever being over?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I hope that the hon. Lady will be supporting the Prime Minister in his negotiations in Brussels, where he has already secured significant advances to where we were, in particular by ensuring that Britain is able to have its own independent trade policy once we leave the EU, and to control our own rules and regulations.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

To avoid freeports just displacing activity, does the Minister agree that freeport activity should be based on the existing unique and distinctive capabilities of a port, such as Milford Haven, the UK’s leading energy port, which has an unrivalled skills base and infrastructure?

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is quite right. The design of the policy is vital. Optimising existing strength is an important part of ensuring that the policy is a success.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

T5. Despite the 2016 Colombia peace agreement, murders of trade unionists, human rights defenders and community leaders continue in very large numbers. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no free trade agreement with Colombia until it fully complies with its international human rights obligations?

[Elizabeth Truss]

To be frank, a free trade deal with Colombia is not one of our urgent priorities.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As a result of devastating African swine fever, 130 million pigs have recently been slaughtered in China, which is home to half the world’s pigs. Is this not a great opportunity for my right hon. Friend, who did so much to open this market to British pig farmers, to promote the merits of British products from our pigs, including, of course, the unrivalled Gloucester Old Spot?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. I was very proud to open the market for pigs trotters into China when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Market access is very important. We have seen a massive increase in pork exports to China over the past five years. He is right that our high welfare standards and quality produce are valued across the world. There are lots of new opportunities, including for the Gloucester Old Spot.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Leaked documents from Operation Kingfisher showed that York would be the worst-hit place in the country in the event of no deal. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with my city to ensure that we will be able to trade after 31 October?

[Elizabeth Truss]

No doubt the hon. Lady will be supporting a deal to ensure that the good people of York have the trading opportunities that they deserve.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Returning to the issue of freeports, the Secretary of State visited Immingham in my constituency last year and saw for herself the great opportunities that exist to improve the local economy. Will she continue working with me to ensure that the Humber ports do indeed receive freeport status?

[Graham Stuart]

As I represent a constituency in the Humber area, I will continue, without giving any special status, to ensure that we liaise with my hon. Friend, but he is so right. Conservative Members are focused on trying to find policies that open up investment and bring in further jobs, but the Labour party’s manifesto sets out policies that would destroy inward investment and cost tens of thousands of jobs.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State accept the Food and Drink Federation’s analysis that, with a complex and confusing no-deal tariff schedule, investment made right across the supply chain in preparing for a no-deal Brexit means that food prices will likely increase?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The best way of avoiding no deal is for the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but this is common sense: the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give us an update on where we are on joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I discussed that with Trade Ministers when I visited New Zealand, Japan and Australia. They are all very interested in the UK’s joining, and I want to progress that alongside the bilateral discussions that we are having with the countries. It will give us access to 11 fast-growing markets in Asia, so it is a massively exciting opportunity.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Will Ministers assure us that, in their desperation to sign any trade deal to justify their Brexit policy, they will not give a green light, or a nod and a wink, to President Bolsonaro to continue the destruction of the Amazon rain forest?

[Conor Burns]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State alluded to some moments ago, I visited Brazil recently. In addition to conversations about trade, we discussed with the Brazilian Government how the United Kingdom can assist them in their move to a low-carbon, greener energy production model. We have spent over £150 million of climate finance in forest programmes across Brazil, and I was delighted, in the light of my recent visit, that the Prime Minister announced a further £10 million to help the Brazilian authorities in forestation and deforestation.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

The National Audit Office said yesterday that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, cross-border shipments could be reduced by more than 50% and would take 12 months to return to normal. Can we stop this charade? Is it not the case that no responsible Government would do that to our businesses, and that if there is no agreement with the EU by Saturday, the Prime Minister will send the letter requesting an extension, not least because if he fails to do so he will be in contempt of court, given the proceedings in the Court of Session?

[Graham Stuart]

As well as birthday congratulations to the hon. Gentleman, I have other good news: we are taking steps to support businesses in all scenarios and to ensure that, with or without a deal, we minimise any negative disruption. But as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just said—this is an appeal to Members right across this House—we will have the opportunity to vote for a Saturday sitting, and we will have the opportunity, I hope, to see a deal put through that will mean that we can move forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, finally, will support and respect the decision of the British people in 2016.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

1. When she plans to publish the Government’s response to their consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)]

The issue of the response to the consultation on the Act is very important. It needs time for consideration, and I will want to study it closely.

[Christine Jardine]

Last night, at the PinkNews awards, Baroness Williams of Trafford, the House of Lords Minister for Equalities, said, “bear with us” on gender recognition reforms. Quite frankly, Minister, that is not good enough for people who are already going through one of the most difficult experiences they will ever face—more difficult than we can possibly imagine. They face abuse, discrimination and even, sadly, violence, just because of who they are. So I ask the Minister again: when will we see the results of the consultation, and can she assure me, and the people who are waiting on those results, that the most right-wing Government in decades will follow through on the GRA?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely condemn bullying or violence towards trans people, but I do not think that that could be confused with the complex piece of work that is the reform to the Gender Recognition Act. In particular, I will not be rushed into it. I am very keen that we protect single-sex spaces and vulnerable women, and that we do not rush into reform before we have had full, proper discussion.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her new position and look forward to working with her on all these issues. I am losing count, but I think she is the fifth Minister whom I have shadowed since I have occupied this position. However, we do not start from the beginning every time we change Ministers.

Reform of the Gender Recognition Act was promised in 2016. The Minister does not need to look at it carefully; the Minister just needs to expose what came out of the consultation and amend the Act as promised. The Minister needs to stop kicking the can down the road. There has been a 37% increase in hate crime against transgender people, and the Minister is exacerbating the pain and the hurt in the LGBT+ community. Please, Minister, just reform the Gender Recognition Act already.

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, I completely condemn violence against trans people, and we and the Home Office are doing a lot of work to combat it, but I think it is completely wrong to conflate that with a complex piece of legislation that we need to get right. There are serious concerns about single-sex spaces and ensuring that vulnerable women are protected, and we should get the legislation right rather than rushing into things.

I am afraid that the hon. Lady is trying to make this into a political football. What I am interested in is making the right decisions for the people of Britain so that we have proper protection for transgender people and also ensure that we protect our single-sex spaces.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

2. What recent steps the Government have taken to close the gender pay gap.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

8. What recent steps the Government have taken to close the gender pay gap.

[The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)]

This is the third year of gender pay gap reporting. We are focusing on the three sectors that employ the most women, and also on those with large gender pay gaps, such as financial services. Work is already under way on, for instance, the independent review of the gender pay gap in medicine, the recommendations of which will be published shortly. I am delighted that experts on the Women’s Business Council are helping us with our work in the retail and financial sectors in particular.

[Martyn Day]

The Scottish Government have lowered the threshold for listed public authorities to report their gender pay gaps and publish equal pay statements from more than 150 employees to more than 20. Will the UK Government consider lowering their threshold as well to increase equal-pay transparency?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am delighted to hear what the Scottish Government are doing. We keep that and other measures under review. As I have said, this is the third year of reporting, and we are delighted that thus far there has been 100% compliance. We must look at the data carefully, but everything is open to review. What is brilliant about this legislation is that for the first time, 10,500 employers in the country are talking about how they treat their female workers.

[Marion Fellows]

Last year in Motherwell and Wishaw, women working full-time earned an average of 10% less than their male counterparts. For women who are already struggling with Tory austerity—for example, the capping of universal credit at two children—a 10% increase in pay would make a huge difference. What are the Government doing to help those women, and women across the country?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Lady will be delighted by the Chancellor’s announcement that we are increasing the national living wage. As she will know, 60% of people who are paid the living wage are women, so that increase will have a huge impact on many women. The hon. Lady and I can agree on at least this: we want women to be treated properly and fairly in the workplace, and I am sure that we all want to close that gap.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

Flexible working gives many parents with young children an equal chance to work, and they would therefore support the narrowing of the gender pay gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that all job advertisements should specify whether the jobs are flexible, and that employees should have the right to request that flexibility?

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. My hon. Friend is right to mention flexible working and childcare. The message for employers is that flexible working not only improves diversity in their business models, but helps the bottom line. It is good for business, it is good for our country, and I think that, in particular, it is good for women to have the ability to earn their own incomes and to have the independence that we all cherish in this place.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives have actually done more than any other Government to tackle the issue of pay inequality at work? What more is she doing to help women in the boardroom who do not earn as much as their male counterparts?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done so much work on women and equalities and also on menopause. [Interruption.] I note that Opposition Members are laughing and guffawing, but these issues have a real impact on women who are the lowest paid. I am delighted if it means that the Labour party is supporting gender pay gap regulations, because it was a Conservative coalition Government who introduced the regulations and a Conservative Government who brought them into force two years ago. We need to ensure that employers are treating female employees correctly and properly, and that we are tackling that in the lowest paid sectors. That is why we have the three priority sectors of retail, healthcare and education that are working to bring action plans forward to ensure that we help the lowest paid.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to congratulate you on your PinkNews award, and your inspirational and outstanding speech? Trans rights are human rights.

In the previous Queen’s Speech, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) pledged to make further progress to tackle the gender pay gap, but that was noticeably absent from this week’s Queen’s Speech. Does that mean that the current Prime Minister does not want to reduce the gender pay gap?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very gracious remarks; I apologise for my inattention. It is much appreciated.

[Victoria Atkins]

Mr Speaker, forgive me for not congratulating you on your award. My right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) also received an award last night at the PinkNews celebrations.

On the question, that most certainly does not mean that this Prime Minister is in any way not committed to improving the gender pay gap. The fact that we have a strong ministerial team on the Front Bench today is a very clear indication of how seriously the Government take this issue. Having got the regulations in place, we are now working with industries to ensure that we are helping them achieve those action plans so that they can make the change. This has to be led with business; we have to bring business and employers with us to make this real cultural change.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

As we begin to understand the gender pay gap, does the Minister agree that, because the race pay gap is bigger than the gender pay gap, we should start to compel companies to publish their figures on that?

[Victoria Atkins]

That is a very good question, and I would expect no less from the hon. Lady. We are looking closely at ethnicity pay gaps. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is present on the Front Bench, is leading on that work, and it is really important. We have been talking to industry leads and stakeholders in the third sector, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that quite how it is defined is not as easy as it is for the gender pay gap, but there is a great deal of work going on in Government to look at it.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to increase gender equality in boardrooms in the (a) private and (b) public sector.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)]

Women represent half of the population, and I believe that we are missing out on a huge amount of talent because we do not have enough women in senior positions. I commend the work of Helena Morrissey who has achieved fantastic results with the 30% Club.

[Carol Monaghan]

I do a lot of work with science and technology companies and there is still a struggle in many of them to get women into senior positions or get women in at all. We have been using the carrot for decades now to try to get more women into the boardroom; when are we going to start using the stick?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady talks about science and technology, and one of the big issues is the gap that we have in school education, with fewer girls going on to study maths and science later in their school careers and girls losing confidence earlier on in their school careers. The way for us to tackle that it is to improve our education system, which is why we introduced things such as the English baccalaureate and tougher maths GCSEs, and why we are working more on maths education. I am passionate about this, and I am very keen to drive it forward as Minister for Women and Equalities.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The construction industry is notoriously male-dominated, so will the Minister join me in congratulating Caroline Gumble, who has just become chief exec of the Chartered Institute of Building, of which I am a very proud member?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree: as well as Bob the builder, we need Brenda the builder. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent on her fantastic achievement. In every walk of life, it should not matter whether someone is a woman or a man; it should matter how good they are and how much effort they put into the job. That is what we champion on this side of the House. We believe that it is about someone’s qualities as an individual, not what group they belong to.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. Does the Minister agree with me and the many women in my constituency who believe that International Women’s Day could be made a public holiday? That would raise all the issues that we have been talking about today and give them focus.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have to say that my focus in this job is not on bank holidays; it is on getting more women into work and getting them up the career ladder once they are in jobs. However, if the hon. Gentleman is offering to take on some work while women have a day off, I am sure that we would be very interested in that.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee has nine members, eight of whom are women. Will the Minister encourage the Bank to employ more women in senior roles, and the Chancellor to appoint more women when he gets the chance?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady is right. I describe finance as the final frontier for feminism. We have never had a female Chancellor, and we have never had a female Governor of the Bank of England. The Governor’s job is coming up very shortly, so I am sure that the Chancellor will hear what the hon. Lady has to say.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

4. What recent steps the Government have taken to improve protections from (a) sexual harassment and (b) bullying at work.

[The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)]

In the summer, we ran a consultation to understand people’s experiences of workplace sexual harassment and to assess whether the law in this space needs changing. Our consultation also included wider harassment protections, which cover many bullying behaviours. We are now considering the responses that we received, and we will publish proposals in due course.

[Mrs Miller]

Last week, a partner at Freshfields solicitors was ordered by a professional tribunal to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds for sexual misconduct with a junior colleague. Should not every regulator treat actions of sexual misconduct as a breach of professional standards? If the regulators do not act, will the Government?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee has done so much work on ensuring that employers’ and regulators’ responsibilities in the area are met. I welcome—indeed, I encourage—strong action from regulators to stamp out sexual harassment. We are working with relevant enforcement bodies and inviting them to join our public sector equality duty network to share and promote best practice. We are particularly focusing on regulators of specific relevance, to explore how they can support compliance with equality law.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The #MeToo movement was inspired—if that is the right word—by the activities of Harvey Weinstein in the film industry. Despite all their celebrity, many of the women affected did not feel able to turn to anyone when they encountered bullying and harassment in the workplace. That is all the more true for women today, particularly in small businesses. What is the Minister doing to ensure that women have legal and present support? Does she agree that the fact that Harvey Weinstein remains honoured by the British state with a CBE is a terrible indictment of our honours system?

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course, the #MeToo movement met with a great deal of attention and support across the world. In terms of sexual harassment, the consultation that closed on 2 October looked at all sorts of workplaces across the United Kingdom, and we are looking at responses to it very, very carefully. The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is only just over two weeks since the consultation closed and I do not want to pre-empt anything. In terms of Mr Weinstein, I cannot comment on individual cases; his case will be dealt with in the US.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s since the High Court judgment of 3 October 2019.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

6. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s since the High Court judgment of 3 October 2019.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the implications for the Government’s policies of the High Court judgment of 3 October 2019 on the increase in the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

The claimants applied for permission to appeal on 16 October 2019, which was of course yesterday. Hon. Members will therefore understand that I cannot comment on live litigation.

[Liz Twist]

Thousands of women across my constituency and millions nationally continue to face real hardship from this inequality. What steps is the Minister taking, in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions, to address their real concerns and distress and to provide equality?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for this opportunity to comment on the wider picture. As the Minister for employment with responsibility for jobcentres, I would tell anybody experiencing hardship at any point in their life to go to the jobcentre and to speak to their local citizens advice bureau—[Interruption.] The jobcentres do so much more than help people into work. They are a place of safety if you are suffering domestic violence, if you are looking to get support on benefits or if you are looking for housing support. It is a severe frustration for me as the Minister that people simply do not understand that jobcentres do much more than help people into work.

[Judith Cummins]

Yesterday, along with many other colleagues in this House, I met a group of 1950s women who have been affected by the changes to the state pension age. Having been silenced while other groups took legal action, they are frustrated that they are still no further forward. What concrete actions will the Minister now take to help those women and give them the justice they deserve?

[Mims Davies]

I appreciate that this will look and feel frustrating to many women because of the legal action and the live litigation, but I absolutely believe that we are trying to find a balance in our Department in supporting people of all ages at all points in their lives when they need support and ensuring that we are balancing an ageing demographic and a secure retirement.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for those replies, but notwithstanding the High Court decision and the appeal, there are thousands of women in my constituency who were born in the 1950s and who are affected. They find the support and advice measures that have been put in place inadequate, and I ask the Minister to liaise with the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look again at this issue.

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I absolutely understand that this is about a sense of balance. I reiterate my point that we have a wide range of benefits and support in the jobcentres—[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) disagrees, I would be happy to meet her to say more. It is absolutely right that if the support is not there, people should come to the jobcentres, speak to me and get involved with the DWP. We will support these women. This is ultimately about equality. We now have no defined retirement age for anyone: anyone who can work can continue to do so, and for anyone who wants to have a secure retirement, we will support them.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

As a WASPI woman, may I say on behalf of the many women who have come to me about this matter that we have been caught in a sandwich generation? We had our children young and brought them up, then acted as carers looking after our mums. This is causing big problems for women caught up in this dilemma. They are now finding themselves in the job market, having had very disrupted careers. That is what is so difficult for those women, when they are suddenly being asked to retrain in their 60s. It is really causing big problems.

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The women issue and the work journey are absolutely a priority for me in this role. Universal credit is not a gender-specific fund. It focuses on individual needs and support, and that can be different for men and women. I am absolutely determined, in this role, along with the new Secretary of State, to ensure that we better reflect the women’s work journey, including returning to work.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

7. What steps the Government are taking to support women leaving prison.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)]

We remain committed to delivering on the commitments laid out in the female offender strategy, which sets out our vision to see fewer women coming into the criminal justice system, a greater proportion being managed successfully in the community and better conditions for those in custody. Currently, women leaving prison are supported under the enhanced Through the Gate service specification implemented in April 2019. This new specification includes defined minimum support requirements such as accommodation, employment, training and education, finance, benefits and debt, and health and social care.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but we are seeing an increased number of people affected by homelessness and addiction problems across the streets of my city of Hull, many of whom have left prison. In addition to the things that she has already mentioned, what more can be done to support women leaving prison to prevent them from ending up homeless, and what more can be done while they are in prison to deal with their addiction problems?

[Wendy Morton]

I know that the hon. Lady takes an interest in this topic and has a prison in her constituency. Alongside the enhanced Through the Gate service specification, resettlement planning is led by the probation officer in the community where the offender is to be released, making it easier to connect into local services such as women’s centres. We also want greater involvement from voluntary organisations with the expertise to support offenders leaving prison.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Ministers will be aware of the campaigning work done by Bishop Rachel Treweek of Gloucester and others to encourage non-custodial sentences for women, and the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), visited the Nelson Trust in my constituency, which does so much to help ex-prisoners. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), will know that many women who leave prison do not have a suitable home to go. What more can we do to provide suitable accommodation for such women?

[Wendy Morton]

As I have set out, we have the enhanced Through the Gate service specification, but I am more than happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend. I would be interested to know a little bit more about the particular project to which he referred.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Today, Mr Speaker, with my voice, I am going to be Bonnie Tyler. [Laughter.]

One in six women leaves prison with no home to go to. A combination of homelessness, a lack of job opportunities, and the stigma of being an ex-offender is setting up these women to fail and is undoubtedly responsible for the disproportionate number of recalls. The Government have to do more to help these women, who have to be able to escape the vicious circle. What are the Government going to do for these women?

[Wendy Morton]

In addition to the Through the Gate service, I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of the social impact bond. In June of last year, we published our strategy for female offenders, setting out our vision and a plan to improve outcomes for women in custody and in the community. Like her, I am keen to do all that we can to help women who are leaving custody.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)]

My vision as Minister for Women and Equalities is to ensure that everyone has the freedom to be whoever they want to be and to shape their own future, regardless of their gender, sexuality, ethnicity or disability. I was proud to open the Asia chapter of the Global Equality Caucus during my recent visit to Japan, and I look forward to building on the excellent work of this Government: from ensuring 12 years of quality education for every girl internationally to removing the barriers that stop women getting on at work and bringing LGBT leaders from across the world together in May next year. Together we can make Britain the best place in the world to be a woman and to be LGBT.

[Mohammad Yasin]

The Child Maintenance Service is failing receiving claimants, most of whom are women. Will the Minister introduce tighter monitoring of direct pay compliance, stop collect and pay charges for receiving parents, and finally introduce a service that ensures effective enforcement of late payments?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

I am happy to hear details of where the Child Maintenance Service is a concern. The Minister for Welfare Delivery is working directly to support families in this area. As I said, I am happy to hear the details, so please write to us and we will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

T4. Bullying and harassment that particularly affect women have no place in any workplace anywhere in the world. When will the Government ratify the new International Labour Organisation global convention that outlaws such offences? This Government led the way on that convention when it was established earlier this year.

[The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)]

Again, I thank my right hon. Friend, who has brought a laser-like focus on bullying and harassment in all places of work. The Government and I strongly support this convention, which seeks to ensure that women and men around the world are properly protected at work. Our law makes it clear that violence and harassment at work are unacceptable and unlawful, and our next steps will be to consider how we will ratify this and bring this new treaty to the attention of Parliament.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

T2. May I remind the Minister that next year marks 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970, and much of the progress has been made because of our membership of the European Union? I took the first petition on equal pay and sex discrimination to the EU in 1977. Much of the progress has been made because the EU has pushed us and many Labour Members campaigned for many years. How much longer are we going to have to wait? Is it going to be another 50 years?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not believe that we need the EU in order to have strong rights for women in Britain; I believe that we British women are strong enough to stand up for ourselves.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

We have a gender gap not just in the workplace, but among entrepreneurs; one in 10 men in work are entrepreneurs, whereas only one in 20 women are. What does the Minister think would be the best way to address that?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right about this, particularly in respect of funding. Female-led businesses are getting less funding from venture capital than male-led businesses. We want to address these barriers and open up entrepreneurship to women across the country. We are lagging behind places such as Canada and Australia, and we need to do better.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T3. I am sure the Minister will agree that all women deserve equal protection under the law, no matter where they come from. Indeed, I have had positive conversations with Ministers about including migrant women in the Domestic Abuse Bill, but can she tell us when she will be able to commit to including them specifically in that Bill?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Lady and all Members of this House who contributed so positively and, on occasion, movingly to the Second Reading debate on this important piece of legislation. She knows that the Government are conducting a review of the treatment of migrant women, because we have very much borne in mind the findings of the Joint Committee, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). That review is ongoing and as soon as I have more news I promise that the hon. Lady will be among the parliamentarians I speak to.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

In Cheadle, Northern Rail has responded positively to my campaign for lift accessibility for people with disabilities by giving 24-hour access, but not every disability is visible—some are invisible. Does the Minister agree that we should support people and help to promote the need for accessible toilet signage?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Absolutely, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning so hard on behalf of her constituents and working with Northern Rail. She is right about this. The inclusive transport strategy covers not only visible disabilities, but those that are invisible, and we are about to undertake a huge communications campaign to make people with all disabilities comfortable and confident to use our public transport system.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T5. Audio-visual announcements on buses are vital to enable people with sight loss or hearing loss to travel with confidence. The UK Government’s consultation ended more than a year ago, in September 2018, with no further progress, so what discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the Department for Transport to bring forward this important measure?

[Ms Ghani]

This is a key piece of our work in the inclusive transport strategy, especially as buses are the form of transport used most often by people with disabilities. We are crunching the data we have and we are hoping to make this available soon, but the inclusive transport strategy abides by the United Nations’ aims to make sure that all of our transport is accessible by 2030.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Sexual harassment online is a major issue for many women. Will the Minister examine the issues of cyber-flashing and revenge porn to make sure that victims are given the proper legal protections from those as sexual offences?

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend raises a point that concerns many in the House and outside. I am currently doing a piece of work on online offences and look forward to the development of the online harms White Paper, because I suspect that many of the answers we all seek will be in that documentation.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

T6. Endometriosis UK found that 476,000 British women had to visit their GP more than 11 times for a positive diagnosis, and that their pain was often dismissed as being psychological. What steps is the Minister taking to eliminate gender bias in the diagnosis of health conditions?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

On the particular issue of endometriosis, I will have to write back to the hon. Lady, but being wrongly diagnosed as having a mental health condition is incredibly serious, and we are looking into rolling out training to GPs to help them better to diagnose mental health conditions. I will use this opportunity to say again that we are investing £2.3 billion a year in mental health services in the community, and hopefully that will go into GP practices and GPs will know not to make those kinds of diagnoses in future. I will get back to the hon. Lady on that particular condition.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

When she was Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) committed to the House to introduce legislation to remove caste as a protected characteristic from the Equality Act 2010. When will the current Minister for Women and Equalities and her team bring forward legislation so that we can end this bizarre and divisive situation?

[Victoria Atkins]

It is a pleasure, as always, to respond to my hon. Friend on this important piece of work. I am in the process of discussing this with the Secretary of State, and we hope to have an answer for him shortly.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

T7. In the spirit of equality, the Electoral Reform Society has said that compulsory photo ID for voters will potentially leave millions of voters voiceless. Some 3.5 million voters have no photo ID at all, with the most affected being the elderly, ethnic minorities and those who are socially disadvantaged. Is it not the case that the suppression of voter participation is dangerous and will exclude many from exercising their democratic rights?

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is perfectly proper that we make sure that the right people are voting and that they bring ID with them to the polling to station. We have had issues with electoral fraud in this country.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

T8. During the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, he promised to look into the impact of the changes in state pension age for women. Will the Minister commit to working with the Prime Minister to provide transitional arrangements for the women of the 1950s, who have been hit hardest?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue again. Obviously, with the litigation ongoing it is difficult for me to comment more broadly, but I understand that that comment was made by the Prime Minister. If people are suffering and need any support, they should go to their jobcentre, talk to their local citizens advice bureau and make sure that they ask for help. We have many different benefits, both in retirement and after retirement, to support people to have a good, secure retirement. This issue should not affect anyone—women or men.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We now come to the urgent question.

Online Pornography: Age Verification

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

10:43

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of age verification for online pornography.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the work that she did as my predecessor at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

It will always be the priority of this Government, and probably of any Government, to protect citizens in general and children in particular. We will do that online just as much as we would seek to do offline. It is because of that approach that we are changing the approach to age verification on the internet. As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State tabled a written ministerial statement on this issue yesterday. I hope to provide some more detail on that.

Adult content is too easily accessed online and more needs to be done to protect children from harm. We want to deliver the most coherent approach possible. I believe we can protect children better and more comprehensively through the online harms agenda that my hon. Friend championed so effectively than we can through the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2017. I shall be straightforward: it will take slightly longer to do it through this mechanism, but we will go as fast as we can and deliver on the agenda in a more comprehensive way.

As my predecessor in the Department, my hon. Friend was of course responsible for the publication of the “Online Harms” White Paper, which proposed the establishment of a duty of care on companies to improve online safety, overseen by an independent regulator with strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. That vehicle goes further than the age verification proposals originally tabled, and since the White Paper’s publication, the Government’s proposals have continued to develop at pace. This week, the Government announced as part of the Queen’s Speech that they would publish draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny next year. It is important that our policy aims and our overall policy on protecting children from online harms be developed coherently. In view of these developments, we will bring forward the most comprehensive approach possible to protecting children.

The Government have concluded that this objective of coherence and comprehensiveness will be best achieved through the wider online harms proposals that my hon. Friend championed and that have support across much of the House. That is why we do not propose to commence part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. As currently drafted, the Act does not cover social media platforms, for instance, which is something that she and I both know was of concern to this House. It will give us a further opportunity to revisit the definition of pornographic material, which was also a concern of some Members.

As I say, we want to deliver the most comprehensive approach to keeping children safe online. I fervently believe that we can do that better through the online harms agenda. We are committed to the UK becoming a world leader in the development of online safety technology as a whole. This is a part of that, and it includes age verification tools, which will continue to be a key part of it. Everyone across the House agrees on the need to protect children online and offline. Pre-legislative scrutiny for the online harms Bill will be a vital part of that process. I hope that Members across the House, particularly my hon. Friend, will continue to engage with the Government so that we can bring forward something for which there is a cross-party consensus and that delivers an agenda that we can all share.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The statement yesterday came as a shock to children’s charities, the age verification industry, the regulator and the online pornography industry itself, all of which were ready for, and expecting, the age verification regulations to be brought into law by the end of this year.

The Government postponed the introduction of the controls in July after an administration error in which the EU was not informed about the proposals as it should have been in line with single market rules. At that time, firm assurances were given to the public, children’s charities and the industry that the EU issue would be resolved swiftly and that legislation would be brought in by the end of the year or early next year at the latest. There was a debate in the Statutory Instrument Committee earlier this year about the exemption of Twitter and other social media platforms from the AV regulations, and it was agreed that we would review the effectiveness of the regulations 12 months on from their introduction. Such a timetable would still be much sooner than the indefinite postponement effectively announced by the Secretary of State yesterday.

No one is arguing that AV provides a panacea for the prevention of children accessing adult content—we know that there are ways to circumvent AV—but children’s charities have provided evidence that too many children stumble across adult material accidentally and that this can have a damaging effect on them at a vulnerable age. It is likely that the regulations would raise the age at which young people are first exposed to pornography. The Secretary of State should not make the perfect the enemy of the good when it comes to child protection, especially after the Government have given so many assurances that once the privacy issues have been dealt with—they now have been—the regulations will be brought into law. For the Government to renege on their commitments in this important area is a very retrograde step, and I urge my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State to think again.

[Matt Warman]

I share a huge number of the hon. Lady’s concerns. This is not an indefinite postponement of the measures that we are seeking to introduce; it is an extension of what they will achieve. I honestly believe that we can do even better than some of the original proposals. For instance, she is right that raising the age at which children are exposed to deeply inappropriate content is important. Nobody is pretending that the proposals, either in the online harms agenda or in the original legislation, are perfect, but we should do all we can to make them as good as possible. I honestly believe that we will achieve more for child protection through this slower but more comprehensive approach than we would be taking the faster approach, which, as she has said, would end up being reviewed relatively quickly and, I suspect, wrapped into the online harms agenda. We are not delaying this unnecessarily; we are seeking to bring forward this aspect of the online harms agenda as quickly as possible.

[Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Every time the Government get in a mess, they used to say, “Uncork the Gauke.” But now, with Morgan missing, the cry goes out, “Where’s Warman?” And here is the Minister again, to clean up yet another Government mess.

Just four months ago, the previous Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport came to the House to announce another delay in the introduction of age verification. He stood at the Dispatch Box and told us

“let me make it clear that my statement is an apology for delay, not a change of policy… Age verification…needs to happen… it is in the clear interests of our children that it must.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2019; Vol. 662, c. 368.]

Well, it is not going to happen. It is obvious today that the Government’s much-vaunted age verification policy is dead.

The Government tried to bury the bad news once again, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) had the courage to force the Minister to the House, to clean up the Government’s mess and explain the policy to the nation. Ever since its inception, the policy has been beset by mistakes, mishaps and month after month of delays.

The Opposition raised serious concerns at the outset that the policy was not well thought through, posed serious privacy concerns and would prove nearly impossible to implement. The Government used every excuse in the book to explain the delays, but today we know the truth: the policy, as conceived by the Government, was unworkable, and the Minister has finally ditched it. Will he now confirm that the policy has been abandoned? If he will not, will he admit that it was at least severely downgraded in the Queen’s Speech?

My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), in the process of scrutinising the legislation in Committee, warned that the British Board of Film Classification should never have been tasked with this job in the first place, even though it said yesterday that it had a system ready to implement. Can the Minister explain whether the Government had confidence that the BBFC was ready to implement age verification and whether it will have any future involvement in the project? Can he tell us how much public money has been spent on this failed policy? If he cannot do so today, will he commit to providing that information in writing in the near future?

The bigger danger in all this is that it is a sign of what is to come: that the online harms legislation that we so badly need will also be delayed, disrupted and finally abandoned in the “too difficult to implement” box. We must not let that happen. Every day our children are viewing hateful and harmful material online—material so sickening that it drives some young people to suicide and others to extremist violence and murder. These are the frontier challenges of internet regulation.

We need to keep our kids safe. Any Government taking on the tech giants will need determination and meticulous attention to detail. That has been utterly lacking thus far. The Government must not fail again.

[Matt Warman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question, if not much else. He is absolutely right in his closing point that online harms is a difficult agenda and we must not get it wrong. I look forward to working across the House to ensure that we do this right because there should be no party political division on this agenda.

Age verification will be a key part of the online harms agenda. It will be a key tool in the box, but the toolbox will, through the online harms agenda, be bigger. I say honestly that the inclusion of the online harms Bill in the Queen’s Speech is testament to the Government’s commitment to delivering it, and we will be bringing it forward for pre-legislative scrutiny so that we can get it right. I hope that the BBFC will be a key part of the future of this process, because its expertise is in the classification of content. I am going to see its chief executive shortly; my officials have already been in touch. We look forward to working together with the BBFC.

The hon. Gentleman asked how much money has been spent. I think that approximately £2.2 million has been spent on this part of the agenda, but it is of course also a key part of the online harms agenda, so it would be silly to suggest that that is money wasted. It is money invested in protecting our children, and we will continue to do that.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

There is nothing that I have heard from the Minister today or that I saw in the written ministerial statement yesterday that gives any good reason why this decision has been made. There is no reason why these provisions could not have been commenced and then the online harms process added. This decision has delayed the provisions for at least a year, if not longer, as the Minister well knows. Will he explain why the previous Secretary of State came to the House in June and said that this measure would be commenced as soon as possible and that there was no change in policy, but now there has been? What has happened between the summer and now for this decision to have been made?

[Matt Warman]

Of course the Secretary of State appeared before my hon. Friend’s Select Committee yesterday, after the publication of the written ministerial statement. The Secretary of State and I sincerely believe that we can deliver this agenda better and with an overall more comprehensive net impact by doing it through this mechanism rather than through the Digital Economy Act. Some people will say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but I think we can go further overall and do better with this approach. This agenda is so important that it is worth us taking our time to get it right.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

This disastrous handling seems to be a metaphor for this shambolic Tory Government—not least as they forgot to inform the EU of their plans. The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens. The widespread availability of pornographic material to children and young people, and the increase in violent content and revenge porn, is having a profound impact on society, relationships and body image. This delay will create more harm to young people and citizens across the UK.

The Government have suggested that this issue will be addressed through the proposed online harms Bill. How do they plan to do that? Will the proposed online regulator be tasked with the responsibility for pornographic verification, or will that be conducted by a separate regulatory body? The charities I met have concerns about the BBFC, despite the assurances that it has given. What is the cost to the taxpayer and to businesses, which are ready for this change and will now be severely out of pocket?

[Matt Warman]

The approach of introducing a duty of care on all relevant companies through the online harms Bill is what will allow us to go further. The hon. Lady—as I did at the beginning of my response to the urgent question—talks about the duty of care that a Government have to their citizens, and that is what is driving us to take this new and broader approach. She asked about the money—as did the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson)—and I refer her to my answer to him. My officials met the affected companies yesterday, and I will continue to engage with them. In what was a constructive meeting, they said that they would seek to continue to be part of the online harms agenda because, as the hon. Lady says, it is an issue that is far broader than simply age verification.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

This is more than disappointing; it is critically urgent. Over half a million pornographic images are posted daily on social media platforms, and there cannot be a parent in the land who is not worried sick about this. The Government need to treat this with much more urgency and respect than they have done. How are the Government—how is the Minister—going to demonstrate urgency in protecting our children from accessing pornographic websites? There are over 50 streaming this material daily, many not from the UK.

[Matt Warman]

My hon. Friend is of course completely right. It is a critically urgent issue, but it is also critically urgent that we get it right, and I do think that we can make that progress by doing it in a way that is comprehensive, in line with the online harms agenda. However, I am not seeking to make age verification line up with that timescale. We will do this aspect of the policy as quickly as we possibly can, and I honestly look forward to working with her on that.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I am very shocked at this U-turn by the Government. The framework that had been created to support section 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 was robust: it was a platform to start protecting children from online harm. Why can it not continue in parallel with the online harms legislation being developed? The two are not incompatible. The Government have a choice—they start protecting children now from online pornography or they leave them exposed.

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Lady is right that the framework was potentially a start, but I think that we can do better. We have a duty to present a coherent set of regulations rather than introduce something that would have been, as she puts it, a start, but would not have gone as far as we can and that would overall, I think, be seen as something that we would have had to fundamentally reform and review once we had put it in the context of the online harms agenda. I understand where she is coming from—I really do—but I honestly believe that by doing this more slowly we will make a better impact overall.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The Government’s approach seems to be, “Give us more time and we can produce a better system”, so, as parents, when can we be satisfied that there will be a system in place that will protect our children from the corrosive effects of online pornography?

[Matt Warman]

My hon. Friend characterises our response absolutely correctly. It is time that will allow us to produce the best possible solution for protecting children. We will be responding to the online harms consultation by the end of the year and bringing forward legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny in the new year.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In the statement yesterday, the Minister said that the regulator will have the discretion to require companies to meet their duty of care, so what sort of enforcement does he envisage that regulator having, and how soon will they get it?

[Matt Warman]

I hesitate to pre-empt what will ultimately be in the draft Bill, but it is obvious that we would want any regulator to have extremely strong sanctions in extreme circumstances. However, we would also want there to be a tariff, as it were, of what they could do in less severe circumstances to make sure that users were protected from a whole host of both illegal and legal but harmful experiences online.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Age verification is important, but please, as a result of this debate today, let us not see it as a silver bullet. The real solution is to educate all young people on the harm caused by pornography. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that those who protest against mandatory relationship education for primary school age children—measures this Government have already put in place—are failing to see the importance of teaching all children what a good relationship looks like, which is not pornography?

[Matt Warman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. While pornography is one extreme example of some of the corrosive effects of the internet, we have to look far more broadly than online behaviour in order to try to fix some of the effects that have come into the real world as well.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Further to that point, when the Children’s Commissioner worked with DCMS and had workshops with children asking them what they wanted from this, they reported that their e-safety lessons at school were generally boring and not very useful. Does this not highlight how important it is to have relationship and sex education across the whole of our education system, but also, critically, to give teachers high-quality training to deliver fun, useful lessons that children find will actually help them?

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Lady highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach that goes far beyond online. The nature of the lessons that she talks about is not within my Department’s scope, but I think we would all agree that we want children to be engaged in lessons that are particularly important.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

This legislation is well overdue, and many are concerned that the delay may come at a significant cost. If we genuinely get better legislation that can better protect children, it may be worth while, but this delay has come as a surprise. What is the Minister doing to restore or build trust with key stakeholders that this delay will lead to better legislation to protect children?

[Matt Warman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that it is important for us to retain the confidence of stakeholders. For instance, the response of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is one that I share. It has said:

“This delay is disappointing, but it is also imperative that the vehicle used to achieve protection for children from pornography is robust and effective.”

That is what we seek to deliver, and we will work with the NSPCC and a whole host of other stakeholders to deliver it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

We have been debating this in the House for nine years. The Minister simply cannot say that this is an urgent problem that has popped up. His decision today means that children will be exposed to this vile pornography for another two or three years. Can he take back his suggestion that it is the children’s responsibility to learn how to avoid it? It is his responsibility, surely, to protect them.

[Matt Warman]

If what I said was open to misinterpretation, I apologise. I am not suggesting for a second that it is a child’s responsibility to protect themselves online. That is why the Government are bringing forward the online harms agenda. I am not suggesting either that we are addressing a problem that has suddenly popped up. It is something that Governments of various colours have sought to address over a number of years, and we will continue to do that. We are seeking in the “Online Harms” White Paper to go further, in a thoughtful and sensible way, than any other country in the world has managed to do, and I hope we can do that with cross-party consensus.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The internet has been a fantastic resource for children in their education, but all too often, pornographic images are available to children when they are not specifically looking for them, particularly on social media sites. What will the Government do during this brief delay to ensure that social media is encompassed within their reforms?

[Matt Warman]

My hon. Friend highlights one of the crucial differences between our new policy approach and the old one, which is that we are now able, via the “Online Harms” White Paper, to consider what the duty of care might mean for social media companies in a way that would not have been in the scope of the original proposal. That is just one example that demonstrates how much further we are able to go with this new approach, and it is a reason why this is the right thing to do, even though it is a tough decision.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am really struggling to understand the logic here. Some 95% of 14-year-olds have seen porn, and the harm that it causes to future relationships is well documented. Why, when the age verification regulator was ready to install this measure by Christmas, can it not go ahead? When, under the Minister’s new proposals, will we see protections in place for children?

[Matt Warman]

I sympathise with what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve, but we can do more by going slightly slower. As I have said, we will respond to the consultation by Christmas and bring forward legislation for prelegislative scrutiny in the new year. I hope that she will work with us on that. We will, of course, seek to bring forward this part of that agenda much more rapidly than the whole package, because, as she says, this is hugely important. Getting it right is important, but getting it enacted quickly is also important.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Does the Minister recall the nerve required to reach for Health and Efficiency and the looks at the counter as it was put in a paper bag? What is out there now makes H&E look like a nursery rhyme. His approach really is going to be comprehensive, is it not?

[Matt Warman]

I am afraid I am too young to recall precisely the experience to which my right hon. Friend refers—and I am sure he was speaking on behalf of others, rather than himself. However, he is absolutely right that what is out there on the internet now pales into insignificance compared with everything that was printed for newsagents. That is precisely why we have to go so much further.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

For the Minister to say that he will wrap up childhood protection in the online harms legislation is not even a fig leaf to hide the fact that his Government are absolutely naked when it comes to a robust legal framework that deals with privacy, data, age verification and identity. We need measures that put in place protection for children online, not that kick in after they have already been exposed. What is he doing to ensure that children have the same rights online as they do in the real world?

[Matt Warman]

I think what the hon. Lady is saying is that in many ways prevention is better than cure, and that is why the online harms approach will place a duty of care on website operators to make sure they have to take a preventive approach.

[Chi Onwurah]

indicated dissent.

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Lady shakes her head as though I have misunderstood her question. I am very happy to talk to her outside the Chamber to try to give her a better answer if she wants one.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Keeping our children safe must always be a priority, and I too am deeply concerned by this delay. Age verification is achievable. The company Yoti in my constituency is already providing highly accurate digital ID in 170 different countries. Will the Minister work with companies such as Yoti to make sure that the very best technology is used to keep our children safe?

[Matt Warman]

I am glad my hon. Friend raises this point. In many ways, this is a technology problem that requires a technology solution. She mentions Yoti, and I have already met SuperAwesome, which is another company working in a similar space. People have talked about whether facial recognition could be used to verify age, so long as there is an appropriate concern for privacy. All of these are things I hope we will be able to wrap up in the new approach, because they will deliver better results for consumers—child or adult alike.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The age checks for porn have been backed by children’s charities. The NSPCC said this morning that

“viewing this explicit material can harm their perceptions of sex, body image and health relationships”,

and it has said that the climbdown was “disappointing”. May I therefore ask the Minister how the Government will allay my fears and those of charities such as the NSPCC, and how they will deliver the objectives of the Digital Economy Act to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable young people from online pornography?

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right that the concerns of the NSPCC are those that I know he and I, and, I am sure, Members across the House, would share. We will work with such charities to make sure that we deliver, as I quoted earlier, the “robust and effective”—and comprehensive—regime that they and I think we would all want to protect children online.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

The tech companies and social media companies have incredibly powerful and sophisticated tools at their own disposal. Does the Minister not agree that they have a moral responsibility to do more themselves, and what will his Department be doing to urge them to do that to keep our children safe?

[Matt Warman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the technology companies can do more. For too long, a voluntary approach has not delivered the results that we would all like to see. As I have said, the “Online Harms” White Paper is the legislative method that will put a far greater duty on them not just to invest in safety, but to make it a genuine and meaningful top priority.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

During the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the impact of social media on young people’s health, we heard some horrendous statistics about the number of young people who have stumbled across pornographic images. I asked my own daughter, who was 11 at the time, if she had seen such images, and she had. These are our own children—the children of many Members—who are stumbling across this. Yes, we have to get it right, but we have to get something in place now, as quickly as possible. If it needs correcting later on, we correct it. Why are we not acting now?

[Matt Warman]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns. I worry about what my three-year-old might stumble across online, even though she would be too young to understand it. Too often, stumbling across explicit material happens through sites such as Twitter, which would not have been in the scope of the original proposals but now will be. That is an example of why we should take an approach that, while not being unnecessarily slow, is more comprehensive. I hope that we can work across the House to deliver on those objectives.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The internet can provide children with a wealth of information, but it also exposes them to real harm. What progress has been made by the Information Commissioner’s Office in designing a new statutory code of practice for developers regarding standards of privacy for children?

[Matt Warman]

My hon. Friend references the age-appropriate design code, and the ICO has published proposals and is working vigorously to improve on what they might mean. As I said earlier, we do not fix problems after they have occurred for individual children in this country; we must present an internet that is appropriate for their needs.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Dominic Cummings know a lot about online harms—they have been committing them since at least 2016. The Minister calls for a cross-party approach, but how can that possibly happen when that triumvirate have been ducking and diving, avoiding questions from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and from me, regarding online harms through which criminal offences have been established, and in which they will not divulge their role?

[Matt Warman]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the online harms being discussed in this urgent question are fundamentally about the protection of children on the internet, and I hope we can genuinely forge a cross-party consensus on what that means. This is an important and difficult agenda, and I hope that we can work together to protect children on the internet, wherever they may end up finding themselves.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

The protection of our children is paramount, and a recent report on online harms by the NSPCC did not make good reading, and suggested to me that time is of the essence. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that any independent regulator that is introduced will have sufficient enforcement powers to take effective action against sites that ignore their moral responsibility and make it easy for children to access inappropriate material?

[Matt Warman]

The precise purpose of changing our approach is to have a regulator that, in due course, will have comprehensive authority to take the actions that we need to protect children. That will always be this Government’s top priority on the internet. I hope that Opposition parties across the House will join us in that endeavour, and that we can come quickly to a conclusion that allows us to achieve what should be shared objectives.

Business of the House

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

11:18

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 21 October is as follows:

Monday 21 October—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech, on the NHS.

Tuesday 22 October—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech, on the economy.

Wednesday 23 October—Second reading of the Environment Bill.

Thursday 24 October —General debate on spending on children’s services.

Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.

Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the motion on today’s Order Paper which, if approved, will allow the House to sit on Saturday. Subject to that approval and to the progress of the negotiations, the necessary motions for the House to consider on Saturday will be tabled before the rising of the House today.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business for next week. There will be a debate on the business motion in any event, I am sure he will agree.

We are in a new parliamentary Session. It was helpful that in the Official Report on 14 October there was a chronology of parliamentary debates, a list of Her Majesty’s Government and all the people who are in the House. It is helpful for Members to look at that. There is a recently updated list of ministerial responsibilities.

Unlawful, breaking conventions, misleading—all these words apply to this minority Government. Our gracious sovereign was forced to read out a programme that should have started with, “My Government apologises for dragging me into controversy.” Where are the state visits? It seems that no one wants to come here. Eleven out of the 28 Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech began in the previous parliamentary Session. Of the seven Brexit Bills, five are Bills that the Government failed to get through the last Parliament—nothing new in the Queen’s Speech.

This minority Government set out their plans to recruit more police officers, but they imposed, as we found out in the west midlands, a five-year recruitment freeze. That was the last Conservative Government—hopefully, it will be the last Conservative Government. The total of 20,000 police officers is just replacing those that were cut in 2011. Building 40 new hospitals quickly unravelled as spin. It is not 40 new hospitals; it is a reconfiguration of six. Perhaps the Leader of the House can update us on the news about Canterbury hospital? I am not sure if the Prime Minister was right. Is Canterbury hospital on or off?

On financial services after Brexit, there was nothing in our sovereign’s Gracious Speech on ending tax avoidance or tax evasion. The Government pulled the Financial Services Bill at the last minute in March. Will the Leader of the House please confirm that the Government will not pull this very important Bill? Where is the registration of overseas entities Bill to address money laundering? The chairman of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, Lord Faulks, said in May:

“Time is of the essence: the Government must get on with improving this Bill and making it law.”

There are no policies for the people, so the Government want to rig the next general election. Requiring voter ID will disproportionately affect people from ethnic minority backgrounds and working-class voters of all ethnicities. The Government only want votes for the few. In the last general election, there was only one instance of voter personation. Will the Leader think again and pull that Bill, or may we have a debate on early-day motion 30 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid)?

[That this House expresses deep concern at the Government’s announced plans to prevent people from voting unless they can provide photographic identification at the next election; notes that of the 44.6 million votes cast in the 2017 general election, there were just 28 allegations of in-person voter fraud and one conviction; recognises that some 11 million citizens do not possess a passport or driving licence and that people aged between 17 and 30 and black and minority groups are 15 per cent less likely to own driving licences; expresses concern that this policy will introduce widespread voter dropout among vulnerable and disadvantaged groups if rolled out; and calls on the Government to urgently review its proposals.]

We have the Environment Bill next week. We have had earthquakes, and Cuadrilla has begun removing equipment from its site. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be an end to fracking?

Misleading statements: saying Brexit can get done by 31 October, when the Leader of the House and this minority Government know it will take years to unravel 40 years of partnership and agreeing new trade deals. The Leader of the House admitted on Sunday that he might have to eat his words. I have two for him: terminological inexactitude.

What about a debate on an alternative Queen’s Speech, with a Bill to establish a national education service that values all children and lifelong learning, and abolish tuition fees; a Bill for an NHS that remains free at the point of need, with safe staffing levels and over £30 billion of extra investment; a Bill to establish a Ministry for employment rights, delivering the biggest extension of rights for people in the workplace; a Bill to build 1 million affordable homes to rent and buy over 10 years; a Bill to invest an extra £8 billion to tackle the crisis in social care; a national investment bank; regional development banks; a national transformation fund; a green new deal; and the closure of loopholes so there is no outflow of capital, with equality, social and economic justice and opportunity as our watchwords? When can we have a debate on that?

When can we have a debate on harnessing the energy of our natural resources in a way that respects planet Earth, on harnessing the energy and talent of all our citizens in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and on an ethical foreign policy that does not allow the incarceration and separation of Nazanin and Gabriella when they go on holiday, or the detention of other UK nationals detained in Iran—Morad Tahbaz, Kamal Foroughi, Aras Amiri and Anousheh Ashouri? Will the Leader of the House please arrange for the Prime Minister to meet with the Families Alliance Against State Hostage Taking? Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a case against Nazanin based on the Prime Minister’s words to a Select Committee?

I thank the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) for moving the address on the Queen’s Speech. He failed to address one question: in whose interests do we make evidence-based policy decisions—the many or the few? Moreover, we must always make them in the public interest. I say to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) that it is great to think that a former party vice-chair is either Demelza or Ross. She may like to know that Ross was a socialist. However, both hon. Members gave entertaining speeches.

I thank Ruth Evans, who has resigned as chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, finishing in that post yesterday. I know that we value her insights into IPSA, and I hope that her great contribution to public service will continue.

We wish England, Cymru and Ireland all the best in the quarter-finals of the Rugby World Cup.

Finally, I welcome the new Serjeant at Arms, Ugbana Oyet. Mr Oyet is currently Parliament’s principal electrical engineer and programme director for the estate-wide engineering infrastructure and resilience programme. Mr Speaker, you know what they say—bigger job, smaller title. We wish him well.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was an enormous amount in that, but I think the key point on the Queen’s Speech is that we have had six days of debate and all those issues could have been raised then; that is the opportunity to discuss them. This Queen’s Speech is not very popular with the Opposition, which I confess is not a great surprise—why would it be? They are, after all, the Opposition. The basic point is that they should have voted for the motion allowing for an early general election, and then they could have had their own Queen’s Speech. The right hon. Lady kept asking when we were going to have a new Session of Parliament, so it really is absolutely extraordinary that as soon as we oblige her—as soon as we do what she has asked for—she says that that is not right, either. There is, it has to be said, no pleasing some people.

I shall address some of the specific points the right hon. Lady raised. The Government will be spending an extra £33.9 billion on the health service—a really important and significant amount of money—including £1.8 billion going to 20 specific hospitals. I am glad to say that the Royal United Hospitals Bath, which serve my constituency, will be receiving some of that additional money. I think that right hon. and hon. Members across the House should welcome the commitment that the Government are making to the health service. Perhaps that is the nub of the matter: a really exciting domestic programme has been announced in the Queen’s Speech—it will tackle knife crime, it will ensure that prisoners serve proper sentences, it will deal with the national health service and improve it, and it will improve people’s standards of living—and it is absolutely fascinating that the Opposition are clearly not in favour of reducing knife crime, do not care much about the NHS and do not want to improve standards of living for people across the United Kingdom. That is the oddity of opposition.

Is it not wonderful, Mr Speaker: there is objection to ID being presented before people go and vote, whereas there are reports that somebody has gone to work for the Leader of the Opposition who had been found guilty of fraud—over 100 individual cases of people faking electoral identification? One begins to understand why the Opposition are not so keen on identification—because it makes it harder for them to scurry for votes around and about.

The right hon. Lady, as always, mentions Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and is quite right to do so. This is a matter of the highest priority for the Government, although there is a recognition of the limits of what Her Majesty’s Government can do in influencing regimes that behave unlawfully. She mentions the Families Alliance Against State Hostage Taking. I am sure that a Minister will be available to see them and talk to them; I think that would be an important and right thing to do.

The right hon. Lady ended by saying that the Government should act for the many and not the few. Well, this Government, being a Conservative Government and not factional, believe in operating for everybody and looking at a united and single country, where we offer services, good will and an improved standard of living to all.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Ind)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the amendment that stands in my name, which will fall to be discussed after the business question. Would he consider, even in the short period available, the Government’s actually accepting that minor, technical amendment, which would provide for amendments to be made on Saturday, so that we do not have to have a vote on it today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is one of the most thoughtful Members of this House; the things that he brings forward have always been carefully considered. I would say to him that the motions that the Government are tabling are in relation to Acts of Parliament, and when we have amendments of many kinds to motions that follow an Act of Parliament, it is more likely to cause confusion than elucidation of the point.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing—well, something, anyway, that it looks as though we will be doing next week.

I, too, welcome the new Serjeant at Arms, Ugbana Oyet. I think that all of us on these Benches are looking forward very much to meeting him and working with him in the future.

It was uncharacteristic of the Leader of the House not to announce today that he had secured his deal—and well done to him and his Government for eventually getting something after all this time. The only problem is that it is a worse deal than that of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It takes Scotland out of the European Union against its national collective will, it deprives us of customs union and single market membership, and it will stop the freedom of movement on which our economy and so many vital sectors depend.

They are all still on the Hillary Step. The dark clouds are still there, and the mist is still in the air in the shape of the Democratic Unionist party. Sherpa Foster has unshackled herself from the Prime Minister, and is busily descending the mountain as we speak.

May we have a debate on culinary delicacies? The plat du jour for the Leader of the House is his own words: a delicious Northern Irish Brexit jambalaya of choice vocabulary including “impractical”, “bureaucratic” and “betrayal of common sense”, all washed down with the finest Château Cretinous. Churchill may indeed have found his own words very nutritious, but I suspect that the Leader of the House will only get indigestion.

We will deal with the issue of the Saturday sitting when we debate the motion, but we will complete our debates on the Queen’s Speech in the next few days, and it looks very likely that a Queen’s Speech will be voted down for the first time since 1924, when Stanley Baldwin was in power. May I ask the Leader of the House what happens in such circumstances? He will obviously tell me that he thinks and hopes that the Queen’s Speech will get through, but what will happen if it does not? We have heard from the Government that they intend to introduce the measures in the Queen’s Speech Bill by Bill. If that is indeed their intention, I should like the Leader of the House to confirm it to the House. I know that he likes to give his views on such issues, so let us see whether he can be straightforward with the House today.

The Leader of the House will have noted from what was said at the Scottish National party conference that we intend to hold an independence referendum next year. We as a nation must unshackle ourselves from this whole ugly, disastrous Brexit business, an issue that we wanted absolutely nothing to do with. Is it not interesting that under the deal that has been announced today, Northern Ireland will be given a differential deal on single market membership, Wales will get what it wants, and the rest of the UK will get what it wants as well? The only nation that does not get what it wanted in relation to Europe is Scotland, and that is not good enough.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It’s being so cheerful as keeps the hon. Gentleman going. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He mentioned the deal. I am pleased to say that it is a really fantastic and exciting deal, and I am very glad that he has given me the opportunity to speak about it. When I was speaking on behalf of the Government on Sunday, I was doing so because I trusted the Prime Minister and knew that he would get a good deal. I was supporting the deal on the basis of trust, and now that I know what is in it, my trust has been completely justified. It is a really exciting and positive deal. It removes the undemocratic backstop, and it is a huge advance for the whole United Kingdom. It will ensure that we are one single customs territory.

I am aware of the details of the deal. I actually have the text of it here. I am glad to say that, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have had a chance to peruse it in detail. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that I have not read it. How do you peruse something without reading it? Does the hon. Gentleman think that I have understood it through extrasensory perception? I tell him he is wrong. It has not come to me through the ether. I have looked at the words on the page, of which the normal definition is reading. Perhaps, after this session, people should be given remedial education so that they can understand the normal use of words in English.

We have a really good, exciting deal that takes out the undemocratic backstop and delivers on what the Prime Minister promised he would do. In 85 days, he has achieved something that could not be achieved in three years—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Because of you.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me credit for it, but the credit belongs to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has achieved this remarkable success in a deal that all of us can support. Every single Member who stood on a manifesto saying that they would respect the will of the people in the referendum can support the deal with confidence. All our socialist friends can support it with confidence because it delivers on the referendum result. Today is a really exciting day in British politics. All Eurosceptics—all my friends who sit where I used to sit—can rally around this great deal, and I hope that my friends in the DUP will also find that what it does for the whole of the United Kingdom is something in which they can have comfort and that they can support. I understand that our separatist friends do not want anything for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom; they are always trying to pick things apart, but they will be shown to be wrong.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked if I would at any point have to eat my words. I must say that this deal is the tournedos Rossini of a deal—it is a deal that one can eat with joy and pleasure, and it is the finest culinary delight for me to have.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not pay unduly close attention to the SNP conference, having other things to do of slightly more interest, although it has to be said that almost anything would have been of slightly more interest—I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was very pleased to be here in the House of Commons earlier in the week to avoid his leader’s speech. The difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland is absolutely clear, and that is the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—and the fact that there is a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and that is a land border with the European Union. Northern Ireland is therefore unquestionably in a unique position, hence its difference.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

We have our own environmental emergency in Buckinghamshire at the moment at Great Missenden. Despite Buckinghamshire County Council, Chiltern District Council, myself and the local councillors all asking the Department for Transport to halt the enabling works at Great Missenden for HS2 until the Oakervee report has come in, they have gone ahead. We have traffic chaos on the A413. I have been sent pictures of an ambulance and a fire engine being held up. Eight trees are going to be felled and people are demonstrating outside Great Missenden. May we have a debate on HS2 before the Oakervee report comes in so that we can give the Secretary of State for Transport courage to cancel this terrible project—phase one at least—and spend the money better on other parts of the United Kingdom whose transport infrastructure desperately needs improving?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point on behalf of her constituents and the people who live in Great Missenden, and I will certainly take what she says to the Transport Secretary to try to ensure that she gets a prompt response to the letter that she sent to him. When these sorts of projects are under review, I would encourage people to proceed in a thoughtful and careful way, and to consider the interests of communities affected by the works, particularly due to the inconvenience that may be caused. Perhaps there is a special feeling of the inconvenience that may be caused in this context, because I understand that the road to Chequers passes through Great Missenden, so this might be of immediate interest to the Prime Minister and I am sure that he will want to know about it.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

When the Leader of the House had another role somewhere on the Back Benches, he described the kind of deal that it appears has been done by the Prime Minister as “cretinous”. Can he tell me what on earth has happened in the last few months to change his view of the deal from “cretinous” to one of the best things that has ever happened? Is it his sudden appearance at the Dispatch Box that has changed his mind?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is unduly cynical. This is a fundamentally different deal because the undemocratic backstop has gone. Why is that so important? The backstop meant that the whole United Kingdom could be kept in the customs union and the single market in perpetuity and could leave only with the permission of the European Union. It was harder to leave the backstop than to leave the European Union; there was no article 50 provision to get out of the European Union’s backstop. Under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, this was made superior law for the United Kingdom.

That undemocratic backstop having gone, the operation of article 4 therefore means that as a nation, including Northern Ireland, we will not be tied into the control by the European Union that there would have been under the previous deal. We will be free. We will be out of the European Union. We will control our own tariff regimes and our own regulatory regimes. We will be a free country, and Northern Ireland will be free to follow the same route by a democratic vote of the people of Northern Ireland. I am proud to stand at this Dispatch Box, not for jobbery but because the Prime Minister has done such a fine job in freeing this country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but we must expedite proceedings because there is other important business with which to deal, so there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on an issue that was brought to my attention at the recent Conservative party conference: the lack of careers advice at school for young people who suffer from hearing loss?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue every week for the Government to consider. The Government’s careers strategy was published in December 2017. It contains a number of proposals to improve careers advice for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, including funding for the Education and Training Foundation to provide professional development for practitioners working with these young people; funding for training and materials for post-16 providers to help them to design and tailor study programmes that offer a pathway to employment for these learners; and training for enterprise advisers so that they are confident in helping people with special educational needs and disabilities. I believe that what my hon. Friend asks for is being provided and will continue to be provided—and it is important that it is provided.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government’s own economic assessment of a free trade agreement with the European Union shows that it would lead to the second-worst outcome for the economy after no deal and would, as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs reported recently, result in British businesses spending £15 billion a year on filling in forms that they do not have to fill in today? Since he has just extolled the virtues of allowing the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether it wants to change its mind about the deal that has been agreed, why is he so opposed to the British people deciding whether they want to change their mind on the deal whose virtues he has just extolled before the House? I have to say that this is not a culinary delight; it is really bad for the future of our country.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman has not asked for a debate, an Adjournment debate or a statement. His question is therefore irrelevant.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

If the House does indeed sit on Saturday, and if it does indeed approve the deal that the Prime Minister has secured, does it remain the Government’s intention to bring forward the legislation necessary to implement that deal so that we can leave by 31 October? Will the Leader of the House therefore be returning to the House on Monday to make a further business statement?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important question. If the motion tabled for Saturday is passed, legislation will have to follow, so I fear that I may be troubling the House with further statements next week.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) smacks of sheer and utter arrogance. Can we have an urgent statement from the Government, or an urgent debate, on how bad this new deal is for workers and for the jobs of people in this country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman objects to how I responded to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), but the point is that this is business questions, not a general debate—that is another occasion in this House. Given all the hon. and right hon. Members who wish to involve themselves in these proceedings, we will never get on to the Queen’s Speech if this is turned into a free-for-all. It is very important to remain orderly. The hon. Gentleman asks for a statement on the deal. There will be a debate on the deal tomorrow, so what he is asking for will be given.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt—I know that the Leader of the House will readily accept this, and I say it for the benefit of those observing our proceedings—the arbiter of order is the Chair. The arbiter of order is not the Leader of the House. Proceedings were entirely orderly; otherwise, I would have indicated to the contrary. It is the prerogative of the Leader of the House to respond as he thinks fit to each question put. I will just very gently make the point that if there is a desire in responding to questions to develop an argument more fully and with justified—in his mind—pride to celebrate a particular policy, and in the process going somewhat beyond merely treating of the schedule of business for next week, it is perhaps not altogether generous-spirited to excoriate a colleague who does not operate in quite the way that the Leader of the House would like. But as I say, I will judge order, and I do not require any help from the Treasury Bench.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

From personal or familial experience, and because of all the work we do here, we know of the fragility of good health, and 100,000 sufferers from multiple sclerosis know that, too. This week, I, along with colleagues, learned more about that condition in a presentation that was given in the House. Its causes are complex and its symptoms are initially very subtle, so raising awareness is critical, and a statement or motion before the House would allow that to happen. Ruskin said:

“Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life”

Co-operation across this House can help to counter this dreadful condition.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can come to the aid of my right hon. Friend straight away because on Monday 21 October the continuation of debate on the Queen’s Speech will be dedicated to the national health service, and that would be the opportunity on which to raise this point. The point is an important one, and bringing it forward in debate is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (LD)]

Could the Leader of the House please let us have an urgent debate on the serious issues facing shellfisheries? They are highly dependent on EU markets, and I am afraid that no-deal planning has been woefully inadequate. Mussel fishermen in my constituency still do not have guidance on how to export in the event of no deal after 31 October. Likewise, many crab fisheries have many—in some cases, all—of their pots in EU waters. Could we hear when we can debate this?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The debate on the economy on Tuesday would be an opportunity to discuss the economy of the sea as well as the economy more narrowly.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 2769, which points out a major flaw in the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

[That this House notes the ease with which registered sex offenders and criminals are able to change their name via deed poll, for as little as £15 online, as an automatic right; further notes that, under Section 84 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the onus is placed on the sex offender to notify the police of any such name change; understands that this loophole in the law has the potential to allow many convicted sex offenders to go under the radar of authorities; acknowledges that the safer recruitment process and DBS checks are being undermined by the lack of regulation and robust due diligence provided for by the existing legislation in this area; further acknowledges that this is potentially placing society’s most vulnerable people at risk of harm; and therefore urges the Government to reform legislation to remove the automatic right of sex offenders to change their name online by deed poll, to set up a regulatory system to create a more joined-up approach between the relevant bodies and to introduce interim measures to protect the safety and security of children and vulnerable people presently at risk.]

My Harlow constituent and founder of the Safeguarding Alliance, Emily Konstantas, has conducted research showing that convicted criminals are able to change their name by deed poll for as little as £15 online and evade vetting processes and DBS checks under a new name, allowing them to work in an environment around vulnerable people. May we have an urgent debate on the state of safeguarding legislation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend, as always, raises a point that is important and needs to be answered. He will be reassured to know that the United Kingdom has some of the toughest powers in the world to deal with sex offenders, and we are committed to ensuring that the system is as robust as it can be. Public protection is inevitably and rightly a priority, and the notification requirements for registered sex offenders are vital to managing them in the community. Crucially, the failure of a sex offender to tell the police of a name change within three days is a criminal offence with a maximum prison sentence of five years, so although it may be easy for people to change their name, it is illegal and the penalty is quite severe.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

This week, the Government announced an arms embargo as far as Turkey is concerned after its incursions into northern Syria, but all is not quite what it seems. My understanding is that there is an embargo only on new licences where it is believed that the equipment may be used in northern Syria. Given the confusion and lack of detail, will the Leader of the House organise a statement from the Department for International Trade?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What is happening in Syria troubles Her Majesty’s Government and is being taken seriously, and what is going on in terms of arms and Turkey is being reviewed. This is an important and sensitive matter, because Turkey is, of course, a NATO partner and, therefore, there is no simple solution. However, the Government are treating the matter with the utmost seriousness and concern and have tried to discourage the Turkish Government from proceeding in the way that they have been proceeding.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), if we are able to sit this Saturday and pass the deal—heal with a deal—is it possible that we may also want to sit next weekend in order to expedite all the legislation needed to leave by 31 October?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her zeal for Parliament? I think there is only one other person in this House who has such zeal, Mr Speaker, and that is probably you. We will need to use time very efficiently in order to legislate by 31 October. I think it is safe to say that I do not expect us to have to sit next Saturday and that we should be able to do things in an orderly way before then, but I will obviously keep the House updated.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I make no argument against us sitting on Saturday, but it is inconvenient for many people who have families. Unfortunately, the nursery is not able to be open to ensure that childcare is provided for hon. Members. Would it not be incumbent upon the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to make financial provision so that the costs of childcare can at least be met for Members?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I recognise that it will be difficult for some right hon. and hon. Members with responsibilities. The matter can certainly be raised with IPSA to see whether it feels any special arrangements can be made. As a general principle, though, I would say that to sit on three Saturdays in 70 years is not an insuperable burden.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that, once we have Brexit done, there is the perfect opportunity to debate the stronger towns fund money that the Government have awarded to Redditch, unlocking up to £25 million of funding to regenerate our fantastic town? Will he find time for such a debate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend tempts me, because the fund that she refers to will benefit two towns in North East Somerset: Keynsham and Midsomer Norton. The idea that we should have a debate is one that appeals to me greatly, but it may be more suitable for an Adjournment debate or even for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Last week, more than 600 MPs from around the world were in London for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s annual session, and I thank the House staff who worked diligently over the weekend to support and greet members. They were exemplary and left everyone with an image of our hospitality and professionalism. We held a session with more than 120 schoolchildren from around London, who were invited to talk to me and my vice-presidents from the UK, Portugal and Canada about defence and security issues. There was huge excitement about the debate and the questions were superb. I have asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence whether that is something that we could also take forward, as there is a clear appetite for it. Will the Leader of the House look at the potential for Select Committees to do outreach work in schools, so that we can engage young people in Parliament and its processes?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, may I thank the hon. Lady for the tribute she has paid to the House staff? We are extraordinarily lucky in the way we are looked after in this House and with the commitment they have to Parliament. This gives me the opportunity to say that every member of my private office volunteered to come in to work on Saturday. That gives me great pride in the team I am supported by, and I know this applies across the House. This House is incredibly good at education and bringing young people in, and it is one of the things you have focused on, Mr Speaker. The team in the education department are stunningly good, and I am certainly in favour of encouraging this, if Select Committees can do it.

[Mr Speaker]

I warmly appreciate what the Leader of the House has said about the staff of the House. I think it will be warmly appreciated by Members throughout the House and, above all, by those staff, who have been very properly acknowledged and congratulated. I thank him for that.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to use the House? The House did itself proud, and many of the delegates, from all around the world, including partner nations, were very impressed by what we are able to do here.

Thousands of women in the UK suffer from the debilitating, chronic disease of endometriosis. Despite employment law requiring employers to support employees with medical conditions, many women find themselves forced out of work, with little redress, especially because, on average, diagnosis can take seven to 12 years. May we have a debate on workplace practices for women who are suffering with this terrible disease, so that they do not have the trauma and stress of losing their jobs, on top of having to deal with a debilitating condition that destroys their work lives, as well as their personal lives?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government recognise that there is more work to do on raising awareness of conditions such as endometriosis, and ensuring that clinical guidance is being followed and that therefore diagnosis is earlier. It is essential that all of us—Government, Parliament, employers, the NHS and wider society—do what we can to improve the diagnosis, and more generally get rid of old-fashioned taboos relating to women’s health to ensure that people are treated fairly in the workplace and have their rights in law upheld and enforced. A debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall would be a good way of giving this important issue further attention.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

It was really discourteous of the Leader of the House to wave around his own private copy of whatever has been agreed in Brussels, start the debate off and then try to stop everybody else asking him about it. Will he do something to remedy that discourtesy? I have two particular points to make about this Saturday sitting. First, he is not planning for it to be a 90-minute debate, is he? That would be totally ridiculous. Secondly, will he ensure that the Government publish a full economic impact assessment of what has been agreed, so that we can have it to inform Saturday’s debate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am slightly puzzled that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is odd that members of the Cabinet receive Government documents; this is the normal process of government in this country. I can give him the assurance that all the documents will be published as required by the Act. [Hon. Members: “ When?”] They will be available online as soon as practicable. They will be in the Vote Office in draft shortly and they will be available as finalised documents once they have been agreed—assuming they are agreed—by the European Council. The surrender Act requires them to be laid on the day of the debate, and that will be done, but because the Government want to facilitate this House’s ability to study the papers, they will be made available earlier than is formally required under the Act.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am pleased to see the Environment Bill coming before us again next week. However, Homes England is proposing that 13,000 homes be built just outside my constituency on greenfield sites to the west of Ifield. My constituents, through their local authority, will not get a say in the planning process. May we have a statement from the Communities Secretary as to how my constituents can have a say on the impact of 13,000 housing units, the loss of green space and the pressure on infrastructure that that would represent?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend lives in such a beautiful part of the country that many more people want to live there. That is a difficulty for many people with attractive constituencies. It is a natural desire of people to live in the most outstanding areas of our countryside. There is inevitably a tension, because the Government have a mission to build more high-quality, well-designed and affordable houses, and there is a balance to be struck between building them and protecting greenfield areas. However, I understand the issue that my hon. Friend raises—people in a nearby area but not the same administrative area can feel that they are not sufficiently represented—so I shall pass on his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As the Leader of the House says, when the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) brings things to the House, they are carefully considered. The Leader of the House has undertaken to put the documents in the Vote Office if they are agreed with the European Union. When will that be? Will the documents include the political declaration? Will the documents highlight the changes made from the previous agreement, so that each Member does not have to go through and make their own comparison?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said, the documents will be made available as soon as they can be. The European Council meets today and tomorrow and will have an opportunity to approve or not approve the agreement. It is a decision made by the 27 members, as the hon. Lady will know, and that decision will be made. The papers will be deposited once they are agreed. This is how things happen—it is a normal process—but I can be absolutely certain that the papers will be laid, in accordance with the Act, before the debate takes place.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

A few months ago, Barclays bank closed its Cleethorpes branch. At the time, the bank wrote to me to say it had identified 106 vulnerable customers whom it would be contacting directly so that they could do their banking through the Post Office. Barclays has now withdrawn some of its Post Office arrangements, so may we have a debate to discuss how the people of Cleethorpes can be supported against Barclays bank?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have just been given wonderful news and the House will rejoice: the documents are now available on the gov.uk website, so I imagine that people will now flee the Chamber so that they can read them earnestly before bringing forward further points.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), access to banking is a really serious issue for people. The Government are committed to supporting digital payments and safeguarding access to cash for those who need it, and we are pleased to see banks signing up to the banking framework agreement with the Post Office. It is saddening that Barclays has not been able to reach an agreement with the Post Office. I hope that efforts like that of my hon. Friend will put pressure on the banks to behave in the best interests of their customers and to ensure that service continues.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government talk about putting billions of additional money into our NHS, yet in York the whole primary care mental health service is not being cut—it is being shut down because of lack of funds. May we have an urgent debate on where all these billions of pounds are meant to be going?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Some £33.9 billion is going into the NHS, and considerable extra funding, which has cross-party support, is going into mental healthcare facilities. I suggest the hon. Lady asks for an Adjournment debate on this matter, because that would be the ideal opportunity. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I am giving you lots of Adjournment debates today, but they are such a good mechanism, using the Chamber of this House to highlight issues with Ministers, with the Box full of their officials, to make sure that things get done. The money is there and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to campaign for it for her area. If I were in her position, I would be doing the same.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I was pleased that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill was reintroduced after the Queen’s Speech. I supported the Bill before Prorogation as it is another example of the Government’s excellent record on animal welfare. Will the Leader of the House provide an update on when the Bill will have its Second Reading?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend tempts me to stray into matters that are not quite right for today. There is so much business to be done and so many future business statements. This issue is a priority for the Government—he is right to say that the Government have a good record on animal welfare. This is an important Bill that commands a lot of support across the House and I hope it comes forward in the not-too-distant future.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

People were obviously delighted to see Baby’s law come before Parliament, and if Parliament had not been illegally prorogued, it would have passed through this place by now. I am glad to hear that it is a priority for the Government, but I would urge the Leader of the House to introduce it as soon as possible. It is a small Bill and could actually be fitted in in the next few days. Please will he give us some commitment that it is top of his list?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I refer her to my previous answer.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on transport infrastructure provision across south Gloucestershire, especially in relation to the campaign for a new junction 18A on the M4, which is ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore)? The new junction would unlock great potential for many more much-needed homes and more jobs.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend, who represents a south Gloucestershire constituency, is a near neighbour of mine, and I must confess I have a prejudice in favour of very good transport around Somerset and Gloucestershire, which is in all our interests. He can raise this at Transport questions on Thursday, but I would also encourage him to continue campaigning for it. I understand the beneficial economic consequence that road infrastructure can have.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Fortunately, the legal texts were available from the EU before the Government made them available. Does the Leader of the House, like me, welcome the fact that, under article 12 of the protocol, the courts in the United Kingdom will continue to be able to obtain preliminary rulings from the European Court of Justice and be subject to EU law? Can we have a debate about the benefits that the supremacy of EU law has brought to the UK?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am glad to say that the supremacy of EU law was one of the things rejected in the referendum, and it will fade away. As the morning mist fades, so will the supremacy of that appalling Court.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might not be aware of the bridge crisis in my constituency, with first Abbeyton bridge and then Park bridge declared unsafe and closed, owing in part to swingeing budget cuts to Aberdeenshire Council from the SNP-run Scottish Government. Can we have a debate about how we can get direct UK Government funding for crucial infrastructure projects that are made impossible by budget cuts to local authorities by the Scottish Government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is sad to see how wasteful the SNP is of taxpayers’ money and how badly it manages to administer Scotland. The Union is good for everybody and works for the whole of the United Kingdom. He makes a good point about whether there are ways of directing money, but the devolution settlement is very important and needs to be respected.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The decision has been taken to franchise two post offices in my constituency, which will lead to a reduction in postal services and is a stepping stone to closure and ending the livelihoods of postal workers and their families. Can we have an urgent debate on the future of our postal services, after a decade of privatisation and neglect?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Obviously the provision of postal services, and the ability to access them conveniently and to get to post offices, is of great importance to people. I recognise that, because it is important in my constituency of North East Somerset. There are many opportunities to raise these subjects. It might be a suitable subject for the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday, which is on economic matters—I think that post offices play an important part in the economy.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

This Government, like the previous Government, have made a welcome commitment to oppose the persecution of Christians globally and to support freedom of everybody in religion and belief, including those of no religion or belief. In the light of increasing problems, the latest being the closure of churches in Algeria, could we have a regular statement in Government time on the work the Government are doing in this area? I know they are committed to it, but we need to hear about it in Government time in the House.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have huge sympathy with what my hon. Friend is asking for. It might be possible to do that at business questions, in the way that the shadow Leader of the House raises the issue of people held illegally by foreign Governments. If Members were to raise this issue at business questions every week, that would be extraordinarily welcome. I think it is important, even though I am now sitting on the Treasury Bench—[Hon. Members: “Lying on it!”]—sometimes, indeed—to keep pressure on the Government to act in favour of good and important activities so that they do not get forgotten. I am very grateful to him for raising this.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

After nine years of austerity, there is a huge funding gap in the early years sector, so I was shocked to hear not a single mention of the sector in the Queen’s Speech. Will the Leader of the House therefore commit to having a specific debate on the closure of Sure Start centres and nurseries across the country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That was actually mentioned in the Queen’s Speech debate yesterday, so it has already been covered.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In Harrow, we are blessed with three NHS walk-in centres, but the problem is that anyone from anywhere can just walk in and queue to see a doctor. To make the service more efficient and effective, the clinical commissioning group recently decided to move to an appointments system— 12 hours a day, seven days a week—so that people can see a GP by appointment and not have to wait extraordinary lengths of time. That is a service improvement. May we therefore have a debate, in Government time, on how we can improve our NHS and ensure that our money is spent in the best way possible?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to GP services. With extended access, evening and weekend appointments are now available across the country. The independent contractor model of general practice means that practices have a large degree of autonomy in deciding how to manage and run their practice to best suit the needs of their patient population. I am encouraged that he has noticed improvements. If he wishes to raise the matter at greater length—I hope that he will do so—the NHS debate is scheduled for Monday.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)]

Further to the important question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), will we, in advance of the debate on Saturday, be privy to the full economic analyses of the declarations and the deal that has been secured today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The paperwork will be available, as I have set out. With regard to economic analyses, there are all sorts of economic analyses—you pays your money and you takes your choice with economists.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I thank the Government for putting the deal online and the Doorkeepers for putting a printed copy in my hands. I am delighted to see that co-operation on science and research remains a top priority. May we have a debate on delivering infrastructure, which is such a top priority in the Queen’s Speech, because I want to ensure that critical projects in my constituency, such as securing a second railway station and mending our broken flyover, are delivered?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A broken flyover does sound extremely inconvenient. There will be any number of debates—as my hon. Friend knows, the Queen’s Speech debate covers many of these issues. Transport questions will be on Thursday, so they can be raised again then. The Government are absolutely committed to an infrastructure programme that ensures that this country has workable infrastructure, with the beneficial economic effects that will follow.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I give the Leader of the House a little advice? All Leaders of the House have to get the House on their side. I thought that his disrespectful and rather patronising response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chair of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, won him no friends. As a result of urgent business—this is not his fault, or your fault, Mr Speaker; it is no one’s fault—today’s Queen’s Speech debate on the climate emergency will be truncated, so is there any way he can compensate for that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If the hon. Gentleman had not asked his question, we would be getting on to that business sooner. It is up to Members to self-regulate, and then business questions would be shorter.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the policing of the Extinction Rebellion protests? That would give Members an opportunity to praise the Metropolitan police and other forces that lent their help, such as Kent police. We would also have an opportunity to rebut the shameful criticisms levelled against the police by the Mayor of London.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I must confess that I agree with my hon. Friend; it is really shameful that somebody who has a role with the police should criticise them when they have done everything possible to ensure that law and order is maintained, despite coming under enormous pressure. I spoke to some of the police officers who were around during the Extinction Rebellion protests. Some of them were getting up at 2 o’clock in the morning and then being on duty for 12 or 14-hour shifts, to ensure that we were kept safe. We should be enormously grateful to the police service of this country.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I note that you did your bit for British-Irish relations at the weekend by appearing on “The Late Late Show” on RTÉ—it is good viewing, if anyone wants to watch it. This Sunday, as Vice-Chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I shall be meeting friends and colleagues from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland and the Channel Islands as part of the Assembly’s meeting. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as the Leader of this great House, join me in recognising that, at this critical and really difficult time in our relations across these islands, the gathering together of politicians of different views and from different parts of these islands is more crucial than ever, and will give an assurance that the full support of this House will be forthcoming in future years to ensure that the Assembly flourishes and that our conversations flourish, so that we can get through this particularly difficult time in our history?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I will absolutely do that. May I also hold up the hon. Lady as an example? She is a neighbour of mine, and despite our strongly different views of the world, we have always been able to have, whether on television or in hustings debates, very civilised conversations. I think that is a model for how debate should be carried out.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Many parents in Rugby have expressed concern about a sex and relationships education programme for primary schools, provided by Warwickshire County Council—it is called “All About Me”—that goes well beyond statutory guidance and involves sex education for children as young as nine years old, and potentially younger. It is important that parents are reassured that what their children are being taught in school is age-appropriate, so may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on the appropriateness of that programme?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have read about this, and it is quite rightly a cause of controversy if schools give children messages that their parents are not happy with. I fully sympathise with my hon. Friend’s concerns. Schools do have to make the choice themselves, but parents do have a choice about schools, and that is important. Parents and schools need to be happy that what is being taught is suitable and that both sides are content with it. Schools should not go off and do things that leave parents concerned about what their children are being taught, and I am glad to say that we do not have that sort of approach in this country. I share his concerns and will ensure that they are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Week after week, I have constituents coming to my surgery whose only crime is poverty. That does not just happen; it is a consequence of one of the Government’s flagship policies: universal credit. They sometimes have to wait for weeks before receiving any money, which cannot be right. May we have yet another debate on the operation of universal credit, so that those of our constituents who are suffering poverty as a direct consequence of something the Government are implementing have a voice that can be heard in Parliament and so that we recognise the reality of what they are dealing with in their lives?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

All of us are there in our constituency surgeries to be the advocate and champion of our constituents, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on doing so, because that is the ancient role of MPs: to seek redress of grievance. I appreciate that in difficult individual cases the generality of statistics is not the greatest comfort to the individual who is suffering, but the overall picture is one of considerable improvement: 400,000 fewer people are now in absolute poverty than were in 2010, and—this is crucial—730,000 fewer children are living in workless households. Work is the route out of poverty. The reduction in withdrawal rates from the switch to universal credit, bringing it down to 62p in the pound from the 90p-plus rate, has been fundamental in helping to reduce poverty, and the number of people in employment is at a record high. I absolutely accept that that is not much comfort to an individual who is in difficult circumstances, but the generality for the country is considerably improved.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the new Business Banking Resolution Service, which is a method of compensation for small and medium-sized enterprises that have suffered historical mistreatment by their banks? The Chancellor stated in his letter of 19 January that the system should carefully consider all cases brought before it, yet research by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking has identified that 85% of cases are excluded from the scheme by the eligibility criteria.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done on this issue. There is clear evidence that some businesses were treated extraordinarily badly. Some of us, including me, have had constituency cases where the bank in question seems to have behaved quite unfairly towards its business customers. It is important that the resolution system works effectively. I suggest that he takes this matter up again with the Chancellor, and he may also want to raise it during the economy debate on Tuesday. He makes a very powerful point, which I hope will be heard.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

My constituent Kirstie is a single mum of five, following the sad death of her partner. Owing to an erroneous data entry at the Department for Work and Pensions—through no fault of her own—her tax credits were stopped. They were reinstated after intervention by my office, but instead of paying Kirstie what she was due in one lump sum, payments were spread throughout the remainder of the year, causing her serious financial hardship. May we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary on this issue, so we can discuss how to right these wrongs?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise issues of this kind. In my experience of dealing with the DWP as a constituency MP, I have found that it is good at putting right wrongs that it has made on the intervention of Members of Parliament.

[Paula Sherriff]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I see the hon. Lady is shaking her head, and I encourage her to go back to the DWP. If there is anything that I or the Secretary of State can do to support her, I am sure that that will happen. This is one of our proper and right roles; we should always put pressure on the bureaucracy when it makes an error with constituents to ensure that that error is put right. If there is anything I can do to help, I absolutely assure her that I will do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Cartlidge.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am used to waiting, but unfortunately so are my constituents—when it comes to the A14 in South Suffolk. The prospect of an independent trade policy is a great step forward for our economy, but we will only be able to take advantage of it if we support the infrastructure that our crucial ports rely on, including Felixstowe. All Felixstowe’s freight comes out on the A14 so the Copdock interchange is crucial, but it is completely substandard. When does my right hon. Friend expect the Transport Secretary to announce the road investment strategy 2 funding allocations? Let me tell him that it will go down very well if includes funding for the Copdock interchange.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend has been kept waiting—both for the A14 and to ask his very important question. Transport questions are on Thursday, so that will be another opportunity for him to raise this point. Road funding of this kind is also another opportunity for an Adjournment debate. That will get the relevant Minister here, who will have to respond. Frankly, if one makes enough of a nuisance of oneself, sometimes things happen, so I urge my hon. Friend to make a nuisance of himself.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

When can we have an urgent debate on steel? There are very pressing issues—not least the plan to save Tata’s Orb works in Newport—to pursue with the new steel Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who I am pleased to see in his place, but time is of the essence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is fortuitous that the Minister is sitting next to me, so the hon. Lady’s point has been made. [Interruption.] He chunters at me that he is working hard on this. It is a very serious matter that is important to our whole economy. I reiterate that there will be an opportunity to debate the economy in the Queen’s Speech early next week, which may be another good opportunity to raise this matter.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Has the confidence and supply arrangement that the Government reached with the Democratic Unionist party in 2017 expired? Has a new one been agreed? And when does the Leader of the House expect the next Queen’s Speech to take place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No. No. And wait and see.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)]

Every day, thousands of my constituents, many of whom are low paid, hard working and on zero-hours contracts— carers, cleaners, office workers—travel into London on the Jubilee line. This morning, many of them were disrupted and their lives very badly affected by a handful of extremist Extinction Rebellion idiots. This House has made it clear that there is a climate emergency, but can we have an early debate on the legitimate and illegitimate tactics to be pursued by peaceful protesters?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Second Reading of the Environment Bill will take place on Wednesday, which shows how seriously the House is taking these matters. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s worry about this issue. It is quite wrong that people who will not put themselves up for election, and who do not have the gumption to try to get into this House to change the law properly, think they can do so by bullying us. I am glad to say that our police force is operating so effectively that they will not succeed, but I am desperately sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Some of us in the place, when such protests inconvenience us, think, “Well, we’re politicians and that’s what we have to live with.” I think there is a very good case for that. As politicians, there are things that we have to accept that people in private life should not be expected to accept, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are in that category. They should not be disturbed on their way into work by hoodlums.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I press the Leader of the House a little further on the Barclays decision regarding the withdrawal of cash from post offices? I have co-ordinated a letter that has been signed by 124 colleagues from right across the House, asking Barclays representatives to meet me and a delegation so that we can ask them to reverse the decision. Would the Leader of the House ask a Treasury Minister to attend the House to update us on what the Government are doing to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities—including the elderly and pensioners, especially in some of our more isolated communities—have access to cash?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting 124 MPs from across the House to sign such a letter. It shows the importance of the issue and the concern that there is. I will raise it with my friends in the Treasury. I do not know whether they will take any notice of me, but I will certainly encourage a Minister to attend the House.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Yesterday many 1950s-born women, including Angie and Rosie from Scunthorpe, came here to speak to MPs about the pension injustice that they have been experiencing and the impact on their lives. Can we have an urgent debate on how to deliver better pension justice and pension fairness for these 1950s-born women?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty campaigner, and raises an issue that is of concern to many of our constituents, but I do not believe that the Government policy is unfair. Some £1.1 billion has been committed to helping those affected, and no one will see her pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the 1995 timetable. The good news is that over 3 million women will gain an average of £550 by 2030 because of the pension reforms. With an ageing population, the reality is that the pension age simply has to rise.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

A young unemployed person living at home with parents and with no outgoings will collect £251 a month under universal credit. A young constituent of mine of the same age who has lost her job through ill health and has a small mortgage on a very modest flat —with council tax, gas and electricity bills, grocery costs and so on—will receive exactly the same amount of £251 a month. Can we have a debate on making universal credit fair and more appropriate to individual circumstances?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very difficult for me to comment on the individual circumstances of a person I do not know and when I have not been privy to that information. I will go back to what I said earlier: universal credit has been an enormous contribution, helping people to get into work and ensuring that the rate of benefit withdrawal is significantly lower than it was under the old system. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is any error in the calculation, he must take it up with Ministers.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

My constituent Sarah Kamara has just been saved from eviction. Her landlord, Hyde Housing Association, took her to court because of arrears built up largely as a result of universal credit. Can we have an urgent debate in this place to discuss the continued problems that universal credit is causing up and down the country, with debt, arrears, evictions and even homelessness?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave before—that universal credit is helping to people get into and stay in work, and the withdrawal rate of benefits has been reduced.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

If the Leader of the House is so confident that the revised text on Brexit that he referred to earlier is such a good deal, why does he not bring forward measures to make sure that we can have a confirmatory referendum so that the public can decide whether they think it is a good deal or they are better off remaining in the European Union?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have just been passed a note saying that it is the eve of the hon. Gentleman’s birthday, so may I wish him a happy birthday for—

[Kevin Brennan]

It was yesterday.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Oh, it was yesterday—I am so sorry. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be officially noted in Hansard that there were great celebrations yesterday—and, belatedly, many happy returns.

The issue with a second referendum is that we had the 2015 general election that promised a referendum, we had the referendum, which was won by Vote Leave, and then we had a general election when Labour and Conservative MPs alike stood on manifestos saying that they would implement the result. What the hon. Gentleman really wants is to have enough referendums until eventually he wins one. That is not really the purpose of democracy.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Bonfire night is almost upon us again, and my constituents in Pollokshields are already under firework bombardment. The Scottish Government have carried out a consultation which received over 16,000 responses, 94% of which wanted more control over sales. There is no evidence of action from the Leader of the House’s colleagues in Government, so will he give me a statement on what his Government are going to do to protect my constituents?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ah—

“Remember, remember, the Fifth of November

Gunpowder treason and plot

I see no reason why gunpowder treason

Should ever be forgot.”

There is always a balance in these things. People derive a great deal of pleasure from bonfire night, but there are some risks to fireworks, and it is a question of getting that balance right. But I do not want to deprive people of the pleasure and enjoyment they get, sadly, from celebrating the death of a papist, which always distresses me.

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

A number of my constituents in Steinbeck Grange, a development in Chapelford in Warrington South, have been mis-sold leasehold properties by David Wilson Holmes and face rip-off ground rents, punitive management fees and unclear contract conditions. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on compensation for existing leaseholders trapped in these contracts?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Where there is mis-selling, there are procedures to deal with it. The Backbench Business Committee will be re-established very soon, and that would be an ideal debate for it.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Let me bring the Leader of the House back to the question by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, because he will know of the cross-party and cross-House concern on Syria, that the Government will make regular statements on what international interventions they are making to try to fix this humanitarian catastrophe?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Foreign Secretary is making all the representations he can. He is gravely concerned about this. It is really troubling that a NATO ally is behaving in this way. Every possible pressure is being brought to bear, but it is unquestionably complicated by the fact that Turkey is a NATO ally.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

In the light of the growth in food banks, discretionary housing payments and reliance on high-rate payday lenders, does the Leader of the House agree that this House should debate the importance of continuing council tax support payments for those with disabilities or on low incomes with children under five?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. Everyone in this House wants the welfare system to work and to support people in the correct way. Everyone in this House also recognises that no human system is perfect. Therefore, having debates that raise problems and help to perfect what is fundamentally a good system is something that I, as Leader of the House, would encourage. What form that debate would take, I cannot promise her—whether it would be in Government time, which is probably unlikely considering the pressure of business. However, I think we are all keen to make the system work, and I therefore hope that the points she raises will be taken on board by the relevant Department.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Back in March, when the Leader of the House was reclining on the Back Benches, he gave as a reason for not supporting the previous withdrawal agreement that it did not have the support of the DUP, so could he make a statement today as to why that criterion no longer applies?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am more than happy to say that this deal is worth wholehearted and full-throated support from across the United Kingdom. It is a deal that delivers for the whole United Kingdom. It ensures that we will leave the European Union lock, stock and barrel. It makes special arrangements for Northern Ireland in relation to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the fact that there is a land border there between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Those special arrangements support and help the United Kingdom, and the opportunities for the United Kingdom outside the European Union are extraordinarily exciting. This is well worth supporting, and I would encourage the DUP to support it too.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

This week, the Communication Workers Union made history when it voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action against Royal Mail: 97% voted in favour of strike action on a turnout of 76%, defying the undemocratic Trade Union Act 2016. Will the Leader of the House stand with those postal workers as they fight for their jobs and terms and conditions, and against a proposed sale of Parcelforce? Can we have a debate on scrapping the Trade Union Act, which seems to undermine the right to strike in the UK?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I begin by paying tribute to people who work for Royal Mail? We are enormously well served by the service we have in this country. Actually, particularly in this House we are very well served by the postmen and postwomen who look after us. The issue of strike action is one where the Government expect both parties to engage in mediation and proper discussions. It is ultimately a matter between Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union. However, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working with Royal Mail to understand its plans and to provide advice where appropriate. The Government are doing what they can, but it is essentially a matter between the two parties. I hope that it will be settled because we all want to get our Christmas cards.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is an almost universally observed convention of this House that there is a two-week period between the first laying of a Bill and its Second Reading, yet on Wednesday we have the Environment Bill, which is absolutely massive—it has 122 clauses and 20 schedules. In two of the Committees I sit on, we did pre-legislative scrutiny of the first bit, but there is a whole load of other stuff that we have not seen before. Does it really have to be brought back so quickly? Can we not give environmental groups and MPs the chance to scrutinise it before we get to Second Reading?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think there is a general feeling that it is really important to proceed with this Bill. I have a great desire to uphold the conventions of this House. I note, though, that a lot of Opposition Members voted for the Cooper-Boles Bill and for the surrender Bill, both of which were pushed through very rapidly, so this does happen. When we have major items of legislation that have widespread support, it is important that, as you might say, Mr Speaker, we do not allow convention to stand in the way of what is in the national interest.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Some 13 years after believing that he had paid all his contributions to the Child Support Agency, my constituent Ian Gemmell from Auchinleck was shocked to get a bill from the Child Maintenance Service demanding £3,500. While people should pay their way in terms of their children, this debatable £3,500 is not going to find its way to his now adult daughter. Can we have a Government statement so we get a case review for my constituent and an overall review of how the CMS is handling these historical cases?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. As a constituency MP, taking off my Government hat, there is no organisation that I find it harder to deal with on behalf of my constituents or one that is less sympathetic to my constituents. I am glad that he has raised that point, because I think all of us in the House have the same interest which is that that organisation should provide a better and a fairer service, and I am sure that this will be noted by the relevant Minister.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Campaigners fighting to save Pontllanfraith leisure centre were heartened by news this week that Caerphilly County Borough Council cabinet will pause the closure. However, that is not an isolated case. Other campaign groups have contacted me who are fighting to save their leisure services. With an obesity crisis in this country and participation in sport down, can we have an urgent debate in this House on access to sport and leisure?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think there is a general feeling that more exercise is a good thing, as long as I do not personally have to involve myself; I have never been the most energetic of individuals. The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, and it is a good idea to secure a debate on that issue. The most exercise I used to take was bobbing to try to get called when I wanted to involve myself in a statement, and now that I am on the Front Bench, I do not even have to do that. He could request an Adjournment debate, but I think the best route to go down would be a Backbench Business debate, because he may want a longer debate, and the issue has a wider application than purely his own constituency.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is four months since the Government announced a consultation on the introduction of mandatory accessible housing standards in building regulations. Will the Leader of the House urge the Housing Minister to begin the consultation without any further delay?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What the hon. Lady said is on the record, and I will ensure that the relevant copy of Hansard is sent to the Housing Minister, so that she knows what the situation is.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In March 2013, Mr Anthony O’Sullivan, the chief executive of Caerphilly County Borough Council, was suspended by the council and put on special leave. At long last, Mr O’Sullivan has now been dismissed by the council for gross misconduct, but for over six years he has been on full pay and has received over £800,000 from the council, even though he has done no work. The council has had no alternative but to abide by the law, but if Mr O’Sullivan had any sense of morality and decency, he would repay the salary he received for doing absolutely nothing. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate to take place on how a situation like that could have arisen, to ensure that it never happens again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I read about that case in the newspapers and am as shocked by it as the hon. Gentleman. It is not how taxpayers’ money ought to be used. It has now been raised in the House. It has a political profile. Our job in this House is to seek redress of grievance. This is a serious grievance for the ratepayers of Caerphilly, who will want to understand why money has been spent so poorly. We in this House make the laws that lead to these types of payment being made, so we must look at the laws that we make.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My constituent Shelley Kenny’s late father had an arrangement with the green deal, which he was dealing with prior to passing away. She now has to deal with the case. I have written to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy a number of times, and it is asking for information that has already been provided. Given that I have had a lack of success with correspondence, and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is sitting right next to the Leader of the House, would he be kind enough to use his good offices to organise a meeting between me and the Secretary of State, to try to sort this case for someone whose father has passed away?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am always happy to try to facilitate meetings where I can. I am willing to see all Members of this House about any issues they seek to raise. Secretaries of State and Ministers have a duty, in my view, to see Back-Bench Members when the issues are sufficiently serious.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the 60 Back Benchers who questioned the Leader of the House.

Business of the House (Saturday 19 October)

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have selected amendment (a) in the name of Sir Oliver Letwin.

11:09

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That this House shall sit at 9.30am on Saturday 19 October and at that sitting:

(1) the first business shall be any statements to be made by Ministers; and

(2) the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings), with the exception of paragraph (4), shall apply as if that day were a Friday.

The good news is that I do not intend to detain the House for long. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) seems delighted that I will be brief.

As Members will be aware, 19 October is a day of jubilee and song, because it is the anniversary of the birth of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who, on a very rare occasion, is not in his place. Other than wishing him a happy birthday, we have to deal with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, in which Parliament has given the day additional meaning. It has set down a series of requirements that, if we are to leave the EU on 31 October, need to be fulfilled by this House and can only be fulfilled on Saturday, because the European Council will not have finished until the day before. I am sure that many Members can think of other things to be doing on a Saturday rather than coming here, but I admire their diligence in accepting that the basic principle is right. As I have said before, to meet three times in 70 years on a Saturday is not unduly onerous.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I’m only 49!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I meant the whole House.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if this motion is passed, facilities in the Palace of Westminster that are normally open when the House of Commons is sitting will also be open on Saturday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not all the facilities will be open, but there will be sufficient facilities to ensure the culinary comfort of Members if they get a little bit peckish during the course of the day.

The Government have made quite remarkable progress in these negotiations, which will be reported to the House. This is a really inspiring negotiating triumph that the Prime Minister has achieved. The papers have been made available as early as possible, to be as courteous and helpful to the House as possible. The debate date is set by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act.

It is remarkable how far we have come, when everybody said it was impossible. In 85 days, the undemocratic backstop has been removed. At the end of the transition period—that is to say, on 31 December 2020—we will no longer be under the imperial yoke of the European Union. We will be able to implement our own free trade deals. We will be able to set our own regulations. We will be in charge of our own laws. It is an incredible achievement and so much better than where we were at Easter.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, as elected representatives, we would be failing in our duty to our constituents if we were to vote on a deal that would impact on their futures and the futures of their children without foresight of that likely impact. Can he therefore commit that he we will do everything in his power to ensure that impact assessments are published and available for Members to see before Saturday?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady raises an interesting question. There are any number of impact assessments that people have made, but let me give her my assessment of what will happen when we leave the European Union: it will be a golden age for the United Kingdom when we are free of the heavy yoke of the European Union, which has bowed us down for generations and made us less competitive, less efficient and higher-cost. All of that will be gone, and we will be singing hallelujahs.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman boasts that the backstop has gone. Of course, there is no need for the backstop now, given that the UK Government have capitulated on the customs union and the single market. Will they do the same for Scotland and keep us in the customs union and the single market? If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it is good enough for Scotland.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who I thought was a feisty highlander, calls for capitulation. [Interruption.] All right, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is even higher. Her Majesty’s Government have not capitulated, in the same way as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar would be the last person to capitulate. The Government have, in fact, succeeded. We will be out of the customs union and out of the single market, and Northern Ireland will be in a single customs union area with the United Kingdom as a whole. This is fantastically exciting and a very important development.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Over the course of yesterday, we saw media appearances by the Leader of the House’s former pals in the European Research Group, and the Democratic Unionist party going in and out of No. 10. While all of that was going on, how much were the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government kept up to date?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It was my pleasure and honour to brief the Scottish and Welsh Governments about the Queen’s Speech on Monday, so I happen to know—[Interruption.] Well, the Queen’s Speech’s first point was that we would make sure that Brexit was delivered and legislated for. There are constant communications between the devolved authorities and the Government, and that is quite right.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that so many people are already commenting on the deal in the media and indeed rejecting it out of hand, without giving it the thoughtful consideration that the 33 million people who engaged in the biggest democratic process ever would expect us to give to it? We should listen to this new deal, and actually take a thoughtful approach—not a tribal, but a thoughtful approach—to whether it has our support.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right that we want to respect democracy.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know I gave the Leader of the House some advice earlier, but this is a very serious and sombre occasion—a historic moment for this House—and I believe that we should all talk very seriously. I beg him, please will he resist talking about “capitulation” and using words like “surrender”? It is a serious time for our country. Let us take it seriously.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his well-intentioned advice. I know it is intended to be helpful, but may I give him advice in return? Had he listened to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, he would have understood that he was suggesting a capitulation, to which I responded. This is the normal course of debate and it is traditional in this House, although I know the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has been here a good deal longer than I have.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

A trade deal is very important to my constituency in the west midlands. I was on the Trade and Industry Committee when we negotiated with the World Trade Organisation, and such a negotiation takes a very long time. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s estimate of the time factor involved here?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is an astute negotiator, and it may be in the interests of the Government to get some tips from him about how to negotiate. The plan is to negotiate the free trade arrangement within the next year so that we can leave on 31 December 2020. That is the target.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Leader of the House has boasted on a number of occasions that the “undemocratic backstop”, as he described it, has been got rid of. Will the Leader of the House take a few moments to explain in some considerable detail how exactly the new proposals in this document about “Democratic consent in Northern Ireland”—it has now been made available to us, thank goodness—are going to operate?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not want to go too much into the details—[Interruption]—hold on, patience; because this will be the topic for Saturday. The Prime Minister will make a statement and answer no doubt many questions before we move on to the debate. What I would say is that the undemocratic backstop has been replaced by an arrangement that will be subject to the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, which seems only reasonable.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend to think about something he has just said and possibly reconsider it? He has said that the Prime Minister will make a statement. Would it be possible, rather than making a statement, for him to open the debate? That would give more opportunity for Members to speak, rather than just making a statement.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The wisdom of a former Chief Whip is very considerable, and I shall ensure that that point is passed on to the Prime Minister’s adviser.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman expressed confidence that the free trade agreement that is now the centrepiece of the political declaration could be negotiated between now and December 2020. Can he confirm to the House that if that proves not to be possible, it would be a no-deal Brexit—in effect, a hard Brexit—from 1 January 2021? We would be leaving the EU at that point on WTO terms, which the House has explicitly rejected in passing the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

These are the matters that will be discussed if we pass the motion to sit on Saturday, so I think we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves in trying to go into the details of the debate. Much though I should like to be the one dealing with that debate, that will belong to higher authorities than me, who will I am sure welcome questions from the right hon. Gentleman.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

May I seek some clarification before we decide whether to sit and have this debate on Saturday? The Government have published a declaration, a political declaration and a substantial protocol. However, the actual changes to the withdrawal agreement—in articles 184 and 185—are contained on a single page, which is the last page of the protocol. Those are the substantial—if one could call it that—changes. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, should we sit and debate this on Saturday, what we will actually be debating is fundamentally the same withdrawal agreement that has already failed to pass this House on a number of occasions?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to be distracted down this route, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will allow me a little leeway, because that point is so fundamentally wrong. The new agreement is of the greatest significance and the greatest change. The backstop, which has been excised, meant that we could be tied into the rules and regulations and the customs union of the European Union forever. It was harder to leave the backstop than to leave the European Union itself. Under article 4 of the previous treaty, that would then have been our senior law, in exactly the same way as EU law takes direct effect under the European Communities Act 1972.

That was not leaving the European Union; the change that has been made means that we will leave the European Union, and we will be in charge of our own destiny and of our own future. It does surprise me that the nationalist party wants independence yet wants to be under the yoke of Brussels, but we want to be free to make our own way because we have confidence in our ability to make our own way successfully, without being told what to do by others.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not wish to be ungracious, because I am an admirer of the hon. and learned Lady, who is a very impressive inquisitor—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is also an impressive inquisitor. But I am not going to take further interventions, because the Queen’s Speech debate is pressing and I have a few more words to say about the details of Saturday. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members, but I think I have taken enough interventions.

I recognise that changes to the sittings of the House agreed at short notice can create inconvenience to Members, staff of the House and civil servants, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is important to continue to take these matters at greater pace at this important time. Her Majesty’s Government did not choose the date of 19 October to hold this important debate, but it will provide the opportunity for this House to live up to the commitment made by all parties to deliver on the will of the people and to honour the result of the referendum.

If the House agrees to the motion, the arrangement for Saturday will be for the House to sit at 9.30 am. The day will begin with ministerial statements, and I can confirm that, as I have already mentioned, the Prime Minister will make a statement updating the House on the outcome of the negotiations at the European Union Council. The debate that follows will be either on a motion to approve a deal or on a motion to approve a no-deal exit. The debate on one or other of those motions would run for up to 90 minutes under the existing rules of this House. In the event of a motion to approve a deal, that motion, if passed, will meet the terms both of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act and of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do apologise, but other people want to speak, there is an amendment to be moved and there is serious business to be discussed.

If I may, I will turn briefly to amendment (a) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). It would provide for a debate on a statutory motion until 2.30 pm, rather than for 90 minutes. There is a risk that that might shorten the time for debate, because the Prime Minister will make a statement, and some of the statements in this House have been very long and I would guess that many people may want to question him. The 90 minutes is protected time, regardless of when the debate starts. As I have made clear, when the Prime Minister speaks there will be the opportunity to raise any number of questions on this issue.

Dare I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that there is an eccentricity to his proposal? We have an Act of Parliament that requires us to vote on certain motions. That Act was supported by my right hon. Friend, yet he now does not want us to stick to the motion that he supported in the Bill that he voted for, before it became the law of the land. He wants us to vote on something else, which will simply cause confusion and delay. We want a yes or no answer from the House. Does it like the deal, or not? [Interruption.] There are catcalls from across the Chamber, but that is the point of the debate. People will be able to say, “no”, or “yes”, but it will be clear and simple. The amendment will confuse the issue and make it harder for the House to make its opinion known.

Her Majesty’s Government would not have chosen to meet on a Saturday. That date is directly because of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. [Interruption.] I hear Members saying that is not true, but such catcalls are themselves false.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I will finish what I am saying. Other Members will have the chance to speak if they wish. These motions are required because the Benn Act inserted a deadline of 19 October—otherwise we had to ask for an extension to article 50. In what sort of fantasy world does someone ask for an extension when they already have a deal? If the deal is done, let us vote on it, let us get it through, and let us talk about other things.

13:01

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House—he initially said that he would not take long, but in fact he took quite a lengthy time to move a short motion. It is common convention and courtesy in this House to let hon. Members see the text of a draft agreement, and although the Leader of the House is polite when he speaks, many of his actions appear somewhat rude. Waving a piece of paper—the draft agreement—in front of Members and taunting them is not an appropriate way to behave. He is a great student of history, so he knows what happened the last time someone waved a white piece of paper around.

The Leader of the House said that there was a draft agreement. Will he confirm when that is likely to be agreed by the EU27? We have heard rumours that it has already been agreed—I am not sure whether he knows, as we have all been sitting in the House. When will the motion that he has just presented to the House be tabled? Will he confirm—he said this in business questions, but I am asking him again—whether it will be compliant with the legislation on the meaningful vote that was passed by the House?

13:03

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Ind)]

I beg to move an amendment, at end add:

‘(3) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) shall not apply to any motion on that day; and

(4) if an amendment to any motion has been disposed of (including at or after the moment of interruption), any further amendments selected by the Speaker may be moved, and the questions shall be put forthwith.’

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with the Leader of the House that the deal, of which we have—admittedly very briefly—seen the text, looks admirable, and I shall support it and vote for its implementation in legislation, all the way to completion. That is not a very great concession on my part, as I have said for 18 months that I will vote for any deal, but I also think that this is rather a good deal, so there is nothing between me and the Leader of the House on that issue.

However, when we sit on Saturday 19 October—if we sit; ultimately it is up to the Government whether we sit, and they have moved this motion to ensure that—it is important that we can proceed in a way that leads to the result I am talking about: the final implementing legislation and the ratification of the deal. I do not doubt for a second that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, who, under the inspiration of the Benn Act, have taken huge steps to achieve a great deal with the EU, wish to complete that process, get to the end of the legislative process in both Houses of Parliament, and ratify the deal. I am absolutely persuaded that that is what Her Majesty’s Government want to do, and I applaud them. I know that many colleagues in the House who take a different view will vote differently, but that is my view.

There is a problem, however. Neither I, the Leader of the House nor any of the rest of us can possibly know at this stage what strategies or tactics will be employed by some Members on Saturday. I make no accusations at all, as it is perfectly legitimate for Members of the House with a particular aim to deploy a set of strategies and vote accordingly—there is nothing dishonourable in that at all. One thing that could enter some people’s heads—I do not mean any particular Member as I do not know whether this has happened, but it could enter several people’s heads, and perhaps enough to make a difference to the voting—would be to vote in favour of a motion under section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, thereby relieving the Government of the need to apply for an extension under the Benn Act, but then perhaps not follow through the following week by not voting in favour of the subsequent Bill’s Second or Third Reading.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What a suggestion!

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My hon. Friend says that, and I make no allegation that anybody in the House at the moment intends to do so. In any case, doing so would not be in any way dishonourable. It would be a perfectly reputable strategy, but it would not be a strategy to which I or anyone who has put their name to the amendment could subscribe. I hope that, through its vote today, it will be a strategy to which the House will not subscribe.

The purpose of the amendment is simple: it would permit amendments—if selected by you, Mr Speaker— to be moved on Saturday and be voted on. That would enable those Members, such as me, who wish to support, carry through and eventually see the ratification of the deal to allow the Government off the Benn Act hook not on Saturday, but only once the relevant Bill has gone through both Houses of Parliament.

In his otherwise admirable summary, the Leader of the House missed one point. The scope for Members to debate this crucial matter during the 90 minutes will not be limited. That is because it is at your discretion, Mr Speaker, to decide how long to allow for statements and to protect the business for 90 minutes. The House ought to be confident that you will want to do that, Mr Speaker, so I do not think that this is a problem with the amendment.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, but those who drafted the Benn Act could easily have required the passing of legislation to implement any agreement, yet they chose not to. They merely said that a motion supporting a deal had to be agreed by Saturday. That is the law, and this is our best chance of complying with that requirement.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point. If we were endowed with the gift of foresight and omniscience, no doubt we would have ensured that all possible loopholes were blocked. I observe that the Government’s tax legislation—not just this Government’s, but that of every Government I have come across—is full of loopholes, because even the awesome might of parliamentary counsel and Her Majesty’s Treasury fail to spot things that people might be able to do. As one of those involved in the drafting of the Benn Act, I admit it was an oversight not to do as my hon. Friend describes, and I apologise to the House for that. We must ensure that the process operates in a proper fashion, as intended, and that we get to the point of ratification before there is any question of not having an extension to article 50.

The last point I ever need to make about this otherwise rather dull procedural motion is that the terms of the letter in what is now popularly known as the Benn Act mean—if one reads the second paragraph which, of course, the Leader of the House will have done minutely—that the Government will be applying for a flexible extension that could be curtailed and evidently should come to an end the moment the deal is ratified. Evidently, nobody who is in favour of extension is in favour of an extension beyond the point of ratification. I am perfectly sure that if the letter gets written because this House does not end up letting the Government off the hook of the Benn Act, but does in spirit indicate its willingness to approve the deal, and then votes in favour of the legislation, after which there is ratification, the European Union, when responding to the request in the letter, will ensure that any extension is flexible and that it comes to an end the moment that we are out. I have to say to the Leader of the House that on this he and I will be together, and I shall sigh a great sigh of relief if that occurs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), perhaps I should just say this for the elucidation of the House. The House will take its own view of the Government’s motion and indeed of the amendment from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but it is important that colleagues do so with open eyes. The only point I want to make—it is a very simple procedural point—is that although theoretically, as the Leader of the House quite rightly said, the debate could end up being shorter if the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset were passed because a lengthy exchange on a prime ministerial statement could truncate such a debate, that would be the result of a decision from the Chair, because the Chair has discretion. There is no way on earth that I would allow that to happen, manifestly because I am looking to serve the interests of the House. The debate would not be shorter—absolutely would not be shorter. Whether people want to support that amendment or not is another matter, but it is important that people are clear about what the implications are. I am best placed to say what the implications are and I have just said it.

13:11

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think that the whole House is grateful for that ruling clarifying the issues relating to Saturday morning. I think that benefits us all and we now have a better idea of how events will transpire.

The Scottish National party has no issue with the motion and we will not be opposing it. It is worth noting that this will be the first time the House will have sat on a Saturday since 1982, when this House was recalled at the height of the Falklands crisis. I had a look at what other auspicious events have happened on 19 October. As an aficionado of political history, the Leader of the House may like to note that on 19 October, British forces under General Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington, ending the US revolutionary wars. The Leader of the House has a penchant for retreats, surrender and capitulation, so I know he will find that of great interest. He may find this interesting, too: it was also the day on which Napoleon’s forces began their retreat from Moscow. Perhaps we will hear his views on those two issues, as he always entertains the House on these little notes of history.

The key issue—I think we are all grateful that the Leader of the House touched on it—relates to the arrangements that have to be put in place for staff who give up their weekend to come here to work. It should also be noted—the Leader of the House glibly accepted this—that the arrangements present a number of difficulties for Members from Scotland. I do not know how we are expected to get here for 9.30 in the morning. It seems like we will have to be here for the whole week to ensure we are in our place for that 9.30 am start.

On the specific arrangements, and I am glad that you clarified this, Mr Speaker, a 90-minute debate is clearly insufficient, given the issue and the whole range of matters we will have to consider—at least we have a deal to debate. We will support fully the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). It is right that we have the opportunity to debate all the issues relating to this matter and that we have an amendable motion. The SNP will table an amendment, and we will encourage right hon. and hon. Members to support us.

We will need to have all the relevant documents, and the Leader of the House has given us his commitment on that. I listened very carefully to his response regarding economic impacts and consequences. I think that the House would like to see them in advance, but I do not think the Government will be in a position where that will be considered. Scottish Members would like to see what the impact on Scotland will be, but again we have no commitment on whether that will be delivered.

As we come to consider this matter on Saturday, it is worth noting that Scotland wanted absolutely nothing to do with this chaotic Brexit project. We returned one Member of Parliament with a mandate to deliver on the EU referendum—one Member of Parliament. Every single one of Scotland’s Members of Parliament bar one voted against the EU referendum Bill. Every single Member of Parliament from Scotland bar one voted against triggering article 50. When we tried to get a special arrangement for Scotland to meet Scotland’s interests, it was totally ignored and rejected before the ink was even dry. Throughout this whole process, the SNP and the vast majority of Members of Parliament have opposed this arrangement and the whole project. We are not going to start supporting it with the deal that will be presented today. The deal is, in fact, worse than the May deal that was rejected three times. It will leave Scotland at a particular disadvantage in relation to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will have access to the single market and the benefits of the arrangements that will be put in place. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain, so why can we not be included in those arrangements? On that basis, we will oppose the deal again on Saturday.

Scotland is being taken out of the European Union against its national collective will. Scotland will lose access to the customs union, the single market and freedom of movement, which is so important to the growth of our economy and to the many sectors in it. Scotland will never accept this Brexit deal. We refuse to accept that the Brexit Britain concocted by this deal is the best that Scotland could be or could aspire to be. We will oppose it on Saturday. We look forward to having the opportunity to express and explain Scotland’s view.

13:16

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks brief because I am conscious that the House wishes to make a decision and the Leader of the House made such a comprehensive speech. I first want to reflect briefly on the timings for Saturday. I heard what the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said. It is very clear under what is known as the Benn Act—I will give it that term, given that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is in the Chamber—that a decision has to be made by the House before the close of business on Saturday if an extension request is to be avoided. The reason why the drafting of the Act is so important is that now that the Prime Minister has secured a deal that has been recommended for approval by the Presidents of the Commission and the Council, an extension secured under the Act would be particularly perverse, because it would specifically require the Prime Minister to seek an extension not in order to pass the deal he has just achieved, but to go back and try to pass the deal rejected three times by this House. That seems to me to be remarkably foolish. I see the right hon. Member for Leeds Central looking at me quizzically, but that is what section 1(4) of his Act says, and it seems to me that that would be ridiculous. Avoiding that foolish eventuality does necessitate a sitting on Saturday.

My second point, in response to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is that the Benn Act requires the House to make a clear decision on whether it approves the deal. The cluttering up of a motion with lots of qualifications may not comply with the terms of the Act and it will be confusing. It may be that if my right hon. Friend’s amendment were passed, Members might be tempted to try to frustrate reaching a deal by tacking on an amendment for a second referendum. I wish to avoid that outcome and would say that anybody who votes in favour of my right hon. Friend’s amendment is helping those who wish not to carry out the democratic wishes of the British public.

The final point I want to make is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to note—perhaps he can respond to us before Saturday—and it is about ensuring that we are all able to be here. I understand that a march or a demonstration is to take place. First, will he make sure that the Metropolitan police take steps to ensure that Members may access the parliamentary estate and leave the estate in good order, and will that fact be communicated to Members? Secondly, will he not only ensure that all the documents are made available online, but reflect on how they will be made available to Members in hard copy in good time for the debate? Will he ensure that that information is communicated clearly? That will help to facilitate a good debate. I look forward to the House’s approving that debate today and its taking place forthwith.

13:20

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)]

I assure the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that those who come to this place in support of a people’s vote will behave in exactly the way that they have in the past. Last time, when a million marched, there was not a single arrest, so everyone can be absolutely sure that these are good and true democrats who feel very strongly about the future of their country. Asking for a confirmatory referendum can in no way be described as being undemocratic.

I rise to support the amendment, and for this reason. As anyone who has had the opportunity to glance through the withdrawal agreement will know, this is now a very different agreement from the one that was negotiated by the former Prime Minister, in two distinct ways. First, I understand that the new provisions for Northern Ireland, in order to avoid the hard border between the Republic and the north, now create a new border across the North sea. [Hon. Members: “The Irish sea.”] Across the Irish sea. I am from the east coast; I used to do an awful lot of paddling in the North sea. What we are absolutely clear about, however, is that the Prime Minister said there was no way that he would ever agree to that. Well, he has quickly changed his mind on that, but he is very good at saying whatever suits him and his ambition. However, the matter really is very significant for the future Union of our United Kingdom, and it gives me no pleasure to say this. I was a proud member of the Conservative and Unionist party, which in my opinion has now become the Conservative and Brexit party. I actually now believe that in my lifetime we could see a united Ireland because of the way in which the border has been drawn in the Irish sea and the consequences for the island of Ireland.

The other important feature of this new agreement is that for England, and for Scotland and Wales, we are now deprived of a backstop that at least gave a bare-bones customs union and other protections. So, in effect, we now have in England, Wales and Scotland with the hardest Brexit available, and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) is absolutely right about the need for impact assessments. She is right to say that this place should have documentation that is carefully thought through. What has happened to the scrutiny of the agreement that we would have expected from our Select Committees? In that context, to say that this place should have a debate of no longer than 90 minutes on Saturday is an outrage, and to say that we could not even amend the motion would compound that outrage. I ask everybody who believes in this place—this sovereign Parliament and democracy—to support this very reasonable amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

13:23

Division 2

Ayes: 287

---

Labour: 206
Scottish National Party: 35
Independent: 21
Liberal Democrat: 18
The Independent Group for Change: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 275

---

Conservative: 263
Independent: 9
Labour: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That this House shall sit at 9.30am on Saturday 19 October and at that sitting:

(1) the first business shall be any statements to be made by Ministers;

(2) the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings), with the exception of paragraph (4), shall apply as if that day were a Friday;

(3) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) shall not apply to any motion on that day; and

(4) if an amendment to any motion has been disposed of (including at or after the moment of interruption), any further amendments selected by the Speaker may be moved, and the questions shall be put forthwith.’

Debate on the Address

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[4th Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 16 October).

Question again proposed,

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

The Climate Emergency

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

13:41

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Theresa Villiers)]

It is a great honour to open today’s debate on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. A cornerstone of the legislative programme set out in that speech is a landmark Environment Bill. The Bill will help us to make good our pledge to bequeath the environment in a better state than it was left to us, and it will play a crucial part in our efforts to meet the commitment made to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Leaving the EU is an historic opportunity for us to set our own course, and this Government are determined that this will include stepping up action to address both climate change and the decline of nature and biodiversity. These hugely important environmental issues of our time are two sides of the same coin; we cannot protect biodiversity without stabilising the climate, and we cannot tackle climate change without saving the wildlife and habitats that provide crucial life-giving carbon sinks. The trees, plants and peatlands that make up nature’s very own carbon capture technology will become ever more important as we strive to bear down further on emissions to meet the net zero target.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Judging by the Secretary of State’s voice, I think she is suffering from the same ailment as I am: a throat or chest infection.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the commitment by the National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union, which I am a member of back home—I declare that interest—to achieving net carbon zero by 2045, and does she recognise that that commitment by the NFU can make things happen? It is very helpful in trying to achieve the target that Europe wants, we want and everybody else wants.

[Theresa Villiers]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before the Secretary of State comes back in, let me say that there is a lot of pressure on time this afternoon, so I urge hon. Members to make short interventions.

[Theresa Villiers]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He correctly points out that the NFU has suggested going further and faster in meeting the net zero target in relation to farming, and I very much welcome that ambition, which is in tune with the reforms to farm support that I will come to in a moment.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State mentioned that trees are a natural carbon sink. The Scottish Government have a target of 10,000 hectares of tree planting per annum, which they are currently exceeding. The UK Government’s figure works out at an average of 5,000 hectares per year, and they are only delivering a third of that. Last year, 84% of trees planted in the UK were planted by the Scottish Government; when are the UK Government going to catch up?

[Theresa Villiers]

The UK Government have a strong record of protecting nature and biodiversity, and we will continue to build on that with the Environment Bill that I am talking about.

The trees, plants and peatlands that make up nature’s own carbon capture technology are crucial in meeting the net zero target, and I welcome the opportunity today to reiterate the Government’s determination to address the two massive environmental challenges of nature recovery and climate change. We were the first major developed economy to make the historic commitment to meeting net zero, and we are taking action right across government to deliver on our climate commitments. The Cabinet Committee announced today will co-ordinate that work under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, demonstrating his personal determination to safeguard the environment.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right to talk about the importance of biodiversity and climate change. On the last point she made about the Committee chaired by the Prime Minister, can she assure the House that the devolved Administrations will be part of this, so that we do not have England-only legislation on climate change but we have it right across the United Kingdom and so that we are working unitedly?

[Theresa Villiers]

Without going into the details of the make-up of that Committee, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government will continue to work closely with all the devolved Administrations on these hugely important tasks for us.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Theresa Villiers]

I am going to make some progress.

We are a country that has shown that economic and environmental success can go hand in hand. We have cut our emissions by more than 40%—faster than any other G20 country—while growing our economy by more than two thirds. That includes a 25% cut in greenhouse gas emissions since the Conservatives returned to office in 2010.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; she is making a powerful speech and being very generous with her time. Will she support my call that we introduce a net zero test so that we can ensure that at every fiscal event—Budgets and comprehensive spending reviews—we are investing to deliver, and perhaps we could get the Office for Budget Responsibility to scrutinise that so that everyone has confidence, as I do, that the Government are absolutely committed to delivering net zero?

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, which I will consider carefully, and we might of course return to it when the Environment Bill is debated in Committee.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Theresa Villiers]

I am going to make a little more progress.

Only six years ago, 40% of our electricity came from coal; now that figure is less than 5%. In 2018, more than a third of our electricity was generated by renewables, and earlier this year the UK went a whole fortnight without using electricity generated from coal, the first time this has happened since the industrial revolution. We have the largest installed offshore wind capacity in the world, and annual support for renewables will be over £10 billion by 2021.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity just to say how wholeheartedly I support my right hon. Friend in what she is doing, particularly in the environmental space. Does she agree that the ability to take the leadership that the UK has demonstrated in so many areas to the rest of the world in the absolutely critical conference of the parties next year will help us to sell the benefits of the green transition and persuade every other country in the world to lift their eyes to the green prize?

[Theresa Villiers]

My right hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and I wholeheartedly agree and will return to it in a few moments.

We have committed to building on the record of success I have outlined, and we will accelerate the low-carbon growth that already provides more than 400,000 jobs in the United Kingdom. For example, we are supporting clean growth with investment of more than £3 billion in research and development. As we look ahead to the date when we end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, we are generating £2.7 billion in exporting ultra-low emission vehicles. One in five battery electric cars sold in Europe was built right here in this country.

A decade on from the landmark Climate Change Act 2008, which enshrined ambition in law and marshalled action across society, we are forging ahead with legislation for the second great environmental task: nature recovery.

[Alan Brown]

To go back to the number of low-carbon jobs in the UK, does the Secretary of State agree that more could be created if the licensing process for contracts for difference auctions looked not only at price, but at quality and value added in the use of local supply chains? That would help to get preferential treatment for UK companies.

[Theresa Villiers]

We will certainly look at all the options to create low-carbon jobs, including the ideas that the hon. Gentleman speaks about.

Just as the Climate Change Act set a path to reducing carbon emissions, so our Environment Bill will embed environmental principles at the heart of Government decision making. It will mandate the Government to set ambitious, legally binding targets on the pressing environmental concerns that we face as a nation, including air quality, water, resource efficiency, waste reduction and safeguarding nature and habitats.

[Gareth Thomas]

On waste reduction, the Secretary of State will know that plastic is one of the big sources of pollution in our natural environment—particularly in our seas, but also on land. What pressure is she therefore applying to the manufacturers of soft drinks to move away from plastic, particularly single-use plastic?

[Theresa Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the pressing concerns about single-use plastic. The Bill contains a number of provisions designed to cut down on avoidable plastic waste, which I will address in more detail in a moment. It includes the potential for the charges that apply to plastic bags to be extended to other plastics; it also includes better labelling to ensure that people are clear about whether the products that they buy are reusable or recyclable. It will help people to understand the best way to recycle by introducing a consistent approach to kerbside recycling, to increase the proportion of plastic that is recycled rather than ending up in landfill. We fully recognise the enthusiasm across our nation for tackling avoidable plastic waste, and our Environment Bill sets out a range of measures to help us to meet that challenge.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

In Wales, we have the third-best recycling rate in the world, but that recycling ends up across the oceans in other countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that what is actually needed is wholesale reform of the whole waste hierarchy to put pressure on our producers to ensure that they hold responsibility not only for what they produce, but for how they clear up at the end of the lifecycle?

[Theresa Villiers]

I agree that we need a real step change in moving to a much more circular economy, and I believe that our Bill will set us on that path. We are also funding programmes around the world to encourage a move to a more circular economy and more recycling across the world.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being very generous in giving way. She mentions the targets that her Government have set. She will know that research has just come out that shows that the UK Government are set to miss their legally binding targets of reducing emissions by 51% by 2025. I am very concerned that there are no targets on carbon reduction as part of their strategy. Will the Government introduce any? Surely they are the most important thing we need.

[Theresa Villiers]

We are already subject to rigorous legal obligations in relation to our carbon budgets, and we are showing real progress towards meeting them.

Our Environment Bill will mandate setting ambitious targets rooted in science. A powerful new independent watchdog will be created to hold the Government to account on meeting the targets that we set. From a free-to-use complaints system to the authority to instigate and undertake investigations and the power to take the Government to court if necessary, the new office for environmental protection will have real teeth.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to take the Secretary of State back to the Environment Bill for two seconds, because it is important to set targets but even more important to have deadlines for meeting them. She will be aware of concerns raised today that there is a major loophole in the Bill that will essentially give the Government nearly two decades to meet the legally binding future environmental targets. Will she comment on those concerns? It is all very well setting targets by 2022, but not having to meet them for 15 years seems absurd.

[Theresa Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Lady by drawing her attention to clause 10, which provides for interim targets. The OEP will also have the authority to hold the Government to account on our progress towards meeting long-term targets.

Taking on board the recommendations of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and of the Environmental Audit Committee, the Bill extends the OEP’s proposed remit to climate change. More than half the Bill’s measures will apply beyond England, helping the environment across our Union from Shetland to the Scilly Isles. Measures requiring developers to deliver a net gain for biodiversity will provide millions of pounds to boost nature and access to open green spaces.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am pleased to hear that she has taken some of our recommendations on board. When she looks at improving water quality, will she consider whether there is a role for Ofwat? Its periodic reviews of water companies’ charging regimes should be linked to improvements in water quality in our rivers as a means of encouraging savings to customers.

[Theresa Villiers]

I assure my right hon. Friend that Ofwat and the Environment Agency work together closely in their complementary roles in regulating the water industry. Ensuring that the water companies play their part in protecting the environment is vital. Our Environment Bill will help us to maintain and increase the pressure on water companies to cut down on pollution and improve their record on water quality and the natural environment.

The local nature recovery strategies in the Bill will help to join up the network of habitats that the Government committed to delivering as part of our 25-year environment plan. We will boost recycling and cut down on avoidable plastic waste and litter by ensuring that businesses pay the whole cost of the packaging that they produce, including disposal.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The Secretary of State makes a good point about plastic waste. Does she agree that plastic waste getting into the wrong place and causing litter is an issue created by people and consumers, not by manufacturers and businesses?

[Theresa Villiers]

That is, of course, the case. I would always urge everyone not to drop litter; it is an eyesore that blights our communities and open spaces, and we are determined to tackle it. The Environment Bill includes significant new powers to crack down on fly-tipping and waste crime—those deeply antisocial crimes.

A range of measures in the Bill will help to ensure that more of the items that we consume are reusable, reparable or recyclable to help us to create the circular economy about which I was asked earlier. The Bill includes the power to create deposit return schemes for drinks containers and an extension of charging schemes for certain types of single-use plastic. We want to replicate the success of the plastic bag charge, which has led use to plummet by 90%—a great illustration of the enthusiasm and commitment of so many people to addressing the tragedy of plastics pollution in our oceans.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

In more general terms, looking beyond the Environment Bill that we will have next week, can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee from the Dispatch Box that if we were to leave the European Union, the UK’s environmental protections, regulations and laws would be better than those we currently enjoy as a member state of the European Union?

[Theresa Villiers]

We are actually setting out a much more demanding programme for the environment than we would be required to undertake under EU law. We are proposing to go further and faster than EU laws, and as an illustration of that—

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Theresa Villiers]

No; I want Back Benchers to have all the time they need, so I will have to cut down on the points of information.

We will, for example, go further and faster than ever before on air quality, because we will be setting a legally binding target on PM2.5 fine particulate matter. Poor air quality is the biggest environmental threat to public health, and particulate pollution is the most damaging of all. Real progress has been made, but we need to do more if we are to ensure that children growing up today can live longer healthier lives. This Bill will drive that forward.

The UK is home to scientific excellence that has made us world leaders in environmental innovation, from Kew’s millennium seed bank to climate-resilient crops, but as well as backing the science and research that we need to protect our environment, we are also embracing nature-based solutions to tackle climate change. We have recently announced that we will plant 1 million trees to create three new forests in Northumberland, in addition to the 11 million to which we are already committed. We are restoring almost 6,500 hectares of peat land. That is our biggest carbon store, and it is home to some of our most threatened and fastest declining bird species, including the golden plover and the curlew. Through our agriculture Bill, we will seize this once-in-a-generation chance to combine support for our hard-working, brilliant farmers with support for our natural environment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Agriculture Bill, which fell at Prorogation, struck a neat balance between the interests of farming and the interests of the environment, with both sides being broadly supportive. Can she confirm this afternoon that it is going to be broadly the same direction of travel for the new agriculture Bill?

[Theresa Villiers]

Yes, we would certainly envisage broadly the same direction of travel for the agriculture Bill when it is reintroduced. We very much value the input that Parliament previously provided, and all the fundamentals of the previous Agriculture Bill will remain intact.

Outside the EU, we can and will replace the common agricultural policy with a system that not only helps farm businesses to be more resilient, more productive and more internationally competitive but rewards environmental stewardship. From heathlands to hedgerows and from soils rich in carbon to better biodiversity, our farmers will be properly rewarded with public money for the public goods they provide. Breaking free of the CAP means that we can support a range of vital goals, including clean air and water, landscapes protected from floods, thriving plants and wildlife, and reduced carbon emissions and pollution. Brexit also means regaining control of our waters, so that we can manage our fish stocks sustainably, support our marine environment and give our fishing communities a much fairer deal than they have ever had from the common fisheries policy.

We are taking more action on climate change globally than any of our predecessors. We know that 70% of the world’s poorest people are directly reliant on the natural environment for their livelihoods We therefore believe that climate and nature programmes should be at the heart of our efforts to relieve poverty around the world. That is why the Prime Minister announced at the UN in September that we will double our international climate finance funding to at least £11.6 billion in the period up to 2025. He has confirmed £220 million of investment to protect international biodiversity and help to halt its decline. We share the grave public concern felt about plastics pollution in our oceans, and we are investing up to £70 million to fund global research to develop circular economies for waste around the world, working across the Commonwealth to keep plastics out of our ocean.

We are custodians of the fifth largest marine estate in the world, and we are on track to protect more than half of our UK and overseas territories waters by 2020, with a further £7 million recently announced to expand still further our highly successful blue belt programme. We are calling on the world to protect at least 30% of the ocean in marine protected areas by 2030, and 10 nations have already signed up to our new global ocean alliance. We are determined to make this happen.

Whatever our views on the climate protests, there can be no doubt that we as a nation find ourselves at a crucial turning point, and 2020 needs to be the year when the international community pulls together to agree time-bound, measurable and demanding environmental targets. We need targets for protecting biodiversity on land and in our ocean to help us to meet our climate objectives and tackle the tragedy of plastics pollution. That is what we will be asking for, as aspiring co-hosts of the crucial COP 26 conference in Glasgow next year, as we make nature-based solutions and biodiversity a central focus of our efforts to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad.

In conclusion, the Government have one of the strongest records in the world on environment and climate issues. As the evidence becomes ever stronger, we are determined to escalate the UK’s response to the climate and nature crisis, both domestically and internationally. We believe that the Environment Bill published this week will be a big step forward in turning the tide on the degradation of nature and the natural environment. Combined with our legislation on fisheries, farming and improving the welfare of animals, this is a powerful reform package that will change things for the better in this country for decades to come.

There can be no doubt that we face a daunting task if we are to live up to our commitment to leave young people with a better natural inheritance than was bequeathed to us. We need a green economic revolution every bit as profound and far-reaching as the industrial revolution that this country once led. If we work together across the House and get this ground-breaking legislation on the statute book, we can lead global efforts to find solutions that work for climate, for nature and for people. I am happy to commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

14:08

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

We all know that we face a climate and environment emergency. We know that wildlife populations are collapsing, ecosystems are breaking down and temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. Since world war two, we have lost 97% of our meadows, 80% of our chalk grassland and more than half our ancient woodland. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ “State of Nature” report has also found that 41% of UK species that it studied had declined since 1970. It found that 15% were threatened with extinction and that 133 species were already extinct.

Public support for tackling this crisis is growing, and there are mounting calls for politicians to act now. Whatever anyone thinks about the recent protests, Extinction Rebellion has, alongside the youth climate strikes, dramatically shifted the conversation about climate and environmental breakdown. We must be under no illusion: this is also a matter of social justice. This year, one of the worst tropical storms on record killed over 1,000 people in Mozambique. There have been catastrophic fires right across the globe—in the Amazon rainforest, Siberia, Lebanon and Greenland—and record temperatures are being recorded all over the world.

We also know that, with just one degree of global warming, climate chaos will be a bigger cause of forced migration than poverty or political oppression. Poorer communities right across the world are the least responsible for the climate disaster, but they are the most likely to suffer its impacts. I was pleased that the Secretary of State mentioned international working and funding, because vulnerable communities in the global south are being hit the hardest. It is vital that those countries can receive financial support for any loss and damage. Will she confirm whether the Government will work with other donor countries to mobilise the financial support needed for those communities?

However, this debate is about the Queen’s Speech, and I welcome the inclusion of an Environment Bill. Yet, in the face of this global crisis, it was unfortunate that the Queen’s Speech itself did not contain serious proposals to tackle the threat of climate change. Where was the energy Bill to deliver the transformation to low carbon and renewable energy, which is essential to meet our climate targets? Where was the transport Bill, which would have delivered a transformation to a world-leading, clean transport economy?

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one easy early win would be to do something quickly about engine idling? All of us could turn off our engines when stuck in traffic and at traffic lights. It costs nothing, and we could do it now.

[Sue Hayman]

That is an extremely important point, and we could do that straightaway, but we need a proper, comprehensive transport Bill to tackle things more widely.

My team will be going through the Environment Bill line by line, but there already seems to be evidence of some weaknesses. The proposals are weak on funding commitments, on enforcement, on genuine independence and on cross-departmental, centrally driven leadership. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has talked about the time it takes for things to come in, and Greenpeace has exposed the serious loophole in the Bill which means that no legal action could be taken against Ministers on any potential failings in air and water quality, plastics or nature restoration until 2037 at the earliest. The Secretary of State talked about interim targets, but we need serious action now and targets that come much earlier.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we are to reach the World Health Organisation’s targets by 2030, does my hon. Friend agree that is imperative to bring forward the date on which we will stop selling new diesel and fossil-fuel cars from 2042 to 2030? We also need a staged plan of how to get to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, but there is no such detail in the Environment Bill at the moment.

[Sue Hayman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The matter was mentioned during Labour’s party conference this year, because we are taking this very seriously.

My concern is that the Conservative Government have a track record of missing environmental targets on air quality, major pollution incidents and biodiversity, and last year a leaked document showed that the Government had abandoned altogether an agreed target to restore 50% of England’s sites of special scientific interest to a favourable condition by 2020. It is therefore disappointing, but unsurprising, that the legally binding targets will not apply for nearly two decades.

Once the Government’s record on climate change and the environment is examined more closely, we find practices and policies that completely undermine and work against efforts to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. The Government continue to use UK export finance to support fossil fuels, but it is totally hypocritical for the UK to limit extraction at home while promoting extraction abroad. The Natural Capital Committee recently concluded that only half of our habitats currently meet minimum quality targets, with bees, butterflies, birds and many plants species continuing to decline.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has already mentioned the fact that we are financing fossil fuels overseas while trying to reduce their usage here, but we also consume 3.3 million tonnes of soya per year, 77% of which comes from high-risk deforestation areas in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. It is one thing to talk about protecting natural habitats here, but if our consumption habits are contributing to deforestation overseas, we are not really solving the problem.

[Sue Hayman]

Whatever we do to try to protect the environment and solve the climate and ecological emergency, it is incredibly important that we do that on a global level. If we do not, we will never achieve the results that the planet needs.

The Government had to be dragged through the courts time and again following their refusal to take adequate leadership on illegal levels of air pollution.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have the dubious honour of representing the constituency with the most polluted road outside London. Large trucks go up Hafodyrynys Road spewing out all sorts of noxious fumes from diesel engines. However, the council is hamstrung because it cannot introduce emissions charging zones, as we have in London, and there is a lack of charging points for electric vehicles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should grasp the nettle, invest in infrastructure and roll out emissions charging zones?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree. Air quality is referred to in the Environment Bill, and we will be pushing hard on those areas in Committee.

I am particularly concerned about Natural England’s budget. For those who do not know, Natural England is the body responsible for protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and its budget has been cut in half. Staff tell me that they barely have the resources to cope with their basic statutory requirements. In addition, unprecedented cuts to local authorities mean that we have seen a boom in fly tipping, and local habitats are being neglected right across our communities.

The Government have effectively banned the cheapest form of renewable energy—new onshore wind—through restrictive planning measures and the removal of subsidies. There has also been a total failure to capitalise on the enormous potential of tidal power with the Severn barrage and now the Swansea Bay project failing to win Government support. Instead, the Government still seem intent on promoting fracking in the face of overwhelming local opposition. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she personally still supports fracking?

Perhaps the most recent and telling anti-environmental Government decision is the scrapping of the UK’s commitment to respect current EU environmental standards—the so-called “non-regression” provisions of the draft withdrawal agreement and political declaration. In his letter to Donald Tusk announcing the change in policy, the Prime Minister said that the right to diverge was

“the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.”

Ditching our current environmental standards is necessary only if the vision for the UK is of a race-to-the-bottom, deregulated country that prioritises free trade over high standards. Furthermore, research has predicted that a hard Brexit could see a rise in the UK’s imported emissions roughly equal to the territorial emissions of the Netherlands in 2017.

Labour tabled a motion calling on this Parliament to declare a climate and environment emergency. The text of the motion, unopposed by Government, clearly stipulated that a fully costed cross-departmental plan to address the climate and environment emergency would need to be brought before this House within six months. The deadline is 1 November—just two weeks away—so will the Secretary of State confirm that her Government will meet that commitment and bring a plan back to the House before the end of the month?

Labour has been calling for cross-departmental co-ordination on the climate and environment emergency for years. The Government have finally listened, as we hear that the Prime Minister will chair a new Cabinet committee on climate change. There is possibly no one more ill-suited to this role than a Prime Minister with a history of climate denial, from a Tory Government who have dismantled the UK’s solar and onshore wind industries, overseen a collapse in household energy savings measures and stalled the UK’s progress on cutting emissions. This new committee must be transparent in the frequency and outcomes of its meetings, and it must focus on species decline and the restoration of our biodiversity, as well as climate change adaptation. However, a committee is not a plan of action. The Government were charged with bringing back a fully costed, cross-departmental plan to the House of Commons, and that is what we need to see. When it comes to tackling the biggest issue of our time, this is simply not good enough. The Government need to act on this, and act urgently.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As colleagues can see, there is massive interest in this debate. I will therefore impose a four-minute time limit. It will apply after the Scottish National party Front-Bencher, but I am sure the next speaker will bear it in mind.

14:20

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Ind)]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every time I stand up in this House now I am conscious that it could be the last time I speak here, but if it is, I cannot think of a better subject. There is something worth celebrating: the degree of cross-party consensus on this global issue. Although there are different nuances as to what the solutions are, what more the Government should be doing and what the record of the other side was, we should think about what happens in the United States, where this is a deeply partisan issue that divides on political grounds. We must welcome the fact that we agree with so much of the science behind this.

This is an international problem; the United Kingdom is responsible for 1.2% of global emissions, whereas China is responsible for 27.5%. In recognising the international nature of the global problem that we face, I celebrate the Prime Minister’s announcement at the United Nations General Assembly in New York of a doubling, to £11.6 billion, in our contribution to the international climate fund. We are helping other countries to achieve the level of decarbonisation that we have achieved here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who was the climate change Minister, told me that she would frequently sit in Council meetings in Brussels looking across the table at people talking nice talk about carbon emissions but not achieving even half of what this country has achieved since 1990. We have decarbonised by 37% whereas France has done so by just 13% and Spain has actually increased its emissions over that period.

Yesterday, I met a senior member of Extinction Rebellion and when discussing things with him and many of his colleagues in recent weeks around this part of town I have tried to understand what is going on. Is it a revolution? Is it a movement? I am with them in spirit, but not in effect. My worry is this: our constituents are, broadly speaking, sympathetic to what ER wants to achieve, and what we are trying to achieve here in the new legislation and on the other subjects we talk about relating to climate change, but they will soon start to turn a tin ear to an organisation that stops people travelling by public transport. I know this is a wonderfully free-flowing, slightly anarchic organisation, and there is something glorious about seeing it, but there is also something deeply worrying if it is going to turn people we need to be supporting our cause away from it.

I wish to make one final point. The ambitions in the Environment Bill are very high indeed. I have been involved in some aspects of it, and I am pleased to see that it has survived mauling by other Departments, Bill Committees and all the things that usually weaken legislation, and that it is strong. I am sure it will be improved as it goes through its process. I shall leave the House with this thought: we face a global problem, and Britain is currently a leader in decarbonising, in ocean protection and in trying to address the declines in biodiversity, but if we do that just within England and the UK, we will have failed. We need to keep the international focus and make sure that we are working with others. I hope that I will have the chance to vote the Environment Bill into law before the next election.

14:24

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The climate emergency seems to be the kind of emergency where a lot gets said and a lot less gets done. We meet here in this leaking, cavernous, old museum to discuss this climate emergency while outside it people have been banned from protesting about the possible extinction of us as a species. That is an interesting juxtaposition—one to note for our memoirs, should any of us ever get to write them.

I was in Aberdeen at the weekend, for the social event of the season, of course. There is something about the granite that whispers about the enormous length of time that this planet has been spinning around, changing, developing and surviving. You get to thinking about the species that no longer exist, about how some of the extinction events were on a massive scale and about how no species is guaranteed to survive any of those events—that means us too, whether the protests have been banned or not. But we would never know it from looking at the political and governmental response—or inaction—to this emergency.

This is not something that has been sprung on us, either. It is not as though this is news that no one saw coming. The man with the cleft stick has not just arrived, out of breath and anxious, with the news that we are all stuffed. Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” nearly 60 years ago—something that we mark as one of the base cases of the modern environmental movement, but she was not the first voice. George Perkins Marsh spoke about the urban heat island effect and the greenhouse effect, and called for a more considered and sustainable development. That was in 1847, three weeks and 162 years ago. In his lecture, he commented that the ideas were not new even then and that he had borrowed them from Peter Pallas, a Prussian zoologist of the 18th century.

The Irish physicist John Tyndall proved the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect in 1859. Later that century, 1896 to be precise, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated how much atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and published the first calculation of the global warming effects of human emissions of CO₂. His work inspired the American Thomas Chamberlin, who published the next year on the CO₂ feedback loop that drove the ice ages and might now be driving us to a tipping point. In 1934, the US Weather Bureau issued its first analysis of temperature change, which inspired the Englishman Guy Callendar to analyse historical temperature records and calculate a half-degree warming between 1890 and 1935. From there, he built the theory that burning fuel increases atmospheric CO₂ and he coined the term “greenhouse effect” in 1938. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee said that pollutants were causing climate change and time was running out to turn it round.

The science is not new; it has been there for 250 years or so. It has, for sure, been developing, but it is not some fad; it is not a crazy fashion that the kids are all getting down to. It is dusty old stuff from the history tomes. But here we are talking again about the climate emergency, and protestors have been banned from London. There is a massive irony in the failure of this UK Government to take any sort of effective action, in that the greatest hero for many of them would be Margaret Thatcher, and she was the first leader of a major state to call for action on climate change. The 1988 Toronto conference was treated to some stark evidence produced by scientists. Thatcher, perhaps because her training as a chemist made it easier for her to understand the language, took up the baton and issued the call. She said it was a key issue and her Government allocated additional funding to climate research. It was, however, mainly relabelled or redirected from elsewhere—they were Tories, after all. Thatcher made that call 31 years ago, yet here we are once again talking about the climate emergency and the protests are banned.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 and in 1990 issued its first report, which confirmed the past scientific findings and issued warnings for the future. Those warnings have continued ever since, but I am starting to wonder whether familiarity is breeding contempt, because the warnings are getting starker and the flash headlines are getting scarier, but the action is not getting any more urgent.

The Environment Bill, which we finally got a sniff of this week, appears to be a howler of a missed opportunity. Apart from the toil of reintroducing EU protections into UK legislation, it misses the chance to be ambitious and claim a future worth having. It promises net zero emissions in 31 years—so, incredibly, we are at the halfway point between Thatcher pledging that the UK would get serious about the environment and the Government actually doing something. If the captain of the Titanic had been warned about the iceberg well in advance and started a discussion about what to do that carried on long enough to watch the thing tear a hole in the side of the ship, while the debate was still about which way to turn, he would be in about the same position we are in now. It is past time for talking and long past time that we should have been doing. It is time to inject a sense of urgency into the climate emergency.

The House can take it as read that the Scottish Government are doing things better, but this should not really be about party political point scoring or engaging in the constitutional debate. Let us see what the UK Government could offer to help to address the problems we all face. It is time the Government introduced some real measures to address the UK’s greenhouse gas output. They could copy Scotland by being guided by the Committee on Climate Change. Members may have heard of that committee; it was set up by the UK Government, although its calls to action are little heard by Whitehall. They are heard in Scotland, though, and the Scottish Parliament and Government have taken action. The climate change Act kicked off a serious attempt at addressing the problems, and it has not abated since. That is why the United Nations climate action conference will be in Glasgow next year.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is important that she puts it on the record in this House that the measures taken in Scotland have been taken on the basis of cross-party consensus. Does she agree that the way we achieve our targets in this country in respect of net zero is by working together, rather than doling out dollops of sarcasm in the form of a speech?

[Deidre Brock]

Me, sarcastic? The very idea! I appreciate the cross-party nature of some of the talks in the Scottish Parliament—that is of course welcome—but at a time when the UK Government are suggesting putting up VAT on renewable technologies, including solar, wind, biomass and heat pumps, from 5% to 20%, I think there is still a lot more discussion to be had between the different parties.

[Alan Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is such cross-party support, it is ridiculous and shameful that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), continued to block onshore wind in Scotland? That is not cross-party consensus; that is affecting investment in Scotland.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When it is still the cheapest of renewable energy technologies, it is shameful that onshore wind is excluded from competing for Government-supported contracts. I hope the Secretary of State is paying full attention to that point.

The United Nations climate action conference will be in Glasgow next year, and I understand that the Prime Minister wants to take a day trip to it for flag-waving purposes. May I advise him to take the train, not the plane, and to take the time to listen, rather than just bluster? He might even come away from it with some ideas to start implementing a plan to help with the problem that the world faces.

Perhaps the Whitehall mandarins could take a leaf out of Scotland’s books and work towards zero-carbon aviation. Scotland is decarbonising Highlands and Islands Airports and working with Norway on electric trains. We all know that transport is the second-biggest dumper of greenhouse gases, because we have all read the IPCC report. The same source tells us that, in fact, road transport is even more of a problem than air transport. Nearly three quarters of transport emissions are road-based, while around a 10th are accounted for by aviation. It is everyday transport that we have to address. Where is the UK Government initiative to copy the Scottish Government in supporting the roll-out of electric charging stations? Where is the parallel commitment to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the next dozen years?

The biggest greenhouse gas pest is electricity and heat production. Where are the incentives for renewable energy production? Not only are there no new incentives, but the old ones were taken away, and the costs of connecting Scotland’s vibrant and growing renewable energy producers to the grid are far too high. When will we see Government action to address those issues?

As the shadow Secretary of State asked, given that there is a climate emergency, to which the UK Government have finally admitted, where is the ban on fracking? This unconventional source of gas is banned in Scotland because there is no good case to be made for it. In some parts of England it is damaging people’s houses, impinging on their lives and possibly damaging their health. Get rid of it—it is a nuisance at best.

The Environment Bill, over which we will cast a jaundiced eye next week, seeks to embed in law the 25-year environment plan that was created under a previous Government. It was unambitious at the time, became rapidly outdated and is now a bit of a joke. Ministers should not withdraw it—we have wasted enough time already—but they should be prepared to make major changes to it during its progress through Parliament, and to accept amendments from others to make it something worth passing. I have a suggestion to offer that the Government and the Secretary of State can do relatively free of charge: why do they not invite the climate protesters into the room, ask them what they would put in the Bill, see whether they can get a bit of support in the House, and then pass something that is actually worth passing?

In closing, we all know that really doing something will not be easy. We know that it will entail changes in lifestyles that we have not yet properly considered. We can call it pain if we really must be dramatic about it, but if we do, we should at least compare it to the pain that comes from doing nothing. If not enough is done, some of the people who park their comfortable bahookies on these Benches might find themselves representing constituencies that start to disappear. Frankly, I do not expect the Government to make any real moves in the near future—if Brexit has taught us anything, it is that denial and delusion sit comfortably on the Government Benches—but I do hope that somewhere over on that side of the Chamber exists someone who will raise a questioning voice and ask whether it might be a good idea to do something. Who knows—there might even be a Thatcher fan who thinks that some action should be taken in her name. In the name of the wee man, though: it is a climate emergency, not a coffee morning. It is time to start acting like it is important. Talking is always good, but action is even better.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Neil Parish, with a four-minute limit.

14:37

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s speech and the Government’s proposed Bills, especially the Environment Bill. It is high time that we pulled everything together to get the environment right. I wish to make a plea—the Secretary of State referred to this in answer to a question—relating to the agriculture Bill, on which we have done a great deal of work. Can we make sure that the food we produce, animal welfare and environmental qualities all work together? We should work those things not only into the agriculture Bill, but into the Environment Bill.

As far as the fishing Bill is concerned, we can not only gain more access to waters and fish, but do things a bit more like the Norwegians, who shut down overfished areas overnight and open up other areas if there is plenty of fish there. There are many benefits to managing our own waters. The common fisheries policy was very cumbersome, as was the common agricultural policy.

I welcome the idea of the Prime Minister’s chairing a cross-Cabinet committee to deliver on and help with climate change. The air quality debates and inquiries that we have done with four Committees show that we all have to work across Departments and local government—everywhere—to create better air quality, especially in 43 hotspots throughout the country. It is essential that we take action, not only with our vehicles, but in everything we do, including by improving air quality for all our citizens.

In my role as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I want to find practical solutions that continue to decarbonise our economy and protect the environment by using more renewable energy, but without harming businesses or reducing standards. Since 2010, the Conservative party has invested more than £52 billion in renewable energy. As a result, we now have enough solar power for 2 million homes and a world-leading offshore wind sector generating more offshore wind than the rest of the world combined, though one would not have thought so, listening to the Opposition.

I commend the Government for listening to the EFRA Committee and including climate change in the remit of the new Office for Environmental Protection, but it must be answerable to Parliament, it must be independent and it must not just be about judicial review, which is very often about process, not the targets we need to meet.

I welcome the announcement today that the Prime Minister is to chair a new Cabinet committee dedicated to climate change in order to cut emissions across Government. When we conducted our joint air quality inquiry, we did so across four departmental Select Committees to show the Government that action across Government was needed to cut those emissions. I do not want to go into too much detail on the Environment Bill today, but let me repeat that the new OEP must be strong and independent.

We need more investment in home insulation and energy efficiency schemes so that we can use less energy in the first place. As one of the wealthiest developed nations, the UK must continue to lead from the front and to demonstrate best practice for clean growth in the world.

14:41

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the cross-party consensus around stronger action on climate change, but action there does need to be, including in the Environment Bill. In 2006, as Labour’s Housing Minister, I put forward a 10-year plan for zero-carbon homes by 2016, including a regulatory timetable, that was backed by the housing industry and environmental groups, but sadly it was ditched in 2013. We still need that stronger action to cut emissions from new and existing homes as part of our action on climate change.

I want to talk about the importance of public transport as part of our action to cut carbon emissions and the desperate need for more support for public transport in our towns, which was missing from the Government’s agenda, but first I want to make a point about the Government’s Brexit plans. It is deeply disappointing that the Government seem to be moving away from a Brexit deal with a customs union, rather than towards one, as that idea lost by only three votes in Parliament in the spring and is something that many Opposition Members have argued for. Fundamentally, we have to make a choice about what kind of trading nation we wanted to be: do we want our closest trading relationships to be with our nearest neighbours, through a customs union approach, and built on safeguards, standards and workers’ rights, or do we instead, as the Government seem now to argue, want the price to be deregulation and an opening up of markets to the biggest global corporations, risking cuts in environmental standards and prioritising a deal with Trump’s America?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State about this. I and the Chair of the Select Committee tabled new clauses 1 and 4 to the Agriculture Bill to say there should be no lowering of standards in any future trade deal, which I think was one reason why we did not see the Bill after last December. Does my right hon. Friend agree it is important that when the Bill comes back, such provisions are back in there?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want rising standards and support for higher standards. It is the only way to cut carbon emissions, support our environment and protect our workers’ rights.

There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address the serious challenges facing our towns and the unfair deal they are getting. We see that particularly in public transport. Our bus services have been cut and our trains, particularly across our northern towns, are still rubbish. We are not getting our fair share of investment. Billions of pounds is locked up in transport investment in our cities, while in Normanton we still have only one train an hour to Leeds, even though it is just half an hour away, and we still do not have disabled access at busy stations such as Pontefract Monkhill and Knottingley. We had the awful situation of a constituent in a wheelchair having to crawl over a bridge because the Government, despite our requests, refused to fund the basic disabled access. Moreover, we still have rubbish Pacer trains and no proper plan for transport in our towns.

That compounds the wider problem of the growing gap between our cities and towns. Our towns, which have strong communities, are great places to live and are proud of their history, are getting an unfair deal, and Tory austerity has hit them harder. As public services budgets have been cut, many public services providers have pulled services out of towns altogether. We have lost libraries, sports centres, magistrates courts, police stations, fire stations, hospital services, maternity units, swimming pools, Sure Starts, jobcentres and council services, as so many of these services have shrunk back into the cities. We are supposed to travel to the nearest cities instead, but the public transport is not there, because bus services have been cut and the trains are inadequate.

Private sector investment, always pursuing economies of scale, is pulling in the same direction. Banks, ATMs and post offices in our towns have closed. The big cities and shopping centres may still be able to compete with Amazon, but our smaller town centres are struggling with business rates and parking charges, and having their heart taken out. The numbers of new jobs are growing twice as fast in the cities as in the towns, and as our town centres have shown, foreign direct investment in the cities is accelerating and our towns are not getting a fair deal. The Government’s stronger towns fund is still a top-down approach and only reaches a certain number of towns. Areas still have to bid and most towns still lose out.

We need a proper industrial strategy for our towns, which is why the Labour party’s approach of more investment in our towns, listening to towns and putting power back in towns is so important. We need towns to be at the top of the list, not the bottom, so that they can get our fair share of funding. We need public services back in our towns with a proper guarantee. We need a fair deal for Britain’s towns.

14:47

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I welcome this Queen’s Speech, but before I talk about the environmental measures in it, I want to show my support for a couple of other measures, particularly the serious violence Bill. Serious violence is a concern in all our communities, so the Government’s action is really important. I also look forward to supporting the Domestic Abuse Bill. The regulation of internet companies is long overdue and I am proud that a Conservative Government are pressing ahead with that. I also welcome the good work plan, which is looking at new ways of modernising the workplace. I am sure that Ministers will be look carefully at shared parental leave, flexible working and outlawing maternity discrimination so that more and more of the 2 million women in this country who are economically inactive can get back into the workplace and be productive members of our economy.

The Environment Bill represents a real step change in what is available in this country for protecting our environment. All Members of Parliament are trying to ensure that we have the right balance in our constituencies between protecting our environment and fulfilling our ambitions to create strong, vibrant and successful communities. I think that the measures in the Bill will help us go further in achieving that.

In particular, I want to bring to the fore measures intended to improve air and water quality and to help to restore habitats. In Basingstoke, we are already working on such measures, so we welcome further support. My local authority is already campaigning to clear the air at a very local level by outlawing idling engines, and our local county council is working with schoolchildren through the “My Journey Hampshire” programme to ensure that they are aware of what we can all do to improve air quality.

On water quality, I would like Ministers to consider what we have achieved in Basingstoke to clean up our River Loddon. By working with local water companies to reduce phosphate levels in the river, we have achieved a step change in phosphate concentrations. Our river is now on the boundary between moderate and good in relation to the water framework directive, and all that was achieved by working together in the community with our water companies.

Restoring habitats is also very important in my borough, which is 95% rural—my constituency is predominantly urban. We can achieve those restorations only as a result of the incredible work of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the local catchment partnerships. We need to ensure that those organisations continue to get the support they need for the work they do. I am proud to have worked with the wildlife trust recently to undertake “pollinator promise” programmes with my local schools and communities, because that sort of thing can really raise awareness. I urge Ministers to consider what more can be done to support bus companies in areas such as Basingstoke to clean up their buses, to improve water quality through new technology and to restore habitats.

The Chineham Brownies asked me to mention that they applaud the Government’s plastics strategy and work to ensure that we reduce the use of plastics through a plastic deposit scheme. I urge Ministers to follow that programme through. My local authority has been named by Friends of the Earth as the fifth best local authority in England for tackling climate change. I am proud of that, but there is more to do.

14:51

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

In the summer, Parliament declared a climate emergency and required the Government to bring forward a cross-departmental plan of action. In July, Parliament agreed to amend the Climate Change Act 2008 target for greenhouse gas emissions from 80% by 2050 to net zero. The Minister at the time emphasised the importance of crafting new policies to address the change.

One might have thought that the Government would be hard at work doing that. One might have thought that there would be a lively understanding of the pitiful state of our emissions in relation to the task, even if Ministers are fond of telling us how well we have done previously in driving down emissions. As a country, we produced 428 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2018, so we will need permanently to cancel at least 12 million tonnes every single year if the net zero target is to be achieved in good time.

One might have thought that the Government would be hard at work anyway, in the light of that change to the legislation, addressing the manifest failings that they are experiencing in implementing existing targets under old legislation. Let us remember that the clean growth plan, introduced in October 2017 as a response to Parliament’s agreement to the fifth carbon budget, was, by its own admission, well short of meeting that budget, drawn up under the original 80% emissions target—equivalent to 141 megatonnes of CO₂, or a 9% overhang in admissions. One might have thought that addressing that manifest dereliction of duty and putting us back to the starting line for making the accelerated progress in emissions reduction that is an imperative under the net zero target would be a priority for the Government.

One might therefore have thought that the Queen’s Speech would set out a sturdy list of measures explaining how the Government will legislate to underpin this enhanced ambition and put us back in a position to take the urgent measures needed to meet our own and international targets. I am sure that Her Majesty the Queen anticipated being able to read out something like, “My Government will introduce a series of measures in this Parliament that will give effect to our agreed ambition of securing net zero emissions by 2050.” She might have added, “or even earlier.”

Well, there was no such luck. With the marginal exception of the Environment Bill, which is important but will not lead to much in the way of carbon emission reductions in its own right, instead what the Queen did read out bore no relation to that, except for the following phrase in the very last sentence of the speech, when she said that her Government

“will prioritise tackling climate change”.

I am sure that Her Majesty was far too polite even to conceive of articulating the thought, “Well, if that is so, how come there is not a hint of any actual priority being given in the 1,500 words I have just read out prior to the five words I now have to add on to my speech—almost, as it were, as an afterthought when it had been realised by someone who wrote the speech that nothing had been said about climate change up to that point?”

We have, after all, a different Government. It does not escape notice that some of those who were working the hardest in government to make a reality of our climate change ambitions are now not only out of government, but in a number of instances are out of the parliamentary Conservative party entirely. Perhaps it is just that the new Government do not think very much about climate change, but it would have been rather more honest to have said that, rather than doing nothing and then sticking five words at the end of the speech to assure us all that they are very serious about it all.

So what might a Queen’s Speech that did take climate change seriously have included? The Government might have brought in legislation to ensure that sales of internal combustion engine cars ceased by 2030. That measure alone would save us 98 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum from then onwards. They might have introduced legislation requiring all homes over the next 20 years to have available to them the means to become fully insulated and energy efficient. That would save about 100 megatonnes of CO₂ annually. They might have introduced legislation that set in motion the decarbonisation of heat in those homes, mandating electrification of heat, the introduction of biogas into heating supply and hydrogen supply in urban circumstances. That would save about 50 megatonnes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

14:55

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I welcome the Queen’s Speech and some of the many measures that it contains. I also thank my right my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for mentioning from the Front Bench the curlew—a bird that is the symbol of the Staffordshire Moorlands district. We are delighted to hear that it is going to be protected. Given the time limit, I will not go through the many elements of the Queen’s Speech that I did want to cover. There is much that should be celebrated, and I am sure that we can get the cross-Chamber consensus that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke about to get these measures through.

I want to mention just two points that are particularly pertinent. The first is a subject that the right hon. Lady also mentioned, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that is, buses. Rural buses in constituencies such as mine have suffered dreadfully over the past few years. Bus services and routes are being reduced or eliminated, and routes are going. This is not good for our towns and villages. Regular, clean buses make for vibrant towns and villages. May I ask that a real emphasis is put on ensuring that there is support for rural bus services, especially given the impact on climate change and carbon emissions in our rural areas?

Staffordshire Moorlands experiences a particular issue with regard to school transport provision. A recent case, which I have raised with the Transport Secretary, has meant that county councils are unable to allow children to travel on school buses if they are paying passengers unless those buses are fully disability compliant, because the payment for the empty space turns the bus into public transport. From next month, children in some villages in my constituency will be unable to get to school. A bus will leave their village with empty seats on it, and they will be unable to get on it, causing more carbon emissions as their parents have to find alternative arrangements. I urge the Government to look for some form of exemption in the short term for these county councils, and then to provide support for the county councils—this is an issue not just in Staffordshire—so that they can replace the buses with disability-compliant, green buses that will help us all.

My second point concerns the immigration Bill, and it is a subject with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be very familiar: the rights of those people in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement was in no way a result of both the United Kingdom and Ireland being members of the European Union; it would have happened anyway because of the determination and strength of resolve of so many people across Northern Ireland. But the fact that we were both members of the European Union meant that some issues regarding the rights of citizens did not need to be codified because the citizens’ rights accrued to citizens of the European Union were accrued to everybody.

Those people in Northern Ireland who choose to identify as Irish—which they are absolutely entitled to do—are therefore now extremely concerned about how they will be able to maintain their Irish citizenship, living in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, but not wanting to be British. I urge the Government to ensure that measures are included in the immigration Bill to ensure that those rights are respected and that people in Northern Ireland who choose to identify as Irish can continue to live in their homes as they have done for years and years—peacefully and happily, prospering after the Good Friday agreement and able to exercise their rights.

14:59

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to take part in this debate today. There is no more important issue facing us than protecting the planet for future generations. We must test the measures in the Queen’s Speech against their ability to effectively tackle climate change and ensure that they go beyond warm words. In the short time that I have, I want to raise a number of issues that emerge from the Queen’s Speech.

It is good to see social care mentioned again in the Queen’s Speech, but little precise information is available about how the Government intend to fund it adequately and to standards that uphold dignity in old age and are befitting of the 21st century. Given the huge delays to the social care Green Paper, the Government must set out in detail how they intend to fix the crisis in social care that is affecting many of our constituents. Labour has committed to ending zero-hours contracts, ensuring that carers are paid a real living wage, giving access to training and ending 15-minute care visits. As a start, the Government must commit to this also.

It is good that additional money is available for education, but it is not clear how it will be distributed. We need a new policy from the Government that will rebuild and refurbish schools that desperately need it, whether or not they are in areas of high growth.

It is interesting that the Government have somewhat belatedly turned their attention to the problems in the justice system. I have three prisons and a youth offending institution in my constituency, and perhaps know more than most the devastating impact that cuts to prisons over the past decade have had on staff and prisoner safety. Years of cuts to prison services have left our staff and prisons in an increasingly pressured and violent state. Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and rates of self-harm among inmates are at record highs, and this must be addressed.

It is interesting that there is no mention in the Queen’s Speech of specific issues facing women prisoners. We know that many women in prison should not be there, particularly those who have children or who are pregnant. Offender management policy needs to be reviewed, with much more emphasis placed on women’s centres and less on sending women to prison, especially as the Government seem so reluctant to invest in the women’s prison estate.

The Government have announced that they will publish a national infrastructure strategy to set out their plans in all areas of economic infrastructure. So far, so good, but how will this be delivered? Changes to building regulations are long overdue to take on board the Hackitt review proposals for improving safety. The response to date from the Government has been too slow. I hope the changes to the regulatory framework can be made as quickly as possible. It is also amazing that the Queen’s Speech contains no new measures to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that the country needs to address the housing crisis.

It is also interesting that there is a pensions Bill but nothing on WASPI—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. That is surely a disgrace. It is good to see that the Department for International Development will champion action on climate change and girls’ education, but it will be able to do this only if its budget is not constantly raided or reduced. Finally, I would have liked to see more about how universities will benefit from more money going into science and technology, and what the Government intend to do about the Augar review of post-18 education and its impact on the future of university funding.

15:03

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and to hear her talk so movingly about prisons, which, as she knows, is a great interest of mine. However, climate change, as even I—and she, I think—would admit, is the most important issue we have to deal with at the moment.

As the smallholder, cider-maker and beekeeper, as well as farmer’s daughter, that I am, this subject comes very naturally to me. I am thrilled to welcome the new Environment Bill, which is the first major legislation in this area for 20 years. It is interesting how this Bill looks to manage the impact of human activity on the environment. That is something we see a lot of locally. We are a very high-growth area in Banbury and Bicester. We are proud to top the leader board for new housing, and we are proud that at least some of that housing—not all yet, but we hope that it will be—is what is referred to as passive housing. We think that environmental standards can go hand in hand with good growth.

We are pleased with the east-west corridor. We are not nimbies. However, as the Secretary of State for Transport is in his place, let me say that I will continue to lobby on behalf of those of us who oppose High Speed 2 passionately. We are pleased to see the Oakervee review, and we hope that clear recommendations will come out of it. We oppose HS2 because we feel that the business case has never been satisfactorily made, but we are of course worried about environmental damage as well. I have always talked a great deal about ancient pasture and ancient woodland being important, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Transport for helping us to stop immediate works on ancient woodland. Once they are gone, we can never get them back.

On that note, I am the corn bunting species champion. There has been a 90% reduction in that creature in my lifetime because of loss of food sources. Once it has gone, it can never be got back, so I welcome the nature recovery strategies, which should assist with that. Everybody knows that I am a keen litter picker, because I make most colleagues join me annually on the Great British Spring Clean, so I will not go into that now.

In the time available to me, I would like to talk about today’s announcement that the Prime Minister has managed to achieve a deal. It is great to be in this debate, where there is a lot of coming together across the green Benches. Climate change need not be a party political issue, and “MPs for a Deal”, which I am proud to be involved with, has shown me that brave and principled Members from across the House are willing to come together in the national good.

I gently say to party leaders on both sides of the House that we are all stronger if we permit dissent. We survive in this country with broad church political parties, rather than endless coalitions. That is a strong and useful feature of our democracy. I cannot be the only one who is kept awake worrying about what will happen in the next fortnight. Counting “MPs for a Deal” members going through the Lobby in support of the deal is what helps me get to sleep. I have a dream—I think that line has been used before—which is that we pass a deal and move on to a world where HS2 phase 1 is cancelled, and we can all debate climate change.

15:07

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

There is so little time that I will just make one main point, and it is a very simple one: the Government should tell the truth on the climate crisis. Telling the truth on climate is one of the demands of Extinction Rebellion and the youth climate strikers. These are strange times indeed when telling the truth is a radical act, and yet on this issue, that is exactly what it is.

We could make a start by telling the truth about our climate record. Ministers regularly claim that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen in the UK by 42% since 1990. But that is not the whole truth, because the Government’s own figures show that if we calculate emissions based on consumption over the past 20 years, our emissions have fallen by just 10%. That is relevant to the comparison with China made by the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), completely overlooking the fact that many of China’s emissions are linked to producing goods that we then import. Of course, if we simply outsource our manufacturing, it is not surprising that our emissions appear to go down, but that is not a globally just and responsible attitude to emissions reduction.

What is more, historical reductions are no indicator of future progress. Coal is all but gone from the power sector, which means that the biggest source of reduction so far has now been exhausted, and there is little sign of the policy required to ensure that the necessary reductions continue.

The UK was the first member of the G7 to legislate for a net zero emissions target. I welcome that, of course, but other countries have more ambitious goals. Norway has committed to net zero by 2030, Finland by 2035, Iceland by 2040 and Sweden by 2045. My point is that 2050 is not global leadership. In an emergency, you do not dial 999 and ask for the emergency services to come in 30 years’ time; you want them to come now, because the emergency is now.

A target on its own does not bring down emissions—action does. What does the Committee on Climate Change say about the Government’s actual actions? In one of its most recent progress reports to Parliament, it states that

“actions to date have fallen short of what is needed for the previous targets and well short of those required for the net-zero target”.

The Government of course know it, because their own projections show that we do not have policy in place to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and that the gap to meeting them is getting wider.

That matters not least because what is scientifically relevant is not just reaching net zero, but the amount of carbon emitted before we reach it. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of the available global carbon budget for a 66% chance of remaining within 1.5° of warming is 420 gigatonnes of CO₂. Professor Tim Jackson from the University of Surrey has estimated that the UK’s fair share of that remaining budget is just 2.5 gigatonnes. On current reduction trends, our production-based emissions will exceed our fair budget in 2026—in just seven years’ time. Using consumption-based accounting, which I have argued is a fairer way of doing it, we would actually exhaust our available budget in 2023—in just four years’ time. That means reaching net zero is not enough; we need deep carbon reductions in the next few years to stand a chance of staying within a safe and fair budget.

When the Government claim that they are acting with the required urgency, I think we need to bear in mind these stronger figures. When they say that they are going to bring forward action, we need to say that we need that action now. For example, they say they have a document on transport coming up, but we want action now: bring forward the ban on the sale of petrol cars and end aviation expansion now.

15:11

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

At the beginning of last year, I was moved when I visited Calais and listened to the stories of some of the refugees there who had been forced to move from their homelands against their will—some because of violence and conflict, some because of persecution, some because of a lack of jobs and some because of climate change.

It is now acknowledged that climate change is one of the biggest drivers of forced migration. Indeed, the European Union predicts a tripling of refugees for this reason by the end of the century, and the World Bank predicts 143 million climate migrants escaping crop failure, water insecurity and sea level rises. That is why it is essential that the UK’s effort—not just, but primarily through our international development work—focuses on all these matters: on conflict, jobs, and climate change and the impact of climate change.

I regretted the fact that the Green Investment Bank was sold into the private sector. I thought that it was a great institution and could have been developed. That is why I would ask the Government to consider the introduction of a UK investment and development bank, which could put a lot of effort and money into tackling climate change both within the UK and indeed internationally, particularly in developing countries.

One of the most remarkable projects I visited when I was a member of the International Development Committee was the community forestry programme in Nepal, which has been going for more than 30 years. It is a combined effort of the British and Nepali Governments. What I saw there were forests right alongside cities that were not being cut down for firewood or charcoal, but being preserved and providing jobs because they were owned and managed by the community themselves. This is something the Department for International Development should be proud of and should seek to establish in conjunction with local communities elsewhere in the world.

As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Ethiopia, I have seen that country make remarkable progress in renewable energy—whether hydro, geothermal, solar or wind. In fact, it wants 100% of its energy production to be green. It is through the creation of green jobs, climate-smart agriculture and much else that we can tackle both the shortage of jobs in the developing world and help with the mitigation of climate change.

Locally, I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) on the point she made about school buses. That needs to be tackled immediately, as does the lack of rural and town transport. There I agree very much with what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said about the importance of such transport to the development of towns.

As a party—I admit that I have been too slow to support this in the past for various reasons—we also need to push onshore wind, which is the cheapest form of energy. I ask the Government to look again at their attitude towards that, and indeed towards tidal. We must also look at planning regulations and at how we can encourage and perhaps legislate for new homes to have inbuilt solar panels and electrical charging points. All those things are much more expensive to retrofit than to put in new.

Finally, I welcome the inclusion of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch in the Queen’s Speech. I have seen the impact of a lack of concentration on patient safety in Stafford. Patient safety is critical, but this is not just about healthcare investigations; it is also about our culture, and I welcome the new culture on patient safety that I see now percolating through the NHS, particularly in Stafford.

15:15

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) who I believe is one of the few Conservative Members who gets the scale of the challenge before us. Most Members of the House agree that something needs to be done, but the difference between many Conservative Members and Labour Members comes down to the speed, scale and ambition of that change. For example, in 2017 the Government’s manifesto stated that they would plant 11 million trees over five years in their efforts to challenge and tackle the climate crisis. Compare that with Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries in the world, which has just planted 350 million trees in 12 hours. That tells us everything we need to know about the scale of the Government’s ambition when it comes to tackling the climate crisis.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and Ethiopia has pledged to plant 4 billion trees in the next year.

[Clive Lewis]

You took the words out of my mouth.

Labour Members are committed to nothing less than the total transformation of our economy—not just how it works, but for whom it works. So many of us who came into politics as Labour Members understand that the fight against the climate crisis is the fight against inequality. Why? Because we know that the poorest 50% of people in this country, and between countries, consume just 10% of the resources and emit just 10% of the carbon. The wealthiest 10% consume 50% of the resources and emit 50% of the carbon. It is therefore clear that the fight against climate change is also the fight against global and domestic inequality. The poor cannot give up what they do not have; they cannot give up carbon that they are not emitting. The people who can are those at the top—the top 10%; the top 1%. Those are the people who must give up their carbon and their use of resources.

My hon. Friend—I will call her that—the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has said that the Queen’s Speech contained just six words about the environment, and there was not a single mention of the climate and ecological crisis facing our planet. That is hardly surprising, given this Government’s track record on the climate emergency. We have had a green light for fracking, and fossil fuel subsidies have been boosted by billions. Onshore wind has been scrapped and solar support axed. The green homes scheme has been eviscerated, and zero-carbon homes abandoned. The Green Bank has been sold, Swansea tidal lagoon stuffed, and Heathrow expansion approved. After 10 years of that, the Government tell us to trust them to tackle the climate crisis, but many Labour Members, and many members of the public, are extremely sceptical about their claims.

Even though we face a climate and ecological crisis, that is not a collapse. This is a turning point—that is what a crisis is—and things may go one way or another. This is a crossroads. That is why Extinction Rebellion, youth climate strikers and all those who understand the scale and urgency of the issue are fighting so hard for the future. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion and I have introduced the green new deal, and why Labour Members are pushing forward the green industrial revolution. If that is to be the future for our economy, we need a transformation in our transport system, housing, heat and energy, and a complete modal shift in the way we live, work and consume. Let us take, for example, electric cars. We know that we cannot build 31 million electric cars. That is how many petrol and diesel cars there are on our roads. There is not enough cobalt on the planet for us to be able to build all those cars, so we will require a complete transformation of how we travel.

I will finish with a quote from someone who has already been mentioned today, Rachel Carson, the author of “Silent Spring”. She was one of the first people to alert us to this environmental catastrophe. She said:

“Humankind is challenged as it has never been challenged before, to prove its mastery—not of nature, but of itself.”

That is the challenge. Can the Government prove mastery not just of themselves but of their ability to tackle the climate crisis? It is time to get a grip.

15:20

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). I recognise the passion with which he speaks about these issues and I share his concern.

I am pleased to be able to speak briefly today in this important debate. I very much welcome the measures contained in the Queen’s Speech. Other Members have covered the urgency of the need to tackle climate change so I will not repeat that argument, but it is right that this place is prioritising climate change and it is right that our constituents continue to contact us about climate change. I believe that this Government are prioritising measures to address climate change.

The new Environment Bill will ensure that environmental principles are at the centre of every decision the Government take. Tackling climate change is one of the issues that Scotland’s two Governments need to work on together. I believe they need to work better at it. The UK and the Scottish Governments are both world leaders in reacting to our climate change emergency, and they must continue their joined-up approach. That is why I was so disappointed by the opening speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). It was full of sarcasm and weak political point scoring, rather than recognising that both Governments need to work together on this issue. Our constituents expect us to work together and not engage in cheap party political point scoring.

It is important to acknowledge that the UK is a world leader in meeting the challenge of climate change face on. The UK was the first major economy to introduce legally binding long-term emissions targets and the first to announce a legally binding net zero target. We have cut emissions by more than 40% since and decarbonised faster than any other G20 country. We need to continue and step up those efforts, but they are remarkable achievements and as a nation we do not always give ourselves credit for them. I am optimistic that humanity will overcome this climate emergency. The way we will do that will not, I am afraid, be by spraying fake blood on Government buildings. It will be by changing our habits as a nation and through advances in technology: electric car battery improvements, advances in carbon capture and finding more sustainable ways of growing food.

Much of that work can start at home. I am pleased to see much going on in my own constituency in the Scottish borders. Scottish Borders Council, for example, has saved over 250,000 staff miles with its fleet of hybrid cars. Its newest high school, in Jedburgh, will be one of the first plastic-free schools in the UK. I have met community organisations such as A Greener Hawick and A Greener Melrose, which are passionate about encouraging people to live more sustainably. Alice and her team at Sea the Change in Eyemouth run beach cleans and outdoor explorer programmes, and organisations like Plastic Free Borders are sharing ideas about how to reduce the use of single use plastics. Such groups, which are encouraging changes in habit and capitalising on increased public awareness, have a huge role to play in how we tackle this emergency.

The final issue I want to raise is electric cars and how we ensure that every part of the country, particularly rural areas like those in the Scottish borders that I represent, can take advantage of them. I would very much like the UK and Scottish Governments to do more to ensure that all communities, regardless of whether they are rural or urban, have sufficient electric charging points to ensure that every resident who wishes to make the change to electric car use can do so.

15:14

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Since I was first elected, I have received thousands of emails and letters about climate change—about animal extinction, air pollution and rising sea levels—but I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that the most heartbreaking letters that I receive are the ones from schoolchildren. It is the topic that children write to me about most often, and I have had letters from children as young as five. I shall quote just a couple.

Lila, who is eight, wrote to me in February:

“I am worried about higher sea levels, hurricanes and animals becoming extinct. We have written a list of things we can do to help. My sister is vegetarian and I do not eat red meat any more. My family are giving money to a reforestation programme”.

Jayda, from St James Hatcham Primary School, wrote to me in July:

“I have an idea to save the planet. People need to stop using plastic. They should use paper instead and recycle. Maybe we could plant more trees and we’ll have more oxygen as well”.

With the help of her teacher, Chiamaka, who is just five, wrote to me about flooding:

“I feel sad when I see floods and when people lose their houses. How can you help them?”

We are all terrified about the future of the planet, but it is children and future generations that will pay the price if we continue on this track. The UN predicts that by the time the children writing to me have left school and are starting jobs or university, global warming will be close to reaching 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. Extreme heatwaves and floods will have become widespread. Wildfires will be more common. Fresh water availability will continue to fall, and droughts will have increased. By the time those children are my age, temperatures could have risen by 2° C. Melting icecaps, warming seas and deforestation could trigger a “hothouse” state—meaning that human actions will no longer have any impact on rising global temperatures.

By the time those children have retired and potentially have grandchildren of their own to worry about, the global temperature could be close to 4° C above pre-industrial levels. Two thirds of the world’s glaciers will have melted, increasing sea levels and drying up rivers across the world. Heatwaves will be intolerable and deserts will have stretched into much of Europe. The world’s population will be close to 11 billion and entire nations will be uninhabitable, triggering a migrant crisis on a scale we can barely apprehend.

The environment must be at the heart of economic and industrial policies. A Labour Government would drastically reduce greenhouse gases by investing in new green industries and technologies. Not only would that create thousands of new green jobs, but it would reduce our country’s carbon footprint.

I want to end by pointing out something that I have noticed about the letters that I get from the children, which usually have one thing in common: they are hopeful. They suggest ways that we can make a difference and they tell me about the changes they are making themselves—eating less meat; recycling; planting trees. The actions of individuals must be matched with bold actions from Government. We cannot let this generation down—the time to act is now

15:14

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). I welcome the Queen’s Speech in its entirety.

I have raised environmental concerns on around 25 occasions in the past two years. From that you can deduce, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is a subject that I feel very strongly about. Of course, this Government are already doing a great deal in relation to climate change, and I applaud them for that. As we have all been reminded today, the UK was the first country to raise climate change as an issue on the international stage. As a nation we have cut emissions faster than all other major economies, and we have quadrupled our use of renewable electricity sources in recent years. We can be proud of those efforts.

Nevertheless, the measures proposed in this Queen’s Speech lead me for the first time to feel truly optimistic about our future. I know that some of us would prefer even faster action, but these measures propose a sensible and sensitive approach to change. We cannot change an entire nation, replacing our power stations, gas boilers, every car, every bus, every train and every plane overnight, but we are on our way.

The Environment Bill contains useful measures for green governance, including the establishment of an office for environmental protection, more powers to tackle air pollution, and charges for certain single-use plastic items. We can look forward to legally binding targets for improvements in air and water quality, wildlife habitats, and waste and resource efficiency as part of the 25-year environment plan drawn up by the Government, supported by a “polluter pays” principle, which will allow us to restore the habitats in which plants and wildlife have an opportunity not simply to survive but to thrive. These are bold and welcome measures, and they cannot come soon enough. Mother Nature needs our help, and the Government will ensure that she receives it.

In tandem, the agriculture Bill will replace the common agricultural policy with a post-Brexit system of support that will reward farmers for encouraging biodiversity and access to the countryside rather than simply focusing on yield. I have spoken to young farmers in the last few weeks, at an agri innovation day event at Laigh Tarbeg Farm, Ochiltree—as ever, I thank the Watson family for their hospitality—and it is clear to me that they are ready to support that proposal. They are already embracing new technology to secure environmental protections.

The fisheries Bill will deal with an issue that is close to the heart of many of my constituents. The fishermen of our south-west coast fleet have been pressing me about it for some time, and I am glad that their persistence, and that of their colleagues around the UK, has paid off, particularly today. There will no longer be open access for foreign boats in British waters, which will not only support our fishing fleet but will help to restore species to more sustainable levels.

Let us view clean growth not as a burden on the economy, but as a boost to the economy. We can become a world leader in clean growth. As my colleagues and I have seen from our work on the Science and Technology Committee, that goal is entirely feasible and achievable. Let us, through the measures proposed in the Queen’s Speech, build on the progress that we have already made in recent years, and provide the certainty of a cleaner, greener future that the planet and the generations who will follow us so richly deserve. We must and we will put right the wrongs of the past.

15:31

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant).

Climate change is without doubt the most important issue that all of us face. We simply need to care about and look after our common home, our Mother Earth, better than we are at present. The damage, the harm, that we have inflicted on the Earth through our irresponsible behaviour and our abuse of the planet’s natural resources has resulted in the climate emergency that we all now face. There is a global conversion to the realisation that the plundering of the natural resources of this Earth must cease. Individually and collectively, we are to blame for the mess that we are leaving behind. It is simply not good enough for us to leave it to future generations.

The Queen’s Speech promises much, but for many it falls short on ambition. The behavioural change that we need to make, whether as individuals or as Governments, is the right thing to do, whether it is done by small business or a large multinational company. The destruction of the environment and the resulting climate change crisis are registering with people and businesses alike. The establishment of a social impact stock exchange bourse in Edinburgh is a great example of “moral money” being at the forefront of a new investor thinking by a new type of investor. It is no longer acceptable for companies and businesses to carry on as they have been. Our behaviour—the bad practices—is being righted bit by bit, and so it should be. The pollution, the waste and the throwaway culture are, we all hope, finally coming to an end. An impartial observer in the not too distant future may look back on our behaviour and ask, “Why did these people create such immense pile of filth on this beautiful planet?”

So what can we do? What actions can the Government take? The UK consumes 3.3 million tonnes of soy per annum, most of which is used as feed for the livestock that we consume, and 77% of which comes from areas in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay that are at a high risk of deforestation. The UK Government could halt that practice, and start to save the lungs of the world immediately. In contrast, the Scottish Government are now a world leader on climate change. Our ambitious targets have been set, and our climate change legislation is the most stringent in the world.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mc Nally]

No, I will not.

Roseanna Cunningham, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, and other Cabinet Secretaries, have what it takes for long-term planning, and are changing minds to address climate change concerns. There was a charge on plastic bags and a ban on the sale of plastic cotton buds, we have created the first deposit return scheme in the UK, and we have just announced that the Scottish Government will support the establishment of a Scottish office on climate change, taking the lead on behavioural change. We have introduced a new public transport initiative as well, to encourage better use of bus services, with £500 million being spent on a new bus infrastructure, making local journeys faster and greener—acting locally, leading globally.

The Scottish Government have listened to young people and are active in visiting towns and cities, listening to concerns about the planet’s future, and they have established climate action towns. But I want to finish with my constituency of Falkirk. We are getting on with the day job; we are setting up a climate change school ambassadors network, and I am certain that these climate ambassadors will be in attendance to welcome the conference of the parties summit in Glasgow next year.

That is why so many colleagues in this place from all parties are all in agreement: we realise the responsibility to act now where we can have an impact. With that in mind I have arranged for the inaugural meeting of the all-party group on youth action and climate change to take place on 5 November at 11.30 am in Room P, Portcullis House. Its aim is to educate young people, to make voices on climate issues heard in this Parliament, and to provide a forum for young people to engage with parliamentarians and climate change experts.

15:35

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It was encouraging that at the very outset of the Queen’s Speech the Government committed to seize the opportunities for agriculture that will arise from leaving the European Union. Cheshire farmers support the Government’s endeavours to obtain a good deal, but are deeply concerned about the possibility of no deal. They are concerned in particular about three areas: tariffs, welfare standards and farm labour. They want a deal to end the current uncertainty. An egg manufacturer in Congleton has bought in extra packaging three times now due to uncertainty. So they and I very much support the Prime Minister in his endeavours to achieve a deal.

With regard to tariffs, the UK dairy industry produces 14 billion litres of milk a year, of which 3.25 billion litres are exported to the EU. A dairy farmer said that if a deal cannot be achieved and milk exported to the EU attracts a tariff of around 40% while imported milk could attract no tariff at all, this would be unsustainable, saturating our milk markets and risking a collapse in milk prices. This could result in a milk price reduction of 1p or more per litre, which could cost a dairy farmer £20,000 a year—the difference between survival and closure.

The tariff on eggs being exported from the UK into Europe could be 19% in the event of no deal, whereas there would be no tariff on imports. An egg producer in my constituency fears a major flood on to the market of eggs, particularly dried eggs and eggs in products, which constitute almost 50% of egg sales and may not have been produced to the high welfare standards we have in this country. Farmers locally are saying the proposed tariffs could be damaging not only to farmers’ livelihoods but to consumers’ health if imports are not up to UK standards.

On the issue of farm labour, there is already a shortage of workers, for example in horticultural businesses. Farmers are concerned that the situation will be exacerbated unless it is addressed. Already, some horticultural crops cannot be harvested.

The pressure of those concerns and the current uncertainty is impacting on farmers’ mental health. Farmers are our strongest environmentalists; without them we simply would not have the environment we enjoy, and it is interesting that the National Farmers Union target year for net zero carbon is 2040, not 2050. Government working together with farmers will be key to achieving such environmental targets, and farmers want to do so. Will Ministers meet me and Cheshire farmers to discuss that?

Finally, I regret to say that while I support my farmers, as a result my constituency office is to be targeted with a demonstration. It is a wholly inappropriate and relatively confined location for a demonstration, with a children’s mental health charity opposite and a doctor’s surgery next door, not to mention the potential impact on constituents visiting my surgeries and on my staff. The local Labour party activists who have organised this demonstration appear to have joined forces with those opposing the Government tuberculosis eradication strategy in Cheshire. Farmers in my constituency are experiencing the worst difficulties with TB in their cattle of anywhere in the county; it is a big problem to local farmers and is taking its toll financially and emotionally. In 2018, some 2,231 cows had to be put down in Cheshire because they were infected with TB. Culling has been effective in the Republic of Ireland, and a peer-reviewed scientific report published just this week and endorsed by DEFRA shows a 66% reduction in new TB rates in cattle after badger culling. Cheshire farmers support this, and I agree.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have now been informed that a withdrawal agreement has been agreed. I have been to the Library to ask for a copy to indicate the difference between the document in my hand, which is from March 2019, and the new agreement. I put it on record that this is a matter of extreme importance to the United Kingdom and to our Parliament. We need a copy of the new withdrawal agreement at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I totally concur that we need hon. Members to know what is in the new document. The hon. Gentleman’s point is on the record, and people will have heard it. Let us hope that the document is available very shortly.

15:39

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The climate emergency is real, and we must act now to get to net zero as soon as possible. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is warning of huge dangers to the planet, while our own Committee on Climate Change is reminding the Government that they are not even reaching their old target, while our young people are worrying about their future, and while climate protesters have been on our streets for the past two weeks, what is the Government’s response to the crisis? Nothing. There was no mention in the Queen’s Speech of how to get to net zero—not a line.

Unless we have a clear, decisive plan to decarbonise our energy, our heating, our travel, our food production and all our industries—including decarbonising capitalism—the planet will warm up to unsustainable levels. We will create huge global inequalities, displacement and possibly wars. We cannot just do business as usual. We need to act locally, nationally and internationally, and we need to act now.

But the Government have no plan. The energy White Paper was promised for more than a year, but it has now been dropped altogether—there was no mention of it in the Queen’s Speech. There was only a warm-up of the Environment Bill, which lacks ambition, urgency and, most of all, measures to create a proper regulator to ensure that our environment is properly protected. What an utter failure from this Tory Government, and what a wake-up call to all climate change campaigners not to rely on this Tory Government for climate action.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats have a proper, ambitious and realistic plan to cut most of our carbon emissions by 2030 and get to net zero by 2045. The power of the future is electricity from renewable energy, from which we can make hydrogen and other net-zero fuels. There will be no place for fossil fuels in our energy future. The Liberal Democrats would ban fracking now. Our target is to make 80% of our electricity from renewables by 2030. By 2030, we cannot be heating our homes with natural gas. Providing warm homes for all at a price that everybody can afford will be a big challenge. The priority for our Liberal Democrat Government will be to make all homes highly energy-efficient and to put an end to fuel poverty.

We will create a just transition commission to advise on how to deliver a net-zero economy that works for everyone, and just transition funds to support development in the regions and communities most affected by the transition. Surface transport is still the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, and volume has hardly fallen since 1990. Electricity is likely to be the power for cars, with hydrogen for heavier vehicles. There will be no sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. We must ensure that the electric grid can deliver the additional power needed.

There are other sectors in which we do not yet have the solutions to get to net zero, such as by taking fossil fuels out of some industrial processes, aviation and agriculture. Where we cannot avoid carbon emissions completely, negative emissions technologies need to be in place. Nature has its own way to absorb emissions. We must re-wild our environment, and most of all we must plant millions of new trees. Our plan is to plant 60 million every year, which would be the biggest replanting project ever.

The Liberal Democrats are ready to face the climate emergency. We understand that getting to net zero is a challenge, but with the right political will and with a plan, we can tackle the climate crisis. We need climate action now. I ask the Government to publish their plan for getting to net zero as soon as possible.

15:45

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), but I have to say that while it is a great thing that we have generally seen more consensus on this issue in the House recently, she and the hon. Members for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) have constantly made the point that the Government are doing nothing about climate change. That is a quite extraordinary accusation. We have just had the first ever quarter in history in which the energy produced from renewables exceeded that produced from fossil fuels. That is real; it is what happened in July, August and September this year for the first time ever.

I want to refer also to the speech made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whose passion on these matters I admire. She said that it was all well and good to have historical reductions in emissions, but I must point out that the 40% reduction since 1990 did not happen by magic. The biggest part of that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith is speaking from a sedentary position. She would not take my intervention on Margaret Thatcher earlier, but the point is that the biggest part of that reduction, by far, was due to the move from coal to gas. The closure of the coal mines in this country was the single most divisive and bitter industrial dispute that this country has ever had. We know what happened in the miners’ strike and what happened in the 1990s with the miners’ march through central London. We did not want that to happen, and I say this with no relish, but it was a necessary policy to put through in the national interest. There is an idea that people can jump on top of a Jubilee line train or spray fake blood on Government buildings to cut CO₂ emissions, but it takes real action.

[Alan Brown]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to wind Members up, but he knows that when Margaret Thatcher shut down our indigenous coalmines and imported coal from abroad, that was an ideological attack. It had nothing to do with a gas strategy, and he should tell the truth.

[James Cartlidge]

I was being generous in giving way but, with hindsight, perhaps I should not have been. The point is that coal use has definitively slumped massively and our CO₂ emissions have fallen massively.

The good news is that I do not think we will ever need to take such difficult, divisive decisions again, because of what is happening around our coasts, and particularly —I am proud to say this as a Suffolk MP—off the coast of East Anglia. Now, 52% of our 4 GW of offshore wind-produced electricity is coming from the East Anglian shore. This debate falls at a timely moment. Had it not been for the Supreme Court decision, I would have been able to speak, during the original planned Prorogation, at the launch of Norfolk & Suffolk Unlimited. That is a new enterprise from the New Anglia local enterprise partnership based in Norfolk and Suffolk to promote inward investment into our region and to promote exports. At the heart of that will be clean growth and a drive for even more wattage to come from offshore wind.

I have a question for Ministers. We are incredibly ambitious about seeing more growth, more jobs and more electricity being produced from offshore wind, but will he assure me that investment in the grid and support from the National Grid for the greater electricity output will be sustained? There needs to be a co-ordinated strategy if we are to make the most of our potential off the coast of East Anglia and around the whole of the United Kingdom.

Having started back in the dark days of the miners’ strike, I now have another positive thought for the House. Whenever I visit primary schools in my constituency, of which there are 40, I find it incredibly uplifting to see that the next generation is so besotted with this issue. My last four primary school visits were about the issues of waste, cutting down on plastic use and using renewable energy. I think that we can be positive and optimistic about the next generation. Seeing as I took an intervention, I am now going to wind up and give others a chance to speak. The picture that needs to be painted is very positive, and this Government have played a huge historic role in that, of which I am very proud. Now we need consensus so that we can continue with these positive measures.

15:49

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I start by echoing my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) in relation to the sentencing Bill. The Prime Minister boasted over the summer that the Government would create 10,000 more prison places, but we do not need them. We already lock up more prisoners than other European countries, and I hope that not a single one of those places will be for women and that the Government will stick with the female offender strategy that they published last year.

Greater Manchester is making good progress towards dealing with the climate emergency thanks to the initiatives of the Mayor and the combined authority. Our clean air, transport and industrial strategies will help to improve the climate in which we live, but we need the support of Government. We need help to plant more trees, and I particularly support the northern forest initiative promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). Manchester Friends of the Earth tells me that we need 11 million more trees in Greater Manchester, and I hope the Government will be able to assist. We also need help to remove polluting vehicles from our roads and to green our bus fleet, and we need help with scrappage schemes for older commercial vehicles, so I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Transport in his place.

As others have said, climate change will have a disproportionate effect on the poorest, particularly in Greater Manchester due to our older and disproportionately poor-quality housing stock, which leaks heat into the outdoor environment. Fuel poverty is a real issue for us, yet fewer than half of houses that are currently energy inefficient will be brought up to efficiency standards by 2020, which is a particular problem in the private rented sector. I hope that the Government will come forward with a strategy that will not just improve the environment, but create green jobs, and improve health and wellbeing and children’s development.

As others have said, the climate emergency will set up huge population displacement across the world, and the immigration Bill needs to set the foundations for how our response includes a system that affords people rights and dignity, and that meets the needs of business and employers. The Government say that they want to introduce an Australian-style points system. That is a handy slogan, but what will it mean? After all, we have already tried a points-based system for tier 1 and tier 2 visas, but it was abandoned, so what will be different this time?

The Australian points-based system supports a young mobile labour force. Someone gets zero points if they are over 55 unless they have a partner under 45—I am afraid that that rules me out—but is that what we need here for our NHS, our social care sector or our university labs? While it is right to recognise the different labour needs of the UK’s regions, what is most important for employers is ensuring that they have access to a pool of workers with the appropriate skills, which may not necessarily be demonstrated by formal qualifications. For individuals, the protection of workers’ rights is paramount, so what assurances can the Government give us on that?

We cannot stop migration. Indeed, we should not want to. Migration has brought huge benefits to this country and will continue to do so. However, it must be accompanied by investment in the individuals who come to this country. We need to support the reunion of families and give them the opportunity to integrate, and we need them to be able to avoid destitution, including by affording asylum seekers the right to work. I conclude by asking Ministers to report to the House urgently on what is happening to the asylum and migration integration fund. It is crucial both for individuals who come to this country and for the communities in which they live, and the time to give us that information is rapidly running out.

15:52

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I begin by picking up where my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left off by paying tribute to my younger constituents and their engagement on climate change. They want more ambition and more action, and they are engaging in the political process like no previous rising generation in my lifetime because they care passionately about the planet and the poorest people on it. They inspired me, so I decided to conduct a wider survey among my constituents on climate change, and I can report to the House that in Stirling we want our homes insulated, we want to use electric cars, we want public transport options, we want more trees planted, and we want our energy to come from clean sources. The people of Stirling want the UK to take a lead on decarbonisation and extend a helping hand to the rest of the world.

The Gracious Speech confirmed once again that this Government and this House are committed not only to the rhetoric of taking action on climate change, but to taking positive action to stem and mitigate the effects of the developing global crisis, but we need to do more. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor talk about the need for an infrastructure revolution, they are right. We have shown that it is possible to decarbonise the economy and to have clean growth—it is not an either/or. However, we must invest in the reconfiguration of our national infrastructure. There has never been a greater need to get on with it, and there has never been a better time to make that investment. Investment in infrastructure is critical, which is why I hope the Chancellor will come forward with a proposal for a national infrastructure bank in the Budget early next month.

We need a national crusade to level up our housing stock to the highest energy efficiency standards. By every measurement, that is the right thing to do—for the environment, for our economy and, most importantly of all, for people and their wellbeing, especially the most vulnerable people in our society. Let us make housing an infrastructure priority. We need a national endeavour to insulate our homes and upgrade our electricity distribution network to meet future demand, and to put in place green measures to incentivise property owners to do the right things.

We need to see innovation in farm support payments, with a focus on both caring for the environment and the production of good food. Again, that is not an either/or. We need much more ambition, especially in England, to do much more tree planting. Let me be the first to say it: there are lessons for England in the ambition and delivery of what is happening in Scotland. I am proud of what we are doing in Scotland on a cross-party basis.

However, there is one thing I want to major on: we need more action across the UK on buses. I am delighted that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are big on buses. I have long concluded that the deregulation of rural bus services was a mistake. Bus services in rural areas should be classified as an essential public good. We need to regulate bus services, especially in rural areas such as Stirling, to give rural communities proper public transport options. I could go on at length about the complete lack of anything approaching a bus service in the communities I serve. A bus service is a part of the connectivity matrix, as people need to be able to move around more freely. We cannot talk about being serious about net zero unless we invest more in low emission buses and making the bus a viable mode of public transport, as part of a joined-up public transport network.

I do not have anything like enough time to talk about the failures of Scotrail, under the stewardship of the Scottish National party, so I will conclude by saying how proud I am that we have managed to secure COP 26. It is going to happen in Glasgow, and what a magnificent opportunity for Scotland that is.

15:56

[Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)]

The climate emergency will not be resolved with combustible cladding and insulation, and there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to offer alternatives or address the performance of insulation products. The decision to cover Grenfell Tower with cladding and insulation was less to do with energy saving than with an attempt to improve the tower’s appearance—this is all on record. We are where we are, but will the Government ever bring forward plans to tackle energy use? The plans for a building safety regulator are fine as far as they go, but they do not go very far at all; after 28 months, this is a paltry response to a local, nationwide and worldwide problem. The announcement merited half a sentence in the Queen’s Speech. Despite the hours spent by my community on campaigning, the sleepless nights and the crippling anxiety of many of them, the Government played snakes and ladders with them, and the end was pre-ordained. This announcement could have been made two years ago and we could have made some progress by now. Is this the best the Government can do?

The plan for a building safety regulator appears to be set up to fail. It has come about due to failings in the insulation and cladding industry, but there is nothing here about energy saving performance. Some will see the announcement of the regulator as progress, but it could take years to implement. As we speak, the legal teams of worldwide corporations will be finding ways to circumvent whatever regulations we put in place. Whereas Arconic, Rydon and the like, in their international headquarters, have multi-million-pound legal protection, it is my neighbours who burned to death for the sake of appearance.

So let us ask some questions about this regulator. How will it function? Will it be proactive? What kind of funds will it have? Who will monitor its activities? Where some materials are banned, what will be the alternatives and where will they come from, particularly given that we have a world where we already have a shortage of building materials, particularly bricks. Many of the materials are sourced abroad, so how will we check that their quality comes up to our standards? Again, there is no mention of performance in any of this. The UK construction industry is already teetering on the brink of recession and there seems to be no awareness of that, let alone of the skills shortage to do the work that needs to be done.

Many professional organisations have responded to the announcement, including the Federation of Master Builders, the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association, the London Fire Brigade and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which has set up a worldwide organisation of 80 professional bodies that is setting standards that we can only dream the Government will catch up with eventually. The Royal Institute of British Architects has also been way ahead of the game, demanding sprinklers, alternative means of escape, fire alarms and a ban on combustible cladding.

Most of all, we come back to the issue of cheap materials. We need insulation with good energy performance, but where will the money come from? We cannot sacrifice safety to cost ever again. With a generation of poorly insulated social homes, we desperately need solutions. I will meet Fuel Poverty Action shortly, and I really do not know what to say to the group.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the 14th of every month, we join in our silent walk, in rain or snow. We did so on Monday, in the pouring rain, and people were saying, “Where are the voices of the dead? Where are the voices of their families and neighbours?” There is nothing for them. There is no way forward. How will we keep low-income families warm and safe in their homes? As it is, the plan is not only a huge disappointment in terms of safety and improving energy use and performance; it is a betrayal of everything we have fought for over the past 28 months.

16:00

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

I am in no doubt that all colleagues from all parties agree on the importance of taking action to halt and reverse the damaging effects of climate change. I am sure we are all delighted that that is one of the central messages of the Queen’s Speech and that it will remain at the centre of our politics. The announcement of a new watchdog for environmental protection, with real teeth, is crucial, as it will ensure that policy decisions at every level of government genuinely improve and protect our vital natural resources—air, land and water.

I am very proud of those in the Chichester community back home, as they are highly engaged with addressing climate change at every level. Chichester District Council has declared a climate emergency and is already developing plans to make our area greener. Just recently, the council received a grant to install new electric charging points throughout my constituency, and I thank the Secretary of State for that. I know that the council will appreciate the measures in the Environment Bill to improve air quality, which is critical to my constituents in Chichester and around Midhurst. Similarly, at every school I visit, the children I meet are passionate about the planet, and tackling climate change is their No. 1 priority.

We recently held an open meeting in Chichester, and a number of environmental groups came along. During that meeting, I was invited to visit a local Passivhaus. The house is a role model for low-energy living, with thick insulation and triple glazing. It is air-tight, draft-free and the best in class for efficiency. The houses look fantastic, and what will really sell them is the energy bill, which is less than £200 a year. More than 65,000 houses worldwide have now been built to this new standard, and we need many more in the UK. I fully support such an energy-efficient approach when it comes to addressing our future housing needs.

Education is also key. I recently visited Tuppenny Barn, a local charity that educates children about sustainable living, with a focus on growing, cooking and eating organic, ethical local produce. That is a theme I come across often among the farming community. One farm that I visited over the summer, the Woodhorn Group, has ambitious plans to be 100% carbon neutral by 2025, which would meet the calls of Extinction Rebellion and require moving even faster than the NFU target to be net zero by 2040. What was exciting was the farm’s drive to instil sustainable practice and innovation in every element of the business, including the development of new cattle feed that reduces the amount of methane produced. There is much innovation in every sector, and I hope that, as we head towards spending 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027, a significant element of the Government’s investment in R&D is used for sustainably focused projects.

I am proud of the UK’s record as a leader in climate change. Times have changed. I come from a coalmining family: my grandfather was a coalminer. I can well remember going down the mine with him as a young girl and being absolutely appalled at the dirty and challenging environment in which he and his colleagues worked on a daily basis. I am encouraged by the fact that by 2025 we will have no coal-powered electricity in this country whatsoever. We will have transformed our energy economy in that short time.

I fear that some of those present are trying to make this a bit of a left/right issue. It is important that we do not do that. We, as politicians, have a duty to be honest and to set realistic goals we can deliver. Net carbon neutrality by 2025 is not achievable and there is no point setting a goal we cannot achieve. We would lose the public’s support and score a spectacular own goal. We must, however, remain climate champions at every level, from the primary school children reusing their wrapping paper this Christmas to the Prime Minister and the UK at COP 26 next year. The world rests on all our shoulders, and I am proud the UK will continue to lead the way.

16:04

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

On 1 May, the Labour Party, led ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), forced the Government to declare a climate emergency. The motion gave the Government six months to bring forward urgent proposals to restore our natural environment and deliver a circular zero-waste economy. Six months on, the clock is ticking, and what did we see in the Queen’s Speech: piecemeal measures—some welcome—to tinker around the edges while the rate of climate change accelerates in the UK at an alarming rate.

This Queen’s Speech was used for propaganda by the Conservative party. The Prime Minister promises the earth, but he will deliver nothing and continue to ignore the enormity of the threat. Obviously, recycling and plastic waste are important, but they are not the critical issues facing people in my constituency. We need urgent support and investment in energy-saving measures—in solar, heat and water heating—and in our housing stock. This is a massive infrastructure issue. It is also a massive opportunity to bring decent jobs to the people I represent, but it is being missed by the Government.

In Bristol South, my focus has always been on post-16 educational opportunities, health and housing. Those are the key things that matter to my constituents, some of whom face the greatest deprivation in this country. Transport—to get jobs to them and them to jobs—is the other key issue. They can all be improved with better policy proposals and investment, which could also help us to meet the climate change challenge, but the Government are not bringing forward any measures for them.

There are some measures that we can welcome in the Environment Bill. In particular, I and my Bristol colleagues welcome the location of the new office for environmental protection, but that body needs teeth. At the moment, it is not truly independent or set up to really hold the Government to account, so we have some concerns about that. I hope that it will bring decent jobs to my constituency and that it focuses on the issues I have identified, as this would help people, particularly those in fuel poverty and in poor-quality housing, to achieve the standards we desperately need to meet.

When I first entered this place in 2015, my surgery was full of young entrepreneurs in Bristol South who had had the legs cut out from under their businesses by the Government’s changes to the infrastructure support, particularly for solar heating and so on. The Government have never supported businesses in Bristol South. I would really like to see them start to reverse that type of policy. Brexit dominates most of our debates at the moment. The idea that the Environment Secretary and the Prime Minister want stronger protections and greater investment in communities facing poverty, particularly fuel poverty, and the devastating effects of climate change is for the birds.

16:08

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I have two things to declare. First, I am the vice-chair of the all-party group on fair fuel for UK motorists and UK hauliers. Secondly, on a more personal note, I was recently diagnosed with cough variant asthma, which was quite a shock. Eighteen months previously, I was climbing up the Mont Blanc stage of the Tour de France, and then I was in a Mongolian clinic—of all places—struggling for breath. There is nothing like being unable to breathe to bring home to you the truth, or at least the danger, that emissions pose to our environments, our society and the way we live our lives. It made me look into the subject more deeply.

As an MP representing one of the country’s major car-making centres, I want to urge people when they talk about emissions to have an honest and rounded debate. We have to look at things scientifically and practically. We have to think about things in the round and find the right solutions. Unfortunately, companies that are genuinely trying to be at the forefront of reducing emissions, such as Jaguar Land Rover, sometimes face moves that could damage their business and be counterproductive to the green agenda and local taxes.

We would undoubtedly be in a much better place if previous Governments had not spent years encouraging drivers to switch to diesel, but we cannot escape the fact that millions did so in good faith, believing that they were making the responsible choice. Reducing the trade-in or resale value of their cars actually makes it harder for diesel drivers to transition to cleaner alternatives, and that risks keeping older and more polluting models on the road for longer.

We have to carry people with us. What we want to achieve is not strict denial or a luddite attitude towards the economy. Spain has seen an increase in emissions over the past 10 years, whereas since 1985 the UK has seen a reduction. That is the result of economic growth and technology. We have been a successful country during that time, and that is reflected in our environmental policy.

I share the Government’s enthusiasm for the age of electric vehicles, which is surely coming, but Britain does not have anything like the infrastructure required for a rapid transition to widespread electric car use. Over the next decade, we will need to see a huge expansion in charge points and manufacturing capacity, not to mention ensuring that the national grid is ready for what could be a fundamental shift in demand. I speak regularly with car manufacturers, and I know that they are more than ready to play their part and invest, often exceptionally heavily, in the research and development programmes needed to make that a reality. But to do that they need stable revenues in the here and now, and that means a healthy market for cars, which we can build with today’s technology and infrastructure. If Governments, of whichever hue, stamp too hard on the accelerator, they risk stalling progress towards electric cars altogether.

This is by no means a counsel of despair. As I mentioned, diesel engines have made huge strides. We have the Euro 6 engines, for example, and last year What Car? magazine named a diesel car as “car of the year”. There are real opportunities in the near term to harness technology and dial down emissions.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of action that the Government can take in other areas to bring down harmful emissions in the here and now. Two areas that warrant special mention are construction and mass transit. Retrofitting older buses and lorries with cleaner engines would make a significant contribution to reducing emissions, but without penalising ordinary motorists or auto manufacturers.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, because otherwise it will not be possible to get everybody in.

16:12

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Members sitting on the Government Benches look comfortable, unruffled and complacent, while the Extinction Rebellion protests are being fiercely suppressed on the streets just outside this House. Amnesty International has called this move “chilling and unlawful”. The Government seem unbothered by September’s UN report that waters are rising, ice is melting, and species, including pathogens, are moving.

The Government can point to successes started under Labour, such as cheaper offshore wind and the phasing out of coal, but they are failing in imagination, they are failing in ambition, and they are failing because they think they are acting fast enough, but they are not. I implore them to be braver in their policy making if they are going to bring forward solutions commensurate with the climate challenge.

The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s own advisers—wrote recently that the Government had completed only one of their 25 headline policy actions, and on 10 of them they had not even made partial progress. The report goes on to say that the policy gap has widened and the Government are going backwards. The Government have no right to be complacent, given that they are going to miss their own climate change targets. We are scientifically sure that this will cost millions of lives globally.

In the short time available, I will talk about what we need to achieve. I will start with energy. Why are we seeing an effective ban on onshore wind in England? Why is the new solar smart export not guaranteeing surety of income or contracts? Why are we seeing solar projects being cancelled right across the country? Why are we not seeing a fracking ban?

The flipside of that is demand. Why are we not seeing a big roll-out of super insulation across the country? Why are so many homes still leaky? That is just in one sector, but in other sectors the same problems abound.

Transport emissions increased by 1% last year. Where is the cycling infrastructure? Why is bus patronage dropping? Why is the train still so expensive that people choose to use their cars? One of the largest sources of transport emissions is aviation. The Prime Minister himself said that he was going to lie in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow, but we have seen no evidence of the Government acting against aviation. Seventy per cent. of all flights are taken by 15% of the people; the Government need to introduce a frequent flyer tax to start rolling that back.

If the Government are worried about public support, they should stop suppressing Extinction Rebellion and the youth climate strikers, and start listening to them. They should make citizens’ assemblies, test the ideas, learn from the people and engage with them in a positive way. My final message is: stop the complacency; act ambitiously.

16:15

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), I went outside to meet Extinction Rebellion. It was not very difficult to find somebody who was intelligent and with whom I could have a meaningful conversation, which has to contrast with some of the others we have seen in the press, who have defaced buildings and chained themselves to tube carriages. As a result of that meeting I was given a tree, which I took back to my constituency. I have worked with the local climate action group in one village, who are helping me to find somewhere to plant the tree, and I think that is an important thing to be able to say. I also bring a request to the House from somebody who was at the climate action group meeting that I attended—that this House has a meat-free day. Now that I have passed on the request, I hope the idea will be picked up.

One of the things that we often forget about climate change is that it needs to be tackled at an international level. We have heard about the amount of money that the Government have made available to help countries overseas to tackle the issue, but I am also a delegate at the Council of Europe, which has shown me the value of cross-party co-operation. I have been involved in debates there on climate change with Members of the Opposition, including Lord Prescott. Let us not forget that Lord Prescott was involved in producing the Kyoto climate agreement—right at the beginning of the process. He and I have spent many a long time talking about and supporting the Paris agreement and the agreements made in Marrakesh, all of which are important for tackling climate change at a global level.

Allow me to mention technology in the context of the national infrastructure strategy. If we are going to judge the impact of things such as roads, it is important that we do so with reference to tomorrow’s technology or the technology that will exist at the time such infrastructure is built, rather than today’s technology. Driverless electric cars are not part of tomorrow’s technology; they are part of today’s. Driverless cars are being made at the Culham Science Centre in my constituency and are running around Oxford now, as we speak. In fact, some are about to make a journey from Oxford to London and back again as part of the demonstration of that project.

The last point I will mention is that at the Council of Europe we heard about New Zealand admitting climate refugees, and that is something that we should bear in mind.

16:18

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (LD)]

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the inclusion of the Environment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. The commitments to improving air quality, restoring nature and transforming waste management are certainly long overdue. I particularly welcome the proposals for improving water quality and securing the resilience of water supply. I am hugely disappointed, however, by the powers available for the proposed new office of environmental protection. At present, the Government can be taken to the European Court of Justice if they fail to meet their legal obligations to the environment. Under the proposals in the Bill, these rights are significantly reduced. Judicial review is not a satisfactory replacement for the rights we currently enjoy.

My principal concern remains the lack of Government commitment to tackling the climate emergency in the round. This demands action on a range of measures if we are to meet the 2050 target, but the detail on achieving that remains vague. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Government’s approach to water resilience. Yes, the Environment Bill promises to improve water quality and to secure resilient water services in the long term, but I just do not think the Government are taking the challenge seriously enough. Parts of the country are already suffering water stress. In March, the chief executive of the Environment Agency warned that if we do not act now, within the next 25 years the UK will be facing “the jaws of death”. In the context of climate change and projected population increases, we face not just a climate emergency but a water emergency, and we must act to tackle both. The need for action amounts to much more than building new hard infrastructure, and it is also about much more than tackling leakage; it is about looking at water in a holistic way.

I am not convinced that the Government will act comprehensively to tackle the water emergency. Their current consultation on reform of building regulations, for example, does nothing to promise higher water efficiency standards. When will it be understood that tackling climate change is not just about energy efficiency? We also need a road map for retro-fitting the domestic housing stock in the context of both energy and water efficiency.

The Government’s Bill is vague on other key water issues. Improving water resilience demands better management of surface water, and yet we still have no statutory compulsion to use sustainable drainage for new developments, and no commitment to developing rainwater or greywater harvesting, or to a per capita consumption target for water. It is this absence of a comprehensive approach to securing water resilience that makes me so sceptical of the measures in the Environment Bill. Targets are great, but they need to be backed by concrete commitments and plans to deliver the changes necessary.

16:21

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith).

I welcome many things within the Queen’s Speech, but particularly the theme of preparing the country for life outside the EU. My constituents in Rugby and Bulkington will be delighted by the progress made today, which means that they can see the light at the end of the tunnel in the negotiations with the EU. That enables the referendum to be respected and provides some certainty, but also, very importantly for my constituency, retains close trading links with our European partners that would be lost if we left with no deal.

In respect of the provisions on climate and the environment, I am very supportive of the Government’s policy commitment to get to net zero emissions by 2050, but that needs to be proportionate. I hear calls from Opposition Members to bring these targets forward—there is almost a bidding war—but they need to be reasonable, proportionate and achievable. We really do need to think long and hard about the effects of decarbonisation, particularly on our transport, and the move to electric heating of our buildings.

Transport infrastructure is a very important issue. I note that the Transport Secretary is in his place. He is a great advocate of electric vehicles, but he will know all about range anxiety. I must share with him that I was absolutely horrified to discover that a brand new motorway service area being built in Rugby at junction 1 of the M6 was originally proposed to have only two electric charging stations as a consequence of lack of capacity within the grid. Intervention and shouting and talking to people mean that it will open in the middle of the summer with 22 charging points, but even that is lacking in ambition. Given that this is the halfway point between London and Manchester where people will want to stop and charge their cars, we need to provide that facility.

We need to consider reinforcing the grid in respect of heating our buildings. There is a weakness in the way that we redevelop the infrastructure. We need to make certain that there is sufficient power to do all the things we want to do. We will be able to do something on vehicles by using smart metering technology to encourage people to charge overnight if they want to be able to heat their homes when they return from work. On power generation, I hope that the Government will look once again at tidal power. We have fabulous knowledge and expertise in Rugby at GE Energy, and I am hopeful that tidal lagoons will be reconsidered.

I have a whole range of issues to raise in respect of the Environment Bill. I will clearly now have to save my defence of plastic packaging for the Second Reading debate next week.

15:09

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It does not say much about the self-proclaimed world leader in climate change that there are no definitive proposals in the Queen’s Speech on this subject. We still await a long overdue White Paper on energy policy. We need to recognise that it was a Tory Government who pulled the plug on carbon capture at Peterhead, but meanwhile, all 2050 zero emissions projections rely on carbon capture.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is talking about carbon capture. Does he agree that, instead of wasting billions of pounds of the public’s money on new nuclear, the Government should be investing in projects like St Fergus, which in a very few years could be storing at least 5.7 gigatonnes of carbon, or 150 times Scotland’s 2016 emissions?

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly. The Government should be moving heaven and earth to get these carbon capture schemes up and running, making use of redundant North sea oil assets and taking advantage of the skills base in the oil and gas industry, which can be transferred over. It is ridiculous that we have a nuclear sector deal but no sector deal for marine or tidal energy. There should be a focus on those too.

This is a Government who continue to block onshore wind. At the last auction, offshore wind was £40 per megawatt-hour, so it is madness not to allow onshore wind to bid in the contracts for difference auction process. A RenewableUK report by Vivid Economics estimates that new onshore wind projects in Scotland will create more than 2,000 jobs by 2035, so why did the previous Scottish Secretary fail Scotland by blocking those jobs and that investment in environmentally friendly projects?

Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, this Government still have a nuclear obsession. Hinkley has a strike rate of £92.50 per megawatt-hour for a 35-year concession. It is sucking money away from other projects that will count towards tackling climate change. Given that the UK Government pledged to respond to the National Infrastructure Commission this autumn, I hope a Minister will confirm that they will take on board the recommendation of abandoning new nuclear in favour of renewables.

With onshore and offshore prices at an all-time low, it is time that the UK Government considered the UK supply chain when it comes to the licensing process of the CfD auctions. Rather than concentrating on price only, bids should also be considered in terms of quality and added value if using local suppliers. Not only could that allow greater continuity of work for yards such as BiFab and suppliers such as CS Wind in Campbeltown, but it avoids the absurdness of bringing kit in from around the world when we are trying to clamp down on climate change and emissions.

Another National Infrastructure Commission recommendation is that there should be an energy efficiency infrastructure programme, which it is estimated could reduce home energy demand by up to 25%. Scotland already has an energy efficiency programme, with the programme and energy advice set-ups complemented by not only the industry but the third sector. Wales is also doing its bit. When will the UK Government invest directly in home energy efficiency measures?

Heat accounts for approximately one third of greenhouse gas emissions, which shows not only the value of energy efficiency measures but the need for a long-overdue strategy to decarbonise heat. I co-chaired a cross-party inquiry that produced a report on heat decarbonisation. I have the report here, printed by Policy Connect and Carbon Connect. I really recommend it to the House, because it contains recommendations that the Government will have to adopt.

Another simple measure related to transport is the introduction of E10 fuels. Cars are designed to run on E10, and the Department for Transport estimates that it reduces vehicle CO₂ emissions by 2%, so why prevaricate? The Government should get on with it and make it mandatory.

Our environment can be improved with tree planting. The Scottish Government lead the way on that, and it is another measure that the UK Government need to step up to the plate on. Scotland has the most ambitious targets in the world with regard to climate change. We cannot afford to be dragged down by the UK Government’s inaction.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I beg colleagues not to take interventions, which increases their time. If they do, the Member who is meant to speak last will not get to speak at all, which is just not fair.

16:30

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

We have heard lots about what we have not achieved, but it is worth pointing out that in the last two weeks the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has sold at auction the ability to deliver a quarter of our energy from wind power by 2025, so that is good news.

In Cornwall, and on Scilly in particular, we have the smart islands initiative. It is not new; it was in the industrial strategy. It is a commitment to understand how we can generate energy and use the electricity generated by renewable means in all our homes and everywhere else. We have had a geothermal project announced at the Eden Project this week, and we have £23.5 million to get our buses working in a greener and much more effective way in Cornwall.

I am delighted that the Environment Bill was in the Queen’s Speech. I had a debate in April calling on the Government to bring it forward, and I am glad it was there. The ambition for nature recovery is fantastic. It has the potential of improving lives and neighbourhoods in every corner of our nation. I am the species champion for the Manx shearwater. It is an example of how, when we bring people together to work together—in this case, to get rid of rats and litter, because these are ground-nesting birds—we enhance nature. Nature recovery is a really good opportunity to bring communities together in a united cause.

Adequately addressing the climate change crisis requires some joined-up thinking, so I am glad that the Prime Minister is to chair the new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change.

The Government—again, this has not been said this afternoon—have set out ambitious infrastructure investment commitments for public services and ambitious plans to decarbonise the existing the Government estate. Will the Government work in harmony between Departments to make sure that infrastructure investment and decarbonisation are done together? Across this Parliament, we work in offices that are far too hot, so we open all the windows. There is an enormous amount of work to be done in Parliament, as there is in the NHS, the Government estate, local government, fire services, schools and the police. With all infrastructure, we must make sure that as we invest in it, we decarbonise it. That will improve the Government estate, reduce carbon emissions, reduce the running costs of buildings and contribute to the skills agenda.

On the subject of skills, one way to skill up people across the country is to get on top of the situation with homes and make sure that new legislation is brought forward quickly to ensure that new homes are carbon neutral. We cannot continue to build homes that are leaky and inefficient. We must also properly retrofit our homes so that we can reduce their carbon footprint, improve people’s lives and reduce pressure on health and social care.

In my last 20 seconds, let me say that smart meters are a critical part of making sure that we use energy more efficiently. If everyone—every business and every home—had a smart meter, it is estimated that we would reduce the demand for energy by 11%. Alongside that, a piece of equipment has been designed to combust our rubbish in our own home. It is called the HERU, and it enables us never to have to take waste away from home.

16:32

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“There is no planet B.”

These are not my words; they are the words of eight-year-old Poppy from Portsmouth. We owe it to Poppy and others across our country to ensure the planet we pass on is fit for the future. We see our children take to the streets, giving up their school attendance for politicians’ attention. However, the perception that this is a problem for future generations could not be further from the truth. It is affecting people now, and none more so than the people of Portsmouth. As the British Heart Foundation has warned, harmful pollutants in my city are breaching World Health Organisation limits, meaning that due to the poor air quality the 11,000 people with a heart condition living in Portsmouth South are at far greater risk. It is no wonder that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has described this illegal air pollution crisis as a “public health emergency”.

It is not just air pollution that must be addressed. As a coastal community, people in my city disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change. The report by the IPCC said that if we do not act to stop a temperature increase of more than 2° C, we will see severe coastal flooding. In my city, the local authority is engaged in a programme of building the largest sea defence scheme this nation has ever seen. Without it, nearly 9,000 residential properties, 800 commercial buildings and millions of pounds-worth of essential infrastructure run the risk of ruin.

But it is not all doom and gloom. On 1 May, Labour forced the Government to agree to the UK Parliament becoming the first in the world to declare a climate emergency. With that trailblazing motion, pressure was rightly applied to force the Government to bring forward urgent proposals. Last year, Labour published plans for a green transformation, in which we set out how we would decarbonise our economy. That has been followed by exciting policy announcements, such as the promise to build 37 new wind farms and a fleet of 30,000 electric vehicles for hire.

The mildly technical nature and distant-sounding threat of climate change may not be enough to provoke people to come out fighting from their beds, but pretty much all of us would do so to protect our loved ones, homes and livelihoods, and to build a better planet. The Government owe it to young people such as Poppy from Portsmouth to tackle this priority once and for all.

16:34

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The next time a young person asks me how seriously Parliament takes climate change I will struggle to answer, given that this morning we ate into our time with a discussion on pornography, followed by a debate about whether we should have a debate on Saturday. When Parliament starts providing a proportion of its time that is commensurate with the importance of the issues out there in the country at large, those people will have more respect and regard for us and what we do.

It is a great shame that we have not had more time to discuss climate change, because so much progress was made by all three mainstream political parties when they were in government. Emissions have reduced by 44% since the 1990s, for which we credit the Labour Government. Since 2010, the proportion of renewables in our energy supply has gone from 4% to almost 40%, and we can credit the Liberal Democrats and the coalition Government for that, as well as this Conservative Government. We are making great strides, and we have the best record on emissions of all G20 countries. When we speak to young people it is important to reassure them that we are on a good road, but that we need to do more and must not be complacent. It is also important to debate this issue with the transport sector, because 33% of our carbon dioxide emissions come from that.

There are reasons to be positive. Through the Transport Committee I had the pleasure of visiting Porterbrook, and its amazing engineer, Helen Simpson, who has a real passion for the environment and for getting more women into engineering. Together with the Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education at the University of Birmingham, she has come up with the first retrofitted hydrogen train. That is a green train; that is the future for this country. Indeed, it is not just about this country, because we can sell our industry to other countries, making them greener in our one planet, and making our economy better in this country. I fully support that.

I am also excited about the airline industry. I am a supporter of Heathrow expansion, but the future of air travel should involve solar or battery power, and we should look to a time when at least short-haul flights can be green. I do not believe that we have to slow our economy down; I believe that if we grow the economy and unleash our great innovators, entrepreneurs and engineers, we will not only fix climate issues in this country but be a groundbreaker for the rest of the world.

16:37

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It has been galling this afternoon to listen to Government Members welcome the environmental commitments in the Gracious Speech as a step change in our commitment to the environment. In reality, those commitments are partial and incomplete, and they sit in the context of a decade of failure and a climate emergency. We already have legally binding carbon reduction targets, and the Government are failing to meet them—indeed, we are currently predicted to miss the fourth and fifth carbon budgets.

The Government are still investing billions of pounds in fossil fuel extraction overseas, when an emergency demands that fossil fuels are kept in the ground. They have announced a paltry package of measures in response to intense public pressure and anxiety about their failure to act. The Gracious Speech ignores the Government’s utter complacency, and nowhere is that more evident than in relation to the built environment. Some 14% of UK carbon emissions come from residential buildings, yet over the past 10 years, the Government have scrapped the zero-carbon homes programme, which means that every new home currently being built is a lost opportunity to deliver carbon reductions.

The removal of subsidies for domestic solar power has all but halted the installation of solar panels by private individual homeowners. The introduction and then closure, just two years later, of the disastrous green deal for retrofitting, means that next to no progress has been made on reducing carbon emissions from existing homes. There is no programme to reduce our reliance on gas to heat our homes, and one in 10 UK households is still living in fuel poverty. Deregulation of the planning system has reduced the quality of many new homes, as well as the quantum of new urban green space being built alongside new homes.

Finally, the Government talk in the Gracious Speech about a world-leading approach, but the UK is already world-leading because of our role in the EU. Within the EU, we have helped to weight the balance of power towards greater ambition on climate change, and we will have helped to push EU states that are reluctant to do more. If we leave the EU, that ability to lead will be lost and the UK will be stuck between a European Union where we have no seat at the table and the America of Donald Trump, one of the greatest climate vandals of our time. Dressing up some minimalist commitments after 10 years of failure and negligence, in a policy context in which whatever we do will be diminished by Brexit, is simply not an adequate response to an emergency.

16:40

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Air quality is an issue of huge importance to my constituents in Lewisham East, to London and to the country. It is a key part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency. The concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the air in many areas of my community exceeds World Health Organisation standards, which are designed to protect us. People living in London’s most deprived areas and disadvantaged communities are, on average, exposed to a quarter more nitrogen dioxide than others. According to the British Health Foundation, air pollution is now linked to 36,000 deaths a year nationwide. That is tragic.

Lewisham Council is due to trial school streets, which is a pilot scheme in Lee Green in my constituency to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion around several schools in the area. Last month, I visited Brindishe Lee primary school to meet the local community, teachers and children who closed the road near their school for a car-free day. It was an absolute joy to see them playing and enjoying their local street outside their school. The Mayor of London’s ultra low emission zone will improve air quality, meaning that by 2025 there will be no primary or secondary schools in areas exceeding legal high quality limits. That means the gap in quality between high and low-income areas of London will be reduced by a significant 71%. The Government need to support that, however, with new air quality laws.

Earlier this week, the Government published their Environment Bill. Some of its content was welcome, but there were few details on the Government’s apparently ambitious air quality target. If, as the Government constantly claim, leaving the European Union will be an opportunity to legislate better, why have they not proudly announced that measures in one of their flagship Bills will exceed existing EU standards? Why do they fail to take advantage of the opportunity to reach the higher standards set by the WHO? Why does the proposed new watchdog move backwards on measures designed to enforce these targets, such as fines? The Government must not shift the responsibility to local authorities while continuing to cut funding to avoid the difficult decisions.

The Government are not moving far or fast enough to improve our air quality and protect our children. I have marched, I have visited, and I have spoken at a number of climate change and air quality events across my constituency. We are passionate about this issue. In many cases it is children, the next generation, who are leading the way for cleaner air. Let us make it easier for them.

16:43

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

There is little dispute that we are living in a climate crisis. If serious action is not agreed on and embedded soon, we will reach a tipping point where it will be impossible to reverse global temperature rises. We know that those who will suffer most from a lack of action on the environment will be those who are least well off. Whether they are farmers in low-lying Bangladesh hit by flash floods or children in cities growing up breathing polluted air, the poorest are hit hardest by our lack of action.

I recently met the children at Belmont primary school in Chiswick during their amazing climate awareness week. They are already urging their parents to switch energy providers to renewable sources and to use their cars less, but however much individual households change their habits, change needs to start from the top. To have any hope of achieving net zero by 2050 we need clear Government targets now.

No issue is more totemic than transport. It is responsible for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, yet the sector is the slowest in addressing emissions. Replacing all petrol and diesel vehicles with electric will not scratch the surface of the challenge. Also, how can we make a difference when it is far cheaper to fly 400 km than to travel that distance by train? I am disappointed that the Queen’s Speech mentioned no legislation to cut transport emissions.

If the Government want to take one simple step towards the carbon target for the UK, they can scrap the third runway proposal for Heathrow. That scheme means an additional 6 million tonnes of CO₂. Yet Government figures show that the net economic benefit of the scheme is zero. Seventy per cent. of UK flights are made by just 15% of the population. Runway 3 is not even being built to fulfil business needs, as international business travel is flatlining. Almost all the additional passengers at Heathrow after expansion will be UK- based people taking leisure flights abroad—and those are Department for Transport figures. Yesterday, the Government rejected the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change, which had said that they should assess their airport capacity strategy in the context of net zero. The Government’s response stated that the matter should instead be addressed by the UN.

Zero-emission planes will not come on stream until 2050 at the earliest—far too late to address aviation’s disproportionate impact on UK emissions. In other words, in the UK’s response, the Government are not accepting responsibility for getting UK aviation emissions down to net zero. They say they may do so “at a later date”. That is deeply disappointing.

Cycling and walking can also make a significant contribution to cuts in air pollution and carbon emissions. People young and old regularly tell me that they want to cycle more but feel unsafe doing so. That needs ring-fenced capital funding for segregated cycle paths, and safe crossings for those on foot or riding bicycles.

16:46

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

We have had a thoughtful, well-informed debate, with some excellent contributions, but sadly the Government are in denial about the most important issue of our time. Warm words from Ministers do not change the fact that this Queen’s Speech included only six words about climate change, thrown in as an afterthought. Earlier this year Parliament declared a climate emergency, but the Conservative party again went missing, failing to back Labour’s motion committing the Government to act in the face of an impending catastrophe. The policies of this Government to delay action on climate change are condemning our children and grandchildren to a more dangerous and insecure world.

Transport is the UK’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the worst-performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. What is more, there has been a rising trend in emissions in recent years. A Labour Government will, from day one, align the priorities of the Department for Transport with our commitment to tackle climate change.

Under my leadership, I want the Department for Transport to set a carbon budget that is consistent with the aspirations of the Paris agreement. We will reallocate departmental spending to achieve the changes required. What that means in practice for policy development is a shift away from modes of transport that are dependent on fossil fuels and towards sustainable modes.

The failure to tackle transport emissions is the result of deliberate Conservative Government policy, which encourages traffic growth through an ever-expanding multibillion-pound programme of road building. At the same time, public transport subsidies have been slashed. To reverse that trend, Labour will oversee a radical shift of resources towards public transport, as well as cycling and walking, along with an acceleration of the transition from diesel and petrol to electric vehicles.

Even since Parliament declared a climate emergency, the Government have continued to boast that they are investing more than ever in England’s major road network. That colossal road-building programme is environmentally unsustainable, and will drive traffic growth and create congestion, failing even on its own terms. Worse still, the Government plan to spend all the vehicle excise duty revenue—almost £30 billion—on building new motorways. Labour would instead hypothecate that money into a sustainable transport fund to improve buses, rail, cycling and walking.

More journeys are made on buses than on any other form of public transport, but colossal cuts to bus budgets have caused a 10% decline in patronage in England outside London, leading to over 3,000 routes being cut and withdrawn. That attack on bus services is leaving people and communities isolated and increasing car dependency. So we will also give funds for free travel for under-25s to local authorities that bring local services under public control or ownership—[Interruption.] I am glad you like it. That will also transform services and deliver significant environmental benefits.

Labour’s policy of nationalising the railways is also central to our plans to boost public transport use. Tinkering around the edges of a broken system will not suffice. Public ownership will allow for improvements to increase patronage which are frustrated under privatisation, such as reforming fares and ticketing to create a simple, easy-to-use system that can be integrated with other modes of transport. We would commit ourselves to a long-term vision of upgrades and improvements, including major projects such as a £39 billion Crossrail for the north to connect and transform the economies of the north of England. Labour has said that it would cap fares at inflation, but I believe that we can and should go further.

The role that cycling and walking can play in modal shift is underappreciated. Indeed, under Government plans, spending on cycling in England outside London is set to fall to 37p per person per head in 2020-21. Were the UK to achieve the same cycling culture and levels of infrastructure as the Netherlands, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from car travel by as much as a third. There must be significant investment in cycling infrastructure to develop dense, continuous networks of cycle paths that are physically separated from traffic. That will include building cycling and pedestrian bridges or tunnels, because cycling should be for the many, not just the brave. Cycling and walking ought to be a priority at every level of government, which would mean an end to developments planned around car use to the exclusion of sustainable transport. The Labour party understands the strategic importance of cycling in driving down emissions.

Reducing the number of car journeys by improving public and sustainable transport is the priority, but research shows that that alone is not enough to meet emission targets. No country in the world has a less ambitious date for the phasing out of vehicles with internal combustion engines than the UK; 2040 is too late, so Labour will work towards a 2030 phase-out, and will give industry the investment and support that it needs to make that transition. Those plans and future announcements are central to Labour’s green industrial revolution.

I voted against the expansion of Heathrow because it would ignore the climate crisis. When anti-expansion campaigners challenged the plans in the High Court, they argued that the Government had acted unlawfully by not considering the Paris climate change agreement. However, the court ruled that while the Government had ratified the agreement, it did not form part of UK law. It is a disgrace that the Government signed it while forcing through policies that they knew would cause the UK to miss its targets.

The Government are condemning the country to economic stagnation and a climate crisis. The Labour party has a plan to deliver a green industrial revolution to address the climate crisis and revitalise our economy. By improving public transport, investing in active travel and decarbonising road transport, Labour will create transport networks that are sustainable, encourage economic development and create a more socially just society. I am tremendously proud of the way in which the Labour movement is rising to the challenge of the climate crisis, in contrast to the defeatism of the Conservative party, and I cannot wait to deliver our programme in government.

16:53

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)]

This has been a very good debate. While it was kicked off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it has also dealt with many of the transport issues that concern me daily. However, we could have been forgiven for thinking that we were living in a parallel universe, having listened to the concerns expressed by some Members in what I thought should have been a much more consensual debate. After all, the House voted very strongly for net-zero emissions by 2050.

Members suggest that nothing has happened, but this is the only major country—the only major economy—that has legislated for net-zero emissions. Last year, this country generated more than half its electricity from low and zero-carbon means. Since we came to power in 2010, 99% of all the solar power available in this country has been installed. We have already ruled that there will be an end to petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, and I am sure that many Opposition Members are already driving electric vehicles. Some of my hon. Friends have also expressed concern about that date. I am, as an electric car driver, investigating bringing that date forward, but we have to be considerate of the jobs in the supply chain in which there is already investment for the next period of production. As a responsible Government, unlike Members who just want to barrack over the Dispatch Box, we realise we have to balance these things in order to make them happen. I encourage everyone across the House to get an electric car. Range anxiety has now been tackled because there are now more charging locations than petrol stations in this country.

Nitrous oxides have fallen by over a quarter since 2010. We have reduced the use of single-use plastic bags by 90% since we took action on them. This year, for the first time ever in this country, we had over two weeks in which we burnt no coal to generate our energy. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we will be phasing out those coal stations altogether by 2025. We are the country with the most offshore wind farms in the world. Opposition Members repeatedly talked about the Queen’s Speech containing only six words about the environment, but they seem to have forgotten that there is an entire Environment Bill, which will contain thousands of words and be the subject of hours of debate, quite rightly, as it is the first Environment Bill before the House for 30 years.

I want to cover some of the comments raised, many of which were very good. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) asked about the Office for Environmental Protection. Its role will be to provide scrutiny and advice, and to offer an up-to-date system for complaints. It will be the delivery mechanism for environmental law and will also enforce delivery.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Grant Shapps]

I will not take an intervention as I have only three or four minutes to get through everybody else’s contributions.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) asked what we have done to support renewable energy through incentives. Well, there is the £557 million on contracts for difference, the £900 million of public funds for innovation, the £177 million to reduce the costs of renewables, including innovation and offshore wind, and the £3 billion to support low-carbon innovation in the UK up to 2021. Madam Deputy Speaker, what have the Romans ever done for us?

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) asked about the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendations. The next steps of the national infrastructure assessment will be to agree on the Government’s programme.

Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about the speed at which we can move to a decarbonised transport economy. I disagree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) that simply decarbonising vehicles would do nothing. That is simply not true; we have already heard that 33% of all our CO₂ comes from transport and 90% of that comes from vehicles, so it is clearly the case that decarbonising will make a very big difference, and that is not technology we have to wait for. The phrase she used was “scratch the surface”, which I disagree with; it would do far more than that.

A number of hon. Members talked passionately about the need to decarbonise our housing; as a former Housing Minister, I entirely agree. This Government are taking that very seriously, including through the ending of gas to power our homes, for example. As a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends mentioned, it is now perfectly possible to power a home without the need for any power input other than ground-source heating.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Grant Shapps]

I will not give way. As I said, I only have a minute to deal with many colleagues’ contributions.

I do think that the way forward is to ensure that we build homes to a quality where we do not require external heating other than things such as solar water or ground-source heating.

The overall picture that was painted by some Members, during what I thought was an otherwise excellent debate, tended to go to the negatives. There are a lot of things to do, and this country and this Government have recognised them. Only today, the Prime Minister said that he will chair a Committee to tackle the issues—our first Cabinet Sub-Committee on climate change. Only yesterday, I published a decarbonisation plan for transport. I am not sure how many Opposition Members have read it, but it was difficult to get it published, because somebody was trying to chisel the front window of the Department for Transport.

I think the best contribution was from eight-year-old Poppy, who said that there is no planet B. We absolutely agree.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Morris.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 21 October.

Eden Project North (Morecambe)

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

17:00

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

This is yet another momentous day for the people of Morecambe in our quest to get the Eden Project to our shores. This debate follows our last successful Adjournment debate on 6 June.

The Eden Project is now at a critical stage. With this internationally significant project for Morecambe and the north-west region, the site is an area of international environmental importance. Morecambe bay is a designated Ramsar site, as it is the largest continuous intertidal area in Britain; it is also a special area of conservation and within a special protection area. It is key to environmental studies in Britain.

Local funding partners, the county council, Lancashire local enterprise partnership, the city council and Lancaster University are leading investment, with the involvement of Lancaster and Morecambe College to train a future workforce for the future in green initiatives in the Morecambe and Lancaster area. Stakeholder progress is well under way: I can exclusively confirm that the city council and all the other stakeholders that I mentioned are now in agreement and that the process for releasing the land required for building, along with further millions in funding to Eden, will begin when the proposal to the Treasury is taken forward. On that condition, part-funding will come forward from Eden and from central Government, and the land can then be released. The land allocation is welcomed by Eden, in line with what has been reflected in public consultations with it. Indeed, responses to my own survey are still arriving in my office, reinforcing the fact that thousands of people locally and throughout our Lancaster and Morecambe area would like to see the Eden Project become a reality.

The imminent Budget provides the opportunity for a signal that further demonstrates, on top of the £100,000 in the last Budget, the Government’s commitment to this game-changing project. I have had repeated meetings with the CEO of Eden, David Harland, and with the Chancellor; further meetings with the Treasury are ongoing. Lancashire and Eden will collectively lead, but the Government’s commitment is now vital to create a genuinely transformational project for my area.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for Eden of the north. I was very touched by his comments about Morecambe bay, but he forgot to mention one thing: quite how stunning it is. I might be biased—I was born on one side of it, and now I live on the other—but it is the most beautiful part of the country. Does he agree that Eden Project North has the potential to transform not just the Morecambe bay area, but the whole north-west economy? The proposed visitor numbers are not small. Would he like to tell us more?

[David Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for describing so eloquently the beauty of our area; she is right. Environmental, economic and social transformation is required on the back of the M6 link road, which was started in 2013. The road has proven to be an economic catalyst for Morecambe, but we now need the Eden Project to complement the existing investment and regenerate the immediate Morecambe area.

The recent case for investment in a report undertaken by Grant Thornton and submitted to the Minister, the Chancellor and even the Prime Minister has provided compelling evidence for Government investment. For every £1 invested, £4.20 will be returned to the immediate regional economy, including the creation of 6,500 jobs in the district and supply chain, with a further £116 million net contribution to the local GDP every year. This is further reinforced by the Eden Project’s operational expertise, which has proven to be such a catalyst for the south-west regional economy during the last 20 years of the Eden Project in Cornwall, creating economic vibrancy and confidence. Eden Project North will be a destination of pride for the north-west and a new anchor of destination from which further growth in employment and skills can and will flow.

It is universally agreed across government that the green agenda must be addressed, and it will be at the forefront of any policies in the future. Government backing for Eden Project North will demonstrate that commitment. In the current climate in this country, the project is also a symbol that says that optimism, ecology, education and community have a place in our future planning. A clear direction from the Government to support the plan will ensure that it will remain on track to open in late spring 2023. That will bring benefits that will lift Morecambe up to full employment and prosperity and will have results beyond the economic areas for health and wellbeing, enhanced education and new skills development, not just for the Morecambe area but for Lancaster as well.

Bluntly, what is needed is for the Government to contribute in the region of £40 million to £50 million in funding, in lesser blocks to be secured, to ensure the opening in spring 2023. At this stage of development, the proposal is estimated at a complete total of £101 million, of which £1.1 million has already been committed in equal parts by the four commissioning partners: roughly £250,000 each from Lancaster City Council, Lancashire County Council, the Lancashire local enterprise partnership and Lancaster University, plus the £100,000 that was allocated in the last Budget by the Chancellor.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for the collaboration that is truly going on to try to make Eden Project North happen. I hope that he can see, while he is reading his speech, that the Minister is making some very positive nods of the head. I hope that means that the Minister has his cheque book ready to ensure that the project can be delivered. The hon. Gentleman has made some points about the different stakeholders that are involved, but he has also touched on the green agenda. Does he agree that First Group, which now has the franchise for the west coast main line, should also be part of the conversation, to ensure that public transport solutions for getting to Eden Project North become a reality? We do not want more cars on our roads in Lancaster and Morecambe.

[David Morris]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. From what I can gather, this issue is being dealt with by the planning office at Lancaster City Hall as well. She is correct to say that we need better infrastructure in the area to accommodate the large demand when the Eden centre is built.

The commissioning partners have also committed to funding circa £2.3 million to fund the completion of the concept design phase, which will ensure that the project submits a planning application by spring 2020. In essence, Lancashire will lead if the Government confirm their commitment. Following Treasury approval of £100,000 in the autumn Budget 2018, an additional investment of £40 million to £50 million is being sought, closely linked to the wider industrial strategy for the region. A further announcement of investment commitment at the autumn Budget in 2019 is critical to progressing this project.

Eden Project North will be a catalyst to drive regeneration for Morecambe and the wider area, and not just for the Morecambe and Lancaster area but for the wider north-west economy. This can be done. Since opening in 2001, the Eden Project in Cornwall has contributed £2 billion to the economy of Devon and Cornwall. This proposal is in line with Government policy for seaside town regeneration and with environmental policies, with the Government’s 2050 plan, with the national tourism strategy and with the northern powerhouse policy. It will be a high-quality, year-round attraction and wet weather destination—a crowd-puller that engages all ages.

Eden Project North shares much with the hugely successful Eden Project in Cornwall, but the difference is that it will be a sustainable and transformative marine-based, ticketed, eco-park attraction. At its heart will be a large indoor environment housed within iconic pavilions, building on the Eden Project’s particular mix of entertainment and education, leaving visitors with lasting memories and driving positive behavioural change, which everybody in this House will welcome.

As in Cornwall, Eden Project North will combine exhibits, performance, learning, play, immersive experiences, world-class horticulture and art, and food, beverage and retail spaces—all integrated as essential parts of the overall experience. With nearly 20 years of operational expertise, we are blessed that Eden is coming to Morecambe. The design will include specific zones housed in a series of mussel-shaped domes that will be linked together by an entrance known as the bay hall. Above the hall will be an environment filled with plants and art exhibits, showcasing natural abundance and the rhythms of life linked to the sun and the tidal flow. Below the hall will be immersive theatrical experiences that bring the lunar rhythms and tides to life. The natural sanctuary area will focus on the health-giving aspects of the seaside, with bookable wellbeing treatments. The natural observatory area will be the home of the Eden Project North’s research and education programmes. Eden also has plans to create, in time, satellite elements on the promenade that runs along the seafront, which will be a major game changer in Morecambe.

Owing to the link road, Morecambe is now the quickest route to the coast anywhere off the M6. According to Eden’s founder, Tim Smit, the link road is the reason why Eden came to Morecambe. Market analysis has identified a catchment of approximately 11 million people within two hours of Morecambe that will support annual visitors of 760,000 to the project—a conservative estimate at this moment in time.

[Cat Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about the population who live in the area? The Lake district, which is just up the road from both our constituencies, will also offer plenty of visitors who could visit Eden Project North.

[David Morris]

Very well said. The two-hour catchment area could probably stretch all the way from Glasgow over to Yorkshire and the Humber and to Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham. The potential for our area will be vast. The consequent direct and indirect economic benefits will further be sustained by repeated school visits, year in, year out, from that catchment area. Eden Project North will be a financially sustainable, revenue-generating social enterprise and a long-term employment anchor for the region. As I have said, the project will create 6,500 jobs in Lancaster and Morecambe.

The proven integration of research facilities and activities is a pioneering model of partnership between communities and academia. The college and the university have memorandums of understanding right now with Eden to provide a workforce that could create the Aberdeen effect and gospelise the whole world with what they will be learning in the Morecambe bay area.

In conclusion, I would like the Minister to indicate the Government’s commitment to capital investment for Eden Project North and, in doing so, signal that Lancashire can be confident in leading the scheme through to a planning application submission in spring 2020. The Minister has been to Morecambe on many occasions, but I want to give him an open invitation. Perhaps he can bring along our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has indicated that he would like to come to Morecambe for a picture with the Eric Morecambe statue. We have a lot going for us in the Morecambe and Lancaster area, and we now need to sweat our assets of the link road, the beauty of the bay and—dare I say?—the city of Lancaster itself. Minister, please help us to make Eden a reality.

17:15

[The Minister for the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth (Jake Berry)]

What a brilliant debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; isn’t it fantastic to have a Parliament for the north, with all of us, except you and the Government Whip, representing north-west constituencies? While we are here to talk about the Eden Project, we may as well push a few other of our pet projects in the north-west of England. As a Lancastrian, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), whom I congratulate on securing this debate.

One can travel anywhere in Lancashire and find that because of the support of partners, including the local enterprise partnership, Lancashire County Council, Lancaster City Council and Morecambe itself, people are really starting to talk about this hugely exciting opportunity we have in the north-west of England and, more importantly, in Lancashire to have the Eden of the north. It is great that this project enjoys cross-party support, because wherever one goes, one finds that people are excited and passionate about driving forward Lancashire’s economy and they want to see this project delivered.

Of course, this is not the only thing that is happening in Morecambe. I am delighted that we have constructed the new link road with the M6, which is a significant driver of the economy. My hon. Friend has really campaigned on behalf of his constituents, as has the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), to transform the west coast of Lancashire, and I hope and believe that this can be the next project that drives the economy forward. Since the inception of this project, he has shown a dedication to the vision, and it is a bold vision; if someone were to approach an MP in their constituency and say, “I want to build giant mussel shells on the sand looking out to sea,” the MP could, if they were a doubter or they did not have the vision and passion of my hon. Friend, think that that person may be pulling their leg. But of course they are not, because the Eden Project has a track record of delivering these inspiring structures and inspiring the next generation about helping our environment.

Of course, more is happening in Morecambe, and I was delighted that it has recently secured the funding to go forward to the next phase of the Government’s future high streets fund. I was particularly pleased that in the last round of coastal community funding we were also able to support the Winter Gardens to have a new central heating system, which will transform it to a year-round venue. My hon. Friend is no stranger to the Winter Gardens, because he has a long history of supporting it. I believe I am correct in saying that he appeared there playing a guitar with members of Whitesnake—you may be a fan, Madam Deputy Speaker—to raise funds for the Morecambe Winter Gardens in its darker days, before we managed to support it with the coastal communities fund. He is passionate and he has a record to be proud of in his constituency, and I know he is valued by local residents from my many visits to the area.

I recognise, as do the Government, that the Eden Project North is not significant only to Lancashire—all of us Lancastrians know that it is significant to us—but is regionally and nationally significant, and can be seen as one of those big projects that can be a wider driver of our ambition for the northern powerhouse. That is why at the last Budget the Government committed £100,000 to work forward the business case, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady pointed out. The business case, which now sits on the Treasury desk, with a copy having been sent to me and to the Prime Minister, is exceptionally good work and draws a good plan for the future. The hon. Lady invited me to get out my cheque book this evening, but, as both she and my hon. Friend know, there is a Budget next month and decisions on funding on this scale would normally and naturally be made at a Budget. I know that both of them have been actively lobbying the Chancellor to make sure that he is as excited about this project as all of us already are. I hope that they will continue to do that, and I wish them success with their active lobbying work on behalf of their constituents and more widely on behalf of the whole of Lancashire.

It is extraordinary that the Eden Project chose Morecambe when it started to look for a site for an Eden North. Little old Morecambe is a wonderful place—anyone who has visited the Midland hotel will know what a wonderful place it is to spend time with friends and family on a holiday, or even on a day out—but it would not necessarily be the first place that came to mind for this. The project might have thought of better known resorts such as Blackpool, or of the Lake district, which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Morecambe was chosen, though, because the local authority and Members of Parliament were extremely active in engaging and lobbying the Eden Project to make sure that the opportunity came to Lancashire.

Morecambe is, of course, an extraordinary place. It has a tide that comes in faster than a horse can gallop. Anyone who has ever been on a guided tour from Morecambe over to what I think in modern parlance is referred to as Cumbria, but was always known as “Lancashire over the sands”, will have seen the extraordinary coastal beauty of the area. Anyone who has done that will, of course, want the project to come to Morecambe.

The economic case is compelling because of the potential economic benefits from bringing the Eden Project to Morecambe. The north has many areas of outstanding natural beauty, and this project could be an important part of the wider tourism offer that we can make from Lancashire and, of course, from the north-west more widely, as we leave the European Union on 31 October. Many people have spoken about the potential for visitors to the north of England—I encourage anyone to go there at any time, without waiting until we leave on 31 October. Other than Members of Parliament, who have to be here on Saturday, everyone else is free to go this weekend—but if the Eden Project was to be delivered, we would see a projected 750,000 visitors to Morecambe and Eden North in just the first few years of operation. It would create more than 6,000 jobs, and, as has been pointed out already, the economic case shows that for every pound spent—whether it be Government money, private money, local authority money or growth funding from the LEP—we will see a return of £4.20, which I can tell the House, as a good Lancastrian, is a good bit of brass for a bit of money that the Government are spending. I hope the Chancellor will be cognisant and mindful of the good economic case for the project as he looks forward to his next Budget.

The Eden Project North has the potential to be a transformational project for the north of England, and for Lancashire more widely. That is why it is very much supported by all Members of Parliament in Lancashire and all tiers of local government. In order to achieve it, I understand that the aim is to find £101 million of investment, which is what will be required to see the project through to completion. It will naturally be a cocktail of funding that comes forward to make sure this happens—I am sure there will be a requirement for some private sector funding and for some public sector funding—and we have some work ahead of us to make sure that we can blend that cocktail and see the project delivered.

As I have said, I believe the investment case for Eden is a compelling argument. There is a strong economic case for bringing the Eden Project to Morecambe. I am happy to work with Lancashire Members of Parliament from across the House on a cross-governmental basis to try to make sure that we can deliver not only the ambition of the Eden Project in the north, but the wider ambition that we all share for the county we are so passionate about. Officials in my Department are already working with the Eden Project, and local partners have today written—I was handed a copy of a letter at the start of the debate—to express the continuing support of local government partners, educational establishments and the LEP. That is an acknowledgment of the wide benefits, including the training and economic impacts, that would come out of this fantastic project.

Over the months and years ahead, I am looking forward to hearing more about the Eden Project, and to seeing the economic benefits that can be achieved. I wish all hon. Members good luck in their negotiations with the Treasury. I will happily work with them, because this is a crucial part of delivering the northern powerhouse that can transform the lives of everyone living in the north of England, and especially in Lancashire.

I end with a quote from Morecambe’s most famous son—after my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, of course, so Morecambe’s second-most famous son, Eric Morecambe. This is the approach we need to take to the cocktail of funding that we are going to blend. He famously said:

“I’m playing all the right notes. But not necessarily in the right order.”

I hope that we will get all the right money, albeit not necessarily in the right order. Let us work together to make sure that this happens.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That was an excellent debate, totally different from and in contrast to the rest of the day, and so much better.

Question put and agreed to.

17:24

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

Thursday 17 October 2019

Radioactive Waste: Geological Disposal

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

Today I am pleased to designate the “National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure”, which was laid in parliament on 4 July.

This is an important milestone in finding a solution to manage the UK’s higher activity radioactive waste and this marks the final step in the parliamentary process for the national policy statement.

It is important that we who have benefited from nuclear technology take appropriate steps now to manage the waste created from using that technology. Nuclear technology has provided clean energy to our homes and businesses and will continue to play an important role as we transition to a carbon-neutral economy. For a long time, we have also used radioactive materials to treat and diagnose serious illnesses, to deliver research and development and to help deliver industrial processes. Radioactive waste is created from a variety of sources including electricity generation, defence and healthcare, and geological disposal is internationally recognised as the safest and most secure means of permanently managing a proportion of this waste not suitable for other management regimes.

The “National Policy Statement For Geological Disposal Infrastructure” sets out the need for such disposal infrastructure to safely and securely manage the UK’s higher activity radioactive wastes. The national policy statement provides an appropriate and effective framework for the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to examine and make decisions on development consent applications for geological disposal infrastructure in England

In order to support the requirements for the designation of “The National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure”, I am also publishing the “Final Habitats Regulations Assessment Report” and the post-adoption statement for the appraisal of sustainability on the Department’s website.

[HCWS18]

Double Taxation Agreement: Gibraltar

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

A new double taxation agreement with Gibraltar was mutually accepted in an exchange of letters signed in London on 1 October 2019 and in Gibraltar on 15 October 2019. The texts of the letters will be deposited in the Library of both Houses and made available on the gov.uk website. The texts will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

[HCWS19]

Modern Slavery: Annual Report

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Today, I am publishing the 2019 UK annual report on modern slavery. The report covers the whole of the UK and has been drafted in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. This report sets out an assessment of the scale of modern slavery in the UK and outlines the actions that have been taken to combat it over the last year.

A copy of the report will be available on gov.uk and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS20]

Right to Shared Ownership

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

Two thirds of social housing tenants would like to buy a home, yet only a quarter believe they will ever be able to do so. That is why I have announced today the Government’s intention to reinvigorate the home ownership offer for social housing tenants, by introducing a new right to shared ownership.

This will help reduce the gap between ambition and expectation, and make home ownership attainable and affordable for many more social housing tenants. It is part of the Government’s wider commitment to support people and families from all backgrounds to realise their ambition to own their own home.

The right to shared ownership will give housing association tenants the right to purchase a share of the home they rent and to purchase further shares in future when they can afford to do so. Alongside this, the Government will also cut the minimum initial ownership stake from 25% to 10% for all shared ownership homes, making the tenure even more accessible for aspiring homeowners who are struggling to raise a deposit.

This will build on the Government’s existing proposals to introduce a new national model for shared ownership. This new model will be redesigned to work effectively for aspiring home owners in today’s housing market, for example, by allowing shared owners to buy further shares in smaller increments, cutting the costly fees charged for additional shares and introducing a standardised preferred model to improve mortgage availability. The combined package will make it much easier to buy an initial share and to purchase additional shares in order to build up to full ownership.

The Government intend to make the right to shared ownership available to tenants in all new social homes delivered with grant in the future. Future investment will be considered at a future fiscal event.

We will also work with the housing association sector on a voluntary basis to determine what offer can be made to tenants in existing homes, so that the new right to shared ownership is extended as widely as possible. The right to shared ownership will not apply to tenants living in existing local authority homes, who already have the statutory right to buy.

[HCWS21]

Aid Sector: Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Alok Sharma)]

This week marks one year on since the UK Department for International Development hosted the 2018 safeguarding summit, “Putting People First: tackling sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment in the aid sector”.

In early 2018 the aid sector’s failure over many years to prevent and respond to sexual exploitation, abuse and sexual harassment (SEAH) came into sharp relief.

The shocking stories that emerged exposed how aid workers had been allowed to get away with sexual misconduct. Their actions undermined trust in the whole sector and all the positive work that it does.

So from February 2018 DFID set out to work with others to change the way the aid sector tackles SEAH, from root to branch.

The October 2018 summit in London was an important milestone. More than 500 organisations came together to make commitments for change. This included 22 donors —who provide 90% of global ODA. We committed to global standards on prevention and improved processes covering ethical behaviour, robust recruitment and complaints processes.

These were not empty promises. Work is ongoing to put victims and survivors first and drive real culture change across the aid sector. This includes:

DFID’s £10 million project with Interpol to help stop perpetrators of SEAH moving around the aid sector by strengthening criminal record checks and information sharing between countries. Regional hubs are being set up and priority countries have been identified.

The misconduct disclosure scheme, which means employers can share data on conduct and disciplinary records related to sexual misconduct with greater confidence. It is still early days, but the over 1,500 requests for information since January have prevented the hiring of at least 10 individuals.

Awarding the contract this month for DFID’s £10 million resource and support hub to provide guidance, support and training to NGOs and others and access to independent investigators for smaller charities.

Today, DFID is publishing three reports showing some of the progress made and the challenges remaining.

The first has updates from each of the eight groups which made commitments at the summit: donors, UK NGOs, private sector suppliers, the United Nations, international financial institutions, CDC, research funders, and Gavi and the Global Fund. Initiatives include new tools and guidance for NGOs; mechanisms to collaborate and learn lessons among private sector suppliers; a new reporting tool for United Nations staff; the development of a good guidance note by international financial institutions and CDC; an evidence review of safeguarding challenges by research funders; and the roll-out of new training by Gavi and the Global Fund.

The second covers how donors are meeting their commitments. This includes the adoption of a new OECD development assistance committee recommendation on ending SEAH in the aid sector; work to align donor SEAH clauses in funding agreements with multilateral agencies; and collective leverage to drive change across the UN. Donors are continuing to strengthen accountability, build more robust systems and drive culture change across the whole international system. The third gives more details about what DFID has done.

We have been clear that any sexual misconduct is totally unacceptable. But we know that sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment in the aid sector still happens far too often.

The international work led by DFID over the last year has generated good momentum and is starting to deliver results. But we must collectively keep working until every individual feels able to speak up and challenge abuses of power wherever they occur.

We must continue to do all we reasonably can to make zero tolerance a reality, by which we mean responding appropriately to every single report or case.

We must prevent SEAH from happening, listen to those affected, respond appropriately when allegations are made, and learn from every single case.

This is just the beginning of a long-term process.

I will build on the work of my predecessors to maintain momentum, to ensure the failings of the past do not happen again and to deliver better results for the people we serve.

If we do not get things right on safeguarding, and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable, then we fail in our ultimate goal to support the world’s poorest and jeopardise all the positive work aid does.

The commitments made at the London summit are having a positive impact. But more is required by every organisation and every programme if we are going to stop sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment in the aid sector—something which we must achieve.

[HCWS17]

Boundary Commission for Wales: Deputy Chair

Thursday 17th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I should like to inform the House that I have made the following re-appointment under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lewis has been re-appointed as deputy chair of the Boundary Commission for Wales, effective until 31 December 2019.

[HCWS22]

House of Lords

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Thursday 17 October 2019

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Introduction: Lord Barwell

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

11:07

The right honourable Gavin Laurence Barwell, having been created Lord Barwell, of Croydon in the London Borough of Croydon, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Gilbert of Panteg, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Davies of Gower

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

11:12

Henry Byron Davies, Esquire, having been created Lord Davies of Gower, of Gower in the County of Swansea, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

South Africa: Money Laundering and Corruption

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked by

[Lord Hain]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to impose similar sanctions to those announced by the United States Department of the Treasury on 10 October against Rajesh Gupta, Atul Gupta and Ajay Gupta for money laundering and corruption in South Africa.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue and also for his recent letter to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We note with interest the recent announcement by the US Administration and will consider the noble Lord’s request very carefully. We are aware fully of the allegations relating to these individuals and are discussing with the South African National Prosecuting Authority how we can best support its work to pursue proceedings against those implicated in corruption.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. Will the Chancellor follow the US Treasury in imposing sanctions on Rajesh Gupta, Atul Gupta and Ajay Gupta, to block all of their property and interests in property within the UK’s jurisdiction and, like US persons, prohibit UK citizens and UK-based financial institutions and other UK-based entities from engaging in any transactions anywhere across the world with them? Will the Chancellor also immediately contact the Dubai, Hong Kong and Indian authorities and ask them to do the same?

Through their corrupt criminality and shameful looting, blessed by former President Zuma, the Gupta brothers have ripped off South African taxpayers by well over £500 million, a lot of it laundered through London, Dubai, India and Hong Kong, and assisted by London-based corporates such as McKinsey, KPMG, Bain & Co and Hogan Lovells. Any failure by global Governments to act against all this would echo their failure to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot say any more on the specific matter he has raised at this point. We are in touch with the South African authorities. The noble Lord is also very much aware of the strong stance that the UK Government and indeed the United Kingdom have taken over several years in further strengthening our work on tackling corruption and illicit finance. He raised a specific question on the UAE and India and whether my right honourable friend would write. I have been informed that the South African authorities have already made mutual legal assistance requests to the Governments of those countries. Additionally, similar requests have been made to the Governments of Canada, Switzerland, Mauritius, Hong Kong and China. As I said, I am aware of the letter the noble Lord wrote to my right honourable friend and I know the Chancellor will respond to him shortly.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, at a time when South Africa is suffering the aftermath of a decade of the massive corruption of the Jacob Zuma regime, as well as an undermining of state institutions, what measures can be taken to root out the perpetrators of this corruption and assist the South African Government in reviving their moribund economy?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is right to raise that. We are working very closely, through not just the Foreign Office but the Treasury and DfID, with the South African authorities. I assure the noble Lord that the UK is playing a leading role, not just with South Africa, but in the global fight of fighting corruption. We have already committed £45 million over the next five years through the FCO-led, cross-HMG global anti-corruption programme. On South Africa specifically, we are engaging with a wide range of South African institutions to provide support to investigations with a potential UK link and to build capacity and capability, including specific support in areas such as procurement reform and promoting and facilitating regional co-operation. There are other schemes, including those in multilateral agencies through various UN representative offices, that we are also working together with South Africa on.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that, for sanctions to be truly effective, it requires a concerted action on behalf of the international community. I note what the Minister has said, but can he tell us whether there has been any consultation with the US Government and, of course, our partners in the EU, where we are still part of a sanctions regime? Can he tell us what we can do to try to get that concerted international action against these people?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord that this is very much ongoing, not just on the particular individuals concerned, but more specifically across the piece, both with the US and our European partners. In that respect, he will be fully aware, and as I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, that for sanctions to be effective co-operation is required to stop the scourge of illicit financing and money laundering more generally. On sanctions specifically, we hope to introduce secondary legislation in due course very shortly, as part of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, specific provisions on the human rights element of the sanctions regime. I will update the House accordingly in that respect.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I think the whole House would agree that the best way to prevent corruption is transparency, particularly of the various organisations that can be enablers. On that point, could the Minister tell us what progress has been made on public registers of beneficial owners in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies—an area where the Government have resisted many of the pressures introduced by this House?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I disagree with the noble Baroness’s final point. The Government have accepted the amendment that was made, and we are working closely with the overseas territories. She will also be aware that we have a very effective exchange of notes scheme already operational with key overseas dependencies, which provide law enforcement agencies and tax authorities with direct access. On the specific issue of registers, I am sure that she has observed very closely recent statements that have been made publicly, such as those by the Turks and Caicos Islands and by the Cayman Islands only yesterday, that they will be in line with the whole issue of public registers, reflecting European Union priorities and consistent with European priorities as will be required. The noble Baroness will be further aware that we are working directly with the OTs. We have technical groups set up to ensure public registers will be operational by 2023.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the efforts by the current South African Government to crack down on corruption?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have already said, we are working very closely with the South African authorities and the South African Government. The action that they have already taken is reflective of how they are tackling corruption at the core and heart of government which has plagued South Africa since the initiation of democracy. I assure my noble friend that we continue to support and co-operate with our South African colleagues through all channels.

[Lord Eatwell (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, following on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, can the Minister tell us when there is going to be a verified register of beneficial ownership in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

A public register is already operational, and because of it we have already seen certain illicit flows of finance being tackled directly. The noble Lord shakes his head; I disagree with him. He will also know that the Government have prioritised this whole issue of tackling corruption and illicit finance. There are further proposals that will come forward, but public registers in themselves are not the only solution. It requires work across the piece, including tackling money laundering and having an effective sanctions policy. We are working on those proposals, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Collins.

Bailiff Reforms

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

11:26

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish policy recommendations following their consultation on the review of bailiff reforms, which closed on 17 February.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, in a Statement on 22 July, the Government set out their initial response to the call for evidence on the enforcement agent reforms. We intend to make body-worn cameras mandatory for private enforcement agents and the complaints system against agents more effective. We are also considering strengthening regulation of the industry. Officials have since met further with a range of stakeholders; we hope to set out our proposals as soon as possible.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, as we debate Brexit for hours and days on end, some of the most vulnerable people in our country are suffering. Every minute of every day, somebody in dire poverty is suffering the humiliation and fear of a bailiff banging on their door. In about 300,000 cases a year, the bailiffs break the rules. Self-regulation is not working. They may send strings of texts to the person concerned threatening that the whole debt must be paid immediately—or else. None of that is legal, and none of it will be resolved by body-worn cameras. The Justice Committee reported on the bailiff problem in April and recommended an independent regulator. Twenty organisations worked for two years on this and came to the same conclusion. Will the Minister be so kind as to meet at least two of the main experts and me to discuss the best way forward on this very tricky issue?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we appreciate the work done by the Justice Committee, which was published in April 2018, and have taken up some of its recommendations already. There are discrepancies over the number of complaints, but that may in part be explained by difficulties that some people perceive in following through on complaints. We are concerned when enforcement officers do not comply with the law and with regulations, but we must remember that there is not only a group of people out there who are “can’t pays” but a very large group who are “won’t pays”. Individuals and small businesses need the ability to recover money lawfully due to them. I am happy to meet the noble Baroness and her experts and associates to discuss the matter further.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, while creditors are entitled to take steps to obtain money properly due to them, does the noble and learned Lord agree that what is not legitimate is the harassment and bullying perpetrated by some bailiffs and some of the profit-driven organisations that employ them? Will he go beyond an expression of concern and tell the House more fully what the Government intend to do to improve this culture and to ensure that those bailiffs who commit excesses are brought to book?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, there are regulations in place and there are those—a minority—who do not comply with those regulations. The position at present is that there are about 2,500 civil enforcement agents. They have to appear before a county court judge every two years, where their conduct will be the subject of consideration. We are looking at further regulation and at the means of ensuring that a small minority of enforcement agents do not break the law. Clearly, we do not condone aggressive and inappropriate behaviour, no matter what the circumstances may be.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are publicly committed to ensuring that enforcement agents treat debtors fairly, responsibly and proportionately. The proposed breathing space scheme, the Government’s civil enforcement project and, indeed, the Minister’s answers so far suggest that they also agree on the need for a sympathetic approach to problem debt. Will the Government therefore now consider requiring enforcement agents to advise debtors of the availability of the breathing space scheme and of debt management assistance more generally? Are the Government now more receptive to the call of many for independent regulation of all enforcement agencies?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It would be premature to commit on a matter still under consideration by the ministry. We have proposed as a manifesto commitment to introduce the breathing space scheme, which will give debtors 60 days in which interest charges on their debts are frozen and in which they can seek further advice. We also established the Money and Pensions Service in January 2019, merging three former organisations to provide free-to-use financial guidance for those who find themselves in debt.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I think I am right that paragraph 14 of Magna Carta undertakes to halt unreasonable and unfair bailiff entry behaviour. Do we not need to proceed rather carefully on this matter?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I bow to the noble Lord’s detailed knowledge of Magna Carta on this point.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, with enormous respect to the Government Bench, those who will not pay are probably very familiar with Magna Carta and their rights. It is those who are vulnerable and those able to offer reasonable repayment terms who are being treated rather harshly. Clearly, cameras will help in this process but when the review comes out, will it specifically address reasonable repayment schemes?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The Government have established a fairness group, which is working with the advice sector to implement a joint programme of work to examine practices in the context of, for example, the recovery of debt due to central and local government, and to support vulnerable people in the context of such debt. We are taking steps to try to accommodate those in a difficult or vulnerable position and unable to meet their debt liabilities. We continue to look at ways of improving that sort of facility.

Brexit: Customs Controls at Holyhead

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

11:33

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their latest proposals to avoid delays at customs control on goods being transported between Dublin and Holyhead, following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to tell the House that the Government have this morning concluded a new withdrawal agreement with the EU. Our intention is to agree an ambitious future partnership, including a best-in-class free trade agreement, which will establish an effective customs agreement for the movement of goods between the UK and the EU once we leave. In a no-deal scenario, the Government have agreed to prioritise flow and move to new border requirements over time to allow businesses to adjust.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, we all realise that the trade relationship between Ireland, the north of Ireland and the United Kingdom has been a central sticking point in the Brexit process. But the devil is in the detail, and therefore the detail has to be transparent and watertight. Will the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made in the specific context of Northern Ireland-produced perishable goods bound for England, up to 60% of which go on lorries via Dublin and Holyhead, as to whether they will be subject to border controls at Holyhead? To avoid queues of 500 lorries stretching three miles long, the movement of goods through Holyhead has to remain seamless and unhindered, as it is today.

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord makes an important point. He can be assured that we are working hard to make sure that there are zero queues at Holyhead. We want the new arrangements to be as seamless as possible so that the transport of perishable goods goes forward without any hindrance.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday we asked what would happen under the new deal about the length of the transition period, given that we originally asked for two years. I think that the Government the first time settled for 20 months; it now seems that, if the date of December next year is true, we would have only 14 months to put all this in place. Given that Holyhead is our second-busiest port, how does the Minister expect all the new checks on animal welfare, perishable goods, customs and VAT to be implemented by December next year?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Baroness is correct that the end of December 2020 will be the end of the implementation period, should the deal be agreed—which I hope it will be. But there is of course the option to extend if that is necessary. But we are confident that the new arrangements can be put in place during that period, provided that there is good will on both sides.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, a border in the Irish Sea is a hurdle, whichever way you look at it. What estimates have the Government made of the impact of this arrangement on the volume of trade between Great Britain and Ireland, both north and south? Can the Minister tell us whether additional funding will be provided to the Welsh Government to help them deal with the logistical problems of the back-up of lorries referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Baroness is being too pessimistic. We hope that there will not be the back-up of queues to which she refers. We want to agree a best-in-class free trade agreement that will make sure that there are no tariffs and no quotas and, therefore, that minimal checks will be required. There should be no queues—but, of course, we are working closely with the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Scottish Government to ensure that all these arrangements are as seamless as possible.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend tells the House that a deal has been agreed. If the Government propose to proceed with the Saturday sitting, can he at the same time assure us that we will have a definitive, authoritative text before us, and not merely a Statement?

[Lord Callanan]

Whether we proceed with the Saturday sitting is a matter for the House of Commons, but we have said that we want to do that. There will of course be a text for noble Lords to consider.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what arrangements might be put in place if there were a small group of Welsh MPs of different parties whose price for voting for the deal was the same as the DUP managed to achieve two years ago? Have the Government have given any thought to this?

[Lord Callanan]

We want all MPs, whether from Wales or from Northern Ireland, to back the deal because we think that it is a good deal for the United Kingdom. We should pay credit to the Prime Minister, who has done what all the opposition parties said was impossible. They said that it was impossible to reopen the agreement, but we have done that and concluded a new deal. Yet again, he has proved the gloomsters wrong.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister wish to pay tribute also to Mrs May for the work that she did to bring us to this point—albeit that Prime Minister Johnson has taken us to the final hurdle?

[Lord Callanan]

Yes, of course. I loyally served in her Government. As Prime Minister she put a great deal of work into getting the original withdrawal agreement. Of course, there is a new backstop now—but, substantively, most of the rest of the withdrawal agreement is as previously negotiated.

Education: Special Educational Needs Budget

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Question

11:39

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take further to the recent survey of local authorities in England which found that since 2014 approximately £400 million has been diverted from mainstream education budgets in order to pay for special needs education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)]

My Lords, we allow transfers of up to 0.5% from local authorities’ mainstream school budgets to pay for special needs education. This requires agreement from the local schools forum. Larger transfers must be approved by the Secretary of State. Next year we will increase high needs funding by £780 million. This increase in a single year should be compared with the reported £73 million that local authorities transferred from mainstream schools to high needs in 2018-19.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the survey by the Times laid bare the extent to which local authorities are desperately trying to compensate for the lack of resources provided by central government to enable them to meet their funding requirements under the 2014 changes for SEND pupils. Yet even after the raiding of mainstream education budgets, thousands of SEND parents are left in despair as they attempt to get the support that their children need and are entitled to. It is no good the Minister referring to the election sweetener of additional funding for SEND, which is obviously too little and certainly too late. Annually, it would meet less than half the needs for special needs provision and would in no way reverse the cuts of recent years. Protecting the most vulnerable in society ought to be a priority for any Government. Why is it not for this one?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, it is absolutely a priority for this Government; that is why we have just announced a very substantial 8% increase per head of population for those aged between two and 18. It is put in place with a 5% uplift to the schools budget, which will also support lower SEN.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that local authorities must accede to, and not obstruct, applications from parents of children with special needs who seek places in independent schools, where good provision is currently being made, usually in small classes, for around 85,000 children with special needs? I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My noble friend is correct that local authorities should not impede parents who want particular solutions. That is why, when the EHC legislation came through in 2014, we put parents much more at the heart of the entire process. We accept that the process has not been without teething troubles and are carrying out a review of it, which we had committed to previously.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that any system that spends tens of millions of pounds on local authorities fighting unsuccessful appeals against EHCPs has fundamentally failed? If you are in a situation where parents have to fight the system to get what is given to them by law, something is fundamentally wrong.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, because while local authorities lose a proportion of these appeals, they do not lose the entirety of each appeal. For example, a parent might win through appeal the right to send their child to a certain school but elements of the support that they asked for would not be granted.

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, several heads in Coventry and Warwickshire have told me about the heavy demands on their energies and budgets from, to quote one primary head, children who are not on the SEN register but face horrific circumstances at home and so need extra help; for example, families who are homeless through domestic violence and children whose mental health is so poor—these are nine year-olds—that they threaten suicide. Does the Minister recognise the pressures on schools in mainstream education from children who do not meet the thresholds of special needs but who nevertheless have severe needs and require acute support? Is he confident that there is sufficient funding for them?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

The right reverend Prelate is correct that there seems to be an increasing trend of mental health needs in young people, and I urge all noble Lords who are concerned with this area to look at why this is happening. It is certainly happening, but there is not enough discussion around why it is happening. To restate our commitment, we have increased high needs funding from £5 billion a year in 2013 to £6.3 billion this year and over £7 billion next year. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, we have increased core school budgets by 5%, which will indeed help with the lower levels of SEN not specifically addressed in the high needs budget.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

In respect of children with special needs who require diagnosis and then further assessment—I am particularly thinking of those on the autism spectrum—when they reach the age of nine or 10 and the prospect of having to go on to a more senior school, that is a critical point for parents who are still waiting for diagnosis and assessment. One of the weaknesses is of course the question of the resources of CAMHS. How regularly does my noble friend’s department discuss the particular problems of this age group with CAMHS?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I cannot answer that specific question but I am happy to write to my noble friend on the matter. As I mentioned earlier, we are carrying out a review of the SEN code of practice, which will be completed by the end of next year, and I will ask the relevant Ministers to ensure that that is part of that review.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, the modest increase in funding and the review are welcome, but very many parents and young people are extremely worried at the moment, as are the institutions they are applying to. Would the Minister, with his department, take a look at the serious financial situation of the Royal National College for the Blind in Hereford and its potential lack of viability? I declare a historic interest in that I went to the Royal National College in its previous guise.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I am very happy to accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to do that, and I will carry out some inquiries.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the reply he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on state schools impeding parents from applying to private schools for special educational needs? I declare an interest as I have a grandson who has special needs and who has applied to a special needs school outside the system. In most instances, state schools have to fund these private places, which do not come cheap. Can the Minister give an assurance that these schools, which provide excellent facilities that the state system may not supply, will have sufficient funds so that some of these children can access these services in the private sector?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, part of the reason for the very substantial increase in funding we have just announced is to provide more resources. I certainly cannot promise unlimited resources for all requests, but I believe that the £780 million we have just announced is substantial.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that because of the funding problem for many schools, some primary schools have started to close their premises at Friday lunchtime. Can he now guarantee that all those schools will open for the full five days in quick time?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I strongly object to the policy of the very limited number of schools that are doing this. There is absolutely no need for it; any school that feels the need to do it should write to me so that we can examine the budgets and see how well resources are being run. It makes me extremely angry and it is unnecessary.

Higher Education Cheating Services Prohibition Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:48

A Bill to make it an offence to provide or advertise cheating services for Higher Education assessments.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Storey, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (Legal Advice and Appeals) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:48

A Bill to make provision for unaccompanied asylum seeking children to receive legal advice and for extending the deadline for an unaccompanied asylum seeking child to appeal an asylum decision.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Hussein-Ece (on behalf of Lord Roberts of Llandudno), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Traffic Management (Amendment) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:49

A Bill to make provision in relation to the civil enforcement of speeding contraventions.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Pinnock, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:49

A Bill to prohibit payments for remote gambling to be made using money obtained on credit; and to prohibit the use of cash machines on premises licensed for gambling.

The Bill was introduced by the Lord Bishop of Coventry (on behalf of the Lord Bishop of St Albans), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:50

A Bill to amend the succession to the title of the Duke of Cornwall; to remove various powers, exemptions and immunities from the Duchy of Cornwall; to make provisions relating to the Treasury Solicitor and any solicitor or attorney appointed in the affairs of the Duchy; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Berkeley, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Online Pornography: Age Verification

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat as a Statement an Answer given in the other place earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and Broadband. The text of the Answer was as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for her Question this morning and for the work she did while she was a DCMS Minister on this policy. As she knows, the Secretary of State tabled a Written Ministerial Statement on this issue yesterday. I come to the House further to that Statement.

Protecting children is at the heart of our online harms agenda, and is key to wider government priorities. When she was a Minister, my honourable friend was of course responsible for the publication of the online harms White Paper in April this year. The White Paper proposed the establishment of a duty of care on companies to improve online safety, overseen by an independent regulator with strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance.

Since the White Paper’s publication, the Government’s proposals have continued to develop at pace. The Government announced in the Queen’s Speech that we will publish draft legislation. It is important that our policy aims and our overall policy on protecting children from online harms are developed coherently in view of those developments, with the aim of bringing forward the most comprehensive approach possible to protecting children.

The Government have concluded that this objective of coherence will be best achieved through our wider online harms proposals and, as a consequence, will not be commencing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 concerning age verification for online pornography. The Digital Economy Act objectives will therefore be delivered through our proposed online harms regulatory regime.

As currently drafted, the Digital Economy Act does not cover social media platforms, something which my honourable friend and I both know was of concern to this House, and indeed warranted substantial debate in December 2018. It will also give us an opportunity to revisit the definitions of pornographic material, which I know have been a concern of some Members of the House—one which my honourable friend has shared.

I assure my honourable friend that the Government’s commitment to protecting children online is unwavering. Adult content is too easily accessed online and more needs to be done to protect children from harm. We want to deliver the most comprehensive approach to keeping children safe online, and recognised in the online harms White Paper the role that technology can play in keeping all users, particularly children, safe.

We are committed to the UK becoming a world leader in the development of online safety technology and to ensure that companies of all sizes have access to, and adopt, innovative solutions to improve the safety of their users. This includes age-verification tools and we expect them to continue to play a key role in protecting children online.

I would welcome my honourable friend’s engagement, along with that of all Members of this House, while we continue to engage with Members of Parliament on the provisions of the online harms regime, to ensure effective online harms proposals which deliver on the objectives of the Digital Economy Act”.

11:55

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the House will be aware of my long-standing view that it is wrong in principle for the Government to require private companies, such as the BBFC, to carry out statutory functions. We had considerable reservations about the original approach taken by the Government in the Digital Economy Act, with its reliance on age verification as a surrogate for requiring companies to do much more to protect children and other vulnerable people online, but we support the duty of care approach set out in the recent White Paper.

However, yesterday’s announcement will undoubtedly mean that children will be exposed to unsuitable material for two or three years more than originally planned. This is shocking. A few months ago, we were told that the delays were due to an “administrative oversight”. Is that still the reason that the Government use? When will the report on that incident be made available?

[Baroness Barran]

I am glad that the noble Lord supports the duty of care approach, as set out in the online harms White Paper. I think all sides of the House can agree that a voluntary approach has not worked to date. In terms of the administrative oversight, that is still the reason for the original delay.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, there is an old way of testing a Statement—look at who is smiling and who is not. Is the Minister aware that this Statement will bring profound disappointment to many, including many in this House, who worked long and hard to get a system that would work, and work now, into the Bill? We were promised this for next month. Her colleague who answered my question on 30 September said:

“Policymakers around the world are watching the code’s progress and waiting to follow our lead”.—[Official Report, 30/09/19; col. 1556.]


Our lead is to now postpone this protective measure for at least three years. The Government should be ashamed of themselves.

[Baroness Barran]

I do not think that anyone is smiling about this. I hope the noble Lord will accept that. Dealing with online pornography is not a smiling matter. Clearly, both the Secretary of State and the Minister in the other place reflected long and hard before making this decision. They genuinely believe that by applying a more comprehensive approach we can end up with a better result for our children and grandchildren.

[Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a real danger here of the best being the enemy of the good? The previous proposals might have been imperfect, but they would at least have come into force quite quickly. By delaying, there is a real risk that children over the next intervening period—I did not think it would be as long as three years, but it could well be—will be exposed to life-changing, harmful online pornography. We simply cannot wait.

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord is right that children are exposed to harmful pornography every day. I heard a statistic recently that half a million images are uploaded on to social media, I think, on a daily basis. If that is wrong, we will correct it. Shocking things are going on. The noble Lord will be aware that the original Digital Economy Act did not cover social media, so we really hope that this will be more comprehensive. We are doing a number of things in the meantime, such as sex and relationships education—helping children understand the impact of pornography—and we hope to introduce soon the age-appropriate design code, which was included in the Data Protection Act thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

Why is DCMS against protecting children from absorbing unsavoury sexual practices at a formative age? I do not understand why it wants to delay so much. Most adult websites are onside for doing something and adopting age-verification controls, as long as rivals are compelled to do so as well. There has been a lot of publicity about this in that world, I am assured. Over a year ago, I chaired BSI Publicly Available Specification 1296 on how to do this anonymously and check anyone’s age online, so it can also be used for other child-protection issues. It also worked with the Home Office online harms issues. It will protect people’s privacy, which is what everyone is worrying about. The Home Office is not charged with our children’s mental health. Equally, DCMS is not charged with data protection, which is what the BBFC has gone and done; that is the job of the ICO. We can sort all this out. The stuff is there; you just need to implement it. The other real problem—

[A noble Lord]

Question!

[The Earl of Erroll]

Okay, right. The question was right at the start. Several AV providers have spent a lot of money on implementing this and getting it all ready to go. Who is going to compensate them? A lot of money has been spent to get this ready in time.

[Baroness Barran]

I refute as firmly as possible any idea that DCMS is against protecting children; clearly, that could not be further from the truth. On the work that I know the noble Earl has done in relation to introducing more digital ways of establishing age verification, we are working actively with the industry on that and absolutely recognise the potential role that technology can play. Those costs are not wasted, because age verification will clearly be part of any solution going forward.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. In that capacity I also express regret at the delay to the age-verification proposals. It is very good to see the Government’s commitment to comprehensiveness in looking at this but, as has been said, this is a fast-moving field and we will never catch everything and keep up with the technology. Can the Minister complement the emphasis on comprehensiveness in the Statement with a parallel commitment to urgency in the action that will be taken? Can she comment on the likely timetable for the online harms Bill?

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question and the work he does in the Centre for Data Ethics, which clearly has an important role in this space. In relation to urgency, I hope I can reassure him that my honourable friend the Minister is absolutely determined to do this as quickly as is feasible. We plan to respond to the consultation before the end of the year and to introduce a draft Bill in the new year. Obviously, as noble Lords are aware, we announced pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill, which we very much hope will make it as future-proof as possible.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, why do we not protect everyone from pornography? Why cannot the transmission of pornography online—to children and to everyone—be a criminal offence?

[Baroness Barran]

My noble friend raises a much wider issue about individual freedoms, which I am aware have been debated on many occasions in your Lordships’ House. The encouragement I offer him in that regard is twofold. First, I make a clear distinction between illegal and legal pornography. The online harms work gives us an opportunity to look again at the definition. Secondly, whether to look at pornography or not is clearly a choice.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I am bitterly disappointed by this Statement. We are letting our children down. By the Government’s own statistics, every month that passes without legislation, 1.4 million children access pornography unintentionally. Research by the BBFC found that 80% of parents want robust age-verification controls in place. I understand the BBFC could implement this new regime straightaway, so can the Minister tell me why we have this delay, why we are letting our children down and why we are not putting age gates in place straightaway? Children are being affected and traumatised at this very moment.

[Baroness Barran]

I respect the noble Baroness’s concern. I repeat that we believe that a more comprehensive approach will include social media, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is a channel through which children access pornography. It will be in scope and it was not in the original legislation. But she makes the fair point that we have to rebuild trust, and we will demonstrate that by the urgency with which we pursue this.

Queen’s Speech

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Debate (4th Day)

12:06

Moved on Monday 14 October by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am honoured to open this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, and I look forward to many valuable and insightful contributions, particularly from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, both of whom will make their maiden speeches. I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who will wind up today’s proceedings.

This Queen’s Speech lays out a bold vision for Britain: a country where investors want to do business, where opportunity is open to all and where more people are in work than at nearly any time in our history; a country where every city, town and region has the tools to fulfil its economic potential, but in a sustainable way; and a country that is stronger for having been prudent with our finances over the past decade, but is now able to boost investment in public services and vital infrastructure. Today’s debate will consider the Government’s approach to public finances in the next Parliament, alongside plans for transport, business, financial services, and the environment and rural affairs. Each of these areas makes a crucial contribution to the development of a strong, secure and prosperous nation.

I turn first to spending and financial services. As Her Majesty’s gracious Speech made clear, the Government’s economic plan will be underpinned by fiscal responsibility—investing in economic growth while maintaining the sustainability of public finances. As a country, we are in a strong position. The deficit has been reduced by four-fifths since 2009-10 and we have seen the economy grow every year since 2010. There are 3.6 million more people in work, and the proportion of low-paid jobs is at its lowest in 20 years. Wage growth has outstripped inflation for over a year, putting more money in people’s pockets, and inward investment in the UK has created more than 200,000 new jobs over the last three years. With our robust fiscal position, day-to-day spending under control and a near-record low cost of borrowing, we can now invest more in boosting our economy and supporting the things that we care most about.

That is why, ahead of November’s Budget, the Government will review our fiscal framework to ensure that it not only meets the economic priorities of today, but succeeds in delivering a decade of renewal for our country. The review will be coupled with the development of a clear set of rules that will anchor our fiscal policy and enable us to keep control of our national debt.

Our continued ability to compete for investment and jobs depends on our competitiveness. Financial services are critical to the UK economy. The sector employs more than 1 million people in all four UK nations, contributes more than £127 billion to our national economy, and helps provide a trade surplus of over £61 billion. That is why in the Queen’s Speech we included measures to provide certainty and stability for this crucial sector through the financial services Bill. The Bill seeks to enhance the UK’s competitiveness as an international financial services centre, while maintaining our current robust consumer protections. It will deliver on previous government commitments: it will deliver long-term market access arrangements to the UK for financial services firms in Gibraltar; simplify the process which allows overseas investment funds to be sold in the UK, a step that will allow this country to maintain its position as a centre for asset management; and implement the Basel standards, strengthening the regulation of global banks in line with previous G20 commitments.

This Government are determined to ensure that productivity and opportunity are spread to every part of the country. Infrastructure is key to unlocking those benefits. Over 4,900 infrastructure schemes, both public and private, have been completed since 2010. The Queen’s Speech includes plans to build further on these projects, by this autumn publishing a national infrastructure strategy, which will be a blueprint for the future of infrastructure investment across the whole UK. The strategy will set out plans to close the productivity gap between the south-east and the rest of the country, raise living standards and ensure that no community is left behind. It will examine how, through infrastructure, we can address that most critical and pressing of challenges—decarbonisation. It will also set out plans to turbocharge a gigabit-capable broadband rollout and improve energy and transport infrastructure, helping to boost opportunity and spread prosperity throughout the UK.

I am proud to be part of a Government who fully recognise the value that transport brings to the country. Our roads, railways, ports and airports are the arteries that carry the lifeblood of our economy and provide the ties that bind us all together. Our commitment to modernising and extending Britain’s transport network is unprecedented, and our aviation sector is at the heart of our efforts to transform domestic and international connectivity. The UK aviation industry generates £22 billion a year for our economy and provides over a quarter of a million jobs. It is crucial that we support the sector because it makes such an enormous contribution to our nation’s strength.

Our complex and ageing airspace system has not been modernised since the 1960s and is now reaching capacity. Therefore, the air traffic management and unmanned aircraft Bill, contained in the Queen’s Speech, will give the Government the powers to ensure that vital airspace modernisation work can continue without delay to meet future aviation needs and deliver quicker, cleaner and quieter flights. It is essential that, as we help the aviation sector to thrive, we support it to decarbonise to help meet our national net-zero 2050 commitment.

The Bill will also help us combat a new threat—the illegal use of unmanned aircraft, such as drones. In the aftermath of the malicious drone disruption at Gatwick Airport last December, we brought in a range of measures to protect the public. Now, we are going even further and introducing new police powers that will help tackle the misuse of drones not only near airports but around prisons, over crowds and near important national infrastructure and protected sites. These powers include the ability to make someone land an unmanned aircraft and an enhanced ability to stop and search where the illegal flying of unmanned aircraft is suspected.

We are also taking action to deal more effectively with airline insolvencies, which, as we saw with the recent demise of Thomas Cook, can have profound implications for customers, taxpayers and the industry. We successfully brought home 140,000 Thomas Cook passengers from over 50 locations worldwide. It was one of the biggest ever peacetime repatriations, but it underlined the complexity and cost of such an operation. Therefore, we will bring forward legislation to enhance the Civil Aviation Authority’s oversight of airlines. It will create a new airline insolvency process to provide a means to keep the fleet flying and to get passengers home quickly and efficiently if the worst happens.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

It is remarkable how little support for the achievement of the Civil Aviation Authority there has been in our public prints. There has been very little coverage. We all owe a lot to the planners involved in the operation: they are in the public sector—which is why some of the press does not support them—and they did a remarkable job. They deserve our thanks for that.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord is completely right and, as he will know, I am a Transport Minister and was involved in the repatriation and obviously in its planning. Within the Department for Transport we are enormously grateful to the CAA and the DfT team who worked so hard on it, but the sad thing is that sometimes the media does not really like good-news stories. Once it was not a disaster, it fell out of the news very quickly, which rather limited our ability to say thank you to the CAA. Certainly, the Secretary of State, other Ministers and I have all thanked the CAA and said that it did a tremendously good job, and all credit to it.

This year marked the 25th anniversary of rail privatisation. Over that quarter of a century, passenger numbers have doubled; we are running more trains than at any time on record and we enjoy a safety record that is world class. Yet these accomplishments have come at a price and we have become victims of our own success. The UK’s railway network is now twice as heavily used as the networks in France and Germany, and delays and disruption are all too frequent. Therefore, while we are pumping an unprecedented £48 billion into rail improvements over the next five years, the railway needs to evolve to deliver for its customers.

In the aftermath of the May 2018 timetable disruption, the Government commissioned Keith Williams to carry out the most comprehensive review of the sector in a generation. His reforms will focus on five key areas: getting the trains to run on time; simplifying fares and ticketing; developing a new industry structure; creating a new commercial model; and unveiling proposals on leadership, skills and diversity. We will publish a White Paper on the review’s recommendations this autumn and, as stated in the gracious Speech, the Government have committed to bring forward proposals on railway reform. It is absolutely imperative that railway customers feel the benefits of these changes as soon as possible.

I turn now to matters relating to business, energy and industrial strategy. This is a Government who want everyone to enjoy the full fruits of their hard work. However, when the Government consulted on the issue of worker tips, we found that two-thirds of employers in the hospitality sector were making deductions, some of which were around 10%. This practice has to stop. The allocation of tips Bill, announced in the gracious Speech, will promote fairness for workers by creating a legal obligation to pass on all tips and service charges to workers in full and to distribute tips on a fair and transparent basis.

In this Queen’s Speech we have pledged to take steps to make work fairer for all. This Government have committed to deliver on the steps set out in our Good Work Plan—published late last year—which sets out our vision for the future of the labour market. These measures will ensure that employment practices keep pace with modern ways of working and that employees have access to the rights and protections they deserve. These reforms will also protect businesses that do the right thing for their workers from being undercut by a small minority that seek to circumvent the law. In addition, we are bringing forward national security and investment legislation to strengthen the Government’s existing powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions that are a threat to national security. These measures will give businesses and investors the certainty and transparency they need to do business in the UK.

This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK not only remains a champion of free trade and investment but becomes a global leader in scientific capability and space technology. In the gracious Speech we set out our commitment to significantly boost R&D funding, which will give long-term certainty to the scientific community. We have also laid out plans to introduce a more accessible visa scheme to attract the best and brightest global scientific and research talent. We will establish a new national space council and launch a comprehensive UK space strategy—measures that will transform this country into a global science superpower.

Finally, we are equally ambitious in the scale of our commitment to the environment. We are the first country to legislate for long-term climate targets; after nearly half a century under EU rules that dictate how we manage our nation’s environment, now is the time to go further and faster, to lead the world in safeguarding the environment for our children and future generations.

The Environment Bill will embed environmental ambition and accountability at the heart of government through legislative measures to improve air quality, nature recovery, waste and resource efficiency and water resource management, in a changing climate. These changes will be supported by new legally binding environmental improvement targets, while a new independent regulator will be established to scrutinise environmental policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action.

This Queen’s Speech demonstrates our clear ambition to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it, delivering a cleaner and healthier environment for future generations while securing the nation’s food production and revitalising our rural and coastal communities. Through the agriculture Bill, we will reward farmers for tackling the causes and effects of climate change and enhancing the environment; and through the fisheries Bill, this Government will manage fishing stocks more sustainably and protect our waters.

We will ensure that the UK sets a global gold standard for animal welfare, enhancing our reputation as a world leader and allowing us to lead from the front as we leave the EU, recognising animals as sentient beings in domestic law and increasing the maximum custodial sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.

These are measures that demonstrate this Government’s clear ambition to leave a positive environmental legacy for those who follow us. This theme of ensuring that our nation is the very best it can be in the decades to come runs right through the Government’s plans. The Queen’s Speech sets out a clear legislative programme that will prepare this country for the future and help us to build a stronger, greener, more prosperous Britain.

Our nation’s exit from the European Union dominates events in Westminster, but today there is an opportunity to debate and scrutinise our wider plans for the months and years ahead.

12:22

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech today, but she will know all too well that we are being asked to participate in a charade, in which the Queen’s Speech is not a serious plan for government and in which most of these Bills will never see the light of day. It is quite clear from everything that the Prime Minister has said that he intends to call a general election at the earliest opportunity. We will then find ourselves back here, with a different Government, we hope, and certainly with a new Queen’s Speech. So, we cannot be asked to consider this proposition seriously. It is as near to an election broadcast as we are likely to see, with uncosted promises, sweeteners and posturing that do nothing to address the real economic and climate change crises that challenge this country.

Let us be honest: the crises that face us today are all of this Government’s own making—nine wasted years of failed economic policies, a divided nation and the madness of a Brexit policy that will rip up our trading relations with our closest partners, undermining our trade with 500 million consumers across 27 countries. This is the inevitable consequence of leaving the single market and the customs union, which, Mark Carney has made clear, will lead to escalating job losses and business closures. Just as inevitably, it will lead to lower food, consumer, employment and environmental standards in the push to do cheap trade deals with free-market cowboys and protectionist-in-chief Donald Trump.

Let us look at the economic legacy an incoming Government will inherit. Nine years of ruthless austerity Budgets have squeezed the life out of public services and left local government unable to fund even its statutory services. There is a crisis of low pay and stagnating wages, with workers’ real wages still lower than they were before the financial crisis. The productivity of British workers fell at the fastest pace for five years in the second quarter of 2019. A struggling construction sector faces a growing skills crisis. The Government’s botched business-rate revaluation has created a huge destabilising burden for businesses, with many high streets becoming ghost towns. And the UK’s longer-term economic outlook is darkening, as years of uncertainty have prevented businesses investing in people or capital.

As ever, the Government’s response has been too little, too late. On 4 September the Chancellor announced his spending plans for 2020-21, with departmental spending increases of 4.1%. However, the £13 billion that this plan represents is less than one-third of the £47 billion of cuts introduced by the Government since 2010. It goes nowhere towards resolving the backlog of funding in the NHS and social care, for example, which is seeing standards falling and the elderly suffering alone. No wonder it was met with a universal shrug of the shoulders when it was announced.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to what the noble Baroness is saying but, when she goes back to 2010, does she not remember that little note left by one of her Ministers at the Treasury that said, “There’s no money left”?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Absolutely. That was a world crisis that we were dealing with, and would have carried on dealing with if we had been given the opportunity. The Government’s response to that crisis, which was to drive down austerity for nine years, has done nothing to improve the economy, as we have seen and as I have just outlined. So I do not think we can take lessons from the current Government on how to maintain economic security.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My noble friend might also remind the noble Baroness who interjected on her that until the financial crisis borrowing was actually at record lows— lower than we inherited from the Major Government—and the national debt was low. We were running sound public finances. It was the global credit crunch that blew that out of the water, not Labour government policies.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I am grateful to my noble friend, and of course I concur with his analysis.

I want to talk about what we believe is the Government’s legacy on the biggest crisis of our generation: the impact of climate change. Of course we welcome the announcement of the new Environment Bill, which is very long-awaited, and we look forward to giving it robust and energetic scrutiny when it arrives in this House. We will want to see legally binding targets on air quality, water, waste and biodiversity, and we want to ensure that the Office for Environmental Protection has the necessary powers to hold the Government and public authorities properly to account.

However, the Bill deals with only one department’s contribution to improving our environment and cutting carbon emissions, when what is needed is a whole-government plan on a transformative scale to tackle the climate change emergency. According to the Committee on Climate Change, the UK is way off target to meet its fourth carbon budget of 2023 to 2027 and its fifth carbon budget of 2028 to 2032. Last year the committee set out 25 headline policy actions for the year ahead, but 12 months later only one has been delivered in full and 10 of the actions have not even shown partial progress. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, who chairs the committee, was absolutely right when he said recently, “The whole thing is run by the Government like ‘Dad’s Army’. We can’t possibly go on with this ramshackle system. It doesn’t begin to face the issues”.

The young people of this country understand the climate change emergency all too well, and even some of us crusties understand why the time for action is now. Sadly, the Government consistently fail to give the issue the priority it demands, and this Queen’s Speech represents another failed opportunity. For example, in energy, the collapse of the Government’s new nuclear programme, combined with their opposition to onshore wind and their removal of support for other forms of energy, raises huge questions about how we will source our energy by 2030 and beyond. The Government’s offshore wind sector deal is a helpful step, but there are no consequences if the targets are not met. As we know, the Government’s closure of access to the feed-in tariff for solar power sabotaged the industry before it really got going, with new installations falling by some 90%.

Meanwhile, the Government have failed to capitalise on the enormous potential of tidal power, with first the Severn barrage and now the Swansea Bay project failing to win government support. Instead, the Government seem intent on promoting fracking in the face of overwhelming local opposition to the air pollution, earthquakes and risks to local water quality that it would bring about. Where is the energy Bill in this Queen’s Speech that would deliver the transformation to renewables essential to meeting our climate change targets?

Similarly, we know that transport is the most emitting sector of the UK responsibility, responsible for 27% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Yet it is also the worst performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, which continue to increase as a result of traffic growth and a lack of public transport alternatives. The lack of electric charging structures for cars continues to hold back our transition to cleaner vehicles. The Government’s Road to Zero strategy to decarbonise road transport, with a plan to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040, is widely considered weak and unambitious. Clearly, what we need is a major push for electric vehicles and charging points, incentivised by a scrappage scheme for the most polluting vehicles. This would help to deliver our carbon reductions, as well as tackle the scourge of air pollution that is poisoning our children’s health. Where is the transport Bill in this Queen’s Speech, which would have delivered our transformation to a world-leading clean transport economy?

We also need to ensure that agriculture plays its part in reducing greenhouse gases. Intensive agriculture currently contributes nearly 10% of our carbon emissions. Of course, this was an issue beginning to be addressed in the agriculture Bill, which this Government seem in no hurry to debate. However, we welcome the shift in the Bill from supporting land ownership to the principle of delivering public money for public benefit, to improve our natural environment, restore habitats, plant trees and tackle carbon emissions. Sustainable food production is a vital component of that, including action to rethink our diets and understand the provenance and nutritional value of the food we eat, and its impact on biodiversity.

However, this Government have already lost the confidence of farmers, with continuing uncertainty about future funding and punitive no-deal tariffs which would make our farm products uncompetitive. The agriculture Bill will fail in its objectives if we do not prevent farmers and food manufacturers being undercut after Brexit by countries with lower employment, animal welfare and environmental standards.

There is an alternative to a future of economic decline and climate change devastation. This is why, when the election is called, our party will put forward a programme that is truly transformative. It will build an economy that works for all. It will deliver a comprehensive industrial strategy with a national investment bank and regional development banks to help unlock £250 billion of investment for businesses. It will tackle the climate emergency with robust new deadlines for action and a target of 2030 for net zero emissions. It will invest in renewable energy, utilising the full potential of offshore wind, solar and tidal projects. It will harness the huge opportunities that a green economy can bring, with new jobs and investment putting us at the forefront of global innovation.

These are the kind of radical reforms needed to kickstart our economy. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other noble Lords, particularly the maiden speeches we will hear today. I am sure noble Lords will add their expertise to the list of necessary and radical reforms needed today.

12:34

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated the Chancellor’s Spring Statement not very long ago, it became clear that the Government had spent the entire Brexit contingency fund on election promises. I remind the House that that was a contingency fund not just for a no-deal Brexit but for the damage that any form of Brexit would commit to our economy.

UK in a Changing Europe has pointed out that the Johnson version of a deal—which I assume will be incorporated in language that we may see later today—which requires a departure from the customs union and rejects the level playing field, a really critical issue, would hit the UK’s GDP even more than the May deal. It drops its running rate by about 2% on a long-term basis, which would have a really serious impact on the prosperity of this country. The aerospace, automotive, chemicals, food and drink and pharmaceutical sectors, which employ more than 1 million people, have warned that the Johnson determination to abandon the level playing field and essentially eliminate regulatory alignment with the EU poses a “serious risk” to the manufacturing sector, and go on to talk about how it would disrupt the supply chain and undermine UK exporters. To underscore the consequences, the automotive sector has confirmed that one in three firms is already shedding jobs. On its website, it makes it clear that this has little to do with the global turndown and everything to do with Brexit.

I speak for a party that, if put into power in a general election, would end Brexit and the damage it inflicts on the UK economy. My colleagues and I can commit significant new money for public services, welfare and proper long-term funding for infrastructure, including housing, broadband and transport; we can take measures to boost skills and productivity and to support growth businesses all across the regions; and we can provide the investment and safeguards necessary to achieve net zero carbon by 2040, because we will not do the damage of Brexit. And, because we are willing to raise taxes, including 1p in the pound on income tax hypothecated to the NHS and social care and the reversal of cuts in capital gains and corporation taxes, we can do so with the complete assurance of fiscal responsibility and stability, which is crucial to future economic growth. We alone have no Brexit burden and do not ask for a magic money tree.

The Queen’s Speech reads very clearly as a Tory election manifesto. I find even the titles of the Bills fascinating—because, let us be honest, they are dog whistles—such as “foreign national offenders”. Somebody worked really hard to get the words “foreign” and “offenders” in the same phrase. They tell us who, in the view of the Tory party, is now its core voter: people who will respond to a right-wing message. That, of course, is reinforced by what is left out of the Queen’s Speech: any measures to relieve children in poverty, to expand youth services or to increase social housing, because those are not considered appealing to the now hard-right Conservative Party.

As I look at the description of the financial services Bill, I see the words “new opportunities”. We all know what that means. It is regulatory dilution: an appeal to the casino element of the financial services industry, which has been chafing at the safeguards imposed after the 2008 crash, to which those casino financiers so powerfully contributed—casino players who have put so much money behind the Brexit campaign. The good companies want none of the reputational damage that comes from regulatory dilution. Financial services as an industry have minimal interest in “new opportunities” where that means “regulatory divergence” from the EU. Every sliver of regulatory divergence makes even more tenuous the hope to negotiate long-term equivalence across the sector. New opportunities fail to make up for even a small part of the business the UK is losing. The financial services industry has spent in excess of £4 billion on Brexit, trying to protect its customers and its operations, both current and future. To give just one example, Lloyd’s of London is moving so many insurance and reinsurance policies—everything with any EEA connection—to Lloyd’s of Brussels that, even working at top speed, the process will not be complete before the end of 2020.

Can the Minister confirm that about 15% of the financial services industry has already been shifted to the EU 27, with another 15% lined up to leave if Brexit happens, regardless of a deal? Many have gone to Frankfurt or Dublin, some to Brussels, Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Madrid or Milan, seeding them with the know-how to become serious competitors, but interestingly, trading—which in so many ways has been the distinctive flagship of London—has chosen Paris, where it is now working closely with, AMF, the French regulator. More than 35% of firms have announced their relocation. Historically, this is the part of financial services that has contributed most strongly to the UK tax base, and where trading goes, asset management and treasury operations eventually follow. Certainly, the measure on overseas investment funds, which seems to be the highlight of this weedy little financial services Bill, is an exceptionally sad little response to what is, frankly, a major calamity. I assume it is a sop to Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has been politically embarrassed—though not embarrassed in the pocket—by Somerset Capital’s decisions to site new funds in Dublin.

There is nothing but nothing in the Bill to assist the fintechs, who are the future but who cannot afford multiple locations and so will be among the hardest hurt by the loss of passporting, the e-commerce directive and the prospectus directive. Even more than the big players, they will suffer from the ending of freedom of movement, which has supplied so many of the entrepreneurs as well as at least 30% of staff. Even if they qualify for a visa, these people, who are in demand all over Europe, will not come to the UK on a visa that is limited by time, does not let their partners work and prevents older children from living with them.

This has to be one of the most insubstantial Queen's Speeches I have ever seen. Even for a lazy manifesto committee, the descriptions of most of these Bills are essentially a void. It really is a revelation to see so graphically that the Brexiteer vision for Britain has no substance and certainly nothing that would provide a framework for a successful economic future. It is all hubris. It is all nostalgia for a past that never was. I have never been more convinced that this Government do not deserve to govern, and that we have to stop Brexit.

12:42

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the Government’s economic strategy, and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bristol.

The economy has been slowing, the labour market is on the turn and the monthly public finance figures suggest that borrowing is beginning to rise. I welcome this morning’s news that the Government have reached a withdrawal agreement with the European Union, and I have been encouraged by the recent rise in sterling on the prospect of that deal. It is a reminder of the virtuous circle of economic management. If the markets have confidence in the Government’s policy, the exchange rate strengthens. That in turn makes British citizens better off and instils further confidence. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind during the interminable trade negotiations which will dominate their time—and Parliament’s time—over the next decade.

I also welcome the statement in the gracious Speech that,

“the Government’s new economic plan will be underpinned by a responsible fiscal strategy, investing in economic growth while maintaining the sustainability of the public finances”.

I suspect that I am not the only person to play Queen’s Speech bingo. Words such as “plan”, “responsible”, “investing”, “growth” and “sustainability” are all reassuring, but I suspect that they have featured in many a Queen's Speech over the last 50 years. I know because I helped draft some of them. I hope that I will be forgiven for regarding them with a degree of scepticism.

It is best to judge economic policy by actions rather than words. The Government had an excellent inheritance. Thanks to the work of successive Chancellors in Alistair Darling—now the noble Lord, Lord Darling—George Osborne and Philip Hammond, the public finances were broadly back on track by the beginning of this year. Mr Hammond deserves particular credit. Whatever you think about the levels of taxation and spending, he presided over the Treasury at a difficult time. But he stuck to his task and last year’s deficit of £41 billion—a little less than 2% of national income—was a major achievement.

However, since he stood down the mood music has changed. One unfunded spending announcement has followed another. We had a mini-spending round last month and a Budget will take place next month. I feel for Treasury officials: you spend a decade putting things right and then, like Sisyphus, you see the rock falling down the hill as the Government pursue a policy of fiscal incontinence. I may be being unfair to the Chancellor; he may yet set out how the spending pledges will be paid for and how he can still meet Mr Hammond’s fiscal rules. Meanwhile, I would like to make four brief points that in my experience generally inform a successful economic strategy.

First, the Government need to recognise that when the public finances turn against you, they can deteriorate very quickly. That certainly happened in 1992; it happened again in 2009. It is a reminder that spending windfalls in the good times while borrowing to finance shortfalls never ends well. We will enter the next downturn, as and when it comes—and believe me, they always come in the end—with higher debt in relation to national income than in any previous downturn of my working life. I would advise the Government to be prudent. They should be building a contingency to guard against a downturn—or, to use a phrase much beloved by our last Prime Minister but one, we should mend the roof while the sun is shining.

I would also advise against dressing up a widening deficit as clever Keynesian demand management. There is a case for supporting demand through fiscal policy, but it should be from a much stronger position. The present problem that Britain faces is of supply rather than demand. Fiscal fine-tuning rarely works. As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said as far back as 1962:

“The Treasury has never done anything too soon ... its actions fall neatly into two categories, too little too late and too much too late”.


Secondly, the Government need to keep an eye on the longer term. It is in the next two decades that the long-foreseen ageing of the population will become all too apparent. As the independent OBR has made clear, even on unchanged policies the Government will face continued pressures on the NHS, on long-term care and on pensions. These spending pressures will take the form of current consumption. A sound fiscal policy requires consumption to be financed out of taxation rather than borrowing.

My third point is that the Government need to prioritise relentlessly. Last week, the ONS confirmed the dire state of British productivity. Output per hour has risen by just 2% since the last quarter of 2007—a trend reflected in stagnant living standards. Brexit is going to put further pressure on productivity, so it is more important than ever that the Government prioritise skills and infrastructure. If a Polish taxpayer is no longer going to pay for the skills of our workforce, we are going to have to pay for them ourselves. Similarly on infrastructure, the Government have made real progress in recent years in coming up with a national plan—but that still contains projects such as HS2, which deliver insufficient returns. Those projects with the highest economic returns must come first.

Finally, the Government need to create an environment conducive to trade and prosperity. That is partly about implementing a competition policy at least as rigorous as the European Union’s state aid regime. When I started at the Treasury some 35 years ago, the first paper which landed on my desk was entitled Lessons of DeLorean. It made bleak reading—so let us not prop up lame ducks or adopt protectionist procurement deals at the expense of the taxpayer.

We also need a sensible trade regime. Gladstonian liberalism has been fundamental to the success of the British economy. This is not the time to erect barriers with our closest trading partners. The Government cannot admit it now, but when the dust settles and the revolutionary fervour of the ERG burns itself out, I confidently predict that we will remain close to the single market and to the customs union—and that will be progress indeed.

12:49

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is an honour to be here to speak and, after nearly a year of watching and learning, to begin to find my voice. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have welcomed me so warmly after my introduction today and to the officials and staff who have guided me so well—not least the Church of England Parliamentary Unit.

Much has been unfamiliar but, having spent most of the last 30 years working in cathedrals, for the last 18 years as a dean, there was a certain familiarity on entering a building in need of significant structural attention. As provost, then Dean of Leicester, I worked on plans for the reordering of the interior and landscape setting of that largely Victorian building so that the cathedral might be brought back into the heart of that extraordinary, multicultural city. As chair of the cathedral council, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was a vital source of wise guidance during those years of rapid change.

Shortly before my appointment to York Minster was to be announced, I received a message from across the road in Leicester that archaeologists had, they believed, found the burial place of Richard III and identified his body. That news, when made public, would transform the life of Leicester Cathedral and set a narrative for my start at York which was not altogether easy, as York and Lancaster competed for his bones.

I began in ministry as a lay worker and deaconess in Liverpool, some time before the possibility of priesthood for women. As will be familiar to so many women in many fields, I had few role models or established employment paths. I became a college chaplain, then a cathedral chaplain, because there were teams in those places prepared to make space and find funding for me. I flourished in those spaces, not least because I enjoyed presenting what was then a rather unexpected female aspect to the Church.

At the start, however, my family—particularly my mother—was profoundly concerned at my sense of vocation. My mother was a Bristolian from a family firebombed out of the ward of Redcliffe, in the city’s heart. While continuing their war work, my grandparents were housed in a prefab and then in Sea Mills, which is still a fine example of a community designed and funded by a local authority. My mother was evacuated to Cornwall, served with the Wrens and was awarded a scholarship to the London School of Economics. Once she had overcome her anger at her daughter’s calling to, as she saw it, a vocation that could not be received by the Church, she became a founding member of the Movement for the Ordination of Women—so here I am.

I have, to my surprise and delight, returned to my mother’s city. The diocese of Bristol exists because the citizens of Bristol wished it so, petitioning Henry VIII to stand alongside Gloucester. However, the diocesan funding model was never entirely realistic. Lands were added over time, including, for a while, the county of Dorset as no other see seemed to want it. Bishops of Bristol had to find their fortune, often via livings held in plurality. One of my predecessors was simultaneously both Bishop of Bristol and Dean of York and was, I think, not often seen in Bristol. In the 19th century, Bristolians regretted the grant of the see, burning the bishop’s palace down and threatening the cathedral after the bishop voted against the Great Reform Bill.

Bristol remains politically lively. It has been, and remains, a space where ideas are contested. At its civic heart, on the public space that was once the harbour quay, sit the statues of two men once seen as models of virtue, now a focus for impassioned debate about virtue. The first is Edmund Burke, the parliamentarian, who insisted on representative rather than direct democracy. The second is Edward Colston, the benefactor, who probably derived his great wealth from the proceeds of slavery. Slavery, as we know, is not simply confined to the past, and tackling the scourge of human trafficking is one of the areas I hope to be involved in during my time as a Member of this House.

Bristol is also a city of engineers, where ideas are turned into things which change our lives. My grandfather was an engineer who worked his way up from an apprenticeship to the line, as foreman for Hawker Siddeley. His stories were of his pride in Brunel, Rolls-Royce and, above all, Concorde. Concorde’s home is beyond the city but in the diocese, which is more than the city of Bristol.

Air travel is another focus for dissent. In recent years, Bristol and its hinterland have emerged as an area where ideas and responses to the harmful human impact on our planet have priority on the public agenda. The long-standing research and educational work of the Bristol Zoological Society and the Bristol-based BBC Natural History Unit, and in Westonbirt arboretum and Slimbridge to the north of the diocese and the innovative sustainable farming of the Chew Valley to the south, has demonstrated the extent of the threat, need and opportunity. Bristol engineers are now turning their practical ingenuity to sustainable building materials, decarbonised transport systems and waste-to-power plants.

The public mood in Bristol on climate change shifted some time ago, and church people are among them, leading in a whole Church response. The youngest diocesan synod member chose to give a maiden speech in the Church of England General Synod inspired by the school strikes. Church communities are being challenged to meet the Eco Church award, to green their churchyards and to walk to church. One Church primary school is teaching others about beekeeping and, in Swindon, our newest secondary school’s uniform is made from reworked plastic bottles. The whole diocese has, through our close links with the Church of the Province of Uganda, been reminded that climate change will have its first and greatest impact on those living in poverty with least protection from flood, drought and the consequent population displacement.

I therefore commend the measures outlined in the gracious Speech for a new world-leading independent environmental regulator, the progress of which I will follow with interest. I look forward to continuing to contribute to debates on that legislation. I pray that Almighty God’s blessing may indeed rest upon the counsels of this House.

12:57

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, it is a huge privilege and joy to follow my noble friend—if I may call her that, as we have worked together, as she has said, for many years in Leicester Cathedral.

Her journey through the Church of England has been remarkable. She originally came from the Wirral and, as she has told us today, her grandparents have a long association with Bristol. She began her ministry in 1990 as a chaplain at Gloucester Cathedral, where she met and married Michael and was ordained a priest in 1994. That year she moved to become canon pastor, and later vice-provost, of Coventry Cathedral. She became the first woman to lead a Church of England cathedral in 2000, as Provost and then Dean of Leicester. In that role she led the Cathedral Church of Saint Martin, Leicester, a city with significant diversity and areas of great deprivation. In 2012 she was appointed Dean of York. As she told us today, the finding of Richard III in Leicester gave us, as a small cathedral, a huge challenge. From having probably 35,000 visitors, we were landed with 160,000 visitors in one year. It became a huge challenge, in which my right reverend friend played a very important part.

In 2009, she was elected chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, the representative body for cathedrals, and she is serving her second term on the English Roman Catholic Committee. She was chair of the Deans’ Conference and in 2013 she was elected as one of the female representatives in the House of Bishops. We warmly welcome her today and we are deeply grateful for what she has brought in sincerity, breadth of knowledge and commitment. We particularly look forward to her work on human trafficking, to which she has committed herself.

I should first declare my own and my family’s farming interests as set out in the register. The contents of the Gracious Speech are to be welcomed. Today’s principal topics for debate are interlinked. While my contribution will be mainly about agriculture, horticulture, fishing, animal welfare, food production and the environment, I shall also highlight the importance of three other proposals which are not included in today’s debate.

I welcome the commitment to support and strengthen the NHS, the proposals to reform adult social care and the commitment to ensure that all young people have access to an excellent education. These are much-needed commitments, but I draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that in rural areas the challenges are greater than those in urban communities. It is simply more expensive for departments and local authorities in rural areas to provide those services. This, plus the fact that the funding formula gives less per head of population to rural areas, makes the task an even bigger challenge.

I welcome the Environment Bill introduced into the Commons two days ago, and I look forward to debating the proposals set out in the agriculture, fisheries and animal welfare Bills announced in the gracious Speech. For the first time, the Environmental Bill sets out environmental principles which will be enshrined in law. It introduces legally binding targets and will establish a new office for environmental protection. The Bill covers a vast range of issues from waste and resource efficiency to air and water quality. It introduces charges for single-use plastic items, extends producer responsibility to ensure a consistent approach to recycling and introduces a deposit return scheme, so there is much in this Bill. It also has an important section on nature and biodiversity, and it formalises conservation covenants, to name but a few. All these aspirations are to be welcomed. The proposed new office for environmental protection will be yet another non-departmental body. Its independence and financial security will be crucial if it is to succeed. It must be adequately staffed and funded. We can think of other such bodies which have seen their budgets squeezed over the years, resulting in cuts to services and aims unachieved. What assurances can the Minister give that realistic support will be given to this new body?

We await the details of the agriculture Bill. Will it be exactly the same as the previous Bill which was held over in the Commons last year or, as with the Environment Bill, will it cover a wider range of aspirations? Under Henry Dimbleby, the Government are setting up a new national food strategy which is committed to providing safe, healthy, affordable food. Will that consultation finish in time and will its conclusions be included in the Bill?

The importance of the food industry, which is worth some £122 billion and employs 4 million people, cannot be underestimated. Agriculture and horticulture are the backbone of our food industry, which grows a wide variety of the crops that form our staple diet. Farmers are at the start of the food production chain, but like any business they need to be profitable and able to increase yields and invest in the new technologies which are transforming the way we produce our food these days. Farmers produce not only food, but energy crops, and at the same time they look after the environment. The work of LEAF is a good example of what can be achieved.

The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards and UK farmers will continue to commit to them, but on leaving the EU, concerns are regularly expressed about leaving the EU and the importation of food which may not be produced to the same standard. These concerns and possible tariffs—I am grateful for the commitment made by the Government to making concessions on some of them—are making UK farmers concerned about their future. Lowland and upland farmers are particularly vulnerable, so I am grateful to the Government for their commitment to continue to pay for support.

I thank the Government for taking broadband across the UK. The recent announcement of some £5 billion towards this will be welcomed by businesses, many of which are based in rural areas. I believe that the gracious Speech contains exciting opportunities across the generations. It has a bold vision, and I commit to working on the Bills it proposes.

13:05

[Lord Hain]

My Lords, I too welcome the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, especially what she said on climate change. I also honour her mother as one of the suffragettes of the Church of England.

On the same morning that the UK Supreme Court judged the Prime Minister to have tried unlawfully to prorogue Parliament, Boris Johnson outlined to a New York business audience his vision of a post-Brexit Britain. It was one of the UK undercutting European tax rates and adopting lower regulatory standards than those set by the EU: a low-tax, lightly regulated haven on the EU’s doorstep, uninterested in competing on a level playing field and intent on provoking and winning a race to the bottom to create a Singapore-upon-Thames. It was difficult to discern that dismal vision in the Queen’s Speech, with rumours of a rift between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister over who gets to announce which tax cuts and spending plans, and when. The Chancellor wears his humble origins on his sleeve while the Prime Minister sees himself as the Incredible Hulk: the madder he gets, the stronger he gets. What a pair they are: Javid and Goliath.

The Government want us to believe that they are turning the page on austerity, abandoning the ideological approach that has driven Tory party policy for the past 10 years. Instead of “Keep Calm and Carry on Cutting” they have adopted the Vera Lynn wartime song, “It’s a Lovely Day Tomorrow”: you just wait and see. There is to be nearly £14 billion in extra public spending next year, with the priority going to health and social care, policing and prisons, and schools. That is in complete contrast with both David Cameron’s recent verdict that his Government did not cut enough and George Osborne’s boast that Britain had been squeezed more tightly than any of the advanced western economies. But on closer inspection, the Prime Minister’s brave new world bears a striking family resemblance to the cruel real world that Britain has been enduring for the past decade. Next year’s rise in public spending restores barely 10% of the £140 billion of public spending cuts and tax rises that 10 years of Tory austerity add up to. This decade of savage cuts puts next year’s puny spending rises into perspective.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons that next year’s extra public spending will reverse only 15% of the per capita cuts to non-health areas since 2010. It falls well short of the amount needed to return all departments’ budgets to their pre-austerity levels. The new Tory stance on austerity does not take us back to 2010 and it does not undo a decade of carnage. Public services that have struggled by on starvation rations are not suddenly being fully funded. The Tory squeeze may be less severe in the future, but the economy is still in a fiscal straitjacket, so that even if, improbably, all goes swimmingly well over the next few years, Britain will not recover from past cuts for many years to come.

Since 2010, Tory austerity measures have over- whelmingly been public spending cuts, so the best way of ending austerity is surely to give top priority to boosting public spending to repair the damage done to public services. Tax cuts should take second place. However, in the Tory leadership election, the Prime Minister proposed to increase the higher rate threshold for income tax and to raise the point at which people start paying national insurance contributions. The former would cost some £9 billion a year, with most of the giveaway going to those on high incomes. The latter could cost up to £17 billion, depending on how high the national insurance threshold is raised. The Prime Minister clearly wants to include £10 billion to £20 billion of tax cuts in the Autumn Budget, plus the already announced £14 billion public spending increases. However, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the last 10 years of austerity consisted of 80% public spending cuts and 20% tax rises. Nevertheless, the government-proclaimed way of ending austerity is to make tax cuts at least 50% of the package. Those are absolutely the wrong priorities. The compelling need now is surely to focus extra resources on rebuilding our public services, not on tax cuts, especially not for those on the highest incomes.

Boosting public spending also means expanding current public spending on staff and services, not just on extra capital spending on infrastructure. Both are needed. The Economist expects that UK growth this year will be only 1.1%. Even that looks optimistic. This is the fifth year in a row that growth has been slower than the year before. The economy has been falling further and further behind the Chancellor’s new growth target, held back by Tory austerity and the 2016 Brexit vote. Britain is already back at the bottom of the G7 growth league table. We are uncomfortably close to recession and the budget deficit has stopped falling. The reason it is right to borrow and invest now is that the economy is running out of steam.

Monetary policy has lost its potency. Record lows leave minimal scope for further interest rates cuts. Quantitative easing by the Bank of England has flooded the economy with money that has been spent largely on existing assets, boosting property values and share prices, rather than on newly produced output. But these historically very low interest rates make extra public investment financed by borrowing both affordable and very attractive. Government should be using this opportunity to raise public investment to a new, prolonged plateau of higher spending, such as a green new deal to tackle the climate change emergency and building hundreds of thousands more homes. Instead, the Government have produced Britain’s Brexit calamity, with disastrous results: business investment has stalled, last month’s retail sales were the worst for 25 years, and productivity is poor and falling. Things could get still worse with Brexit—especially a still-possible no-deal Brexit—on the horizon. This is a disastrous picture with which to produce the Queen’s Speech.

13:12

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I join in the congratulations on the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol—a city from where my father’s family emanated—and I look forward to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, later on.

I too played bingo with the speeches, and the words “fiscal responsibility” were also included in my game. However, I sign up to the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, of “fiscal incontinence” to define what we have been seeing over the last year or so. If you do not want to listen to us, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has been very clear in its own analysis. The Government have of course broken their 2% rule, and, in the institute’s words,

“there … isn’t space … for … permanent giveaways”.

It dubs the spending round as on a par with Labour’s 2017 manifesto plans—which of course Mrs May called the “magic money tree” manifesto. So “fiscal responsibility” would not be a way of describing the Government’s performance. In addition, looking at the Budget ahead, the time that the Government have given the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce its analysis of the economy is very sharp, to say the least, when it does not yet know the Brexit environment for which it has to make that announcement. Again, that is hardly a prudent move.

The shadow of Brexit hangs over this debate and most others. Many people acknowledge that the economy and business need some sense of certainty, but the idea that whatever Boris brings back and is voted on will deliver certainty is of course foolish. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, encapsulated that when he talked of “interminable trade negotiations”. There will be years, if not decades, of upset and lack of stability for our business communities. My noble friend Lady Kramer set out the challenges facing the manufacturing sector in this economy, and its desire for regulatory consistency and the need to avoid regulatory divergence. She also set out the pressures on the service sector, which is the larger part of our economy.

It is clear that no sensible commentator predicts that UK services will benefit from losing their current level of access to the European Union. Yet this minority Conservative Government march on. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, set out, this Government’s ambition is to compete with the EU, and they will compete on the grounds of lower regulatory standards—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We saw good evidence of that when the Government dropped the international Trade Bill, which your Lordships worked long and hard on, which set out those standards. That Trade Bill was agreed in your Lordships’ House and then parked for months. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the new trade Bill that appears in this Queen’s Speech will differ from the one that we worked so hard on in your Lordships’ House.

It is useful to look at a Queen’s Speech—even one that will not pass into legislation—because it indicates a direction of travel and the way a Government think. Nothing sums that up better than the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which would repeal EU free movement laws. It is wrong on many grounds, but it is disastrous for the economy and for British science. Plans to abolish the cap on numbers under tier 1 exceptional talent visas are wholly insufficient, and the Bill also fails to take into account the contribution made to the British economy by people who fall below the tier 1 threshold.

The points system disregards the need for vital but lower-paid workers in our economy—look at agriculture, the care professions and the hospitality industry—and it does not stop there. Her Majesty’s Government, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, make much of plans to deliver full-fibre Britain. To do this, BT says that it needs an extra 35,000 people. Where do the Government think these people will come from? Where is this infrastructure, if it were ever to emerge? Who will build this? The Liberal Democrats would guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK now, and we would continue to welcome new entrants. They are a vital part of our economy.

The Minister talked about work being “fairer for all”. For that to be true, we need a thriving economy that provides opportunities for people in every economy, which will require a major rebalancing of our currently unequal regional economies. To do this, we need to convert the industrial strategy into a much more overt regional prosperity strategy. We need ambitious goals on which to focus, and for that we should change the Industrial Strategy grand challenges. I suggest: delivering carbon neutrality; creating a transport revolution; ushering in an era of zero-carbon housing and commercial buildings; and developing world leadership in health and well-being innovation.

Three key enablers will help us to meet these challenges. First, we must embrace the digital revolution, but in a way that is inclusive and a force for good, delivering well-paid jobs. Secondly, we need to create a national skills strategy with Cabinet-level accountability across government, which will have to deliver a skilled workforce—not just a future workforce, but the present workforce upskilled through lifelong learning accounts. There must be a major expansion of all apprenticeships, including higher-quality ones.

The third point is the science budget. I think all parties agree on an increase in the science budget. To address that, we need the finance, and the Liberal Democrats will expand the British Business Bank to perform a central role in the economy. We have to ensure that small, medium and entrepreneurial businesses have access to capital. This is not happening at the moment, and it is pulling back the supply side of our economy.

The business elements of this Queen’s Speech fail on two counts. First, they are clearly not part of a sensible, deliverable legislative programme. Secondly, they fail as an election manifesto. This is not intended to draw the nation together. This Speech reveals the narrow, divisive plans the Government have for this country. By promising things they know they cannot deliver, the Tories are playing a dangerous game. By pointing the blame at others, the Tories are creating an environment of aggression and fear. By cynically playing on these fears, the Tories are dividing and hoping to rule people in this country. I have more faith in the robustness of our democracy and the spirit of the British people. They will see through this cynicism.

13:20

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I agree completely with him about the Trade Bill: it is a disaster that we have lost a Bill on which we had a lot of cross-party agreement. The Minister at the time worked very hard on it with us, and it is an incredible shame that it has been lost because of what we are doing now. I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol: it is good to hear about her prospective work on trafficking and I would be happy to work with her on it.

I am really not sure what we are doing here today. We have had a Queen’s Speech from a Government who have presented their agenda when they are 43 seats short of a working majority and therefore have absolutely no way of implementing it. This is a farce. However, we are dealing with it today, and there are a few—sadly, very few—welcome ideas in the gracious Speech. The Environment Bill is very long and wordy and rather empty, but at least we can attach a great number of amendments to help improve it. The agriculture Bill will apparently finally make its way to your Lordships’ House so that we might amend it to implement the type of green, sane policies on food, farming and land use that Greens and others have been advocating for decades.

I welcome the proposed animal protection measures and am happy that we will be recognising animal sentience in law. The continuation of the Domestic Abuse Bill will transform lives and punish abusers.

On the other hand, the proposal for changes to the length of prison sentences for violent criminals goes against all informed advice and will make prisons even more dangerous. We have allowed prisons to deteriorate for the past 20 years, and this measure will make them worse. They are overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded. Death, violence and self-harm are at record highs. We do not need more prison places; we need more rehabilitation, more youth clubs and more social services. Training and education of prisoners is often non-existent.

Sadly, the Government’s focus on election campaigning has unsurprisingly failed to propose the measures necessary to transform our economy and society in the 11 years that we have left to tackle the ecological and climate emergency. The Government do not yet seem to understand the scale and intensity of change needed as the clock ticks towards unavoidable feedback loops. Every day that they do not act is wasted time.

In response to the Queen’s Speech, I beg leave to deliver the Greens’ Speech. Greens will bring forward ambitious legislation to create a green new deal which will renew British industry and recalibrate our economy for a zero-carbon future. Avoiding climate catastrophe requires us to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, not 2050, and to include aviation, shipping and offshoring within those targets. A massive investment programme, taking advantage of record low global interest rates, will commit at least 5% of public expenditure to rapidly reducing our carbon emissions and protecting the natural environment.

The green new deal will include an ambitious energy-efficiency programme to bring down the running costs of every household and business in the country while reducing the total amount of energy that we produce as a nation. Support will be given to democratise our energy supply so that individuals, schools and communities can club together to develop their own sources of renewable energy. The green new deal will reinstate the net zero housing standards abandoned by this Government and deliver a mass programme of zero-carbon social housing to tackle the housing crisis and eliminate homelessness.

Greens will bring forward legislation to end the failed railway franchise system and bring the operation of trains and track back into public ownership. Investment in public transport, cycling and walking will focus our streets and public spaces on people, not cars, making us happier and healthier in the process.

Greens will deliver legislation which puts citizens in charge of the big decisions facing this country. The creation of a citizens’ committee on climate and ecological justice will put the public in charge where politicians have consistently failed. A citizens’ committee on the British constitution will work across the country to develop a new constitution fit for the challenges and opportunities of a modern democracy, and will abandon the stale, archaic and impenetrable mess of our uncodified, unwritten constitution. The era of majority government is over, and a new democratic settlement is the only way to heal the gaping divisions in our society. The abolition of your Lordships’ House, to be replaced with an elected second Chamber, would be a core part of renewing our parliamentary democracy.

Real environmental legislation will stop all unnecessary single-use plastics by 2025 and enable the planting of 3,000 hectares of trees every year. Greens would create an environmental regulator with the funding, powers and independence to truly hold the Government to account.

A clean air Bill will recognise the human right to breathe clean air, attaching it to the Human Rights Act. Public bodies would be required to take the necessary steps to stop the pollution that causes thousands of premature deaths each year. Human rights will be strengthened: in particular, the human rights of environmental protectors and activists who risk their jobs, livelihoods and freedom in order to force politicians to face up to the reality of our climate emergency. Legislation will reform the use of civil injunctions so that big corporations can no longer stop peaceful protests in order to cause widespread ecological damage in an effort to “help the economy”.

It has always been my priority for a Green Government to avoid climate and ecological disaster, and I am delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle to continue that fight together.

13:27

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol—having been brought up and schooled at Bristol, I am pleased to see her in this House—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who, following the previous speech, will have a challenge keeping up with the Joneses.

If ever there were a time for the Government to propose a sweeping raft of Bills to reform, to change, to energise and, most important, to project confidence, it is now. We have long endured the contradiction of continuing economic good news amid political uncertainty. Indeed, the ONS continues to record rising employment, with an unemployment rate of 3.9%—the lowest since 1974. There are now 1.3 million unemployed, down from the 2.5 million when Labour left office. Let that be a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks that the policies proposed by Labour are the answer to any of the challenges that this country faces.

It is worth noting in passing that Labour’s approach would clearly undermine our economic success. I am talking of course of £200 billion of taxpayers’ money to be wasted on a renationalisation programme that would take us back to the 1970s and the extraordinary idea of compulsory confiscation of 10% of companies’ equity.

Instead of a policy programme that would plunge us into recession and national insolvency, we need to respond to uncertainty with clear direction. At least a few Bills in the Queen’s Speech give me cause for optimism. This is an agenda based on low or no tariffs, free movement of goods and services and the relentless engagement required to capitalise on high-growth non-European markets. Indeed, the EU’s own analysis suggests that 90% of future economic growth will be outside Europe.

The gracious Speech is, given the context, just a start. It will lead to continuity of existing trade agreements to which we are party by the EU, implementation of the Agreement on Government Procurement and a new body to protect UK companies from unfair trade practices. These are important threads, but we must hope that the radical content is still to come once we know the framework we will use going forward. When it comes to negotiating our future relationship with the EU in detail, we must be especially clear on our red lines on trade.

Turning to financial services—a sector which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, is key to our economic success and uniquely vulnerable to Brexit uncertainty—the Bill moves to address this directly, and there is much in it to be commended. Asset management remains an absolute key for the UK economy. London is the second largest hub in the world and manages 37% of all European money. We must ensure it stays competitive. Simplifying the rules to allow the selling of overseas investment funds in the UK will assist this. The UK is already home to $3.1 trillion in overseas assets. I do not recognise the gloomy prognosis from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, earlier. I speak to people in the City and hear of an incoming wall of money that will arrive with us shortly.

Delivering on the fintech sector strategy will similarly bolster our competitiveness in this key sector. The UK, and London in particular, is unique in that we have a burgeoning tech sector co-located with financial services, and the opportunities for synergy are endless. This is about sector growth, but it is also about providing a better service to consumers, financial inclusion and economic empowerment.

Taking another Bill proposed, the pensions Bill, which I appreciate is not the subject of today, I will address my remarks to the financial services aspect of pensions. The Bill provides the framework for collective defined contribution schemes and improved advice for savers and delivers on the pensions dashboard—so far, so good. The role of fintech will be key to helping people. However, it will allow the pensions industry to grow only if it is able to do so by a responsible approach to regulation. The background briefing on the financial services Bill talks of the need to continue reforming our regulatory architecture after the failure of the twin peaks during the 2008 financial crisis.

While it remains important to protect consumers from bank failure and mis-selling, we must also take an approach that encourages and enables them to take their own responsibility for their own savings. We are far away from that at the moment. In particular, I want to highlight SIPP regulation as an exemplar. Specifically, I want to refer to the case of the company Berkeley Burke, a SIPP provider—which, I should make clear, is a client of my employer—whose SIPP division is now, this last week, insolvent following a ruling by the Financial Ombudsman Service. Berkeley Burke’s SIPP operation provided tax wrapper execution-only advice for investments on behalf of a client. A particular investment failed and even though Berkeley Burke had no advisory commissions—it recommended the consumer seek advice and warned the member of the risk—the FOS, somehow, ruled in the consumer’s favour. Looking back, the only counterfactual available to Berkeley Burke would have been to refuse to carry out execution-only investments that it thought were too risky. However, that would have seen it providing de facto financial advice which it was not permitted to do, so it was damned either way.

If the Government are intent, as I hope they are, on catalysing more responsible pension savings, they need to strike a better balance between protecting consumers and encouraging them to take responsibility. The current system could decimate the market for advice and products, to the ultimate detriment of the consumer. It is extremely depressing to see the ambulance-chasers now going after the entire SIPP industry. I am sure the Government want individuals to continue to have the freedoms to determine their own pension investments if they so choose. This is now a threat directly due to action taken recently by the FOS and the FCA. It is really worrying that this could spread to every single execution investment advice in the City.

Will the Minister speak to the Treasury to get it to commit to ensure that provisions in the pensions Bill support consumers and financial providers to achieve its ends? Will he start by reviewing the statutory status and powers of FOS in this respect and in particular the FCA?

To conclude, the Queen’s Speech provides a foundation for growth and competitiveness that will see our key sectors supported and our strengths bolstered through Brexit. We must ensure that future legislation in this Parliament enables us to benefit from being outside the EU. Restrictions on areas such as EIS, SEIS and VCT rules come to mind. I hope it is not restrained by too many of the playing field constraints that were mentioned earlier and by the Prime Minister this morning. This gracious Speech is only the beginning. Once we know the terms of our exit, the Government must double down to realise the real economic and financial dividends.

13:35

[The Duke of Somerset (CB)]

My Lords, while we appreciate that few of the Bills alluded to in the Queen’s Speech will be brought forward before the next election, they indicate what the Conservative Party might do in the event that it wins a majority. However, it is also clear that, economically, the UK would be far better off under the status quo of membership rather than under any or no deal. Many parts of these Bills would be unnecessary as the provisions of our EU membership enshrine legislation—as, for instance, with the new Environment Bill, where the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle proposed currently apply to all EU member states.

However, the environment is a hot topic and people want to see cutting-edge policies that will make a real difference. Top of these must be urban air quality. Transport exhausts are a prime target, and not only private road vehicles need to change but also buses and trains, which are so often forgotten—not to mention aviation. Electricity is the favoured medium-term solution, but why are we not leaping straight over to hydrogen power? It has many advantages, the main one being that it is most abundant and pollution free. There are still a few problems to solve, such as transportation of the gas or liquid and its storage. Development and infrastructure costs will be high for both electricity for vehicles and for hydrogen fuel cells, but the latter is surely the silver bullet for our future transportation policies, whereas electricity production is dependent on fossils and will be for some time. The manufacture of storage batteries is extremely polluting. It was, however, good to see that renewables now account for nearly 50% of our generation in some quarters of the year. Have the Government commissioned any research on hydrogen, or are they slavishly following the generally accepted world view on the progression of power sources without questioning it? The £1 billion going to the automotive industry should be spent wisely.

The Government’s time targets for change are not ambitious and rather weak, in my view. I am sure that the motor industry is putting a brake on the speed of change, but policies such as pedestrianisation—Oxford Street comes to mind—and non-fossil fuel vehicles such as taxis and delivery vans going electric, if they go down that route, can be brought in much faster. We now have cleaner hybrid buses on the streets of our cities, but they seem to revert quickly to diesel. Does the Minister have any information on what proportion of their time they operate on electric only? I fear it will not be very high.

And what about trains? Electrification has been pathetically slow. In the West Country, route electrification has only reached as far as Newbury, so the new fleet of Great Western trains has to be hybrid, switching from diesel to overhead pantographs—the inefficiencies of this must be huge. On the railway line I take to Salisbury, South Western Railway operates trains which have a diesel engine under every carriage. The emission of smoke, noise and exhaust fumes that accompany their progress, or worse when they are stationary, is surely no longer acceptable. The line from Salisbury westward is a single track, although one can still see the old rails alongside. A little project, such as dualling this line, illustrates a typical worthy candidate of any cash released from the possible abandonment of HS2 and would greatly improve the reliability of journeys. The Government’s concern for the environment would be well satisfied if this project were scrapped in favour of smaller projects and upgrades throughout the country. The huge environmental cost of driving a new railway through our countryside, SSSIs and people’s houses and businesses has been underrecognised.

On the other hand, I am in favour of building new roads to bypass settlements and plug gaps in A-road dual carriageways. Such a policy would move the pollution away from where people live and avoid the damaging stop-start scenario in towns, where vehicles are at odds with pedestrians.

Another specific example where money will be well spent is at Stonehenge, where the monument—one of the biggest tourist attractions in the West Country—is completely spoilt by the nearby A303, which is often in gridlock. The proposed tunnel has suffered from the vacillating decisions of successive Governments but is now awaiting planning permission. I hope the Transport Secretary will do his best to push this forward.

I turn briefly to agriculture and declare my interest as an arable farmer. A botched Brexit will do serious harm to some sectors, due to adverse tariffs and disadvantageous new trade agreements. Beef and sheep farmers are in the firing line, as are those producing malting barley, where there is currently no market as no exporting ships have been reserved due to the Brexit uncertainty. If farmers struggle or fail, it is the very aims of Defra, such as biodiversity and water and soil quality, that will suffer. The new basis of support—public money for public goods and environmental stewardship—is fine, but the farmers will have to provide the work, and they can only do this while solvent.

It is laudable that the Secretary of State has vowed to maintain and improve food and animal husbandry standards, but it is hard to see how this statement dovetails with the new trade agreements with aggressive and distant countries such as the USA, which operate much looser standards.

Theresa Villiers has also spoken of releasing our farmers from the rigidity and bureaucracy of the CAP. Our civil servants have a reputation for gold-plating EU regulations, so it will be interesting to see how they avoid this course in future.

The Prime Minister recently spoke about increased tree planting in relation to reducing greenhouse gases, which I was pleased to hear, but I wonder on whose land this will happen and with what financial incentive to plant and maintain. Without pre-empting a forthcoming debate, how will this long-term policy happen in the face of an onslaught of tree pests and diseases, often arriving from overseas, that our weak import controls of plants and timber do not sufficiently inhibit? In addition to badger culls, we need proper control of the all-damaging grey squirrel through immunocontraception.

Other noble Lords have talked about broadband, and I hope the Minister will take that forward as well.

13:42

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to raise three points on the post-Brexit arrangements for agricultural support, particularly in relation to Wales.

More than 60 years ago I was a young official for the newly born Farmers Union of Wales. Most of family—my brothers and their descendants—are engaged in livestock breeding in Wales, sheep in particular. There has never been greater uncertainty in the Welsh hills, traditionally the breeding ground of Welsh lamb. What advice will the Government give to them? When I was at the criminal Bar, I was occasionally asked in the Court of Appeal, “What is your best point, Mr Morris?” My best and most important point is: what should hill sheep farmers dependent on export to the continent do this year, so far as breeding is concerned? This is the period—from about 1 November on, depending on the altitude of their farms—when they put their rams to their ewes. This is the obvious initial step for the lambs they hope to be ready for the markets, particularly the continental markets, in late spring and early summer. They do not know what markets there will be—or what tariffs, as my noble friend mentioned from the Front Bench. I hope they will not be punitive; if they are, it will destroy the industry. I would therefore like to know what assurance the Government can give.

My second point concerns the last agriculture Bill, which was stalled in the Commons for many months—pending, I presume, the outcome of Brexit. I look forward to a new Bill, as promised in the Queen’s Speech. On more than one occasion, the last in March this year, I raised the Delegated Powers Committee of this House’s severe criticism as that Bill sought to bypass the devolved legislatures. I pointed out that Whitehall is blind to the fact that devolved Administrations are now part of our constitution. Will Westminster never learn that, given the situation we find ourselves in—which I welcome and have worked for—it must consult the devolved Administrations? We had the same experience with the initial offering of Clause 11 of a recent Bill concerning the retention of powers that were being transferred from Brussels to the United Kingdom, which led to prolonged discussion between the Government of Wales and Westminster before a reasonably acceptable solution was arrived at. When the next agriculture Bill is presented, can we have firm assurances, first, that there will be no bypassing of the Welsh Assembly; secondly, that farmers in Wales will not lose out in any new support arrangements; and thirdly, that there will be agreed arrangements in which the Welsh Government will have confidence?

My third point is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 4 September this year his proposals for the next spending round, including £1.2 billion for Scotland and more than £600 million for Wales—based on the existing Barnett formula, of course, and on top of the existing spending per head in Scotland and Wales. The Government went on to say, interestingly:

“The Spending Round also delivers on the government’s commitment to provide £160 million to farmers and land managers in Scotland in relation to historic allocations of Common Agricultural Policy … funding”.


Given that the Welsh allocation usually follows the Scottish, based on Barnett, I want a specific answer: what is the equivalent commitment to Wales, not mentioned in the statement, of that £160 million found for Scotland for farmers and land managers? The Scottish figure refers directly, I repeat, to,

“farmers and land managers in Scotland”.

Is there a different figure for Wales? Is there no figure for Wales? I would like to know.

13:47

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol on her engaging and thoughtful maiden speech. She spoke of her passion to confront injustice, inequality and homelessness and, looking ahead, I am sure she will make an important contribution to our debates. I am also looking forward to the maiden speech of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shortly.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the humble Address. I gave prior notice to the Minister that I would talk about housing—not part of the theme of today’s debate—because I cannot speak on Monday. I declare my interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for housing associations in England.

The Queen’s Speech was a missed opportunity. This House knows that the country faces an enormous housing challenge. High house prices and rents, poor-quality homes and the shortage of new homes of a range of tenures are all contributing to 8 million men, women and children being unable to live in a home suitable for them or their family. I am disappointed that this Queen’s Speech did not feature a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis. From helping rough sleepers off the streets to helping families across the country on to the housing ladder, the Government have missed the opportunity to present an ambitious programme of legislation to fix the broken housing market. I urge the Government to restore the public’s faith that they will invest in the affordable homes we need and use the forthcoming Budget to make ambitious commitments to do so.

Last week Channel 4 News showed Mohammed, Wajidah and their four children who live, eat and sleep in one room in a hostel for the homeless. Mohammed started to go blind six years ago and his wife Wajidah has given up work to be his full-time carer. Their children struggle with doing homework, do not have anywhere to play and have to take two buses and walk just to get to school. It has affected their mental health, their marriage and their children’s educational prospects. The family are on housing benefit, cannot find anywhere to rent privately and have been on council waiting lists for months.

Last year, 726 people died while homeless. One of them was Gyula Remes, who died on the doorsteps of Parliament after sleeping in Westminster Tube station. This is the real picture of the housing crisis in Britain today. The benefit freeze is pushing low-income families to the brink, with more than nine in 10 homes for private rent too expensive for those on housing benefit. It is a sobering fact that two-thirds of these families are in work.

What is the solution? Housing associations share the Government’s commitment to help more families into home ownership. Over the next five years, they will support record numbers into shared ownership, working in partnership with local and national government. But a shift by this Administration towards further emphasis on home ownership would be a mistake, if it comes at the expense of social housing. That is where most progress is needed. Research from the National Housing Federation reveals that we should be building 145,000 affordable homes each year for the next 10 years to fix the broken housing market. The NHS, Shelter, Crisis, the CPRE and the CIH have made a united call for investment of £12.8 billion a year, for 10 years, to do this. Imagine the political return from that. We last made a commitment on that scale under a hero of the current Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill.

I know the ask is ambitious, but it is worth bearing in mind that we currently spend £20 billion a year on housing benefit. Investment now in social and affordable housing would help save money for future generations. For comparison, we spend a similar amount on roads. As the Government put the finishing touches to their national infrastructure strategy, mentioned by Her Majesty, I hope housing will be included.

I have a plea for the Minister to speak to his Treasury colleagues and consider a generation-defining commitment in the upcoming Budget. Will the Government confirm the next affordable housing programme? Without it, we are likely to face a sharp fall in the new supply of homes, as uncertainty persists. Will the Minister confirm to the House whether a new long-term affordable homes programme from April 2021 will be part of the Budget on 6 November and, if not, when?

I must say something about building safety. Two years on, we must not forget the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. There are still tens of thousands of people going to sleep every night without the certainty that they are living in a safe home. I welcome the Government’s commitment to building safety, with the inclusion of a building safety Bill in this week’s Queen’s Speech. Ministers must guarantee that everyone has the basic right to live in a safe home.

This progress should not end with a new regulator; the Government need to make sure that funding is available for local councils and housing associations to carry out safety remediation, when the regulations have failed in the past. They must also provide clarity and co-ordination on how these works will be carried out to enable housing associations to complete them as quickly as possible, and continue their other important work building new social housing. The testing process—of fire doors, insulation and cladding—must be more transparent. Where regulation has failed, it is imperative that the Government restore trust. A large factor in rebuilding trust is making sure that tenants have a real voice.

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach. As the Housing Minister in the other place said, we must be “tenure-blind” and build homes to meet people’s needs at every step of their housing journey—from supported housing to council or association social rent, and from the PRS to a private home. Fixing the housing crisis must be a priority for this Government, not only because it is the right thing to do but because the majority of the public are calling for a solution to this national emergency. As the British Social Attitudes survey has shown, building homes for social rent and housing that are affordable to people on average and lower incomes are priorities for the public.

I end by going back to Mohammed and Wajidah. If they had a suitable home to live in, their lives would improve dramatically. Their children would have somewhere suitable to complete their homework each evening, they would not have such a long journey to school and there would be an immediate impact on their mental health. I have outlined some of the ways in which we could fix the housing emergency in our country today. It is a great shame that the Government did not choose to use this Queen’s Speech to make more progress.

13:54

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, now a fellow woman of the West Country, and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I agree with another West Country man, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, about Stonehenge and the Salisbury line. I thank my noble friend Lady Vere for her typically clear and succinct opening speech.

I am a supporter of the Prime Minister’s focused approach, ending uncertainty and unleashing business investment by getting Brexit done—well done, Boris, on today’s progress—taking a grip on law and order, and committing to a responsible fiscal strategy, while investing in vital infrastructure.

We have a vast canvas before us today, as we have heard, so I will touch on three new areas. I turn, first, to the worrying trend of Labour Party thinking on property rights. In brief, it appears not to believe in them, at least for individuals. This goes against centuries of near consensus among all serious philosophers and mainstream British political parties that the security of private property is one of the fundamental bedrocks of our freedoms. Examples of this trend include: the suggestion by leading Labour figures—not those opposite —that victims of the Grenfell disaster could be rehoused for free, at the expense of the owners of dwellings that happened to be unoccupied at the time; that 10% of all companies’ shares should be donated to the workforce; that a proportion of football clubs should be given to their supporters; and that private landlords should be obliged to offer their tenants a right to buy at a discounted price, at the landlords’ expense. There are also suggestions that wide-ranging nationalisation could be at less than market value. No doubt there were some similar ideas in operation in Venezuela some years ago, before the consequences came fully home to roost.

Given the political situation over the last three to four years, all this has gone less remarked than it might have done. In particular, the so-called moderates on the Labour Benches have kept a deafening silence. This attitude, to my mind, represents a depressing shift in the political landscape, with which I fear we will need to grapple for some time.

I now turn to the world of regulators. On Wikipedia, there is a helpful list of the 69 UK regulators. The existence of 69 regulators implies a lot of regulation. I concentrate on economics, where much power is exercised by Ofgem, Ofcom, the Competition and Markets Authority, the FCA, the PRA and many others. This makes me uneasy. Regulators have a lot of power and are usually well paid. They are often grand and slow, and businesses fear them—especially small businesses. Regulators are effectively financed by the public at large, either directly or by fees, levies or fines. These ultimately find their way into the prices of consumer goods and services, yet there is little the public can do to hold regulators to account. They cannot, for example, throw them out as they can with Her Majesty’s Ministers by voting in a general election. I note that one advantage of regulators from the perspective of Ministers is that they distance them from decisions, which might be unpopular. However, ministerial comfort is not necessarily synonymous with public welfare.

Unfortunately, I detect that some regulators show signs of believing their own propaganda. Public choice theory leads us to expect that some will identify their own interests with those of the public at large. These problems are only to be expected economically, but the question is how best to prevent them from occurring. The answers are not easy, but ought to include some of the following: first, examining whether specific regulators are necessary and whether Ministers could take direct responsibility in some cases; secondly, giving regulators clear ministerial directions, which ought to be debatable in Parliament; thirdly, taking care in the selection of their officeholders; and, fourthly, reviewing their effectiveness, especially when they are given extra power. Today, that includes the CAA, which, rightly, was complimented earlier for its work on Thomas Cook. It also includes the Pensions Regulator and the financial regulators, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Leigh.

Another aspect of good government that interests me is the issue of follow-through. During my years at Tesco, I was often asked about the biggest difference between government and business. I find business much speedier and better at implementation. Since I joined this House, I have campaigned on a number of issues, and change—even if I have been brilliantly persuasive—has been rather slow. One of my early campaigns was for better vocational education and training, which are vital to business success and often done better in Germany, where I have also worked. My pleas were accepted, but it took years to get the necessary reforms through.

A second area was broadband and mobile, with connectivity constantly promised and well publicised by the charming Ed Vaizey. It is gradually coming on but we are not there yet. Perhaps the Minister can kindly offer some clarity on what we will get both in the short term and by 2025.

A third area was plastics and the impossibility of recycling intelligently when you move between local authorities with different systems. Three years have already passed and I am pleased to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gardiner on the proposed new single system. I would like to hear more about it. I am less enthusiastic about the various new targets in the Environment Bill. Targets without an implementation plan are, frankly, virtue signalling and should really be avoided.

A fourth example was discussed earlier—simple legislation on online harm.

In closing, I come back to Brexit. If we can settle Brexit, people can move forward and find their mojo again, as happened after the misery of the 1970s, and business can invest in the capital and training that we need to improve productivity and bring about better growth.

14:01

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol on her outstanding maiden speech.

In this wide-ranging debate on the gracious Speech, I wish to focus my remarks on the proposed measures to protect the environment, as well as on animal welfare and wildlife conservation. We have seen the green uprising with Extinction Rebellion. Although I do not approve of all its tactics, I certainly support its cause.

We are seeing a cultural change in the United Kingdom. I have four children, aged 20, 21, 23 and 24, and they are all far more conscious of the environment than I was when I was their age. However, we have been seeing alarming footage of melting sea ice and glaciers collapsing, which obviously pose a huge threat to sea levels. In just this last month, we saw the devastating impact of Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean. To that end, I warmly welcome the Environment Bill, with which we will be the first country to legislate—in the words of the Minister—for the long-term climate targets with an independent regulator.

The UK has for many years been a global leader in innovation and technology advances, and it is on this subject that I wish to focus my remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, posed the question of how we will source our energy after 2030. It is a fact that every 20 years the demand for energy rises by some 50%. That is an alarming statistic. The noble Baroness should be aware of the ITER nuclear fusion megaproject in France, which, when completed in 2025, could fulfil many of the energy needs in Europe. I welcome the recent move here to invest in our own nuclear fusion project. It could become a global leader in the sphere of energy and should, potentially, meet many of the energy needs after 2030.

The gracious Speech mentioned the challenge of addressing plastic pollution. Discarded plastics represent a global blight. They are destroying our oceans and affecting the whole of nature’s balance. The global problem must be addressed by all Governments, and the UK must be a leader in that challenge.

It is a well-known statistic that every day we consume over 35 million plastic bottles of water. Of those, only 20 million are recycled and a lot of the balance goes into landfill sites. The answer is not to make plastic the enemy but to consider how we can look upon it as a valuable energy resource—as noble Lords know, it is a product of oil—and how we can best consider methodologies of separating all plastics at household level. We should support emerging technologies developed in the UK that aim to meet our target of net zero emissions and which can potentially solve the plastic problem. My proposal is to consider plastic parks, where all types of mixed plastics will be initially sorted by a mechanical recycling facility and then processed in a plastic recycling plant. That is a huge challenge but it has the potential to convert plastics to hydrogen power, which, as my noble friend the Duke of Somerset mentioned, is a fuel for the future.

Finally, the gracious Speech drew reference to protecting the welfare of animals, including banning imports from trophy hunters. I declare my interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Endangered Species and as a long-standing trustee of Tusk Trust.

In the last parliamentary Session, rightly, we passed the Ivory Act. This saw the UK proudly take the lead in proposing one of the toughest bans on ivory—a move that was overwhelmingly supported by the public. It is rather alarming that some antique dealers have now sought to challenge and undermine the impact of the Act with a judicial review, especially given that the UK has been one of the largest exporters of ivory in recent years. To this end, I welcome the banning of imports from trophy hunting.

In summary, there is an urgent need for the UK to become carbon-neutral. There is a big opportunity for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of developing innovative technologies and practices, and to be a leader in the face of this huge threat. I certainly hope that the gracious Speech is not just a government election manifesto and a charade, and I warmly support the move to enshrine environmental principles and targets in law. I believe that we are going in the right direction but we are not going fast enough.

14:08

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, this Queen’s Speech has been described by many commentators as a wish list or virtual programme—one that the Government have no majority to deliver. That may be true, but we should also ask whether the Government have not just the majority but the money to deliver on their promises.

In the Queen’s Speech, the Government spoke of a,

“new economic plan … underpinned by a responsible fiscal strategy, investing in economic growth while maintaining the sustainability of the public finances”,

but how responsible is their fiscal strategy and how sustainable are the public finances? Last month, in the spending review, the Chancellor faced criticism for not asking the Office for Budget Responsibility to provide new economic forecasts upon which to base his spending plans. Now, with the date for the Budget set at 6 November, he will be compelled to ask the OBR to update those forecasts, and it is inconceivable that it will do anything other than scale down its growth forecast and revise up its borrowing forecast.

The underlying weakness of the UK economy is clear to see. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its Green Budget, set out the outlook for economic growth and the implications for fiscal policy. Its findings were stark. It found that the UK’s economic weakness has been both more long-standing and more extensive than that of any other major economy, with growth in the UK since 2016 the lowest in the G7. Business investment has witnessed its most sustained period of weakness outside of a recession and is now also the lowest in the G7. Quarterly private investment has fallen by around 20% compared with pre-referendum trends. The IFS also found that GDP is roughly 2.5% to 3%, or £55 billion to £66 billion, below where it would have been without the Brexit vote. Based on pre-crisis forecasts and global economic comparisons, the IFS believes that the UK has missed out almost entirely on a period of intense global growth, which normally would have boosted exports and investment.

This sustained economic weakness has clear implications for the Government’s fiscal strategy. The Chancellor’s current fiscal mandate—inherited from Philip Hammond—requires him to ensure that borrowing is below 2% of GDP in 2020-21. At the time of his Spring Statement in March, the deficit for 2020-21 was expected to be £19 billion, and the OBR declared that the Chancellor would have £27 billion of headroom. A change to student loan accounting last month subsequently reduced this headroom to £14 billion, and we have already seen a marked deterioration in the borrowing figures for 2019-20, such that this £14 billion could already be reduced by a further £5 billion. If we add in the impact of the weaker than expected economic performance, that could take off another £5 billion. Taking these together, the Chancellor’s £27 billion of borrowing headroom at the time of the Spring Statement now looks more like £4 billion.

All of this means that, while the additional £13 billion announced in the spending round might have been within the fiscal mandate as calculated back in March, it is highly unlikely to still be consistent with it now. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation believes that the Government could break their fiscal rule by some £10 billion, and the IFS now expects borrowing next year to exceed £50 billion. That is more than double the level of borrowing forecast by the OBR just seven months ago. In response, the Chancellor’s reaction has not been to propose new funding measures to pay for his spending but to hint that he would simply jettison his existing mandate, declaring in the spending review that he would set out a new fiscal framework ahead of the Budget. He is not shaping his tax and spending decisions to fit his fiscal rules, but bending his fiscal rules to fit his political goals.

In the Queen’s Speech, the Government promised,

“a responsible fiscal strategy … maintaining the sustainability of the public finances”.

Yet the Government appear not to be showing caution and not to be pursuing a responsible strategy, but instead to be playing fast and loose with the nation’s finances. This lack of caution is all the more reckless given the economic storm clouds that lie ahead. Just this week, the IMF downgraded its global growth forecast to the lowest level since the financial crisis, predicting that the global economy is now on the brink of an economic slump. Meanwhile, the Government pursue the hardest possible Brexit, seeking a goods-only or Canada-minus free trade agreement with the EU, which will introduce significant non-tariff barriers to trade. The Government’s own figures show that such an outcome would be only marginally better than a no-deal outcome in terms of economic growth, reducing GDP by 6.7% compared to the figure if we remained members of the EU. These figures were reinforced this week in a report from the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, which calculates that such an outcome would reduce GDP by 6.4% compared with EU membership. The Government could have used migration policy to mitigate this harm, but are foolishly committed to ending freedom of movement in this Queen’s Speech.

Those who expect new global trade deals to undo the damage will be sorely disappointed. While the Government’s figures show that leaving the single market would reduce UK GDP by 6.7%, they also show that free trade agreements with the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the Trans-Pacific Partnership combined would increase GDP by just 0.2%. At a time of such profound economic risk to the global economy, coupled with the severe economic implications for the UK outside the single market, a fiscal policy response may well be required. The great danger now, if the storm hits and fiscal policy is forced to respond, is that it will be conducted not from a position of sustainability, as the Queen’s Speech claimed, but of unfunded spending and rigged fiscal rules. The risk, to quote a former Chancellor, is that the roof will not have been fixed while the sun was shining.

14:15

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the contributions already made in this debate on the gracious Speech, most notably the excellent maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I am going to focus on climate change. I can safely anticipate that the other eagerly awaited maiden speech—that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—will touch on that subject as well. I thank my noble friend the Minister for leading us off in this debate so excellently.

The need to tackle and adapt to climate change is the most pressing of our times. It is the ultimate “we are all in this together” issue. It was Margaret Thatcher, as a scientist and a politician, who in 1988, in a speech to the Royal Academy, first set out her belief that:

“No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full”.


We need to act and we are seeing that action happen. It is not fast enough for some and too fast for others, but we are acting and we are leading.

Since 1990, the UK has already reduced emissions by 42%, more than any other industrialised economy, while growing the economy by 72%, also more than any other industrialised economy. In 2010, coal made up 30.97% of the energy fuel source for power generation; now it is 5.4% and by 2025 it will be zero. In 2010, wind and solar accounted for 1.6% of energy fuel source, and now it is 20.52% and rising. I am proud of the leadership that this Government have shown on this issue through being the first major economy to commit in law to ending contributions to global warming by 2050. I am also pleased with the news today that the Prime Minister will chair a new climate change Cabinet committee to co-ordinate all those actions across government to ensure that net-zero targets are met. The Environment Bill will build upon those strong foundations.

However, I want to suggest some ways in which we could take a few steps further. It is not just about government; it is not just about legislators and scientists and business. Tackling climate change is not just a spectator sport: we are all players on this pitch. Our personal choices every day make a real difference. One of those choices is how we choose to travel and it is in this area where I believe there is greater scope for us to do more through promoting the benefits of walking.

Here I am delighted to say that I have some interests to declare and put on the record, most notably that I am the founder, with my wife Xuelin, of the Walk for Peace Foundation. Together, we have walked 9,189 miles in 25 countries over the past eight years. I also have the enormous privilege to be walking ambassador for the great county of Northumberland. In this regard only—I hope—I might be accused of being somewhat of an extremist. However, choosing to walk has a number of benefits. It improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, reduces carbon emissions, reduces road casualties, reduces noise pollution, and improves social cohesion by creating safer places for more people. It is an aid to social mobility and the most inexpensive and accessible form of travel; it can often be the fastest way to travel on short journeys and it increases footfall on our high streets and in our local shopping areas.

The health benefits of walking are well proven. Long before the Chief Medical Officer encouraged us to walk 10 minutes a day, Hippocrates—2,500 years ago—declared that walking was “the best medicine”. It strengthens the heart, lowers blood sugar, boosts the body’s immune system, boosts energy, aids mental health, burns calories, eases joint pains, extends your life and improves your mood—none of which, I can safely say, can be said for car journeys. Yet, according to the National Travel Survey for England in 2018, car journeys account for 61% of travel journeys, while 27% of journeys are undertaken by walking, 5% by bus, 2% by rail, and 2% by cycling.

It is estimated that 44% of car trips are under two miles and could easily be undertaken by walking, yet the distance being walked is reducing, not increasing. In the mid-1980s, according to the National Travel Survey, the average person walked 244 miles per year; that has now fallen to 210 miles per year. Living Streets, which has done excellent work over many decades to promote walking, points out that, a generation ago, 70% of children walked to school—that figure is now less than 50%. We can all make a difference.

In her helpful letter to all Peers dated 15 October, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Theresa Villiers, stated that the Environment Bill and the 25-year environment plan,

“will enable us to take big steps towards delivering our goal that this is the first generation to leave the natural environment in better shape than we found it”.

This is a great prize to strive for, but can my noble friends the Ministers use their good offices to arrange for a meeting with the relevant Minister so that we can discuss how those big steps may be literal as well as metaphorical and how, together, we can better walk the talk in tackling climate change?

14:21

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, I am speaking in this debate because I wish to emphasise the importance of nuclear power in our national infrastructure strategy. If we are to meet our net zero greenhouse gas emission target by 2050, without the lights going out when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we will have to increase the fraction of power that we deliver with nuclear power by at least 30% .

The total power we will need in 2050 is estimated to be 85 gigawatts, meaning that we will have to increase our nuclear capability to 26 gigawatts despite the nuclear closures that are planned. It is interesting to note that the Chinese have established a long-term plan to build their nuclear capacity to a remarkable 550 gigawatts. However, their population is about 20 times ours, making their commitment similar to ours in terms of power per person; it is an admirable target from their point of view.

The major problem with nuclear cited by critics is the Hinkley Point strike price of £92 per megawatt hour, which compares unfavourably with the more recent £40 per megawatt hour agreed for offshore wind. However, more than 50% of the cost of Hinkley Point is financial cost because the interest rate being charged by those providing the money is an incredible 9%. This high interest rate was justified by the high-risk assessment for the project. However, this risk assessment is now out of date. It was made when no one had been able to get an EPR reactor of the type being built at Hinkley Point working. The first EPR, at Flamanville in France, was over budget and years late, and the one in Finland was in a similar situation. In the meantime, CGN—China General Nuclear Power Group—which is working with EDF at Hinkley Point, has got two of these reactors working in Taishan and commercially feeding power into the Chinese grid at record levels for any power station. This removes the risk that there might have been a fundamental problem with the EPR design. It is predicted that future reactors can be financed at a rate close to 4.5%. This is estimated to reduce the strike price to below £60 per megawatt hour. In order for this cost reduction to be realised, the Government should ensure that investment grade companies are set up to build future plants, perhaps using regulated asset base techniques.

The second point is that comparisons between the costs of wind and nuclear made on the basis of strike price are not valid. The distributed nature of wind means that the cost of delivering this energy to the grid will be higher for the wind generators; 1,000 huge 5-megawatt wind turbines will be needed to deliver the same power as Hinkley Point, assuming optimistically that they will deliver, on average, 40% of their gross capacity. Estimates for this increased cost are £25 to £30 per megawatt hour, raising the real price of offshore wind to about £60 per megawatt hour, which is about the same as for nuclear power.

Further flexibility in the deployment of nuclear would be provided by small modular reactors, something recent Governments have been dilly-dallying with for years. We should get on with this and take up some of the proposals that have been made, for example by Rolls-Royce. The situation with nuclear would be improved even further if we arranged to use efficiently the 40% of energy it produces in the form of distributed heat—local heat. After all, heat is the largest fraction of our energy use. Overall, this opens up the possibility that it may be better to increase the percentage of nuclear to above 30%, especially as people are concerned by the vastly greater areas of land needed for onshore wind or, indeed, for solar PV generation.

If we persist in using fossil fuel power to underpin renewables, there are alternative solutions to meeting the carbon targets, the obvious ones being carbon capture and storage, pumped water or weight-lifting or battery storage, but at present, these alternatives will struggle to reach the tens of gigawatt-hour storage levels needed to be effective at national energy levels. Development of these approaches should none the less be pursued as, of course, should the further development of wind and solar power as well as tidal power, as mentioned in earlier speeches. This is especially true because we are yet to experience what will be involved in maintaining these systems as they approach their lifetime limits. For example, it will be more than 15 years before we know what will be involved in keeping wind turbines operating in the harsh environment of the North Sea.

Finally, I have a comment on nuclear waste. We need rapidly to establish a geological storage facility to cope with the vast legacy waste that has haunted us since the 1960s and to store the smaller and more easily handled waste from the new reactors.

14:27

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I too welcome the maiden speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I also look forward to the maiden speech we are due to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

I was planning to deal with the environment and regulation, but I have junked the environment as there will be a Bill later on and we can deal it then.

For most of my time in government I was involved in regulation, be it food, farming, planning or regeneration. There were always lots of calls for less regulation but every time I asked for ideas on what we did not need, answer came there none. The balance of competency reviews between the UK and the EU in 2010 pushed by William Hague—all 38 of them—did not, as I recall, produce any less regulation. Now, a decade later, we have a Prime Minister determined to get rid of “burdensome regulation”. The fact that he told untruths about some of the regulations he complained about is neither here nor there.

His team is determined to cut “red tape”, as they call it. I will use just one example, from the Prime Minister’s right-hand man, the Leader of the House of Commons. He might present himself as a comedy toff but, in my view, he is in reality a hard-right bully. At the Treasury Select Committee in 2016, the now Leader of the House of Commons opined that standards that were good enough for India would be good enough for the UK after Brexit. I have never been to India but I have enormous respect for the world’s largest democracy. There are thousands of members of my professional institution, the Institution of Engineering and Technology, in India. I have looked at a couple of areas as comparative examples. ILO data tells us that, in India, 403,000 people die each year due to work-related problems; this amounts to 46 deaths per hour. Work-related deaths in GB, including where the public were involved, totalled 239 in 2018-19, which amounts to 0.027 per hour. India’s population is 20 times the size of Great Britain’s. So if Britain was same size, there would be one extra death every two hours. That is from an academic paper by MMK Sardana, whose abstract says that India should copy the UK, not the other way around.

I looked at deaths from fire accidents. According to information from the National Crime Records Bureau in India, in the four years 2010-14, 114,000 people lost their lives in fire accidents—that is 62 deaths per day—and two-thirds of them were female. In Great Britain in the same four years, the loss of life was 1,478, which amounts to one death a day. Scaled to Indian levels, that would be 20 per day. I have used these examples for a reason. In March 1974, in maiden speech in the Commons, I used the subject of industrial accidents as my theme. I had worked in engineering as both a safety officer and a production manager.

A third example is air pollution. Before the clean air Acts, black smoke emissions in the UK were up to 50 times higher than today. Not only did unregulated coal burning darken the skies but there were high death rates from respiratory diseases among the old and the very young. The effect of pollution in India today is comparable with that in Great Britain’s industrial cities in the late 19th century. I picked that up from a paper by Professor Tim Hatton at the University of Essex entitled, India’s Pollution Today is as Deadly as the Black Smog that Covered Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

India has room for improvement. There is massive work going on to legislate and improve the situation, and they use our Health and Safety Executive as an example in their papers of how we transformed our situation from myriad old-fashioned legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. So why should the UK follow India in these circumstances? I take what the people in the Cabinet, the bosses who are in the Government—

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Rooker]

No, I will not give way. I take what they say seriously; we have to. We clearly have a Cabinet of people akin to the factory owners of the past, who did not actually work in the factories that they owned, many of which were unsafe, but expected workers to make do and mend. Calling for such changes in deregulation, knowing the actual consequences, is the same as saying that extra Brexit deaths due to less red tape are worth having. I know that is a serious charge, but the reality is that we have to watch what happens with deregulation like a hawk. The Leader of the House of Commons appears to be advocating that standards in India are good enough for the UK after Brexit. I have given just a few examples of some of the consequences of adopting standards in India in the UK. To be honest, I would not be very comfortable with India’s standards in the UK.

14:32

[The Earl of Arran (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly about business in the community. Noble Lords could be forgiven for missing a small but highly significant event that took place on 15 March this year about 20 miles from my home in north Devon: the closure of Appledore shipyard. After a proud history spanning 400 years of shipbuilding in the estuaries of the rivers Taw and Torridge and 11 years of operation by Babcock International, closure was enforced because there was no commitment at that time for contracts from the Ministry of Defence. Until then, Babcock had delivered a steady pipeline of projects that delivered sections of many of our capital ships, including parts of the Queen Elizabeth carrier. The yard had employed 200 direct and around 200 indirect employees, and its reputation for quality gave it world renown. Quite simply, it was the bedrock of the local economy and the heart of the local community.

Since March there have been other yard closures, including Harland and Wolff and the Ferguson yard on the Clyde. Furthermore, Babcock Marine has further downsized its workforce at Rosyth in Fife. The combined effect has been to destabilise the capacity of the United Kingdom to build capital ships. The MoD had been pursuing a procurement policy that focused mainly on value for money. As a result, contracts for three support ships for our carrier fleet—each vessel being 40,000 tonnes, with a total contract value of £1 billion—were put out to international tender, with yards in the UK bidding in competition with yards in Italy, Spain, Japan and South Korea.

Following a review by Sir John Parker looking at our national shipbuilding strategy, the main findings of his recommendations have been adopted. The latest contract for the five Type 31 general purpose frigates has been awarded to a UK consortium led by Babcock. To reinforce the change in UK policy, Secretary of State Ben Wallace has also been appointed as shipbuilding tsar. However, is this too little and too late to save the marine industries of the south-west, of which Appledore was a vital and symbolic part?

The UK’s south coast marine cluster is this country’s leading marine industry hub, bringing together a rich marine history, hundreds of kilometres of coastline, world-renowned research industries, such as the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the UK Hydrographic Office in Taunton, and a large network of marine companies, supporting around 105,000 jobs and contributing around 8% of the total contribution from the UK’s marine and maritime sectors. The importance of the south-west marine assets cannot be underestimated or squandered. This is not just about nice beaches for tourists; they are part of our unique global assets, with the ability to lead on marine defence and manufacturing, including autonomous systems and offshore renewables, together with fishing and our aquaculture industry.

We now have some grounds for optimism that there may be a future for Appledore. In the past two weeks a prospective purchaser has been identified, with an order book from international sources. The attraction of Appledore is its reputation for high-quality workmanship. I commend the Government’s efforts to assist this transaction and, as a former Defence Minister in your Lordships’ House, I trust that the House will support those interventions. It would be a wonderful result if Appledore were to reopen. The smiles of joy and relief in the communities would be infectious. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that we have flirted dangerously close to compromising this whole industry. Let us hope that the debacle has opened our eyes to a new chance to make this one of our leading industrial sectors.

14:37

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, it is not easy to debate or even to discern the cumulative implications of the measures mentioned in the gracious Speech. Many serious measures that urgently require new legislation received no mention, while many of those that are mentioned are dealt with by gesturing towards indeterminate action. For example, and this has been widely discussed, nothing is said about housing, which is surely an urgent matter, or about ensuring that future elections and referenda are fair—again, an urgent matter. I have decided, perhaps rashly, to discuss the latter theme in today’s debate because I believe that the business models underlying certain uses of electoral campaigning are doing great damage.

The Government have repeatedly said that they regard the protection of elections and referenda as urgent. For example, on 9 May—this was only one of a number of Answers given by Ministers in that month —in reply to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the Minister stated:

“The Government are committed to protecting electoral and democratic processes from foreign interference into the future”,—[Official Report, 9/5/19; col. 1301.]


and then claimed that the Government are consulting, and that in the event of another referendum there would be time for legislation. Nothing has been done, however, and repeated questions have elicited no more definite answers. The bitterness and tremendous distrust that Brexit has produced will not be surmounted if democratic processes are widely believed to have been corrupted.

I hope that other, more knowledgeable noble Lords will speak on housing, but I will say a bit about what is needed if future elections are to earn the respect of the electorate; that is, even of those whose preferred outcome does not receive a majority of the votes. I decided to speak on it today, rather than in the debate on constitutional issues on Monday, because I believe that the dangers arise in very considerable part from the business models that currently support the distribution and targeting of online content with political aims.

Many who buy or supply targeted online content with political aims or effects are not regulated by and cannot be regulated by the Electoral Commission. Whereas campaigning expenditure by political parties during election and referendum campaigns is tightly regulated, campaigning expenditure by others—whether other political or commercial groups, foreign states or rich individuals—is unregulated. Moreover—this is the crucial matter—it is protected by a cloak of anonymity, despite the harm it can do to democratic process and, indeed, to democracy.

The harms that I am concerned about are not the well-known private harms based on the misuse and abuse of digital technologies, which are usually initiated by users of social media. There is a great deal of concern and expertise in your Lordships’ House about those harms and, in many ways, the report on online harms from the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport addresses them. They range across the many forms of online abuse familiar to us, from fraud to cyberbullying, extreme porn to defamation, and many others. I agree with other noble Lords that these harms can be very serious.

However, the online harms White Paper does not deal with the other harms—those which concern me today. These are public harms, in the economist’s sense of the term: harms that damage not individuals or individual interests but social institutions and processes—communication, culture, serious journalism and, above all, democracy. The phrase “disinformation campaigning”, which is new to me, is now being used to refer to these harms, and it is the subject of a very recent report by the Oxford Internet Institute, titled The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation—I wanted to say “disorder”. The report provides an inventory of the use of algorithms, automation and big data to shape, and indeed distort, public life. It comments on the tools, strategies and resources employed by those whom it refers to as global “cyber troops”, including state and corporate agencies, and sometimes rich individuals, that use covert means to shape and distort public opinion.

Social media are of course used, or perhaps I should say misused, in these disinformation campaigns, but they are the conduit not the source of the misuse. Those who use social media are not the customers of their service providers, since they do not pay money for the service they receive, but merely provide their data in order to receive it. For that reason, consumer protection legislation does not come into the picture. In return for doing this, content will be directed to them by their service providers at the behest of others, who remain anonymous. The service providers are focused on selling opportunities for their actual customers —those who purchase their services—to target their service users. It is that distinction between customers and users that is commercially different from other parts of the economy. That content might of course merely amount to advertisements, but it may consist of political and other messages, including disinformation. Targeted disinformation can damage democracy at its roots.

That recent report from the Oxford Internet Institute notes that the dangers to democracy are growing rapidly. We are all aware of a few past disinformation campaigns, such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, on which the Select Committee for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the other place did an excellent report some months ago. Many are also aware of some regrettable disinformation campaigning before the referendum, involving, for example, inaccurate claims about the cost of the UK’s membership of the EU and the imminence of Turkish accession and mass migration. However, this misleading campaigning was not, or at least not entirely, anonymous and, as is often pointed out, evidence for its effectiveness remains incomplete.

Since then, things have moved on and become more dangerous. The report estimates that organised social media manipulation has more than doubled since 2017 and that 70 states are now using computational propaganda to manipulate public opinion. It also notes that politicians and political parties in 45 democracies are using it. They are using these tools to, for example, amass fake followers, spread manipulated content and secure voter support. The report also notes that, in authoritarian states, government entities have used these methods of information control to suppress public opinion and press freedom, discredit criticism and oppositional voices, and drown out political dissent. It estimates that 25 states are working with private companies or strategic communications firms that provide computational propaganda as a service. It seems to me highly unlikely that democracy can survive—

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

I point out to the noble Baroness that the advisory speaking time is seven minutes.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, you see the dangers.

14:46

[Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all connected. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was principal of Newnham College when my daughter Jessica studied there. So I note with pleasure that the gracious Speech included a section on improving the environment for future generations. I know that my noble friend Lord Bird is developing a Bill specifically to consider future generations.

Experts say that the best response to the climate emergency would be to stop deforestation, in combination with reforestation and permaculture-based soil regeneration. Trees have existed on earth for much longer than us—for hundreds of millions of years—and each lives for about 1,000 years. Yet trees share similar traits with us. In his book The Hidden Life of Trees, Peter Wohlleben describes how, by living in woods together and linking through the fungal network, trees help their neighbours through sharing nutrients and information, rear their young and care for old and dying trees.

Trees are important in our own lives, too. They aid our physical, mental and social well-being and abate respiratory conditions by absorbing pollution. Studies have found that people living closer to green spaces are more active, have lower rates of obesity and heart disease, and engage less in criminal activity. If every household were provided with good access to quality green spaces, it could save £2.1 billion in healthcare costs. The overall cost to the economy of physical inactivity is £8.2 billion a year—an issue that trees, along with walking, could resolve. An Exeter University study found that 72% of participants noticed positive changes in their health when prescribed nature-assisted therapies.

Trees are responsible for cleaning our water, protecting our communities from floods, preventing drought and desertification, sequestering carbon into organic matter and fostering healthy soil. A study at the University of Manchester showed that a 10% increase in tree cover in urban areas resulted in a 4% drop in surface temperature. Even when dead, trees support life, with their decaying leaves and bark forming mulch that feeds millions of micro-organisms and keeps soil moist and healthy. Trees also power rural economies and create jobs, from tree surgery to fruit harvesting, landscaping and green waste management. Forestry in Scotland alone is a £1 billion sector employing 25,000 people.

Despite all this, last year in the Amazon rainforest half a billion trees were torn down, destroying crucial habitats for mammals, birds, insects, bacteria and fungi. To save the life of this planet and its human population from extinction, we must cure the growing ills of trees so that they can cure the growing ills of humanity. Here in the United Kingdom, it is our duty to help our native trees in their resistance to pests, diseases and deforestation, in return for the abundance of physical and mental health rewards they provide for us. But this must be part of a far greater and more ambitious plan for the United Kingdom to become a light to other nations and spread this maintenance of trees across the globe.

Good people who are already doing this need governmental support. TreeSisters is a women-led UK charity halting the destruction of forests throughout the tropics through empowering ethical reforestation. It hopes to increase global tree numbers over the next five years by 1 trillion, thus preserving the tropical band that cools the essential global weather cycle. Friends of the Earth wants to double tree cover in the UK, with far more ambitious government targets for replanting, alongside agricultural techniques such as silvopasture—the practice of integrating trees, forage, and the grazing of domesticated animals in a mutually beneficial way.

The Findhorn Foundation is a community of 500 people in the UK, who, as an example to be followed, support and live the vision of creating a better world, starting with love between themselves and respect and love for their land. The charity Trees for Cities addresses London’s poor air quality by enriching school grounds through tree planting and greening. Its Perivale Park woodland creation project will transform 18 hectares, helping to connect natural habitats, promote biodiversity, reduce the frequency and intensity of floods, and increase green corridors for wildlife.

So I ask the Minister to suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that they might support reforestation projects, regenerative agriculture and permaculture-based soil regeneration on a global scale; educate the public on the value of trees and offer to fund a scheme for every UK citizen to plant one native tree; increase public awareness of “green prescriptions”; heavily scrutinise deforestation projects such as HS2—the largest deforestation programme since World War I—and develop ecological and ethical principles to cover the post-Brexit gap with an environmental standards sanctioning body.

In healthcare, we are already evolving preventive holistic projects to prolong healthy life. This must now be our priority for the health of trees, and hence the longevity of Gaia. To rise to these challenges, I ask the Minister to meet with a group of experts and leaders in the field so that we can create a national and international plan for trees, and with the recently created Peers’ group Peers for the Planet, which is concerned about the climate crisis and threats to biodiversity and the environment globally. It is meeting in October and seeks action through your Lordships’ House.

If we in the UK act as I have suggested and share our experience with our friendly 54 countries in the Commonwealth, where one-third of humanity lives, we will have the power to save the trees and save our planet.

14:52

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, this year the UN’s report on biodiversity and ecosystems outlined that nature has been declining at the fastest rate in human history. In my lifetime, we have lost 41% of the wildlife species in this country. In the face of that ecological crisis and the climate crisis, the case for which has been made so strongly on our pavements over recent weeks by Extinction Rebellion and others, it is right that the gracious Speech refers to proposals that aim to improve our environment.

However, the fundamental question has to be, in the face of a Government so zealously championing free trade, whether that can be made a reality, because it is quite clear that our farmers will be used as a bargaining chip in the face of US demands that, in return for access to its banking and finance sectors, we will have to take its food, with its lower environmental, food and animal welfare standards. Let us not forget that America has growth hormones in its beef, pork and dairy production. There are no federal laws protecting the welfare of hens, and in most states sows are kept in stalls for their entire gestatory period—whereas we, who are members of the European Union, have the highest animal welfare and environmental standards in the world. If we allow in American food, we will be accepting lower standards, which will put our farmers at risk. Let us not forget that 70% of our countryside is farmed. If our farmers cannot have a sustainable future, there is no hope for us to protect our environment.

I listened very carefully to the response last night from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, when he was asked what had happened in the light of the fall of the Trade Bill and the welcome commitments that this House supported on animal welfare and the environment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my noble friend Lord Fox and others mentioned. In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave no guarantees that animal welfare and environmental protections would be kept in future trade deals. I listened carefully too to what the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, said in her opening remarks about free trade, where she committed to maintaining only consumer protections. She did not specifically mention animal welfare or environmental protections. So my fear is that we could face the bulldozing of our countryside in the face of an ideologically driven free-trade deal, which the Government seem hell-bent on pushing for.

There are things in the gracious Speech that I welcome. Like others, I welcome the commitment to the long-term targets. They have been a manifesto commitment and Liberal Democrat policy for many years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will be only too able to confirm, because she has listened, when we have shared platforms in the past, to me boring on about the subject. I am sure that we will not be bored by her today and I look forward to her future contributions in the House.

The question is: if we get these targets, how will we fund them? The JNCC has indicated that, in the last 20 years, funding for biodiversity has dropped by 42% as a percentage of GDP. Of course, local authorities have a critical role to play in protecting our biodiversity and adapting to climate change. There is nothing in the gracious Speech about tackling the problems in social care, yet social care is eating up the majority of local authority budgets, so I am not sure where the funding to protect the environment will be.

Similarly, how will it be enforced? We have heard about the office for environmental protection, but it seems that it will be insufficiently independent and it certainly will not have the teeth to hold the Government to account. It cannot fine the Government, which the existing EU institutions can—and that has played such an important role in bringing this Government, sometimes kicking and screaming, to protect our communities and our children in particular from air pollution. Looking at the Environment Bill, as I am sure other noble Lords have done, I see that there is a “get out of jail free” card. There is a commitment to include in the Bill the environmental principles that we have in Europe at the moment, such as the precautionary principles, but what gives effect to them has been hived off to a separate policy statement.

In the Bill itself, in Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 18, the “get out of jail free” card is the phrase about Ministers not being obliged to take, or being able to refrain from taking, any action if the environmental benefits would be disproportionate when compared with other factors. For me, that is a green light for major infrastructure projects. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, championed airport expansion in her opening remarks. That clause seems to be a green light for major infrastructure projects, where short-term economic advantage will be used to trump the long-term environmental protection that we need in this country.

So it seems that we have in the Queen’s Speech some commitment and some hopes that we might be able to protect the environment, but that we are not willing the means to deliver this. Therefore, to my mind the deal we have at present in the European Union is the best one for our country and for our environment. It cannot come too soon that we have a people’s vote.

14:58

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I am honoured to follow the noble Baroness, with whom I share a recently acquired—in my case—interest in fake ermine, and in many other animal welfare issues. I rise conscious that I have spent only a few days in this Chamber, yet already I have encountered great encouragement and kindness—something I will continue to rely on in the days ahead, as we face up to the stupendous chaos that is British politics.

That kindness is in spite of the fact that I am aware I am being looked at with some trepidation, arising from the knowledge that I am bringing into this House an unfamiliar kind of politics: the politics of Extinction Rebellion, of the anti-fracking stalwarts at Preston New Road and Misson Springs, and of the tree protection groups in my home city. I have been reminded of the words of a senior councillor in Sheffield who, when I invited him to join me in front of a tree-feller’s lorry in defiance of police orders, said: “You Greens are dangerous”, and scurried away. In introducing myself, I give noble Lords fair warning that we Greens are aiming to overturn the entire status quo. We want to radically transform our society, our economy, our environment and our politics. Yet I would argue—to borrow a phrase from the other side—there is no alternative.

Earlier, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, referring to the Government’s growth strategy, yet we Greens know that there cannot be infinite growth on a finite planet. That is not politics; it is physics. This new kind of politics is just what your Lordships’ House, the other place, the whole country, needs. Things will not continue as they are. We must build something new, different and much better.

I speak regularly in schools, colleges and universities, sometimes through the excellent organisation Speakers for Schools, which I commend to noble Lords. Often, I begin with an apology. On behalf of my generation—I am 53—I say to this new generation: “I am sorry. We have made a right mess of things”. But my focus is always on hope. Together, all of the generations, from the climate strikers to the oldest Member of this House, can together build something new: a far better society.

I must, early on, offer my profound thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for her support. I know that she will enjoy hearing that phrase in the Chamber after the lonely years she has spent here working incredibly hard as the sole Green representative. I also pay tribute to the Herculean labours of Caroline Lucas in the other place. My noble friend Lady Jones has set a standard that I hope to live up to, of using this Chamber and its processes to best effect while never getting too comfortable.

I address noble Lords today specifically about the agriculture Bill. My first degree is in agricultural science, and I continue to be fascinated by the amazing and still barely understood ecology of the soil on which all our lives depend. On other occasions, I will have cause to speak further on the subject of tardigrades and nematodes, mycelium and rhizobium, but you may be relieved to hear that I am not going to do any more soil science today.

I have not seen confirmation of whether the Government’s agriculture Bill will match their previous versions. I would be delighted if the Minister, when answering, could shed light on that. I suggest that three key things should be changed. The first is the provision of healthy food as a public good—earlier, the noble Baroness the Minister referred to the Government’s aims for farming, and food was not mentioned. Secondly, the Bill must ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty to act, rather than just the possibility of acting. Finally, the promotion of organic agriculture should be prioritised as the only form of agroecology that has a recognised system of registration.

Today, however, I will follow the tradition in telling noble Lords a little more about myself, and so will range back to the personal, which, as we feminists have long known, is intensely political. So that noble Lords do not have to sit there wondering, the accent comes from Australia. I am told that I am the second Australian-born woman to enter this Chamber, and I look forward to hearing the experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who was sitting opposite me earlier. Her accent has long graced this chamber, but that voice has far older antecedents. Noble Lords may not know that the first woman to speak in the other place, the suffragette Muriel Matters, who achieved that feat by chaining herself to the grille in the Ladies’ Gallery in 1908, was also Australian. At that time, my native land was known as “The Workingman’s Paradise”. It boasted the world’s first Labour Government, and it rivalled Finland as a leading place in global social progress. Today, Finland still proudly holds that place—for example, with a schooling system that provides an education for life, not just exams—while, sadly, Australia’s politics has deeply degraded.

My other political tradition is from Sheffield, or what was once known as the “People’s Republic of South Yorkshire”. Sheffield was home to the first women’s suffrage society in the UK, founded in 1842—yes, before London’s—and the adopted home of the socialist and gay rights campaigner Edward Carpenter. He was a Green before Greens had been invented. As proof, I offer the fact that he brought sandals to Britain, even making his own. Even earlier, Sheffield was home to the Chartist poet Mary Hutton, the wife of a pen-knife cutler, who wrote a poem entitled “On the Poor Laws’ Amendment Bill”, which spoke of the legislators and the great allowing the poor,

“To writhe with endless pain and misery”.

Noble Lords, particularly those on the Benches opposite me, might care to consider the continuation of that suffering today, two centuries later, and the parallels with the endless pain and misery of universal credit. I would like to think that it is uncontroversial to say that the duty of the Government is to alleviate the suffering of those most in need rather than to add to it. This is one reason why I have long been a champion of a universal basic income, something you will be hearing a lot more about from me.

But I am aware of the time, and so will leave you with one key point. We on this planet, and in this country, have enough resources for everybody to have a decent life, for the natural world to be restored and for the climate emergency to be tackled, if we share those resources out fairly. As the Green Party has long said, economic and environmental justice are indivisible. That is a mountain for all of us to climb. I hope that noble Lords will join me in that, because, to quote the American suffragette Susan B Anthony, “failure is not an option”.

15:07

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I am honoured to have this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on her spirited maiden speech and on the issues that she rightly highlights. We on these Benches are delighted to welcome another committed environmentalist to the House and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who has been the doughty sole representative of the Green Party, will be pleased to have the company of her party’s former leader, who did indeed keep up with the Joneses. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is known for her spirit and plain speaking, which I suspect were fostered in her early years in Australia and then in her career in international journalism, so I advise the Government to brace themselves. I am sure that the House wishes the noble Baroness, with her skills in journalism, local government, agriculture and the environment, a vigorous and impactful career in our House.

Turning to the gracious Speech, I declare an interest as chair of the Woodland Trust. The Prime Minister, very poetically, said this morning that the UK will have the best environmental performance in the world. If he is going to deliver that, he needs to do a bit better than this Queen’s Speech. The climate change and biodiversity emergency is real, so the Environment Bill needs to introduce legally binding targets for biodiversity as well as for air, water and waste, with real mechanisms for delivering and reporting on delivery.

The climate and biodiversity emergency means that the Environment Bill must also introduce legally binding targets for tree planting in this country. I commend every word of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Stone. Trees are the environmental version of the Swiss army penknife—other brands of multitool are of course available. Trees eat CO₂ for breakfast and foster biodiversity, as well as their many other environmental and health benefits, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stone. The Committee on Climate Change says that we will have to plant 50 million-plus trees a year in the UK for the next 12 years to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere and enable trees to play their full role in maintaining temperature rise below the globally dangerous 1.5 degrees.

However, the Government’s non-binding target for tree planting over the five years of the previous Parliament—do your Lordships remember when we used to have Parliaments that lasted five years? I do not think that we will have many of those in the near future—was for 11 million trees over five years. I am afraid that the Government failed to hit even that very low target. We all marvel at Ethiopia—we marvel at its veracity, if the truth were known—when it claims to have planted 350 million trees in a day. Now that is what I call ambition. Let us have an ambitious but realistic legally binding target for tree planting, for climate change and for biodiversity as part of a national tree strategy enshrined in law. This is an important issue as part of this crisis. I also commend to your Lordships the fact that on 30 November the Woodland Trust is holding a mass planting day as one step in the big climate change fightback. Thousands of people across the UK will plant millions of trees and I invite all your Lordships to join us, either online or in the mud, in this glorious joint endeavour.

The Environment Bill will also set up the office for environmental protection, to fill the yawning gap that would have been left in departing from the EU’s environmental compliance mechanisms. Zac Goldsmith, the Minister, said yesterday that the environment movement had asked for the new green watchdog to have teeth. Lo and behold, the Government have given us a great white shark. While I welcome the fact that the OEP will now cover climate change, if it is to be a genuine great white shark it needs to have the teeth of genuine independence and adequate resources. The Government’s track record in funding such bodies is not good. Over the last few years Natural England, as the current biodiversity regulator, has had successive cuts to the point where it risks being toothless.

There are other issues on which the Environment Bill fails to give statutory reassurance. Non-regression from EU environmental standards is incredibly important and I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that the hurly-burly of the trade negotiations will mean that the Government’s protestations on non-regression from those standards will simply disappear. That assurance should be on the face of the Environment Bill. If the Government are as genuine as they say they are about not lowering standards, what is the problem in putting that assurance into the Bill? Of course, in the background lurk the shadowy members of the ERG—the correlation between ERG membership and climate change-denying, free-trade prosecuting, deregulating and generally flat-earth beliefs is pretty positive. Indeed, if we look at the Americans’ first offer on a trade deal with us last December, the US was explicit that environmental standards would have to change. The trade Bill must keep faith with the Environment Bill, as those Bills go through, to make sure that the commitments in the Environment Bill do not disappear in the trade Bill negotiations.

The Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere—will no doubt say that I am an ungrateful doom-monger about the Environment Bill, so I must welcome one point. That is the commitment to legislate to require local authorities to consult their local communities before commencing street tree-felling programmes. I am sure that our maiden speaker will reflect glory on that at some stage.

I turn to the agriculture Bill, if we ever get one. This is our opportunity, as the only thing that gives a silver lining to Brexit is that, with wisdom, we could shape agriculture policy in a better way than has been possible for the last 45 years. However, we must not lose the valuable improvements that were made to the previous agriculture Bill in the other place; indeed, we must not lose the £3 billion of investment in agricultural support, for whatever purpose, that has been the case to date.

It is time now for something much more fundamental. We need a new land use strategy for this country—for England, as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have theirs. Those strategies are perfectly good; we could just score out the heading and write “England” on the top. There are so many competing pressures now on our land—for food, for trees, for climate change needs, for peatlands, for biodiversity, for housing and development and for infrastructure—that we need a national debate on what land is for and what uses should be directed where to make the most effective use of this precious natural resource, one that we are not making any more of. The foresight report that the Government sponsored 10 years ago took no account of the current biodiversity and climate change emergencies, so we need new strategic thinking. I put the Minister on notice that I will table amendments on the creation of a land use strategy when either the Environment Bill or the agriculture Bill proceed. He may decide which Bill he would prefer.

I could say more but I will not, because I have run out of time. However, I must confess that I got quite excited when I saw the number of Bills with environmental opportunities in the gracious Speech. They give the chance to tackle climate change and the biodiversity crisis. Then I remembered Boris, Brexit and an election and I realised that none of these Bills might get very far, so I got very gloomy again.

15:16

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to hear in the gracious Speech a reference to unlocking young people’s full potential. This reminded me of what we hear so often from businesses: that their most important asset is their people and the talents that they bring. Sadly though, even in 2019, not everyone gets a fair crack of the whip to demonstrate, develop and use their talents at work. My noble friend the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the Government’s commitment to opportunity for all, which I welcome. However, not everyone enjoys the equality of opportunity to make the most of what they have and go as far as they can. What many of those who experience inequality of opportunity have in common is that they also have protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Incredibly, almost 10 years since that Act was passed by your Lordships’ House, several protected characteristic groups are still excluded from contributing to business and our economy to their full potential.

In 2017, ethnic minorities had an employment gap of almost 13% compared to white workers; the gap for disabled people is still hovering at around 30%. Just recently, several Members in the other place called for greater protections for pregnant women and new parents in the workplace, highlighting inequality of opportunity to stay in or return to work. But it is not just about getting and keeping a job. Equality of opportunity also means having the equal opportunity to get on and for some, on merit, to get to the very top of their profession. I think that we can all agree that meritocracy is a principle that underpins a modern, successful economy and that an individual should be enabled to climb as far as their talents take them, not as far as others’ preconceptions and, in some cases, negative attitudes determine. Yet the situation with regards to career progression is arguably even worse than for recruitment. Unbelievably, in 2019, there are more CEOs in the FTSE 100 called Steve or Stephen than there are female CEOs or CEOs from an ethnic minority background.

It makes no sense for big businesses to limit their talent pool. Research demonstrates that nurturing a diverse workforce is not something “good” to be done at a cost to your bottom line; it is something that adds value to it. Indeed, the 30% Club has found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity in their executive teams are 21% more likely to experience above average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile. Credit Suisse ESG has established that firms with better LGBT inclusion have on average 3% higher performance and LGBT Great, which promotes LGBT equality in the investment and savings industry, found that 80% of all millennials—the future of our workforce—actively seek employers that visibly value diversity and inclusion.

Some businesses are embracing diversity as a business strategy, but there needs to be more consistency and transparency in how it is done. Government and the big business community need to send a clear signal that, together, they are committed to moving at pace and with purpose to secure equality of opportunity and to enable individuals to use their skills and talents to realise their potential. To their credit, the Government recognised this when they took bold action to remedy inequality of opportunity for women by introducing mandatory gender pay gap reporting in 2017. This positive and bold step was taken with considerable support from the business community. But, if equality of opportunity is to mean anything, and if we want to harness all the latent potential in our workforce for the economy, there must be equality of opportunity for all protected characteristic groups. There must be consistency in how business and government move towards equality of opportunity. Requiring the publication of workforce data—the baseline starting point—is an essential first step before we can make, or even measure, progress.

That is why my workforce information Bill requires companies with over 250 employees to report on data relating to pay, recruitment, career progression and a breakdown of their leadership at board level, across all protected characteristics. Monitoring progression is crucial not only because equality of opportunity does not stop at simply getting a job but because inequalities can cement themselves at the top of an organisation and trap the rest of it in a culture of exclusion.

I am delighted by the support that my Bill has already attracted, from Donna Miller at Enterprise Holdings, LGBT Great, PinkNews, my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, Fleur Bothwick at EY, Caroline Casey, founder of The Valuable 500, the pro-business movement to put disability on the agenda, and many others. Ultimately, it comes down to this simple question: either we believe in equality of opportunity or we do not. There is no halfway house. Businesses themselves, quite rightly, demand a level playing field for fair competition. The proposals in my Bill simply apply the same principle to the workforce.

My final point is this: given that my Bill came 59th in the ballot, I am not absolutely sure that it will complete all its stages in this Session, so I take this opportunity—through the good offices of my noble friend the Minister—to urge my party, as the party of opportunity and business, to commit in its manifesto to introducing mandatory workforce reporting as set out in my Bill. I am sure that other parties will want to consider doing the same.

15:25

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, just today, the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, wrote:

“A decade after the financial crisis, the warning lights are once again flashing on the global economy. Some of the causes of this are international—mounting trade wars are raising costs and undermining certainty”.


Just this month, the IFS published its green budget. A Library briefing refers to it, stating very clearly that,

“the global economic outlook has deteriorated due to developments in the Chinese economy and the ‘trade wars’ initiated by Donald Trump … The outlook for UK growth is likewise weaker, partly due to global trends but more importantly due to uncertainty surrounding Brexit. This uncertainty has been ‘especially damaging to business investment’ … ‘Whether—and if so how and when—the UK leaves the European Union will be perhaps the key determinant of growth over the next few years’”.

Today, just as this debate started, we heard about the major step that a deal has supposedly been agreed. Will it get through the House of Commons?

The briefing also says:

“The form of Brexit will also affect the path of government borrowing and debt … the IFS suggested that even a ‘smooth Brexit’ will lead to borrowing which exceeds the ‘fiscal rule’ of 2% of GDP. Under a no-deal scenario, even one it describes as ‘relatively orderly’, the IFS said that government debt would climb to almost 90% of national income for the first time since the 1960s”.


That is what is scary.

I was recently appointed vice-chairman of the CBI, which—along with business in general—was very pleased with the spending review announced by the Government in September. The CBI states:

“Business welcomed the focus on education and skills funding”.


However, overshadowing everything is Brexit. The CBI speaks for 190,000 businesses and states:

“The impact of no deal on business, the economy and UK prosperity will be enormous and must be avoided”,


at all costs. It goes on:

“Businesses can prepare for no deal but cannot be protected by the impacts they can’t anticipate or prepare for”.


The unknowns are unknown and I personally, from my business point of view, am terrified of the unknowns that a no-deal Brexit might bring. Business does not want no deal, Parliament does not want no deal and the country does not want a no-deal Brexit.

As for red tape, the CBI states:

“18 out of 23 sectors analysed in the CBI’s Smooth Operations report identified ongoing regulatory alignment with EU rules as critical to the UK’s future relationship with the EU”.


Fifty per cent of our trade is with the EU so, if we want to carry on doing business with it, we must have regulatory alignment. When she started the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, spoke about wanting a strong, secure and prosperous nation. We are totally behind her in that.

On taxation, the Library briefing states:

“The Government has previously announced that the main rate of corporation tax will reduce from 19% to 17% on 1 April 2020”.


In his concluding speech, can the Minister confirm that that will still happen because, as the briefing states, the former Chancellor,

“George Osborne, argued that corporation tax is ‘one of the most distortive and unproductive taxes’. He said that the cut would benefit over one million businesses”?

I presume that the current Government continue to agree with that. Leaving the European Union is no excuse for lowering taxes. We can do that anyway; we do not have to leave the European Union to do so. Ireland’s rate of corporation tax is 12%, which is far more competitive than ours.

In her excellent speech in yesterday’s debate on the gracious Speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made the point that,

“we export twice as much to Belgium as we do to India”.—[Official Report, 16/10/19; col. 128.]

As founding chairman of the UK India Business Council, I can say openly that, under the previous Prime Minister, our relationship with India was at its lowest. Now is an opportunity to rebuild that relationship, built by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Now, with Boris Johnson, I am sure that we will continue to rebuild it. I hope we will send a major delegation to India soon to make that point.

In total, the Commonwealth today, with over 50 countries, including India, makes up less than 10% of our trade, compared to 50% with the EU. We keep talking about doing a free trade deal with the US so quickly. It has just been announced that our whisky exported to the US will be taxed at 25%—before we even start any negotiations. The US representative said very clearly that even in negotiations on a free trade deal or trade agreement it will apply. They will make no exceptions. These trade agreements are really difficult.

The Government intend to roll over existing trade agreements we have through the EU, making up almost 17% of our trade on top of the 50% we have with the EU itself. Could the Government tell us how many of these will be automatically rolled over during the implementation period, let alone in future?

My noble friend Lord St John spoke eloquently about the environment and how technology is so important in meeting that 2050 net zero target. At the University of Birmingham, of which I am proud to be chancellor, we have now developed a model hydrogen train. It is that sort of technology that we need to be working on. It is great news that this country is ahead of the game. We have for the first time, in the last few months, used more energy in this country from renewable and non-conventional sources. That is fantastic; long may it continue. Coal, which used to be our main power-consuming source, is now at less than 5%. We are a model to the rest of the world.

When it comes to dealing with India, I congratulate the Government on bringing back the two-year post-graduation work visa for international students. Bravo! We have been fighting for that. I helped introduce it here in 2007-08. It was taken away by Theresa May in 2012. Seven years it has taken us, but we have got it back. The interest in India is already up by 50% in many universities, which is fantastic. The Government need to do more. Will they continue with the industrial strategy target of R&D at 2.4% of GDP? We have to do that: Germany is at 2.8%; the USA is at 2.8%; Israel is at 4%. Let us do it. Can the Government commit to that?

The Minister spoke about security. I have been banging on about the 20,000 more police officers; I thank the Government for bringing it back in. Sad statistics have just come out today that violent crime has continued to increase, so that is wonderful news.

Fishing was in the gracious Speech. The reality is that the EU wants access to our waters, and we will probably have to grant that because 75% of our fish is exported, the majority to the European Union. These are the realities.

I would go so far as to say that, if this deal goes through, we will go into a long implementation period. It may go on until 2020, for two more years or, as my noble friend Lord Macpherson said, for a decade. My noble friend Lord Kerr said that we have put the cart before the horse. This withdrawal agreement covers just three things: the rights of citizens—UK and EU—£39 billion and the Northern Ireland situation. The real work is still to come. The political declaration has all the agreements on space, security and movement of people that we have to negotiate in the years to come. Our priorities have to be preserving our union, our relationship with the EU and our global relationship with the US, China, Japan, India and the rest of the world. By the way, there was no mention of entrepreneurship in the gracious Speech. We must continue to be a champion of entrepreneurship; this country is wonderful at it.

I conclude with the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, who said in his article today:

“Britain is—and will always be—an open economy”.


We are a leading member of the G7 and the G20, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leading power in NATO. If we continue to have close alignment with the EU, wow, this country has a huge future.

15:33

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, much of which I agree with. However, I will focus more on climate change. In this context I very much welcome the advent of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to this House and approve of her speech, which accords with much of what I have to say.

The gracious Speech included precisely six words on climate change. The Minister had a few more this morning, but not many. Yet this is the biggest challenge facing us and, as the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has reminded us, we will not be on course for the next two periods of carbon budget. We have a lot to do. There are potentially things in this legislative programme that will help, but by no means enough.

We must remember that we have set a target for 2050, and there is some argument over whether that should be brought forward. Even if that is the target, it is how we approach it that is important—it is no use doing it in a straight line or backloading it. We need to take some drastic early steps if we are to reduce the concentration in our atmosphere of those dangerous gases.

The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister this morning announced that he was going to set up a new climate change committee. I think he—or Downing Street, given that he is rather busy elsewhere just now—may rather belatedly have found out that there was a bit of a reaction to the lack of reference to climate change in the legislative programme in the Queen’s Speech. Incidentally, I have argued elsewhere that this House should establish a new climate change committee, which would help hold the Government to account in this light.

The legislation on this is inadequate. There is, as has been pointed out, no transport Bill. Transport is a major emitter. There is no energy Bill, yet energy is a huge part of what we need to deal with. There is no housing Bill, yet the nature of buildings is very important. The bits which are proposed as serious contributions against climate change are not properly spelled out. I have tried to read the Environment Bill. I am not sure I understand it completely and certainly welcome the inclusion of the principles in it, but the structure it is proposing for the Office for Environmental Protection is unclear—its independence, powers, potential sanctions and relationship with existing organisations and other public bodies all need greater clarification as we take the Bill through this House. Frankly, it does not have the implied authority that the European Commission used to have in threatening Governments with fines and reputational damage were they to fail to meet the legislative requirements or targets of the European Union. This House needs to address that very seriously.

We are not quite sure what shape the agriculture Bill will be in when it reaches us. We hope it will resolve some of the uncertainty in the agricultural community and give us a strategic medium-term programme for agriculture. I see that it proposes abolishing the single farm payment. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will recall that I was partially responsible for bringing the single farm payment through this House during the reforms to the agricultural policy at that time. It was not brilliantly handled, one must say, but the principle of the single farm payment is that it applies to all agricultural land. As I understand it, the Bill proposes that there will be public good arrangements with farmers that will apply to pieces of land. However, it is no use having the best agricultural scheme for a quarter of your land if the other three-quarters are being farmed by plough, pesticides and fertilisers in an inappropriate way that damages our soil, air and water. There is something to be said for an all-agricultural land approach.

On the other legislation, I welcome the references to a building regulations Bill in relation to the post-Grenfell safety requirements, but with building regulations, you need to enforce them. The problem, as with other aspects of local government, is that the building regulations departments of most local authorities have been severely run down. If we are to improve safety regulations, we need to make sure that they are properly enforced, but improved building regulations also need to include regulations on energy and water saving. Energy efficiency is vital. Not having an energy Bill in this programme is a big gap. That Bill needs to step up the commitment to renewables and the nuclear programme if we are to meet our targets for emissions reductions. It also needs a major chapter on energy efficiency—in housing and elsewhere. That needs to be a central part of our national infrastructure strategy. At the moment it is only half there, if that.

Another vital decision on energy has yet to be taken. Domestic heating, mostly gas and partially oil, is a big cause of emissions in most of our homes. A decision needs to be taken on how we are going to switch that to a lower-carbon source, whether that is electrification, hydrogen, increased use of biogas or a mixture of those. That will mean the intrusion of government policy and industrial action into all our households that currently run on gas. That will mean taking consumers with you. It will mean taking workers in the industries with you. It will mean taking the public with you in what will be the biggest transformation of domestic heating—rather bigger than in my youth, when we had the introduction of North Sea gas.

Climate change is the issue of our time. We have spent a lot of time on the failure of statesmanship on Brexit—the failure of British and European politicians to resolve that complex issue. We have spent most of the past three years arguing about that. But a much bigger failure of statesmanship is the failure to tackle climate change. It is our fault: 85% of all emissions in all concentrations in the atmosphere have occurred during my lifetime; more shamefully, nearly half have happened since the Rio conference, when statesmen theoretically recognised the science and that something needed to be done. We are the generation that needs to change that, and we need to do so rapidly. We need to beef up this legislative programme as a contribution to doing so.

15:41

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I am always pleased to follow the noble Lord. I am pleased also to welcome the two maiden speeches in today’s debate. I will focus on a really quite narrow area. In some ways it follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about health and safety in the workplace. My focus is on agriculture and the food chain.

I welcome the fact that we shall see an agriculture Bill, although we do not know the exact form it will take, but in reading the briefing, I see that the Government are proposing support for,

“farmers and land managers to ensure a smooth and gradual transition away from the … Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to a system where farming efficiently and improving the environment go hand and hand”.

Of course that is to be welcomed, but I am particularly focused on the fact that it also says that the Government will champion British food,

“with a transparent and fair supply chain from farm to fork”,

and that they will also recognise producer organisations.

Many years ago, when I was an Agriculture Minister—and, I have to say, probably responsible for much of the regulation that still applies to the food sector today—one of the first things I did was to say at a conference that I thought that British food was the best, only to be told by officials that I was not allowed to say that. I carried on saying it. I notice several former Agriculture Ministers in the Chamber today, so I hope they will know where I am coming from on this.

I welcome the fact that we hear today that the Prime Minister has secured a deal. There are many steps to go, we know, but after three years that is to be welcomed. But regulation in the EU has been fraught. We have heard the myths of EU regulation as far as the food chain is concerned, and, to be honest, some of them are myths. Some of them, though, are quite deliberate ploys. I am not always sure that the general public really understand how the EU has worked, particularly when we are faced with new regulations. I remember having to defend the right of the British milk chocolate industry, of which we have many brand leaders, to continue to call its products milk chocolate when the EU tried to stop that because they did not contain a high enough percentage of cocoa solids. That was not just overregulation for the sake of it; it was down to raw competition. Sometimes, when other countries and other manufacturers saw that the UK had a lead in certain sectors, things would be brought forward which one had to defend against very robustly. It is true that there have been real problems with regulation in the food chain as far as the EU is concerned but, in the main, I believe that the EU-based regulation we currently have, which covers our whole food and production sector, is good. It protects not only the consumer but the wider interests of this country.

I am not really worried about having to sell our food products to the EU in the future because it will be like any other trade deal. If the people buying from you set the terms and conditions under which they wish to buy that product, it is a very simple commercial decision on the part of manufacturers: are you or are you not going to provide that product with that specification? It is something that goes on worldwide and has done for centuries. I think that, in practice, we will see that in the food chain manufacturers and processers will stick very closely to the rules that already exist in the EU, if only to protect the markets. There are other issues, such as taxes and tariffs, and of course the Government come into those areas as well.

However, I am very concerned about imports and the home-based market. I say this as a word of caution to my noble friends on the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, talked about getting rid of lots of red tape and regulation. If we were to take that sort of slash-and-burn approach to our existing regulations in the food chain, it would not only damage the home market but would, I believe, be an open door to imports which would potentially damage not only the consumer but the safety of this country.

I hope that I am not overexaggerating this but we all know, for example, that campylobacter and salmonella in eggs and poultry is a danger—it is not good either for the industry or for the human beings who end up consuming it. There have been warnings, particularly from the British Egg Industry Council, which has expressed concern about the importation of liquid and dried eggs. Of course, we rely too on the protection of brands, of both manufacturers and those established by supermarket chains in this country, which will almost certainly want to protect their consumers. However, that leaves open the whole big industry of catering, where very often the lack of labelling and information means that people do not know what they are eating.

In making sure that that regulation is maintained, I hope my noble friends will take into account the protection from animal and plant diseases that regulation affords; animal welfare, of which we have a very high standard—it is about time the European Union got rid of its veal crates like we did; environmental damage, which can also be caused; and of course the safety of consumers’ health. Nobody wants to see products on supermarket shelves or in our restaurants which lead to a situation where there are diseases that we all know have a dangerous effect. I am thinking in particular of things such as veterinary medicines, which we may not know are in products and which are retained in animal carcasses; at the moment, we have regulations that protect the food chain from that. I look to the Front Bench to give assurances on those sorts of things. Let us not have a bonfire of regulation; it is a bonfire of vanities.

15:48

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome the two maiden speakers today and say how much I enjoyed their contrasting styles. I look forward to more episodes.

I will speak about agriculture, and therefore I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register. This country is about to embark on a number of huge changes, one of which is to create the first British agricultural policy in 40 years, since we handed it over to the EU. As we all know, there will be a movement away from the current system of direct acreage-based payments towards support which is directed at environmental outcomes and productivity. That is welcome, but it is also fraught with danger for the small family farms which are in many places still the backbone of rural Britain, and with them, a threat to their communities and, even more so, to upland livestock farmers for whom the present level of direct support is the difference between loss and breaking even. Sadly, this major change is set to happen against an unfortunate political background: a Government in paralysis; prolonged uncertainty, which is crippling British business, including the agricultural industry; and an Opposition who, I have to say, are currently denying the electorate the chance to change its Government by denying an election. Trust and confidence in politicians of all parties and in both Houses is at pretty near rock bottom. When I gave my destination to the taxi driver who brought me here today, he said, without approval, “Oh yes. The House of the old remainers”.

The country urgently needs certainty, and the last thing the nation needs is any further delay—and definitely not of another six months for yet another referendum. I see from my telephone, which sent me a notification during this debate, that the President of the EU, Monsieur Juncker, appears to rule out any further extension. The country also needs a Government with the power to pass essential legislation and one whose priorities extend beyond short-term party-political advantage. It cannot be a good reason to refuse to give the public a chance to elect a new Parliament because you lack confidence that either your leader or your policies will win the support of the electorate.

Going back to the land, the danger of this new policy is that many of those small farms are the very ones which protect our iconic landscapes and the rarest habitats and their wildlife. The new system needs to recognise that what they do is for the public good, not just for agriculture or themselves, and that they are currently not supported by the market for the work which they do gratis. They should be supported under the new system, and I ask the Minister to confirm that that will be the case.

We also need legislation to reflect adequately the need for support for farmers to increase food production. We have heard a huge amount, rightly, about environmental protection in this debate, but every one of us needs food, not just the planting of trees and sowing of wildflower meadows, good though that is. The food and farming industry generates £108 billion a year, our food manufacturing industry employs 3.8 million people and its exports bring £21 billion into the UK economy. That is not small beer. We have to get this policy right and balance the competing priorities.

I have a wish list for the Minister when he comes to reply. I have often heard him say when asked a difficult question, “That’s beyond my pay grade”, and I suspect that he may say that to some of the questions I ask him. However, I have a number of red lines, some of which are very personal and some of which have been touched on by others in this debate.

First, any future arrangements with the EU on food and agricultural produce need to be tariff-free both ways. Secondly—others have mentioned this red line—non-EU nations must protect our standards, both on safety, as my noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned, and animal welfare, as was said by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Byford, and others. Thirdly, we will need the reintroduction of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, or our crops will rot, either in the ground or on it. We simply do not have the workforce for our harvests. Fourthly, we must change the rules on food labelling to both protect British produce and promote it. It simply cannot be right that a chicken that has been hatched, reared and dispatched somewhere with much less good welfare standards can undergo some minor processing here and then have a British label stamped on it. Consumers are increasingly concerned not just about where their food comes from but that it results from good animal welfare standards and practices.

In some respects, sadly, we are not world leaders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, said opening the debate; we are off the pace. This is my personal red line. In countries across the world, non-stun slaughter is already prohibited, including in parts of the EU. The British Veterinary Association is very clear that millions of farm animals are slaughtered here in a manner which causes unnecessary suffering. I recognise the cultural and religious sensitivities and applaud the Muslim population who, in many parts, have agreed to changes to what would have been the requirements. Indeed, the majority of halal meat is now pre-stunned. I would prefer a ban here but surely, at the very least, consumers who want to buy only pre-stunned meat should be able to identify it.

I am very disappointed that the new Environment Secretary, Theresa Villiers, who had hitherto an excellent record on animal welfare, apparently recently ruled out such labelling. I hope her view will change, especially in the light of the Government’s emphasis on the importance of animal welfare and the development of new stunning methods which appear to comply with religious requirements. If this Government are really serious about animal welfare, the millions of our farm animals destined for slaughter should be at the very top of the list.

15:56

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech contains many good proposals—26 Bills. Whether we get a chance to debate any of them in detail is something to look forward to. Unless the Government’s —and the country’s—finances are in order, none of them can be implemented effectively. I draw the Government’s attention to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, earlier. I too am concerned that we may be heading into a boom before another bust and, with our high levels of corporate debt, Britain will then be unable to fulfil many of the things that I believe it should.

As many noble Lords have said, climate change is at the top of the agenda. I sympathise with those who genuinely believe in the need to address climate change who are taking peaceful action. I cannot condone climbing on top of Underground trains, the deliberate destruction of buildings and property or preventing people getting to hospital. That does not do the cause any good at all. Furthermore, the mess that has been left behind for others to clear up is not a sign of anyone who is concerned about the environment.

My noble friend Lord Bates told us a lot about climate change, and the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, reminded us how little it takes for other countries around the world to undo any good we do. We are a bit player in a big world of climate change, and everything must be done on a global basis to have any effect.

I welcome the Environment Bill. I particularly welcome what was said about fly-tipping: that is a step forward. I also welcome the creation of the OEP, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called the great white shark. I agree with her: it needs more teeth. It needs to be independent from government and it needs to be independently financed, at least by more than one department—we said that in the NERC report, which my noble friend Lord Gardiner will remember. It must be able to hold the Government to account, and it must apply not just to central government but to local government and all government agencies.

The agriculture Bill is a huge opportunity for us, as we move away from the dreaded shackles of the CAP, but let us remember the context. The world needs to produce 60% more food by 2050, and only 10% of the Earth’s surface is suitable for agriculture. We are only 30 to 40 years away in this country from eroding soil fertility. Sixty-seven per cent of global fresh water is used for agriculture, and 80% of the world’s population will live in towns and cities by 2050. The rural world is a small minority and under great stress, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, just reminded us. Like her, I worry for rural areas.

In the false Prorogation period, I went to France and Spain and was saddened to see how much former agricultural land was now bare and unproductive and not managed, even for conservation. I wondered whether that could happen in this country. I hope that the agriculture Bill is a way forward. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gardiner agrees with me that rural land should be used for producing food and for conservation. The Allerton farm in Leicestershire is a very good example of how this is done. It is run by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. As I have said before, I recommend it as a template to the Government because it has 25 years of solid research to prove that this can be done. We do not want our farmers to become just environmental contractors.

Our diets are going to have to change markedly from the gross excesses of the current day. I look forward to the Dimbleby report and to starting again our committee on food poverty, health and environment. We need to know what new crops Britain can grow to meet that new diet and reduce obesity.

The productivity of farming needs to improve. Let us imagine a situation where the output of one acre could be equivalent to a current 80-acre farm: that it uses 70% less water than now and is pesticide free, with short and secure delivery lines. That is not hypothetical; it is being done three miles from here by a firm called Growing Underground, which is using controlled environmental agriculture. It is a huge success, a world leader and a template for the future. I hope the Government will encourage it, because it will be able to produce the salad crops and the sort of food that we will need in the new diets. It will also impinge on our rural farmers, who are currently growing those crops, but will not be able to competitively match the output. To think that we can have 60 harvests of one crop in a year rather than six—it is a whole new revolution. I know that Harper Adams University is doing a lot of research on this as well.

I turn briefly to two other points. One is the health implications of 5G for mobile phones. Why are local authorities refusing to have 5G masts up put on the pretence that there is a health problem? If there is a health problem, for goodness’ sake tell us about it, but 5G is the basis for getting better rural connectivity. If local authorities will not grant planning permission for masts, the Government are going to be stymied.

My second point is on rural crime. When we debated the rural economy last Tuesday, my noble friend Lord Gardiner said that he was about to go to farms to look at rural crime. What did he learn? Does he agree that crime is a really serious concern in rural areas? Moreover, the fear of crime is twice as much in rural areas as in urban areas.

16:03

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that the impact of Brexit on our economy, deal or no deal, is bad. It is because of this, we must strengthen our economy economically and socially to withstand the impact. Both are needed to unite our divided country and build a better future. I welcome some of the spending proposals to make up for the austerity cuts, but, as other noble Lords have said, they are gestures. On a per capita basis, only about one-third of the cuts will eventually be restored. That will do little to unite us and deal with growing public resentment at rising inequality and inadequate standards of living. That divides us more and more, and feeds growing populism and resentment.

The Minister was upbeat about the economy. Yes, there is record employment, but there is also record in-work poverty. As many economists have put it, the economic model is not working for us all. I see little in this Queen’s Speech that recognises this, but many in business and industry now do recognise it and seek to rectify it with so-called more responsible capitalism. Indeed, many in business are united with the Labour Party in this objective. This is why many no longer see the Conservatives as the party of business and industry.

Reports from abroad say that many do not recognise Britain for what it was. This weakens trust in our reliability and has an impact on our ability to trade and to make trading agreements. I agree with the Minister: we need to be a country that people want to trade with. I understand that the Government intend to roll over 40 continuity agreements that, through our EU membership, the UK has with 70 third countries. How is that progressing? Far more is at stake than just trade across the frontier with Ireland.

Will Parliament scrutinise these future trade agreements? As said in debates in this House, this is important because trade affects a broad swathe of public policies, such as consumers’ rights, workers’ rights, the environment, standards in food and health and especially public services. We want a level playing field with high standards not the race to the bottom that the PM promised an American audience.

In spite of what the Minister says, this weakening of trust in our reliability has affected inward investment. I mean the valuable investment that supports large parts of our business and industry, not the buying up of UK assets with cheap pounds. Proper inward investment has helped improve many parts of our economy with good productivity, skills training and management, and this against the overall picture of static pay and declining productivity painted by many other noble Lords.

Yes, the Prime Minister has spoken about productivity, but in very vague terms. We all know that it is the key to economic growth and a rising standard of living. Apart from infrastructure, I see little in the Queen’s Speech to encourage it. Cutting corporation tax does not seem to work. Experience shows us that in many cases it encourages only higher salaries and dividends and share buybacks. Financial markets are just not recycling dividends into productive new investment. The Government can play an important part in boosting investment and productivity if they just uphold their objectives laid out in Industrial Strategy.

Some question the way we measure productivity. However we measure it, our productivity is well short of where it should be. Instead of trying to explain that away, the Government should encourage us to change the way we run our businesses. Indeed, it is often clever accounting rather than real economic activity that is measured, and that creates resentment. Limiting levels of debt and dividends is a major concern of the IMF, and the regulator is trying to do that in the water industry. Why not extend it? It could have avoided the need to repatriate 160,000 Thomas Cook customers.

Many businesses are conscious of this and are trying to raise standards of behaviour through schemes such as Blueprint for Better Business and Be the Business. The British Standards Institution too has been hard at work devising a new standard that lays out many of the features of a well-run, responsible and trustworthy business and invites companies large and small to satisfy that standard. Not for the first time, I ask the Government: will they will support these initiatives and perhaps make this standard a condition of public procurement? I know that a number of local authorities are looking at this, and I believe it will be an important step in restoring fairness and public trust in our businesses and maintaining a level playing field. It will also be an important feature in making our economy more competitive by opening markets that are dominated by large companies to smaller and newer businesses.

Many noble Lords have spoken about climate change. The Governor of the Bank of England thinks that business must agree to rules of reporting it within the next couple of years. Otherwise, will they be imposed? Under the new Bill, will companies have to report on compliance with UK carbon budgets? Will it include emissions from shipping and aviation?

Brexit has already taken quite a toll, economically and socially, and more is to come. It will not be made up by economic promises; it will be done by engaging with the issues that make our economy work. Making the economy work for us all is an objective that is absent from the Queen’s Speech.

16:10

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my remarks this afternoon are based on those I was going to give the House in the debate last week on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on the rural economy. Thanks to the slippage in the timetable, I was unable to give them. I do not wish to comment on Brexit because, in an era of socioeconomic change in rural Britain and elsewhere, it is more or less irrelevant to discussion of the issues, although it may become relevant to the framework by which the policies that are developed may be implemented.

I declare an interest: I farm in Cumbria, in quite a big way by Cumbrian standards, but not compared to many other parts of England. I have a range of interests in the register. Specifically, I chair the Cumbria local enterprise partnership. Both Cumbria’s independently commissioned research and the CBI reckon that Cumbria is one of the places in England that will be most affected by Brexit.

As your Lordships know, the post-war countryside in this country is synonymous with farming and agriculture. That goes back to the policies that were delivered through the mechanisms of the Town and Country Planning Acts from the early post-war period. This was not the way it was historically, and I believe we are going to revert to something that is more similar to what went before, albeit in a different way. We can see this happening in the evolution of the common agricultural policy from the Mansholt plan to the MacSharry proposals and then the Fischler reforms. In the context of the Mansholt plan, which gave the CAP a bad name because of the wine lakes and grain mountains, we sometimes forget that people were starving to death in mainland Europe in the late 1940s.

The question to ask is: what is the countryside for? What is its point now? How does it fit in with the wishes, aspirations and framework of the wider body politic? If we think about it, it is needed for food, the protection of the environment and landscape, access, wilding and housing—both for a general increase in the amount needed in this country and in the context of finding housing in the countryside for the essential workers who make it what it is. There are questions of carbon capture, forestry, conservation, the protection of the cultural landscape—that is why the Lake District was recently made a world heritage site—energy, flood alleviation, soil protection and water. It is sometimes forgotten that most of the water used in Manchester comes from the Lake District. We do not get a penny piece for that. The countryside is also needed for business, but it will be a 21st-century business rather than a 19th-century business . All this will have to be reconfigured in this country in the context of wider international trade. We need new markets in this country, but how will they interrelate to state aid rules, et cetera? I am sure that in dealing with the European Union, were Brexit to go ahead, not having qualified majority voting might be rather a nasty shock.

Equally, we have to be clear about the different types of rural countryside. It seems to me that they can be divided into two groups. The first is what I might describe as—I hope that I do not upset people—“outer suburbia” and the second is “deep rural”, or l’Angleterre profonde, which is the kind of area that I come from.

The mantra “public money for public goods” sounds very attractive but it is worth remembering that, even in the days of area payments, which still survive to some extent, there was a need in recent years for cross-compliance. We are already moving down that road. How are we going to decide how much money is required —presumably, the more public goods you produce, the more money you get—and who will allocate it? A very substantial bureaucracy will be needed to deal with all of this. The idea that we can reduce bureaucracy in the countryside while trying to do the kind of things that have been talked about seems fanciful.

Speaking from the perspective of a LEP chairman, how will the shared prosperity fund be delivered? Will local enterprise partnerships have a role in agricultural support, as has been suggested? On the other hand, I believe that Defra is very much against that. This is important. These questions need to be answered because the process of sorting out how it will be done needs to be put in hand.

In the summer—I apologise for talking about my holiday reading—I read The Cornkister Days which is about farm towns in Aberdeenshire in the period after the First World War. What is interesting about that is that in those days money did not leave the rural economy. If you had a blacksmith-made plough and a couple of Clydesdales, the money went back into the area when they were replaced. Now, if you have a new combine, the money leaves the countryside. One thing that we need to do is to get money back into rural Britain. If we do that, we will start to address the kinds of things that cause problems, such as rural housing. We have managed—in a way, despite ourselves and despite our contempt for paysans—to turn a group of people in rural Britain more or less into what we derogatorily call “peasants”.

It is interesting that east Cumbria, which includes most of the Lake District, has a far less good record on productivity than west Cumbria. The conclusion I have reached about that is that productivity does not mention things such as the area’s contribution to the tourist industry and looking after the world heritage site. We need to redefine it to represent the realities of the 21st century. All this is going to need money and proper infrastructure. In bringing that about, I think we need to bear in mind the old Turkish story of Hodja’s donkey. Hodja had a donkey, he fed it well and it performed for him, but then he thought, “If I give it a bit less food, I’ll have a bit more money”. The less food he gave it, the more money he kept, until suddenly it died. There is a real risk that, in thinking about rural Britain, urban Britain will be not merely not very generous but positively stingy, and then the whole thing will collapse in on itself. In that context, the Government should look at again at concepts such as the CLA’s old idea of rural business units. We need to think of a rural business person: someone who is partly working on the land or doing some work of that sort but may also be working partly in a market town. We should treat them as a single taxable entity.

I believe that the resurrection of the agriculture Bill is a good step forward—it is good to see it—but we need to be clear that that is the easy bit, and the devil will lie in the detail.

16:18

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Queen’s Speech, which we are debating today, has been unprecedented in its vacuity. This gives us a licence to discuss what is not in the speech as much as the little that it does contain. I have ben pre-empted somewhat in what I intended to say by the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Broers. However, I am glad to be able to emphasise the message.

The Queen’s Speech has given scant recognition to the greatest issue of our times, which is the need to respond to climate change. It makes barely a mention of our strategy for power generation, which must respond to climate change while satisfying the domestic and industrial needs of the country. Without a vigorous programme for building nuclear power stations, there will be no possibility of meeting the net zero target for CO₂ emissions by 2050.

The real costs of nuclear power have been badly misrepresented. Invidious comparisons in terms of price per kilowatt hour have been made between the electricity from the new nuclear power stations and electricity from renewable sources, which is predominantly from wind power. When the intermittency of renewable power is taken into account, its real costs far exceed the quoted figures. If the proportion of electricity generated by renewable power exceeds a modest level, expensive back-up plant is called for, which ought to be included in the cost. The cost of building the Hinkley C nuclear power station embodies the cost of the first of a kind; it is estimated that the next example, which is to be built at Sizewell, will cost at least 20% less. First generation wind turbines were also burdened by similar start-up costs, and it is with them that a fair comparison should be made. However, a fundamental reason for the adverse costing of nuclear power originates in the economic nostrums of privatisation.

The proponents of privatisation have insisted that major infrastructure projects should be financed by private capital. The corollary of the high commercial rates of interest demanded by private capital is a severe discount rate that belittles the value of future benefits. The interest rate of 3.5% that is commonly used in government cost-benefit analysis implies that £100 received 20 years hence has a discounted present value of £50. However, if we apply a commercial rate of interest of 9%, that £100 has a present value of less than £18. In order to satisfy their short-term time preference and to indemnify themselves against risk, the private providers of capital demand an exorbitant rate of return. The risks are those of delays and cost overruns, and they include regulatory risks, which are a heterogeneous category of hazards arising from the tendency of Governments to change their minds.

When a commercial rate is applied to a programme to construct a large nuclear power station, its abundant future benefits are so heavily discounted relative to the costs entailed in its construction that its economic viability is called into question. We should not be adopting short-term commercial criteria when considering a nuclear project of which the benefits are expected to last for 50 years or more. The Government have failed to raise the necessary finance for building additional nuclear power stations from private sources. They judged that the terms available to them were too costly. Conversely, what they have offered to investors has seemed to them to be insufficient. The Government now propose to make their offers more attractive by reducing the risks that putative investors are liable to face. This is the purpose of the so-called regulated asset base methodology.

The intention is to indemnify lenders against the aforementioned risks. There are two effects. The first is that the capital funds are more likely to be forthcoming when the risks are alleviated. The second is that the rate of return demanded by lenders is liable to be lower when the risk premium has been factored out. Therefore, it will appear that the cost of a project under the regime of a regulated asset base is less than it would be under alternative arrangements, such as a contract for difference. This is an illusion. Any risks that materialise are liable to be borne by the Government or by the consumers of the electricity via higher prices. Moreover, the rate of return demanded by the lenders is still subject to their exorbitant short-term time preferences.

There is an obvious alternative recourse. It is to finance the project by direct government borrowing, which could be by the sale of designated infrastructure bonds. These bonds would bear a much lower rate of interest than commercial rates. The long construction periods that affect large nuclear reactors could be avoided by resorting to small modular reactors that can be constructed off site. These will require a period of development, but it is reasonable to propose that the Government should bear a large proportion of the associated costs. One might wonder why such a recourse has not been pursued.

One explanation lies in the fetish associated with the so-called net borrowing requirement of the Government, which successive Administrations have tried to hold in check. However, a distinction must be made between borrowing that is to service current expenditure and borrowing to finance investment in productive infrastructure. The latter should be no more subject to constraints than are the borrowings of manufacturing enterprises that are invested in plant and machinery.

We need urgently to invest in the nuclear power plants that will sustain our future prosperity as consumers and producers, and which will do so while allowing us to fulfil our commitment to staunch our emissions of carbon dioxide. Without plentiful electric power, we shall be unable to electrify our public, commercial and private transport; nor will we have the power to sustain the industrial recovery that must ensue if we are not to suffer severe impoverishment.

At present, the nation’s electricity generation is preponderantly in the hands of foreign owners. Moreover, unless we support our own nuclear industry, which is still capable of bringing a small modular rector into existence, our nuclear future will fall into the hands of the Chinese, who are currently participating largely in every viable British nuclear project.

16:25

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, among the many measures announced in the gracious Speech, I am especially pleased to see an Agriculture Bill. I refer noble Lords to my entry on the register. Agriculture and the wider rural economy will continue to have a serious role to play post Brexit and way beyond. A successful rural economy is vital for maintaining a living and working countryside. A successful living and working countryside is vital to attracting tourism, and tourism is vital to the rural community.

I welcome warmly the Government’s plans to reform UK agricultural policy and particularly the financial support, which must be continued after we leave the EU. I firmly believe that such support must be geared more towards the support of medium-sized and small farmers, rural communities and those who live and work in less favoured and upland areas. More emphasis must be placed on nurturing wildlife and the environment, forming the basis for a revitalisation of both for the future. In this context, I pay tribute to the work of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust.

Three weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Caithness and I visited the trust’s Allerton project in Leicestershire, at the invitation of the research project’s director, Dr Alastair Leake. We walked the farm, being shown beetle banks, specialised cover crops and headlands and areas of completed wilding, all of which produce cover and food around the year for both songbirds and game birds. We discussed the recovery of the populations of a variety of species through habitat support, winter feeding, predator control and changes to agricultural practices designed to conserve moisture and promote the health of soil structure while growing viable crops in an environmentally sustainable way. We were shown the results of minimum cultivation practices, with an improvement to both earthworm populations and organic improvements to soil and soil structures. The trust is a leading world expert in its field. It was a fascinating and valuable visit. While we were at Loddington, we were told that, through a pilot scheme with Natural England called “payment by results”, the trust has shown how giving farmers the freedom to manage their land for environmental good is both boosting local wildlife and motivating them to develop nature-friendly practices.

Game shooting and fishing plays an important part in the rural economy, often providing badly needed jobs and income in less favoured areas. Indeed, wildlife can prosper on well-managed shoots and fisheries. I am a firm believer that game produced by the shooting sports should go into the food chain; it is highly nutritious, low in cholesterol and fat, totally sustainable and delicious. I am enthused to learn that the supermarket chain Waitrose has announced that all game sold by it by the end of next year will be guaranteed lead-shot-free. It estimates that the resultant growth in sales of game meat will be considerably enhanced. Indeed, I had a meeting recently with the chairman of the Services Committee, together with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who is in his place, and members of the catering establishment of the Palace of Westminster. I learned that our catering outlets here have a policy that game products served must be free of toxic shot. I strongly support any initiative to move forward with lead-free ammunition for game shooting, as do many of my friends who take part in those activities. I doubt whether I will enhance my reputation as a champion of the shooting sports, but my plain view is that if we ourselves do not change our practices, we will have that imposed on us.

I am delighted to learn that the National Farmers’ Union, of which I am a member, broadly welcomes the Agriculture Bill, stating that,

“it presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance and promote British farming”.

There are two final matters I should like to touch on. First, the agricultural and horticultural industries rely very heavily on seasonal workers, as does the rural tourism industry. It is most important that UK farmers and producers continue to have access to the EU labour market, which may include the reintroduction of a seasonal workers scheme.

Secondly, we need to develop further a comprehensive food labelling policy and extend mandatory country of origin labelling to lightly processed meats and some dairy products. In this country, we produce superb artisan, regional and speciality food and drink products. We must enhance the promotion and protection of these iconic products to the very best of our ability, and provide the consumer with accurate, clear information. I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on the stunning of animals before slaughter; it is high time we took a route down that path. The consumer must be informed about whether the meat they are eating was killed in a pre-stunned manner or not. It is vital.

In conclusion, through the new agriculture Bill, Her Majesty’s Government need to establish a fully funded agricultural policy with support payments targeted at the farmers and producers who are providing the greatest public good, but who are not being rewarded for this by their market.

16:31

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular my involvement with the BioRISC initiative at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. I pay particular attention to his remarks and I thank him for raising the continued use of lead ammunition in this debate. As he indicated, he and I, with others, have been discussing this issue over some months. I have discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, and I know that he has an interest in this issue.

From my perspective, this is a simple issue. Lead is a poison. We ban it in many areas of our lives, but still use it in game shooting. The use of lead ammunition is partly banned and ought to be banned completely. There is compelling evidence that lead shot pollution damages extensively the environment in which it is used, poisoning wildlife that graze on it accidentally and poisoning meat served as food, posing dangers to the vulnerable, particularly our children.

The 2019 Great British Game Week, which begins on 25 November, aims to promote the Game to Eat campaign and I expect it will have a high profile in Parliament’s catering outlets. We have been reassured that no lead shot meat will be served in the House of Lords catering outlets, but we need to ensure that none is served in any of the catering outlets in the Palace of Westminster. Of course, we then need to address the question that if we are not prepared to eat lead shot meat because we know it is potentially poisonous, why do we allow other people, particularly children, to eat it? Following up on the noble Earl’s remarks, it is our intention to invite ammunition manufacturers to come to your Lordships’ House to brief us on the alternatives. It is my intention to invite the Minister to join us at that meeting. This could be done relatively simply.

In my remaining time, I want to concentrate on one point only: measures to stop invasive species coming into the UK through existing and potential new trading routes. This may seem rather a narrow point, but it is a significant issue. Invasive non-native species cost the UK an estimated £1.7 billion per year. Ash dieback alone is predicted to cost the UK £15 billion over the next 100 years, with about half of the cost—£7.5 billion—occurring in the coming decade.

Invasive species are the focus of an inquiry of the Environmental Audit Select Committee of the other place. The committee convened an evidence session at St Catharine’s College in Cambridge at which it took evidence from a wide range of experts. On another occasion, on 9 July, the Minister himself gave evidence to the Select Committee. The evidence-taking having concluded, the committee’s report is expected to be published soon. I think it will make some very stringent recommendations.

The adequacy of measures to stop invasive species entering via trading routes was raised with the Minister when he gave evidence to that committee. Caroline Lucas raised the specific question that I want to concentrate on: the degree to which the Government are prepared for the inevitable change in this threat that will occur as a result of their ambition to expand and open up new trading routes post Brexit.

This summer, an expert workshop held at Cambridge University identified changing trading patterns as one of the key risks to biosecurity in the UK. Under Brexit, we might reasonably expect novel pests and diseases to arrive through new trading patterns. For example, as a result, the UK might shift from being an overall recipient to an overall donor of tree pests and diseases into Europe.

Historically, the UK has received most invasive species after they have already established and spread through mainland Europe. Consequently, we have benefited greatly from engaging with our European partners to anticipate and to understand the likely risks posed by them, and from tried-and-tested management techniques developed first on the continent with the species before it gets here. That is about to change dramatically.

When questioned, the Minister revealed a commendable level of knowledge of this issue. He agreed with Caroline Lucas that an inspectorate dedicated to invasive species at the UK border ought to be considered and expressed sympathy with that consideration. Further, he said that it was something his department would be looking at in the spending review because,

“it is vital that we raise the bar on the considerations of invasive species”.

On 15 May, during a Brexit debate on plant and animal biosecurity, I asked what assessment the Government have made of our capacity to discharge this responsibility in a post-Brexit world, where we would have considerably more trade directly with countries such as China, the USA and the 53 diverse members of the Commonwealth. The informative answer I received at the conclusion of that debate was that we,

“will leave this well established and effective system and replicate it, as best we can, on our own”.—[Official Report, 15/5/19; cols. 1628.]

It appears from his evidence to the Select Committee that the Minister is in a position to give a better and more detailed answer on this issue. In addition to updating the House on his department’s deliberations in the context of the spending review, I should be obliged if he would respond to the following two additional questions. How well prepared is the UK for understanding and prioritising risks to biosecurity under changing trade patterns? How will the UK continue to engage with European partners in sharing information about emerging biological risks? These are essential and necessary questions.

16:38

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, numerous noble Lords have indicated that it is difficult to treat the gracious Speech as a serious programme of legislation. There is no doubt that a general election will come soon, so Her Majesty will have to start again. It is only fair to treat the content of the gracious Speech as part of the Government’s election manifesto, together with Boris Johnson’s speech to the Tory conference and the Chancellor’s financial statement.

As a Liberal Democrat, I am obviously glad that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are answering calls from all sides to loosen the purse strings. I welcome a number of the commitments made at the party conference and by the Chancellor, but his claim that the Tories are now the workers’ party cannot really be true until the damage done to the fabric of our services over the past 10 years is genuinely repaired.

I cannot agree with the Prime Minister that austerity is now over. Local councils have borne the brunt of austerity, with funding for local authorities cut back by 49% in real terms since 2010. These are the raw figures, but when we dig into the detail we can see where the impact has been. The impact on social care has been perhaps the most dramatic and, dare I say it, the most relevant to your Lordships’ House. Real-term spending started to fall in 2009 and has fallen by nearly 6% since. At the same time, demand is rising, with the number of people over the age of 65 in need of care increasing over 40% since 2010. We await with interest the Government’s proposals, but whatever they are, it is clear that they will not be enough to remedy the situation.

Other services have been hit as well. Libraries and youth centres have been decimated, and what about the unrepaired potholes? I will not intrude into the private grief of Tory colleagues over the effect of the benefits cap and the stuttering introduction of universal credit, other than to point out that food-bank use has increased by more than half in areas where universal credit has arrived. The Government are clearly aware of the impact of police cuts. Their commitment to increase police numbers will not restore us to where we were before austerity began.

We are where we are. The Prime Minister appears to promise jam today and jam tomorrow for everyone. He says that he will both cut taxes and spend more, which the Chancellor says that we can do by taking advantage of incredibly low interest rates. The Prime Minister is prepared to blow the Tory reputation for fiscal responsibility in order to tempt voters in the north to vote Tory. The effect on our borrowing will be dramatic. Last week the IFS predicted that government borrowing in 2020-21 would be £52.3 billion, over double the OBR forecast of £21 billion and higher than the Treasury limit of 2% of GDP, so he is competing with Jeremy Corbyn in financial profligacy.

However, whatever his financial profligacy, the Prime Minister cannot wish away two major problems. The first is productivity. Before the financial crisis of 2008, our productivity was growing by 2% per year. Since 2008, Britain has been outperformed by all other G7 countries except Italy. The most likely cause is lack of investment. It is no surprise that the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that business investment is 15% to 20% lower today than if Britain had voted to remain in the European Union.

The second issue is growth. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me repeat from these Benches that all independent forecasters predict that the UK growth rate will be significantly less outside the EU than if we stay in. Specifically, I highlight the report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, suggesting that gross domestic product is between 2.5% and 3%—between £55 billion and £66 billion below where it would have been without the vote on Brexit.

If Brexit is to happen, it is vital that we learn the lesson of where our growth might come from in a post-Brexit world. Clearly, the future for manufacturing is poor. The whole just-in-time manufacturing process will be damaged by the artificial borders created by Brexit. Growth is more likely to come from the leisure industry, particularly the TV and film production sector, which came to Britain’s rescue, enabling the economy to expand by 0.3% during the last quarter. This was not a one-hit wonder. Between 2010 and 2017, Britain’s creative industries grew by 53.1%, nearly twice as fast as the broader economy.

The creative industries also help on productivity, because their companies tend to be more productive, requiring more investment and training than equivalent-sized manufacturing businesses. Therefore I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, whatever happens with Brexit and bearing in mind their importance, the creative industries will be protected, particularly regarding the free movement of people to provide the talent necessary for those industries to thrive. Better still, let us have a referendum on the PM’s deal and vote to remain.

16:43

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty’s gracious Speech and, on day 3, I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing the Chamber, but first I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their excellent maiden speeches.

In the time allotted, I wish to focus on responding to the measures to improve agriculture, business and the environment, which I welcome. Supporting a successful rural economy is vital to maintain a vibrant living and working countryside, not only for farmers and land managers but for taxpayers and businesses large and small, who are all, in their own way, pioneering an environment in which all can prosper. I too welcome people visiting the countryside. It will be a better place than we inherited if we can make that countryside the best we can.

As Brexit comes even closer, minute by minute, my next comments regard the CAP. I am no defender of the CAP, which has created perverse incentives and reduced opportunities, and cutting out the layers upon layers of bureaucracy has to be the way forward. It will create a more dynamic and responsive culture, given the ever-changing demands from customers for more healthy foods. By releasing farmers from the rigidity and bureaucracy of the CAP, based now on public money for public goods, the new support system will reward farmers for environmental stewardship and help them become more productive, more sustainable and, of course, more successful.

Increasing investment in nature-based solutions to climate change is an immediate way of putting nature on the path to recovery. We must roll out large-scale native tree planting in appropriate locations that can deliver multiple benefits for carbon, wildlife, the environment and people, while the protection and enhancement of areas of ancient and semi-natural woodland must be prioritised. The burning of blanket bog must be banned, as well as the use of peat in horticulture. Funding for wetland and rewetting restoration must also be drastically increased. Landscapes such as wetlands, coastal habitats, salt-marshes and permanent grasslands must all be protected and restored. They sequester huge amounts of carbon while providing a home for numerous vulnerable species. I hope that the Environment Bill will encapsulate much of what I have said, and go a long way to ensure that we protect and preserve this planet for generations to come.

The Environment Bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to amend two pieces of legislation regarding the use of chemicals in the UK, under REACH 2008. This will allow us to take further steps, where necessary, to ensure a smooth transition to a UK chemicals regime following the UK’s exit from the EU. It will also make it possible to keep the legislation up to date and respond to emerging needs or ambitions for the effective management of chemicals—again, a positive step for the environment.

Secondly, here and now I speak for many who have waited so long for the introduction of measures to promote and protect animal welfare, and for the opportunity to increase maximum penalties from six months to five years. The reintroduction of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, to increase those maximum sentences for animal cruelty, improve the welfare of animals transported for slaughter and ban the import and export of trophies made from endangered animals, is to be welcomed. We are proud to already have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and aim to raise those standards even further. Again, post Brexit we must have in place strict import and export measures to maintain those high standards. We have to drive them up even further as the hallmark of a civilised society.

Thirdly, I will speak about businesses and business opportunities, particularly for the rural SMEs which, with support, can create those much-needed local jobs. With apprenticeships figuring highly as more businesses invest in their workforce, the number of people starting apprenticeships in agriculture has risen by 30% over the past five years. That is good news, as is more people being employed than ever before. Amid rural communities, there are many thriving businesses. For them, resilient digital connectivity is vital and they must not be forgotten as we continue to improve our digital infrastructure. It is also important to point out that, in supporting businesses, the Government have previously announced that the main rate of corporation tax will reduce from 19% to 17% on 1 April next year. I am sure that will be warmly received by all businesses.

I welcome the unveiling in the gracious Speech of the national infrastructure strategy, which promises to help us deliver world-class digital connectivity. High-speed broadband and mobile connectivity are essential services but they are nowhere near as available in rural areas as in urban areas, so I welcome the fund of £5 billion to roll them out to the hardest-to-reach 20% of the country so that no community is left behind. Full-fibre broadband will play a unique role in post-Brexit Britain, underpinning incredible advances in technology to unlock huge economic growth and transform our way of life, but we should not forget another important aspect of the internet: continuing to develop proposals to improve internet safety, making the UK the safest place to be online.

Finally, all the areas addressed in the debate are intertwined; they are the glue that binds together. Together, they give the impetus of the two Os: optimism and opportunity. This is about putting the needs of all our rural communities at the heart of government and in the 25-year environment plan. Those giant steps will help to deliver our goal to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than how we found it—and a more prosperous one.

16:50

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

A Darth Vader outfit? Lots of Lego? Unicorn pyjamas? Oh, I am sorry, my Lords—that is the wrong list. That is my eight year-old granddaughter’s Christmas list. Unlike the Prime Minister, she likes to do her negotiating early. Actually, my granddaughter’s Christmas wish list compares rather well with the Prime Minister’s because she has a much better chance of achieving her list. As a girl who has been brought up with a sensible understanding of family finances, she has at least had one eye on the affordability of promises, which is much more than can be said of the Prime Minister. If he still believes in Father Christmas to help him out, then the leader of the Opposition clearly still believes in the tooth fairy to pop some magic money under his pillow.

As many noble Lords have said, it may be difficult to take this list of Bills seriously but the topics that we have addressed in today’s debate are absolutely at the crux of the quality of our lives and our future. We have heard a wide range of excellent speeches and contributions; I congratulate the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate on their excellent maiden speeches.

If we focus on the economic and social costs of the climate emergency, and of mitigating the impact of environmental damage, we see immediately that our membership of the EU is fundamental. It strengthens our hand when there are problems to solve. We pool our knowledge and expertise. After all, pollution does not stop at national borders. Our manufacturers want to make goods to the highest environmental standards, which you invariably find in EU regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, the CBI discovered that 18 of the 21 sectors it identified want regulatory alignment with the EU. Our EU membership is precious for maintaining our environmental standards, just as it is for maintaining our prosperity.

Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Kramer, have emphasised that we are already paying the economic price for Brexit. Others have pointed out that, in this week’s race for a deal, it is usually not mentioned that this is the beginning of the process, with years of negotiation ahead; the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, identified that period as a decade. This week, the Centre for European Reform reported that Brexit has already cost our economy £70 billion. That is £440 million a week, well ahead of the Prime Minister’s mythical £350 million for the NHS. As my noble friend Lord Razzall pointed out, our economy is already 3% smaller than it would have been if there were no plans to leave the EU.

In recent evenings my television watching has been ruined by dire government adverts warning that I need to prepare for Brexit which do not actually tell me how to do so, so I read the Government’s No-Deal Readiness Report with interest. It is salutary reading. I advise noble Lords to have a look at it if they have not already. It points out how many stages we would have to go through in future if we do not have facilitated free trade with the EU. Whatever decisions are made in the House of Commons this Saturday, this document is a useful reminder that it is much more complex to trade beyond the EU and without EU systems in place. The National Audit Office pointed out this week that only 25,000 out of a potential 250,000 businesses are fully prepared for Brexit.

The Minister called our transport systems the “lifeblood” that carries our economy. The success of our economy rests on the efficiency of our transport system. Although there are measures in the Queen’s Speech which we certainly support in principle, it does not provide the transport revolution we need. For fundamental change, we need a far longer-term approach to investment in sustainable transport. The idea of a national infrastructure strategy is sensible, but it was immediately undermined when the Chancellor announced £22 billion for road improvements and less than 4% of that figure for buses.

We need a public transport revolution that puts the passenger and the environment at its heart. We must invest to provide a fair deal for long-suffering commuters. We need to create a public transport system that tempts them out of their cars. Liberal Democrats would change the balance of spending on transport, spending much more on buses and trains. As my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out, we would have more money to invest because we, in government, would not face the costs of Brexit.

The Queen’s Speech completely overlooks bus services. Not only are they the most popular form of public transport—60% of all public transport journeys are made by bus, 4.4 billion journeys a year—but they tend to be used by the most vulnerable in society: the young, older people and poorer people. We are on the brink of an environmental transformation of bus services akin to the rapid revolution in energy sources that has occurred in the last decade. The electric bus has arrived, but government support is vital because, ironically, bus services have been declining in Britain as our roads become more and more congested.

The problem is that cash-strapped local authorities need additional funding to ensure that newer buses are used in their area, reduce fares and provide concessionary fares, particularly for young people. The way bus funding is distributed at the moment needs reform. It does not do the job it should. It needs reform to subsidise environmental improvements as well as the communities that have been most undermined by the decline of bus services.

I was very pleased to see the Williams Rail Review referred to in the Queen’s Speech. It is certainly needed. We have positive suggestions to make to the review on how we can retain a heavily reformed franchising system, which could include, for instance, co-operatives and employee and passenger representatives on the board. Unlike the Labour Party, we do not believe that it is a good idea to spend £196 billion on renationalisation, not least because the Department for Transport has hardly demonstrated its effectiveness in recent years.

We need to invest in a massive programme of electrification, which is the only sensible future for our railways. Commuter services outside London and the south-east are very patchy. We need a big expansion to improve existing services by reopening old lines and building new ones. Moreover, local authorities need to be far more involved in designing, supporting and running local services. We need legislation to ensure that integrated ticketing and the creation of proper transport hubs make for a really efficient system. It is a disappointment that that was not included.

The shadow hanging over HS2 was certainly not lifted by the reference to it in the Queen’s Speech. We see it as a vital spine running up the country, linking planned east-west services and fundamental to the regeneration of the north. Costs must be controlled, but not by truncating the route.

Finally, I want to mention the gap between the Government’s rhetoric on air quality and their lack of ambition. As Liberal Democrats, we have a comprehensive action plan of measures involving government, local authorities and individual action. It is needed to clean up the air that our children and grandchildren breathe. This can be done now and it can be done urgently. We need to create a greater sense of ambition about the improvements needed to do this.

We will continue to use every opportunity to act to stop Brexit. Our economy needs trade with the EU, our environment needs the standards it sets, and the workforce and families of Britain need the rights it has given them.

17:01

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate which has ranged far and wide. It is right that it should do so, because it is an opportunity to reflect on where we are, where we have come from and where we might be going—although the timescales are rather difficult to read, as many noble Lords have said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her clear and concise introduction, which got us off to a good start, and I thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness for their excellent maiden speeches. I think that we all picked up that they were coming from slightly different places, in different tones, but both presaged contributions to come that we all look forward to hearing.

Today we have been dealing with a small subgroup of Bills that are contained in the gracious Speech that was given earlier this week. I am not going to go through them one by one. My noble friend Lady Jones highlighted a number of points, particularly in her field of expertise, and I will turn to points relating mainly to the trade and BEIS briefs as I reach the end of my remarks. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, will respond to all the various points that have been raised in his usual courteous and effective way. He will make sure that no one is left out in any way, and letters will surely follow. We should look forward to them—the noble Lord writes well. I am particularly looking forward to his response, which I hope will be verbal and immediate, to the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, who gibed a little bit but I am sure had a serious point about HS2, which of course is the favourite infrastructure project of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. I see that the noble Lord smiles.

A number of noble Lords questioned whether this assemblage of Bills was more than just a party political broadcast or a manifesto rather than a programme for government. Well, that is a bit of a daft question since I have never known any Queen’s Speech that has not been an advertisement for the Government in charge and an opportunity to fly the flag for the future, and this is no different in any way. What is interesting is why it is so short. Looking back over the past few years, we have had virtually no ordinary work to do. In my experience, we normally deal with around 30 Bills a year—so about 90 Bills are stacking up somewhere. Where are they? What exactly has been going on?

I presume that it is the pressure of Brexit and preparing the secondary legislation for it that has squeezed the supply chain, but I do not think that we should complain about the relative paucity of the Bills before us. We should be asking what is happening to the rest of the stuff. Indeed, that point did come out in the debate. Many noble Lords have pointed out gaps that could and perhaps should have been filled by legislation relating to housing, energy, transport, the rural economy, productivity in particular, and regulatory issues. Are there more to come? Perhaps the Minister can respond, as there seems to be a bit of a black hole here.

The Bills in the list have deficiencies. Most of them appear to be around environmental issues arising from day to day, but others have come up in other debates, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to come on to those points.

We are in a rather odd situation, where we have the prospect of a Government who may continue for considerably longer than many people expect—but even if they do not, they will have a good go at it—and we will have to consider these Bills in due time and with due process. We should not be complaining about that but should focus hard on what they are and what they would do to the overall polity of our country.

I will start with points made by a number of noble Lords about broadband. The Bill that is being brought forward from DCMS is rather skeletal. It simply says in the notes:

“New legislation will help accelerate the delivery of fast, reliable and secure broadband networks to millions of homes”.


The Chief Whip, who is in his place, will recall endless discussions about what level we should set for the new USO under recent legislation—the Digital Economy Act and others. I think he will also acknowledge that this side of the House was strong on the idea that we should go for a gigabit economy. I am pleased to see that the Bill is now moving in that way as well.

“Roll out gigabit-capable broadband across the UK to achieve nationwide coverage as soon as possible so people can reap the huge benefits of the fastest, most secure and most resilient internet connections, regardless of where they live”,


is, I think, a quote from one of my speeches. It also has two good points that came up in the Bill which we should have resolved but did not: the question of access to blocks of flats where there are difficulties in identifying freeholders, and ensuring that new homes will be built with reliable and fast internet connection speeds available to those who wish to have them. These are good things. However, it is not entirely clear where we are on this; it sounds a bit like a briefing for a Bill to be considered in Committee rather than a Bill to be brought forward in Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister when he comes to respond can give us a bit more information about the timetable, because, as many noble Lords have said, this is an important area.

We touched on the question of the Online Harms White Paper in an Urgent Question earlier, so I will not go into that in detail. I wanted to make a point then, but there was not time to do so, so I would be grateful for a response from the Government at some point on this. It may be the right thing to do to move forward in relation to the new thinking about the duty of care, and it may be that that will provide an overall solution that is better. However, there will no doubt be a gap between the aspiration for stopping the flow of pornography to those who should not be receiving it and making sure that suitable regulation is in place.

However, the particular problem I wanted to ask about is the question of the regulator. The brief we have on the Queen’s Speech does not say how the Bill will be shaped, because in essence it will be a pre-legislative scrutiny arrangement. But a key element in the Bill will be the question of the regulator. If it is thought that the regulation will be left until such time as the Bill has been through its pre-legislation structure, we are talking about three years before a Bill is likely to be appointed. Given the reaction to the Government’s announcement yesterday, in the House today and more broadly in the wider world, this is probably too long. Will the Minister consider this again and bring it back for further consideration? It would be possible to begin the process of setting up a regulator at least in parallel with if not in advance of the full legislation, and indeed there is a regulator sitting there waiting that could be adopted for that: Ofcom. I am sure that further thinking about this is necessary, and I would be happy to participate if that would be helpful.

On employment and BEIS-related issues, I was pleased to see the allocation of tips Bill. I do not think there is anything more to be said about that. It is a good thing; it has been an outstanding issue that should have been addressed a long time ago, and I and pleased that it is happening. The territorial extent of it is interesting. The Bill extends and applies to England, Wales and Scotland, while employment law is a reserved matter for Scotland and Wales but is devolved to Northern Ireland. Could the Minister give us a bit more information about how the Government will make sure that this applies to all UK citizens? I say that in the particular knowledge that on the island of Ireland it has just been agreed in the Republic that a similar Bill should be brought forward—so we will have a situation in Ireland where the only part of the British Isles that is not covered by this legislation will be the Northern Ireland territory, which seems a little unreasonable.

A Bill is listed for national security and investment legislation. That is rather coded, but it would strengthen the existing power of the Government to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions—in other words, takeovers and mergers—to protect national security. I leave the Minister with three questions, which may be beyond the brief that he has been given but I should be interested in his response in writing. This is a more complicated area than the Bill would suggest.

We are in the midst of a revolution led by a Member of our House, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, at the CMA, affecting the regulatory structure for mergers and acquisitions. The proposal, which I think has been accepted by the Government, is that the CMA will allow the consumer a stronger role in any decisions affecting mergers and takeovers. It seems to me that the current situation—where we have a mix of statutory legislation, legislation related to listings on the Stock Exchange and other considerations, such as national interest powers which can be used at the discretion of Ministers—needs to be brought together. Is this the Bill within which that could be done?

That goes some way to answer the points made earlier by the noble Baroness about broader regulatory issues, because the whole regulatory framework, particularly if it is tied to changes to the auditing framework, which are also taking place, may require a more considered view before final legislation is brought forward. Otherwise, we are in danger of spawning more and more regulatory initiatives without thinking about the wider implications of them all coming together. I agree with her point.

I have only two more things I wish to raise. One is employment reform. I am concerned about the way in which BEIS is making proposals to bring into statute the recommendations of Good Work¸ the Matthew Taylor review of modern working practices. From this side, we have for some time been trying to find out from the Government exactly how far they are prepared to go on this report, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond positively on this. They continue to say that the vast majority of the Taylor recommendations will be introduced through legislation, but the legislative proposals do not deliver that. There is a gap. The narrow point here is the long-standing issue of the difference between employees and workers. It is an easy thing to say but we need to think it through very carefully, because it lies at the heart of a lot of concerns about the gig economy and how we treat people fairly in employment.

The Government say that they are contemplating the single largest shift in employment status since the Employment Rights Act 1996. If that is the case, they should definitely be thinking hard about the present arrangements. We have two forms of employment status and two forms of taxation status, which I shall come to in a minute. Employees have superior rights and protections, including on dismissal and sick pay; workers have limited rights, including on the national or minimum living wage and working time protections. Not all workers are employees, but all employees are workers. The definitions are created by case law, not by statute, and their shape changes as formulated by judges, who have adapted the tests over the years. Recently, we have had cases involving Uber and Addison Lee which have materially changed the way in which employment rights are applied.

Taylor recommended that those employment statuses should be in legislation. Do the Government agree and will they do that? If so, will they also look at continuity of employment, because there are real problems in the gig economy around whether people are in continuous employment—something which could be sorted by statutory change? There is also the question of unfair dismissal, on which we have a different view from most of Europe. What about the taxation differences between who is an employee and who is not? All those things need to be picked up.

Finally, there is the trade Bill. I see the former Trade Minister in her place, and I am sure she will join me in saying that she is a bit disappointed by the Government’s approach to reintroducing what looks like the original trade Bill. Or is it? As I read it, one thing is different in the current one. A particular issue about data movement is not in the Bill included in the Queen’s Speech notes. That may be a simple mistake, and perhaps we can have some clarification on that.

The main point is that the Bill went through your Lordships’ House and arrived at the end of that process with, I think, 30 or 34 amendments. Quite a lot of these were government amendments. What is happening to them? Will they be reintroduced, or will the Government have to bring them back for discussion? There are a number of quite substantial issues relating to future trade arrangements. These are obviously highly contingent on what is decided on Brexit and may not be as imminent as necessary.

There was a very strong feeling in this House that what was originally based on a no-deal scenario, and only a transition Bill, had to be amended in order to provide a genuine way in which this Parliament would get involved in trade. It is not clear from the document and the narrative that we have been provided with for the Queen’s Speech whether this trade Bill will be taken in the same vein as the previous one, or whether any new amendments will be put in to reflect the changes made by the noble Baroness when she was Minister. If not, are the Government really ready to start again on a process which will end up in a document not dissimilar to that which was agreed by this House in March 2019?

17:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to conclude today’s debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. First, I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Vere for opening the debate so comprehensively and with panache. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this diverse debate on critical issues. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that we have discussed some of the most critical issues, not only for this country but across the world. So many important points have been raised today. The generous noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has already raised this. I fear I will not be in a position to respond to every question put by every noble Lord. I do promise that there will be a substantial letter with a detailed response. Your Lordships should be prepared for many pages. I want to ensure that points are covered fully either with my reply or with the letter.

From the outset I acknowledge and congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on their maiden speeches. They raised issues of profound importance and I look forward to their future contributions. I think it is fair to say that discussions on all the matters the noble Baronesses raise will be lively.

On economic affairs, I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley said in comparison with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, opened with. Our view is that the fundamentals of the UK economy are strong. The measures in the Queen’s Speech are built on economic progress over the last decade, a period during which our economy has grown by almost one-fifth and 3.6 million more people are in work. I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Redfern referred to the rural economy, where so many small and medium enterprises are established.

Wage growth has outstripped inflation for over a year and unemployment is down by 1.2 million since 2010. Youth unemployment has fallen by 47% and borrowing has been cut by over four-fifths as a share of GDP since 2010. I acknowledge, and in acknowledging I look at noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, that success would not have been possible if we had not taken difficult decisions from 2010. I believe it was in the national interest and responsibility that the public finances were restored. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, was probably very much in the front line of some of those thoughts.

I picked up the words on austerity from a number of noble Lords. I think of the noble Lord, Lord Darling, then Chancellor, recognising that there had to be a retrenchment. When we cut through all this, the piece of legislation the Labour Government passed in 2010 was a recognition that matters had to be taken in hand. I am particularly mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, said about fiscal caution.

I also think we are right to begin a new decade of investment and renewal. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe set that out strongly. When I look at noble Lords on the Labour Benches, I do not dream for one minute that this is associated with them, but I and the Government would say that the current views of the present Labour leadership do not seem to chime with enterprise, private ownership or, indeed, success. I am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said on these matters. It is, after all, that economic engine that will always do all the things that noble Lords across the House have sought today.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for raising the tips Bill. I am afraid I do not have the answer on Northern Ireland yet, but that will be part of my letter.

On the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised about fiscal rules, the 2019 spending round continues to meet existing fiscal targets. The Government will review the rules alongside updated forecasts at the Budget.

On the question about regulation from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, financial services will not see diluted regulation. We remain committed to world-leading regulation standards. Furthermore, the UK remains committed to equivalence with the EU in any scenario. But as my noble friend Lord Leigh said, it is essential that our regulation is reformed and responds to changes in the market to make sure that there is an appropriate balance—I emphasise “appropriate”—between investor freedoms and protections. Indeed, I understand that my noble friend is due to meet the Economic Secretary to the Treasury shortly, and I am sure some of those points will be outlined.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned that there was nothing in the financial services Bill on fintech. The Government already launched the fintech sector strategy in March 2018 to show how the UK could remain the best place in the world for fintech. All announcements in that strategy have already been delivered. The UK has been independently ranked as the best place in the world to start a fintech business.

I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was in his place at the time, but he and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, take contrary views on corporation tax cuts. The rate of corporation tax has been cut from 28% in 2010 to 19% now—the lowest in the G20—benefiting businesses large and small, we believe. I am afraid these are the words I must say: as normal, the Chancellor will set out the rates for all major taxes at the Budget, now due in November.

A number of your Lordships—particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Parminter and Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend Lady Browning —asked about standards and future trade agreements. Any future trade agreements must work for consumers, farmers, businesses and the UK. We will not water down our standards on food safety, animal welfare or environmental protection as part of any future deals. Yes, we want to negotiate an ambitious and comprehensive free trade deal with the United States, but any new products wishing to enter the UK market must comply with our high standards on animal welfare and food safety, for instance. We will not—I underline not—compromise on these standards. Indeed, WTO rules allow WTO members to adopt and maintain trade-restrictive measures on specified public policy grounds.

The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson, asked about the trade Bill. Again, final decisions are still to be taken, but I have these words: we welcome your Lordships’ work and it will certainly be taken into account. Legislation will ensure that we deliver certainty to business, seek continuity of existing EU trade agreements and establish an independent trade remedies authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned productivity. Funding of the national productivity investment fund has increased from £23 billion to £37 billion. We are determined to tackle the, I think, serious issue that this great country does not have the strongest productivity figures, and I believe it should. We need to work on that.

I turn to business and energy. Climate change is one of the most urgent and pressing challenges we face, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I say to your Lordships’ walking legend, my noble friend Lord Bates, that he is right—as we sometimes should be prepared to say—in speaking of our country’s strong record on these matters, even when we need to do much more. It is fair and right that this Government wish to deliver their ambition to be the greenest Government ever. We also need to ensure that economic and environmental success go hand in hand. That is surely the major challenge.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I have very little time; if I take this intervention, I cannot answer any questions.

[Lord Bilimoria]

I am sorry. I apologise. I need to make a correction to the House. In my speech, I said that energy from renewable sources over the last three months was more than from conventional, but that was only for electricity. Electricity makes up only 18% of our energy, so we still have a lot to do. This was pointed out by a professor at Cambridge University.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will cover the Environment Bill in more detail, but it is important, in signifying the bona fides of the Government, that today the Prime Minister announced that he will chair a new Cabinet committee on climate change. This will drive further action across government to protect our environment, reduce emissions and improve air quality, and it shows the importance of climate change to this Government. We clearly need to do a great deal on this, although I am going to cut in here to applaud the tree speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stone. We need more detail on this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, raised National Tree Week—23 November to 1 December. I am going to plant some trees, and I am sure every noble Lord here will too.

I move on quickly to broadband. My noble friends Lady Byford and Lady Redfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised this and the importance of digital connectivity everywhere. As the Rural Affairs Minister, I stress its importance in the countryside. The Chancellor has already announced that £5 billion will be spent on gigabit connectivity to underpin the outside-in approach. I am also pleased with our ambition on mobile for the majority of the population to have access to a 5G signal by 2027, with much more coming in to improve the situation in rural areas. I will write more fully on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned our carbon budgets. We outperformed our first and second carbon budgets. We are on track to exceed the third. The latest projections suggest that we are on track to deliver over 90% of our required performance for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, but that is before taking into account many of the measures and proposals of our green growth strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a point about the industrial strategy. The industrial strategy is a cross-government programme focusing on strengthening the foundations of productivity, encouraging innovation, supporting UK businesses and fostering growth in all parts of the United Kingdom. I am again speaking as the Rural Affairs Minister; the shared rural prosperity fund means across the nation. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Bilimoria, that we need to invest more in science and research. The UK has an ambition to spend 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027 and 3% in the longer term. This autumn, the Government will set out plans to boost significantly public R&D funding, providing greater certainty for our great scientific community.

Nuclear was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Broers. We are working to deliver an ambitious energy White Paper that addresses the transformation of the energy system, consistent with delivering net zero emissions. The Government continue to believe that nuclear has an important role. Our commitment to it has been clearly demonstrated by giving the go-ahead for the first new nuclear power station in a generation at Hinkley Point. We have the largest installed offshore wind capacity in the world, and annual support for renewables will be over £10 billion by 2021. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, referred to hydrogen. We are investing up to £108 million in hydrogen innovation.

My noble friend Lord Arran spoke of the Appledore shipyard and UK shipbuilding. He made a very powerful speech and I appreciate all that he said about the closure. I hope that there is a positive story on this matter. As has been said, the Prime Minister has appointed the Defence Secretary as the new shipbuilding tsar. He will be tasked with looking at how a longer-term skill base can be achieved, and this will ensure that British shipyards can compete fairly across all UK contracts. I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising that.

Transport is clearly the lifeblood of our economy. We wish to invest record sums in our railways and start the vital process of modernising our airspace. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the Oakervee review on HS2 is under way.

I would like to say very much more on ultra-low emission vehicles. The Road to Zero strategy sets out a clear pathway to zero emissions. We are working extremely hard and are investing £3.5 billion to reduce transport emissions, improve air quality and protect wildlife and habitats.

Having spoken to my noble friend Lady Vere, I know that she will be delighted to facilitate a meeting for my noble friend Lord Bates with Chris Heaton-Harris at the Department for Transport to discuss the issues raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke about cycling and walking. Almost £2 billion is being invested through the cycling and walking investment strategy. My noble friend Lord Bates does not appear to need any of that sum.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke about buses and I want to talk in particular about electric buses. The Government recognise that electric buses play a hugely important part in decarbonisation and in bringing about improvements in air quality. Since 2015, the Government have provided £90 million of funding for electric buses, and on 30 September this year we announced £220 million for a bus package.

I do not want to be remiss on agriculture and the environment. A great deal is promised in the legislation, with a commitment to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental risks to public health. All our efforts are guided by our pledge to bequeath a better natural inheritance than was left to us, bound by our commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, is absolutely right: we aspire to be a global leader, and indeed, when I go around many countries, it is clear to me that on climate change we are deemed to be such.

There were many questions on the Environment Bill. The first was from my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young of Old Scone. The OEP will be operationally independent from government. It will be governed by non-executive members appointed through a regulated public appointments process. Ministers will not be able to set its programme of activity or improperly influence its decisions. The office will come into effect from January 2021, subject to the passage of the Environment Bill. The new independent office will ensure that when we leave the EU, its environmental standards will be upheld and improved. On resources and funding, the Secretary of State is required under the Bill to provide sufficient funding to enable the office to perform its function. On the non-regressive clause to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred, we have no intention of weakening our current environmental protections.

I am not going to forget the importance of my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Caithness, their visit to Allerton and the important research and practical work that we need to do in working with land managers. My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked what we thought the countryside was for. It is for the production of clean air; clean and plentiful water; thriving plants and wildlife; protection from and mitigation of environmental hazards; beauty, heritage and engagement; mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would want me to say—very good food.

I also want to outline the importance of planting trees. Yes, I will, of course, arrange a meeting with the Minister and the tree champion for the noble Lord, Lord Stone. The tree strategy, which is so important, is coming forward. We need to work on tree pests; we have invested £37 million on tree health.

My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke about health issues. The chief executive of Public Health England has written to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee on this issue. Overall exposure is expected to remain low and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health. My noble friend Lord Caithness is absolutely right about rural crime, and my visits to farms just last week show not only the seriousness but the fearfulness of it.

On agriculture and fisheries, we need to work extremely effectively. On the agriculture Bill, a number of points have been raised. We plan to make a number of improvements to the Bill, including making clear the importance of food production. That reflects carefully on the scrutiny in the other place and, I am sure, the scrutiny there would have been in your Lordships’ House as well.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is not in his place, so I think I will write to him fully on what we are doing in Wales, but we are working very effectively with the devolved Administrations on that.

So far as support for farmers is concerned—and I declare my own interest—it is very clear that we need to work particularly hard and effectively with farmers to ensure stability and certainty. That is why any projects we are funding that we have agreed before the end of 2020 will be funded for their full lifetime. Of course, as we said, we will retain the cash funds for the lifetime of this Parliament. I will write to my noble friends on labelling.

My noble friends Lady Byford, Lady Browning and Lord Caithness raised the food strategy. Henry Dimbleby is leading an independent review on this; a final report will be published in the summer of 2020 and a government White Paper will follow six months later. It is very important work. On food safety—again raised by my noble friend Lady Browning—I must be allowed, if the Chief Whip will ever speak to me again, to say again that this is really important. All food safety and public health import requirements will be maintained after exit. This is absolutely essential. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, spoke about plant security and biosecurity. Again, it is important that we have allocated resources to recruit additional inspectors. There are already more than 107 extra APHA inspectors, for instance. Invasive species are also my responsibility. The new Invasive and Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 is going to be a very important tool for us. On trophy hunting, I am also pleased to say that we will be consulting to restrict further the import and export of hunting trophies. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about electoral campaigning. I must write to her on that.

At this point, I would have liked to have said many kind things to many noble Lords. I will ensure that the points raised by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin are answered. There is much more that I can write about and that is exactly what I will do. I apologise to the Chief Whip that I spoke for so long, but surely your Lordships’ contributions deserve that.

Debate adjourned until Monday 21 October.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019: Section 3(5)

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

17:40

Moved by

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

That this House takes note of the Report pursuant to section 3(5) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was laid before this House on Monday 14 October.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, on 9 October reports were published providing an update on progress on executive formation, the transparency of political donations, higher education and a Derry university, the presumption of non-prosecution, Troubles prosecution guidance and the abortion law review. Today’s report is a further update, in line with the obligations under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.

First, I take the opportunity to welcome the inclusion in the Queen’s Speech of the Bill on historical institutional abuse. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to get that Bill passed so that we can begin to see redress for the victims in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland have gone for over 1,000 days without an Executive and Assembly. While efforts are being made to bring the parties back into that Executive, the current period for executive formation expires on Monday 21 October.

With regard to the obligations set out in the executive formation Act, should no Executive be formed before 21 October, this Government will be under a statutory duty to change the law in Northern Ireland on access to abortion services, same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships and to introduce a new victims’ payment scheme. While every effort is being made to restore an Executive, appropriate steps are being taken to ensure that the Government will meet our obligations under the executive formation Act. In furtherance of that, an awareness campaign was launched last week to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland know how these changes to the law may affect them. Further information will continue to be provided in the coming weeks.

In the absence of a restored Assembly and Executive, the Northern Ireland Office has taken steps to ensure that the Government will fulfil our obligations on abortion. As part of the information campaign, on 7 October my department, working closely with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, published guidance for healthcare professionals to provide clarity over the new state of the law and their duties and responsibilities. The guidance sets out the changes in law in this area from 22 October 2019 until a new regulatory framework is in place by the end of March 2020.

The immediate changes from 22 October, if the duty comes into effect, will be the repeal of Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in Northern Ireland, meaning that no criminal charges can be brought under that Act against females who have an abortion or against qualified—I stress “qualified” —healthcare professionals or others who provide or assist in an abortion. There will also be a moratorium on current and future criminal investigations and prosecutions in this area.

The Government will introduce a new legal framework for abortion to come into force by 31 March 2020. It is worth noting that during this interim period, from 22 October 2019 until the new legal framework is in place, all other relevant laws relating to the termination of pregnancy will remain in place. This includes Section 25(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which makes it a criminal offence for anyone “in good faith” to assist or wilfully act to,

“destroy the life of a child then capable of being born alive”,

except where the purpose is to preserve the life of the mother.

From 22 October, women resident in Northern Ireland can continue to access services in England and will now have all of the costs of the procedure, including their travel and, where needed, accommodation costs, met by the UK Government. Healthcare professionals will be lawfully able to refer patients to services in England by providing the details of the central booking service or directing them to information available on the GOV.UK website.

It is anticipated that access to abortion services will not be routinely available in Northern Ireland until the new legal framework is in place by 31 March 2020. The guidance notes that if healthcare professionals choose to offer an abortion service to women during the interim period within the bounds of the relevant laws, they should do so in line with their professional competence and guidance from their professional body.

The guidance that we have issued also notes the state of play relating to conscientious objection, and what to do in cases where patients have purchased abortion pills online. Copies of that guidance will be lodged in the Library, and I am happy to provide further information or any updated versions as we go forward. To be clear, we will take forward all the work necessary to implement the new regulations by 31 March 2020.

In addition to changing the law on access to abortion services if the Northern Ireland Executive are not restored by 21 October, Parliament has an obligation to extend same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships to Northern Ireland by 13 January 2020, and to introduce a system of victims’ payments by the end of January 2020, to be in force by the end of May 2020. I beg to move.

17:45

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I am sure the House is already aware that the necessary signatures have now been collected to recall the Northern Ireland Assembly on Monday. I hope I am not being premature, but I look forward to that. I think it will bring about changes in which this House should not dabble. The issues that the Minister has laid out before us today are all matters for the devolved Assembly. It is regrettable that that has not been observed and that the civil convention and all other conventions, including the much-heralded Belfast agreement, have all been kicked aside and ignored on this occasion. Hopefully, we will see some movement on this issue on Monday, now that the necessary signatures are in place to call the Assembly.

However, if the Northern Ireland Assembly is not restored on Monday, the legal framework that will obtain on Tuesday is one that no self-respecting jurisdiction could entertain for a single day, let alone five months. Why on earth would anyone remove one law five months before the new law is ready to take its place? It beggars belief. It is unnecessary and, in this case, downright dangerous. If the Assembly is not restored on Monday—hopefully it will be—and if Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is repealed, the only remaining abortion-specific statute in place will be Section 25 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 1945, which engages only with the last stage of pregnancy.

From Tuesday, if the Assembly is not restored, abortion will become legal for absolutely any reason whatever—including gender—until between 21 and 28 weeks’ gestation depending on when a child is capable of being born alive. This means that until this point the unborn child in Northern Ireland—uniquely in the United Kingdom—will have no legal protection whatever. On Tuesday, in Northern Ireland, an unborn dog subject to research at seven weeks’ gestation will have more rights in law than an unborn human being at 20 weeks’ gestation, thanks to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

As a jurisdiction that has taken pride in the fact that the decision it made in 1967 means that 100,000 people are alive today who would otherwise not be, this is traumatic to say the least. It amounts to divesting us of an important part of our culture, our heritage and our people. If that was not enough, the legislation places the safety of Northern Ireland women in jeopardy in a way that, strangely, parliamentarians have not deemed appropriate for any other part of the UK. Repealing Section 58 without bothering to put anything in its place for five months is mind-boggling to say the least and has serious implications. Of course, the Government have sought to dismiss this in the report before us today by suggesting that the NHS will not significantly change how it deals with abortion until 31 March next year and that in the interim women should travel to England.

On that point, I pause to ask the Minister a rather important question—important to me, anyway. Who will pay for this travel? Who will pay for these abortions from 22 October? Will the bill be met from the Northern Ireland block grant or will it be paid by the UK Government? I look forward to hearing his reply.

This focus on the NHS does not change the fact that on 22 October it will become legal for anyone to provide an abortion in Northern Ireland, surgical or medical, until the point a child is capable of being born alive. It is not only the NHS that could provide abortions. On 22 October the door will be open wide for private abortion clinics. In this regard, I can cite an expert legal opinion from Ian Wise QC, who specialises in health and welfare legislation. He writes:

“It is important to recognise that because the 1967 Act does not apply to Northern Ireland and as there are currently no abortion clinics there, the detailed regulatory provisions governing abortion clinics in England and Wales are not in place in Northern Ireland. It is possible the regulations introduced on 31 March 2020 might address this, but that would not change the fact that between 22 October 2019 and 31 March 2020 it will be legal for private clinics to operate in Northern Ireland without the same level of protections for pregnant women currently in place in England and Wales. Important safeguards are for example found in Regulation 20 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 which contains ‘Requirements relating to the termination of pregnancies’. Among these requirements is the obligation to ensure that two medical opinions are provided before an abortion is carried out, a restriction on terminations after the twentieth week of gestation and the requirement for detailed records of terminations to be kept. The absence of these requirements in Northern Ireland leads me to the view that there is a real possibility that the safeguards currently deemed necessary in England and Wales will not be in place in Northern Ireland in the likely event that abortion clinics are opened there, at least between 22 October 2019 and 31 March 2020. Whereas this lacuna would have ordinarily been expected to have been addressed by the devolved Stormont Assembly, in the absence of a functioning Assembly there is a danger that important safeguards for women seeking abortions are not put in place”.


The legislation relevant to the conduct of private clinics, the Independent Health Care Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, does not mention abortion and has no regulatory impact in any event if at least one medical professional is also employed by the NHS. In England, by contrast, where the safety of women is taken seriously, a clinic can provide abortions only if the Secretary of State has granted an abortion clinic licence and both the clinic and the procedure are regulated. Comparatively, however, the women of Northern Ireland will be much more exposed between 22 October and 31 March 2020. Of course, I do not know whether any clinics will open and, if they do, how many will, but I do know, first, that the women of Northern Ireland should not be exposed to the potential for significantly fewer protections than the women of England and, secondly, that that this should be a legal potential from Tuesday constitutes nothing less than a failure of governance.

Far more dramatically, of course, the repeal of Section 58 means that the provision of abortion becomes legal in any context, not just in the context of a private clinic but in all other potential contexts. There is absolutely no regulation in place whatever. This means that it will be possible to provide abortions in any context between 22 October 2019 and 31 March 2020. Thus, extraordinarily, backstreet abortions, with all the attendant safety concerns for women, will be de facto legal. The latest LucidTalk opinion poll of Northern Ireland adults shows that 60% of people are concerned about the safety implications of unregulated abortion for one day, never mind five months. Fewer than 30% disagree.

I noted with interest that during the equivalent debate yesterday in another place, when challenged about back-street abortions, the Minister, the honourable Member for Worcester said:

“Concerns have been raised about supposed backstreet abortions. We should be very clear that repealing criminal offences specifically relating to procuring abortion does not repeal other relevant criminal laws that exist to protect individuals. Medical procedures are carefully regulated and have to be carried out, as has been noted, on regulated premises with appropriate quality and care oversight. The guidance we published should help to support that”. [Official Report, 17/10/19; col. 418]


The implication of this statement is that backstreet abortions will not become legal on 22 October up until the point at which a child is capable of being born alive. That is certainly not the opinion of Ian Wise QC or that of David Lock QC, which other noble Lords will have seen. The legal reality is unquestionably that Section 9 will make back-street abortions legal in relation to pregnancies where the child is not capable of being born alive between 22 October and 31 March. It is wholly unacceptable that such a situation should obtain for a day, let alone for five months.

I am also deeply concerned that on 22 October, women will be exposed to potential exploitation. In recent years there have been a number of cases where men have placed abortifacients in the drink or food of pregnant women. These actions have led to prosecutions and convictions under Section 58. Some have suggested that, going forward, women in this situation will be protected by Section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which is similar to Section 58 in that it also deals with noxious substances. While not suggesting that the protection offered by Section 24 is without relevance, the legal opinion of Ian Wise QC questions its comparable efficacy. He writes:

“It is important to note that sections 23, 24 and 58 of the 1861 Act all make the administration of a 'noxious thing’ a component of an offence. The context is however different, a difference that has been recognised by the courts. With respect to section 58 (which is of course specifically related to abortion) the courts have interpreted ‘noxious thing’ as being something that produces the effect mentioned in the statute, namely an abortion. The courts have however interpreted ‘noxious thing’ in relation to sections 23 and 24 as being related to the person to whom the ‘noxious thing’ is administered. For present purposes this means that a ‘noxious thing’ administered to a pregnant woman would have to cause harm to the woman to engage sections 23 and 24, the effect on the unborn child being irrelevant. The non-consensual administration of an anti-abortion pill to a pregnant woman, which causes an abortion but which does not harm the mother, which may have given rise to a criminal liability under section 58, may not give rise to such a liability under section 24”.


The irony of this is obvious. The movers of the amendment that became Section 9 told us that they were moving it because they wanted to advance the rights and interests of women. They have done the exact opposite when it comes to safety, certainly between 22 October and 31 March.

What troubles me in all this is the role of the Northern Ireland Office. Why did it not see the obvious dangers in Section 9? Why did it not say that the Government could not support a version of Section 9 that involved repealing the current law five months before the new law is in place? It would have been perfectly possible to draft Section 9 to mandate the development of new legislation and not to mandate the repeal of the current legislation until the new legislation is ready. Its failure to do this—especially as the Government are supposed to be neutral on abortion rather than protagonists for it—is extraordinary.

Although this problem is certainly the result of a gross failure of governance emanating from Westminster and Whitehall, the Northern Ireland Assembly could resolve the issue by restoring the Executive by Monday. I hope that will happen. I certainly use this opportunity to appeal to it to do so. I do not think that any Northern Ireland party, even those which support significant abortion law reform, likes this legislation, which is more permissive than that in any part of the British Isles or indeed the rest of Europe. but I think that everyone is equally concerned—or should be—about the implications of this legislation for women’s safety in the substandard regulation, or none, of private clinics, depending on whether a member of staff also works for the NHS, in the scope for unqualified people to provide abortions anywhere and in the scope for men to insert abortifacients.

In this regard I appeal to all parties, including Sinn Féin, to study carefully Ian Wise QC’s legal opinion and to restore the Assembly on Monday. The first step has been taken. I hope and pray that we do not have to stand here again and meddle in things that have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those who manufactured the Belfast agreement told us then that Northern Ireland would be in control of its own affairs but, alas, that is not the case.

18:01

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. I also express my thanks to officials for the comprehensive report that has been published. Since the previous reports were published, we have marked 1,000 days since the Executive at Stormont collapsed—1,000 days in which Northern Ireland has been without a government. This is shameful. During that time, we have seen the already often fractious relationship between the two biggest parties in Northern Ireland become even more damaged, due to a lack of respect and a seeming unwillingness to resolve the issues on the table. However, we on these Benches do not believe that the problems preventing the restoration of devolution are insurmountable. Indeed, the parties in Northern Ireland have come together in the past to resolve challenges far greater than those detailed on page 2 of the report. Perhaps the news today from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, could point the way forward.

In the meantime, we have seen a worrying increase in levels of violence in Northern Ireland. In recent days we have seen a UDA mural unveiled in Bangor, with masked members of that paramilitary organisation openly posing beside it. A man was shot in a paramilitary-style gun attack in Newtownards. There have been around a dozen paramilitary gun attacks in Derry/Londonderry alone in the past 12 months, six of which occurred during August, September and October. A further security alert occurred on Monday night. There is absolutely no place for this kind of violence in a democratic society. The vast majority of people in the community in Northern Ireland want to make the transition away from paramilitaries and the associated intimidation and violence. We on these Benches remain committed to restoring devolved government as soon as possible.

The Secretary of State said earlier in the week that the parties would meet this week for further talks. Can the Minister confirm that such talks will include all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and give us a sense of how any discussions with or between the parties have gone since the previous report was debated in September? Having looked at the important policy issues of health, education, Northern Ireland’s economy and the need for political stability there, we urge the Government to ensure that there is real impetus to the discussions in Belfast to restore the Executive.

The section of the report relating to transparency of political donations states:

“There is a broader longstanding convention that changes to legislation directly affecting political parties are not made without wider discussion and consultation between parties and the Government”.


Can the Minister tell us whether any discussions have taken place with the political parties about changing the current law on the transparency of political donations to backdate it to January 2014? We continue to believe that the issue of consensus on this matter misses the point. If the political parties want secrecy around how they are funded, does that make it right or fair to the public? I want also to reiterate the point that parties were told by the Electoral Commission to inform every large donor after January 2014 that their details would eventually be published, so donors would have known this when they chose to donate.

I thank the Minister and his officials for the details included in the section of the report regarding abortion law reform. Clearly, a huge amount of work is being done to ensure that, if the Executive have not been restored by next week, there is guidance in place for healthcare professions.

Finally, I welcome the commitment in the report to updating the House in the next month.

18:06

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I take part in the debate because a gentleman in Northern Ireland asked me to do so. As your Lordships know, I was responsible for the judicial system in Northern Ireland when it was extremely difficult because the danger to life for people accepting office was very real. Personally, I am very concerned so far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

First, if the Assembly assembles on Monday, and if an Executive are in place on Tuesday, all the dangers in this business will disappear. I therefore emphasise as best as I can the responsibility resting on the Members of the Assembly, and on the Members who could constitute an Executive, to take their opportunity to act—otherwise, they pose a dangerous risk to the pregnant women of Northern Ireland. I will deal with this issue in a minute or two but I want to emphasise that point. Surely this should weigh with the people responsible so that, on Tuesday, we have a working Executive. Then, all the difficulty described in considerable detail by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will not, in fact, take place.

If all that does not happen, the danger is considerable because the 1861 Act, along with the relevant provisions, will be taken out of the law of Northern Ireland. So far as I know, no other law protects an embryo up to the time when it is sufficiently mature to be delivered in a way that will bring forth life. Therefore, the object of this provision, which was put into Section 9 of the Act, was to help the women of Northern Ireland. I cannot think of a greater danger to the women of Northern Ireland than allowing unrestricted abortion again. It is a very serious matter. It does not affect clinics and so on; as has been pointed out, no real protection is available through the clinics because they escape registration if one employee is employed by the National Health Service.

Apart from that law, there is no protection whatever for embryos up to the point of sufficient maturity for life. Therefore, the backstreet abortions that were the great burden of life before the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will again be possible in Northern Ireland. I do not know, and I do not suppose many of your Lordships know, how many of these would happen, but the Government and those responsible for the management of government in Northern Ireland will carry the responsibility if that happens.

Therefore, I will do my utmost to persuade the Members of the Assembly to meet on Monday and constitute an Executive on Tuesday, because then all this difficulty will immediately disappear.

18:10

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I will talk about abortion and the return of the Assembly. It is really important that we remember why we are debating this provision; it is because of the recommendations of the report produced by the CEDAW committee, which were deemed to be so imperative because of concern for women’s rights in Northern Ireland. When moving the provision that became Section 9, the honourable Member for Walthamstow in another place said that she wanted women in Northern Ireland to have the same rights as women in England and Wales.

We need to keep this in mind as we consider the Secretary of State’s report and what it says about the period between 22 October 2019 and 31 March 2020 if regulations are not laid before then. The report acknowledges that during this period the law will not be quite all that it should be and seeks to deal with that problem by saying that,

“there are no plans for additional services to be routinely available before 31 March”.

That is a curious statement. It seems to be predicated on the thoughts that if additional abortion services were made available they would be provided by the government -controlled National Health Service, and that the Government can prevent abortions being provided in the new legal void by simply instructing the NHS not to provide them.

There is a huge problem with that approach, which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, have referred to: that the NHS will not be the only body which will be able to provide abortions lawfully during this period. Unless the Assembly is restored, Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act will be repealed and only two laws engaging with abortion in Northern Ireland will remain. Under the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, as noble Lords have heard, abortions cannot take place lawfully from the time at which a child is capable of being born alive. The presumption in the Criminal Justice Act is that that is 28 weeks, but we know that babies now routinely survive at 22 weeks. It means that there will be a legislative void regarding abortions until that point.

Abortion procedures are dangerous, so responsible governance provides legislation regulating how they should be provided. In England, for example, every private abortion clinic must have a licence. The licence is not a generic clinic licence but a specific abortion clinic licence, and clinics have to perform to required operating standard procedures. Under Regulation 20 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 there are requirements relating to the termination of pregnancies, including an obligation to ensure that two medical opinions are provided before an abortion is carried out, a restriction on who can carry out abortions after twenty weeks, because of the risks, and a requirement for detailed records to be kept.

The English legislation very properly recognises that the procedure of abortion requires abortion-specific regulation of both the premises and the procedure. In addition, under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations, any person who offers or undertakes abortion carries out a “regulated activity” and has to be registered with the CQC. Subject to limited exceptions, it is a criminal offence to carry out a regulated activity unless you are registered for the provision of that activity. So in England the practitioner, the location and the process are all subject to regulation. None of this regulation, designed to protect women and their unborn children, will apply to private abortion clinics in Northern Ireland which, unless the Assembly is restored, will be free to operate until regulations are laid.

From Tuesday, any provider of medical abortion services by a doctor at an independent clinic has to be registered under the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. If it is registered, the clinic will be inspected and its services will be quality assured, but only as generic clinic services. No specific reference is made to standards for abortion. Moreover, this is the real danger: if the regulations say that if one medical professional who works for the National Health Service works in the clinic, it does not have to be regulated or assessed by the RQIA, so there is lots of scope for private abortion clinics employing one registered medical practitioner working for the NHS not to be subject to any regulation at all. Even worse, there will be no prohibition on anyone without medical qualifications providing abortion services in any context, and no prohibition on women accessing abortion as long as they give consent. I have to remind noble Lords that if there is a challenge as to whether a woman has given consent, it can be determined only after the event.

As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to, we have seen legal opinions on the law in this area. David Lock, an eminent lawyer in the field of NHS and medical legislation and a former Labour MP, has written this:

“A person who was not a doctor (whether a nurse, other clinical professional or with no qualifications) who provides abortion services outside any form of clinic, agency or establishment does appear to not need to be registered under the 2003 Order. Further, there does not appear to be any other regulatory regime that will apply to such a person or any law which means that such a person will necessarily be acting unlawfully”.


He concedes that other criminal offences may be committed depending on the precise facts. He also says:

“In general, under the common law it is lawful to do anything unless there is a specific legal prohibition against doing that thing. Thus an individual is entitled to carry out any form of activity unless the activity is regulated by law and the regulatory framework imposes restrictions on the way in which the activity can be undertaken”.


There will be no such regulation and no framework for Northern Ireland until we see what the regulations say, possibly as late as 31 March 2020. David Lock goes on to say:

“It follows that an unintended consequence of section 9 of the 2019 Act may be the possible return of unregulated ‘backstreet abortion’”.


I know that this was discussed yesterday in the other place and I heard the Minister, but I think that the other place was labouring under a misunderstanding about the actual state of the law in Northern Ireland after 22 October if the Assembly and Executive are not formed. That is why I have set out the law as clearly as I can. This point was also raised last month by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission when it referred to the fact that the,

“likelihood of individuals resorting to potentially unsafe practices remains while prosecutions under the criminal law have been removed and the healthcare process has not been established”.

If even one mother or one baby suffers as a consequence of this legislative void, this Parliament will be responsible, as will be those who do not return to the Assembly. That is a very sombre thought.

In addition, the new guidelines issued by the Secretary of State state that,

“there is no expectation that general practitioners (GPs) will prescribe medication for early medical abortion”.

Such medication should be taken only up to nine weeks and six days of pregnancy. In England and Wales, this medication is available from private services because GPs do not provide abortion services. David Lock QC has also advised that,

“there is no legal bar on a GP issuing a prescription for medication for an abortion (either privately or as part of NHS funded care). These are ‘prescription only medicines’ which a GP would be fully entitled to prescribe for his or her patient if the GP considered that it was clinically appropriate to do so”.

So there will be no legal bar on women asking GPs for medication. The Government’s expectation therefore seems irrelevant.

What then of the rights of conscientious objection, which are required to give effect to the protection of human rights of medical practitioners? A couple of weeks ago, over 800 healthcare professionals wrote to the Secretary of State to oppose the imposition of this new regime, saying,

“our consciences demand that we not be silent”.

The medics say that they,

“wish to make known our opposition to the imminent introduction of abortion in Northern Ireland”,

and that their,

“concern throughout is for pregnant mothers and their unborn children”.

The only reference to conscience in the recent report by the Secretary of State is that current UK law permits conscientious objection only in “hands-on situations”. This is entirely inadequate—there is no legal definition of hands-on situations. However, it is also inadequate to suggest, as the report does, that medical practitioners should consult the GMC and other professional bodies. The reality is that that does not provide any guidance to medical practitioners during the lacuna period from 22 October. Of course, it is not possible to provide such guidance in the absence of regulation. The UK professional guidance is predicated upon compliance with existing law. That law does not apply here.

As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, the situation is entirely unnecessary; government could have behaved entirely differently. When Back-Benchers come up with proposals that have dangerous unintended consequences —I am absolutely sure that neither the Minister here, the Secretary of State nor anybody else intended that this situation would prevail—it is the job of departments and Ministers to point out those dangerous unintended consequences. It is also their job to point out that the dangers can be avoided with a proper understanding of the imperative—or lack of it, as I would argue—attached to the findings of the UN committees. Government should have insisted that our existing legislation should not be repealed until such a time as there was new legislation to take its place.

With that in mind, I introduced my Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (Amendment) Bill the day after the Act received Royal Assent to change the date of the repeal of Sections 58 and 59 to the time when the new regulations are introduced, thereby doing away with this dangerous five-month period, and seeking the consent of a majority of MLAs to any new proposed regulations tabled under the Act. In this sorry, sad, dangerous situation, the Secretary of State must do everything he can between now and Monday to get the Assembly Executive up and running by Monday. The political parties in Northern Ireland are under an even greater obligation to do so.

As we speak, some 26,100 people have signed my petition to the Secretary of State and to MLAs calling for the recall of the Northern Ireland Assembly and for it to become operational. A petition by unionist MLAs has been laid for the recall of the Assembly on Monday, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, informed the House. The Assembly will now be recalled on Monday and for the first time in over 1,000 days, at this time of extreme urgency—not just because of the abortion provisions but because of Brexit and all the other things that affect Northern Ireland so terribly—the Assembly will gather. There are people who say this is a political stunt, but the people of Northern Ireland have been calling for the Assembly to reconvene for years. This is no political stunt. As I said in my letter to the Secretary of State on Monday:

“We need our own legislature to deal with matters relating to Brexit, to all the numerous and urgent problems which exist in Northern Ireland, and most of all to deal with the difficulty of the situation with regard to abortion if the assembly and executive are not reformed”.


I appeal to all those who do not share my views on this matter to study the David Lock and Ian Wise opinions to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred, and to recognise the hazards to the safety of women and their unborn children, of which I have spoken tonight, and so to restore the Executive. An opinion poll just released by LucidTalk shows that 60% of people in Northern Ireland are concerned about the prospect of unregulated abortion for one day, let alone five months.

I cannot express too strongly the fact that the 26,000-plus people who signed the petition come from all parts, all parties and all communities in Northern Ireland and represent so many nationalities. I have watched the signatures rolling in. I can see the different nations of the world represented among the signatories. I can see people I know and do not know, but because of the way we work in Northern Ireland, I know that they come from all parts of the community.

I say to Northern Ireland’s elected politicians: respond to this opportunity; respond to the call to appoint an Executive and get back into government. I know that only our politicians can do this. We, the people, have waited long enough.

18:25

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, the final few sentences of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, were exactly what I sought to say. As was stated eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I wanted to express a heartfelt desire for those vital institutions in Northern Ireland to be restored and to function. My noble friend, who is doing incredible work in Northern Ireland as a Minister, said in this House on 9 September:

“Without an Executive, the people of Northern Ireland have seen the quality of their public services decline, and decisions that affect their day-to-day lives kicked into the long grass. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better”.—[Official Report, 9/9/19; col. 1356.]


I was reminded of that when there was a march on Sunday to mark 1,000 days since the Assembly had sat. I read a number of speeches from that day. One was from Nichola Corner, the sister of Lyra McKee. She said:

“Our elected politicians continue to let their differences be barriers to progress, peace and change and have transformed the word concession into a dirty word and use it to refuse to honour the will of the people and work together”.


I read of another group called Our Future Our Choice—a group of young people attending the march. It said:

“The children of the peace process deserve better than this. We have been left without oversight, without decision making and without leadership”.


I was in Belfast on Good Friday this year, as my wife and I began a walk in search of common ground over Brexit, believe it or not—a long time ago, but still relevant, I think. We were beginning a walk from Belfast to Brussels and chose Belfast to start because of the Good Friday agreement. We believed that that was an occasion when, through political courage, people stood up and came together, rising above their differences and reaching out to each other to bring about peace.

As we began that walk from Belfast, news was coming through of the murder of Lyra McKee, which was of course a very significant moment. I remember when Arlene Foster went to the Creggan in Londonderry, stood side by side with Sinn Féin and said: “Your pain is our pain”. It was an incredible moment. The president of Sinn Féin responded by saying that these people were not going to drag Northern Ireland back into the dark days of violence, and she recommitted herself to the peace process.

A week later there was the incredible service in St Anne’s Cathedral, a memorial for Lyra McKee, in which Father Martin Magill asked why in the name of God it took the death of a brilliant 29 year-old woman to bring them all together under one roof. At the end of that powerful address, the entire cathedral, including the leaders of all the political parties, stood up to applaud that sentiment.

And yet—as I was going to say—still we wait and still we hope that this will be brought about. I hope and pray that the reports we are hearing of a possible restoration of the Assembly and formation of an Executive are true, not just for those of us in this place but for all the people of Northern Ireland and for the peace process, in which so many in this House have invested time, treasure and hope.

18:30

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. I declare my interest as a medical graduate from Northern Ireland and formerly a medical practitioner in Northern Ireland.

Lest the House be in any way misled, we should be clear that there is no prospect of the resumption of an Executive at the beginning of next week. The recall of the Assembly has been at the request of unionist Members only and an Executive cannot be formed on that basis. Let us be clear: it is not going to happen.

I refer to the issue of the Ulster University graduate medical school in Derry/Londonderry. I have three brief points. First, let us not forget that the decision to locate the University of Ulster’s main campus at Coleraine is still a sore point for many people in Derry/Londonderry. It was one of the great aggravations of the 1960s and it has not gone away. Whether the Ulster University graduate medical school is established is not a neutral question. It is still a painful question that refers back to the 1960s decision, which was a bad decision.

Secondly, it is not purely an education and health decision, as implied by the report. It is also an economic decision, because one value in having graduate entry for medical students is that it attracts people from other parts of the world who are prepared to come and pay substantial fees. For example, many of the young psychiatrists I see now from the United States of America as part of their training have graduated from Caribbean medical schools and completed their training in the United States. Many Caribbean islands with good medical training facilities, from the University of the West Indies, for example, are able to do very well, so this is an economic question as well.

Thirdly, it is not possible simply to turn on a tap for a medical school. Graduate entry occurs at only one time of the year. If an opportunity for graduates to come in next year or the year after is lost, it will be at least another year or more before there is another opportunity. Since this has been waiting for some time, the kind of academics who were prepared to set up a school will move on if it keeps being delayed. I appeal to the Minister: sadly, in the likelihood that we will not have a devolved Executive, can this issue not be looked at again and pushed for? It is not a matter of dispute in Northern Ireland. People right across the community, even at Queen’s University, want to see this development. Can it not be looked at and implemented soon?

[Baroness O’Loan]

Is the noble Lord aware that nationalists have indicated that they will attend Stormont on Monday. I do not know whether there will be an Executive, but I do know that nationalist politicians will be there and I encourage every politician to be there.

[Lord Alderdice]

I am aware that many may attend. That is not the point. The issues being referred to cannot be decided by the Assembly in the absence of an Executive. Anybody who knows about the politics of Northern Ireland—and the noble Baroness does—knows perfectly well that this is not yet the time for some people to participate in the Executive. That is political reality and it is ill advised for the Chamber to feel that another possibility for next Tuesday is a real one.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Before an Executive can be formed, the first item of business is the election of a Speaker, as the noble Lord well knows, having served in that position himself. There is absolutely no prospect on Monday of a Speaker being elected.

18:34

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

More is the pity—of course a Speaker should be elected. We should have an Assembly and an Executive up and running in Belfast, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, whose experience in these matters is enormous, that it is not going to happen. However, this short debate is important to deal with the issues in the current Act—and to do so at the time we are debating it.

I have huge sympathy for noble Lords who have spoken about the issues that should be devolved, whether the sensitive issues of abortion and equal marriage, victims’ pensions or the university in Derry. These are all hugely important, of course, and people have different views on them, but I did not spend three years of my time chairing the talks on strand one of the Good Friday agreement, setting up the Assembly and Executive, not to agree with devolution. These things should be for the devolved Assembly and Executive, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rightly said that is the only solution to this. It is a great pity that they have not been set up before today, because those issues would then be before the Assembly and Executive in Belfast—but it has not happened.

Looking at the events of the past 24 hours, I suppose one thing has changed with regard to how the Government deal with Northern Ireland. It was good to see the Taoiseach and Prime Minister in Cheshire and to hear that they talked on the telephone last night and that relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom are beginning to get better. But one of the tragedies of the past 1,000 days is that the British and Irish Governments could have come together more frequently, maybe delegated by the other 26 members of the European Union. I am convinced that had that happened, the two Governments would have been able to deal with the detail currently being dealt with and the talks would have been more serious than they were. The talks should have had an independent chair and involved all parties equally, and the two Prime Ministers should have bothered to go to Belfast more, because frankly it was farcical when they did. They made only day trips to Belfast, and you just cannot produce results like that. However, I hope they have learned how you can do things from the last week.

I make no comment on the deal other than this. If it eventually goes through, it is partly a result of the Irish and British Governments having actually started talking to each other properly. They are the co-guarantors of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. It is an international treaty lodged with the United Nations and should have been treated as such. We have had 1,000 wasted days with no shape, no structure and no form to the talks, but I am optimistic about the present Secretary of State. He is working extremely hard with his counterpart in Dublin and the political parties in Northern Ireland—which, at the end of the day, are of course key to all this.

I hope Sinn Féin decides that it will engage in proper discussions with the DUP on setting up the Assembly and Executive. I know the DUP plays a hugely important role in all these matters, but I remind your Lordships that it is only one side of the story. In all the arguments about consent we have listened and are currently listening to, both sides in Northern Ireland have to agree. The principle of consent—that you had to get them to agree—was the genius of the Good Friday agreement. I hope that is embedded in any deal.

There is some optimism about the restoration of the Assembly and Executive. If they are not restored, we will come back to this House time and again to deal with issues such as this, which should properly be matters for those elected in Northern Ireland. I still fear that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement has been seriously dented by the events of the past two or three years. It is a matter of great sorrow to me personally but, much more significantly, of great sadness to the people of Northern Ireland, who, quite frankly, deserve better.

18:39

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, I begin where I think we need to begin. Everyone in this House are of the same view that we need to restore an Executive in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt about the importance of that, not just going forward, but for what could have been achieved, which we will never know. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been working tirelessly, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has recognised that. He has been straining every sinew to try to bring the two principal parties and all the other parties together. In response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, we have made and will make every effort to bring the five parties together to move that forward.

The challenge, however, is that the obligations of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act fall on the shoulders of the United Kingdom Government early next week. While the Assembly may seek to convene—I do not doubt it will do so—and while I do not doubt that there may be a broader base of attendance than might have been expected, it is unlikely to be able to deliver on those issues that some noble Lords have wished it to do this evening for the reasons raised by my noble friend Lord Caine and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.

I say that with some regret because we all recognise the value of that. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, this is a time when we would have valued that information. But I do not believe that, unless we make some serious progress on Monday, we will face anything other than the reality that the United Kingdom Government will take forward their obligations. That is how the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act was formed. We did so recognising that, once we had taken on the obligation, we would see it through to its fulfilment. Whether that is deemed right or wrong, it is the law of the land and is exactly what we will do.

I shall take some of the points in reverse, as that may be easier. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about donations, the issue is that none of the parties has expressed any change in its view about backdating. The sister party of the Liberal Democrats here, the Alliance Party, has pushed strongest and most consistently for backdating, but other parties, notably the DUP and UUP, were keen for this to be a point going forward. Some of the other parties did not express a view on this, but none has changed its view. I am happy to write again to the noble Baroness with more details, but in the recognition that we need to bring this area to rest. I will write on that point.

My noble friend Lord Bates kindly brought the issue back to where we need to focus, for we are here today doing something that should be done elsewhere. As a number of noble Lords have observed, we have seen a deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland, which is much to be regretted. The political vacuum that exists now will continue to be a problem. What we are doing here today is trying to address certain issues, in but a small moment in time. In truth, until an Executive is formed and the devolution situation works, we will not have adequate governance in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the deal spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, delivers for Northern Ireland. I hope that that happening will take away one of the principal obstacles to the parties coming back together. We should be under no illusion that Brexit has been a factor in the parties’ approach to the situation. It would be remiss of me not to point that out. I therefore hope that a deal will remove one of the stumbling blocks—not the only one—and allow those parties to return to government, but, at present, we look forward to that, rather than being certain that it will happen.

I now turn to the conspicuous and very serious issue that has been raised by a number of noble Lords. That is abortion. I state at the outset that I believe this matter should have been taken forward by a devolved Executive. I am happy to put that on record once again. It will not be so; it will be taken forward by us. We have debated this more than once, and I want to correct some of the statements that I believe have been made in error.

The five-month period we talked about is the most challenging aspect of this. At the outset, we need to recognise that abortions in Northern Ireland can take place only in a registered clinic. Some have said that this can simply be circumvented if there is but one NHS employee. That is not true. The clinic still has to be registered and the NHS employee taking part needs the permission of the NHS commissioners. That has to be done formally. Therefore, this is not carte blanche for people to create an opportunity in secret, whether in a front street, a middle street or a back street. It was not designed to be that and it will not be that.

[Baroness O'Loan]

Perhaps when the Minister gets away from the House he could look again at Regulation 5.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I am very happy to state categorically that in any clinic, even if it has one NHS employee, that employee must have the permission of the NHS commissioners. I will write on this point and lodge the letter in the Library to make it very clear that we eliminate this as an issue that might percolate back to Northern Ireland in a nefarious and bad fashion. Equally, it is important to stress that, should there be an attempt by any private clinic to seek registration, it will not be a simple or quick procedure. Certain obligations must be met, and they will be met very carefully during this period. It is important to stress that anyone who seeks to open a clinic that is not registered or that operates without due diligence will be subject to the criminal law, and that law will be broken if they do that. It is important to appreciate that in Northern Ireland.

Further, any independent practitioner who might wish to set up a practice must register with the Care Quality Commission. Therefore, again, it is not simply a question of wish fulfilment; they must undertake legal obligatory steps. The premises would need to be established and investigated, and it would be necessary to ensure that they met those criteria. I note that the period that we are talking of is five months. I also note that almost anything involving bureaucracy does not get resolved in five months.

It is also important to set out very clearly that guidance has already been issued by the GMC and the royal colleges to the practitioners in Northern Ireland so that they are aware that, should we be unable to form an Executive, those are the conditions under which they will operate. Any noble Lord who wishes to see those conditions can consult the Library or go to GOV.UK. We have been very clear and transparent, ensuring that they are clear.

[Baroness O'Loan]

I am very sorry and I do not intend to interrupt the Minister repeatedly but I would like to ask whether he accepts that the GMC guidance is predicated upon the Abortion Act 1967 and the obligations of doctors under that Act. In fact, the GMC is not a regulatory body or a law enforcement body, and practitioners in Northern Ireland cannot be asked to be bound by legislation that does not apply or guidance relating to legislation that does not apply.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

To be very clear and to correct that, it is not the GMC’s guidance; it is our guidance. It is the Government’s guidance that we have asked it to pass on to ensure that practitioners are fully informed about and entirely aware of their obligations. It is fully transparent. If any noble Lord wishes to see it, they can consult the website and it is also in the Library.

The noble Baroness raised a number of issues, particularly with regard to the conscientiousness element. I note that a number of practitioners may well have written on this matter. That is important, but I stress categorically that they are entitled to exercise their conscience in this matter and will not be obliged to act against it unless they find themselves in a situation in which the life of the female is endangered. The professional obligations will kick in at that point and they will be obliged to save the life of the female. However, it is important to stress that nobody will be obliged to act against their conscience. Importantly, from 22 October onwards, we will be consulting very broadly to make sure that we get the language absolutely correct. We have no desire to place anybody in the invidious position of having to act against what they believe, so we will make sure that there are consultations. We are looking not just at the medical professions or professional bodies but at the religious groups that might be affected.

I listened with some interest to the notion of noxious substances, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the deliberate attempt to abort a foetus by a dominant male administering the process. I note in saying that there are a number of laws in Northern Ireland that would be absolutely applicable should an individual seek to abuse the body of another person in this regard. They carry with them very significant sentences. At present, the law has not been used in this regard, but it certainly could be. There would be no question that somebody could, with some sort of lightness of touch, escape from criminal justice in this regard. I would like to make sure that nobody in Northern Ireland is of the view that there may be secret poisonings that could somehow go both unreported and unaddressed. That would be the wrong thing to take from this debate here today.

I recognise that there are going to be challenges in each of these areas, but I want it to be clear that during this particular period there is no carte blanche but rather a recognised period of necessity until we are able fully to frame the law as needs be—the law that we wish to see that will come in in March. The laws now in existence will protect the mother from poison or other abuse of that nature. There are existing laws that protect the viability of a foetus that could be born alive. Although we might argue where that particular window might rest—it is between 22 and 28 weeks—it will be on a case-by-case basis, determined not by us here or others, but by the practitioner who is involved in the delivery of that medical situation. That is as it should be.

This is not a legal free-for-all. It is not an opportunity for those in Northern Ireland to create a whole new sector of abortion clinics. It is a recognition that in Northern Ireland, there are challenges because of the situation over the years with the abortion law. As I said before, I would have much preferred this to have been done elsewhere, but it will not be so. It is therefore important for us to ensure that we do all we can to ensure that during that period, the health and well-being of females is paramount. That is our guiding light and that is what we are seeking to do.

We do not believe that during that period there will be a fully-fledged abortion regime put in place because of the challenges that will exist within that, not least just trying to make it so. That is why we are making sure that those who wish to seek an abortion are able to do so in England, and that all costs will be met; and that advice and information can be given by medical professionals without fear or recourse to the criminal law to females to make that decision for themselves. They can, at that point, come to Great Britain to undertake that particular medical procedure.

However, the issue that we need to be more conscious of is the notion of people buying medicines online. The difficulty there is that it is not just for abortion purposes: more widely, there is a criminal offence of individuals selling those particular medicines unprescribed. Again, should a female find herself in a situation where she is suffering because of this, she can now go to a medical professional and seek the necessary help to ensure that she is safe and well. That is important. We need, as a Government, to consider how medicines are now being marketed or purchased online, because it is a matter where health is much more difficult to ensure when we are unable to be sure what the medicines themselves are. That is even if they are what they claim to be, let alone when they are not what they claim to be.

I realise that this is not where any of us would wish to be, but it is important for me to stress that going forward, the most important issue will be the health and well-being of the females of Northern Ireland. We will do all we can to ensure that that is so, and we will make sure that where we can offer that guidance, it will be understood by those who now will be able to take forward their own approach to the question of abortion. After March, there will be a fully-fledged regime in Northern Ireland. I hope that this period will give us the opportunity to ensure that it is fit for purpose and carefully constructed, and that it recognises the challenges that we have witnessed in the debate this evening and, more widely, the question of people’s own conscience and views.

The important thing today, however, is to recognise that we need an Executive in Northern Ireland. On that we can all be absolutely clear. I can assure noble Lords that I do not want to be back doing this again. The important thing for us all right now, however, is to hope that the deal itself might well bring a new opening and a new opportunity for Northern Ireland; and that the parties themselves recognise that there is a way forward and that they can begin to work again in the interest of the people of Northern Ireland. They are better fit and able than we are to do that. On that basis I would like to close my remarks.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 6.54 pm.